```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4681-H4688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H4681]]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 961, CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 140 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 140

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for 
     failure to comply with section 302(f) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to 
     consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment 
     under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     by title rather than by section. The first three sections and 
     each title of the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 
     5(a) of rule XXI or section 302(f) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During consideration of the 
     bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. That amendment may be offered 
     only by a Member designated in the report, may amend portions 
     of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be considered 
     as read, shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, shall not 
     be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. If that amendment is adopted, then the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as so 
     amended shall be considered as original text for the purpose 
     of further amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment for the Committee shall rise and 
     report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have 
     been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the 
     House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole 
     to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of 
debate only.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was give permission to include extraneous 
matter.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 140 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments 
of 1995. The rule provides 2 hours of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives section 302(f) of 
the Budget Act, prohibiting new budget authority in excess of the 
committee's section 602(b) allocation, against consideration of the 
bill.
  The rule also makes in order the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute as original text for amendment purposes, which shall be 
read by title rather than section for amendment, with each title 
considered as read. The rule provides the following waivers against the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute: waives clause 7 of rule XVI 
pertaining to germaneness; clause 5(a) of rule XXI, prohibiting 
appropriations in a legislative bill, and section 302(f) of the Budget 
Act.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution. This is an en bloc amendment addressing 
concerns of other committees of jurisdiction and makes technical 
amendments. This amendment may be offered only by Mr. Shuster or his 
designee, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, 
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. If that 
amendment is adopted, then the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute as so amended shall be
 considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee furnished the Rules Committee with a list of 
waivers required and specified the provisions requiring such waivers. 
Therefore, I do not object to the waivers provided in this rule.
  Under this rule, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to 
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional 
Record. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act has not been amended comprehensively 
since 1987, and I strongly support this bill. I'm particularly pleased 
to see that the bill takes giant steps toward relieving the enormous 
burdens placed on the States, on business and industry and agriculture, 
and on individuals by outrageous and unnecessary Federal regulations. 
The Clean Water Act has done a good job in getting Federal, State, and 
local governments and private industry to work together to provide our 
Nation with clean, healthy water. But the Clean Water Act has not been 
without controversy, and this bill before us today provides an 
important balance between environmental protection and private property 
rights. It provides much needed clarification of wetlands issues and 
requires risk assessment and cost benefit analysis for any new clean 
water regulations. Perhaps most important, this bill provides 
flexibility to State and local governments in implementating 
regulations.
  H.R. 961 has been strongly endorsed by almost all agricultural, 
business, and industry organizations, and this widespread support is a 
clear indication that a great deal of cooperation, dedication, and 
common sense went into the development of this important legislation. I 
commend the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
for their hard work.
  This open rule will allow Members to offer any relevant amendments to 
address their particular concerns, and I urge adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material 
comparing open and closed rules in the 103d and 104th Congresses:

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                               [As of May 9, 1995]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 24                 75
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                  8                 25
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                
[[Page H4682]]
 THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS--
                                                    Continued                                                   
                                               [As of May 9, 1995]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 32                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             

                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                               [As of May 9, 1995]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)  MC..................  H. Con. Res. 17.....  Social Security..........  A: 255-172 (1/25/  
                                            H.J. Res. 1.........  Balanced Budget Amdt.....   95).              
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 101............  Land Transfer, Taos        A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             95).              
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95).  O...................  H.R. 2..............  Line Item Veto...........  A: voice vote (2/2/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 665............  Victim Restitution.......  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95).  O...................  H.R. 666............  Exclusionary Rule Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: v.v. (2/22/95). 
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)  MC..................  H.R. 889............  Defense Supplemental.....  A: 282-144 (2/22/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)  MO..................  H.R. 450............  Regulatory Transition Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       95)               
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1058...........  Securities Litigation      ...................
                                                                   Reform.                                      
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)  MO..................  ....................  .........................  A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)  Debate..............  H.R. 956............  Product Liability Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1158...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  ...................
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)  O...................  H.R. 961............  Clean Water Amendments...  ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                           

                            {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we support this open rule for H.R. 961, the clean water 
amendments of 1995, which makes major and substantial changes in 
current requirements for controlling water pollution and protecting 
wetlands.
  Fortunately, the majority on the Committee on Rules did not accede to 
a request from the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure that a time limit be place don the amendment process. 
This is an enormously controversial bill that would in the view of many 
of us reverse many of the gains in water quality that have been 
achieved by what is probably our most successful environmental law, and 
Members should not be shut out by an arbitrary time limit.
  As the gentleman from Tennessee has explained, the rule does contain 
several waivers. We are told that the waiver of the Budget Act 
prohibition against legislation containing new budget authority in 
excess of the committee's 602(b) budget allocation is necessary because 
of the provision in the bill that waives the Federal Government's 
sovereign immunity under the Clean Water Act.
  We would point out to Members that the Congressional Budget Office 
was unable to provide estimates for the cost of this provision that is 
being protected, but it did report that the cost ``could be 
significant.''
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules heard criticism yesterday about 
the process of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in 
considering this bill. Many of us are concerned that some of the most 
controversial provisions of H.R. 961 did not receive adequate attention 
in the hearings that preceded markup of the bill. The provisions in 
question are those that provide waivers, loopholes, and rollbacks of 
existing Clean Water Act provisions relating to major dischargers of 
pollution in our waters.
  We are concerned that the public did not have the opportunity to 
comment on the new provisions in the bill that were added late in the 
process and which would weaken or revoke many of the basic features of 
the Clean Water Act that have made it so successful over the years.
  We are concerned, too, about widespread reports that those provisions 
of H.R. 961 were written in large part by lobbyists representing 
industries that are major polluters. Several agencies, including the 
EPA and the Department of Justice, have protested that they did not 
have the opportunity to comment in a timely manner on these new and 
very damaging provisions.
  This open rule will give us the opportunity to discuss and emphasize 
some of those changes and ensure that the public has a greater 
awareness of their impact on the quality of our Nation's water supply.
  Mr. Speaker, we will agree that there are reasonable changes that 
should be made in the Clean Water Act. Its requirements should be as 
rational, efficient, and cost effective as possible.
  Complying with its regulations should not be more expensive or more 
burdensome than is necessary for the municipalities, industries, and 
private landowners affected by the provisions of the act.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us would have widespread and serious 
consequences for the quality of the Nation's water supply. It would 
make legitimate regulation much more difficult, in many cases 
impossible.
  Interestingly, many of its provisions--including the new 
classification system and compensation program for wetlands--would set 
up cumbersome and costly procedures that are likely to require more 
Federal employees and agency costs at a time when we are 
[[Page H4683]]  trying to downsize the Federal bureaucracy, or the 
agencies in charge will simply have to decide not to effectively 
enforce the law.
  And, as CBO reported, the cost of the compensation program for 
landowners of wetlands is impossible to estimate, but it is a program 
that could dramatically increase costs to the taxpayers. There are 
preliminary estimates that indicate that the effect of the bill would 
be to increase the deficit by several billion dollars during fiscal 
years 1995-98.
  The Clean Water Act has been one of our most successful environmental 
laws and one of the most popular ones with individual citizens, a great 
majority of whom would prefer to see the act strengthened, and not 
weakened as H.R. 961 would do. This is legislation that threatens to 
overturn very important health protections that citizens have under the 
law as it is currently written.
  The bill in its present form is likely to invite massive amounts of 
new litigation that ignores scientific information, most notably in 
making major changes in wetlands regulation without the benefit of a 
congressionally-mandated study on wetlands that was released just 
yesterday and which, and I quote from the article in the New York Times 
discussing it, ``repudiates the basic approach taken by the bill,'' 
mainly because it found that the cost-benefit analysis requirements in 
the bill are inflexible and unrealistic.
  The bill has many other objectionable features including those that 
reduce water quality protection by undermining the strong national 
standards that have produced significant water quality improvements in 
the last 20 years. It seeks to repeal regulations that protect city 
water from pollution runoff.
  It eases Federal protections for industrial polluters, and allows 
development of protected wetlands that are critical to our Nation's 
water supply. In fact it would redefine wetlands in such a way that 
well over half of the Nation's wetlands, including parts of the 
Everglades, would be removed from protection.
  Mr. Speaker, one would think from reading this bill that we have gone 
too far or certainly far enough in attempting to clean up our Nation's 
waters. In fact, however, over 40 percent of our waters do not meet the 
standards for the uses designated under existing law.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly opposes the bill 
because, in its words, it threatens to undermine achievement in 
cleaning up the Nation's waters and would significantly delay progress 
in addressing remaining water pollution problems.
  Among its most objectionable provisions, the bill would reduce water 
quality protection, eliminate fundamental wetlands protections, create 
enormous new costs, fail to address effectively non-point source 
pollution, and finally would paralyze the Federal Government's ability 
to issue regulations and guidance to protect the Nation's waters.
  Fortunately as we have discussed, as the gentleman from Tennessee 
told us at the outset, this is an open rule, so we will have the 
opportunity to try to change many of the most worrisome features of the 
bill. We hope that amendments strengthening the act, or at least 
returning it to its existing state, are approved.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, we support the rule for H.R. 961. We urge its 
approval so that we may proceed with consideration of this legislation 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

                Floor Procedure in the 104th Congress; Compiled by the Rules Committee Democrats                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Process used for floor                        
       Bill No.                Title           Resolution No.          consideration         Amendments in order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*..............  Compliance...........  H. Res. 6.......  Closed....................  None.               
H. Res. 6............  Opening Day Rules      H. Res. 5.......  Closed; contained a closed  None.               
                        Package.                                 rule on H.R. 1 within the                      
                                                                 closed rule.                                   
H.R. 5*..............  Unfunded Mandates....  H. Res. 38......  Restrictive; Motion         N/A.                
                                                                 adopted over Democratic                        
                                                                 objection in the                               
                                                                 Committee of the Whole to                      
                                                                 limit debate on section                        
                                                                 4; Pre-printing gets                           
                                                                 preference.                                    
H.J. Res. 2*.........  Balanced Budget......  H. Res. 44......  Restrictive; only certain   2R; 4D.             
                                                                 substitutes.                                   
H. Res. 43...........  Committee Hearings     H. Res. 43 (OJ).  Restrictive; considered in  N/A.                
                        Scheduling.                              House no amendments.                           
H.R. 2*..............  Line Item Veto.......  H. Res. 55......  Open; Pre-printing gets     N/A.                
                                                                 preference.                                    
H.R. 665*............  Victim Restitution     H. Res. 61......  Open; Pre-printing gets     N/A.                
                        Act of 1995.                             preference.                                    
H.R. 666*............  Exclusionary Rule      H. Res. 60......  Open; Pre-printing gets     N/A.                
                        Reform Act of 1995.                      preference.                                    
H.R. 667*............  Violent Criminal       H. Res. 63......  Restrictive; 10 hr. Time    N/A.                
                        Incarceration Act of                     Cap on amendments.                             
                        1995.                                                                                   
H.R. 668*............  The Criminal Alien     H. Res. 69......  Open; Pre-printing gets     N/A.                
                        Deportation                              preference; Contains self-                     
                        Improvement Act.                         executing provision.                           
H.R. 728*............  Local Government Law   H. Res. 79......  Restrictive; 10 hr. Time    N/A.                
                        Enforcement Block                        Cap on amendments; Pre-                        
                        Grants.                                  printing gets preference.                      
H.R. 7*..............  National Security      H. Res. 83......  Restrictive; 10 hr. Time    N/A.                
                        Revitalization Act.                      Cap on amendments; Pre-                        
                                                                 printing gets preference.                      
H.R. 729*............  Death Penalty/Habeas.  N/A.............  Restrictive; brought up     N/A.                
                                                                 under UC with a 6 hr.                          
                                                                 time cap on amendments.                        
S. 2.................  Senate Compliance....  N/A.............  Closed; Put on suspension   None.               
                                                                 calendar over Democratic                       
                                                                 objection.                                     
H.R. 831.............  To Permanently Extend  H. Res. 88......  Restrictive; makes in       1D.                 
                        the Health Insurance                     order only the Gibbons                         
                        Deduction for the                        amendment; waives all                          
                        Self-Employed.                           points of order; Contains                      
                                                                 self-executing provision.                      
H.R. 830*............  The Paperwork          H. Res. 91......  Open......................  N/A.                
                        Reduction Act.                                                                          
H.R. 889.............  Emergency              H. Res. 92......  Restrictive; makes in       1D.                 
                        Supplemental/                            order only the Obey                            
                        Rescinding Certain                       substitute.                                    
                        Budget Authority.                                                                       
H.R. 450*............  Regulatory Moratorium  H. Res. 93......  Restrictive; 10 hr. Time    N/A.                
                                                                 Cap on amendments; Pre-                        
                                                                 printing gets preference.                      
H.R. 1022*...........  Risk Assessment......  H. Res. 96......  Restrictive; 10 hr. Time    N/A.                
                                                                 Cap on amendments.                             
H.R. 926*............  Regulatory             H. Res. 100.....  Open......................  N/A.                
                        Flexibility.                                                                            
H.R. 925*............  Private Property       H. Res. 101.....  Restrictive; 12 hr. time    1D.                 
                        Protection Act.                          cap on amendments;                             
                                                                 Requires Members to pre-                       
                                                                 print their amendments in                      
                                                                 the Record prior to the                        
                                                                 bill's consideration for                       
                                                                 amendment, waives                              
                                                                 germaneness and budget                         
                                                                 act points of order as                         
                                                                 well as points of order                        
                                                                 concerning appropriating                       
                                                                 on a legislative bill                          
                                                                 against the committee                          
                                                                 substitute used as base                        
                                                                 text.                                          
H.R. 1058*...........  Securities Litigation  H. Res. 105.....  Restrictive; 8 hr. time     1D.                 
                        Reform Act.                              cap on amendments; Pre-                        
                                                                 printing gets preference;                      
                                                                 Makes in order the Wyden                       
                                                                 amendment and waives                           
                                                                 germaness against it.                          
H.R. 988*............  The Attorney           H. Res. 104.....  Restrictive; 7 hr. time     N/A.                
                        Accountability Act                       cap on amendments; Pre-                        
                        of 1995.                                 printing gets preference.                      
H.R. 956*............  Product Liability and  H. Res. 109.....  Restrictive; makes in       8D; 7R.             
                        Legal Reform Act.                        order only 15 germane                          
                                                                 amendments and denies 64                       
                                                                 germane amendments from                        
                                                                 being considered.                              
H.R. 1158............  Making Emergency       H. Res. 115.....  Restrictive; Combines       N/A.                
                        Supplemental                             emergency H.R. 1158 &                          
                        Appropriations and                       nonemergency 1159 and                          
                        Rescissions.                             strikes the abortion                           
                                                                 provision; makes in order                      
                                                                 only pre-printed                               
                                                                 amendments that include                        
                                                                 offsets within the same                        
                                                                 chapter (deeper cuts in                        
                                                                 programs already cut);                         
                                                                 waives points of order                         
                                                                 against three amendments;                      
                                                                 waives cl 2 of rule XXI                        
                                                                 against the bill, cl 2,                        
                                                                 XXI and cl 7 of rule XVI                       
                                                                 against the substitute;                        
                                                                 waives cl 2(e) od rule                         
                                                                 XXI against the                                
                                                                 amendments in the Record;                      
                                                                 10 hr time cap on                              
                                                                 amendments. 30 minutes                         
                                                                 debate on each amendment.                      
H.J. Res. 73*........  Term Limits..........  H. Res. 116.....  Restrictive; Makes in       1D; 3R.             
                                                                 order only 4 amendments                        
                                                                 considered under a                             
                                                                 ``Queen of the Hill''                          
                                                                 procedure and denies 21                        
                                                                 germane amendments from                        
                                                                 being considered.                              
H.R. 4*..............  Welfare Reform.......  H. Res. 119.....  Restrictive; Makes in       5D; 26R.            
                                                                 order only 31 perfecting                       
                                                                 amendments and two                             
                                                                 substitutes; Denies 130                        
                                                                 germane amendments from                        
                                                                 being considered; The                          
                                                                 substitutes are to be                          
                                                                 considered under a                             
                                                                 ``Queen of the Hill''                          
                                                                 procedure; All points of                       
                                                                 order are waived against                       
                                                                 the amendments..                               
H.R. 1271*...........  Family Privacy Act...  H. Res. 125.....  Open......................  N/A.                
H.R. 660*............  Housing for Older      H. Res. 126.....  Open......................  N/A.                
                        Persons Act.                                                                            
H.R. 1215*...........  The Contract With      H. Res. 129.....  Restrictive; Self Executes  1D.                 
                        America Tax Relief                       language that makes tax                        
                        Act of 1995.                             cuts contingent on the                         
                                                                 adoption of a balanced                         
                                                                 budget plan and strikes                        
                                                                 section 3006. Makes in                         
                                                                 order only one                                 
                                                                 substitute. Waives all                         
                                                                 points of order against                        
                                                                 the bill, substitute made                      
                                                                 in order as original text                      
                                                                 and Gephardt substitute..                      
H.R. 483.............  Medicare Select        H. Res. 130.....  Restrictive; waives cl      1D.                 
                        Extension.                               2(1)(6) of rule XI                             
                                                                 against the bill; makes                        
                                                                 H.R. 1391 in order as                          
                                                                 original text; makes in                        
                                                                 order only the Dingell                         
                                                                 substitute; allows                             
                                                                 Commerce Committee to                          
                                                                 file a report on the bill                      
                                                                 at any time..                                  
H.R. 655.............  Hydrogen Future Act..  H. Res 136......  Open......................  N/A.                
H.R. 1361............  Coast Guard            H. Res 139......  Open; waives sections       N/A.                
                        Authorization.                           302(f) and 308(a) of the                       
                                                                 Congressional Budget Act                       
                                                                 against the bill's                             
                                                                 consideration and the                          
                                                                 committee substitute;                          
                                                                 waives c1 5(a) of rule                         
                                                                 XXI against the committee                      
                                                                 substitute.                                    

                                                                                                                
[[Page H4684]]
           Floor Procedure in the 104th Congress; Compiled by the Rules Committee Democrats--Continued          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Process used for floor                        
       Bill No.                Title           Resolution No.          consideration         Amendments in order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 961.............  Clean Water Act......  H. Res 140......  Open; pre-printing gets     N/A.                
                                                                 preference; waives                             
                                                                 sections 302(f) and                            
                                                                 602(b) of the Budget Act                       
                                                                 against the bill's                             
                                                                 consideration; waives c1                       
                                                                 7 of rule XVI, c1 5(a) of                      
                                                                 rule XXI and section                           
                                                                 302(f) of the Budget Act                       
                                                                 against the committee                          
                                                                 substitute. Makes in                           
                                                                 order Shuster substitute                       
                                                                 as first order of                              
                                                                 business.                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. **All legislation, 68% restrictive; 32% open. ****Restrictive rules 
  are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open and  
  modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as
  opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart 
  of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. ****Not included in this chart are    
  three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.           

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a very valuable member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], the chairman emeritus, for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule for the clean water 
amendments of 1995. The Clean Water Act is one our most important and 
far-reaching environmental laws, and the policies associated with it 
deserve a full hearing on the floor of this House.
  I congratulate Chairman Shuster and Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert 
for their hard work in acting on this reauthorization in such a timely 
manner--it is a credit to them and the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee that we have this bill on the floor in early 
May.
  Mr. Speaker, clean water is vital to everyone in America, but nowhere 
more so than in the State of Florida. We are literally surrounded by 
water--the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. In southwest Florida, 
we have lakes, streams, and wetlands that are national treasures like 
the Everglades and Big Cypress--all of which are vital to our economy 
and our well-being. Thousands of new residents move to my district 
every year for the pristine beaches, the clear harbors, and the 
subtropical climate, providing tremendous economic growth. Each one of 
our major industries--tourism, fishing, and agriculture, depend on 
clean water and a healthy environment.
  For years, the Clean Water Act has helped to remove pollution from 
many of America's lakes, rivers, and coastlines. It has aided in the 
preservation of our more pristine bodies of water. And yes, it has 
created some problems along the way. Wetlands protection, for instance, 
has become a regulatory nightmare for most ordinary citizens. Obtaining 
permits can take years, enforcement can be inconsistent, and local 
conditions are sometimes not considered. States and local governments 
have complained about rigid Federal mandates that are both costly and 
inefficient.
  Improvements to the Clean Water Act can and should be made, and I 
look forward to addressing these issues in a full and open debate. I am 
especially pleased that this debate will include a substitute amendment 
offered by my friend, Jim Saxton, from New Jersey.
  The floor discussion on the fine points of these proposals will 
likely be determinant for the way many Members will vote. For instance, 
I will be seeking answers to questions like, will H.R. 961 replace one 
inefficient, unworkable wetlands bureaucracy with another? How will the 
classification criteria used by the Army Corps of Engineers relate to 
the just-released National Academy of Sciences Wetlands Report? Would 
it be better to address the problems associated with wetlands 
permitting by adopting the National Governor's Association proposal to 
do the work at the local level, with Federal oversight?
  In addition, I will be interested in the debate over the coastal zone 
management provisions in H.R. 961; specifically, are we better off 
eliminating the nonpoint source pollution provisions from the CZMA, or 
do these just need some basic reforms? And if we do repeal section 1627 
of the CZMA, are we providing enough coastal protection in other areas?
  Finally, I am concerned about the takings language in H.R. 961 that 
would provide automatic compensation for any portion of a property that 
lost 20 percent of its value. Estimates from the Congressional Budget 
Office suggest that the cost to the Corps of Engineers of this 
provision alone could be $15 billion. The alternative could be to leave 
our most vital wetlands unprotected.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished ranking 
member of the full committee.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
California, for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It provides no 
limitations in terms of amendments, nor any limitation on the time 
available for amendments.
  This is a very large and very complex bill with enormous consequences 
for people from all across America. It will determine how healthy or 
unhealthy their drinking water supply will be. It will determine 
whether the water that flows through their community is a blessing or a 
blight, and whether they need to try to keep their kids from swimming 
in it or fishing in it. It will determine whether they have enough 
clean water to be able to attract new businesses with new jobs.
  This is a big bill. When it was introduced, it was 141 pages. Now it 
is 326 pages. This bill makes far-reaching changes in the Clean Water 
Act, one of the most important and successful basic protections that 
our citizen have.

                              {time}  1215

  This bill will reach into every community, every home and come out 
through every faucet in America. This is a bill which requires careful 
and thorough consideration. This is a bill where we cannot afford to 
make mistakes and we cannot afford to act in haste. It is therefore 
imperative that this rule does not limit amendments or amendment time. 
Whatever concerns Members have, we need to hear from them. We need to 
consider them. We need to correct them if they need correcting, and for 
the same reasons it is important to hear all points of view in general 
debate.
  We have Democrats who oppose the bill, and Democrats who support the 
bill. We have Republicans who oppose the bill, and we have Republicans 
who support the bill. All have different concerns and issues that they 
wish to air, and all should be given that opportunity.
  The rule contributes to that goal by providing extra general debate 
time, 2 hours to be equally divided. But that still leaves open the 
question of distributing that time is a way which is fair to all points 
of views and allows all points of view to be heard.
  I, for my part, have committed that I will yield 15 minutes of my 
time to Democrats who are in favor of the bill; namely in opposition to 
the position I take. And my suggestion yesterday at the Committee on 
Rules was that 15 minutes of the majority time should be set aside for 
Republicans who are in opposition to the bill. In that way both parties 
and both opponents and proponents would have equal time. To do 
otherwise would bar some points of view from being expressed on the 
floor, and would artificially skew the debate by providing more time 
for proponents than for opponents, which would be clearly an attempt to 
bias the debate.
  I assume that no one here is afraid of anyone else's arguments, and 
so if I might I would like to ask either the gentleman from Tennessee, 
or my very fine chairman from Pennsylvania, as to whether or not 
Republicans who oppose the bill will have time from the majority side, 
something on the other of let us say 15 minutes, as I have given to 
[[Page H4685]]  the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] to express 
their view on the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I am more than happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I am pleased to respond to the gentleman that the 
Republican leadership has agreed to give 15 minutes to the Democratic 
proponents of the bill, and so I of course will accede to that request. 
There were no requests at the Committee on Rules yesterday formally 
submitted at the time we met. It would be my intention to give as much 
time as I possibly could to all points of view.
  However, because of the previous commitment that had been made by the 
Republican leadership to those Democrats who support the bill, I am 
constrained to honor that commitment, but I would point out that I 
understand there is a substitute which the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] have which 
will be offered and under the rule there will be unlimited debate made 
available on that.
  So, it certainly would not be my intention at this time to attempt to 
limit or constrain their time on their substitute at all.
  Mr. MINETA. If I might reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, as I understand 
it then under the arrangement then the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Shuster] will have 45 minutes of general debate time under his control, 
I will have 45 minutes of debate time under my control, and the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] will then have a half hour, is 
that correct?
  Mr. SHUSTER. That is my understanding as to what the agreement was 
that I am simply carrying out.
  Mr. MINETA. And that opponents of the bill that will be on the floor, 
then, will be accorded their time only when they present their 
substitute rather than under general debate time under H.R. 961.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If I have the time I will be happy to yield to them, but 
since I do not know whether I am going to have any time, I cannot 
commit a block of time, because that block of time previously had been 
committed by the Republican leadership. Of course, the gentleman from 
California is certainly free to yield whatever time he wants to the 
opponents of the bill.
  Mr. MINETA. Absolutely. I am going to be yielding my time to do that.
  I appreciate the gentleman from California giving me the time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I simply take this time to announce to the 
body that it is our intention to finish this bill by 1 p.m. Friday 
afternoon. In consultation with the leadership, I am informed that we 
might go tonight until between 9:30 and 10, that we will go tomorrow 
night as long as is necessary, so that we can finish this bill by 1 
p.m.
  I am pleased that we have an open rule; I am pleased that we have no 
time limits. If it appears that it is being dragged out, or there might 
be dilatory tactics, which I certainly do not anticipate, but should 
there be such tactics to delay or to get to go to final passage, then I 
of course reserve the right to move to put time limits on the debate.
  I hope that we do not have to do that. It is not my intention, but it 
is indeed our intention to complete this bill and have final passage by 
1 p.m. Friday afternoon.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. BORSKI. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for the rule and my strong 
opposition to H.R. 961, an industry-written bill filled with loopholes 
and waivers to roll back the Clean Water Act.
  H.R. 961 will do tremendous damage to our Nation's environment, the 
water quality of our rivers, lakes, and streams, and will threaten the 
health of the American public.
  This bill has been rushed through the process with no time for 
adequate consideration.
  At no time was the Democratic leadership of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee ever consulted about the drafting of this 
bill.
  The Environmental Protection Agency and the environmental community 
were totally excluded from the process.
  H.R. 961 is an industry wish-list drafted by secret industry task 
forces that has had no hearings and the barest minimum of consideration 
in the committee.
  The 326-page industry wish-list was unveiled for the first time on 
March 22. One week later, we went to subcommittee markup.
  Less than 1 week after that markup began in full committee. These 
were markups that were scheduled over the objections of the Democratic 
leadership.
  In only 15 days, we moved from seeing a 326-page bill for the first 
time, through subcommittee and full committee markups.
  That would be impressive for a non-controversial bill--but this bill 
is very controversial.
  The result of that one-sided and exclusive process--a process that is 
totally unprecedented in our committee--is a bill that will completely 
gut the Clean Water Act.
  H.R. 961 will roll back 20 years of environmental protection that has 
cleaned up many of our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams.
  Before 1972, the rivers in many cities were no more than open sewers. 
Some even caught fire.
  We must not turn back the clock on environmental protection.
  H.R. 961 would pit State against State, city against city, in the 
race to save money and attract industry by relaxing environmental 
standards.
  It would do virtually nothing to attack the major remaining source of 
water pollution--non-point source runoff from rural and urban areas. In 
fact, it would eliminate the Coastal Zone Non-Point Control Act--the 
one effective program we have for managing non-point pollution.
  In the last 10 years, there have been more than 100 outbreaks of 
waterborne disease. In Milwaukee polluted runoff in drinking water 
resulted in 400,000 illnesses and more than 100 deaths.
  H.R. 961 would remove protection from 60 to 80 percent of our 
Nation's wetlands.
  It would leave parts of such valuable areas as the Florida 
Everglades, the Great Dismal Swamp and large portions of the New Jersey 
shore unprotected.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should be defeated. The Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee should start over on a bill that will make the 
reforms that are truly needed in the Clean Water Act but will maintain 
protection of the environment.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who is chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule we will vote on this 
morning. I am proud that the people's House will bring this landmark 
legislation up for debate under an open rule that allows for maximum 
debate.
  I think it is a sign of the maturity and confidence of the new 
majority that we are willing to air our disagreements over major 
legislation. Competing ideas are not just permitted, but encouraged to 
percolate to the top, where we will have full and open debate.
  Let me also say that I believe the committee's hearing process was 
open as well. As Chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, I presided over 
six major hearings in Washington, and one field hearing in upstate New 
York, that one dealing exclusively with the subject of nonpoint source 
pollution.
  The process was open, and I applaud that. I voted for the bill out of 
subcommittee to report it to the full committee despite the fact that I 
had major objections, but I feel that the day has long since gone when 
one person in the House can deny all of the 
[[Page H4686]]  others the opportunity to consider major legislation.
  I voted for that bill to come out of the subcommittee to the full 
committee, but I could not in good conscience vote for that bill in the 
full committee, and let me tell Members why.
  First of all, a 334-page bill was filed last Thursday. For most 
Members, the first opportunity that they had to be exposed to the 
extensive material on this complex legislation was yesterday when we 
returned to the Nation's Capital, and today we are debating the 
legislation.
  This legislation will remove over 60 percent of our Nation's wetlands 
from any level of protection, and allow the destruction of maybe 80 
percent of the Nation's wetlands. Just yesterday the National Academy 
of Sciences issued a report, and in effect at the briefing these 
preeminent scientists said there is no scientific basis for the 
wetlands provision in the committee bill. We have to deal with good 
science.
  We have gone, those of us who are proposing an alternative, my 
colleagues Congressman Saxton of New Jersey and Congressman Roemer of 
Indiana, we have gone with an extensive outreach program with the 
National Governors Association and we have listened. That is what we 
are supposed to do in Washington, listen, and we have embraced the 
National Governors Association section of our bill dealing with 
wetlands.
  The bill, the committee bill, repeals the coastal zone nonpoint 
source pollution control problem, a very serious mistake with very 
serious consequences, so we reached out. We went to the coastal zone 
organization, comprised of 30 States, their Governors, their key 
environment and public safety people, and we have embraced, adopted 
their provision to deal with the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act 
amendments.
  The bill repeals entirely the storm water permitting process. We 
think that is a big mistake. We recognize problems for smaller 
communities and smaller businesses, so we have put into our alternative 
a 10-year moratorium that would exempt communities of less than 100,000 
or smaller industries. We have tried to be responsive.
  Time after time, poll after poll, the people of America said they 
want us to do something meaningful about clean water. There is not one 
person in this House, not one person in America, who would hesitate in 
this richest, most technologically advanced nation to go to a water 
fountain in any city to quench their thirst, but they did that in 
Milwaukee and 104 people died in 1993; 400,000 were made ill.

                              {time}  1230

  Four hundred thousand were made ill, and that is just the most 
recent, the flagrant example of how the public health is in jeopardy if 
we do not do a better job with our Nation's clean water program.
  My colleagues in the House, the people across America, I urge you to 
give very careful consideration to the alternative that will be offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], myself, and the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Clean water should be an American birthright.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and 
against this bill. This bill guts one of our strongest environmental 
statutes, the Clean Water Act. This bill is a bonanza for special 
interests and polluters. They are probably jumping for joy over this 
bill.
  They are doing so because they probably wrote it and, in fact, a 
better title for this bill should be ``The Dirty Water Act of 1995'' or 
``The Polluters' Bill of Rights of 1995.''
  Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a dirty water bill which would 
significantly weaken laws, affecting protection of wetlands, 
enforcement of water quality standards, regulation of storm water 
runoff and a number of other sewage standards relaxed much too much. In 
effect, this legislation would leave 50 to 70 percent of our Nation's 
most valuable wetlands unprotected. It would delete controls on the 
discharge of more than 70,000 chemicals which are now regulated by the 
act, 70,000 chemicals no longer regulated by the act. It would allow 
waivers for more than two dozen cities to discharge sewage into the 
ocean. It would ignore the impact of pollution from runoff, which is 
the No. 1 source of pollution in our Nation's surface waters.
  And here is a statement by the administration: ``For these reasons, 
if H.R. 961 were presented to the President in its current form, the 
Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of 
OMB, and the Attorney General would recommend that the bill be 
vetoed.'' Again, this bill reduces water quality protection.
  We should support pollution prevention and flexible tailored cost 
approaches to meeting the goals of the act, but this bill would 
undermine the strong standards that have produced significant water 
quality improvements in the last 20 years.
  On wetlands, wetlands are critical to our Nation's water supply by 
functioning as natural filters which improve water quality and mitigate 
potential disastrous flooding plus protecting a number of species. This 
bill would redefine wetlands and remove even the Everglades--as I said, 
over 70 percent of all wetlands.
  Now, costs are created by this bill. We should all support private 
property rights, but the takings provision in this bill would 
dramatically increase costs to the taxpayer of protecting our vital 
wetlands.
  The bill fails to address nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source 
pollution is the major water quality problem currently facing the 
country. It paralyzes the Federal Government's ability to issue 
regulations and guidance to protect the Nation's water.
  The administration believes that cost-benefit analysis can and should 
influence environmental decisions and that regulations should be 
adopted upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the 
regulation would justify its cost, but this bill would impose overly 
broad and judicially reviewable risk assessment and cost-benefit 
requirements prior to the issuance of such rules.
  And most importantly, if you look at pay-as-you-go scoring, H.R. 961 
would affect direct spending. Therefore, it would be subject to the 
pay-as-you-go provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990, and minimum estimates indicate that the effect of the bill would 
be to increase the deficit by several billion dollars during fiscal 
years 1995 and 1998.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It should be rejected. We should 
start over and do this carefully. We must reauthorize the Clean Water 
Act, but not with this.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for 
yielding me this time.
  Let me just say at the outset that I want to thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the Republican leadership for giving us 
the opportunity to debate this very important matter under an open 
rule, giving us the opportunity to bring our points forward as the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and I will do in a substitute a 
little later on. I called the Speaker on Friday and I expressed my 
concerns about this bill from a New Jersey coastal perspective. The 
Speaker, without hesitation, said ``You get together what you think is 
good for New Jersey in the way of a substitute or in the way of however 
you want to propose your amendments, and you bring them to floor, and 
we will have an open rule.'' And I appreciate that. I also appreciate 
the cooperation by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and 
members of the Committee on Rules in this regard. It truly is an 
opportunity for us to debate before the American people some issues 
that I think are of great importance.
  I have now been in this House for a decade, and when I was elected to 
the House and became a member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, soon to be joined by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone], already in place was Mr. Hughes from New Jersey, we were 
there because we had great concerns, 
[[Page H4687]]  concerns about water quality particularly in the 
coastal areas of our State.
  I think the same concerns exist in many coastal States, but perhaps 
they were emphasized in New Jersey because of our density of 
population. Perhaps they were emphasized because of our proximity to 
the largest city on our coast in the country, New York City, of course.
  We began to look at some of the problems caused by that in the 
Northeast, Long Island, New England, and along the New Jersey coast; we 
began on a bipartisan basis, without consideration for politics, in my 
opinion, in any partisan form, to put together programs that were 
intended to create a much better condition for inhabitants and visitors 
to those coastal areas. We had massive beach closings in the summers of 
1987 and 1988 in New York and New Jersey and other coastal States. We 
had flooding in many areas of our country, both inland areas as well as 
coastal areas, and that has to do very much with this bill.
  We identified sources of pollution that were relatively easy to take 
care of, namely, point sources of pollution, and we also recognized 
that there is another category of pollution known as nonpoint sources 
of pollution that are much more difficult to deal with, and we put in 
place national policy sometimes tailored specifically to States through 
the Coastal Zone Management Act, and that process to take care of many 
of these programs and to take care of many of these issues and problems 
as well.
  I must say together, as Republicans and Democrats, we have been very, 
very successful. As a matter of fact, just the day before yesterday, an 
airplane pilot friend of mine who has been flying over the Eastern 
coast for many years said to us, ``One of the things you have done 
right,'' he said, ``and I know this from my observations of flying over 
these areas and viewing the habitat and the environment, particularly 
the water, that you have done a good job in beginning to turn the 
corner on coastal pollution,'' and we have been able to do that.
  Unfortunately, I take issue with many or some, at least, of the 
provisions of this bill relative to the treatment of wetlands and their 
importance in keeping the environmental quality what it should be in 
coastal areas, with the repeal of the CZMA section which has reference 
to nonpoint pollution, and that is why the Coastal States Association 
endorses the Saxton-Boehlert approach which we think is much more 
sensible, as well as the storm water discharge and the permitting 
process which is repealed by this act. All of these things are vitally 
important to the health and welfare and the environmental quality that 
affects the people's lives that inhabit and visit coastal areas.
  One other issue of particular importance, I know it is of importance 
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], as it to me, is the 
ocean dumping provisions of this bill that relate to dredge spoils 
being dumped offshore and the elimination of the involvement on a 
direct basis of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  And so we will offer at the appropriate time a substitute which we 
hope we will get broad consensus on relative to these and a few other 
subjects. And so, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to 
express my support for the rule this morning and my appreciation for 
the leadership on our side and the Committee on Rules for permitting us 
to offer under an open rule changes in regard to these provisions.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time.
  I rise to say to Americans who believe that progress is preordained 
in this country, ``Wake up.'' Because today we are going backwards. 
Today we are on a real slippery slope, and for people who thought we 
would always be able to have clean water in America, that is one of the 
things we have been very proud of, you can turn on a tap, and rely on 
it. Guess what, today we are saying, ``Well, no more. We just do not 
want to push the polluters, it costs them too much to deal with the 
pollution.''
  And so let me say in the next breath, for those who are looking for 
growth stocks today, I say buy bottled water stocks, because the real 
message is we do not want the polluters to have to clean up. We are 
going to have the people who use the water have to go buy bottled water 
or whatever in the future.
  This is not the America or the Federal Government that I knew, and I 
must say I find it a very sad day. I do not even want to vote for the 
rule. Yes, it is open. I do not have any problem with the rule. The 
only problem is I do not think we should be dealing with this bill 
today, because the scientific evidence on this bill is not in.
  Eighteen hours before we started debating this bill, the esteemed 
National Academy of Sciences released its report, 18 hours. Now, maybe 
everybody here is a little quicker than I am, but to absorb that and 
figure out how to deal with that and get it to the House floor in 18 
hours is almost beyond, I think, most of our capability.
  The Chair of that commission is William Lewis, a University of 
Colorado professor, and he and the others who drafted it were not 
complimentary at all of this bill. They said it was much too 
simplistic, and that it needed many, many pieces of work. They also 
were not particularly accepting of how the policy had gone on in the 
past. They came out with some long awaited changes of how we might be 
more efficient, how we might deal with some of the inconsistencies 
between different Federal agencies. To me, that is the issue I wish we 
had in front of us.
  And I do not think this is the day that we have had time to get it 
done, so I fear that Americans are going to wake up and suddenly say, 
``What happened? Why didn't you tell us? Why didn't we know? We can't 
believe anybody undid this.'' Well, here we are, we are doing it, and I 
find it very sad.
  As we talk about these issues, you know, people will talk about the 
wetlands, the wetlands, how very serious, there are too many wetlands, 
we do not need the wetlands.
  Well, what do wetlands do? You know, wetlands are absolutely vital as 
a filter to filter out a lot of the pollutants, a lot of the 
pesticides, the sediment, the nitrogen that otherwise gets right into 
the water source and everything else. We cannot put concrete on and we 
cannot develop every inch of this planet, because the runoff and stuff 
needs to go somewhere. It needs to be filtered through some place, and 
the wetlands are a very essential part of that ecosystem.
  When you also look at all the different contaminants being put in and 
the level of toxics that go into rivers that will be considered 
acceptable, well, let me tell you, if we are going to allow these to be 
in flux, if we are going to treat much more cavalierly the 70,000 
different pollutants people have been talking about, that is going to 
get transferred to people, and in either having to buy bottled water or 
in higher health care costs, and more environmental damage to people's 
health, all sorts of things before you even get to the fallout on what 
happens to the wildlife.
  We now know songbirds are dying in America at a much faster pace than 
we would like to see that happen. We do not know why. We were learning 
in this whole ecology debate that we are having more and more about how 
interconnected we have become and how important it is to take these 
things seriously.
  But I would hope that this body would go on good science. I hope that 
we find out for people who support this bill long term when good 
science says this is not a good bill to support, I would hope that it 
is bad politics not to support good science.
  You know, this has not been a flat Earth caucus. This has been a 
Nation that has been built on good science and relying on academics and 
relying on people who do not have a dog in the fight, and when the 
academics have spoken and when those who are really with no ax to bear 
have spoken, but they have spoken just 18 hours ago and they are 
warning this bill is going in the wrong direction, I hope we wake up 
and listen to that. I sincerely do.
  I am very sorry that this day has come.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 961 represents a fundamental change in the way we 
think about clean water. Unfortunately, the change is not a positive 
one.
  [[Page H4688]] Under current law, polluters do not have a right to 
dump messes into public resources; if they do, they pay a fine. In my 
district, for example, paying for the Sand Creek greenway was part of 
Conoco's penalty for discharging toxics into Sand Creek. Under H.R. 
961, the outcome might be different. The cost benefit provisions in 
H.R. 961 essentially make polluting a legally acceptable use of water.
  Currently, the level of toxic contamination in a river or lake that 
is considered acceptable is based on human health and ecological 
standards. The Shuster bill will change that standard. It incorporates 
the polluter's needs into the formula.
  Wetlands would change too. For the most part they would disappear. 
Wetlands filter more than 90 percent of the pesticides, sediment, and 
nitrogen that would otherwise pollute our bodies of water. Wetlands are 
also vital to over 75 percent of our fish and shellfish. H.R. 961 
eliminates wetlands protection by narrowly defining a wetland and 
allowing a claim as a ``taking'' for the protection of those wetlands 
that fit the difinition.
  The original goal of the Clean Water Act was to make the Nation's 
waters swimmable, fishable, and drinkable. While we have not cleaned up 
everything, the Clean Water Act has brought us a long way on the road 
to that goal. The Shuster bill not only abandons that goal, but if 
enacted, will threaten our gains. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 961.

                                               Stewart School,

                                        Oxford, OH, April 7, 1995.
     Save Our Seas,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Sir or Madam: We are learning about oceans in school, 
     and we don't like the pollution. Not only fish are dying, but 
     birds, seagulls, and many more animals. I love animals and I 
     hate pollution. Oil spils should be stopped. Well, I and 24 
     other friends of mine hate it.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Faith Manka.
     

                          ____________________
```