```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4690-H4788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed 
rollcall No. 311, adoption of the Rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water 
Act amendments of 1995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). Pursuant to House Resolution 
140 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 961.

                              {time}  1316

                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with Mr. 
McGinnis in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will be 
recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] 
will be recognized for 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] for purposes of debate only, and I 
ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana control the 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], and I ask unanimous consent that 
he may control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water 
Act Amendments of 1995.
  This debate, Mr. Chairman, is essentially between two groups, between 
the professional environmentalists, the Washington-knows-best crowd, 
the EPA, the career bureaucrats, and the K-Street lobbyists on the one 
hand and the rest of America on the other hand.
  It is extremely important to note, Mr. Chairman, that we bring this 
bill to the floor with strong bipartisan support. This bill passed the 
subcommittee by an overwhelming 19-to-5 vote with both a majority of 
Republicans and Democrats voting in favor of it. This bill passed the 
full committee by an overwhelming vote of 42 to 16, an overwhelming 
majority of Republicans voting for it and a full half of all the 
Democrats voting for it.
  This bill, contrary to some of the fiction that is being spread 
about, keeps the goals of the successful clean water program while it 
fixes the problems that we have uncovered. And indeed, our process has 
been a very open process all along the way.
  We have heard some crocodile tears here today about how quickly this 
bill has moved. The truth of the matter is, this essentially is the 
bipartisan bill that we tried to pass last year. Indeed, it is very 
significant to note that, while we have proceeded with an open process 
in committee and on the floor here today, an open rule today, last year 
this legislation was bottled up by the Democratic majority to the point 
that we were never even permitted to get a vote on this legislation.
  So now we hear complaints about the process not being open enough 
when, in fact, it was worse than a closed process. It was a slammed-
door process last year, and now I am very pleased that we do, indeed, 
have an open process and, in fact, the bill as reported out of 
committee was on the Internet 24 hours after it passed committee and 
has been available for the past several weeks.
  Well, what does this bill do? It gives more flexibility to the State 
and local water quality officials. It is a fundamental shift from 
current Federal, top-down approach. Those who oppose the approach in 
this bill are saying that they do not trust the Governors and the State 
regulators. It
 provides a more reasonable risk-based regulation, consistent with 
recent House-passed legislation.

  This bill requires EPA to subject its mandates and its regulations to 
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. In a major victory for 
common sense, this bill gives State and local government the 
flexibility to manage and control stormwater like other forms of 
runoff. And this bill provides market-based approaches allowing for 
trading in certain circumstances to provide the most cost-effective 
pollution reduction.
  And this bill addresses unfunded mandates by providing regulatory 
flexibility. The bill reduces the cost of unfunded mandates, 
particularly in the area of stormwater management, where billions, yes, 
not millions, billions of dollars can be saved as a result of the 
approach in this bill.
  Cities estimated--get this--cities estimated that the unfunded 
Federal mandates in the Clean Water Act cost the cities $3.6 billion in 
1993. Grand Rapids, MI, a city of 250,000 people, had to spend $400,000 
preparing its stormwater permit. The average cost to larger cities for 
stormwater permits exceeds $600,000. Tulsa, OK, had to spend $1.1 
million just on their permit application, without solving the problem 
at all.
  This bill also reforms the wetlands program. It provides for 
comprehensive reforms to the beleaguered wetlands permitting program. 
No longer will we have a situation, as in Morristown, NJ, where an 
airplane, the airport there, the pilot was unable to see the runway. 
And they were told they could not cut down a tree that was blocking the 
view because it was in a wetland. Or in Muncie, IN, an 80-year-old 
farmer, who had farmed his land all his life and his father and 
grandfather before him, inadvertently broke a water pipe and it flooded 
the field. They went in and told him he was no longer allowed to farm 
his farm because it was a wetland.
  And there are hundreds and thousands of horror stories of the 
excessive 
[[Page H4691]]  regulation of wetlands, and this bill attempts to cure 
that. In fact, we have heard today about the National Academy of 
Sciences coming out with, finally, its wetlands approach and saying, 
alleging, that our approach is not scientific. Well, there is 
absolutely no scientific approach in the original clean water bill, 
because the original clean water bill does not even mention wetlands.
  In fact, it is very interesting and sad to see the National Academy 
of Sciences politicized because their report was due 19 months ago. 
Then we were told, our staff was informed just last week that it would 
be, even though it was 19 months late, it would be impossible to have 
it before the 18th of May. And surprise, surprise, we scheduled this 
legislation for floor debate today, and it appears magically yesterday.
  Well, of course, the American people should know that the study was 
funded by the EPA bureaucrats downtown. So, sadly, the National Academy 
of Sciences has been politicized for this debate. We regret that.
  Beyond the wetlands issue, our bill provides renewed investment in 
our Nation's clean water infrastructure. We provide over $3 billion a 
year authorized for this program. Antienvironmental? We provide more 
money for the program than has previously been provided. Indeed, in 
spite of all the money we provide, clean water costs in 1996, estimated 
by EPA, are $23 billion for our country. Yet the total Federal 
environmental grants to State and local governments will total a little 
over $3 billion. In fact, EPA estimates that the States face long-term 
clean water capital needs of over $137 billion over the next 20 years.
  Well, what is it that this bill does not do? There has been a 
concerted effort to mischaracterize the provisions of this bill. This 
bill does not, as has been alleged in the left-wing press, abolish a 
requirement that industry treat contaminated water for toxic chemicals 
and heavy metals for discharging it into urban reservoirs.
  The bill allows for the removal of redundant pretreatment 
requirements before Industry sends their wastewater to municipal 
treatment plants. Those plants must still enforce local pretreatment 
standards that prevent pollutants from interfering with or passing 
through the treatment works.
  This bill does not wipe out the coastal nonpoint program, and, as 
some claim, make nonpoint programs weaker everywhere. The bill 
authorizes more funding for nonpoint programs. It retains environmental 
safeguards such as achieving water quality standards while providing 
more flexibility in getting there.
  Yes, it repeals the controversial coastal zone provision, but--and 
get this--it includes the successful components into the national 
nonpoint program. It eliminates two separate nonpoint programs, but it 
combines them into one in a victory for both State flexibility and 
regulatory reform.
  Nothing has been sadder than to see our process mischaracterized. The 
New York Times, in what could only be described as yellow journalism, 
wrote that this bill was written by Republicans behind closed doors 
with industry.
                              {time}  1330

  What is the truth? What is the easily verifiable set of facts? The 
original introduction of this bill had 16 cosponsors, 8 Republicans, 8 
Democrats. Written by Republicans? Behind closed doors? The National 
Governors Association sent us a letter commending us for including them 
more than they had ever been included in the past. Behind closed doors? 
With industry?
  Let me share with Members just some of the groups that strongly 
support our legislation, and were key participants. Just today, today, 
May 9, we received this letter from the National Governors Association 
which said, and I quote: ``we urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.'' 
Let me say it again: ``We urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.''
  They go on to say:

       Once again, we wish to express our strong appreciation for 
     the unprecedented opportunities for State input in the 
     development of an effective Clean Water Act reauthorization 
     bill.

Written behind closed doors? I thank the governors of America, 
Republican and Democrat, for saying they support our bill, and for 
thanking us for including them in the process.
  It does not end there. We have a letter, again dated today, from the 
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which says:

       Of particular concern to the Nation's local elected 
     officials is the future of the stormwater management program. 
     The National Association of Counties, the National League of 
     Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors--who together 
     represent all the Nation's local elected officials--strongly 
     oppose any efforts to amend the stormwater program approved 
     by the Committee.

  They go on to say:

       Charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection 
     and that it guts the Clean Water Act are totally unfounded,

this from all the local officials across America.
  However, it does not end there. Again we have another letter today 
from the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators, the people on the firing line, the people who have to 
implement our laws, who write:

       With its new comprehensive approaches to nonpoint source, 
     watershed and stormwater management, H.R. 961 sets forth a 
     framework that better protects this Nation's waterways.

  It goes on to say:

       It maintains a firm commitment to the Clean Water Act's 
     goals, with more flexibility at the State and local levels to 
     determine how they are best achieved.

  It does not stop there. We have in front of us a letter dated today 
from the Water Environment Federation, 42,000 water quality specialists 
across America and around the world, which says:

       We therefore want to again urge you to support the Clean 
     Water Act Amendments of 1995 (H.R. 961) on the House floor.

  Therefore, what about these spurious allegations that the bill was 
written behind closed doors, by Republicans, with industry? They are 
demonstrably factually false. Why is the national media writing that? 
The national media is in the hip pocket of the environmental 
bureaucrats here in this town, and they have not given us a fair shake. 
The American people should understand that. There is no sense in our 
ducking that reality. It needs to be said, and it needs to be said 
very, very clearly.
  Beyond the support I have just outlined, agriculture across America 
strongly supports our bill. The NFIB has said that not only is final 
passage of this legislation a key NFIB vote this year, but they have 
informed us in writing that a vote against the Boehlert substitute will 
also be a key NFIB vote this year, so we have not only the National 
Governors, the NFIB, the League of Cities, the Association of Counties, 
the Conference of Mayors, the Association of State Water Pollution 
Control Administrators, the State Metropolitan Sewage Association, the 
Water Environment Federation, and on and on, a broad-based support to 
this bill.
  What kind of attacks have we been subjected to? I must confess that 
originally I was a little perturbed when some environmental extremists 
attempted to disrupt our markup by throwing at us bottles of dirty 
water marked ``Shuster spring water.'' That did not pleasure me. Then 
when they started passing out posters ``Wanted, Bud Shuster, for 
polluting our Nation's Waters.''
  However, upon reflection, I was delighted that they did this. I was 
delighted that they did it, because it gives the American people an 
opportunity to see the kind of hysterical, irrational opposition we 
have to our legislation, so I thank those radical environmentalists for 
giving us this opportunity to point out the lack of substance to their 
arguments,
 and the fact that they must resort to these kinds of personal attacks.

  Indeed, if the election last November was about anything, it was 
about our reforming government control, top-down government 
regulations, and clean water is one of the areas crying out for reform.
  Let me conclude by quoting something that Supreme Court Justice 
Breyer, a Democrat, wrote in a recent book. He talked about the 
environmental regulations, and he called environmental regulations an 
example of the classic administrative disease of tunnel vision. He 
wrote:

       [[Page H4692]] Tunnel vision arises when an agency so 
     organizes its tasks that each employee's individual 
     conscientious performance effectively carries single-minded 
     pursuit of a single goal too far, to the point when it brings 
     about more harm than good. The regulating agency * * * 
     promulgates standards so stringent that the regulatory action 
     ultimately imposes high costs without achieving significant 
     additional safety benefits. Removing that last little bit [of 
     pollution] can involve limited technological choice, high 
     cost, * * * large legal fees, and endless arguments.

  That is what this bill is about today, to fix these problems. I would 
urge my colleagues to support the bill we bring to the floor today, the 
bill which has strong bipartisan support, overwhelming Republican 
support in the committee, and a full half of the Democrats in the 
committee voting for passage of this bill. It deserves to be passed.
  Let me also commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has been quoted 
numerous times as saying if legislation does not get authorized, there 
are not going to be any appropriations.
  I would say to my friends, and particularly some in the other body, 
who I am told think that perhaps the way to stymie these reform efforts 
is to simply block this so there no authorization, ``If you care about 
the environment, I urge you to be in support of having an authorizing 
bill, because if there is no authorizing bill, according to the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, there are 
not going to be any appropriations for clean water,'' so I think all of 
us had better get together and support good legislation so we can 
continue to clean up our Nation's waters.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, Americans know that there is very little as 
important in their daily lives as clean water. Their health depends on 
it, the quality of life in their community depends on it, and the 
prospects for economic growth depend on it. That is why Americans hold 
in such high regard the efforts we have made over the past two decades 
to clean up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and coastal areas.
  Americans know they cannot clean up the water in their own community 
by themselves, because the pollution in their water comes from others 
upstream, maybe even in another State. It may come from a factory, it 
may come from a sewage treatment works, it may come from a feed lot--
but what somebody else in another jurisdiction puts in the river 
becomes one of the most important issues in their lives. They drink it, 
their kids swim in it, they rely on a supply of clean water to attract 
new jobs to their area.
  That is why we have a Federal Clean Water Act. And that is why we 
should not weaken the Clean Water Act now on the books.
  There are many complex provisions in the Clean Water Act. But what 
matters most to the majority of Americans is that somebody is limiting 
the amount of pollution being dumped into the river upstream from them 
by factories and by sewage treatment works. That is what the American 
people want. That's what they have in the existing Clean Water Act. And 
that is exactly what this bill would take away from them.
  This is a bill by and for major polluters.
  There are differences of opinion about how to fix problems in the 
stormwater program. There are differences of opinion about how to fix 
the wetlands program. There are differences of opinion about whether or 
not we should do more to deal with pollution which runs off farms.
  But when you get to the core of the Clean Water program, and you ask 
the question whether factories and sewage treatment works should be 
able to do less treatment than they are doing today before they 
discharge into the river, very few Americans would say that is what 
they want. Some want factories and sewage treatment works to do more, 
but very few think they should do less.
  Yet that is exactly what this bill would so. Over a hundred pages of 
this bill are rollbacks, waivers, and loopholes for factories and 
sewage treatment works to dump more pollution upstream than they are 
allowed to today. Americans did not march in here and ask for that. 
Americans do not want that.
  How did all these rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers for big industry 
and big sewage treatment works get into this bill? Almost none of them 
were in the introduced bill. Almost none of them were in the bill we 
held hearings on. Almost all of them first appeared after hearings were 
over and right before we went into markup, at which point the bill 
roughly doubled in size.
  What do these hundred-plus pages do? Too much to itemize here, but 
the administration's veto statement provides a brief summary. It says,

       H.R. 961 would undermine the strong standards which have 
     produced significant water quality improvements in the last 
     twenty years. H.R. 961 would allow polluters to circumvent 
     national industrial performance standards * * * [and] would 
     also undercut the existing Clean Water Act commitment to 
     fishable and swimmable waters by allowing new ways to avoid 
     or waive water quality standards. These provisions could 
     create incentives for polluters to pressure states into 
     offering environmental concessions. * * * Lower standards in 
     an upstream state would mean higher costs to achieve clean 
     water in downstream states.

  These rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers sometimes repeal a 
requirement outright; they are sometimes written as though they are a 
waiver at the discretion of the regulating agency, but under the bill 
the agency in fact would have no discretion; and they are sometimes 
written as though it really is up to the regulating agency, but if the 
agency says no, the polluter will have new grounds to sue and to tie 
the issue up in courts for years, while the pollution continues. This 
is, in fact, one of the worst features of this bill, because it will 
make the Clean Water program more like the Superfund program, all 
litigation and no cleanup.
  This bill has many other features which are contrary to the public 
interest.
  It attempts to fix the wetlands program, but in so doing eliminates 
60 to 80 percent of all wetlands from the program, including parts of 
the Everglades; it directly contradicts the National Academy of 
Sciences study just released; and it puts huge new cost burdens on 
taxpayers.
  It attempts to fix the stormwater program as it effects cities, but 
then uses that as an excuse to virtually eliminate the stormwater 
program as it effects industrial sites.
  It adds billions to the deficit just in the next 3 years, and much 
more beyond that, according to OMB.
  It adopts a version of risk assessment which was rejected on the 
floor of the House after the advocates of risk assessment argued it 
would be unworkable.
  And it would result in increased costs to many municipal ratepayers 
who will have to try to pay for more pollution cleanup because others 
are doing less.
  But the worst thing it does is to allow factories and sewage 
treatment works, upstream from somebody else's town, somebody else's 
property, somebody else's drinking water intake, to pollute more than 
they do today. That is wrong, and we should not allow that to happen. 
In some cases industries would be turning off treatment facilities they 
have already built and are successfully operating. Whatever you think 
about wetlands or stormwater or feedlots, there is no excuse at the end 
of the day for voting yes on a bill that allows factories and sewage 
treatment works to do less than they are already doing.
  I and other Members will offer amendments to strike these industrial 
and sewage rollbacks. But if we are not successful, then I would urge 
you to vote no on the bill itself. Make no mistake about it, this 
Nation would be better off, and our people would enjoy cleaner water, 
if we passed no bill, than if we passed this bill.
  If we defeat this bill we can go back and do what we should have done 
all along--produce a moderate bill which fixes the wetlands program 
without throwing out most wetlands protection and raiding the Treasury; 
which fixes the municipal stormwater situation; which provides the 
basic authorization; and which, unlike this bill, can be signed into 
law.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  [[Page H4693]] Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], chairman of the 
Blue Dog Coalition.
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the committee, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member, 
for their graciousness in allowing us their time. We appreciate that 
very, very much. It gives us an opportunity to add some constructive 
and positive input into H.R. 961. We want to thank them publicly for 
that.
  Let me also make recognition of the contribution on the committee of 
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Laughlin]. They have done a great service to this House and to 
people across this country in fighting the good battle of adding 
language and having a constructive input in that process, in making 
this what we believe to be a better bill.
  Let me just remind the Members that are listening that what H.R. 961 
does, some of the things that we have been working and fighting on for 
a long period of time. It provides comprehensive wetlands reform, which 
we have worked on and taken action on already this year, but we need to 
do it once again.
  It establishes something that we have been fighting for for a long 
time in this House, and that is risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, 
consistent with what we did with H.R. 9. It also helps place greater 
emphasis on voluntary incentives to base nonpoint source programs, 
which is extremely important to those of us who represent agricultural 
areas throughout this country.
  Finally, what this bill does that I think is extremely important, it 
adds flexibility and responsibility to States and local governments 
which they have been asking for for a number of years. We have a great 
opportunity today, and that is to make changes in the Clean Water Act, 
at the same time protecting the public interest.
  I once again want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] 
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], and particularly the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the 
committee, for their leadership in this area. I encourage all the 
Members who are interested in those issues that I have mentioned, plus 
other issues to come down today, listen to the debate, reject those 
amendments that do not improve this bill, and pass this bill on final 
passage.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
  Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me the time and for his efforts on this important reform 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995, because it provides a progressive and innovative 
framework for addressing the environmental water quality issues that 
our Nation faces. It is a practical, bipartisan bill that builds upon 
the important environmental standards and safeguards encased in the 
1972 Clean Water Act, but reassesses the direction of the legislation 
to provide flexibility for States and local communities in achievement 
of those standards.
  Everyone recognizes that the Clean Water Act of 1972 was a seminal 
piece of legislation which laid the groundwork for significant 
improvement in our Nation's water quality. When it was written over 20 
years ago, it focused on the major environmental problem facing our 
country at the time, point source pollution. By imposing uniform 
nationwide standards and centralizing control of those standards in 
Washington, the Clean Water Act of 1972 provided a successful initial 
approach to pollution cleanup. It has been an effective tool for 
getting us to where we are today.
  But times have changed, and it has become apparent that the one-size-
fits-all approach that worked over two decades ago is not wholly and 
completely relevant or effective today. Point source pollution has been 
reined in significantly. Now it is evident that the problems associated 
with non-point source pollution have not been adequately addressed.
  In fact, there are many unintended problems that have emerged from 
this old legislation, most notably the unacceptable costs and 
regulatory burdens that have been placed on States and local 
communities which dwarf dwindling environmental gains. My State of 
Massachusetts, for example, faces the highest per capita cost in the 
country for compliance with the mandates imposed by the current Clean 
Water Act.
  The one-size-fits-all approach worked well to level the playing field 
initially, but it overlooked the fact that our Nation is composed of a 
series of diverse regions.
  Mr. Chairman, I would end by saying I strongly support this Clean 
Water Reform Act. I commend the chairman for his work in this area.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment who has done so much 
work on this.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong opposition to H.R. 961, a 
bill that is inaccurately called the Clean Water Act Amendments of 
1995.
  Let us be clear about this, Mr. Chairman. If this bill becomes law, 
our waters will be dirtier, there will be more outbreaks of waterborne 
disease and there will be far fewer valuable wetlands.
  It cannot be hidden behind talk of flexibility or local option, the 
goal of this bill is to make it easier to pollute our Nation's waters.
  This bill takes us back to the days before 1972 when many rivers were 
open sewers and some even caught on fire.
  In 1972, when the Clean Water Act was passed, only one-third of our 
Nation's rivers were fit for fishing and swimming. Today, more than 60 
percent of our waters meet that test.
  This is a record which should make us proud. It is not time for 
reversal of the Clean Water Act.
  H.R. 961 will lead us backward by removing 60 to 80 percent of our 
Nation's wetlands from protection, including parts of the Florida 
Everglades, the great dismal swamp, and the New Jersey shore.
  It will do virtually nothing to reduce pollution from runoff, the No. 
1 cause of pollution in our Nation's waters. Polluted run-off into 
drinking water caused 400,000 illnesses and 104 deaths in Milwaukee 2 
years ago.
  This bill will mean more Milwaukees in the future. This bill even 
eliminates the one effective program we have to control run-off 
pollution in coastal areas--over the objections of the coastal States 
organization.
  It is not just the coastal States organization that has concerns 
about this bill. It is the National conference of State Legislators, 
the Association of State Wetland Managers, the National Governors' 
Association, inconsistent with their wetlands policy, the International 
Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations.
  There are just too many concerns that have been raised by too many 
groups about this bill.
  It is a bill that will gut the core of the Clean Water Act, the basic 
national clean water standards that everyone must meet.
  This bill will give us anti-environment races all over the country as 
local governments compete to attract development by reducing 
environmental standards and sending the pollution downstream. This is 
simply the wrong direction for the Clean Water Act.
  We should be working to fix what needs to be fixed in the Clean Water 
Act so we can continue to protect the environment while promoting 
economic growth.
  I have had my frustrations with parts of the Clean Water Act and the 
way some of it has been implemented.
  These parts should be fixed.
  We should fix the stormwater program to make it rational and 
sensible.
  We should eliminate the unnecessary administrative requirements of 
the State Revolving Loan Fund and get the money out to the States.

[[Page H4694]]

  We should fix the coastal zone Non-Point Pollution Program to allow 
targeting of impaired or threatened waters.
  We should approve the new combined sewer overflow policy to help the 
Nation's older urban areas.
  We should fix the wetlands permitting process that ties up too many 
projects in a snarl of red tape and treats all wetlands alike.
  Instead, this bill gives us waivers, exemptions, repeals and 
limitations that will mean less environment protection for all 
Americans.
  The American people do not want us to allow more water pollution. 
They want us to protect them from corporate polluters.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 961 and let us write a bill 
that gives the American people clean water and environmental protection
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Shuster 
and members of our committee who have worked tirelessly in producing 
what I think is a common sense balance between Federal and local 
control over clean water programs.
  This bipartisan bill recognizes the critical need for flexibility at 
the State and local level. While, at the same time, the bill retains 
all existing EPA water quality standards and requirements.
  Most importantly, this bill represents a renewed investment in our 
Nation's clean water infrastructure by authorizing $15 billion for the 
State revolving loan fund, among other programs.
  This bill gives States and local officials the flexibility to manage 
and control stormwater like other forms of runoff. By providing this 
regulatory flexibility, the bill reduces the cost of unfunded mandates 
to our States.
  The bill also provides needed comprehensive reforms to the Wetlands 
Permitting Program, while protecting true wetlands for all of us to 
enjoy.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a commonsense approach to reauthorizing 
the Clean Water Act, and would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
granting me time, because I rise with some hesitation to speak against 
the bill as it came from the committee.
  On the one hand, I appreciate what the gentleman from Pennsylvania, 
the chairman of the committee, has done, because clearly we need more 
commonsense application of the laws governing the environment and the 
regulations that are formulated.
  At the same time, coming from the State of Michigan, which has more 
coastline than any of the 48 contiguous States and which has numerous 
wetlands, I must rise to speak against the wetlands provisions of the 
bill. They are unworkable. It would do great damage to wetlands in many 
States, and particularly in the State of Michigan, if those standards 
were applied in our State.
  In particular, the hunters and fishers of our State, and of many 
States around the Midwest who come to Michigan to pursue their sport, 
will be deeply disappointed in the wetlands provisions because they are 
going to have a very deleterious effect upon the population of 
waterfowl, the population of fish, and, of course, there will be 
environmental damage as well due to the loss of the filtration 
properties of the wetlands that we have in our beautiful State.
  Therefore, although I support the attempt to have a more commonsense 
approach to environmental regulation, and I will continue to support 
that, through risk assessment, and so forth, I do oppose the new 
provisions regarding wetlands and certain other portions of the bill 
and support the Saxton-Boehlert substitute.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a former colleague on our committee who has now 
gone on to the Committee on Commerce, but who has exhibited a great 
deal of interest in the work of our committee.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take my 2 minutes if I 
could to talk about the economic impact of this bill. It is interesting 
because I think that many of the proponents have been making the 
argument, looking at the so-called cost-benefit or the risk assessment 
provisions and suggesting that somehow we need to revise the Clean 
Water Act during this reauthorization to look at cost-benefit and risk 
and other things which I might characterize as monetizing the Clean 
Water Act, something that was mentioned in the New York Times.
  From my perspective though and I think from that from many of the 
coastal states and other parts of the country, by severely weakening 
the Clean Water Act as this bill does it is jeopardizing many of our 
most important industries, most notably the tourism industry.
  In my part of New Jersey, in fact New Jersey as a whole, tourism is 
the No. 1 industry and we know that estimates are something like $400 
billion a year in this country nationwide comes from the travel and 
tourism industry.
  We also have to note that clean water is very important to the 
fishing industry, a $55 billion a year industry in this great Nation 
and also concerns about drinking water. Everyone relies on drinking 
water, municipal drinking water or other drinking water supplies.
  The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that by severely 
weakening the Clean Water Act we are in effect putting on our country 
and on our citizens and on our taxpayers a great deal of expense 
because if they lose the money that comes from travel and tourism, if 
we lose the money that comes from the fishing industry, if we are 
required to spend billions of dollars in the future to provide for 
better drinking water or cleaner water than ultimately the taxpayers 
and the country and the economic output of the country suffers. And I 
think that those who are urging that somehow weakening this act 
benefits the taxpayer because the taxpayer is in some way going to save 
some money is simply a false argument.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 961, the bipartisan clean 
water reauthorization. I would like to say at the outset no one 
disputes the importance of clean water to our citizens. Nor does anyone 
that I know of dispute that the Clean Water Act has generally been a 
successful vehicle for improving the quality of our water.
  Having said that, I think that it is equally clear that some of the 
provisions of the act need reform. In my view the area of current law 
that is in most need of an overhaul is section 404 of the Clean Water 
Act.
  Over the years in our part of the country this section has been 
increasingly abused by Federal regulation and regulators. This abuse 
has made the wetlands permitting process a nightmare for private land 
owners and has led in some cases to literally an assault on the rights 
of many Americans.
  This bill which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] have helped to author takes, I 
think, constructive steps to correct some of these problems. The new 
wetlands classification process will permit the protection of our 
valuable wetlands while pragmatically allowing development of property 
that is of no importance to our environmental concerns.
  Additionally the bill includes language from H.R. 925 that was 
overwhelmingly passed earlier this year in the House, and it would 
simply require compensation for landowners whose property value is 
diminished through government regulatory action.
  I think most everyone agrees that as protectors and defenders of our 
Constitution no one can countenance the taking of private property 
without just compensation.
  I have been contacted by many people in our district in middle and 
west Tennessee in what is a rural district 
[[Page H4695]]  over the years. Many of these farmers have been crying 
for relief from the burden of this out-of-control wetland permitting 
process. And I think this bill today is a most important step in this 
process.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington [Mr. Tate].
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  First of all I would like to commend the chairman for his fine work 
on this particular piece of legislation. This truly is a clean water 
bill. And it advances our congressional commitment to protecting our 
environment. It is common sense, it is cost effective. Things are now 
going to be based on sound science and not on fad, not on emotion and 
not on the whims of the day.
  And it upholds property rights, protects fairness, and provides 
incentives for people to comply, not a big club, but encourages people 
to do what they believe is right and that is protecting our clean 
waters.
  It also streamlines the bureaucracy, and we need the bureaucrats back 
here in Washington, DC, not to be making every decision for cities that 
they cannot even pronounce in my district.
  Most importantly, this bill protects the Puget Sound which is the 
pristine waters that border my district. It is a bipartisan bill, has 
strong bipartisan support and it upholds the true values that we are 
concerned about and that is clean water, not just more redtape, and I 
urge the support of Members of this body to support truly a clean water 
bill.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong 
opposition to H.R. 961. The Clean Water Act was written in 1972. In my 
State of Rhode Island, we have made a great deal of progress since 
then, thanks to the act.
  In 1970 the Blackstone River, north of Woonsocket was a dead river. 
Today at least 16 different fish species swim in the Blackstone, 
including game fish such as large-mouth bass and brown trout.
  In 1970 the Rhode Island Department of Health discovered metals in 
the fish of Narragansett Bay. Quahogs contained mercury, lead, and 
chromium. Today these are down 90 percent and are well within the safe 
zone because of private industry cutting back on discharges due to more 
stringent permits.
  In 1970 because Jamestown had no sewer treatment plant, 200,000 
gallons of raw sewage was dumped into Narragansett Bay everyday. 
Shellfishing and swimming areas were closed. Today the town has a 
secondary sewage treatment plant and most of the Island is open to 
shellfishing and swimming.
  The Clean Water Act not only provides Rhode Island with the tools 
necessary to restore our coastal waterways, but also fosters economic 
development by preventing future shellfish bed closures through a full 
implementation of its coastal nonpoint source management program.
  Anyone who has ever farmed Mount Hope Bay or the Kikamuit River knows 
that because of stormwater runoff from parking lots and failing septic 
systems the wildlife in the water becomes polluted and inedible. Simply 
changing the definition of swimmable and fishable does not change the 
fact that the fish will be inedible. Hence, it does not mean the fish 
can be sold. The economy and the environment are not competing 
interests.
  In my State, relaxing standards will do more economic harm than good. 
Look at the facts. In Rhode Island commercial fishing industry is a 
$100 million industry, up 700 percent since the Clean Water Act was 
first implemented in 1972. Oppose H.R. 961. It is bad for the 
environment and bad for our economy.
  Many of you may not know that Rhode Island is the Ocean State. 
Because of the vast array of beaches, rivers, and boating marinas, the 
travel and tourism industry generates almost $1.5 billion a year for my 
State. The vast majority of this occurs in and around Narragansett Bay. 
Salt water swimming is enjoyed by 67 percent of the Rhode Island 
population and $70 million is spent in sport fishing every year. I 
seriously doubt that Rhode Island would be such an attractive place for 
almost 2 million people to visit every year if our waters were polluted 
with metals that are especially harmful to our children and the 
elderly.
  I ask you, who would want to smell the raw sewage blowing off the bay 
or pull a dying fish from the water. In short, if we gut the Clean 
Water Act today we will not only be jeopardizing our health, but the 
economies of our Nation's coastal States.
  It was the Clean Water Act regulations that allowed Rhode Island to 
reduce pollution in the Mount Hope Bay, adding 800,000 lbs. of 
additional quahogs to each years harvest.
  It was the Clean Water Act that saved Narragansett Bay so that many 
of New England's most important fish, like winter flounder, striped 
bass, and fluke could safely repopulate themselves.
  And it was the Clean Water Act that helped publicly owned wastewater 
treatment plants in Narragansett Bay achieve a 57-percent reduction in 
the amount of pollutants they discharge.
  I ask all my colleagues to look not at the short-run interests, but 
the long-term concerns and quality of life of our citizens. We must act 
wisely to avoid the same recklessness that forced us to legislate the 
Clean Water Act in the first place.
  Unfortunately, environmentalists are typically characterized as 
eccentrics, with nothing better to do than complain about obscure 
pollutants or rare animals. I abhor that characterization. In my State, 
environmentalists come in many forms. They are the hard-working 
lobstermen and quahogers who farm Narragansett Bay. They are the 
sportsmen who canoe down the Runnins River or fish for striped bass in 
the Atlantic. Most importantly they are our children who swim in our 
rivers and play in our parks.
  I am proud to call myself an environmentalist. A person who sees the 
future not just on a balance sheet but by the air we breathe, the water 
we swim in, and the diverse variety of life we share our community 
with. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, our 26th President and renowned 
conservationist:

       To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and 
     exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its 
     usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our 
     children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand 
     down to them amplified and developed.

  Oppose H.R. 961 and support economic environmentalism rather than 
economic expediency.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
  (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. In 
particular, I rise in support of the balance this bill bring to our 
public policy on nonpoint source pollution control as well as wetlands 
definition and enforcement.
  Representing a large rural district in central and southern Illinois 
there is not a single day that goes by that I do not deal with these 
problems.
  The real question facing the rural areas of America is how we can 
best manage to come into compliance with the standards of clean water 
in this country, and in this bill, in the most cost-effective and 
efficient way possible. We do not have unlimited resources in this 
country.
  The farmers of this country have been good conservationists; they 
have to be to sustain a family income on which they can live. They have 
proven through the conservation reserve program and other solid 
environmental protection measures that they can produce excellent 
watershed management on a voluntary basis without additional government 
mandates. And those good voluntary watershed management practices have 
made positive contributions to the clean water in this country, not 
negative.
  With respect to wetlands, not every acre that is on the books today 
are true wetlands, and even the true wetlands are not all of the same 
value. And in any case, there is absolutely no need for three separate 
Federal agencies to have jurisdiction over this issue. This bill brings 
a commonsense solution to these problems.
  To suggest, as someone has already done today, that Americans should 
be afraid of turning on their tap water as a result of this bill, that 
we are all going to be drinking bottled water, is the kind of talk I 
just cannot believe. That kind of talk only fuels the paranoia against 
government that is running rampant in this country today.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
  [[Page H4696]] (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to 
revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend Chairman 
Shuster for his leadership in bringing H.R. 961 to the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 961, and in particular 
title I of H.R. 961, which reauthorizes environmental programs that are 
critical to the waters of the Great Lakes region. More than $12 billion 
in Federal investment has brought the Great Lakes back from the brink 
of death and is credited for making the Great Lakes great again. A $4.5 
billion annual Great Lakes sport fishing economy is a further testament 
that our country will continue to reap important economic benefits by 
passing H.R. 961 by providing $3 billion in programs such as wastewater 
treatment facilities. This will serve to build on the success of the 
Clean Water Act.
  H.R. 961 also seeks to address the contaminated sediments problem 
that clogs the Great Lakes system.
  H.R. 961 also contains provisions to better coordinate research 
activities among Federal agencies engaged in research on the Great 
Lakes.
  H.R. 961 is also supportive of making sure the fish in the Great 
Lakes are safe to eat.
  I urge passage of H.R. 961.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
  (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in 
opposition to the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for H.R. 961, the Clean 
Water Amendments of 1995.
  This bill makes significant commonsense reforms to our Nation's clean 
water program. It maintains the goals of the Clean Water Act while 
providing more flexibility to our States and local authorities who know 
their States and their waters and know best how to reach those goals. 
Let me point out that this flexibility is given to the States and also 
to EPA to utilize if they see fit--industry has not been given sweeping 
unilateral waivers from critical requirements of the act as has been 
charged.
  This bill strengthens the current nonpoint source program and 
replaces the current broken stormwater program with one that will be 
more effective and gives States a range of tools--from voluntary 
measures to site-specific permits--to deal with stormwater runoff.
  The section on watershed management encourages States to pursue 
comprehensive point and nonpoint source programs on a watershed basis 
to most efficiently meet water quality standards. The bill continues 
the Federal-State partnership by authorizing Federal assistance to the 
States for the construction of wastewater treatment plants, to address 
nonpoint source pollution, to continue cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay 
and the Great Lakes, and for a host of other pressing water quality 
needs.
  H.R. 961 also incorporates many of the principles that the House has 
already passed, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to 
ensure that our limited financial resources are utilized in such a way 
as to get the greatest water quality benefit.
  Now, with any bill of this length which addresses such complex 
issues, there undoubtedly will be some provisions that may cause some 
concern. For example, I may have some concerns regarding some of the 
wetlands provisions, but I realize that this bill will continue to be a 
work in progress and undoubtedly more revisions will be made before the 
bill finally is enacted into law.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we know that Americans want to preserve 
and protect our environment, particularly our precious water resources, 
and we know that they want commonsense regulation--that was made clear 
in last year's elections. I believe we can have both as is accomplished 
in this bill, and I urge the House to approve H.R. 961.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Miller], the very distinguished ranking Democrat on the 
Committee on Resources.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today exemplifies the 
dangerous liaison between private interests and the majority in the 
House when it comes to amending our Nation's laws.
  That close partnership is no where more evident than in the proposed 
revisions of the Clean Water Act--the law that has cleaned up San 
Francisco Bay near my district, and thousands of other rivers, streams, 
bays, and other bodies of water throughout America over the past 
quarter century.
  Are there problems with the Clean Water Act? Of course. I have 
concerns about some of the ways in which the law has been implemented, 
too, and if we had a real commitment to reform, I have little doubt we 
could develop a sound alternative to this bill.
  But let us make no mistake: H.R. 961 is not about fixing the 
mistakes. It is about devastating one of the great achievements of 
environmental policy in this country. And this emasculation of the law 
is taking place at the request, and at the direction of, powerful 
special interests who have been granted unprecedented access to the 
drafting of the legislation.
  Strewn throughout H.R. 961, particularly in title III, are special 
exemptions, waivers, and exclusions that benefit these special 
interests:
  An exemption from effluent limitations for coal remining operations 
that discharge into waters that already fail to meet water quality 
standards;
  A provision limiting EPA's ability to upgrade discharge standards for 
industrial polluters which benefits the pulp and paper industry and 
others;
  An exemption from wetlands permit requirements for iron and steel 
manufacturers;
  An exemption from the silver discharge standard for the 
photoprocessing industry;
  An exemption for oil and gas pipelines.
  Exemption after exemption provided to high polluting industries by 
this legislation that masquerades as reform.
  This is not reform. It is a clear example of special interest 
legislation, written on behalf of powerful interests and at the expense 
of our environment and the health and safety of the people of the 
United States.
  I have introduced legislation that would require that the authors of 
any legislation prepared by private entities be disclosed before the 
Congress voted to make special interest provisions the law of the land. 
Although the majority has not yet accorded me a hearing on my bill, I 
am hopeful that the majority will voluntarily disclose who sought and 
wrote these special interest provisions before asking our colleagues to 
vote them into law.
  Regardless who authored these exemptions, they are bad policy and 
should be rejected by the House.

                                    Congress of the United States,

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 1995.
     To: Distribution.
     From: Patricia Law.
     Re: Clean Water Task Forces.
       Thank you for agreeing to participate in a very ambitious 
     legislative timetable for reporting a Clean Water bill, but 
     one which we hope you will find constructive and will result 
     in a product that we can all support.
       Attached is the list of participants from yesterday's 
     meeting indicating each organization's primary area of focus 
     if it was provided. We will notify you as soon as possible of 
     the Subcommittee Member assignments and dates for Task Force 
     meetings. Our hope is to have these meetings at the beginning 
     of next week. In the meantime, 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. If you are not 
     identified on the attached list as having an interest in a 
     particular task force, we suggest that you call the lead.
       Nonpoint Source and Watershed: Thomas W. Curtis, Director, 
     Natural Resources Group, National Governors Association, Hall 
     of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 267, 
     Washington, D.C. 20001-1512, 202/624-5389, 202/624-5313 
     (fax).
       Point Source: Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager, 
     Environment Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water 
     Industry Coalition, 1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
     20062-2000, 202/463-5627, 202/887-3445 (fax).
       Funding and Unfunded Mandates: Robert K. Reeg, Manager, 
     Congressional & State Relations, National Society of 
     Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 
     22314-2794, 703/684-2873, 703/836-4875 (fax).
       Stormwater: Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and 
     Federal Relations, National League of Cities, 1301 
     Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2004, 202/626-
     3028, 202/626-3043 (fax).
       Wetlands: Kim Putens, Executive Director, National Wetlands 
     Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor, 
     Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298-1886, 202/338-2361 (fax).
       [[Page H4697]] Please feel free to call me with any 
     questions or assistance that you require from us. Again, we 
     appreciate your involvement and look forward to working with 
     you.
                  clean water task force participants

       Joseph M. McGuire, Director, Legislative and Regulatory 
     Affairs, Allied Signal, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 
     700, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/662-2657, 202/662-2674 
     (fax), (point source).
       Lee Garrigan, American Consulting Engineers Council, 1015 
     Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/347-7474, 
     202/898-0068 (fax), (funding).
       Sam White, America Crop Protection Association, 1156 15th 
     Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/872-
     3846, 202/463-0474 (fax), (nonpoint source).
       Mark Maslyn, American Farm Bureau Federation and Clean 
     Water Working Group, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 800, 
     Washington, D.C. 20024, 202/484-3615, 202/484-3604 (fax) 
     (nonpoint source).
       Karla Perri, Director, Legislative Affairs, American Forest 
     & Paper Association, 1111 19th Street, N.W., Suite 800, 
     Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/463-2436, 202/463-2424 (fax), 
     (nonpoint source, wetlands, point source, stormwater).
       Christopher Myrick, Director, Government Relations, 
     American Home Products Corporation, Suite 1001 1726 M Street, 
     N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/659-8320, 202/659-2158 
     (fax), (point source, nonpoint source).
       Cary L. Cox, Ashland Inc. and American Petroleum Institute, 
     601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., North Building, Suite 540, 
     Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/223-8290 x223, 202/293-2913 
     (fax), (point source).
       Jennifer Boucher, Associated Builders and Contractors, 1300 
     North Seventeenth Street, Rosslyn, VA 22209, 703/812-2000, 
     702/812-8202 (fax), (funding).
       Heidi H. Stirrup, Director, Congressional Relations, 
     Associated General Contractors of America, 1957 E Street, 
     N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-5199, 202/393-2040, 202/347-5412 
     (fax), (stormwater, funding).
       Ken Kirk, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, 
     1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 410, Washington, D.C. 
     20036, 202/833-4653, 202/833-4567 (fax), (funding).
       Linda Eichmiller, Deputy Director, Association of State and 
     Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, 750 First 
     Street, N.E., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/898-
     0905, 202/898-0929 (fax), (stormwater, point source, nonpoint 
     source, funding).
       Rose Marie Sanders, Legislative Representative, Air & Water 
     Chemical Manufacturers Association, 2501 M Street, N.W., 
     Washington, D.C. 20037, 202/887-1123, 202/463-1598 (fax), 
     (point source).
       Edward M. Kavjian, Washington Representative, General 
     Motors Corporation, 1660 L Street, N.W., Suite 401, 
     Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/775-5086, 202/775-5032 (fax).
       David T. Modi, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Georgia 
     Pacific Corporation, 1875 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 775, 
     Washington, D.C. 20006, 202/828-9631, 202/223-1398 (fax).
       Aleesa L. Bell, Washington Representative, International 
     Paper and Great Lakes Water Quality Coalition, 1101 
     Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20004, 
     202/628-1223, 202/628-1368 (fax), (point source).
       Victoria Shaw, Senior Manager of Government Relations, 
     National Association of Metal Finishers, 1200 19th Street, 
     N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/429-5108, 202/223-4579 
     (fax), (point source).
       Greg Ruehle, Director, Private Lands, Water and 
     Environment, National Cattlemen's Association and Clean Water 
     Working Group, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300, 
     Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/347-0228, 202/638-0607 (fax), 
     (nonpoint source).
       Karen Ann Mogan, Director, Environmental Affairs, National 
     Food Processors Association, 1401 New York Avenue, N.W., 
     Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/639-5929, 202/637-8068 (fax) 
     (stormwater, point source).
       Thomas W. Curtis, Director, Natural Resources Group, 
     National Governors Association, Hall of the States, 444 North 
     Capitol Street, Suite 267, Washington, D.C. 20001-1512, 202/
     624-5389, 202/624-5313 (fax), (nonpoint source).
       Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and Federal 
     Relations, National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania 
     Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/626-3028, 202/626-
     3043 (fax), (stormwater, nonpoint source, watershed, 
     funding).
       Robert S. Long, Vice President, Government Affairs, 
     National Mining Association, 1130 Seventeenth Street, N.W., 
     Washington, D.C. 20036-4677, 202/463-2663, 202/833-1965 
     (fax), (stormwater).
       Robert K. Reeg, Manager, Congressional & State Relations, 
     National Society of Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, 
     Alexandria, VA 22314-2794, 703/684-2873, 703/836-4875 (fax), 
     (funding).
       John M. Stinson, Director, Government Affairs, National 
     Steel Corporation, 1575 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 1100, 
     Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/638-7707, 202/289-4616 (check 
     fax), (point source).
       A. William Hillman, Director of Government Relations, 
     National Utility Contractors Association and Clean Water 
     Council, 4301 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 360, Arlington, VA 
     22203-1627, 703/358-9300, 703/358-9307 (fax), (funding).
       Kim Putens, Executive Director, National Wetlands 
     Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor, 
     Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298-1886, 202/338-2361 (fax), 
     (wetlands).
       Robert Hurley, Senior Vice President, R Duffy Wall & 
     Associates, Inc., Suite 410 South, 601 13th Street, N.W., 
     Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/737-0100, 202/628-3965 (fax).
       Jean R. Toohey, Manager, Government Relations, Rhone-
     Pouleac, 1401 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 
     20005, 202/898-3185, 202/628-0500 (fax).
       Jeffrey S. Longworth, Stormwater Reform Coalition, c/o 
     Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, 3050 K Street, N.W., 
     Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/342-8642, 202/338-5534 (fax), 
     (stormwater).
       Jeffrey L Leiter, Stormwater Reform Coalition, c/o Collier, 
     Shannon, Rill & Scott, 3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 
     20007, 202/342-8490, 202/338-5534 (fax), (stormwater).
       Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager, Environment Policy, 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water Industry Coalition, 
     1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20062-2000, 202/463-
     5627, 202/887-3445 (fax).
       Philip Cummings, Attorney at Law, Clean Water Act 
     Reauthorization Coalition, McKutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, 
     1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C. 
     20004, 202/628-4900, 202/628-4912 (fax), (point source).
       Peter A. Molinaro, Assistant Director, Government Affairs, 
     Union Carbide Corporation and Clean Water Act Reauthorization 
     Coalition, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 230, 
     Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/393-3211, 202/347-1684 (fax), 
     (CWARC, point source).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I support the bill. This is a common-
sense approach and balance between regulations and jobs, and it is 
sorely needed in our country.
  This Nation has gotten so overzealous with this environmental 
business that if a dog accidentally passes water in a parking lot some 
government agent might deem it to be a wetland. A farmer cannot even 
maintain the creeks on their own property from spilling over and 
ruining their own cropland. What kind of sense is this?
  The American people have had it. They are asking Congress to employ a 
little common sense. That is what this bill does.
  I have a couple of amendments. No. 1 is, the first, a standard buy 
American, and there should be no problem. The second one, though, 
states that my amendment would allow for a waiver for the encouragement 
and development and use of innovative pollution prevention 
technologies, but only if those technologies are American made to every 
extent practicable. I expect to have support on that amendment.
  But what I really wanted to talk about today is this Great Lakes 
initiative. The report is out. The Great Lakes initiative was 
originally to be guidelines, not strict binding rules, guidelines, not 
rules. I support the language in this bill that maintains guidelines, 
not binding rules for the following reasons: If implemented under 
binding status, the Great Lakes States will suffer as much as $11 
billion in cost factors and as many as 33,000 jobs. Now, that makes no 
sense.
  Finally, I want to talk about this we-they business. Manufacturers, 
with this bill, are not getting carte blanche to go out and ruin our 
environment, and there is a common-sense approach that will, in fact, 
encourage jobs to stay here in America instead of being chased offshore 
by these overzealous regulators.
  And, Congress, let me say this, we are not going to have a job left 
in America if you continue with oppressive regulations that allow an 
open door policy to leave our country. There is a balance. That balance 
can be reached. Let us reach it here today.
  I support H.R. 961 and urge its passage.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I stand in favor of the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, today I stand to applaud the fine bipartisan work of 
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in crafting, what 
should be recognized as a victory for the American people, the 
environment, and common sense.
  [[Page H4698]] This bill recognizes the critical need for flexibility 
at the State and local level. The approach of H.R. 961 is to preserve 
environmental standards and safeguards in the Clean Water Act, while 
providing flexibility in achieving those standards. The Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995 recognizes and reaffirms the fundamental thrust of 
the original 1972 act while focusing on those areas where the law 
clearly needs updating. H.R. 961 is a common-sense approach to provide 
flexibility to local officials, reduce unfunded mandates, ease 
redundant and costly regulations, and makes bureaucrats factor risk 
assessment into their decisions.
  In crafting this bill, Members of both parties have realized that 
officials at the local level know how to address their water quality 
matters a lot better than the bureaucrats in Washington. It was the 
desire to have cleaner water in my small town of Farmington, UT, 30 
years ago that brought me into politics. It is the desire of all of us 
to have clean, safe water to drink and use. To mandate how standards 
must be reached may have worked in 1972, but it is my belief that city 
councilmen, mayors, Governors, and State regulators can be fully 
trusted to care for the water quality of their communities. They are 
closest to the situation and have the most to gain from achieving the 
high standards set out in this bill.
  Without question, the current section 404 wetlands regulatory program 
is badly in need of reform. Since enactment of the Clean Water Act in 
1972, the wetlands permitting program has been expanded broadly from a 
program affecting navigable waters, to a program regulating activities 
on 75 million acres of privately owned property.
  I strongly support the wetland provisions of H.R. 961 as a major 
victory to achieve the Nation's wetlands conservation goals, while at 
the same time respecting the property rights of individuals. I applaud 
Chairman Bud Shuster and his committee for their fine work and urge 
strong support for passage of this historical bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Roberts].
  (Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The gentleman from California just made an allegory, made a statement 
that this is a dangerous liaison. It is not that. It is a partnership 
effort to prevent close encounters of the regulatory kind.
  This is a good bill. For 15 years we have tried to get a bill like 
this making a partnership with industry, agriculture, 
environmentalists. Fifteen years we have been spinning our wheels. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in finally bringing a good 
bill to the floor of the House.
  I want to talk about wetlands. The gentleman from Ohio just made a 
rather graphic reference to what the problem has been. It is true. We 
have now a well established procedure that says the land must be 
flooded if it is going to be a wetland. It must support water loving 
plants, and it must have hydric soils. The land must show clear 
evidence of all three characteristics.
  Too long, too long we have been subjected to regulatory nightmares 
where a low spot in some farmer's field was declared a wetland in an 
area where no self-respecting duck would ever land. Let us end this 
business.
  Let us pass this bill. It is a good partnership. I commend the 
chairman. I commend his leadership. No member of the Committee on 
Agriculture on either side should vote against this bill. It is a very 
good reform bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  As the Transportation Committee noted in its report, the Clean Water 
Act was last amended in 1987 and most of its authorizations expired in 
1991. Because past Congresses could not get a bill out of either 
committee, our Nation's water quality programs have suffered. And, more 
importantly, Federal regulators have been allowed to run amok on 
private lands, entangling farmers, ranchers and other American 
businesses in unlegislated, prescriptive regulation. It is time to tell 
the regulators what the policy will be and follow up the enactment of 
this bill with vigorous oversight.
  This bill sets sound policy for nonpoint pollution protection of the 
Nation's waters and amends Section 404 for a commonsense approach to 
the conservation of wetlands. Farmers and ranchers will find this 
policy to be both understandable, reasonable--and with proper 
implementation, very workable for American agriculture.
  I want to emphasize two important parts of this bill that make it 
essential policy for the future of American agriculture: amendments to 
section 319 dealing with nonpoint source programs and title VIII 
amendments that rewrite section 404 provisions dealing with wetlands.
  State water quality programs under section 319 of the bill are to be 
developed using voluntary, incentive-based standards that are likely to 
be achieved within the 15-year timetable set out in the bill. The 
amendments fully express the committee's correct understanding that the 
way to achieve water quality standards is not through command-and-
control regulations, but by adopting policies that are possible, and 
timeliness and deadlines that make sense.
  To the extent agriculture is responsible for nonpoint source 
discharges, the committee rightly chose to avoid the top-down approach 
to regulation. We cannot regulate nonpoint sources as if pollution was 
coming from the end of a pipe. In addition, the bill includes section 
6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act within section 319, ending a 
duplicative regulatory regime for agricultural producers in coastal 
areas.
  I would caution Members about one provision that admittedly has 
caused me some concerns--concerns the Agriculture Committee may want to 
address once this bill is law and the 1995 farm bill has been enacted. 
That provision gives authority for the chief of the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enter 
into written agreements with States as they develop their section 319 
water quality programs. The incentive for such an agreement would be to 
give agricultural producers the
 assurance that they are in compliance with the Clean Water Act. But, 
the problem is how the agreement may be written.

  Frankly, farmers and ranchers have not been well served by a similar 
agreement on wetlands that was hailed by the Clinton administration as 
the end of controversy on the regulation of wetlands under both the 
Clean Water Act and the 1985 Food Security Act. We were told under this 
agreement farmers would no longer be subject to successive visits by 
Federal bureaucrats. There would be a final outcome on wetland 
determinations on the ground. Unfortunately, the members of the 
Agriculture Committee took this announcement on good faith. That faith 
has been sorely abused. The same kind of regulatory abuse is possible 
here. The Agriculture Committee intends to watch this closely.
  The wetlands provisions of this bill are redesigned to finally end 
the abuse of farmers, ranchers, and other landowners. Title VIII is 
sound policy. It is derived from H.R. 1330, a bill introduced by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] to restore sanity to our national 
wetlands policy. It recognizes there are different functions and values 
of wetlands and allows for a ``type C'' wetlands classification that 
will be left outside of Federal jurisdiction.
  The Chairman's amendment to be offered today eliminates the concept 
that land no longer meeting wetland criteria can be classified a prior 
converted wetland, serving limited wetland functions. A prior converted 
cropland, one that was drained or filled prior to December 1985, no 
longer exhibits wetland characteristics--and, should be in law and 
regulation considered as an upland. These agricultural bottomlands, 
many of which have been dry for a generation or more, are not wetlands.
  However, under current law, regulators look at prior converted 
croplands as just another parcel of private property they control 
through regulatory fiat which means more regulation, more hassles for 
the landowner, but no significant gains are realized for the 
environment. I want to make certain this is clear: prior converted 
croplands are not wetlands. Under this bill, they fall outside of 
Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
  The delineation procedures established under the committee-reported 
bill will make sense to farmers and ranchers. The land must be flooded. 
It must support water-loving plants. It must have hydric soils. The 
land must show clear evidence of all three characteristics.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, farmed wetlands and other agricultural lands 
determined to be exempt from subtitle C of the 1985 Food Security Act 
shall be exempt from the Clean Water Act so long as those lands are 
used for agricultural purposes.
  To my colleagues, I say this is good, positive legislation. It 
protects the wetlands the public believes need protection; it, 
hopefully, will keep the bureaucrats off private property at least for 
the purposes of the Clean Water Act. It will bring to an end nearly a 
decade of abusive, over-reaching regulation. I urge its enactment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our very fine 
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking 
Democrat on the 
[[Page H4699]]  Surface Transportation Subcommittee of our committee.
  (Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed fitting that we are 
considering this bill today, this alleged reauthorization, the Clean 
Water Act.
  I say this because on this day, 123 years ago, President Grant signed 
into law a bill that has perhaps created more environmental disasters 
than any other single measure.
  The law he signed has left us with a legacy of acidified rivers and 
streams, devoid of aquatic life, running shades of orange and red.
  A law that has left us with a legacy of mammoth open pits that serve 
as toxic swimming pools for migrating birds.
  A law that has left us with a legacy of cyanide laced rock and 
debris, a ticking timebomb for future generations.
  In short, a law that has given rise to more Superfund sites due to 
the activities it endorses than has any other type of activity.
  This activity is hardrock mining, for minerals such as gold and 
silver, on Federal lands in the Western States. And the law is known as 
the mining law of 1872.
  So today, on its 123d anniversary, we find ourselves considering 
another bill that if enacted promises to cause further environmental 
degradation and depravation.
  I say this because the pending legislation represents a direct 
assault on the goals of the Clean Water Act.
  Make no mistake about it, these are goals which are widely supported 
by the citizens of this country.
  Moreover, the pending bill even goes so far as to significantly roll-
back the progress that has already been made in achieving water 
quality.
  And it does so for no particular reason at all.
  In the Appalachian Region of this country--where we do not have 
hardrock mining under the mining law of 1872, but rather live on a 
daily basis with the environmental, health and safety threats of past 
coal mining practices--in many places we too have acidified rivers and 
streams running those shades of orange and red.
  For example, the Cheat River in West Virginia, once a prime 
destination of whitewater rafting enthusiasts, today is so acidic that 
its water irritates the eyes and skin of anyone who dares traverse its 
rapids.
  Our loss is not only the aquatic life that once inhabited parts of 
this river, but a healthy amount of revenue from tourism.
  But rather than seek to promote the rehabilitation of this river, 
rather than seek to require that its designated water quality standards 
are met, the pending legislation takes the position that if something 
is polluted, well, it just might as well stay polluted.
  And it does so by gutting the NPDES process, creating countless 
loopholes and waivers for point-source pollutants.
  It does so by allowing effluent limitations for point sources of 
pollution to be based on new, weaker standards.
  It does so by repealing the entire stormwater permit program, and by 
hampering efforts to control nonpoint source pollution.
  And it does so by attacking the very basis for the promulgation of 
water quality standards, allowing non-scientific, arbitrary and 
capricious factors to be used in standard setting.
  No Member from the Appalachian region should be able to vote for this 
bill.
  And I would submit that those of our constituents who live with the 
ravages of mining, whether it be hardrock or coal, simply did not elect 
us to come up here and endorse the continued contamination of their 
water sources: The rivers, the streams, the groundwater that serves as 
the very lifeblood of our natural environment.
  Finally, on the question of wetlands, I think all of us agree that 
something must be done to provide relief from a permitting process that 
has become a bureaucratic nightmare.
  Yet, I do not believe that the majority of Americans want to see over 
80 percent of our Nation's wetlands destroyed as could occur under the 
pending measure.
  This does not constitute responsible wetlands reform, and, it would 
have far-reaching consequences.
  For instance, I have been advised that this legislation would 
significantly reduce duck populations and diminish prospects for future 
duck-hunting seasons.
  Obviously, ducks require duck habitat to survive, and that habitat--
wetlands--would be seriously threatened by the pending legislation. 
This is something of concern to sportsmen and women throughout America, 
and I know it is a matter of great concern to sporting groups in my 
State of West Virginia.
  For these, and many other reasons, I urge this body to reject the 
pending measure.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Laughlin], one of the founding coalition members.
  (Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the distinguished 
chairman of our committee for turning this bill into a truly bipartisan 
bill, and I commend our last chairman, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta], for tying to work with us in the last Congress to pass a 
clear water bill.
  But let me set the record straight about the we-and-the-they and the 
special interests. Half the Democrats on the Transportation 
Infrastructure Committee have supported this bill, not three or four, 
not a couple from the South, not a couple of boll weevils, 50 percent, 
have supported this.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the bill and encourage the 
continuation of the bipartisan support.
  Not only do I support the bill, I want to address a focus on the 
nonpoint source pollution provisions, especially as they relate to 
agriculture. Too often we have tried to clean up the water of America 
by saying it is agriculture's fault, and when we come to cleaning up, 
look in the last few years, we have put over $60 billion into the point 
source, yet we put less than $1 billion into nonpoint source, and we 
have tried to tell agriculture across America, ``You have got to do it 
by these rules,'' when in fact agriculture in one part of the country 
has a different focus and a different set of rules and a different set 
of criteria, and we cannot clean up the agricultural lands of America 
simply by having one set of rules that fit all.
  In fact, it is farmers like Harley Savage, Steve Ballas, and other 
farmers who should have the ability to do what they know how best to 
do. They cannot produce a crop with dirty water, even though there are 
some in my party that want to say this is a dirty water bill.
  But the farmers of America cannot produce what they do better than 
any industry in America, and that is to outproduce the rest of the 
world in producing their products, whether it is cotton, corn, rice, 
poultry, beef, or any other agricultural product, and we need to give 
them the flexibility to do what they do best and to make sure that they 
continue, unlike some big cities.
  The agricultural community is not dirtying the water to the degree 
that they are given the blame.
  So I urge we implement and pass this bill so the agricultural 
community can do the implementation with flexibility to ensure that 
they continue giving us the clean water that all of us, whether we are 
from the rural areas, from the cities, whether we are Democrats or 
Republicans, we not only deserve but we want and we strive to achieve.
  So this is not a we-they bill. I urge support of 961, and I wanted at 
this point to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] for his 
great leadership in ensuring that this is a bipartisan bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
time.
  I just wanted to remark there has been much said here today about the 
economic implications, whether they be good or bad, of this attempt to 
change the Clean Water Act as it currently exists.
  I would just like to say if you represent a coastal State and if you 
look at the provisions of this bill as it stands today and if you think 
that is good for your economy, then you should have spent the years of 
the middle 1980's with me in New Jersey or with the Representatives of 
Long Island when water was dirty. Those were 
[[Page H4700]]  the dirty water days. And we got past them.
  If you think that doing damage to the wetlands provisions as they 
exist today, in removing 90 percent of the wetlands in my home State 
from the rolls of wetlands, if you think that is good for my economy, 
then you should vote for this bill.
  If you think it is good for the economy to gut the CZMA provisions 
that pertain to nonpoint source pollution, I do not think it is, but if 
you think it is, then you should vote for this bill.
  I would just say that the Coastal States Association does not think 
that is good, because we have adopted their provisions, and we have 
done that in the name of the economy. If you think that doing damage to 
the storm water discharge permitting process, as it happens in this 
bill, is good for the economy of coastal States, then you should vote 
for this bill. But I cannot do that, because I know, having lived 
through the years of the middle 1980's in New Jersey and what happened 
on Long island, that is not good for the economy.
  So if you are concerned about the economy of the coastal areas in 
this United States, whether it be in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, or Virginia or 
the Carolinas, I am not so sure about Georgia; I have never been there, 
or Florida or the Gulf States or California or Oregon or Wisconsin, if 
you are not concerned about the economic implications of this bill, 
then you have not observed what has gone on in those States that have 
developed dirty water climates.
  In the summers of 1987 and 1988, for example, in New Jersey, people 
were afraid to go to the ocean, afraid to go in the water. They were 
afraid to take vacations in those kinds of places. So that is our 
economy, and this bill does damage to it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our very fine 
colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, 
the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. This bill would roll back decades 
of progress in cleaning up our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, and 
it threatens the fragile ecosystems of our Nation's wetlands.
  This bill has rightly been called a polluters' bill of rights. 
Special interests representing some of our Nation's largest polluters 
wrote this bill, so it is not surprising that it is riddled with 
custom-made loopholes to let industries pollute.
  The bill would increase from just 5 to 70,000 the number of 
industrial pollutants that could be dumped into our Nation's waterways. 
It would open up our Nation's most fragile wetlands to development, 
including more than half of all the wetlands in my home State of 
Connecticut.
  This bill poses a threat to our safe drinking water and to the 
rivers, streams, and lakes in which we swim and fish.
  My constituents along Long Island Sound would be especially harmed by 
provisions of this bill repealing efforts to clean up our coastal 
waters. Our coast protection program has proven to be true--that good 
environmental policy is good economic policy. Clean coastal waters 
generate billions of dollars in tourism revenue, creates jobs in 
fishing and other industries, and provide numerous recreational 
activities.
  Connecticut's Coastal Zone Management Program has made great strides 
at cleaning up the Long Island Sound. It has successfully restored over 
1,500 acres of critical tidal wetlands. From 1991 to 1993, the number 
of beach closings along Long Island Sound was reduced from 292 to 174. 
But we clearly have more work to do. More than 25 percent of Long 
Island Sound's beaches still are chronically closed due to pathogen 
contamination. We need policies and financial resources to continue our 
progress, not reverse them as this bill would do.
  I look forward to supporting the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute 
because it preserves our coastal cleanup effort, it takes a more 
reasonable approach to wetland protection, and closes the polluter 
loopholes of H.R. 961. I am grateful that the substitute provides 
strong support for the estuary protection goals of H.R. 1438, the Water 
Pollution Control and Estuary Protection Act introduced by my colleague 
from New York, Ms. Lowey, and myself.
  The negative impact of H.R. 961 is immeasurable. It is bad news for 
everyone, except for those industries that will enjoy numerous 
loopholes and waivers. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against this bad bill.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. Danner].
  (Ms. DANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961 which 
maintains and builds on the current safeguards in place and complements 
the needs of States for flexibility. Those directly responsible for 
water quality in our communities, such as the National Association of 
Counties, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of 
Mayors, support H.R. 961 because it makes environmental benefit a 
primary focus of H.R. 961 and establishes a program that Congress can 
support in a truly bipartisan approach to solving our Nation's 
pollution dilemmas.
  Let me read just one sentence from a letter that we have received 
from the presidents of respectively the National Association of 
Counties, National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, 
not the Members of Congress, but members who represent our constituency 
across the United States. Charges, and I quote exactly, charges that 
H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection and that it guts the Clean 
Water Act are totally unfounded. The measure restores common sense to 
this unaffordable and undoable mandate.
  Remember, my colleagues, we have passed legislation here to do away 
with unfunded mandates.
 The people that represent our constituents, as well as ourselves, ask 
us to recognize unfunded mandates as a real problem. I urge each of my 
colleagues to support H.R. 961 and to follow the discretion of the 
chairman and the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by 
retaining the allotment formula in the bill and opposing any efforts to 
change the formula.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Shuster and the entire 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff for their diligence 
and exemplary work on H.R. 961.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean 
Water Act amendments of 1995 which maintains and builds on the current 
safeguards in place in our system and complements the State needs for 
more flexibility.
  Those directly responsible for water quality in our communities--such 
as the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities 
and the U.S. Conference of Mayors support H.R. 961 because it makes 
environmental benefit a primary focus of H.R. 961 and establishes a 
program that Congress can support in a truly bipartisan approach to 
solving our Nation's pollution dilemmas.
  In a letter submitted from the groups I previously mentioned they 
said and I quote:

       Charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection 
     and that it guts the Clean Water Act, are totally unfounded. 
     The measure restores common sense to this unaffordable and 
     undoable mandate.

  I urge each of my colleagues to support H.R,. 961 and to follow the 
discretion of Chairman and the full Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee by retaining the allotment formula in the bill and opposing 
any efforts to change the formula.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If I could just have a couple of seconds to give the audience a 
history lesson. Late in the 1500's we all remember Galileo, and he said 
at that time he was trying to educate people that the sun was the 
center of the solar system. Well the Pope heard that, Pope Urban VIII, 
the head of the early Roman Empire, and he said, if Galileo repeats 
that comment, the sun is the center of the solar system, he will have 
his arms and legs dislocated.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to put everybody's mind at ease. I do not fear 
that my arms will be dislocated by making a comment about the provision 
in this Clean Water Act taking away wetlands, but by the Pope telling 
that 
[[Page H4701]]  to Galileo it made no difference. The sun was still the 
center of the solar system. In this legislation this will not be a 
wetland.
  Now we can say anything we want about wetlands. We can describe them 
any way we want to describe them. But that does not change the way 
nature works, and this type of filtration system is absolutely 
essential if we are going to have any productive coastal fishery, if we 
are going to have any clean water.
  This, my colleagues, regardless of what the bill says, is a wetland.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San 
Diego, CA [Mr. Filner], a very fine member of our committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but 
more importantly I thank the gentleman for his tireless efforts on 
behalf of protecting our environment. I say to him, ``Mr. Mineta, we 
may lose today's battle, but under your leadership I'm confident we're 
going to be back, and we will win the long-range war.''
  Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise today during this debate to urge 
my colleagues not to turn our back on the health and safety of 
Americans and to, once again, reassure my constituents in San Diego 
that they will not have to spend billions for an unnecessary sewage 
facility. San Diego is assured to regulatory relief with either of the 
major alternatives on the floor, but we must also be sure that we can 
fish and swim in San Diego's rivers, lakes, and beaches.
  The critical questions that San Diegans must ask themselves about 
these bills before us is, will I have clean water to drink, will I have 
a clean beach to swim at, and will I get relief from the multi-billion-
dollar secondary treatment boondoggle? With the Boehlert substitute, 
which I am supporting, the answers are ``yes'' to safe drinking water, 
``yes'' to clean beaches, and ``yes'' to relief from increased sewage 
bills. I cannot support any bill that purports to help San Diego on the 
one hand and destroys the safety of our drinking water and beaches on 
the other.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
particularly want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for bringing this bill to the floor, 
and I particularly want to pay a great debt of gratitude, I hope, on 
behalf of this entire House for the efforts, the long-standing efforts 
that have been made by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], in this effort that has finally reached the 
floor to reform the wetland laws of America and create some sound, 
sensible regulations of wetlands in America combined with the right of 
property owners to be reimbursed when their property is taken for these 
regulatory purposes.
  My colleagues, one of my colleagues from California rose earlier 
today to complain about lobbyists' hands in the writing of this bill. 
Let me set the record straight. This bill, the reforms have long been 
on this table, not this year when the new majority came to town. These 
reforms have long been on the table, never brought to the floor of this 
House unfortunately, but long on the table, drafted in part by the 
efforts, personal efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], 
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], many other Members of this 
body who have urged this House to consider these amendments for many, 
many years when the Democratic Party was in the majority.
  I want to remind my colleagues from California that it was at a 
meeting with lobbyists of the radical environmental groups in this town 
on March 4, 1992, with some Members of this House, that a decision was 
made then to kill the holy trinity, ``unholy trinity'' they called it, 
ideas called property rights, unfunded mandates and the risk assessment 
cost-benefit analysis regulatory reform. It was that link, that 
collusion between the radical environmental left and Members of this 
House that prevented this bill, these ideas, from ever getting to the 
floor.
  Let me finally make a point. I say to my colleagues, this bill is not 
just about pollution and clean water. This bill is also about land 
regulations and activities that are not polluting activities, 
activities like building a home, activities like forming your property, 
activities like simply digging a drainage ditch on your property so it 
drains properly, nonpolluting activities that do not create nuisances 
for anybody, that have nothing to do with violations of local zoning 
laws, that simply have to do with the right of a person to use his 
property for the purposes he intended it for, perhaps to cut a tree for 
timber purposes, to grow some corn for agricultural purposes, perhaps 
just to build a house for that son or daughter on the farm so that they 
can live close to their parents. Those activities are regulated as 
land-regulated activities under this clean water bill in the guise of 
wetlands protection, and so when we discuss this bill, and you hear 
talk about pollution and this bill being only a bill dealing with 
pollution, remember this is land regulation, too, of nonpolluting 
activities.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this reauthorization 
of the Clean Water Act. It allows us to protect our precious waterways 
in a cost-effective manner.
  I have a particular interest in the Great Lakes provisions in this 
bill. Lake Erie is a tremendous asset to my home State of Ohio. States 
like Ohio want to be able to protect this resource in a way that makes 
regulatory and financial sense.
  The language in this bill gives them the flexibility to do exactly 
that, and we will achieve more real progress than we would get if the 
EPA's Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative was imposed as a rigid, 
mandatory regulation.
  Municipalities in my district have been concerned about the costly 
provisions of the G-L-I. Wastewater treatment plants are being told to 
reduce the discharge of mercury to a level lower than what naturally 
occurs in rainwater. That amounts to spending millions of dollars to 
remove a substance that is put back into the Great Lakes every time it 
rains.
  Even if implemented as written, there is no guarantee that the G-L-I 
will lead to the lifting of a single fish advisory or the opening of an 
additional mile of shoreline for unrestricted use.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a strong bill. Let us support it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], a member of the Committee on Science and the 
Committee on Small Business, who has been contributing a lot to this 
effort.
  (Ms. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta] for yielding this time to me and for his efforts on behalf 
of sound legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns with H.R. 961, the 
Clean Water Amendments of 1995. My State of Missouri is a land of 
mighty rivers, and clean water is a gift from our ancestors and our 
legacy to our children.
  H.R. 961 would mean the end of our coordinated efforts to improve the 
quality of this national resource. The strange patchwork of waivers and 
credits envisioned by this bill would allow polluters to choose the way 
they will diminish our water quality.
  Mr. Chairman, the nine States in the Midwest which suffered 
devastating floods in 1993, including Missouri, are working to expand 
wetlands that will help absorb the shock of future flooding.
  The National Conference of State Legislatures agrees that title VIII 
of this bill will cripple those efforts, expose Midwesterners to 
greater risk of flooding, and expose U.S. taxpayers to greater risk of 
having to pay for future flood cleanups.
  While the funding formula currently in the legislation would provide 
for additional pollution run-off funds for Missouri, H.R. 961 does not 
explain to 
[[Page H4702]]  Missourians how to pay for new treatment plants when 
the lifeblood of their State, the great Missouri and Mississippi 
Rivers, run thick once again with pollution. It does not explain how to 
pay for new homes and businesses when the rivers overflow their banks.
  I hope that as we debate amendments to H.R. 961 we will focus on 
quality of life, and that includes not only new jobs but a clean 
environment. I hope, too, that we adopt amendments to strike a proper 
balance between increased State authority and preservation of minimum 
Federal standards.
  These goals are compatible; the Clean Water Act has proven that time 
and again.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the debate we begin today 
on the Clean Water Act is quite simply the test of whether the center 
can hold. We are faced on the one hand by the clean water statute that, 
despite its many strengths, has clear flaws that must be remedied.

                              {time}  1445

  We are confronted, on the other hand, with a proposal that instead of 
simply repairing those flaws, rolls back existing protections, 
imperiling our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.
  Clearly, neither the status quo nor the proposed rewrite of the Clean 
Water Act are acceptable alternatives. What is needed is an approach 
that preserves our water resources without causing undue economic 
hardship. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and I will offer a substitute later today 
that offers just such an approach.
  What we have done is to take the best proposals being offered around 
town and combine them into one bill. Our litmus test has not been 
ideology, but practical input, which proposal was the most likely to 
reasonably protect our Nation's waters.
  For example, we have adopted the National Governors' Association 
proposal for wetlands protection, a solid middle ground position. H.R. 
961, on the other hand, would allow the wholesale destruction of more 
than half the Nation's wetlands. That is not my opinion, that is what 
we learned from the scientists. We have just had a report yesterday 
from the National Academy of Sciences. That would mean increased 
flooding, less fresh water, and a decline in the fishing and tourism 
industries.
  Current law is too restrictive, and administratively burdensome. The 
Governors' proposal, which gives States a greater say over wetlands 
protection, is a sensible approach. It is also a cheaper approach, 
eliminating the need for a large Federal bureaucracy and a new 
entitlement through the takings provisions.
  Similarly, we have adopted the Coastal States Organization's proposal 
on coastal nonpoint pollution, which gives States a greater say over 
how to meet environmental requirements. H.R. 961 would repeal coastal 
zone protections, increasing the likelihood that beaches will have to 
be closed to the public, 10,000 were closed last year, and that runoff 
pollution will close commercial fisheries, threatening a $55 billion 
industry.
  The Coastal States Organization, a group of 30 Governors, has 
endorsed this provision of our substitute, because we amend the Clean 
Water Act to eliminate its excesses while retaining its protections. 
Let me stress that, we eliminate its excesses while retaining its 
protections. This is an approach we have taken throughout the bill, 
shopping around for the most sensible, rational approach, eliminating 
the bureaucracy and redtape of current law, which preventing the 
environmental degradation of H.R. 961.
  Such a centrist approach should be welcome in a country that is 
clearly sick of ideological warfare and hungry for solutions to our 
Nation's problems, a country in which 76 percent of the American people 
want us to do more to protect our Nation's waters, but are skeptical of 
overbearing Government.
  Perhaps that is why our substitute has broad bipartisan support. I 
look forward to the debate we will have this afternoon, because we will 
pass this substitute if good sense is allowed to triumph over ideology 
on both ends of the political spectrum.
  A lot of people think Republicans do not give a damn about the 
environment. A lot of people are wrong. Keep in mind, one person's 
effluent is another person's drinking water.
  Finally, let me point out what the National Conference of State 
Legislatures has to say. Unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended 
during floor consideration, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures urges you to vote against the bill.
  We have that significant amendment. We urge you to support Saxton, 
Boehlert, and Roemer and to oppose the committee bill.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for his great leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that H.R. 961, the Clean Water 
Amendments Act of 1995, as presently drafted lessens environmental 
protection and endangers the very quality of life of all Americans. I 
have been listening to the debate and, coming from local government, I 
know there are real concerns about storm water runoff, sewage 
wastewater, and certainly wetlands. But we must also listen to the EPA 
administrator that has criticized the bill as being unworkable.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we will come to this process with a bipartisan 
attitude to fix and correct, but not to eliminate. Currently the Clean 
Water Act is regarded as one of the most successful environmental 
mandates passed by Congress. Yes, some of the portions of the act may 
need some additional flexibility or fine-tuning, but we only have one 
environment, one planet Earth, and we ought not to take undue risks 
with it.
  As for Texas, I know firsthand that the city of Houston is spending 
$1.3 billion to address its sanitary sewer overflow. It is important 
that we follow through. It is important that we continue to improve the 
quality of our drinking water. Let us not turn back. Let us make sure 
we fix, but not eliminate the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
961. As chairman of the Committee on Resources, we had joint 
jurisdiction over this legislation. But also being ranking on the 
committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the 
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I 
watched the building of this bill and watched what he has been able to 
do, and our committee, full committee, with the exception of two 
people, fully agreed with what we are attempting to do here, and that 
is to have clean water.
  We have to keep in mind what has been said prior to some of the other 
speakers about how bad this bill is. This bill achieves many things, 
but one of the main things that it achieves is clean water 
realistically. It requires clean water as it should be without the 
regulations, without the dominance of government interference. It is a 
needed bill. It has to occur.
  One of the things I have heard from most of the Governors around the 
country is whatever happens, you must review and revamp the Clean Water 
Act so we can make it apply to our communities and stop making us waste 
money on testing that is unnecessary, meeting requirements that are 
unnecessary. And in Alaska alone, which I will have an amendment later 
on, the biggest city in Alaska had to add fish guts to make sure we met 
the standards for the particular amount in the water that comes out at 
the end of the effluent. We had pure water. I could drink it. To say we 
want to stay with the present bill, the regulations that should never 
have been applied, is absolutely ludicrous.
  More than that, in this bill there is a provision which I hope 
everybody is listening. The one provision from this bill 
[[Page H4703]]  that should draw your attention because it affects 
every State in the Union is the wetlands provision.
  You have seen what the wetlands have done to this country, how it has 
been implemented and enforced by a Federal Government without any 
jurisdiction of written law, other than a dredging law through 
regulatory law, where they can tell my State of Alaska that all of your 
land is wet. You have no longer a right to build or take and construct 
schools or do things good for your community because we have decided it 
is wet, without compensation. They have put inroads into our ability to 
take and produce.
  Mr. Chairman, I suggest we also have to keep in mind this Congress in 
1971 gave 44 million acres of land to the Alaskan natives, the American 
Eskimos in Alaska. We gave that land to them as a commitment to them 
for their economic and social well-being. And what do we do under the 
wetlands provision? We take it away, because we tell them under the 
Federal control it is 98 percent wetlands.
  You call that justice? I am saying it is time we support this bill. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the committee have 
done an excellent job. When I hear members of the committee say this is 
a bad bill, I say shame on you. This is a good bill that should be 
passed.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, today's young people think I am making a joke when I 
tell them about a river catching fire. That actually happened to the 
Cuyahoga in Ohio, it was so polluted with industrial wastes and 
inflammable solvents. In Oregon 3 million residents take for granted 
the fact they can swim, fish, and even drink Willamette River water. 
Well, the Willamette River was more like an open sewer in the mid 
1960's than it was a pristine river.
  They say you cannot turn back the clock. Who would want to turn back 
the clock to those bad old days? Who indeed? Well, watch for the votes 
on this bill. A vote for this bill is a vote to turn back the country 
to the days when our rivers were more like open sewers and industrial 
cesspools than they were precious resources.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the previous speaker, fear, 
fear, fear. That is all we have to offer, is fear. We are here to rise 
in support of the Clean Water Act that brings some common sense, good 
science, and responsibility, adding much needed reforms to the Clean 
Water Act, bringing a responsible approach to the Clean Water Act.
  I just want to point out a situation in my own district. The city of 
Lake Jackson, TX, is no stranger to the current tangle of regulatory 
policies when it comes to wetlands.
  Mayor Doris Williams has led that effort since the late eighties to 
see that the city be allowed to construct a public golf course, despite 
the U.S. Corps of Engineers' objections that Lake Jackson had not 
adequately defined all of its jurisdictional wetlands.
  You know what that is in this case? Footprints of cows. They had to 
go out and map every footprint from a cow on these 400 acres of 
property.
  This small city purchased 400 acres of property, and after 4 years of 
working with regulatory agencies at a cost of well over $100,000, a lot 
of money to this small city, the city is only now eligible to submit an 
application to the U.S. Corps of Engineers for an individual 404 permit 
to construct a public golf course.
  There is no guarantee at this time that a permit will be awarded, 
despite the city's significant efforts and investment. This bill brings 
the promise of reason and relief to communities such as Lake Jackson.
  The time has come for sensible environmental reform. The Clean Water 
Act Amendments of 1995 provides for risk-based regulation and requires 
the EPA to subject its mandates to both risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis. It offers flexibility to the States in their efforts 
to determine how each may best comply with Federal law and contribute 
to long-term pollution control. Support the bill.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island, [Mr. Reed].
  (Mr. REED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 961. The Clean 
Water Act has been instrumental in cleaning up our waters and 
protecting our environment. H.R. 961, if enacted, would devastate Rhode 
Island, both its environment and, just as importantly, its economy. We 
depend upon a clean Narragansett Bay to support not only environmental 
activities, but also our economy.
  In 1989, $42 million was generated by our commercial fishing 
industry. $11 million was generated by our shellfishing industry. If we 
lose the Clean Water Act, we will lose a lot of these profits and a lot 
of the jobs associated with them.
  We depend on tourism: $146 million in 1989 for marine recreation 
activities; $637 million in 1989 for the marine industry in general. 
Without the Clean Water Act, we will not be able to realize this type 
of economic activity.
  We have to support a strong Clean Water Act. This bill does not do 
that. We also have to provide the States the resources through the 
revolving fund to provide cleanup until Rhode Island and elsewhere. 
Again, this act does not do this. Mr. Chairman, we should reject this 
provision and support a Clean Water Act.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Pete Geren], a former member of the committee, now on 
temporary leave, who helped enormously on these issues last year.
  (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
this very important legislation. I want to commend my colleague, the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], and the chairman, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for bringing us to where we are today. 
A lot of work over a lot of years has made this day possible. The 
legislation we have today brings long overdue balance back to the 
implementation of this most important piece of environmental 
legislation.
  I would like to talk about a specific provision in the bill, the risk 
assessment and the cost benefit analysis provisions in H.R. 961. These 
provisions will result in greater improvements in water quality because 
they help to focus the Clean Water Act's requirements on significant 
risk reduction in a manner that provides the greatest amount of 
environmental benefit for the costs expended.
  Mr. Chairman, we have reached the point in every area of this 
Government where we cannot afford to waste a dime. It is only through 
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment that we can make sure that 
the scarce dollars are targeted for the most important environmental 
initiatives.
  For 20 years the Clean Water Act has been addressing the problems of 
water quality in this country. The act imposed technology that forced 
requirements on industry and municipalities and imposed additional 
water quality controls where technology controls were not enough. These 
have been successful in cleaning up our Nation's water. It is now time 
for more precision in order to better focus the resources that are put 
in play by this act.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 961 and commend 
those who have worked so hard to make this day possible.
                              {time}  1500

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has 17 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Nadler], a member of our committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act, since 1972 has been 
one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever enacted by this 
Congress. Yet many Members of this body 
[[Page H4704]]  are willing to throw away all the advances we have 
made.
  During the first 100 days of this Congress, we have heard a lot of 
talk of Government waste and commonsense reform. Apparently this talk 
applied only to legislation in the first 100 days.
  Two years ago, for example, we ordered a study by the National 
Academy of Sciences of wetlands to define just what a wetland is. The 
findings of that study were released just yesterday.
  What use has H.R. 961 made of this information? None. The findings of 
this multimillion dollar study are not reflected in this bill at all. 
We all knew the study results were promised for May, but the authors of 
H.R. 961 could not wait. Apparently whatever is driving this bill, it 
is not scientific information.
  The Nation's wetlands, of course, provide a vital source of 
filtration for our drinking water. But this bill attempts to redefine 
wetlands. H.R. 961 provides that only 20 percent of the wetlands in the 
region may be deemed a critical wetland. That leaves 80 percent of the 
wetlands open for development. Why is only 20 percent of our wetlands 
going to be protected? This arbitrary standard will deprive 80 percent 
of our wetlands of any protection and will deprive us of the benefits 
of that 80 percent.
  In New York City we have some of the cleanest drinking water in the 
United States. We have accomplished this not by building a massive 
filtration system but by protecting the integrity of our watershed and 
letting nature do its job. This bill throws out or makes voluntary many 
of the regulations that protect our watershed. If this dirty water bill 
passes, it is likely that New York City will have to spend between $6 
and $8 billion to build a filtration system to imitate what nature has 
already accomplished; is that right?
  Mr. Chairman, this is not fiscal conservatism. It is not anything we 
should do.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
961 and hope all our colleagues know how lucky California is to have 
the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  Nowhere will the bill's assault on clean water be felt more strongly 
than in my district. H.R. 961's many loopholes, waivers and exemptions 
would allow partially treated sewage to be dumped into Santa Monica 
Bay, a body of water only now recovering from years of neglect and 
pollution.
  The EPA has reviewed the ocean discharging provisions in H.R. 961 and 
has stated that they are neither scientifically nor environmentally 
justifiable and could result in harm to the people who depend upon the 
oceans and coasts for their livelihood and enjoyment.
  While some claim that economics necessitates granting sewage 
treatment exemptions, dirtier and unsafe oceans will actually hurt 
southern California's economy by keeping tourists away from our 
beaches.
  The bill does not just relax sewage treatment standards, it also 
dismantles the storm water and wetlands programs. Such disdain for 
these important clean water safeguards is especially troubling in Los 
Angeles where storm water or nonpoint source pollution is now 
recognized as a major threat to the health of Santa Monica Bay.
  Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, the Clean Water Act has been 
one of our most effective and most popular environmental statutes. In 
less than 20 weeks, the House will have effectively reversed this 
progress, if it passes H.R. 961. I urge my colleagues to stand up for 
clean water and to vote against this dirty water bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 961, 
the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, and urge my colleagues to support 
the bill as reported by the committee and to reject weakening 
amendments which seek to gut the bill and preserve the present 
regulatory status quo.
  I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] 
for his strong leadership and commitment to clean water.
  I would make the points that this bill is very important because it 
requires the EPA to subject its mandates and regulations to a risk 
assessment. The regulations must be performance-based. Market 
incentives can be used to achieve environmental goals. Environmental 
regulation should be based on the best science, and it is a major 
victory giving States and local governments control over runoff.
  Finally, let me say that it ends the wetlands regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean 
Water Amendments of 1995, and urge my colleagues to support the bill, 
as reported from committee, and to reject weakening amendments which 
seek to gut the bill and preserve the present regulatory status quo. I 
also want to thank Chairman Shuster for his strong leadership and 
commitment to Clean Water Act reform.
  For the benefit of my colleagues who do not serve on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and who may be confused by 
the rhetoric of the opponents of H.R. 961, I would like to take a few 
moments to set the record straight.
  H.R. 961 does not weaken the existing Clean Water Act. The 
committee's bill preserves the same water quality standards as the 
original Clean Water Act, it authorizes $3 billion annually for water 
quality programs, and it restores the Founding Father's notion of 
federalism by freeing State and local governments from one-size-fits-
all Federal mandates and empowering them with the flexibility to meet 
each State's unique regional needs and water quality challenges.
  Make no mistake, opponents of H.R. 961 do not trust State and local 
officials to do what is right for their communities. They only trust 
Federal Government bureaucrats to make responsible decisions. I do not 
agree with this type of big government arrogance. The farmers and 
landowners in my congressional district have had enough of unnecessary 
interference and costly mandates from Federal bureaucrats.
  In addition to stressing State and local management solutions, H.R. 
961 is consistent with the regulatory reform themes contained in the 
Republican Contract With America. H.R. 961 adopts a commonsense 
approach which requires EPA to complete a regulatory cost-benefit 
analysis before issuing new rules. The bill also protects States and 
localities from unfunded Federal mandates, and landowners will receive 
compensation for regulatory takings of private property. Some of these 
commonsense provisions have been in law for over a decade, but H.R. 961 
finally enforces them.
  H.R. 961 applies reason and consistency to the Federal wetlands 
permitting process. By consolidating the section 404 permitting process 
under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, landowners will 
not have to waste their resources and spend months, or sometimes years, 
trying to obtain the necessary permits from both EPA and the Army 
Corps. Title VIII of the bill outlines reasonable wetlands delineation 
standards, and represents sound, fair, and workable wetlands policy.
  Arguments that the House should refrain from passing wetlands 
delineation standards until the National Academy of Sciences study is 
complete, only reflect H.R. 961's opponents' desire to leave the 
current, fragmented, and overly burdensome wetlands permitting process 
in place. Congress has patiently waited for over 19 months from the 
time the NAS study was originally due, and the results of the study 
will still not resolve our Nation's wetlands permitting difficulties. 
Only the language in title VIII of H.R. 961 affirmatively resolves the 
wetlands permitting problem.
  H.R. 961 also prescribes progressive solutions to regulation of 
nonpoint source pollution and stormwater permitting. Indeed, common 
sense dictates that there is no need to require permits for stormwater 
discharge that does not come into contact with pollutants. Yet most 
importantly, the bill recognizes that voluntary compliance incentives 
are often more effective than punitive measures.
  My colleagues, programmatic change is often met with some resistance, 
as illustrated by supporters of the status quo who have been critical 
of many provisions in this legislation. But careful examination of H.R. 
961 reveals a bill that strikes a reasoned balance between funding 
realities and the national goals of the Clean Water Act. It is time to 
abandon the outdated logic which claims the Federal Government always 
knows what is best for States and localities, and to give States and 
the regulated community the flexibility to try 
[[Page H4705]]  new and innovative approaches to water pollution 
control.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the alarmist 
rhetoric of the other side, and to support H.R. 961.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
  (Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
legislation before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee's efforts to improve the Clean Water Act. 
I applaud Chairman Shuster and all of the members of the committee who 
worked on this proposal.
  There is no doubt that America enjoys extremely clean water. However, 
the problem with the current statute is not the intent: maintaining 
clean water is an admirable and necessary goal. The problem is its 
rigid standards. It imposes Federal mandates without regard to 
individual State and local circumstances and, ironically, it exempts 
Federal facilities from compliance. H.R. 961 goes a long way toward 
correcting these flaws.
  State and local water systems as well as businesses are crying for 
relief from the current Federal standards. The one-size-fits-all 
attitude has created nightmare compliance scenarios for these entities. 
The clean water Americans currently enjoy will not be sacrificed. 
Rather, the Federal Government will relinquish its stranglehold and 
allow State and local officials to determine how to best achieve this 
worthy goal.
  Most importantly, H.R. 961 brings the Federal Government itself into 
compliance with Clean Water Act standards. Currently, the Federal 
Government is allowed to taint the very water it claims to protect, all 
under the guise of sovereign immunity.
  H.R. 961 would end this double standard and ensure full compliance at 
all Federal facilities. At last, communities that happen to be near 
polluted Federal lands will benefit from the clean water all other 
citizens enjoy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee's thoughtful efforts to improve clean 
water regulation and its endeavor to end Federal exemption from 
environmental laws.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 961 
and urge my colleagues to reject this overreaching piece of 
legislation. The Clean Water Act is really one of our Nation's most 
effective environmental laws, one of our Nation's most effective 
environmental laws.
  In 1972, the year of the Clean Water Act's birth, only one our of 
three rivers are clean enough for people to fish or swim. Now, the EPA 
estimates that over 60 percent of our waters are clean enough for 
fishing and swimming.
  I am the first to acknowledge that it is not perfect, and that 
sometimes it imposes rigid and unneeded requirements that it need not 
do. Unfortunately, the bill as written fails to target what is broken 
in the Clean Water Act and build on what works. Instead it throws out 
good along with the bad.
  H.R. 961 would remove 60 percent of our Nation's remaining wetlands 
from any level of protection. It would weaken standards that protect 
our waters from industrial pollution by creating dozens of waivers and 
loopholes. And frankly, it would repeal the entire coastal zone 
nonpoint source pollution program which on the coastal counties of 
California would severely hamper the State of California's efforts to 
preserve the waters off of our coast so that they can be indeed 
recreational and economically viable for the fish industry.
  These changes do not make environmental sense if they are going to 
gut the bill. And they certainly do not make any economic sense.
  The drafters of H.R. 961 have created a bill that accounts for the 
cost of everything but the value of nothing. I have no doubt that H.R. 
961 will save a great many people a great deal of money. But is this 
good value for future generations?
  Clearly, the answer is no. Future generations will pay dearly in many 
ways to recover the environmental and economic damage that H.R. 961 
will allow.
  The best feature of the Clean Water Act is that it is a prevention 
program. It stops pollution before it gets into our waters. H.R. 961 
would make the Clean Water Act more like the Superfund, one of the most 
broken environmental programs. It litigates first and cleans up later.
  I urge my colleagues to support the substitute offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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 want to compliment the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] on bringing this great bill up. I rise today 
to express my strong support for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments 
Act reauthorization.
  Over the next 3 days, Members of Congress who supported the 
regulatory reforms of the Contract With America will have an 
opportunity to put those general principles into existing environmental 
statute. H.R. 961 restores a proper regulatory balance between Federal, 
State, and local governments, and it was developed with unprecedented 
input from the real environmental experts, men and women from local 
governments and water systems.
  It includes individual property rights protection, risk assessment, 
cost-benefit analysis, and protects against unfunded mandates.
  Ultimately, H.R. 961 is a choice between those who believe good 
government should always regulate more and those who believe government 
should regulate smarter.
  I believe government should regulate smarter, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 961.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has 11 
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has 
9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] 
has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has the 
right to close the debate.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of the Clean Water 
Act Amendments of 1995 and against the so-called Boehlert-Roemer 
substitute. Parochially, let me say that this bill has tremendous 
positive implications for both rural America and the critical 
agricultural economy that sustains these same rural communities. But 
this is also a very genuine bipartisan effort led by the distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I welcome 
this opportunity to finally address both the needs and the solutions 
that are the subject of this legislation.
  The commonsense approach found in this bill is long overdue. I want 
to commend the chairman for his leadership in bringing this bill before 
this body. With this being the first major piece of environmental 
legislation in the new Congress, I am impressed by the broad, 
bipartisan support behind this bill.
                              {time}  1530

  Mr. Chairman, we all agree that adequate attention must be given to 
preserving and protecting our environment, but I believe that the 
pendulum has swung way too far in obstructing the control of this 
Nation's private property owners over their own land. There must be an 
appropriate balance, and this bill restores balance. Anyone who 
believes that private landowners should retain reasonable control over 
private land as guaranteed by our Constitution should vote for this 
bill.
  [[Page H4706]] In addition, for far too long, Federal wetlands law 
has been the primary land management tool for any Federal agency that 
wants to dictate its own wetlands policy. Without congressional debate 
or public comment, various government agencies and departments that 
promulgate our wetlands rules and regulations have acted freely in 
holding farmers and small business owners hostage to their wetlands 
definition. The fact of the matter is that the contrast between 
pristine wetlands and a mud puddle is not distinguishable by the 
various Federal agencies dealing with wetlands. The approach taken in 
this bill resolves the ever-changing definition of what constitutes a 
wetland by defining them according to their value and function. This 
bill also provides needed reforms in the current regulatory system and 
directs Federal regulators to consider the value of wetlands from 
competing social, economic, and environmental needs.
  In other words, true wetlands have to be wet. And if they are 
determined to be a pristine wetland, they are protected. And if they 
are taken by the Government, then landowners will be paid for their 
economic losses. It is a pretty basic concept, but one that the Federal 
Government has had a hard time figuring out.
  The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995 provides for voluntary, 
incentive-based programs in local, State, and Federal partnership to 
advance clean water goals with nonpoint source pollution. It also gives 
State and local officials the flexibility to manage and control 
stormwater like other forms of runoff which helps reduce the high cost 
of unfunded mandates. Finally, it requires the Environmental Protection 
Agency [EPA] to subject its mandates and regulations to risk assessment 
and cost benefit analysis.
  For the first time in a long time, we are successfully working 
together at all levels of government to meet our water quality needs. 
We do not need straitjackets to have clean drinking water, nor should 
we allow Federal bureaucrats who know the least about farming or 
operating a small business to deem what's a wetland from their 
Washington offices. Through its increased flexibility, the Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995 benefits farmers, businesses, consumers, local and 
State governments, and their taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, any last-minute reactions to derail and weaken this 
bipartisan effort, whether they be in the form of amendments or so-
called substitutes, should be voted down. Such efforts are a breach of 
our Contract With America and renege on the need for smart regulation, 
good science, cost-effective risk reduction, and commonsense. The 
Washington bureaucracy and professional environmental elitists have 
been ramming these edicts down the throats of the American taxpayer for 
too long. It is time for the farmer, the rancher, and the small 
business owner to finally have a say in the process, and we have 
provided for that forum in this legislation. Vote for the Clean Water 
Amendments Act of 1995 and vote against any and all efforts to weaken 
it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, clean water is not just an issue of us 
versus them. It is about our health, it is about our environment, it is 
about a quality of life. For many of us, it is about jobs. Since 1972, 
the Clean Water Act has made great strides in cleaning up our waters. 
Today 60 percent of our waterways are clean.
  I remember as a boy taking my bike, driving down to Lake St. Clair to 
go swimming, and seeing a sign on the beaches, on the fences by the 
beaches, saying ``No swimming today--pollution.'' We have cleaned up 
about 60 percent of that problem. The bad news is that the remaining 40 
percent of our water is still polluted.
  In the past few years alone we have seen 104 people die in Milwaukee 
due to drinking water poisoned with cryptosporidium. In my 
community beaches were closed 2 months last summer, and businesses lost 
millions of dollars, due to water so choked off by bacteria and 
seaweeds that ducks could literally walk across it. If anything, we 
should be strengthening the Clean Water Act, not gutting it. However, 
the bill before us today will stop a quarter century of progress dead 
in its tracks.
  Mr. Chairman, why do we want to make it easier to poison or lakes and 
our streams? Why do we want cities and factories dumping raw sewage 
into the same lakes and rivers we get our drinking water from? Because 
a few corporations and lobbyists oppose the safeguards we have now? 
Does anybody really believe these people are looking out for the public 
interest and public safety first?
  In the Great Lakes region, we have seen recent stories of some 
mothers who ate fish from Lake Michigan during pregnancy and are 
finding that their children are having developmental problems. Instead 
of finding answers, however, some people are now suggesting that we 
weaken the Great Lakes water quality initiative, which was put together 
so painstakingly with Republicans and Democrats during the Bush 
administration and into this administration over the last few years.
  I sure hope this is not the case, but Mr. Chairman, after all this 
time, can we not agree that making our waterways safe benefits us all, 
especially business?
  When Lake St. Clair, which borders on my district, was shut down for 
2 months last summer, it did not just affect the quality of life, it 
devastated business. Local marinas and restaurants, businesses which 
bring in over $1 billion each year from boaters and beachgoers, 
suffered losses in the millions. When we wondered how it happened, we 
found out that State inspections were lax, sewer overflow discharges 
unchecked, and in some instances, Mr. Chairman, in some cases, State 
permits had not been renewed in nearly 20 years.
  I understand the desire to send responsibility back to the States. 
That is the movement we are in now at the Federal level. However, we 
have to strike some sense of healthy balance here. It seems to me that 
a bill written by lobbyists on behalf of some of America's most 
notorious polluters takes us exactly in the wrong direction. Therefore, 
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for common sense, vote for 
clean water, vote ``no'' on this irresponsible bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise the parties of the time 
remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] has 6 minutes 
remaining; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of 
misinformation floating around about this bill. I just want to briefly 
touch on a couple of them.
  I represent a prairie pothole region up in the northern part of the 
United States, and there is letter that has been put out by a wildlife 
group that claims that there are going to be, in this bill, changes 
that are going to devastate these prairie pothole regions. That is 
absolutely not the case. The swampbuster, which is what governs most of 
our problems, is not even included in this bill.
  Second, there is an exemption for the prairie pothole region, so 
clearly, this letter was written by somebody who has not read the bill 
and does not understand what the situation is.
  The other thing that is thrown around about this bill is this is 
somehow or another going to allow industry to pollute. If we believe 
that, then we are going to believe that the EPA or the State 
Environmental Protection Agency is going to allow this to happen, 
because in this bill, they have to sign off for these changes.
  I just hope that people would read the bill before they engage in all 
of this rhetoric that really, in my judgment, misses the point. I ask 
support for the bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, as I listened a few moments ago to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], I was struck with 
something. That is, yes to his question that we have had in this 
country tremendous improvements in the water supply and our waterways 
over the last 20 years or more, but let us ask ourselves, why have we 
seen those changes? Why have the improvements come from? Have they come 
from the basic Clean Water Act that we passed over a generation ago? 
The answer is yes.
  Have those improvements, has that cleaner water, come, though, from 
the 
[[Page H4707]]  numerous additional amendments, regulations, and 
bureaucrats that have been foisted on our communities, our businesses, 
and our local governments since that time? The answer to that question 
is no.
  What this bill does, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, is get 
us back to where we ought to be, and that is with the basic legislation 
that is good, and yet does not saddle our communities, our business, 
and ultimately, the taxpayers in this country, with needless regulation 
that does not do any good, other than raise the cost to our people. Let 
us bring balance, let us bring rationality back to this process.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], our very distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to 
defeat this bill, to let all of America know that when it comes to the 
water that we all drink every day, the water we use to cook, and to 
feed to our children, there can be no compromise, and we can allow no 
special interest agenda.
  The fact is this so-called clean water bill is anything but clean. It 
rolls back decades of environmental controls designed with one purpose 
in mind: to make sure that the water that comes out of our faucets, the 
water that we swim in and bathe in, is clean and safe.
  That is not a Democratic or a Republican goal. Basic health and 
safety, freedom from pollution and contamination, is something that 
knows no bound of party or politics. However, in my view, this bill 
serves an interest that is outside the political process. It serves the 
interests of industrial polluters looking to save a few pennies, even 
if that means contaminated water and disease for people.
  If Members ask me, that is not what the American voter voted for last 
November: polluted drinking water, contaminated soil in which to grow 
good food, filthy water in which to swim.
  Some will try to argue that there is no national role in clean water, 
that States should set their own standards. However, clean water is a 
national issue. My town of St. Louis, MO, gets all of its drinking 
water from the Mississippi River, which originates in other States. If 
those States allow pollution, we in St. Louis drink the consequences.
  At the same time, I know that this bill will cost my State millions 
of dollars in lost sewage treatment funds, money that we desperately 
need to keep our water clean. Mr. Chairman, if we vote for this bill, 
we will have more than dirty water. We will have an unclean conscience. 
This is a bill of special interests, by the special interests, for the 
special interests. In my opinion, that is reason enough to vote a 
resounding no.
  Then with our drinking water saved from the special interest assault, 
we can roll up our sleeves and go back to work for the people for a 
change. I urge Members, in the interests of having safe drinking water 
in our towns and villages all across this country, to defeat this bill. 
We can do better.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] is recognized 
for the balance of his time, a period of 5 minutes.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I wish the leadership in my party, and I 
wish my friends in the other party, could all take a short journey with 
me right at this instant down the mighty Mississippi River and across a 
marsh to a small town that many of Members would not recognize, but it 
is named after the gentleman in that portrait, Lafayette. I wish they 
could stand for a few moments in what is my home.
  In the back of my home are lakes. In the back of my home are marshes. 
In the back of my home are cypress trees. I am quite familiar with all 
of them. In the back of my home are the last memories I have of the 
last time I saw my grandmother. In the back of my home are the 
footsteps still left by my father when he filmed a television 
commercial, so proud that his son had not only finished school, which 
he was never able to do because of the Depression, but had gone on to 
be a Congressman, which to him meant public service. The place is a 
piece of land, but it is inextricably tied to my family.
  I wish I could take those folks to whom land is a few square feet and 
a high-rise apartment, to understand the boundaries and the linkages 
between individuals who plant it and plow it and love it, and those who 
believe it could be better handled by regulators who have never in all 
likelihood seen it, and assuredly would not understand it.
  My mother still lives in that home. She cannot understand why a lake 
that we dug would be treated as a wetland when it was not before we did 
it. To her a wetland was made in the marsh by God, not dug by tractors 
and Caterpillars. She thinks there is a difference between the two.
  My mother, who understands the marshes of Louisiana, which are indeed 
class A wetlands, as they are in the marshes of Maryland, cannot 
understand why the parking lot of a shopping center in the middle of 
our towns been declared by the Corps of Engineers as the jurisdictional 
waters of the United States, nor can I understand how anyone could 
represent a congressional district, with its half million people, 
almost any where and not understand that what we have in this debate is 
a clash of rights of individuals versus powers of Government.
  I cannot imagine anyone would support a substitute that insists upon 
having not one, but 5 Federal agencies veto the actions of potentially 
7 other Federal agencies, and want to say that this bill that does 
nothing but streamline and have a single stop with a single Federal 
agency is for special interests.
                              {time}  1530

  The folks who shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico are special to me. The 
folks who live there are special to me. The folks who vote there, and 
send me to Congress to be their voice, want somebody to say enough is 
enough, and there is a difference between the waterfowl lands that we 
know and hunt and the lands in individual residential subdivisions that 
are already for years before of no more ecological value but are very 
important, and property rights to the individuals who now own them.
  I wish somebody could take that journey. Quite frankly, I agree with 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. I wish I could go back a 
decade, because right now I am being instructed by folks who cannot 
understand how to stop crime in their big city on how to do a crime 
bill, for folks who where I live have been pretty managing and able to 
have power and rights in their sheriffs to do that for some time, and 
who do not want cities to teach them how to fight crime, and who sure 
do not want Manhattan and New York City to tell them about the 
environment.
  They are especially tired of hearing about people that live in 
Washington DC, which by the way is a marsh, and which under any 
definition would be a wetland, but no one here who is a bureaucrat 
would dare treat the people in Washington like they treat the people in 
Lafayette, LA, on exactly the same kind of property.
  The folks at the EPA who paid for the scientists to do the study talk 
about how useful it is. Well, if I paid for it, I would expect it to be 
real nice to me, too. Instead I have people who actually paid for it 
because they wrote the checks for the tax dollars, and who are 
explaining to the EPA that they work for them and that they ought to 
have some of their interest in mind.
  I wish we could take that journey. It would be more philosophical 
than it would be in the 1,200 miles of distance, and it would have more 
education than the combined degrees of all of the scientists who 
prepared the report, and it would distinguish for you the clear and 
simple decision to be made in supporting the Clean Water Act.
  Clean water is for people, people who in many cases own property, who 
care about the quality of life there more than any of these whose 
greatest desire is to exert bureaucratic control over the future of 
their lives. They believe more in their hometown than they believe in 
Washington. They believe more in their State than they believe in 
Washington, and they are right. That will be the degree to which we 
measure the independence and individuality of this vote on this floor. 
I hope Members will join me in voting yes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  [[Page H4708]] Mr. Chairman, I was astonished by some of the comments 
of my good friend from Michigan, the minority whip, and indeed the 
gentleman from Missouri, the minority leader. They perhaps were not on 
the floor when we quoted directly from the National Governors 
Association and others, to have them say that this bill is written and 
supported by polluters and by special interests.
  Let me share again who some of those so-called polluters and special 
interests are. I guess the National Governors Association are polluters 
and special interests, because we have a letter from them saying, ``We 
urge approval of this bill.''
  I suppose the National Association of Counties, National League of 
Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors are polluters and special 
interests, because we have this letter from them saying that when 
together we represent all of the Nation's elected officials and charges 
that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection and that it guts the 
Clean Water Act are totally unfounded.
  I suppose, according to their definition, the Association of State 
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators are polluters and 
special interests, because we have a letter from them saying with its 
new comprehensive approaches to nonpoint source watershed and water 
management, H.R. 961 sets forth a framework that better protects this 
Nation's waterways.
  I support the Water Environment Federation, made up of 42,000 water 
quality specialists, are polluters and special interests, because we 
have a letter from them saying, ``We, therefore, want to again urge you 
to support the Clean Water Amendments of 1995 on the House floor.''
  So by the definition of my liberal friends on the Democratic side, I 
guess the special interests and the polluters are the Governors and the 
majors and the county leaders and the people responsible for seeing to 
it that clean water is maintained across our States.
  However, let us suppose for a moment all the terrible things that we 
have heard about this legislation are true. Under this legislation, 
every State has the absolute right to impose whatever stricter 
standards it chooses to impose in its State.
  So assuming the very worst, the States still have the right to impose 
whatever standards they choose to impose.
  Yes, the bottom line here is what our friends on the other side are 
embracing, is the ``Washington knows best'' crowd. That is the argument 
here today. Does Washington know best or do our States and our 
localities know best?
  That is the fundamental issue, and it is for that reason that we 
should support this legislation, we should reject the Boehlert 
substitute. We should support this legislation because it indeed goes a 
long way toward further improving the clean water of America.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes, the balance of our time, 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy.]
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking member, for the 
tremendous work he has done on trying to protect America's clean water.
  This bill that has become known as the Clean Water Act is fast 
becoming the dirty polluters protection act. The fact is that we have a 
nation today where 40 percent of our water fails to meet State 
designated water standards for swimming, fishing, drinking, and other 
uses. If we are truly interested in protecting this country, not only 
for our generation but for future generations, the last thing in the 
world we ought to be doing is allowing this country to create dirtier 
water that will ultimately affect the basic fundamental health care of 
this country.
  In this bill, we see specific standards being rolled back. The water 
quality standards will be downgraded. There will be a rollback on the 
point source pollution issue, which means that big corporations will be 
able to pollute the drains that go and take water directly into our 
harbors, and the ratepayers that pay for the sewage treatment will be 
charged directly for the pollution that the biggest companies in 
America will go ahead and continue. We see the storm water runoff 
program again being gutted; the nonpoint source pollution program being 
gutted.
  I heard the chairman of the committee suggest that the mayors and the 
Governors are all in favor of this bill, but the fact of the matter is 
he knows right well that they oppose unanimously the provisions in this 
pertaining to wetlands. The wetlands provisions will absolutely gut the 
budget of America. If we end up having to pay the billions and billions 
of dollars which this bill calls for to the owners of wetlands that 
right now are needed to protect the fundamental environment of this 
country, it will not only wreck our environment but it will wreck the 
fundamental economy of this country.
  Therefore, let's recognize this bill for what it is. This bill is 
nothing more than a transfer, again, of power from the ordinary 
citizens of this country to the biggest corporations in America, saying 
we will turn a blind eye to what they do, to what the polluters do, in 
order to look out after the corporations. The Clean Water Act is going 
to be flushed down the toilet of the Republican agenda.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time for 
closing the debate to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], the 
distinguished vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] is recognized 
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, several months ago dozens of us were sent to 
Washington, DC, to try to bring back to this institution balance and 
reason. The American people want the pendulum to come back to the 
middle. We have gone too far with regulation. We have gone too far with 
litigation. We have gone too far with taxation. I could go on and on. 
The pendulum needs to come back to the middle.
  We are not, as you hear from the other side, rolling back and gutting 
and destroying and all of these emotional words. We are bringing the 
pendulum back to the middle and preserving clean water and doing the 
right thing, but making it tolerable for our free society.
  I am proud to come from Chattanooga, TN, a city that at one time was 
on the dirty air list in this country. Through a spirit of cooperation 
from the private sector and some government regulations--yes, some but 
not too many--we have gone from the dirty air list in this country in 
Chattanooga, TN to the clean air list. We are now becoming a model with 
respect to water quality and the improvements there in Chattanooga, but 
it is done out of a desire to cooperate between the private sector and 
the public sector, and it is not a result of Federal Government 
micromanagement in every single affair of our citizenry in this 
country.
  H.R. 961 maintains our commitment to clean water while honoring our 
constitutionally protected private property rights. Every mud puddle in 
America should not be a wetland. We do not live in Eastern Europe or 
the Soviet Union. We must protect our constitutional rights. Sometimes 
in order to understand where we need to go, we need to look back.
  Today I reference Thomas Jefferson's quote. He said, ``A wise and 
frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another but 
shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuit of 
industry and improvement.''
  The Clean Water Amendments of 1995 meet Thomas Jefferson's charge of 
the balance of regulation.
  Back home, since I came here, the folks say to me, ``Isn't there 
anything that Democrats and Republicans can agree on? Do they always 
have to go to the House floor and say they're the worst and we're the 
best and engage in all this partisan division?''
  Folks, this is it. This is a historic piece of legislation, and 
dozens of reasonable Democrats are going to join us. I worked on the 
subcommittee and the committee level with these reasonable Democrats 
and they led the charge: good men and women from all across the country 
saying this is a case where the government has become too big and 
[[Page H4709]]  intrusive, and we cannot continue to thrive as a free 
society with these onerous regulations.
  Bring the pendulum back to middle. All of my reasonable colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle join us in support of H.R. 961. We will do the 
right thing together.
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill 
before us today. Most of us agree that the Clean Water Act has been 
instrumental in cleaning up our nation's waters, yet we are debating a 
bill that, if enacted, would move us backwards and undercut the 
progress that we have made to ensure that our nation's waters are 
drinkable, swimmable, and fishable.
  If enacted, H.R. 961 would devastate Rhode Island. Rhode Island's 420 
miles of coastline, beaches, and water have long been a destination for 
tourists. Indeed, Narragansett Bay has played an integral role in my 
state's historical, social, and financial development. In 1989 alone, 
commercial fishing revenues generated over $42 million, marine 
recreation generated $146 million, the marine industry generated $637 
million, and in 1992, the shellfishing industry yielded a harvest worth 
$11 million. Total revenues associated with Narragansett Bay exceeded 
$1 billion for the State of Rhode Island in 1989.
  This sort of economic stability is predicated on clean water. 
However, there is still more work to be done. Beaches are monitored but 
periodically exceed safe water quality tests. And bans against 
shellfishing in Rhode Island still occur all too frequently. In 
December of 1992, 2,800 acres of prime winter shellfish harvesting 
areas were closed, causing a loss of $1 million in revenues. The state 
was able to begin to address this environmental and economic disaster 
because of the support provided under the Clean Water Act's coastal 
nonpoint source management program, the National Estuary Program, and 
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
  In 1994, the state was able to re-open part of the shellfish 
harvesting area. However, 40 percent of the shellfish beds are still 
periodically closed due to coastal nonpoint source pollution, 
stormwater runoff, and combined sewer overflows. Rhode Island's share 
of our nation's total quahog landings was nearly 50 percent in 1986. In 
1993, it had dropped to 13 percent. Seventy percent of this drop was 
due to a decrease in water quality. What this means is that every time 
it rains, shellfishermen in Rhode Island are reminded that the problem 
has not been fixed yet.
  Rhode Islanders also recognize the importance of a clean bay. A 1992 
poll by the state Department of Environmental Management and the 
Narragansett Bay Project found that 98 percent of those surveyed 
believed that Narragansett Bay is important to Rhode Island, and 93 
percent said that it is important to take steps to reduce pollution in 
Narragansett Bay.
  And today we are debating a bill, which, if enacted, would repeal the 
Clean Water Act's coastal nonpoint source management program. It does 
not contain any of the language of the DeLauro-Lowey Water Pollution 
Control and Estuary Restoration Act. And, it eliminates the storm water 
permit program.
  Our water resources are already being pushed to their limits. 
Population in coastal areas continues to increase. In fact, by the year 
2010, Rhode Island's population is expected to grow by 10 percent, with 
47 percent of this growth occurring in coastal areas. This increase in 
population, along with development and pollution, puts more strain on 
our natural resources, particularly estuaries. And 75 percent of the 
fish caught by sportsmen and fishermen are estuarine-dependent.
  The Clean Water Act has meant jobs, increased revenues for my state, 
and an increased quality of life for the residents of Rhode Island, as 
well as many other coastal states. The Clean Water Act provides states 
with the tools they need to combat the problems that still pollute our 
waterways. We should increase funding for the State Revolving Funds, 
but we need to do it in a meaningful way.
  Now is not the time to rollback regulations that have improved our 
nation's economy, environmental resources, and health. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my deep concern 
about the Clean Water Act amendments we are considering this week. 
Twenty years ago, Congress passed the landmark Clean Water Act that is 
responsible for remarkable improvement in the quality of our Nation's 
streams, rivers, and oceans. The Clean Water Act is a success story. It 
demonstrates the ability of Government to positively address a serious 
national problem. Today, economic development and revitalization, as 
well as tourism, are thriving along once threatened waterways. And 
while I encourage careful scrutiny of Federal agency actions, a balance 
must be struck between economic interests and Federal regulations 
affecting our water resources. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 does not strike 
this balance and simply goes too far.
  As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Management 
and a member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I have 
serious problems with the provisions of H.R. 961 that would eliminate 
protection for a large percentage of American wetlands and 
significantly relax our national water quality standards.
  Wetland protection is not just a local issue. It affects all parts of 
our country and provides billions of dollars in economic benefits. 
Wetlands are vital for both flood control and water quality as well as 
providing the spawning grounds for fish that are important to the 
commercial and recreational fishing industries. Our Nation's coastal 
communities, that support a multimillion-dollar fishing and tourism 
industry, are dependent on the continued safety and protection of our 
water resources.
  As a member representing this nation's largest port city, I am 
fearful that H.R. 961 will halt the progress the Clean Water Act has 
achieved in cleaning up the Hudson River, New York Harbor, and Long 
Island Sound. Over the past 20 years, the Clean Water Act has been 
successful in both improving the quality of our Nation's ocean and 
coastal waters and in renewing the public's faith in Government's 
ability to protect our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, clean water is crucial to ensuring public health, 
welfare, and quality of life. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-
conceived measure.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 
961, the Clean Water Act amendments, even knowing that it is a flawed 
bill. While this legislation accomplishes a number of positive things, 
it also unnecessarily retreats on some important clean water 
initiatives. Nonetheless, no other clean water legislation can secure 
sufficient votes to pass this House and failure to address the 
inadequacies of the current Clean Water Act is not an alternative which 
I can support.
  It is important to continue to move the clean water debate forward, 
and it is my hope that the Senate and conference committee will improve 
this legislation so that the final version of this bill will be a more 
carefully deliberated and moderate legislative effort.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961 and commend 
Chairman Shuster and the other members of our committee who have put 
this comprehensive reform package together.
  Our committee spent months working with governors, state 
legislatures, local governments, and the regulated community to learn 
what the problems are with the current law and how to solve them. We 
kept what is best in the Clean Water Act and provided the necessary 
funding to tackle the really difficult problems like nonpoint source 
pollution.
  Our bill is a bipartisan bill with strong committee support, 
introduced by 8 Republicans and 8 Democrats, and passed the 
subcommittee 19 to 5 and full committee 42 to 16.
  Don't be fooled, this bill has strong support at home and in 
Congress.
  As you listen to the debate over the next 3 days, remember what this 
past election taught us. The American people want a government that 
achieves results. They want a government that respects their rights, 
their property and returns authority to the States.
  This bill does all of this: reforms the disastrous wetlands program; 
sets strong water quality criteria that are also cost effective; 
provides States the flexibility to meet these standards; respects 
private property rights; and most importantly, it has the money to 
achieve its goals.

                  wetlands example--1992 ventura flood

  Let me give you one example of why we need to pass HR 961:
  In 1992 Ventura County tried for months--unsuccessfully--to get a 404 
wetlands permit to clear vegetation out of a flood control channel. The 
county knew that a severe rainstorm would cause terrible flooding if 
the channel was clogged with plants. The EPA called the area a wetland 
and spent months processing the permit. When torrential rains finally 
came, Ventura was forced to have Governor Wilson and two Congressman 
secure an emergency wetlands permit. The county set bulldozers into the 
channel during the storm and a few hours before the flood hit.
  The flooding devastated communities and took several lives.
  It is clear that any program that results in these problems must be 
reformed.

                   cost effective goals and standards

  Our bill sets tough water quality goals for the States to achieve; 
allows the Federal Government to enforce water quality criteria; 
requires EPA to consider costs and benefits; and makes risk assessment 
a prominent element of water quality decisionmaking.

                           state flexibility

  As a former city engineer, I know that the solutions to water quality 
problems in my district are different than New York's solutions. 
[[Page H4710]]  The goal is the same, but the ways to get there are as 
diverse as the communities in our country. That's why we need 
flexibility in the law.
  Our bill recognizes this diversity and gives States the tools to 
achieve Federal goals:
  Authorizes pollutant trading within watersheds.
  Allows States to develop watershed protection programs that integrate 
nonpoint source and point source solutions to reach Federal water 
quality goals.
  Again, if the States fail to improve water quality, then the Federal 
Government can enforce the Federal criteria.

                        private property rights

  The American people are tired of a Federal Government that fails to 
recognize the economic repercussions of its actions.
  Our bill is consistent with HR 965 which already passed the House.
  Requires the Federal Government to compensate landowners whose 
property value has been diminished 20 percent or more by a Federal 
wetland restriction.
  This does not prevent important health or safety regulations, but 
recognizes the constitutional requirement of private property 
compensation.

                    funding--ends unfunded mandates

  Perhaps the strongest argument that our bill improves water quality 
is that it gives States the money to achieve Federal water quality 
goals: It authorizes $15 billion over 5 years for the State revolving 
loan fund; authorizes $1 billion over 5 years for nonpoint source 
funding, and $750 million over 5 years for state administration block 
grants.
  Many Members would have you believe that you can't have clean water 
without bureaucratic nightmares, burdensome regulations, or unfunded 
mandates. But you can. The American people demand it. And this bill 
will give it to you.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support the chairman's bill and 
oppose weakening amendments.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, for many years now I have been 
advocating that we make use of scientific and technological information 
in the formulation and implementation of public policy. Listening to 
the many calls for, and endorsements of, the use of sound science that 
have been made in the 104th Congress you would think that I would feel 
some sense of accomplishment. Instead, I am shocked and appalled at how 
far the rhetoric has diverged from reality. The gap has never been 
wider. Although many supporters of this legislation have emphasized to 
me their wish to have public policy based upon sound science I cannot 
reconcile the concept of sound science with the legislation before us. 
H.R. 961 contains provisions that demonstrate a flagrant disregard for 
that state of scientific and technological knowledge in the area of 
water quality. In many cases, it seems the Committee went out of its 
way to ignore scientific information. The wetlands classification 
provisions of this bill are but one illustration of this.
  Yesterday, the National Academy of Sciences released their study, 
``Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries.'' This review of wetland 
delineation was undertaken at the request of Congress. Anyone who takes 
the time to read through this report or its Executive Summary cannot 
possibly claim that the wetland classification and delineation scheme 
contained in this bill has a basis in science. It does not. H.R. 961 
contains a political wetland classification scheme that is designed to 
undermine both federal and state protection of these valuable 
ecosystems. Defend this scheme, if you wish, on its political merits, 
but since science was left out of the process of drafting it, be 
consistent and leave science out of the defense of it.
  In looking at this bill, there are many provisions that have been 
driven by a number of factors: politics, special interests, short-term 
concerns about the costs and benefits as they affect water pollution-
prone industries, and a blind faith that good intentions will maintain 
water quality. However, I find little evidence that science or 
commonsense were included and this bill shows a staggering lack of 
consideration of the many factors embodied by the term ``social 
justice.'' Every human being, every household on this planet requires 
water. Every one.
  There are many competing uses for our water resources, and they 
should all be carefully considered and weighed against one another. The 
discharge of wastewater into water bodies is one of these uses, and it 
is one that has the potential to preclude other critical uses if not 
carefully monitored and managed. Numerous provisions in this bill give 
more consideration to minimizing the cost to polluters of controlling 
pollution discharges than they do to minimizing the social and economic 
costs of degrading our water supplies, thus elevating the disposal use 
above all others. To make cheap pollution disposal the primary focus of 
this country's water quality policy is totally irresponsible and 
scientifically, economically, and socially indefensible.
  The Clean Water Act is one of our greatest public health and 
environmental success stories. There are some challenges that remain, 
and there are sections of the law that should be altered to address the 
achievement of water quality in a more cost-effective manner. H.R. 961 
does not do this. I cannot believe that after all the public money that 
has been spent to clean up air, water, and land when we have failed to 
adequately control disposal of pollutants that we will now proceed to 
return to failed policies that promoted pollution rather than 
prevention.
  Our constituents do not want to return to the days before the Clean 
Water Act was implemented in this country. Clean water is essential for 
public health and economic health. Enactment of this bill will be 
devastating to both. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this bill, 
and to insist that the Members of the Transportation Committee draft a 
responsible piece of legislation that balances all competing uses and 
all human needs for water in an equitable and truly cost-effective 
manner.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 961, the Clean Water 
Amendments of 1995, a bill that would turn back progress of the Clean 
Water Act and undermine two decades of progress in improving the Great 
Lakes--an important recreational and economic resource to the people of 
my State. Millions of jobs are directly or indirectly dependent upon 
water from that body of surface water. H.R. 961 would threaten the 
economic and environmental resources that the lakes provide.
  I am concerned that H.R. 961 eliminates the concept of a level 
playing field for businesses in the Great Lakes basin, the basis of the 
Great Lakes Governors' Agreement of 1986 and the Great Lakes 
initiative. H.R. 961 allows a State to adopt some provisions of the 
recent Great Lakes initiative, and not others. Clearly, this creates 
interstate competition based on willingness to degrade the environment.
  H.R. 961 also allows companies and municipalities to avoid compliance 
with proven and accepted environmental standards and in effect rewards 
those who have done the least to prevent pollution with the greatest 
opportunity to reduce the cost of wastewater treatment. Indeed, time 
and time again, this bill guts the Clean Water Act and seriously 
weakens the Great Lakes water quality initiative--a landmark program 
designed to ensure that all States within the Great Lakes basin have 
uniform water quality standards to protect these national treasures--
the Great Lakes.
  Mr. Speaker, many of the problems facing the Great Lakes are 
interstate in character and cannot be addressed by any State acting 
alone. Over the past two decades my State and others have come to rely 
upon the State-Federal partnership that is the cornerstone of our 
system of public health protection. This concept of partnership was the 
basis for the cooperative effort of eight States to develop a water 
quality guidance program to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. The 
overall objective is a consistent, basin-wide water quality standard 
for the protection of human health, aquatic life, and for the first 
time, wildlife. This bill would significantly erode that partnership.
  H.R. 961 steps backward, away from the call for cost-effective best 
management practices at the earliest possible date. The new deadline 
for action would be 20 years from now--a generation away. At the same 
time some industries would continue to release significant amounts of 
hazardous substances into the lakes.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit that now is not the time to weaken the current 
clean water law which has been highly effective in improving the 
Nation's water resources. The argument that the Clean Water Act has 
become more burdensome than pollution itself is without foundation. 
What is clear, and rests on a secure factual foundation, is that the 
Clean Water Act has done much to protect the public's health and 
increase social and economic opportunities. And even more must be done. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 961 will ensure that we do less, not more. For 
these reasons I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 961.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the Committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an 
original bill for the purpose of amendment. The first three sections 
and each title are considered as read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member 
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in 
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read.
  Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to 
consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-114. The amendment 
may be 
[[Page H4711]]  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 not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  The amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and 
controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  If the amendment is adopted, the Committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute as so amended shall be considered as original text for the 
purpose of further amendment.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean 
     Water Amendments of 1995''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
Sec. 3. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. National goals and policies.
Sec. 102. Research, investigations, training, and information.
Sec. 103. State management assistance.
Sec. 104. Mine water pollution control.
Sec. 105. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages.
Sec. 106. Authorization of appropriations for Chesapeake program.
Sec. 107. Great Lakes management.

                     TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

Sec. 201. Uses of funds.
Sec. 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program.
Sec. 203. Sewage collection systems.
Sec. 204. Treatment works defined.
Sec. 205. Value engineering review.
Sec. 206. Grants for wastewater treatment.

                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Effluent limitations.
Sec. 302. Pollution prevention opportunities.
Sec. 303. Water quality standards and implementation plans.
Sec. 304. Use of biological monitoring.
Sec. 305. Arid areas.
Sec. 306. Total maximum daily loads.
Sec. 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and limitations.
Sec. 308. Information and guidelines.
Sec. 309. Secondary treatment.
Sec. 310. Toxic pollutants.
Sec. 311. Local pretreatment authority.
Sec. 312. Compliance with management practices.
Sec. 313. Federal enforcement.
Sec. 314. Response plans for discharge of oil or hazardous substances.
Sec. 315. Marine sanitation devices.
Sec. 316. Federal facilities.
Sec. 317. Clean lakes.
Sec. 318. Cooling water intake structures.
Sec. 319. Nonpoint source management programs.
Sec. 320. National estuary program.
Sec. 321. State watershed management programs.
Sec. 322. Stormwater management programs.
Sec. 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements.
Sec. 324. Benefit and cost criterion.

                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

Sec. 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding 
              operations.
Sec. 402. Permit reform.
Sec. 403. Review of State programs and permits.
Sec. 404. Statistical noncompliance.
Sec. 405. Anti-backsliding requirements.
Sec. 406. Intake credits.
Sec. 407. Combined sewer overflows.
Sec. 408. Sanitary sewer overflows.
Sec. 409. Abandoned mines.
Sec. 410. Beneficial use of biosolids.
Sec. 411. Waste treatment systems defined.
Sec. 412. Thermal discharges.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Consultation with States.
Sec. 502. Navigable waters defined.
Sec. 503. CAFO definition clarification.
Sec. 504. Publicly owned treatment works defined.
Sec. 505. State water quantity rights.
Sec. 506. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to 
              vegetable oil.
Sec. 507. Needs estimate.
Sec. 508. General program authorizations.
Sec. 509. Indian tribes.
Sec. 510. Food processing and food safety.
Sec. 511. Audit dispute resolution.

        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

Sec. 601. General authority for capitalization grants.
Sec. 602. Capitalization grant agreements.
Sec. 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
Sec. 604. Allotment of funds.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving 
              funds.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Technical amendments.
Sec. 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research 
              Laboratory.
Sec. 703. Wastewater service for colonias.
Sec. 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs.

            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings and statement of purpose.
Sec. 803. Wetlands conservation and management.
Sec. 804. Definitions.
Sec. 805. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 806. Effective date.

                    TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

Sec. 901. References to act.
Sec. 902. Ocean dumping permits.
Sec. 903. Dredged material permits.
Sec. 904. Permit conditions.
Sec. 905. Special provisions regarding certain dumping sites.
Sec. 906. References to Administrator.
                              {time}  1545

                   Amendments Offered by Mr. Shuster

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer en bloc amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Shuster:
       Page 6, line 21, before the first period insert the 
     following:

     and not unreasonably restrict outdoor recreation and other 
     socially beneficial activities
       Page 7, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       (b) Basic Research and Grants to Local Governments.--
     Section 104(b)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1254(B)(3)) is amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(3) in cooperation with Federal, State and local agencies 
     and public or private institutions, organizations, or 
     individuals, conduct and promote a comprehensive program of 
     basic research, experiments, and studies relating to causes, 
     sources, effects, extent, prevention, and detection of water 
     pollution and make grants to State water pollution control 
     agencies, interstate agencies, local governments, other 
     public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, 
     organizations, and individuals for such purposes;''.
       Page 8, line 1, after ``grants to'' insert ``States, local 
     governments, and''.
       Page 8, line 3, after ``works'' insert ``(including 
     treatment works that utilize an alternative wastewater 
     treatment system)''.
       Page 8, line 17, after ``works'' insert ``and alternative 
     wastewater treatment systems''.
       Page 8, line 20, strike ``water'' and insert 
     ``wastewater''.
       Page 9, strike lines 6 through 13 and insert the following:
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``; (7) not to exceed $21,243,100 per fiscal year 
     for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying out 
     the provisions of subsection (b)(3); and (8) not to exceed 
     $10,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 
     through 2000 for carrying out the provisions of subsections 
     (b)(8) and (b)(9)''.
       Page 31, line 15, after ``works'' insert ``and alternative 
     wastewater treatment systems''.
       Page 32, line 15, strike ``not later than'' and all that 
     follows through ``established'' on line 16 and insert the 
     following:

     within a reasonable period of time as determined by the 
     Administrator or the State, as appropriate, considering 
     facility planning, design, construction, and other 
     implementation factors
       Page 34, line 5, strike ``such Act'' and insert ``the 
     Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977''.
       Page 34, strike lines 6 through 10 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(B) the post-mining levels of pollutants (other than pH) 
     discharged from such operation do not exceed the levels of 
     pollutants discharged from the remined area before the coal 
     remining operation began and the post-mining pH levels of the 
     discharges from the remined area are not reduced below the pH 
     levels of the discharges from the remined area before the 
     coal remining operation began.''.
       Page 36, line 14, strike ``shall reduce'' and all that 
     follows through the period on line 17 and insert the 
     following:

     shall take into account the permittee's good-faith efforts to 
     implement the innovation and to comply with any interim 
     limitations and may reduce or eliminate the penalty for such 
     violation.
       Page 37, line 5, strike the closing quotation marks and the 
     final period.
       Page 37, after line 5, insert the following:
       ``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to authorize the 
     Administrator or a State to enforce, place conditions on, or 
     otherwise regulate emissions into the air or the treatment, 
     storage, or disposal of solid waste or require or enforce 
     conditions on the manufacturing or processing of a chemical 
     substance or mixture in any permit issued under this Act.''.
       Page 37, lines 12 and 13, strike ``Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of this Act, the Administrator'' and insert 
     ``The Administrator''.
       Page 37, line 15, insert ``at the request of the permittee 
     and'' before ``after public notice''.
       Page 37, lines 17 and 18, strike ``subsection (b)'' and 
     insert ``subsection (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E)''.
       Page 37, line 24, insert ``from the facility'' after 
     ``pollutants''.

[[Page H4712]]

       Page 38, line 7, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert 
     ``subsection (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E)''.
       Page 38, after line 23, insert the following:
       ``(4) Limitations on modifications.--A modification of an 
     otherwise applicable limitation or standard may not be made 
     under this subsection if such modification--
       ``(A) will cause a receiving body of water that is meeting 
     its designated use for all pollutants to no longer meet such 
     use;
       ``(B) will prevent a receiving body of water that is not 
     meeting its designated use for all pollutants from meeting 
     such use; or
       ``(C) will cause the introduction of pollutants into a 
     publicly owned treatment works that interferes with, passes 
     through, or is otherwise incompatible with such works or will 
     cause such works to violate its permit under section 402 of 
     this Act.
       ``(5) Guidance.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     publish guidance for determining whether a modification of an 
     otherwise applicable limitation or standard under this 
     subsection will achieve an overall reduction in emissions to 
     the environment and result in an overall net benefit to the 
     environment. In developing such guidance, the Administrator 
     shall consult with the States and other interested parties.
       ``(6) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to authorize the 
     Administrator or a State to enforce, place conditions on, or 
     otherwise regulate emissions into the air or the treatment, 
     storage, or disposal of solid waste or require or enforce 
     conditions on the manufacturing or processing of a chemical 
     substance or mixture in any permit issued under this Act.
       Page 38, line 24, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(7)''.
       Page 39, lines 8 and 9, strike ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the Administrator'' and insert ``The 
     Administrator''.
       Page 41, line 22, after the period insert the following:

     Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize 
     the Administrator or a State to enforce, place conditions on, 
     or otherwise regulate emissions into the air or the 
     treatment, storage, or disposal of solid waste or require or 
     enforce conditions on the manufacturing or processing of a 
     chemical substance or mixture in any permit issued under this 
     Act.
       Page 41, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(6) Limitations on modifications.--A modification of an 
     otherwise applicable limitation or standard may not be made 
     under this subsection if such modification--
       ``(A) will cause a receiving body of water that is meeting 
     its designated use for all pollutants to no longer meet such 
     use;
       ``(B) will prevent a receiving body of water that is not 
     meeting its designated use for all pollutants from meeting 
     such use; or
       ``(C) will cause the introduction of pollutants into a 
     publicly owned treatment works that interferes with, passes 
     through, or is otherwise incompatible with such works or will 
     cause such works to violate its permit under section 402 of 
     this Act.
       ``(7) Guidance.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     publish guidance for determining whether a modification of an 
     otherwise applicable limitation or standard under this 
     subsection will achieve an overall reduction in discharges to 
     the watershed and result in an overall net benefit to the 
     environment. In developing such guidance, the Administrator 
     shall consult with the States and other interested parties.
       Page 41, line 23, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(8)''.
       Page 51, line 8, insert ``applicable to such waters for all 
     pollutants'' after ``uses''.
       Page 51, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 4 
     on page 52.
       Page 52, line 5, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
       Page 52, after line 10, insert the following:
       (d) Consideration of Influence of Exotic Species.--Section 
     303(c)(2) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) Consideration of influence of exotic species.--In 
     establishing, adopting, or reviewing standards or goals based 
     upon fishable or swimmable uses or uses to assure protection 
     or propagation of a balanced population of fish, shellfish, 
     and wildlife, the State or the Administrator shall consider 
     the influence of exotic or introduced species upon such 
     standards, goals, or uses.
       ``(E) Reclaimed wastewater.--If a State adopts or reviews 
     water quality standards and policies pursuant to this 
     section, the State may consider and balance, in addition to 
     other factors referred to in this section, the need for 
     allowing the discharge of reclaimed wastewater to navigable 
     waters to promote the beneficial use of reclaimed wastewater. 
     In addition, the State may take into consideration and 
     reflect in the standards--
       ``(i) the use and value of reclaimed wastewater for public 
     water supplies;
       ``(ii) the physical, chemical, and biological conditions 
     that influence water quality in the area subject to the 
     standards, including extremes of temperature, water flow, 
     turbidity, mineralization, salinity, and flooding; and
       ``(iii) whether the discharge of reclaimed wastewater will 
     result in a net environmental benefit to the watershed 
     subject to the standards.''.
       (e) Clarification of Mixing Zone Authority.--Section 303 
     (33 U.S.C. 1313) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) Continuation of Mixing Zones.--Nothing in this Act 
     shall be construed to authorize the Administrator to prohibit 
     or discontinue mixing zones established by any State for any 
     pollutant or class of pollutants.''.
       Page 52, line 22, strike ``an aquatic species'' and all 
     that follows through ``criteria'' on line 24 and insert the 
     following:

     an aquatic species that is indigenous to the type of waters, 
     a species that is representative of such a species, or an 
     appropriate species that indicates the toxicity of the 
     effluent in the receiving waters
       Page 54, line 1, after ``demonstrates'' insert ``to the 
     permitting authority''.
       Page 54, lines 3 and 4, strike ``indigenous, or 
     representative of indigenous, and relevant'' and insert 
     ``indigenous''.
       Page 54, line 6, after ``applicable'' insert ``numerical''.
       Page 54, line 7, after ``standards'' insert ``for specific 
     pollutants''.

       Page 54, line 10, strike ``works'' and all that follows 
     through the final period on line 12 and insert the following:
     works--
       ``(i) if the source or cause of such toxicity cannot, after 
     thorough investigation, be identified; or
       ``(ii) if the permittee makes to the permitting authority a 
     demonstration described in subparagraph (A).''.
       Page 54, line 23, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       Page 61, line 16, after the first period insert the 
     following:

     In the case of ammonia, the Administrator shall revise the 
     criteria only to the extent that the current criteria are 
     more stringent than necessary to achieve the objectives of 
     this Act.
       Page 63, after line 3, insert the following:
       (e) Industrial Publicly Owned Treatment Works.--Section 
     304(d) (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(5) Industrial publicly owned treatment works.--
       ``(A) Guidelines.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator, after 
     consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and 
     other interested persons, shall publish guidelines for 
     effluent limitations under section 301 and sludge use and 
     disposal requirements under section 405 applicable to 
     publicly owned treatment works designed to treat a 
     predominance of industrial wastewater. Such guidelines shall 
     take into account differences in constituents, treatability, 
     available technology procedures, and costs resulting from the 
     fact that the publicly owned treatment works treat wastewater 
     and manage sludge derived predominantly from industrial 
     sources.
       ``(B) Permits.--Following the issuance of guidelines under 
     this paragraph, permits under section 402 for such publicly 
     owned treatment works shall be derived using the guidelines 
     issued under this paragraph in lieu of applying the 
     regulations otherwise applicable to publicly owned treatment 
     works promulgated under paragraph (1) of this subsection and 
     section 405(d).''.
       Page 63, line 4, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 63, line 7, strike ``3 years'' and insert ``1 year''.
       Page 63, line 24, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       Page 63, line 4, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       Page 64, strike line 15 and insert the following:
     SEC. 308. PERSONNEL AND REPORTING.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 64, line 16, before ``Section'' insert ``(a) 
     Permitting Boards.--''.
       Page 64, after line 23, insert the following:
       (b) Reporting.--Section 305(b) (33 U.S.C. 1315(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking the matter preceding 
     subparagraph (A) and inserting ``Not later than 3 years after 
     the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
     1995, and every 5 years thereafter, each State shall prepare 
     and submit to the Administrator a report which shall 
     include--''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Consolidation of Reporting Requirements.--A State may 
     consolidate any of the reporting requirements of this Act 
     that relate to ambient water quality into the report required 
     under this section.''.
       Page 65, line 5, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 68, line 20, strike ``20,000'' and insert ``10,000''.
       Page 68, line 25, after ``alternative'' insert 
     ``wastewater''.
       Page 74, line 19, strike ``and''.
       Page 74, line 22, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
       Page 74, after line 22, insert the following:
       ``(E) local limits established by such treatment works in 
     its approved pretreatment program are preventing and will 
     continue to prevent the introduction of pollutants into such 
     treatment works that interfere with, pass through, or are 
     otherwise incompatible with such treatment works;
       Page 75, lines 1 and 5, before ``local'' insert 
     ``approved''.
       Page 84, line 14, strike ``or runoff''.

[[Page H4713]]

       Page 92, line 2, after ``vessel'' insert ``or other 
     facility''.
       Page 93, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 2 
     on page 95 and insert the following:
     SEC. 318. COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.

       Section 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``(b)'' the following: ``Regulation 
     of Cooling Water Intake Structures.--'';
       (2) by inserting before ``Any'' the following: ``(1) In 
     general.--'';
       (3) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph 
     (2) of this section, and moving such paragraph 2 ems to the 
     right; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Intake structure considerations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall require the 
     application of the best technology available to new and 
     existing cooling water intake structures in instances where 
     the Administrator has determined that such a structure is 
     having or could have a significant adverse impact on the 
     aquatic environment.
       ``(B) New intake structure.--In identifying the best 
     technology available for any new cooling water intake 
     structure pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator 
     shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(i) The relative technological, engineering, and economic 
     feasibility of available intake structure technologies for 
     minimizing adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
       ``(ii) The relative technological, engineering, and 
     economic feasibility of available alternatives as to the 
     location, design, construction, and capacity of the intake 
     structure.
       ``(iii) The relative environmental, social, and economic 
     costs and benefits of available technologies and alternatives 
     identified pursuant to this subparagraph or subparagraph (D).
       ``(iv) The projected useful life of the point source at 
     which the new cooling water intake structure is located.
       ``(C) Existing intake structures.--In identifying the best 
     technology available for an existing cooling water intake 
     structure pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator 
     shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(i) The relative technological, engineering, and economic 
     feasibility of reasonably available intake structure retrofit 
     technologies for minimizing adverse impacts to the aquatic 
     environment.
       ``(ii) The relative environmental, social, and economic 
     costs and benefits of available technologies and alternatives 
     identified pursuant to this subparagraph or subparagraph (D).
       ``(iii) The projected remaining useful life of the point 
     source at which the existing cooling water intake structure 
     is located.
       ``(D) Consideration of alternatives.--In identifying the 
     best technology available for any new or existing cooling 
     water intake structure, the Administrator shall consider 
     environmental enhancements or any other technique that the 
     owner or operator has identified as appropriate alternatives 
     for minimizing adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) New cooling water intake structure.--The term `new 
     cooling water intake structure' means any intake structure 
     the construction of which commences after the publication of 
     final regulations implementing this subsection.
       ``(B) Existing cooling water intake structure.--The term 
     `existing cooling water intake structure' means any intake 
     structure that is not a new cooling water intake 
     structure.''.
       Page 109, line 3, strike ``and''.
       Page 109, after line 3, insert the following:
       ``(E) providing financial assistance with respect to those 
     water pollution control activities which have as their 
     principal purpose the protection of public water supplies; 
     and
       Page 109, line 4, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
       Page 114, line 23, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       Page 117, line 7, before ``livestock'' insert 
     ``agricultural inputs, including''.
       Page 117, line 7, after ``manure'' insert a comma.
       Page 117, after line 18, insert the following:
       (q) Control of Salt Water Intrusion.--Section 319 is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Control of Salt Water Intrusion.--Nothing in this 
     section authorizes the Administrator to require a State to 
     identify or establish procedures and methods to control salt 
     water intrusion beyond what is provided for in section 
     208(b)(2)(I).''.
       Page 136, line 16, strike ``and'' and all that follows 
     through the period on line 24 and insert the following:

     , based on available information, and submit to the 
     Administrator for approval a stormwater management program--
       ``(A) that controls pollution added from stormwater 
     discharges to the navigable waters within the boundaries of 
     the State and improves the quality of such waters; and
       ``(B) that the State proposes to establish and administer 
     under State law or interstate compact to apply and assure 
     compliance with this section.
     The initial program submission must meet the requirements of 
     this subsection and specifically address the first 5 fiscal 
     years beginning after the date of submission of such 
     management program.
       Page 137, lines 24 and 25, strike ``established under 
     subsection (i)''.
       Page 148, line 24, after the period insert the following:

     If, upon review of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, 
     the State determines that the plan is inadequate, the State 
     may require the facility to modify the plan.
       Page 150, line 24, after the first comma insert ``or''.
       Page 150, line 24, strike ``or (c)(2)(F),''.
       Page 152, line 8, after ``permits'' insert ``and effluent 
     guidelines''.
       Page 152, line 12, after ``a'' insert ``stormwater''.
       Page 152, line 14, after ``1987,'' insert ``or with respect 
     to which an effluent guideline has been issued before 
     February 4, 1987''.
       Page 153, line 15, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 159, lines 17 and 18, strike ``of this Act''.
       Page 161, strike line 4 and all that follows through line 
     24 on page 162.
       Page 163, line 1, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       Page 163, line 14, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(j)''.
       Page 163, line 16 strike ``1996'' and insert ``1998''.
       Page 165, line 10, strike ``(l)'' and insert ``(k)''.
       Page 165, line 10, strike ``Stormwater''.
       Page 166, line 12, before the comma insert ``and section 
     304(a)(13)''.
       Page 166, line 20, strike ``(m)'' and insert ``(l)''.
       Page 167, line 1, strike ``(n)'' and insert ``(m)''.
       Page 167, line 8, strike ``(o)'' and insert ``(n)''.
       Page 167, line 12, strike ``(p)'' and insert ``(o)''.
       Page 168, line 2, after the period insert the following:

     Land that was previously used for mining activities for which 
     reclamation requirements of the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977 have been met and a performance bond 
     or deposit required under section 509 of such Act has been 
     released under section 519 of such Act shall no longer be 
     considered an ore mining and dressing site.
       Page 168, after line 17, insert the following:
       ``(5) Active coal mining sites.--Discharges comprised 
     entirely of stormwater from an active coal mining site 
     operating under a permit issued under the Surface Mining 
     Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 shall be subject to 
     section 319.
       Page 168, line 18, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
       Page 169, after line 19, insert the following:
       (d) Development of Stormwater Criteria.--Section 304(a) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Development of stormwater criteria.--
       ``(A) In general.--To reflect the episodic character of 
     stormwater which results in significant variances in the 
     volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load associated 
     with stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall 
     establish, as an element of the water quality standards 
     established for the designated uses of the navigable waters, 
     stormwater criteria which protect the navigable waters from 
     impairment of the designated beneficial uses caused by 
     stormwater discharges. The criteria shall be technologically 
     and financially feasible and may include performance 
     standards, guidelines, guidance, and model management 
     practices and measures and treatment requirements, as 
     appropriate, and as identified in section 322.
       ``(B) Information to be used in development.--The 
     stormwater discharge criteria to be established under this 
     paragraph--
       ``(i) shall be developed from--

       ``(I) the findings and conclusions of the demonstration 
     programs and research conducted under section 322(h);
       ``(II) the findings and conclusions of the research and 
     monitoring activities of stormwater dischargers performed in 
     compliance with permit requirements of this Act; and
       ``(III) other relevant information, including information 
     submitted to the Administrator under the industrial group 
     permit application process in effect under section 402 of 
     this Act on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph;

       ``(ii) shall be developed in consultation with persons with 
     expertise in the management of stormwater (including 
     officials of State and local government, industrial and 
     commercial stormwater dischargers, and public interest 
     groups); and
       ``(iii) shall be established as an element of the water 
     quality standards that are developed and implemented under 
     this Act by not later than December 31, 2008.''.
       Page 169, line 20, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 169, line 24, before the period insert ``that is 
     subject to section 322''.
       Page 182, line 1, strike ``An'' and insert ``If an''.
       Page 182, line 2, strike ``that''.
       Page 182, line 6, strike ``may'' and all that follows 
     through ``use'' on line 9 and insert ``, such system or 
     facility is exempt from this Act''.
       Page 183, strike lines 4 through 11 and insert the 
     following:

[[Page H4714]]

       (c) Discharge Limit.--Section 402(a) (33 U.S.C. 1342(a)) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Quantitation level.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     establish quantitation levels for pollutants based on the 
     lowest level at which a pollutant can be reliably quantified 
     on an interlaboratory basis for each test method published 
     under section 304(h).
       ``(B) Permit levels.--Whenever a limitation for a permit 
     issued under this section is set at a level below the 
     quantitation level established for that pollutant under 
     subparagraph (A) for the test method specified in the permit, 
     any measurement of the pollutant greater than the limitation 
     but less than the quantitation level shall not be considered 
     a violation of the permit. All measurements less than the 
     quantitation level shall be deemed equal to zero for purposes 
     of determining compliance with the limitation.''.
       (d) Discharges Under Permit Applications.--Section 402(k) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1342(k)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``except'' and 
     inserting ``except for'';
       (2) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``Until December 31, 1974, in'' and 
     inserting ``In''; and
       (B) by striking ``(1) section 301, 306, or 402 of this Act, 
     or (2)'' and inserting ``section 402 of this Act or''; and
       (C) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and provided further that if the discharge 
     results in a violation of effluent limitations or standards 
     promulgated under section 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, or 307 of 
     this Act that would be applicable upon issuance of a permit 
     such discharge shall be considered unlawful under section 301 
     of this Act''; and
       (3) by striking the last sentence.
       Page 184, line 17, strike ``be'' and all that follows 
     through ``limitation'' on line 18 and insert ``have an 
     affirmative defense to such alleged noncompliance''.
       Page 185, line 20, strike ``be'' and all that follows 
     through ``Act'' on line 21 and insert ``have an affirmative 
     defense to such alleged noncompliance''.
       Page 187, line 12, strike the semicolon and insert ``or are 
     directly and proximately connected; or''.
       Page 187, strike lines 13 through 17.
       Page 187, line 18, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(ii)''.
       Page 187, line 23, strike ``if, for conventional 
     pollutants,'' and insert ``for conventional pollutants, to 
     the extent that the discharger demonstrates that''.
       Page 188, line 1, insert ``or substantially similar to'' 
     after ``the same as''.
       Page 188, line 12, strike ``that'' and all that follows 
     through the period on line 13 and insert the following:

     in circumstances that do not meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (1), including circumstances in which the source of 
     the intake water meets the maximum contaminant levels or 
     treatment techniques for drinking water contaminants 
     established pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act for the 
     pollutant of concern. An appropriate credit for pollutants 
     found in intake water is a credit that assures that an owner 
     or operator of a point source is not required to remove, 
     reduce, or treat the amount of any pollutant in an effluent 
     below the amount of such pollutant that is present in the 
     intake water for such facility, except to the extent that the 
     level of such pollutant in the intake water will cause 
     adverse water quality impact that would not otherwise occur.
       Page 194, line 20, strike ``paragraph (3)'' and insert 
     ``paragraphs (2) and (3)''.
       Page 198, line 13, strike ``approved within 180 days'' and 
     insert ``submitted within 90 days''.
       Page 201, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(F) Deemed approval of compliance plans.--A compliance 
     plan submitted under subparagraph (A)(iv) shall be deemed to 
     be approved on the 90th day following the date of such 
     submission, unless the Administrator notifies the remediating 
     party before such 90th day that the plan has been 
     disapproved.''.
       Page 201, line 8, strike ``or its political 
     subdivisions,''.
       Page 201, line 12, strike ``a person described in clause 
     (i)'' and insert ``a State or Indian tribe''.
       Page 202, line 4, strike ``not actively mined or'' and 
     insert ``neither actively mined nor''.
       Page 202, line 7, strike ``section'' and insert 
     ``subsection''.
       Page 203, line 17, strike ``law'' and insert ``this Act''.
       Page 211, line 17, strike ``VEGETABLE OIL'' and insert 
     ``NONPETROLEUM OIL PRODUCTS AND OIL SUBSTITUTES''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 211, lines 18 and 19, strike ``Fats, Oils, and 
     Greases'' and insert ``Petroleum and Nonpetroleum Products''.
       Page 211, lines 22 and 23, strike ``a Federal law related 
     to water pollution control,'' and insert ``the Oil Pollution 
     Act of 1990 or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,''.
       
       Page 212, line 2, strike ``for--'' and insert the 
     following:

     for petroleum and nonpetroleum oil products and oil 
     substitutes, including animal fats, vegetable oils, and 
     silicone fluids; and
       Page 212, strike lines 3 through line 6.
       Page 212, line 10, strike ``fat and oil'' and insert 
     ``petroleum and nonpetroleum oil products and oil 
     substitutes''.
       Page 212, lines 13 through 15, strike ``animal fats and 
     vegetable oils referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) and the 
     classes of oils described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)'' and 
     insert ``petroleum products and nonpetroleum oil products and 
     oil substitutes''.
       Page 213, strikes lines 15 and 16 and insert the following:
     SEC. 508. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.

       (a) Limit on Authorizations.--No funds are authorized for 
     any fiscal year after fiscal year 2000 for carrying out the 
     programs and activities for which funds are authorized by 
     this Act, including amendments made by this Act.
       (b) General Program Authorizations.--Section 517 (33 U.S.C. 
     1376) is amended--
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 214, after line 7, insert the following:
       (b) Treatment as States.--Section 518(e) (33 U.S.C. 
     1377(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``water resources which are'' and inserting 
     ``water resources within the exterior boundaries of a Federal 
     Indian reservation which are on or appurtenant to lands'';
       (B) by inserting ``or'' after ``Indians,'';
       (C) by striking ``member of an Indian tribe'' and inserting 
     ``member of the reservation's governing Indian tribe'';
       (D) by striking ``, or otherwise within the borders of an 
     Indian reservation''; and
       (E) by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) the Administrator's action does not authorize the 
     Indian tribe to regulate lands owned in whole or in part by 
     nonmembers of the tribe or the use of water resources on or 
     appurtentant to such lands.''.
       Page 214, line 8, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 215, line 4, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 215, line 17, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 216, line 1, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       Page 222, line 13, after ``quality'' insert ``of navigable 
     waters''.
       Page 224, line 22, after ``year'' insert ``or \1/2\ percent 
     per year of the current valuation of such fund''.
       Page 225, line 19, strike ``amended by striking'' and 
     insert the following:

     amended--
       (1) by striking ``is consistent'' and inserting ``is not 
     inconsistent''; and
       (2) by striking
       Page 226, line 2, before ``treatment'' insert ``publicly 
     owned''.
       Page 226, line 4, before the semicolon insert ``without 
     regard to the rank of such project on the State's priority 
     list''.
       Page 243, line 15, after ``Secretary'' insert ``, in 
     consultation with the States,''.
       Page 246, line 2, before the semicolon insert ``based on 
     verifiable, objective science''.
       Page 247, strike line 3.
       Page 247, line 4, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
       Page 247, line 5, strike ``(v)'' and insert ``(iv)''.
       Page 256, strike line 16 and all that follows through page 
     257, line 6, and insert the following:
       ``(A) Analysis.--The Secretary shall determine whether to 
     issue a permit for an activity in waters of the United States 
     classified under subsection (c) as type A wetlands based on--
       ``(i) a sequential analysis that seeks, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, to--

       ``(I) avoid adverse impact on the wetlands;
       ``(II) minimize such adverse impact on wetlands functions 
     that cannot be avoided; and
       ``(III) compensate for any loss of wetland functions that 
     cannot be avoided or minimized; and

       ``(ii) the public interest analysis described in paragraph 
     (3).
       ``(B) Water dependent activity.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(i)(I), if an activity is water dependent, an 
     alternative in an area that is not wetlands or waters of the 
     United States shall not be presumed to be available. A water 
     dependent activity is an activity that requires access or 
     proximity to or siting within the wetlands or waters of the 
     United States in question to fulfill its basic purpose.
       Page 257, line 7, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       Page 266, line 20, strike ``and''.
       Page 266, after line 20, insert the following:
       ``(vi) provide, where appropriate, for dual use of wetlands 
     within the mitigation bank, as long as the use other than 
     providing compensatory mitigation under this section (I) 
     shall not interfere with the functioning of such bank for 
     providing such mitigation, and (II) shall not adversely 
     impact wetlands or other waters of the United States; and
       Page 266, line 21, strike ``(vi)'' and ``(vii)''.
       Page 280, line 3, strike ``or''.
       Page 280, line 20, strike ``or''.
       Page 280, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
       Page 280, after line 23, insert the following:
       ``(v) result from any silvicultural activity or practice 
     undertaken on economic base lands; or
       ``(S) result from the conduct of recreational hunting or 
     shooting.
       Page 284, strike lines 10 through 18.
       Page 284, line 19, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
     [[Page H4715]]   Page 285, line 1, strike ``section'' and all 
     that follows through the final period on line 2 and insert 
     the following:

     subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).
       Page 285, lines 11 and 19, after ``used'' insert the 
     following:

     , or a good faith effort is shown by the owner or operator to 
     use such lands,
       Page 285, after line 20, insert the following:
       ``(D) Delineations grandfathered.--Delineations by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture regarding wetlands on agricultural 
     lands and associated nonagricultural lands that have become 
     administratively final on or before the date of enactment of 
     the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 
     1995 shall not be subject to further delineation unless the 
     owner requests a new delineation by the Secretary of 
     Agriculture.
       Page 289, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(G) Permission to enter onto private property.--The 
     Secretaries shall obtain written permission from the owner of 
     private property before entering such property to conduct 
     identification and classification of wetlands pursuant to 
     this paragraph.
       Page 293, line 4, before the semicolon insert the 
     following:

     ; except that, in any case in which guidelines based on such 
     criteria alone would prohibit the specification of a disposal 
     site, the economic impact on navigation and anchorage shall 
     be considered
       Page 305, after line 4, insert the following:
       ``(8) Treatment of existing programs.--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 in a 
     manner consistent with the provisions of this section. Upon 
     receipt of a request from the Governor of such State, the 
     Secretary, with the concurrence of the Governor, shall amend 
     the program.
       Page 312, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(11) Certification.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this Act, the Administrator shall not, either directly or 
     indirectly, impose any requirement or condition in a 
     certification required under section 401 that the Secretary 
     determines is inconsistent with the provisions of this 
     section.
       Page 312, line 10, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(12)''.
       Page 316, after line 13, insert the following:
       ``(N) Vernal pools.--The term `vernal pools' means 
     individual isolated wetlands that have exceptional waterfowl 
     habitat functions and that exhibit the following 
     characteristics:
       ``(i) an area greater than \1/2\ acre;
       ``(ii) seasonal standing for no less than 45 consecutive 
     days during the fall and winter in an average precipitation 
     season;
       ``(iii) an impermeable subsurface hard pan soil layer that 
     prevents subsurface water drainage or percolation; and
       ``(iv) a surface outlet for relief of water flow.
       Page 316, line 14, strike ``(N)'' and insert ``(O)''.
       Page 317, after line 16, insert the following:
       ``(31) The term `farmed wetland' means those agricultural 
     lands, as defined in section 404, and associated 
     nonagricultural lands exhibiting wetlands characteristics, as 
     delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture.
       Page 317, line 17, strike ``(31)'' and insert ``(32)''.
       Page 317, line 23, strike ``(32)'' and insert ``(33)''.
       Page 318, line 4, strike ``(33)'' and insert ``(34)''.
       Page 318, line 7, strike ``(34)'' and insert ``(35)''.
       Page 318, line 12, strike ``(35)'' and insert ``(36)''.
       Page 318, line 18, strike ``(36)'' and insert ``(37)''.
       Page 318, line 22, strike ``(37)'' and insert ``(38)''.
       Page 319, strike lines 5 through 11.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] will each 
be recognized for 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding after we engage in a colloquy 
that this en bloc amendment may be accepted. I would simply like to 
point out that the en bloc amendment improves upon this already widely 
supported bill that we reported out. This package of agreements 
includes agreements reached with chairmen of the other committees of 
jurisdiction, noncontroversial items brought to our attention since the 
committee markup, and other technical matters and miscellaneous issues.
  The en bloc also reflects an ongoing dialog with State and local 
water officials including various provisions directly responding to the 
concerns and clarifying existing environmental safeguards in the bill.
  I would emphasize it is very important that once the en bloc 
amendment is passed it will be open for amendment by title as we go 
through the bill so Member's rights are protected as we go through the 
bill and they will be able, if they choose, to offer amendments to the 
en bloc amendment.
  In the en bloc amendment we deal with several State issues, for 
examples, reducing from 20,000 to 10,000 the population ceiling for 
eligibility for the modification of secondary treatment requirements, 
this at the request of the States.
  We delete, this is very important because the gentleman from New York 
in a previous comment complained about a 20-percent cap on type A 
wetlands, we delete the 20-percent cap for the type A wetlands for 
county parishes and boroughs, so this is in response to environmental 
requests, the various miscellaneous new matters in the bill. At each 
stage in the process matters have been brought to us, a very open 
process, and as a result we have included several noncontroversial 
items in this particular area.
  Finally, with regard to committee issues, the package reflects 
agreements reached with the other committees of jurisdiction in several 
areas, technical and otherwise, and I would particularly focus on the 
fact that in this area we provide language that assures that the 
classification of isolated wetlands is based on sound science. This 
addresses a concern that all wetlands might be prejudged as falling 
into a single classification type. Environmentalists have talked with 
us about this and we have accepted their recommendations in this area.
  And with regard to the technical amendments themselves, we have an 
important clarifying technical amendment that clarifies when local 
pretreatment limits apply in lieu of categorical pretreatment 
standards, such local limits must prevent the introduction of 
pollutants into the treatment works that will interfere with, pass 
through, or otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works, again, 
another proenvironmental provision which we have included in the en 
bloc amendments.
  So, that is a very brief description of what I believe can be 
acceptable, particularly with emphasis that Member's rights are 
protected to offer amendments relating to any of these en bloc 
amendments as we move through the title-by-title amending process of 
this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to inquire of my friend from 
Pennsylvania, the distinguished chair of the full Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, there is a provision in the en bloc 
amendment which affects EPA's authorities under section 401. And as the 
gentleman knows, the States are very concerned with any amendments 
which might affect section 401 and the rights of States to protect 
their water quality. It is my understanding that the provision is not 
intended to affect in any way the rights of States to protect water 
quality under section 401. Is that correct?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The provision in 
question is intended only to clarify that there is to be no 
interference from the EPA in the 401 certification process relating to 
section 404 permits.
  Mr. MINETA. It is also my understanding that this provision is not 
intended to affect the broad issues of States' rights under section 401 
and the relationship with hydropower relicensing; is that correct?
  Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, it is also noted, as has my colleague from 
Pennsylvania, that each of the provisions included in the en bloc 
amendment will be amendable when the appropriate title in the bill is 
reached, and I understand that that is the way this works.
  So, with that understanding, I have no objections to this en bloc 
amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
  [[Page H4716]] Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  The amendments were agreed to.

     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. saxton

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of 
a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Saxton:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:
     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean 
     Water Amendments of 1995''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
Sec. 3. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

Sec. 101. Research, investigations, training, and information.
Sec. 102. State management assistance.
Sec. 103. Mine water pollution control.
Sec. 104. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages.
Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations for Chesapeake program.
Sec. 106. Great Lakes management.

                     TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

Sec. 201. Uses of funds.
Sec. 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program.
Sec. 203. Sewage collection systems.
Sec. 204. Value engineering review.
Sec. 205. Grants for wastewater treatment.

                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 301. Arid areas.
Sec. 302. Secondary treatment.
Sec. 303. Federal facilities.
Sec. 304. National estuary program.
Sec. 305. Nonpoint source management programs.
Sec. 306. Coastal zone management.
Sec. 307. Comprehensive watershed management.
Sec. 308. Revision of effluent limitations.

                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

Sec. 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding 
              operations.
Sec. 402. Municipal and industrial stormwater discharges.
Sec. 403. Intake credits.
Sec. 404. Combined sewer overflows.
Sec. 405. Abandoned mines.
Sec. 406. Beneficial use of biosolids.

                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 501. Publicly owned treatment works defined.
Sec. 502. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to 
              vegetable oil.
Sec. 503. Needs estimate.
Sec. 504. Food processing and food safety.
Sec. 505. Audit dispute resolution.

        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS

Sec. 601. General authority for capitalization grants.
Sec. 602. Capitalization grant agreements.
Sec. 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
Sec. 604. Allotment of funds.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving 
              funds.

                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 701. Technical amendments.
Sec. 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research 
              Laboratory.
Sec. 703. Wastewater service for colonias.
Sec. 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs.

            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 803. State, local, and landowner technical assistance and 
              cooperative training.
Sec. 804. Federal, State, and Local Government Coordinating Committee.
Sec. 805. State and local wetland conservation plans and strategies; 
              grants to facilitate the implementation of section 404.
Sec. 806. National cooperative wetland ecosystem restoration strategy.
Sec. 807. Permits for discharge of dredged or fill material.
Sec. 808. Technical assistance to private landowners, codification of 
              regulations and policies.
Sec. 809. Delineation.
Sec. 810. Fast track for minor permits.
Sec. 811. Compensatory mitigation.
Sec. 812. Cooperative mitigation ventures and mitigation banks.
Sec. 813. Wetlands monitoring and research.
Sec. 814. Administrative appeals.
Sec. 815. Cranberry production.
Sec. 816. State classification systems.
Sec. 817. Definitions.

                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 901. Obligations and expenditures subject to appropriations.
     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act 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 Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).
                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS

     SEC. 101. RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) National Programs.--Section 104(a) (33 U.S.C. 1254(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, conduct, promote, and encourage to the 
     maximum extent feasible, in watersheds that may be 
     significantly affected by nonpoint sources of pollution, 
     monitoring and measurement of water quality by means and 
     methods that will help to identify the relative contributions 
     of particular nonpoint sources.''.
       (b) Grants to Local Governments.--Section 104(b)(3) (33 
     U.S.C. 1254(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``local 
     governments,'' after ``interstate agencies,''.
       (c) Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment 
     Works.--Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide 
     technical assistance and training to rural and small publicly 
     owned treatment works to enable such treatment works to 
     achieve and maintain compliance with the requirements of this 
     Act; and
       ``(9) disseminate information to rural, small, and 
     disadvantaged communities with respect to the planning, 
     design, construction, and operation of treatment works.''.
       (d) Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished Communities.--
     Section 104(q) (33 U.S.C. 1254(q)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Small impoverished communities.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to States 
     to provide assistance for planning, design, and construction 
     of publicly owned treatment works to provide wastewater 
     services to rural communities of 3,000 or less that are not 
     currently served by any sewage collection or water treatment 
     system and are severely economically disadvantaged, as 
     determined by the Administrator.
       ``(B) Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 per 
     fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 104(u) (33 
     U.S.C. 1254(u)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``(6)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``; and (7) not to exceed $50,000,000 per fiscal 
     year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying 
     out the provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and (b)(9), 
     except that not less than 20 percent of the sums appropriated 
     pursuant to this clause shall be available for carrying out 
     the provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)''.
     SEC. 102. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$75,000,000'';
       (2) by inserting after ``1990'' the following: ``, such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1991 
     through 1995, and $150,000,000 per fiscal year for each of 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``States or 
     interstate agencies receiving grants under this section may 
     use such funds to finance, with other States or interstate 
     agencies, studies and projects on interstate issues relating 
     to such programs.''.
     SEC. 103. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

       Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

       ``(a) Acidic and Other Toxic Mine Drainage.--The 
     Administrator shall establish a program to demonstrate the 
     efficacy of measures for abatement of the causes and 
     treatment of the effects of acidic and other toxic mine 
     drainage within qualified hydrologic units affected by past 
     coal mining practices for the purpose of restoring the 
     biological integrity of waters within such units.
       ``(b) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any State or Indian tribe may apply to 
     the Administrator for a grant for any project which provides 
     for abatement of the causes or treatment of the effects of 
     acidic or other toxic mine drainage 
[[Page H4717]]  within a qualified hydrologic unit affected by past 
coal mining practices.
       ``(2) Application requirements.--An application submitted 
     to the Administrator under this section shall include each of 
     the following:
       ``(A) An identification of the qualified hydrologic unit.
       ``(B) A description of the extent to which acidic or other 
     toxic mine drainage is affecting the water quality and 
     biological resources within the hydrologic unit.
       ``(C) An identification of the sources of acidic or other 
     toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.
       ``(D) An identification of the project and the measures 
     proposed to be undertaken to abate the causes or treat the 
     effects of acidic or other toxic mine drainage within the 
     hydrologic unit.
       ``(E) The cost of undertaking the proposed abatement or 
     treatment measures.
       ``(c) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project receiving grant assistance under this section shall 
     be 50 percent.
       ``(2) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--Contributions 
     of lands, easements, and rights-of-way shall be credited 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under 
     this section but not in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the 
     total project cost.
       ``(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interest 
     shall bear 100 percent of the cost of operation and 
     maintenance of a project under this section.
       ``(d) Prohibited Projects.--No acidic or other toxic mine 
     drainage abatement or treatment project may receive 
     assistance under this section if the project would adversely 
     affect the free-flowing characteristics of any river segment 
     within a qualified hydrologic unit.
       ``(e) Applications From Federal Entities.--Any Federal 
     entity may apply to the Administrator for a grant under this 
     section for the purposes of an acidic or toxic mine drainage 
     abatement or treatment project within a qualified hydrologic 
     unit located on lands and waters under the administrative 
     jurisdiction of such entity.
       ``(f) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve an 
     application submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (e) after 
     determining that the application meets the requirements of 
     this section.
       ``(g) Qualified Hydrologic Unit Defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `qualified hydrologic unit' means a 
     hydrologic unit--
       ``(1) in which the water quality has been significantly 
     affected by acidic or other toxic mine drainage from past 
     coal mining practices in a manner which adversely impacts 
     biological resources; and
       ``(2) which contains lands and waters eligible for 
     assistance under title IV of the Surface Mining and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977.''.

     SEC. 104. WATER SANITATION IN RURAL AND NATIVE ALASKA 
                   VILLAGES.

       (a) In General.--Section 113 (33 U.S.C. 1263) is amended by 
     striking the section heading and designation and subsections 
     (a) through (f) and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Grants.--The Administrator is authorized to make 
     grants--
       ``(1) for the development and construction of facilities 
     which provide sanitation services for rural and Native Alaska 
     villages;
       ``(2) for training, technical assistance, and educational 
     programs relating to operation and maintenance for sanitation 
     services in rural and Native Alaska villages; and
       ``(3) for reasonable costs of administering and managing 
     grants made and programs and projects carried out under this 
     section; except that not to exceed 4 percent of the amount of 
     any grant made under this section may be made for such costs.
       ``(b) Federal Share.--A grant under this section shall be 
     50 percent of the cost of the program or project being 
     carried out with such grant.
       ``(c) Special Rule.--The Administrator shall award grants 
     under this section for project construction following the 
     rules specified in subpart H of part 1942 of title 7 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(d) Grants to State for Benefit of Villages.--Grants 
     under this section may be made to the State for the benefit 
     of rural Alaska villages and Alaska Native villages.
       ``(e) Coordination.--In carrying out activities under this 
     subsection, the Administrator is directed to coordinate 
     efforts between the State of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and the recipients of grants.
       ``(f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 
     1995, to carry out this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 113(g) is amended by 
     inserting after ``(g)'' the following: ``Definitions.--''.

     SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHESAPEAKE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 117(d) (33 U.S.C. 1267(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $3,000,000 
     per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
     after ``1990,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $18,000,000 
     per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
     after ``1990,''.

     SEC. 106. GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.
       (a) Great Lakes Research Council.--
       (1) In general.--Section 118 (33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) `Council' means the Great Lakes Research Council 
     established by subsection (d)(1);'';
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
       (iii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(K) `Great Lakes research' means the application of 
     scientific or engineering expertise to explain, understand, 
     and predict a physical, chemical, biological, or 
     socioeconomic process, or the interaction of 1 or more of the 
     processes, in the Great Lakes ecosystem.'';
       (B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Great Lakes Research Council.--
       ``(1) Establishment of council.--There is established a 
     Great Lakes Research Council.
       ``(2) Duties of council.--The Council--
       ``(A) shall advise and promote the coordination of Federal 
     Great Lakes research activities to avoid unnecessary 
     duplication and ensure greater effectiveness in achieving 
     protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem through the goals of 
     the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
       ``(B) not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this subparagraph and biennially thereafter and after 
     providing opportunity for public review and comment, shall 
     prepare and provide to interested parties a document that 
     includes--
       ``(i) an assessment of the Great Lakes research activities 
     needed to fulfill the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality 
     Agreement;
       ``(ii) an assessment of Federal expertise and capabilities 
     in the activities needed to fulfill the goals of the Great 
     Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including an inventory of 
     Federal Great Lakes research programs, projects, facilities, 
     and personnel; and
       ``(iii) recommendations for long-term and short-term 
     priorities for Federal Great Lakes research, based on a 
     comparison of the assessments conducted under clauses (i) and 
     (ii);
       ``(C) shall identify topics for and participate in 
     meetings, workshops, symposia, and conferences on Great Lakes 
     research issues;
       ``(D) shall make recommendations for the uniform collection 
     of data for enhancing Great Lakes research and management 
     protocols relating to the Great Lakes ecosystem;
       ``(E) shall advise and cooperate in--
       ``(i) improving the compatible integration of multimedia 
     data concerning the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
       ``(ii) any effort to establish a comprehensive multimedia 
     data base for the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
       ``(F) shall ensure that the results, findings, and 
     information regarding Great Lakes research programs conducted 
     or sponsored by the Federal Government are disseminated in a 
     timely manner, and in useful forms, to interested persons, 
     using to the maximum extent practicable mechanisms in 
     existence on the date of the dissemination, such as the Great 
     Lakes Research Inventory prepared by the International Joint 
     Commission.
       ``(3) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Council shall consist of 1 research 
     manager with extensive knowledge of, and scientific expertise 
     and experience in, the Great Lakes ecosystem from each of the 
     following agencies and instrumentalities:
       ``(i) The Agency.
       ``(ii) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
       ``(iii) The National Biological Service.
       ``(iv) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       ``(v) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that 
     expends $1,000,000 or more for a fiscal year on Great Lakes 
     research.
       ``(vi) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that a 
     majority of the Council membership determines should be 
     represented on the Council.
       ``(B) Nonvoting members.--At the request of a majority of 
     the Council membership, any person who is a representative of 
     a Federal agency or instrumentality not described in 
     subparagraph (A) or any person who is not a Federal employee 
     may serve as a nonvoting member of the Council.
       ``(4) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the Council shall be 
     a member of the Council from an agency specified in clause 
     (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (3)(A) who is elected by a 
     majority vote of the members of the Council. The chairperson 
     shall serve as chairperson for a period of 2 years. A member 
     of the Council may not serve as chairperson for more than 2 
     consecutive terms.
       ``(5) Expenses.--While performing official duties as a 
     member of the Council, a member shall be allowed travel or 
     transportation expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(6) Interagency cooperation.--The head of each Federal 
     agency or instrumentality that is represented on the 
     Council--
       ``(A) shall cooperate with the Council in implementing the 
     recommendations developed under paragraph (2);
     [[Page H4718]]   ``(B) on written request of the chairperson 
     of the Council, may make available, on a reimbursable basis 
     or otherwise, such personnel, services, or facilities as may 
     be necessary to assist the Council in carrying out the duties 
     of the Council under this section; and
       ``(C) on written request of the chairperson, shall furnish 
     data or information necessary to carry out the duties of the 
     Council under this section.
       ``(7) International cooperation.--The Council shall 
     cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the 
     research coordination efforts of the Council of Great Lakes 
     Research Managers of the International Joint Commission.
       ``(8) Reimbursement for requested activities.--Each Federal 
     agency or instrumentality represented on the Council may 
     reimburse another Federal agency or instrumentality or a non-
     Federal entity for costs associated with activities 
     authorized under this subsection that are carried out by the 
     other agency, instrumentality, or entity at the request of 
     the Council.
       ``(9) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council.
       ``(10) Effect on other law.--Nothing in this subsection 
     affects the authority of any Federal agency or 
     instrumentality, under any law, to undertake Great Lakes 
     research activities.'';
       (C) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the Program Office and 
     the Research Office shall prepare a joint research plan'' and 
     inserting ``the Program Office, in consultation with the 
     Council, shall prepare a research plan''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``the Research Office, 
     the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and 
     Great Lakes States'' and inserting ``the Council, the Agency 
     for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and Great Lakes 
     States,''; and
       (D) in subsection (h)--
       (i) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (ii) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a period; and
       (iii) by striking paragraph (3).
       (2) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section 
     403(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 
     Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1447b(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``Great Lakes Research Office authorized under'' and 
     inserting ``Great Lakes Research Council established by''.
       (b) Consistency of Programs With Federal Guidance.--Section 
     118(c)(2)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``For purposes of this section, a 
     State's standards, policies, and procedures shall be 
     considered consistent with such guidance if the standards, 
     policies, and procedures are based on scientifically 
     defensible judgments and policy choices made by the State 
     after consideration of the guidance and provide an overall 
     level of protection comparable to that provided by the 
     guidance, taking into account the specific circumstances of 
     the State's waters.''.
       (c) Reauthorization of Assessment and Remediation of 
     Contaminated Sediments Program.--Section 118(c)(7) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Reauthorization of assessment and remediation of 
     contaminated sediments program.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the 
     Program Office, in consultation and cooperation with the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for 
     civil works, shall conduct at least 3 pilot projects 
     involving promising technologies and practices to remedy 
     contaminated sediments (including at least 1 full-scale 
     demonstration of a remediation technology) at sites in the 
     Great Lakes System, as the Administrator determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(ii) Selection of sites.--In selecting sites for the 
     pilot projects, the Administrator shall give priority 
     consideration to--

       ``(I) the Ashtabula River in Ohio;
       ``(II) the Buffalo River in New York;
       ``(III) Duluth and Superior Harbor in Minnesota;
       ``(IV) the Fox River in Wisconsin;
       ``(V) the Grand Calumet River in Indiana; and
       ``(VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.

       ``(iii) Deadlines.--In carrying out this subparagraph, the 
     Administrator shall--

       ``(I) not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this subparagraph, identify at least 3 sites and 
     the technologies and practices to be demonstrated at the 
     sites (including at least 1 full-scale demonstration of a 
     remediation technology); and
       ``(II) not later than 5 years after such date of enactment, 
     complete at least 3 pilot projects (including at least 1 
     full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology).

       ``(iv) Additional projects.--The Administrator, acting 
     through the Program Office, in consultation and cooperation 
     with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having 
     responsibility for civil works, may conduct additional pilot- 
     and full-scale pilot projects involving promising 
     technologies and practices at sites in the Great Lakes System 
     other than the sites selected under clause (i).
       ``(v) Execution of projects.--The Administrator may 
     cooperate with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having 
     responsibility for civil works to plan, engineer, design, and 
     execute pilot projects under this subparagraph.
       ``(vi) Non-federal contributions.--The Administrator may 
     accept non-Federal contributions to carry out pilot projects 
     under this subparagraph.
       ``(vii) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph 
     $3,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
       ``(E) Technical information and assistance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the 
     Program Office, may provide technical information and 
     assistance involving technologies and practices for 
     remediation of contaminated sediments to persons that request 
     the information or assistance.
       ``(ii) Technical assistance priorities.--In providing 
     technical assistance under this subparagraph, the 
     Administrator, acting through the Program Office, shall give 
     special priority to requests for integrated assessments of, 
     and recommendations regarding, remediation technologies and 
     practices for contaminated sediments at Great Lakes areas of 
     concern.
       ``(iii) Coordination with other demonstrations.--The 
     Administrator shall--

       ``(I) coordinate technology demonstrations conducted under 
     this subparagraph with other federally assisted 
     demonstrations of contaminated sediment remediation 
     technologies; and
       ``(II) share information from the demonstrations conducted 
     under this subparagraph with the other demonstrations.

       ``(iv) Other sediment remediation activities.--Nothing in 
     this subparagraph limits the authority of the Administrator 
     to carry out sediment remediation activities under other 
     laws.
       ``(v) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Research and management.--Section 118(e)(3)(B) (33 
     U.S.C. 1268(e)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting before the 
     period at the end the following: ``, such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal year 1995, and $4,000,000 per fiscal 
     year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998''.
       (2) Great lakes programs.--Section 118(h) (33 U.S.C. 
     1268(h)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' before ``$25,000,000''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
     sentence the following: ``, such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and $17,500,000 per fiscal 
     year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.
                     TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

     SEC. 201. USES OF FUNDS.

       (a) Nonpoint Source Program.--Section 201(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1281(g)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end of 
     the first sentence and all that follows through the period at 
     the end of the last sentence and inserting the following: 
     ``and for any purpose for which a grant may be made under 
     sections 319(h) and 319(i) of this Act (including any 
     innovative and alternative approaches for the control of 
     nonpoint sources of pollution).''.
       (b) Retroactive Eligibility.--Section 201(g)(1) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     Administrator, with the concurrence of the States, shall 
     develop procedures to facilitate and expedite the retroactive 
     eligibility and provision of grant funding for facilities 
     already under construction.''.

     SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSEOUT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 205(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1285(g)(1)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator may 
     negotiate an annual budget with a State for the purpose of 
     administering the closeout of the State's construction grants 
     program under this title. Sums made available for 
     administering such closeout shall be subtracted from amounts 
     remaining available for obligation under the State's 
     construction grant program under this title.''.

     SEC. 203. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

       Section 211(a) (33 U.S.C. 1291(a)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (1) by striking ``an existing collection 
     system'' and inserting ``a collection system existing on the 
     date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
     1995''; and
       (2) in clause (2)--
       (A) by striking ``an existing community'' and inserting ``a 
     community existing on such date of enactment''; and
       (B) by striking ``sufficient existing'' and inserting 
     ``sufficient capacity existing on such date of enactment''.

     SEC. 204. VALUE ENGINEERING REVIEW.

       Section 218(c) (33 U.S.C. 1298(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.
     SEC. 205. GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

       (a) Coastal Localities.--The Administrator shall make 
     grants under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act to appropriate instrumentalities for the purpose of 
     construction of treatment works (including combined sewer 
     overflow facilities) to serve coastal localities. No less 
     than $10,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be used 
     for water infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, no less 
     than $3,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be 
     [[Page H4719]]  used for water infrastructure improvements in 
     Bristol County, Massachusetts, and no less than \1/3\ of the 
     amount of such grants shall be used to assist localities that 
     meet both of the following criteria:
       (1) Need.--A locality that has over $2,000,000,000 in 
     category I treatment needs documented and accepted in the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's 1992 Needs Survey database 
     as of February 4, 1993.
       (2) Hardship.--A locality that has wastewater user charges, 
     for residential use of 7,000 gallons per month based on Ernst 
     & Young National Water and Wastewater 1992 Rate Survey, 
     greater than 0.65 percent of 1989 median household income for 
     the metropolitan statistical area in which such locality is 
     located as measured by the Bureau of the Census.
       (b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 202(a)(1) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal share of 
     grants under subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of the cost 
     of construction, and the non-Federal share shall be 20 
     percent of the cost of construction.
       (c) Small Communities.--The Administrator shall make grants 
     to States for the purpose of providing assistance for the 
     construction of treatment works to serve small communities as 
     defined by the State; except that the term ``small 
     communities'' may not include any locality with a population 
     greater than 75,000. Funds made available to carry out this 
     subsection shall be allotted by the Administrator to the 
     States in accordance with the allotment formula contained in 
     section 604(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for making grants under this section 
     $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended and shall be equally divided between 
     subsections (a) and (c) of this section. Such authorization 
     of appropriation shall take effect only if the total amount 
     appropriated for fiscal year 1996 to carry out title VI of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is at least 
     $3,000,000,000.
                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. ARID AREAS.

       (a) Constructed Water Conveyances.--Section 303(c)(2) (33 
     U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
       ``(i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercises jurisdiction 
     over constructed water conveyances in establishing standards 
     under this section, the State may consider the following:

       ``(I) The existing and planned uses of water transported in 
     a conveyance system.
       ``(II) Any water quality impacts resulting from any return 
     flow from a constructed water conveyance to navigable waters 
     and the need to protect downstream users.
       ``(III) Management practices necessary to maintain the 
     conveyance system.
       ``(IV) State or regional water resources management and 
     water conservation plans.
       ``(V) The authorized purpose for the constructed 
     conveyance.

       ``(ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or reviews water 
     quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall 
     not be required to establish recreation, aquatic life, or 
     fish consumption uses for such systems if the uses are not 
     existing or reasonably foreseeable or such uses impede the 
     authorized uses of the conveyance system.''.
       (b) Criteria and Guidance for Ephemeral and Effluent-
     Dependent Streams.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Criteria and guidance for ephemeral and effluent-
     dependent streams.--
       ``(A) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this paragraph, and after providing 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator 
     shall develop and publish--
       ``(i) criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent 
     streams; and
       ``(ii) guidance to the States on development and adoption 
     of water quality standards applicable to such streams.
       ``(B) Factors.--The criteria and guidance developed under 
     subparagraph (A) shall take into account the limited ability 
     of ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams to support 
     aquatic life and certain designated uses, shall include 
     consideration of the role the discharge may play in 
     maintaining the flow or level of such waters, and shall 
     promote the beneficial use of reclaimed water pursuant to 
     section 101(a)(10).''.
       (c) Factors Required To Be Considered by Administrator.--
     Section 303(c)(4) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``In revising or adopting any new standard for 
     ephemeral or effluent-dependent streams under this paragraph, 
     the Administrator shall consider the factors referred to in 
     section 304(a)(9)(B).''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) The term `effluent-dependent stream' means a stream 
     or a segment thereof--
       ``(A) with respect to which the flow (based on the annual 
     average expected flow, determined by calculating the average 
     mode over a 10-year period) is primarily attributable to the 
     discharge of treated wastewater;
       ``(B) that, in the absence of a discharge of treated 
     wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or 
     subsurface flows, would be an ephemeral stream; or
       ``(C) that is an effluent-dependent stream under applicable 
     State water quality standards.
       ``(22) The term `ephemeral stream' means a stream or 
     segments thereof that flows periodically in response to 
     precipitation, snowmelt, or runoff.
       ``(23) The term `constructed water conveyance' means a 
     manmade water transport system constructed for the purpose of 
     transporting water in a waterway that is not and never was a 
     natural perennial waterway.''.

     SEC. 302. SECONDARY TREATMENT.

       (a) Coastal Discharges.--Section 304(d) (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Coastal discharges.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     any municipal wastewater treatment facility shall be deemed 
     the equivalent of a secondary treatment facility if each of 
     the following requirements is met:
       ``(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced primary 
     treatment.
       ``(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, discharges through an ocean outfall into an open 
     marine environment greater than 4 miles offshore into a depth 
     greater than 300 feet.
       ``(C) The facility's discharge is in compliance with all 
     local and State water quality standards for the receiving 
     waters.
       ``(D) The facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean 
     monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal and State 
     regulatory agencies.''.
       (b) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, with the concurrence 
     of the State, shall issue a 10-year permit under section 402 
     which modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of 
     this section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant 
     from a publicly owned treatment works into marine waters 
     which are at least 150 feet deep through an ocean outfall 
     which discharges at least 1 mile offshore, if the applicant 
     demonstrates that--
       ``(A) there is an applicable ocean plan and the facility's 
     discharge is in compliance with all local and State water 
     quality standards for the receiving waters;
       ``(B) the facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean 
     monitoring program determined to be acceptable by relevant 
     Federal and State regulatory agencies;
       ``(C) the applicant has an Agency approved pretreatment 
     plan in place; and
       ``(D) the applicant, at the time such modification becomes 
     effective, will be discharging effluent which has received at 
     least chemically enhanced primary treatment and achieves a 
     monthly average of 75 percent removal of suspended solids.
       ``(2) Discharge of any pollutant into marine waters 
     defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `discharge of any pollutant into marine waters' means a 
     discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea or the 
     waters of the contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine 
     waters where there is strong tidal movement.
       ``(3) Deadline.--On or before the 90th day after the date 
     of submittal of an application for a modification under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant 
     a modified permit under section 402 or a written 
     determination that the application does not meet the terms 
     and conditions of this subsection.
       ``(4) Effect of failure to respond.--If the Administrator 
     does not respond to an application for a modification under 
     paragraph (1) on or before the 90th day referred to in 
     paragraph (3), the application shall be deemed approved and 
     the modification sought by the applicant shall be in effect 
     for the succeeding 10-year period.''.
       (2) Extension of application deadline.--Section 301(j) (33 
     U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Extension of application deadline.--In the 365-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, municipalities may apply for a modification 
     pursuant to subsection (s) of the requirements of subsection 
     (b)(1)(B) of this section.''.
       (c) Modifications for Small System Treatment 
     Technologies.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Modifications for Small System Treatment 
     Technologies.--The Administrator, with the concurrence of the 
     State, or a State with an approved program under section 402 
     may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the 
     requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with 
     respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly 
     owned treatment works serving a community of 20,000 people or 
     fewer if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of 
     the Administrator that--
       ``(1) the effluent from such facility originates primarily 
     from domestic users; and
       ``(2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and 
     operated alternative treatment system (including 
     recirculating sand filter systems, constructed wetlands, and 
     oxidation lagoons) which is equivalent to secondary treatment 
     or will provide in the receiving waters and watershed an 
     adequate level of protection to human health and the 
     environment and contribute to the attainment of water quality 
     standards.''.
       (d) Puerto Rico.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(u) Puerto Rico.--
     [[Page H4720]]   ``(1) Study by government of puerto rico.--
     Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of 
     this section, the Government of Puerto Rico may, after 
     consultation with the Administrator, initiate a study of the 
     marine environment of Anasco Bay off the coast of the 
     Mayaguez region of Puerto Rico to determine the feasibility 
     of constructing a deepwater outfall for the publicly owned 
     treatment works located at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Such study 
     shall recommend one or more technically feasible locations 
     for the deepwater outfall based on the effects of such 
     outfall on the marine environment.
       ``(2) Application for modification.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 18 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, an application may be 
     submitted for a modification pursuant to subsection (h) of 
     the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by 
     the owner of the publicly owned treatment works at Mayaguez, 
     Puerto Rico, for a deepwater outfall at a location 
     recommended in the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Initial determination.--On or before the 90th day 
     after the date of submittal of an application for 
     modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall 
     issue to the applicant a draft initial determination 
     regarding the modification of the existing permit.
       ``(4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day 
     after the date of submittal of an application for 
     modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall 
     issue a final determination regarding such modification.
       ``(5) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted pursuant 
     to an application submitted under this subsection, such 
     modification shall be effective only if the new deepwater 
     outfall is operational within 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection. In all other aspects, such 
     modification shall be effective for the period applicable to 
     all modifications granted under subsection (h).''.

     SEC. 303. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Application of Certain Provisions.--Section 313(a) (33 
     U.S.C. 1323(a)) is amended by striking all preceding 
     subsection (b) and inserting the following:
     ``SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.

       ``(a) Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate, and 
     Local Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 
     branches of the Federal Government--
       ``(A) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or
       ``(B) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may 
     result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants,

     and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the 
     performance of his official duties, shall be subject to, and 
     comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local 
     requirements, administrative authority, and process and 
     sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water 
     pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any 
     nongovernmental entity, including the payment of reasonable 
     service charges.
       ``(2) Types of actions covered.--Paragraph (1) shall 
     apply--
       ``(A) to any requirement whether substantive or procedural 
     (including any recordkeeping or reporting requirement, any 
     requirement respecting permits, and any other requirement),
       ``(B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or local 
     administrative authority, and
       ``(C) to any process and sanction, whether enforced in 
     Federal, State, or local courts or in any other manner.
       ``(3) Penalties and fines.--The Federal, State, interstate, 
     and local substantive and procedural requirements, 
     administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred 
     to in paragraph (1) include all administrative orders and all 
     civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of 
     whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in 
     nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or 
     continuing violations.
       ``(4) Sovereign immunity.--
       ``(A) Waiver.--The United States hereby expressly waives 
     any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States with 
     respect to any requirement, administrative authority, and 
     process and sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) (including 
     any injunctive relief, any administrative order, any civil or 
     administrative penalty or fine referred to in paragraph (3), 
     or any reasonable service charge).
       ``(B) Processing fees.--The reasonable service charges 
     referred to in this paragraph include fees or charges 
     assessed in connection with the processing and issuance of 
     permits, renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of 
     plans, studies, and other documents, and inspection and 
     monitoring of facilities, as well as any other 
     nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in connection 
     with a Federal, State, interstate, or local water pollution 
     regulatory program.
       ``(5) Exemptions.--
       ``(A) General authority of president.--The President may 
     exempt any effluent source of any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with 
     any requirement to which paragraph (1) applies if the 
     President determines it to be in the paramount interest of 
     the United States to do so; except that no exemption may be 
     granted from the requirements of section 306 or 307 of this 
     Act.
       ``(B) Limitation.--No exemptions shall be granted under 
     subparagraph (A) due to lack of appropriation unless the 
     President shall have specifically requested such 
     appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the 
     Congress shall have failed to make available such requested 
     appropriation.
       ``(C) Time period.--Any exemption under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be for a period not in excess of 1 year, but additional 
     exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed 1 year 
     upon the President's making a new determination.
       ``(D) Military property.--In addition to any exemption of a 
     particular effluent source, the President may, if the 
     President determines it to be in the paramount interest of 
     the United States to do so, issue regulations exempting from 
     compliance with the requirements of this section any 
     weaponry, equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other 
     classes or categories of property, and access to such 
     property, which are owned or operated by the Armed Forces of 
     the United States (including the Coast Guard) or by the 
     National Guard of any State and which are uniquely military 
     in nature. The President shall reconsider the need for such 
     regulations at 3-year intervals.
       ``(E) Reports.--The President shall report each January to 
     the Congress all exemptions from the requirements of this 
     section granted during the preceding calendar year, together 
     with the President's reason for granting such exemption.
       ``(6) Venue.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     prevent any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     Federal Government, or any officer, agent, or employee 
     thereof in the performance of official duties, from removing 
     to the appropriate Federal district court any proceeding to 
     which the department, agency, or instrumentality or officer, 
     agent, or employee thereof is subject pursuant to this 
     section, and any such proceeding may be removed in accordance 
     with chapter 89 of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(7) Personal liability of federal employees.--No agent, 
     employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally 
     liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State, 
     interstate, or local water pollution law with respect to any 
     act or omission within the scope of the official duties of 
     the agent, employee, or officer.
       ``(8) Criminal sanctions.--An agent, employee, or officer 
     of the United States shall be subject to any criminal 
     sanction (including any fine or imprisonment) under any 
     Federal or State water pollution law, but no department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or 
     judicial branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to 
     any such sanction.''.
       (b) Funds Collected by a State.--Section 313 (33 U.S.C. 
     1323) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Limitation on State Use of Funds.--Unless a State law 
     in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection or 
     a State constitution requires the funds to be used in a 
     different manner, all funds collected by a State from the 
     Federal Government in penalties and fines imposed for the 
     violation of a substantive or procedural requirement referred 
     to in subsection (a) shall be used by a State only for 
     projects designed to improve or protect the environment or to 
     defray the costs of environmental protection or 
     enforcement.''.
       (c) Enforcement.--Section 313 is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(d) Federal Facility Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Administrative enforcement by epa.--The Administrator 
     may commence an administrative enforcement action against any 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, 
     legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government 
     pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Procedure.--The Administrator shall initiate an 
     administrative enforcement action against a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality under this subsection in the same 
     manner and under the same circumstances as an action would be 
     initiated against any other person under this Act. The amount 
     of any administrative penalty imposed under this subsection 
     shall be determined in accordance with section 309(d) of this 
     Act.
       ``(3) Voluntary settlement.--Any voluntary resolution or 
     settlement of an action under this subsection shall be set 
     forth in an administrative consent order.
       ``(4) Conferral with epa.--No administrative order issued 
     to a department, agency, or instrumentality under this 
     section shall become final until such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with the 
     Administrator.''.
       (d) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--
     Section 313 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Any 
     violation with respect to which the Administrator has 
     commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action under this 
     subsection, or for which the Administrator has issued a final 
     order and the violator has either paid a penalty or fine 
     assessed under this subsection or is subject to an 
     enforceable schedule of corrective actions, shall not be the 
     subject of an action under section 505 of this Act. In any 
     action under this subsection, any citizen may intervene as a 
     matter of right.''.
     [[Page H4721]]   (e) Definition of Person.--Section 502(5) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1362(5)) is amended by inserting before the period 
     at the end the following: ``and includes any department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the United States''.
       (f) Definition of Radioactive Materials.--Section 502 (33 
     U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) The term `radioactive materials' includes source 
     materials, special nuclear materials, and byproduct materials 
     (as such terms are defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954) which are used, produced, or managed at facilities not 
     licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; except that 
     such term does not include any material which is discharged 
     from a vessel or other facility covered by Executive Order 
     12344 (42 U.S.C. 7158 note; relating to the Naval Nuclear 
     Propulsion Program).''.
       (g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 313(b) (33 U.S.C. 
     1323(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Wastewater Facilities.--
       ``(1) Cooperation for use of wastewater control systems.--
     '';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Limitation on 
     construction.--'' before ``Construction''; and
       (3) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) 2 ems to the right.
       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall only apply to violations occurring after such date 
     of enactment.

     SEC. 304. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
       (1) The Nation's estuaries are a vital natural resource to 
     which many regional economies are closely tied.
       (2) Many of the Nation's estuaries are under a severe 
     threat from point source pollution and polluted run-off 
     (nonpoint source pollution) and from habitat alteration and 
     destruction.
       (3) Only through expanded investments in waste water 
     treatment and other water and sediment pollution control and 
     prevention efforts can the environmental and economic values 
     of the Nation's estuaries be restored and protected.
       (4) The National Estuary Program created under the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act has significantly advanced the 
     Nation's understanding of the declining condition of the 
     Nation's estuaries.
       (5) The National Estuary Program has also provided precise 
     information about the corrective and preventative measures 
     required to reverse the degradation of water and sediment 
     quality and to halt the alteration and destruction of vital 
     habitat in the Nation's estuaries.
       (6) The level of funding available to States, 
     municipalities, and the Environmental Protection Agency for 
     implementation of approved conservation and management plans 
     is inadequate, and additional financial resources must be 
     provided.
       (7) Funding for implementation of approved conservation and 
     management plans should be provided under the State revolving 
     loan fund program authorized by title VI of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act.
       (8) Authorization levels for State revolving loan fund 
     capitalization grants should be increased by an amount 
     necessary to ensure the achievement of the goals of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--Section 320(a)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C. 
     1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Priority consideration.--The Administrator shall give 
     priority consideration under this section to Long Island 
     Sound, New York and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode 
     Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bay, 
     Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor); 
     Puget Sound, Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York 
     and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; 
     Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North 
     Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay, 
     California; Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay, 
     Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana; 
     Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Charlotte Harbor, Florida; 
     Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; and Peconic Bay, New York.''.
       (c) Grants.--Section 320(g)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and implementation monitoring'' after 
     ``development''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) (33 
     U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``1987'' and all that 
     follows through ``1991'' and inserting the following: ``1987 
     through 1991, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
     1992 through 1995, and $19,000,000 per fiscal year for each 
     of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.

     SEC. 305. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Review and Revision.--Section 319(b) (33 U.S.C. 
     1329(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the State shall 
     review and revise the report required by this subsection and 
     submit such revised report to the Administrator for 
     approval.''.
       (b) Approval or Disapproval of Management Programs.--
     Section 319(d)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1329(d)(1)) is amended by 
     inserting ``or revised management program'' after 
     ``management program'' each place it appears.
       (c) Grants for Protecting Ground Water Quality.--Section 
     319(i)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1329(i)(3)) is amended by striking 
     ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 319(j) (33 
     U.S.C. 1329(j)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$130,000,000'';
       (2) by inserting after ``1991'' the following: ``, such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, 
     $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2000''; and
       (3) by striking ``$7,500,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000''.
       (e) Agricultural Inputs.--Section 319 (33 U.S.C. 1329) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Agricultural Inputs.--For the purposes of this Act, 
     any land application of livestock manure shall not be 
     considered a point source and shall be subject to enforcement 
     only under this section.''.
     SEC. 306. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT.

       Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization 
     Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``Program development.--''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) A State that has not received Federal approval for 
     the State's core coastal management program pursuant to 
     section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1455) shall have 30 months from the date of approval 
     of such program to submit a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution 
     Program pursuant to this section. Any such State shall also 
     be eligible for any extension of time for submittal of the 
     State's nonpoint program that may be received by a State with 
     a federally approved coastal management program.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``to protect coastal waters generally'' and 
     inserting ``to restore and protect coastal waters where the 
     State has determined that coastal waters are threatened or 
     significantly degraded'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``The implementation'' and inserting ``A 
     schedule for the implementation''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and no less often than once every 5 
     years,'' after ``from time to time'';
       (4) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Identification of priority areas.--A prioritization 
     of the areas in the State in which management measures will 
     be implemented.'';
       (5) in subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Conditional approval.--The Secretary and 
     Administrator may grant conditional approval to a State's 
     program where the State requests additional time to complete 
     the development of its program. During the period during 
     which the State's program is subject to conditional approval, 
     the penalty provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) shall not 
     apply.'';
       (6) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``, 1993, and 1994'' 
     and inserting ``through 2000''; and
       (7) in subsection (h)(2)(B)(iv) by striking ``fiscal year 
     1995'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 1995 through 
     2000''.
     SEC. 307. COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1300-1330) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 321. COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.

       ``(a) Findings, Purpose, and Definitions.--
       ``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that comprehensive 
     watershed management will further the goals and objectives of 
     this Act by--
       ``(A) identifying more fully water quality impairments and 
     the pollutants, sources, and activities causing the 
     impairments;
       ``(B) integrating water protection quality efforts under 
     this Act with other natural resource protection efforts, 
     including Federal efforts to define and protect ecological 
     systems (including the waters and the living resources 
     supported by the waters);
       ``(C) defining long-term social, economic, and natural 
     resource objectives and the water quality necessary to attain 
     or maintain the objectives;
       ``(D) increasing, through citizen participation in the 
     watershed management process, public support for improved 
     water quality;
       ``(E) identifying priority water quality problems that need 
     immediate attention; and
       ``(F) identifying the most cost-effective measures to 
     achieve the objectives of this Act.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to encourage 
     comprehensive watershed management in maintaining and 
     enhancing water quality, in restoring and protecting living 
     resources supported by the waters, and in ensuring waters of 
     a quality sufficient to meet human needs, including water 
     supply and recreation.
       ``(3) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Ecosystem.--The term `ecosystem' means the community 
     of plants and animals (including humans) and the environment 
     (including surface water, the ground water with which it 
     interacts, and riparian areas) upon which that community 
     depends.
     [[Page H4722]]   ``(B) Environmental objectives.--The term 
     `environmental objectives' means the goals specified by 
     States or State-designated watershed management entities to 
     protect, restore, and maintain water resources and aquatic 
     ecosystems within a watershed, including applicable water 
     quality standards and wetlands protection goals established 
     under the Act.
       ``(C) State.--The term `State' includes Indian tribes 
     eligible under section 518(e).
       ``(b) State Watershed Program.--
       ``(1) Submittal.--A State, at any time, may submit to the 
     Administrator for approval a watershed management program for 
     the State.
       ``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve a State 
     watershed program submitted under paragraph (1) if the 
     program, at a minimum, contains the following elements:
       ``(A) An identification of the State agency generally 
     responsible for overseeing and approving watershed management 
     plans and a designation of watershed management entities and 
     lead responsibilities for such entities. Such entities may 
     include other State agencies and sub-State agencies.
       ``(B) A description of the scope of the program. In 
     determining the scope of the program, the State may choose to 
     address all watersheds within the State over a period of time 
     or to concentrate efforts on selected watersheds. Within each 
     watershed, the issues to be addressed should be based on a 
     comprehensive analysis of the problems within the watershed. 
     The scope of the program may expand over a period of time 
     both in terms of the number of watersheds and the issues 
     addressed by the program.
       ``(C) An identification of watershed management units for 
     which watershed management plans will be developed. In 
     selecting such units, the State shall consider those waters 
     in the State that are water quality threatened or impaired or 
     are otherwise in need of special protection. To the extent 
     practicable, the boundaries of each watershed management unit 
     shall be consistent with United States Geological Service 
     hydrological units.
       ``(D) A description of activities required of watershed 
     management entities (as specified under subsection (f)(1)) 
     and a description of the State's approval process for 
     watershed management plans.
       ``(E) A specification of an effective public participation 
     process, including procedures to encourage the public to 
     participate in developing and implementing watershed 
     management plans.
       ``(F) An identification of the statewide environmental 
     objectives that will be pursued in each watershed. Such 
     objectives, at a minimum, shall include State water quality 
     standards and goals under this Act, and, as appropriate, 
     other objectives such as habitat restoration and biological 
     diversity.
       ``(2) Deadline.--The Administrator, after consultation with 
     other Federal agencies, shall approve or disapprove a State 
     watershed program submitted under paragraph (1) on or before 
     the 180th day following the date of the submittal. If a State 
     watershed program is disapproved, the State may modify and 
     resubmit its program under paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Annual report.--A State with an approved watershed 
     program under this subsection shall provide to the 
     Administrator an annual report summarizing the status of the 
     program, including a description of any modifications to the 
     program. An annual report submitted under this section may be 
     used by the State to satisfy reporting requirements under 
     sections 106, 314, 319, and 320.
       ``(4) Effective period of approvals.--An approval of a 
     State watershed program under paragraph (2) shall remain in 
     effect for a 5-year period beginning on the date of the 
     approval and may be renewed by the Administrator.
       ``(5) Withdrawal of approval.--Whenever the Administrator 
     determines after public hearing that a State is not 
     administering a watershed program approved under paragraph 
     (2) in accordance with requirements of this section, he shall 
     so notify the State and, if appropriate corrective action is 
     not taken within a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, 
     the Administrator shall withdraw approval of such program. 
     The Administrator shall not withdraw approval of any such 
     program unless he shall first have notified the State, and 
     made public, in writing, the reasons for such withdrawal.
       ``(c) Designation of Additional Watershed Management Units 
     and Entities.--A State with an approved watershed program 
     under this section may modify such program at any time in 
     order to designate additional watershed management units and 
     entities, including lead responsibilities, for the purpose of 
     developing and implementing watershed management plans.
       ``(d) Eligible Watershed Management and Planning 
     Activities.--The following watershed management activities 
     are eligible to receive assistance from the Administrator 
     under sections 205(j), 319(h), and 604(b):
       ``(1) Characterizing waters and land uses.
       ``(2) Identifying problems within a watershed.
       ``(3) Selecting short-term and long-term goals for 
     watershed management.
       ``(4) Developing and implementing measures and practices to 
     meet identified goals.
       ``(5) Identifying and coordinating projects and activities 
     necessary to restore and maintain water quality or meet other 
     environmental objectives within the watershed.
       ``(6) Identifying the appropriate institutional 
     arrangements to carry out an approved watershed management 
     plan.
       ``(7) Updating an approved watershed management plan.
       ``(8) Any other activities deemed appropriate by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(e) Support for Watershed Management and Planning.--
       ``(1) Interagency committee.--There is established an 
     interagency committee to support comprehensive watershed 
     management and planning. The President shall appoint the 
     members of the committee. The members shall include a 
     representative from each Federal agency that carries out 
     programs and activities that may have a significant impact on 
     water quality or other natural resource values that may be 
     appropriately addressed through comprehensive watershed 
     management.
       ``(2) Use of other funds under this act.--The planning and 
     implementation activities carried out by a management entity 
     pursuant to this section may be carried out with funds made 
     available through the State pursuant to sections 205(j), 
     319(h), and 604(b).
       ``(f) Approved Plans.--
       ``(1) Minimum requirements.--A State with an approved 
     watershed program may approve a watershed management plan 
     when such plan satisfies the following conditions:
       ``(A) If the watershed includes waters that are not meeting 
     applicable water quality standards under this Act at the time 
     of submission, the plan--
       ``(i) identifies the environmental objectives of the plan 
     including, at a minimum, State water quality standards and 
     goals under this Act, and any other environmental objectives 
     the planning entity deems appropriate;
       ``(ii) identifies the stressors, pollutants, and sources 
     causing the impairment;
       ``(iii) identifies actions necessary to achieve the 
     environmental objectives of the plan, including source 
     reduction of pollutants to achieve any allocated load 
     reductions consistent with the requirements of section 303(d) 
     and the priority for implementing such actions;
       ``(iv) contains an implementation plan, with schedules, 
     milestones, projected completion dates, and the 
     identification of those persons responsible for implementing 
     the actions, demonstrating that water quality standards will 
     be attained as expeditiously as practicable, but not later 
     than deadlines in applicable sections of this Act and all 
     other environmental objectives identified in the watershed 
     management plan will be attained as expeditiously as 
     practicable;
       ``(v) contains an effective public participation process in 
     the development and implementation of the plan;
       ``(vi) specifies a process to monitor and evaluate progress 
     toward meeting environmental objectives; and
       ``(vii) specifies a process to revise the plan as needed.
       ``(B) For those waters in the watershed attaining water 
     quality standards at the time of submission (including 
     threatened waters), the plan identifies those projects and 
     activities necessary to maintain water quality standards and 
     attain or maintain other environmental objectives in the 
     future.
       ``(2) Terms of plan and plan approval.--Each plan submitted 
     and approved under this subsection shall extend for a period 
     of not less than 5 years and include a planning and 
     implementation schedule with milestones and completion dates 
     within that period. The approval by the State of a plan shall 
     apply for a period not exceed 5 years. A revised and updated 
     plan may be submitted prior to the expiration of the period 
     specified in the preceding sentence for approval pursuant to 
     the same conditions and requirements that apply to an initial 
     plan for a watershed that is approved pursuant to this 
     subsection.
       ``(g) Incentives for Watershed Management.--
       ``(1) Point source permits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 301(b)(1)(C), a 
     permit may be issued under section 402 with a limitation that 
     does not meet water quality standards, if--
       ``(i) the receiving water is in a watershed with an 
     approved watershed plan;
       ``(ii) the plan includes enforceable requirements under 
     State or local law for nonpoint source pollutant load 
     reductions that in combination with point source requirements 
     will meet water quality standards prior to the expiration of 
     plan; and
       ``(iii) the point source does not have a history of 
     significant noncompliance with its permit effluent 
     limitations, as determined by the Administrator or the State 
     (in the case with an approved permit under section 402).
       ``(B) Synchronized permit terms.--Notwithstanding section 
     402(b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under section 402 
     may be extended by 5 years if the discharge is located in a 
     watershed planning area for which a watershed management plan 
     is to be developed.
       ``(C) 10-year permit terms.--Notwithstanding section 
     402(b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under section 402 
     may be extended to 10 years for any point source located in a 
     watershed management unit for which a watershed management 
     plan has been approved if the plan provides for the 
     attainment and maintenance of water quality standards 
     (including designated uses) in the affected waters and unless 
     receiving waters are not meeting water quality standards due 
     to the point source discharge. Such permits may be revised at 
     any time if necessary to meet water quality standards.
     [[Page H4723]]   ``(2) Nonpoint source controls.--Not later 
     than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, a State with an approved watershed program under 
     this section may make a showing to the Administrator that 
     nonpoint source management practices different from those 
     established in national guidance issued by the Administrator 
     under section 319 will attain water quality standards as 
     expeditiously as practicable and not later than the deadlines 
     established by this Act. If the Administrator is satisfied 
     with such showing, then the Administrator may approve the 
     State's nonpoint source management program that relies on 
     such practices as meeting the requirements of section 319. 
     Alternative watershed nonpoint source control practices must 
     be identified in the watershed management plan adopted under 
     subsection (f)(2) of this section.
        ``(3) Funding.--The Administrator may provide assistance 
     to a State with an approved watershed management program 
     under this section in the form of a multipurpose grant that 
     would provide for single application, workplan and review, 
     matching, oversight, and end-of-year closeout requirements 
     for grant funding under sections 104(b)(3), 104(g), 106, 
     314(b), 319, 320, and 604(b). A State with an approved 
     multipurpose grant may focus activities funded under such 
     sections on a priority basis consistent with State-approved 
     watershed management plans.
       ``(h) Guidance.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, and after consultation with 
     other appropriate agencies, the Administrator shall issue 
     guidance on recommended provisions to be included in State 
     watershed programs and State-approved watershed management 
     plans.
       ``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator for providing grants 
     to States to assist such States in carrying out activities 
     under this section $25,000,000 per fiscal year for each of 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1341(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and with the provisions 
     of a management plan approved by a State under section 321 of 
     this Act'' before the period at the end of the first 
     sentence.

     SEC. 308. REVISION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Elimination of Requirement for Annual Revision.--
     Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``and, at least annually 
     thereafter,'' and inserting ``and thereafter shall''.
       (b) Special Rule.--Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is 
     amended by striking the period at the end of the first 
     sentence and inserting the following: ``; except that 
     guidelines issued under paragraph (1)(A) addressing 
     pollutants identified pursuant to subsection (a)(4) shall not 
     be revised after February 15, 1995, to be more stringent 
     unless such revised guidelines meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (4)(A).''.
                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

     SEC. 401. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL 
                   FEEDING OPERATIONS.

       Section 402(a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Concentrated animal feeding operations.--For purposes 
     of this section, waste treatment systems, including retention 
     ponds or lagoons, used to meet the requirements of this Act 
     for concentrated animal feeding operations, are not waters of 
     the United States. An existing concentrated animal feeding 
     operation 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 continue to use that natural topographic feature 
     for waste storage regardless of its size, capacity, or 
     previous use.''.
     SEC. 402. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER DISCHARGES.

       (a) Deadlines.--Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C. 1343(p)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
     ``2005''; and
       (2) in paragraph (6) by striking ``1993'' and inserting 
     ``2005''.
       (b) Prohibition on Numeric Effluent Limitations for 
     Municipal Discharges.--Section 402(p)(3) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(C) Prohibition on numeric effluent limitations for 
     municipal discharges.--Permits for municipal separate storm 
     sewers shall not include numeric effluent limitations.''.

     SEC. 403. INTAKE CREDITS.

       Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(q) Intake Credits.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act, in any effluent limitation or other limitation imposed 
     under the permit program established by the Administrator 
     under this section, any State permit program approved under 
     this section (including any program for implementation under 
     section 118(c)(2)), any standards established under section 
     307(a), or any program for industrial users established under 
     section 307(b), the Administrator, as applicable, shall or 
     the State, as applicable, may provide credits for pollutants 
     present in or caused by intake water such that an owner or 
     operator of a point source is not required to remove, reduce, 
     or treat the amount of any pollutant in an effluent below the 
     amount of such pollutant that is present in or caused by the 
     intake water for such facility--
       ``(A)(i) if the source of the intake water and the 
     receiving waters into which the effluent is ultimately 
     discharged are the same;
       ``(ii) if the source of the intake water meets the maximum 
     contaminant levels or treatment techniques for drinking water 
     contaminants established pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act for the pollutant of concern; or
       ``(iii) if, at the time the limitation or standard is 
     established, the level of the pollutant in the intake water 
     is the same as or lower than the amount of the pollutant in 
     the receiving waters, taking into account analytical 
     variability; and
       ``(B) if, for conventional pollutants, the constituents of 
     the conventional pollutants in the intake water are the same 
     as the constituents of the conventional pollutants in the 
     effluent.
       ``(2) Allowance for incidental amounts.--In determining 
     whether the condition set forth in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is 
     being met, the Administrator shall or the State may, as 
     appropriate, make allowance for incidental amounts of intake 
     water from sources other than the receiving waters.
       ``(3) Credit for nonqualifying pollutants.--The 
     Administrator shall or a State may provide point sources an 
     appropriate credit for pollutants found in intake water that 
     does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Monitoring.--Nothing in this section precludes the 
     Administrator or a State from requiring monitoring of intake 
     water, effluent, or receiving waters to assist in the 
     implementation of this section.''.
     SEC. 404. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.

       Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(r) Combined Sewer Overflows.--
       ``(1) Requirement for permits.--Each permit issued pursuant 
     to this section for a discharge from a combined storm and 
     sanitary sewer shall conform with the combined sewer overflow 
     control policy signed by the Administrator on April 11, 1994.
       ``(2) Term of permit.--
       ``(A) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any compliance 
     schedule under section 301(b), or any permit limitation under 
     section 402(b)(1)(B), the Administrator (or a State with a 
     program approved under subsection (b)) may issue a permit 
     pursuant to this section for a discharge from a combined 
     storm and sanitary sewer, that includes a schedule for 
     compliance with a long-term control plan under the control 
     policy referred to in paragraph (1), for a term not to exceed 
     15 years.
       ``(B) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance deadline 
     specified in subparagraph (A), the Administrator or a State 
     with a program approved under subsection (b) shall extend, on 
     request of an owner or operator of a combined storm and 
     sanitary sewer and subject to subparagraph (C), the period of 
     compliance beyond the last day of the 15-year period--
       ``(i) if the Administrator or the State determines that 
     compliance by such last day is not within the economic 
     capability of the owner or operator; and
       ``(ii) if the owner or operator demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Administrator or the State reasonable 
     further progress towards compliance with a long-term control 
     plan under the control policy referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Limitations on extensions.--
       ``(i) Extension not appropriate.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (B), the Administrator or the State need not 
     grant an extension of the compliance deadline specified in 
     subparagraph (A) if the Administrator or the State determines 
     that such an extension is not appropriate.
       ``(ii) New York-New Jersey.--Prior to granting an extension 
     under subparagraph (B) with respect to a combined sewer 
     overflow discharge originating in the State of New York or 
     New Jersey and affecting the other of such States, the 
     Administrator or the State from which the discharge 
     originates, as the case may be, shall provide written notice 
     of the proposed extension to the other State and shall not 
     grant the extension unless the other State approves the 
     extension or does not disapprove the extension within 90 days 
     of receiving such written notice.
       ``(3) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court order 
     entered by a United States district court, or administrative 
     order issued by the Administrator, before the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection establishing any deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables, for the evaluation, design, or 
     construction of treatment works for control or elimination of 
     any discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary 
     sewer system shall be modified upon motion or request by any 
     party to such consent decree or court order, to extend to 
     December 31, 2009, at a minimum, any such deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables as is necessary to conform to the 
     policy referred to in paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the 
     objectives of this subsection. Notwithstanding the preceding 
     sentence, the period of compliance with respect to a 
     discharge referred to in paragraph (2)(C)(ii) may only be 
     extended in accordance with paragraph (2)(C)(ii).''.
     [[Page H4724]] SEC. 405. ABANDONED MINES.

       Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by 
     inserting after subsection (o) the following:
       ``(p) Permits for Remediating Party on Abandoned or 
     Inactive Mined Lands.--
       ``(1) Applicability.--Subject to this subsection, including 
     the requirements of paragraph (3), the Administrator, with 
     the concurrence of the concerned State or Indian tribe, may 
     issue a permit to a remediating party under this section for 
     discharges associated with remediation activity at abandoned 
     or inactive mined lands which modifies any otherwise 
     applicable requirement of sections 301(b), 302, and 403, or 
     any subsection of this section (other than this subsection).
       ``(2) Application for a permit.--A remediating party who 
     desires to conduct remediation activities on abandoned or 
     inactive mined lands from which there is or may be a 
     discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States or 
     from which there could be a significant addition of 
     pollutants from nonpoint sources may submit an application to 
     the Administrator. The application shall consist of a 
     remediation plan and any other information requested by the 
     Administrator to clarify the plan and activities.
       ``(3) Remediation Plan.--The remediation plan shall include 
     (as appropriate and applicable) the following:
       ``(A) Identification of the remediating party, including 
     any persons cooperating with the concerned State or Indian 
     tribe with respect to the plan, and a certification that the 
     applicant is a remediating party under this section.
       ``(B) Identification of the abandoned or inactive mined 
     lands addressed by the plan.
       ``(C) Identification of the waters of the United States 
     impacted by the abandoned or inactive mined lands.
       ``(D) A description of the physical conditions at the 
     abandoned or inactive mined lands that are causing adverse 
     water quality impacts.
       ``(E) A description of practices, including system design 
     and construction plans and operation and maintenance plans, 
     proposed to reduce, control, mitigate, or eliminate the 
     adverse water quality impacts and a schedule for implementing 
     such practices and, if it is an existing remediation project, 
     a description of practices proposed to improve the project, 
     if any.
       ``(F) An analysis demonstrating that the identified 
     practices are expected to result in a water quality 
     improvement for the identified waters.
       ``(G) A description of monitoring or other assessment to be 
     undertaken to evaluate the success of the practices during 
     and after implementation, including an assessment of baseline 
     conditions.
       ``(H) A schedule for periodic reporting on progress in 
     implementation of major elements of the plan.
       ``(I) A budget and identified funding to support the 
     activities described in the plan.
       ``(J) Remediation goals and objectives.
       ``(K) Contingency plans.
       ``(L) A description of the applicant's legal right to enter 
     and conduct activities.
       ``(M) The signature of the applicant.
       ``(N) Identification of the pollutant or pollutants to be 
     addressed by the plan.
       ``(4) Permits.--
       ``(A) Contents.--Permits issued by the Administrator 
     pursuant to this subsection shall--
       ``(i) provide for compliance with and implementation of a 
     remediation plan which, following issuance of the permit, may 
     be modified by the applicant after providing notification to 
     and opportunity for review by the Administrator;
       ``(ii) require that any modification of the plan be 
     reflected in a modified permit;
       ``(iii) require that if, at any time after notice to the 
     remediating party and opportunity for comment by the 
     remediating party, the Administrator determines that the 
     remediating party is not implementing the approved 
     remediation plan in substantial compliance with its terms, 
     the Administrator shall notify the remediating party of the 
     determination together with a list specifying the concerns of 
     the Administrator;
       ``(iv) provide that, if the identified concerns are not 
     resolved or a compliance plan approved within 180 days of the 
     date of the notification, the Administrator may take action 
     under section 309 of this Act;
       ``(v) provide that clauses (iii) and (iv) not apply in the 
     case of any action under section 309 to address violations 
     involving gross negligence (including reckless, willful, or 
     wanton misconduct) or intentional misconduct by the 
     remediating party or any other person;
       ``(vi) not require compliance with any limitation issued 
     under sections 301(b), 302, and 403 or any requirement 
     established by the Administrator under any subsection of this 
     section (other than this subsection); and
       ``(vii) provide for termination of coverage under the 
     permit without the remediating party being subject to 
     enforcement under sections 309 and 505 of this Act for any 
     remaining discharges--

       ``(I) after implementation of the remediation plan;
       ``(II) if a party obtains a permit to mine the site; or
       ``(III) upon a demonstration by the remediating party that 
     the surface water quality conditions due to remediation 
     activities at the site, taken as a whole, are equal to or 
     superior to the surface water qualities that existed prior to 
     initiation of remediation.

       ``(B) Limitations.--The Administrator shall only issue a 
     permit under this section, consistent with the provisions of 
     this subsection, to a remediating party for discharges 
     associated with remediation action at abandoned or inactive 
     mined lands if the remediation plan demonstrates with 
     reasonable certainty that the actions will result in an 
     improvement in water quality.
       ``(C) Public participation.--The Administrator may only 
     issue a permit or modify a permit under this section after 
     complying with subsection (b)(3).
       ``(D) Effect of failure to comply with permit.--Failure to 
     comply with terms of a permit issued pursuant to this 
     subsection shall not be deemed to be a violation of an 
     effluent standard or limitation issued under this Act.
       ``(E) Limitations on statutory construction.--This 
     subsection shall not be construed--
       ``(i) to limit or otherwise affect the Administrator's 
     powers under section 504; or
       ``(ii) to preclude actions pursuant to section 309 or 505 
     for any violations of sections 301(a), 302, 402, and 403 that 
     may have existed for the abandoned or inactive mined land 
     prior to initiation of remediation covered by a permit issued 
     under this subsection, unless such permit covers remediation 
     activities implemented by the permit holder prior to issuance 
     of the permit.
       ``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Remediating party.--The term `remediating party' 
     means--
       ``(i) the United States (on non-Federal lands), a State or 
     its political subdivisions, or an Indian tribe or officers, 
     employees, or contractors thereof; and
       ``(ii) any person acting in cooperation with a person 
     described in clause (i), including a government agency that 
     owns abandoned or inactive mined lands for the purpose of 
     conducting remediation of the mined lands or that is engaging 
     in remediation activities incidental to the ownership of the 
     lands.

     Such term does not include any person who, before or 
     following issuance of a permit under this section, directly 
     benefited from or participated in any mining operation 
     (including exploration) associated with the abandoned or 
     inactive mined lands.
       ``(B) Abandoned or inactive mined lands.--The term 
     `abandoned or inactive mined lands' means lands that were 
     formerly mined and are not actively mined or in temporary 
     shutdown at the time of submission of the remediation plan 
     and issuance of a permit under this section.
       ``(C) Mined lands.--The term `mined lands' means the 
     surface or subsurface of an area where mining operations, 
     including exploration, extraction, processing, and 
     beneficiation, have been conducted. Such term includes 
     private ways and roads appurtenant to such area, land 
     excavations, underground mine portals, adits, and surface 
     expressions associated with underground workings, such as 
     glory holes and subsidence features, mining waste, smelting 
     sites associated with other mined lands, and areas where 
     structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other 
     material or property which result from or have been used in 
     the mining operation are located.
       ``(6) Regulations.--The Administrator may issue regulations 
     establishing more specific requirements that the 
     Administrator determines would facilitate implementation of 
     this subsection. Before issuance of such regulations, the 
     Administrator may establish, on a case-by-case basis after 
     notice and opportunity for public comment as provided by 
     subsection (b)(3), more specific requirements that the 
     Administrator determines would facilitate implementation of 
     this subsection in an individual permit issued to the 
     remediating party.''.
     SEC. 406. BENEFICIAL USE OF BIOSOLIDS.

       (a) References.--Section 405(a) (33 U.S.C. 1345(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(also referred to as `biosolids')'' 
     after ``sewage sludge'' the first place it appears.
       (b) Approval of State Programs.--Section 405(f) (33 U.S.C. 
     1345(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Approval of state programs.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Administrator shall approve for 
     purposes of this subsection State programs that meet the 
     standards for final use or disposal of sewage sludge 
     established by the Administrator pursuant to subsection 
     (d).''.
       (c) Studies and Projects.--Section 405(g) (33 U.S.C. 
     1345(g)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting 
     ``building materials,'' after ``agricultural and 
     horticultural uses,'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Not later than January 1, 1997, and after providing notice 
     and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall 
     issue guidance on the beneficial use of sewage sludge.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2) by striking ``September 30, 1986,'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 1995,''.
                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
     SEC. 501. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

       Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(25) The term `publicly owned treatment works' means a 
     treatment works, as defined in section 212, located at other 
     than an industrial facility, which is designed and 
     constructed principally, as determined by the Administrator, 
     to treat domestic sewage or a mixture of domestic sewage and 
     industrial wastes of a liquid nature. In the case of such 
[[Page H4725]]  a facility that is privately owned, such term includes 
only those facilities that, with respect to such industrial wastes, are 
carrying out a pretreatment program meeting all the requirements 
established under section 307 and paragraphs (8) and (9) of section 
402(b) for pretreatment programs (whether or not the treatment works 
would be required to implement a pretreatment program pursuant to such 
sections).''.

     SEC. 502. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER POLLUTION LAWS WITH RESPECT 
                   TO VEGETABLE OIL.

       (a) Differentiation Among Fats, Oils, and Greases.--
       (1) In general.--In issuing or enforcing a regulation, an 
     interpretation, or a guideline relating to a fat, oil, or 
     grease under a Federal law related to water pollution 
     control, the head of a Federal agency shall--
       (A) differentiate between and establish separate classes 
     for--
       (i)(I) animal fats; and
       (II) vegetable oils; and
       (ii) other oils, including petroleum oil; and
       (B) apply different standards and reporting requirements 
     (including reporting requirements based on quantitative 
     amounts) to different classes of fat and oil as provided in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Considerations.--In differentiating between the classes 
     of animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i) and the classes of oils described in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii), the head of the Federal agency shall consider 
     differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other 
     properties, and in the environmental effects, of the classes.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Animal fat.--The term ``animal fat'' means each type of 
     animal fat, oil, or grease, including fat, oil, or grease 
     from fish or a marine mammal and any fat, oil, or grease 
     referred to in section 61(a)(2) of title 13, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Vegetable oil.--The term ``vegetable oil'' means each 
     type of vegetable oil, including vegetable oil from a seed, 
     nut, or kernel and any vegetable oil referred to in section 
     61(a)(1) of title 13, United States Code.

     SEC. 503. NEEDS ESTIMATE.

       Section 516(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1375(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``biennially 
     revised'' and inserting ``quadrennially revised''; and
       (2) in the second sentence by striking ``February 10 of 
     each odd-numbered year'' and inserting ``December 31, 1997, 
     and December 31 of every 4th calendar year thereafter''.
     SEC. 504. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

       Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is amended by redesignating 
     section 519 as section 521 and by inserting after section 518 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 519. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

       ``In developing any effluent guideline under section 
     304(b), pretreatment standard under section 307(b), or new 
     source performance standard under section 306 that is 
     applicable to the food processing industry, the Administrator 
     shall consult with and consider the recommendations of the 
     Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human 
     Services, Department of Agriculture, and Department of 
     Commerce. The recommendations of such departments and 
     agencies and a description of the Administrator's response to 
     those recommendations shall be made part of the rulemaking 
     record for the development of such guidelines and standards. 
     The Administrator's response shall include an explanation 
     with respect to food safety, including a discussion of 
     relative risks, of any departure from a recommendation by any 
     such department or agency.''.

     SEC. 505. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

       Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is further amended by 
     inserting before section 521, as redesignated by this Act, 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 520. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

       ``(a) Establishment of Board.--The Administrator shall 
     establish an independent Board of Audit Appeals (hereinafter 
     in this section referred to as the `Board') in accordance 
     with the requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Board shall have the authority to review 
     and decide contested audit determinations related to grant 
     and contract awards under this Act. In carrying out such 
     duties, the Board shall consider only those regulations, 
     guidance, policies, facts, and circumstances in effect at the 
     time of the grant or contract award.
       ``(c) Prior Eligibility Decisions.--The Board shall not 
     reverse project cost eligibility determinations that are 
     supported by an decision document of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, including grant or contract approvals, 
     plans and specifications approval forms, grant or contract 
     payments, change order approval forms, or similar documents 
     approving project cost eligibility, except upon a showing 
     that such decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of 
     law in effect at the time of such decision.
       ``(d) Membership.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of 7 
     members to be appointed by the Administrator not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for a term of 
     3 years.
       ``(3) Qualifications.--The Administrator shall appoint as 
     members of the Board individuals who are specially qualified 
     to serve on the Board by virtue of their expertise in grant 
     and contracting procedures. The Administrator shall make 
     every effort to ensure that individuals appointed as members 
     of the Board are free from conflicts of interest in carrying 
     out the duties of the Board.
       ``(e) Basic Pay and Travel Expenses.--
       ``(1) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members shall each be paid at a rate of basic pay, to be 
     determined by the Administrator, for each day (including 
     travel time) during which they are engaged in the actual 
     performance of duties vested in the Board.
       ``(2) Prohibition of compensation of federal employees.--
     Members of the Board who are full-time officers or employees 
     of the United States may not receive additional pay, 
     allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the 
     Board.
       ``(3) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Board, the Administrator shall provide to the Board the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Board to 
     carry out its responsibilities under this section.
       ``(g) Disputes Eligible for Review.--The authority of the 
     Board under this section shall extend to any contested audit 
     determination that on the date of the enactment of this 
     section has yet to be formally concluded and accepted by 
     either the grantee or the Administrator.''.
        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS
     SEC. 601. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.

       Section 601(a) (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``(1) for construction'' and all that follows through the 
     period and inserting ``to accomplish the purposes of this 
     Act.''.

     SEC. 602. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Requirements For Construction of Treatment Works.--
     Section 602(b)(6) (33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995''; and
       (2) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows through 
     ``218'' and inserting ``211''.
       (b) Compliance With Other Federal Laws.--Section 602 (33 
     U.S.C. 1382) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Other Federal Laws.--
       ``(1) Compliance with other federal laws.--If a State 
     provides assistance from its water pollution control 
     revolving fund established in accordance with this title and 
     in accordance with a statute, rule, executive order, or 
     program of the State which addresses the intent of any 
     requirement or any Federal executive order or law other than 
     this Act, as determined by the State, the State in providing 
     such assistance shall be treated as having met the Federal 
     requirements.
       ``(2) Limitation on applicability of other federal laws.--
     If a State does not meet a requirement of a Federal executive 
     order or law other than this Act under paragraph (1), such 
     Federal law shall only apply to Federal funds deposited in 
     the water pollution control revolving fund established by the 
     State in accordance with this title the first time such funds 
     are used to provide assistance from the revolving fund.''.
       (c) Guidance for Small Systems.--Section 602 (33 U.S.C. 
     1382) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Guidance for Small Systems.--
       ``(1) Simplified procedures.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall assist the States in establishing 
     simplified procedures for small systems to obtain assistance 
     under this title.
       ``(2) Publication of manual.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection, and after 
     providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the 
     Administrator shall publish a manual to assist small systems 
     in obtaining assistance under this title and publish in the 
     Federal Register notice of the availability of the manual.
       ``(3) Small system defined.--For purposes of this title, 
     the term `small system' means a system for which a 
     municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency 
     seeks assistance under this title and which serves a 
     population of 20,000 or less.''.

     SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.

       (a) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--Section 603(c) (33 
     U.S.C. 1383(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amounts of funds available to each 
     State water pollution control revolving fund shall be used 
     only for providing financial assistance to activities which 
     have as a principal benefit the improvement or protection of 
     water quality to a municipality, intermunicipal agency, 
     interstate agency, State agency, or other person. Such 
     activities may include the following:
       ``(A) Construction of a publicly owned treatment works if 
     the recipient of such assistance is a municipality.
       ``(B) Implementation of lake protection programs and 
     projects under section 314.
       ``(C) Implementation of a management program under section 
     319.
       ``(D) Implementation of a conservation and management plan 
     under section 320.
       ``(E) Implementation of a watershed management plan under 
     section 321.
       ``(F) Implementation of a stormwater management program 
     under section 322.
     [[Page H4726]]   ``(G) Acquisition of property rights for the 
     restoration or protection of publicly or privately owned 
     riparian areas.
       ``(H) Implementation of measures to improve the efficiency 
     of public water use.
       ``(I) Development and implementation of plans by a public 
     recipient to prevent water pollution.
       ``(J) Acquisition of lands necessary to meet any mitigation 
     requirements related to construction of a publicly owned 
     treatment works.
       ``(2) Fund amounts.--The water pollution control revolving 
     fund of a State shall be established, maintained, and 
     credited with repayments, and the fund balance shall be 
     available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance 
     described in paragraph (1). Fees charged by a State to 
     recipients of such assistance may be deposited in the fund 
     for the sole purpose of financing the cost of administration 
     of this title.''.
       (b) Extended Repayment Period for Disadvantaged 
     Communities.--Section 603(d)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting after ``20 years'' the 
     following: ``or, in the case of a disadvantaged community, 
     the lesser of 40 years or the expected life of the project to 
     be financed with the proceeds of the loan''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``not later than 20 
     years after project completion'' and inserting ``upon the 
     expiration of the term of the loan''.
       (c) Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technology.--Section 
     603(d)(5) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(5)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5) to provide loan guarantees for--
       ``(A) similar revolving funds established by municipalities 
     or intermunicipal agencies; and
       ``(B) developing and implementing innovative 
     technologies.''.
       (d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 603(d)(7) (33 U.S.C. 
     1383(d)(7)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``or $400,000 per year, whichever is 
     greater, plus the amount of any fees collected by the State 
     for such purpose under subsection (c)(2)''.
       (e) Technical and Planning Assistance for Small Systems.--
     Section 603(d) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) to provide to small systems technical and planning 
     assistance and assistance in financial management, user fee 
     analysis, budgeting, capital improvement planning, facility 
     operation and maintenance, repair schedules, and other 
     activities to improve wastewater treatment plant operations; 
     except that such amounts shall not exceed 2 percent of all 
     grant awards to such fund under this title.''.
       (f) Consistency With Planning Requirements.--Section 603(f) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1383(f)) is amended by striking ``and 320'' and 
     inserting ``320, 321, and 322''.
       (g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--Section 603(g) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1383(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--The State 
     may provide financial assistance from its water pollution 
     control revolving fund with respect to a project for 
     construction of a treatment works only if--
       ``(1) such project is on the State's priority list under 
     section 216 of this Act; and
       ``(2) the recipient of such assistance is a municipality in 
     any case in which the treatment works is privately owned.''.
       (h) Interest Rates.--Section 603 is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Interest Rates.--In any case in which a State makes a 
     loan pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to a disadvantaged 
     community, the State may charge a negative interest rate of 
     not to exceed 2 percent to reduce the unpaid principal of the 
     loan. The aggregate amount of all such negative interest rate 
     loans the State makes in a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 
     percent of the aggregate amount of all loans made by the 
     State from its revolving loan fund in such fiscal year.
       ``(j) Disadvantaged Community Defined.--As used in this 
     section, the term `disadvantaged community' means the service 
     area of a publicly owned treatment works with respect to 
     which the average annual residential sewage treatment charges 
     for a user of the treatment works meet affordability criteria 
     established by the State in which the treatment works is 
     located (after providing for public review and comment) in 
     accordance with guidelines to be established by the 
     Administrator, in cooperation with the States.''.
       (i) Sale of Treatment Works.--Section 603 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Sale of Treatment Works.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     this Act, any State, municipality, intermunicipality, or 
     interstate agency may transfer by sale to a qualified private 
     sector entity all or part of a treatment works that is owned 
     by such agency and for which it received Federal financial 
     assistance under this Act if the transfer price will be 
     distributed, as amounts are received, in the following order:
       ``(A) First reimbursement of the agency of the unadjusted 
     dollar amount of the costs of construction of the treatment 
     works or part thereof plus any transaction and fix-up costs 
     incurred by the agency with respect to the transfer less the 
     amount of such Federal financial assistance provided with 
     respect to such costs.
       ``(B) If proceeds from the transfer remain after such 
     reimbursement, repayment of the Federal Government of the 
     amount of such Federal financial assistance less the 
     applicable share of accumulated depreciation on such 
     treatment works (calculated using Internal Revenue Service 
     accelerated depreciation schedule applicable to treatment 
     works).
       ``(C) If any proceeds of such transfer remain after such 
     reimbursement and repayment, retention of the remaining 
     proceeds by such agency.
       ``(2) Release of condition.--Any requirement imposed by 
     regulation or policy for a showing that the treatment works 
     are no longer needed to serve their original purpose shall 
     not apply.
       ``(3) Selection of buyer.--A State, municipality, 
     intermunicipality, or interstate agency exercising the 
     authority granted by this subsection shall select a qualified 
     private sector entity on the basis of total net cost and 
     other appropriate criteria and shall utilize such competitive 
     bidding, direct negotiation, or other criteria and procedures 
     as may be required by State law.
       ``(l) Private Ownership of Treatment Works.--
       ``(1) Regulatory review.--The Administrator shall review 
     the law and any regulations, policies, and procedures of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency affecting the construction, 
     improvement, replacement, operation, maintenance, and 
     transfer of ownership of current and future treatment works 
     owned by a State, municipality, intermunicipality, or 
     interstate agency. If permitted by law, the Administrator 
     shall modify such regulations, policies, and procedures to 
     eliminate any obstacles to the construction, improvement, 
     replacement, operation, and maintenance of such treatment 
     works by qualified private sector entities.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit 
     to Congress a report identifying any provisions of law that 
     must be changed in order to eliminate any obstacles referred 
     to in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified private sector entity' means any nongovernmental 
     individual, group, association, business, partnership, 
     organization, or privately or publicly held corporation 
     that--
       ``(A) has sufficient experience and expertise to discharge 
     successfully the responsibilities associated with 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of a treatment works 
     and to satisfy any guarantees that are agreed to in 
     connection with a transfer of treatment works under 
     subsection (k);
       ``(B) has the ability to assure protection against 
     insolvency and interruption of services through contractual 
     and financial guarantees; and
       ``(C) with respect to subsection (k), to the extent 
     consistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement and 
     the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--
       ``(i) is majority-owned and controlled by citizens of the 
     United States; and
       ``(ii) does not receive subsidies from a foreign 
     government.''.

     SEC. 604. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 604(a) (33 U.S.C. 1384(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Formula for Fiscal Years 1996-2000.--Sums authorized 
     to be appropriated pursuant to section 607 for each of fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be allotted for 
     such year by the Administrator not later than the 10th day 
     which begins after the date of the enactment of the Clean 
     Water Amendments of 1995. Sums authorized for each such 
     fiscal year shall be allotted in accordance with the 
     following table:

                                                     Percentage of sums
``States:                                                   authorized:
  Alabama........................................................1.0110
  Alaska.........................................................0.5411
  Arizona........................................................0.7464
  Arkansas.......................................................0.5914
  California.....................................................7.9031
  Colorado.......................................................0.7232
  Connecticut....................................................1.3537
  Delaware.......................................................0.4438
  District of Columbia...........................................0.4438
  Florida........................................................3.4462
  Georgia........................................................1.8683
  Hawaii.........................................................0.7002
  Idaho..........................................................0.4438
  Illinois.......................................................4.9976
  Indiana........................................................2.6631
  Iowa...........................................................1.2236
  Kansas.........................................................0.8690
  Kentucky.......................................................1.3570
  Louisiana......................................................1.0060
  Maine..........................................................0.6999
  Maryland.......................................................2.1867
  Massachusetts..................................................3.7518
  Michigan.......................................................3.8875
  Minnesota......................................................1.6618
  Mississippi....................................................0.8146
  Missouri.......................................................2.5063
  Montana........................................................0.4438
  Nebraska.......................................................0.4624
  Nevada.........................................................0.4438
  New Hampshire..................................................0.9035
  New Jersey.....................................................4.5156
  New Mexico.....................................................0.4438
  New York......................................................12.1969
  North Carolina.................................................1.9943
  North Dakota...................................................0.4438
  Ohio...........................................................5.0898
  Oklahoma.......................................................0.7304
  Oregon.........................................................1.2399
  Pennsylvania...................................................4.2145
  [[Page H4727]] Rhode Island....................................0.6071
  South Carolina.................................................0.9262
  South Dakota...................................................0.4438
  Tennessee......................................................1.4668
  Texas..........................................................4.6458
  Utah...........................................................0.4764
  Vermont........................................................0.4438
  Virginia.......................................................2.2615
  Washington.....................................................1.9217
  West Virginia..................................................1.4249
  Wisconsin......................................................2.4442
  Wyoming........................................................0.4438
  Puerto Rico....................................................1.1792
  Northern Marianas..............................................0.0377
  American Samoa.................................................0.0812
  Guam...........................................................0.0587
  Pacific Islands Trust Territory................................0.1158
  Virgin Islands.............................................0.0576.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 604(c)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``title II of this Act'' and inserting ``this 
     title''.
     SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 607 (33 U.S.C. 1387(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995;
       ``(7) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(8) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(9) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(10) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(11) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
     SEC. 606. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 
                   REVOLVING FUNDS.

       Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381-1387) is amended--
       (1) in section 607 by inserting after ``title'' the 
     following: ``(other than section 608)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
     ``SEC. 608. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 
                   REVOLVING FUNDS.

       ``(a) General Authority.--The Administrator shall make 
     capitalization grants to each State for the purpose of 
     establishing a nonpoint source water pollution control 
     revolving fund for providing assistance--
       ``(1) to persons for carrying out management practices and 
     measures under the State management program approved under 
     section 319; and
       ``(2) to agricultural producers for the development and 
     implementation of the water quality components of a whole 
     farm or ranch resource management plan and for implementation 
     of management practices and measures under such a plan.

     A State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving 
     fund shall be separate from any other State water pollution 
     control revolving fund; except that the chief executive 
     officer of the State may transfer funds from one fund to the 
     other fund.
       ``(b) Applicability of Other Requirements of This Title.--
     Except to the extent the Administrator, in consultation with 
     the chief executive officers of the States, determines that a 
     provision of this title is not consistent with a provision of 
     this section, the provisions of sections 601 through 606 of 
     this title shall apply to grants made under this section in 
     the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to 
     grants made under section 601 of this title. Paragraph (5) of 
     section 602(b) shall apply to all funds in a State revolving 
     fund established under this section as a result of 
     capitalization grants made under this section; except that 
     such funds shall first be used to assure reasonable progress 
     toward attainment of the goals of section 319, as determined 
     by the Governor of the State. Paragraph (7) of section 603(d) 
     shall apply to a State revolving fund established under this 
     section, except that the 4-percent limitation contained in 
     such section shall not apply to such revolving fund.
       ``(c) Apportionment of Funds.--Funds made available to 
     carry out this section for any fiscal year shall be allotted 
     among the States by the Administrator in the same manner as 
     funds are allotted among the States under section 319 in such 
     fiscal year.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 per 
     fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
                  TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 701. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Section 118.--Section 118(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 
     1268(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking the last comma.
       (b) Section 120.--Section 120(d) (33 U.S.C. 1270(d)) is 
     amended by striking ``(1)''.
       (c) Section 204.--Section 204(a)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1284(a)(3)) 
     is amended by striking the final period and inserting a 
     semicolon.
       (d) Section 205.--Section 205 (33 U.S.C. 1285) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``and 1985'' and 
     inserting ``1985, and 1986'';
       (2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``through 1985'' and 
     inserting ``through 1986'';
       (3) in subsection (g)(1) by striking the period following 
     ``4 per centum''; and
       (4) in subsection (m)(1)(B) by striking ``this'' the last 
     place it appears and inserting ``such''.
       (e) Section 208.--Section 208 (33 U.S.C. 1288) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``designed'' and 
     inserting ``designated''; and
       (2) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ``September 31, 1988'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 1988''.
       (f) Section 301.--Section 301(j)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 
     1311(j)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``that'' the first 
     place it appears and inserting ``than''.
       (g) Section 309.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is 
     amended by striking the second comma following ``Act by a 
     State''.
       (h) Section 311.--Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by moving paragraph (12) (including 
     subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C)) 2 ems to the right; and
       (2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``The'' and inserting 
     ``the''.
       (i) Section 505.--Section 505(f) (33 U.S.C. 1365(f)) is 
     amended by striking the last comma.
       (j) Section 516.--Section 516 (33 U.S.C. 1375) is amended 
     by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
       (k) Section 518.--Section 518(f) (33 U.S.C. 1377(f)) is 
     amended by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(e)''.

     SEC. 702. JOHN A. BLATNIK NATIONAL FRESH WATER QUALITY 
                   RESEARCH LABORATORY.

       (a) Designation.--The laboratory and research facility 
     established pursuant to section 104(e) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254(e)) that is located in 
     Duluth, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the 
     ``John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research 
     Laboratory''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 
     document, paper, or other record of the United States to the 
     laboratory and research facility referred to in subsection 
     (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John A. 
     Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research Laboratory''.
     SEC. 703. WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR COLONIAS.

       (a) Grant Assistance.--The Administrator may make grants to 
     States along the United States-Mexico border to provide 
     assistance for planning, design, and construction of 
     treatment works to provide wastewater service to the 
     communities along such border commonly known as ``colonias''.
       (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project carried out using funds made available under 
     subsection (a) shall be 50 percent. The non-Federal share of 
     such cost shall be provided by the State receiving the grant.
       (c) Treatment Works Defined.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term ``treatment works'' has the meaning such term has 
     under section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for making grants under subsection (a) 
     $50,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended.

     SEC. 704. SAVINGS IN MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER COSTS.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, in consultation with the Director of the 
     Office of Management and Budget, shall review, analyze, and 
     compile information on the annual savings that municipalities 
     realize in the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
     drinking water facilities as a result of actions taken under 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (b) Contents.--The study conducted under subsection (a), at 
     a minimum, shall contain an examination of the following 
     elements:
       (1) Savings to municipalities in the construction of 
     drinking water filtration facilities resulting from actions 
     taken under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (2) Savings to municipalities in the operation and 
     maintenance of drinking water facilities resulting from 
     actions taken under such Act.
       (3) Savings to municipalities in health expenditures 
     resulting from actions taken under such Act.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to 
     Congress a report containing the results of the study 
     conducted under subsection (a).
            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) Wetlands perform a number of valuable functions needed 
     to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 
     biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including--
       (A) reducing pollutants (including nutrients, sediment, and 
     toxics) from nonpoint and point sources;
       (B) storing, conveying, and purifying flood and storm 
     waters;
       (C) reducing both bank erosion and wave and storm damage to 
     adjacent lands and trapping sediment from upland sources;
       (D) providing habitat and food sources for a broad range of 
     commercial and recreational fish, shellfish, and migratory 
     wildlife species (including waterfowl and endangered 
     species); and
       (E) providing a broad range of recreational values for 
     canoeing, boating, birding, and nature study and observation.
       (2) Original wetlands in the contiguous United States have 
     been reduced by an estimated 50 percent and continue to 
     disappear at a rate of 200,000 to 300,000 acres a year. Many 
     of these original wetlands have also been altered or 
     partially degraded, reducing their ecological value.
       (3) Wetlands are highly sensitive to changes in water 
     regimes and are, therefore, susceptible to degradation by 
     fills, drainage, 
     [[Page H4728]]  grading, water extractions, and other 
     activities within their watersheds which affect the quantity, 
     quality, and flow of surface and ground waters. Protection 
     and management of wetlands, therefore, should be integrated 
     with management of water systems on a watershed basis. A 
     watershed protection and management perspective is also 
     needed to understand and reverse the gradual, continued 
     destruction of wetlands that occurs due to cumulative 
     impacts.
       (4) Wetlands constitute an estimated 5 percent of the 
     Nation's surface area. Because much of this land is in 
     private ownership wetlands protection and management 
     strategies must take into consideration private property 
     rights and the need for economic development and growth. This 
     can be best accomplished in the context of a cooperative and 
     coordinated Federal, State, and local strategy for data 
     gathering, planning, management, and restoration with an 
     emphasis on advance planning of wetlands in watershed 
     contexts.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to help create a coordinated national wetland 
     management effort with efficient use of scarce Federal, 
     State, and local financial and manpower resources to protect 
     wetland functions and values and reduce natural hazard 
     losses;
       (2) to help reverse the trend of wetland loss in a fair, 
     efficient, and cost-effective manner;
       (3) to reduce inconsistencies and duplication in Federal, 
     State, and local wetland management efforts and encourage 
     integrated permitting at the Federal, State, and local 
     levels;
       (4) to increase technical assistance, cooperative training, 
     and educational opportunities for States, local governments, 
     and private landowners;
       (5) to help integrate wetland protection and management 
     with other water resource management programs on a watershed 
     basis such as flood control, storm water management, 
     allocation of water supply, protection of fish and wildlife, 
     and point and nonpoint source pollution control;
       (6) to increase regionalization of wetland delineation and 
     management policies within a framework of national policies 
     through advance planning of wetland areas, programmatic 
     general permits and other approaches and the tailoring of 
     policies to ecosystem and land use needs to reflect 
     significant watershed variance in wetland resources;
       (7) to address the cumulative loss of wetland resources;
       (8) to increase the certainty and predictability of 
     planning and regulatory policies for private landowners;
       (9) to help achieve no overall net loss and net gain of the 
     remaining wetland base of the United States through 
     watershed-based restoration strategies involving all levels 
     of government;
       (10) to restore and create wetlands in order to increase 
     the quality and quantity of the wetland resources and by so 
     doing to restore and maintain the quality and quantity of the 
     waters of the United States; and
       (11) to provide mechanisms for joint State, Federal, and 
     local development and testing of approaches to better protect 
     wetland resources such as mitigation banking.
     SEC. 803. STATE, LOCAL, AND LANDOWNER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
                   AND COOPERATIVE TRAINING.

       (a) State and Local Technical Assistance.--Upon request, 
     the Administrator or the Secretary of the Army, as 
     appropriate, shall provide technical assistance to State and 
     local governments in the development and implementation of 
     State and local government permitting programs under sections 
     404(e) and 404(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
     State wetland conservation plans under section 805, and 
     regional or local wetland management plans under section 805.
       (b) Cooperative Training.--The Administrator and the 
     Secretary, in cooperation with the Coordinating Committee 
     established pursuant to section 804, shall conduct training 
     courses for States and local governments involving wetland 
     delineation, utilization of wetlands in nonpoint pollution 
     control, wetland and stream restoration, wetland planning, 
     wetland evaluation, mitigation banking, and other subjects 
     deemed appropriate by the Administrator or Secretary.
       (c) Private Landowner Technical Assistance.--The 
     Administrator and Secretary shall, in cooperation with the 
     Coordination Committee, and appropriate Federal agencies 
     develop and provide to private landowners guidebooks, 
     pamphlets, or other materials and technical assistance to 
     help them in identifying and evaluating wetlands, developing 
     integrated wetland management plans for their lands 
     consistent with the goals of this Act and the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, and restoring wetlands.

     SEC. 804. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATING 
                   COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     establish a Federal, State, and Local Government Wetlands 
     Coordinating Committee (hereinafter in this section referred 
     to as the ``Committee'').
       (b) Functions.--The Committee shall--
       (1) help coordinate Federal, State, and local wetland 
     planning, regulatory, and restoration programs on an ongoing 
     basis to reduce duplication, resolve potential conflicts, and 
     efficiently allocate manpower and resources at all levels of 
     government;
       (2) provide comments to the Secretary of the Army or 
     Administrator in adopting regulatory, policy, program, or 
     technical guidance affecting wetland systems;
       (3) help develop and field test, national policies prior to 
     implementation such as wetland, delineation, classification 
     of wetlands, methods for sequencing wetland mitigation 
     responses, the utilization of mitigation banks;
       (4) help develop and carry out joint technical assistance 
     and cooperative training programs as provided in section 803;
       (5) help develop criteria and implementation strategies for 
     facilitating State conservation plans and strategies, local 
     and regional wetland planning, wetland restoration and 
     creation, and State and local permitting programs pursuant to 
     section 404(e) or 404(g) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act; and
       (6) help develop a national strategy for the restoration of 
     wetland ecosystems pursuant to section 6 of this Act.
       (c) Membership.--The Committee shall be composed of 18 
     members as follows:
       (1) The Administrator or the designee of the Administrator.
       (2) The Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
       (3) The Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service or the designee of the Director.
       (4) The Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
     or the designee of the Chief.
       (5) The Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere or the 
     designee of the Under Secretary.
       (6) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will 
     represent the National Governor's Association.
       (7) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will 
     represent the National Association of Counties.
       (8) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will 
     represent the National League of Cities.
       (9) One State wetland expert from each of the 10 regions of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency. Each member to be 
     appointed under this paragraph shall be jointly appointed by 
     the Governors of the States within the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's region. If the Governors from a region 
     cannot agree on such a representative, they will each submit 
     a nomination to the Administrator and the Administrator will 
     select a representative from such region.
       (d) Terms.--Each member appointed pursuant to paragraph 
     (6), (7), (8), or (9) of subsection (c) shall be appointed 
     for a term of 2 years.
       (e) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Committee shall be filled, 
     on or before the 30th day after the vacancy occurs, in the 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (f) Pay.--Members shall serve without pay, but may receive 
     travel expenses (including per diem in lieu of subsistence) 
     in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (g) Cochairpersons.--The Administrator and one member 
     appointed pursuant to paragraph (6), (7), (8), or (9) of 
     subsection (c) (selected by such members) shall serve as 
     cochairpersons of the Committee.
       (h) Quorum.--Two-thirds of the members of the Committee 
     shall constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold 
     meetings.
       (i) Meetings.--The Committee shall hold its first meeting 
     not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. The Committee shall meet at least twice each year 
     thereafter. Meetings will be opened to the public.

     SEC. 805. STATE AND LOCAL WETLAND CONSERVATION PLANS AND 
                   STRATEGIES; GRANTS TO FACILITATE THE 
                   IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 404.

       (a) State Wetland Conservation Plans and Strategies.--
     Subject to the requirements of this section, the 
     Administrator shall make grants to States and tribes to 
     assist in the development and implementation of wetland 
     conservation plans and strategies. More specific goals for 
     such conservation plans and strategies may include:
       (1) Inventorying State wetland resources, identifying 
     individual and cumulative losses, identifying State and local 
     programs applying to wetland resources, determining gaps in 
     such programs, and making recommendations for filling those 
     gaps.
       (2) Developing and coordinating existing State, local, and 
     regional programs for wetland management and protection on a 
     watershed basis.
       (3) Increasing the consistency of Federal, State, and local 
     wetland definitions, delineation, and permitting approaches.
       (4) Mapping and characterizing wetland resources on a 
     watershed basis.
       (5) Identifying sites with wetland restoration or creation 
     potential.
       (6) Establishing management strategies for reducing causes 
     of wetland degradation and restoring wetlands on a watershed 
     basis.
       (7) Assisting regional and local governments prepare 
     watershed plans for areas with a high percentage of lands 
     classified as wetlands or otherwise in need of special 
     management.
       (8) Establishing and implementing State or local permitting 
     programs under section 404(e) or 404(h) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act.
       (b) Regional and Local Wetland Planning, Regulation, and 
     Management Programs.--Subject to the requirements of this 
     [[Page H4729]]  section, the Administrator shall make grants 
     to States which will, in turn, use this funding to make 
     grants to regional and local governments to assist them in 
     adopting and implementing wetland and watershed management 
     programs consistent with goals stated in section 101 of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act and section 802 of this 
     Act. Such plans shall be integrated with (where appropriate) 
     or coordinated with planning efforts pursuant to section 319 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Such programs 
     shall, at a minimum, involve the inventory of wetland 
     resources and the adoption of plans and policies to help 
     achieve the goal of no net loss of wetland resources on a 
     watershed basis. Other goals may include, but are not limited 
     to:
       (1) Integration of wetland planning and management with 
     broader water resource and land use planning and management, 
     including flood control, water supply, storm water 
     management, and control of point and nonpoint source 
     pollution.
       (2) Adoption of measures to increase consistency in 
     Federal, State, and local wetland definitions, delineation, 
     and permitting approaches.
       (3) Establishment of management strategies for restoring 
     wetlands on a watershed basis.
       (c) Grants To Facilitate the Implementation of Section 
     404.--Subject to the requirements of this section, the 
     Administrator may make grants to States which assist the 
     Federal Government in the implementation of the section 404 
     Federal Water Pollution Control program through State 
     assumption of permitting pursuant to sections 404(g) and 
     404(h) of such Act through State permitting through a State 
     programmatic general permit pursuant to section 404(e) of 
     such Act or through monitoring and enforcement activities. In 
     order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section a 
     State shall provide assurances satisfactory to the 
     Administrator that amounts received by the State in grants 
     under this section will be used to issue regulatory permits 
     or to enforce regulations consistent with the overall goals 
     of section 802 and the standards and procedures of section 
     404(g) or 404(e) of this Act.
       (d) Maximum Amount.--No State may receive more than 
     $500,000 in total grants under subsections (a), (b), and (c) 
     in any fiscal year and more than $300,000 in grants for 
     subsection (a), (b), or (c), individually.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out using amounts made available in grants 
     under this section shall not exceed 75 percent.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 per 
     fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000.

     SEC. 806. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE WETLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 
                   STRATEGY.

       (a) Development.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in cooperation 
     with other Federal agencies, State, and local governments, 
     and representatives of the private sector, shall initiate the 
     development of a National Cooperative Wetland Ecosystem 
     Restoration Strategy.
       (b) Goals.--The goal of the National Cooperative Wetland 
     Ecosystem Restoration Strategy shall be to restore damaged 
     and degraded wetland and riparian ecosystems consistent with 
     the goals of the Water Pollution Control Amendments and the 
     goals of section 802, and the recommendations of the National 
     Academy of Sciences with regard to the restoration of aquatic 
     ecosystems.
       (c) Functions.--The National Cooperative Wetland Ecosystem 
     Restoration Strategy shall--
       (1) be designed to help coordinate and promote restoration 
     efforts by Federal, State, regional, and local governments 
     and the private sector, including efforts authorized by the 
     Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, 
     the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Wetlands 
     Reserve Program, and the wetland restoration efforts on 
     Federal, State, local, and private lands;
       (2) involve the Federal, State, and local Wetlands 
     Coordination Committee established pursuant to section 804;
       (3) inventory and evaluate existing restoration efforts and 
     make suggestions for the establishment of new watershed 
     specific efforts consistent with existing Federal programs 
     and State, regional, and local wetland protection and 
     management efforts;
       (4) evaluate the role presently being played by wetland 
     restoration in both regulatory and nonregulatory contexts and 
     the relative success of wetland restoration in these 
     contexts;
       (5) develop criteria for identifying wetland restoration 
     sites on a watershed basis, procedures for wetlands 
     restoration, and ecological criteria for wetlands 
     restoration; and
       (6) identify regulatory obstacles to wetlands ecosystem 
     restoration and recommend methods to reduce such obstacles.

     SEC. 807. PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

       (a) Permit Monitoring and Tracking.--Section 404(a) (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator, establish a permit monitoring and tracking 
     programs on a watershed basis to monitor the cumulative 
     impact of individual and general permits issued under this 
     section. This program shall determine the impact of permitted 
     activities in relationship to the no net loss goal. Results 
     shall be reported biannually to Congress.''.
       (b) Issuance of General Permits.--Paragraph (1) of section 
     404(e) is amended by inserting ``local,'' before ``State, 
     regional, or nationwide basis'' in the first sentence.
       (c) Revocation or Modification of General Permits.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 404(e) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting ``or a State or local 
     government has failed to adequately monitor and control the 
     individual and cumulative adverse effects of activities 
     authorized by State or local programmatic general permits.''.
       (d) Programmatic General Permits.--Section 404(e) is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Programmatic general permits.--Consistent with the 
     following requirements, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, issue State or local 
     programmatic general permits for the purpose of avoiding 
     unnecessary duplication of regulations by State, regional, 
     and local regulatory programs:
       ``(A) The Secretary may issue a programmatic general permit 
     based on a State, regional, or local government regulatory 
     program if that general permit includes adequate safeguards 
     to ensure that the State, regional, or local program will 
     have no more than minimal cumulative impacts on the 
     environment and will provide at least the same degree of 
     protection for the environment, including all waters of the 
     United States, and for Federal interests, as is provided by 
     this section and by the Federal permitting program pursuant 
     to section 404(a). Such safeguards shall include provisions 
     whereby the Corps District Engineer and the Regional 
     Administrators or Directors of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service (where appropriate), shall 
     have an opportunity to review permit applications submitted 
     to the State, regional, or local regulatory agency which 
     would have more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse 
     impacts on the environment, attempt to resolve any 
     environmental concern or protect any Federal interest at 
     issue, and, if such concern is not adequately addressed by 
     the State, local, or regional agency, require the processing 
     of an individual Federal permit under this section for the 
     specific proposed activity. The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the District Engineer will utilize this authority to protect 
     all Federal interests including, but not limited to, national 
     security, navigation, flood control, Federal endangered or 
     threatened species, Federal interests under the Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act, special aquatic sites of national 
     importance, and other interests of overriding national 
     importance. Any programmatic general permit issued under this 
     subsection shall be consistent with the guidelines 
     promulgated to implement subsection (b)(1).
       ``(B) In addition to the requirements of subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary shall not promulgate any local or regional 
     programmatic general permit based on a local or regional 
     government's regulatory program unless the responsible unit 
     of government has also adopted a wetland and watershed 
     management plan and is administering regulations to implement 
     this plan. The watershed management plan shall include--
       ``(i) the designation of a local or regional regulatory 
     agency which shall be responsible for issuing permits under 
     the plan and for making reports every 2 years on 
     implementation of the plan and on the losses and gains in 
     functions and acres of wetland within the watershed plan 
     area;
       ``(ii) mapping of--

       ``(I) the boundary of the plan area;
       ``(II) all wetlands and waters within the plan area as well 
     as other areas proposed for protection under the plan; and
       ``(III) proposed wetland restoration or creation sites with 
     a description of their intended functions upon completion and 
     the time required for completion;

       ``(iii) a description of the regulatory policies and 
     standards applicable to all wetlands and waters within the 
     plan areas and all activities which may affect these wetlands 
     and waters that will assure, at a minimum, no net loss of the 
     functions and acres of wetlands within the plan area; and
       ``(iv) demonstration that the regulatory agency has the 
     legal authority and scientific monitoring capability to carry 
     out the proposed plan including the issuance, monitoring, and 
     enforcement of permits in compliance with the plan.''.
       (e) Grandfather of Existing General Permits.--Section 
     404(e) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Grandfather of existing general permits.--General 
     permits in effect on day before the date of the enactment of 
     the Wetlands and Watershed Management Act of 1995 shall 
     remain in effect until otherwise modified by the 
     Secretary.''.
       (f) Discharges Not Requiring a Permit.--Section 404(f) (33 
     U.S.C. 1344(f)) is amended by striking the subsection 
     designation and paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Exemptions.--
       ``(1) Activities not requiring permit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Activities are exempt from the 
     requirements of this section and are not prohibited by or 
     otherwise subject to regulation under this section or section 
     301 or 402 of this Act (except effluent standards 
     [[Page H4730]]  or prohibitions under section 307 of this 
     Act) if such activities--
       ``(i) result from normal farming, silviculture, 
     aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices, including 
     but not limited to plowing, seeding, cultivating, haying, 
     grazing, normal maintenance activities, minor drainage, 
     burning of vegetation in connection with such activities, 
     harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest 
     products, or upland soil and water conservation practices;
       ``(ii) are for the purpose of maintenance, including 
     emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of 
     currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees, 
     flood control channels or other engineered flood control 
     facilities, water control structures, water supply reservoirs 
     (where such maintenance involves periodic water level 
     drawdowns) which provide water predominantly to public 
     drinking water systems, groins, riprap, breakwaters, utility 
     distribution and transmission lines, causeways, and bridge 
     abutments or approaches, and transportation structures;
       ``(iii) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance 
     of farm, stock or aquaculture ponds, wastewater retention 
     facilities (including dikes and berms) that are used by 
     concentrated animal feeding operations, or irrigation canals 
     and ditches or the maintenance or reconstruction of drainage 
     ditches and tile lines;
       ``(iv) are for the purpose of construction of temporary 
     sedimentation basins on a construction site, or the 
     construction of any upland dredged material disposal area, 
     which does not include placement of fill material into the 
     navigable waters;
       ``(v) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance of 
     farm roads or forest roads, in accordance with best 
     management practices, to assure that flow and circulation 
     patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the 
     waters are not impaired, that the reach of the waters is not 
     reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic 
     environment will be otherwise minimized;
       ``(vi) are undertaken on farmed wetlands, except that any 
     change in use of such land for the purpose of undertaking 
     activities that are not exempt from regulation under this 
     subsection shall be subject to the requirements of this 
     section to the extent that such farmed wetlands are 
     `wetlands' under this section;
       ``(vii) are undertaken in incidentally created wetlands, 
     unless such incidentally created wetlands have exhibited 
     wetlands functions and values for more than 5 years in which 
     case activities undertaken in such wetlands shall be subject 
     to the requirements of this section; and
       ``(viii) are for the purpose of preserving and enhancing 
     aviation safety or are undertaken in order to prevent an 
     airport hazard.''.
       (g) Areas Not Considered To Be Navigable Waters.--Section 
     404(f) is further amended by adding the following:
       ``(3) Areas not considered to be navigable waters.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following shall not be considered navigable waters:
       ``(i) Irrigation ditches excavated in uplands.
       ``(ii) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to 
     uplands if the irrigation ceased.
       ``(iii) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or 
     diking uplands to collect and retain water, and which are 
     used exclusively for stock watering, irrigation, or rice 
     growing.
       ``(iv) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other 
     small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or 
     diking uplands to retain water for primarily aesthetic 
     reasons.
       ``(v) Temporary, water filled depressions created in 
     uplands incidental to construction activity.
       ``(vi) Pits excavated in uplands for the purpose of 
     obtaining fill, sand, gravel, aggregates, or minerals, unless 
     and until the construction or excavation operation is 
     abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the 
     definition of waters of the United States.
       ``(vii) Artificial stormwater detention areas and 
     artificial sewage treatment areas which are not modified 
     natural waters.
       ``(B) Demonstration required.--Subparagraph (A) shall not 
     apply to a particular water body unless the person desiring 
     to discharge dredged or fill material in that water body is 
     able to demonstrate that the water body qualifies under 
     subparagraph (A) for exemption from regulation under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 808. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, 
                   CODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(u)(1) The Secretary and the Administrator shall in 
     cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service, and National Marine 
     Fisheries Service provide technical assistance to private 
     landowners in delineation of wetlands and the planning and 
     management of their wetlands. This assistance shall include--
       ``(A) the delineation of wetland boundaries within 90 days 
     (providing on the ground conditions allow) of a request for 
     such delineation for a project with a proposed individual 
     permit application under this section and a total assessed 
     value of less than $15,000; and
       ``(B) the provision of technical assistance to owners of 
     wetlands in the preparation of wetland management plans for 
     their lands to protect and restore wetlands and meet other 
     goals of this Act, including control of nonpoint and point 
     sources of pollution, prevention and reduction of erosion, 
     and protection of estuaries and lakes.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall prepare, update on a biannual 
     basis, and make available to the public for purchase at cost, 
     an indexed publication containing all Federal regulations, 
     general permits, and regulatory guidance letters relevant to 
     the permitting of activities in wetland areas pursuant to 
     section 404(a). The Secretary and the Administrator shall 
     also prepare and distribute brochures and pamphlets for the 
     public addressing--
       ``(A) the delineation of wetlands,
       ``(B) wetland permitting requirements; and
       ``(C) wetland restoration and other matters considered 
     relevant.''.

     SEC. 809. DELINEATION.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(v) Delineation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The United States Army Corps of 
     Engineers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
     and other Federal agencies shall use the 1987 Corps of 
     Engineers Manual for the Delineation of Jurisdictional 
     Wetlands pursuant to this section until a new manual has been 
     prepared and formally adopted by the Corps and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency with input from the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources, Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, and other relevant agencies 
     and adopted after field testing, hearing, and public comment. 
     Any new manual shall take into account the conclusions of the 
     National Academy of Sciences panel concerning the delineation 
     of wetlands. The Corps, in cooperation with the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, shall 
     develop materials and conduct training courses for 
     consultants, State, and local governments, and landowners 
     explaining the use of the Corps 1987 wetland manual in the 
     delineation of wetland areas. The Corps, in cooperation with 
     the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
     Agriculture, may also, in cooperation with the States, 
     develop supplemental criteria and procedures for 
     identification of regional wetland types. Such criteria and 
     procedures may include supplemental plant and soil lists and 
     supplementary technical criteria pertaining to wetland 
     hydrology, soils, and vegetation.
       ``(2) Agricultural lands.--
       ``(A) Delineation by secretary of agriculture.--For 
     purposes of this section, wetlands located on agricultural 
     lands and associated nonagricultural lands shall be 
     delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture in 
     accordance with section 1222(j) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(j)).
       ``(B) Exemption of lands exempted under food security 
     act.--Any area of agricultural land or any discharge related 
     to the land determined to be exempt from the requirements of 
     subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall also be exempt from the 
     requirements of this section for such period of time as those 
     lands are used as agricultural lands.
       ``(C) Effect of appeal determination pursuant to food 
     security act.--Any area of agricultural land or any discharge 
     related to the land determined to be exempt pursuant to an 
     appeal taken pursuant to subtitle C of title XII of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall be exempt 
     under this section for such period of time as those lands are 
     used as agricultural lands.''.

     SEC. 810. FAST TRACK FOR MINOR PERMITS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(w)(1) Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue 
     regulations to explore the review and practice of individual 
     permits for minor activities. Minor activities include 
     activities of 1 acre or less in size which also have minor 
     direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts.
       ``(2) Permit applications for minor permits shall 
     ordinarily be processed within 60 days of the receipt of 
     completed application.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall establish fast-track field teams 
     or other procedures in the individual offices sufficient to 
     expedite the processing of the individual permits involving 
     minor activities.''.

     SEC. 811. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(x) General Requirements.--(1) Each permit issued under 
     this section that results in loss of wetland functions or 
     acreage shall require compensatory mitigation. The preferred 
     sequence of mitigation options is as set forth in 
     subparagraph (A) and (C). However, the Secretary shall have 
     sufficient flexibility to approve practical options that 
     provide the most protection to the resource--
       ``(A) measures shall first be undertaken by the permittee 
     to avoid any adverse effects on wetlands caused by activities 
     authorized by the permit.
       ``(B) measures shall be undertaken by the permittee to 
     minimize any such adverse effects that cannot be avoided;
       ``(C) measures shall then be undertaken by the permittee to 
     compensate for adverse impacts on wetland functions, values, 
     and acreage;
       ``(D) where compensatory mitigation is used, preference 
     shall be given to in-kind restoration on the same water body 
     and within the same local watershed;
     [[Page H4731]]   ``(E) where on-site and in-kind compensatory 
     mitigation are impossible, impractical, would fail to work in 
     the circumstances, or would not make ecological sense, off-
     site and/or out-of-kind compensatory mitigation may be 
     permitted within the watershed including participation in 
     cooperative mitigation ventures or mitigation banks as 
     provided in section 404(y).
       ``(2) The Secretary in consultation with the Administrator 
     shall ensure that compensable mitigation by a permitee--
       ``(A) is a specific, enforceable condition of the permit 
     for which it is required;
       ``(B) will meet defined success criteria; and
       ``(C) is monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions 
     of the permit and to determine the effectiveness of the 
     mitigation in compensating for the adverse effects for which 
     it is required.''.

     SEC. 812. COOPERATIVE MITIGATION VENTURES AND MITIGATION 
                   BANKS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(y)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Administrator 
     shall jointly issue rules for a system of cooperative 
     mitigation ventures and wetland banks. Such rules shall, at 
     the minimum, address the following topics:
       ``(A) Mitigation banks and cooperative ventures may be used 
     on a watershed basis to compensate for unavoidable wetland 
     losses which cannot be compensated on-site due to inadequate 
     hydrologic conditions, excessive sedimentation, water 
     pollution, or other problems. Mitigation banks and 
     cooperative ventures may also be used to improve the 
     potential success of compensatory mitigation through the use 
     of larger projects, by locating projects in areas in more 
     favorable short-term and long-term hydrology and proximity to 
     other wetlands and waters, and by helping to ensure short-
     term and long-term project protection, monitoring, and 
     maintenance.
       ``(B) Parties who may establish mitigation banks and 
     cooperative mitigation ventures for use in specific context 
     and for particular types of wetlands may include government 
     agencies, nonprofits, and private individuals.
       ``(C) Surveys and inventories on a watershed basis of 
     potential mitigation sites throughout a region or State shall 
     ordinarily be required prior to the establishment of 
     mitigation banks and cooperative ventures pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(D) Mitigation banks and cooperative mitigation ventures 
     shall be used in a manner consistent with the sequencing 
     requirements to mitigate unavoidable wetland impacts. Impacts 
     should be mitigated within the watershed and water body if 
     possible with on-site mitigation preferable as set forth in 
     section 404(x).
       ``(E) The long-term security of ownership interests of 
     wetlands and uplands on which projects are conducted shall be 
     insured to protect the wetlands values associated with those 
     wetlands and uplands;
       ``(F) Methods shall be specified to determine debits by 
     evaluating wetland functions, values, and acreages at the 
     sites of proposed permits for discharges or alternations 
     pursuant to subsections (a), (c), and (g) and methods to be 
     used to determine credits based upon functions, values, and 
     acreages at the times of mitigation banks and cooperative 
     mitigation ventures.
       ``(G) Geographic restrictions on the use of banks and 
     cooperative mitigation ventures shall be specified. In 
     general, mitigation banks or cooperative ventures shall be 
     located on the same water body as impacted wetlands. If this 
     is not possible or practical, banks or ventures shall be 
     located as near as possible to impacted projects with 
     preference given to the same watershed where the impact is 
     occurring.
       ``(H) Compensation ratios for restoration, creation, 
     enhancement, and preservation reflecting and overall goal of 
     no net loss of function and the status of scientific 
     knowledge with regard to compensation for individual 
     wetlands, risks, costs, and other relevant factors shall be 
     specified. A minimum restoration compensation ratio of 1:1 
     shall be required for restoration of lost acreage with larger 
     compensation ratios for wetland creation, enhancement and 
     preservation.
       ``(I) Fees to be charged for participation in a bank or 
     cooperative mitigation venture shall be based upon the costs 
     of replacing lost functions and acreage on-site and off-site; 
     the risks of project failure, the costs of long-term 
     maintenance, monitoring, and protection, and other relevant 
     factors.
       ``(J) Responsibilities for long-term monitoring, 
     maintenance, and protection shall be specified.
       ``(K) Public review of proposals for mitigation banks and 
     cooperative mitigation ventures through one or more public 
     hearings shall be provided.
       ``(2) The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator, is authorized to establish and implement a 
     demonstration program for creating and implementing 
     mitigation banks and cooperative ventures and for evaluating 
     alternative approaches for mitigation banks and cooperative 
     mitigation ventures as a means of contributing to the goals 
     established by section 101(a)(8) or section 10 of the Act of 
     March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403). The Secretary shall 
     also monitor and evaluate existing banks and cooperative 
     ventures and establish a number of such banks and cooperative 
     ventures to test and demonstrate:
       ``(A) The technical feasibility of compensation for lost 
     on-site values through off-site cooperative mitigation 
     ventures and mitigation banks.
       ``(B) Techniques for evaluating lost wetland functions and 
     values at sites for which permits are sought pursuant to 
     section 404(a) and techniques for determining appropriate 
     credits and debits at the sites of cooperative mitigation 
     ventures and mitigation banks.
       ``(C) The adequacy of alternative institutional 
     arrangements for establishing and administering mitigation 
     banks and cooperative mitigation ventures.
       ``(D) The appropriate geographical locations of bank or 
     cooperative mitigation ventures in compensation for lost 
     functions and values.
       ``(E) Mechanisms for ensuring short-term and long-term 
     project monitoring and maintenance.
       ``(F) Techniques and incentives for involving private 
     individuals in establishing and implementing mitigation banks 
     and cooperative mitigation ventures.
     Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
     report evaluating mitigation banks and cooperative ventures. 
     The Secretary shall also, within this time period, prepare 
     educational materials and conduct training programs with 
     regard to the use of mitigation banks and cooperative 
     ventures.''.

     SEC. 813. WETLANDS MONITORING AND RESEARCH.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(z) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, and appropriate State and 
     local government entities, shall initiate, with opportunity 
     for public notice and comment, a research program of wetlands 
     and watershed management. The purposes of the research 
     program shall include, but not be limited--
       ``(1) to study the functions, values and management needs 
     of altered, artificial, and managed wetland systems including 
     lands that were converted to production of commodity crops 
     prior to December 23, 1985, and report to Congress within 2 
     years of the date of the enactment of this subsection;
       ``(2) to study techniques for managing and restoring 
     wetlands within a watershed context;
       ``(3) to study techniques for better coordinating and 
     integrating wetland, floodplain, stormwater, point and 
     nonpoint source pollution controls, and water supply planning 
     and plan implementation on a watershed basis at all levels of 
     government; and
       ``(4) to establish a national wetland regulatory tracking 
     program on a watershed basis.

     This program shall track the individual and cumulative impact 
     of permits issued pursuant to section 404(a), 404(e), and 
     404(h) in terms of types of permits issued, conditions, and 
     approvals. The tracking program shall also include mitigation 
     required in terms of the amount required, types required, and 
     compliance.''.

     SEC. 814. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(aa) Administrative Appeals.--
       ``(1) Regulations establishing procedures.--Not later than 
     1 year after the date of the enactment of the Wetlands and 
     Watershed Management Act of 1995, the Secretary shall, after 
     providing notice and opportunity for public comment, issue 
     regulations establishing procedures pursuant to which--
       ``(A) a landowner may appeal a determination of regulatory 
     jurisdiction under this section with respect to a parcel of 
     the landowner's property;
       ``(B) a landowner may appeal a wetlands classification 
     under this section with respect to a parcel of the 
     landowner's property;
       ``(C) any person may appeal a determination that the 
     proposed activity on the landowner's property is not exempt 
     under subsection (f);
       ``(D) a landowner may appeal a determination that an 
     activity on the landowner's property does not qualify under a 
     general permit issued under this section;
       ``(E) an applicant for a permit under this section may 
     appeal a determination made pursuant to this section to deny 
     issuance of the permit or to impose a requirement under the 
     permit; and
       ``(F) a landowner or any other person required to restore 
     or otherwise alter a parcel of property pursuant to an order 
     issued under this section may appeal such order.
       ``(2) Deadline for filing appeal.--An appeal brought 
     pursuant to this subsection shall be filed not later than 30 
     days after the date on which the decision or action on which 
     the appeal is based occurs.
       ``(3) Deadline for decision.--An appeal brought pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be decided not later than 90 days after 
     the date on which the appeal is filed.
       ``(4) Participation in appeals process.--Any person who 
     participated in the public comment process concerning a 
     decision or action that is the subject of an appeal brought 
     pursuant to this subsection may participate in such appeal 
     with respect to those issues raised in the person's written 
     public comments.
       ``(5) Decisionmaker.--An appeal brought pursuant to this 
     subsection shall be heard and decided by an appropriate and 
     impartial official of the Federal Government, other 
     [[Page H4732]]  than the official who made the determination 
     or carried out the action that is the subject of the appeal.
       ``(6) Stay of penalties and mitigation.--A landowner or any 
     other person who has filed an appeal under this subsection 
     shall not be required to pay a penalty or perform mitigation 
     or restoration assessed under this section or section 309 
     until after the appeal has been decided.''.

     SEC. 815. CRANBERRY PRODUCTION.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(bb) Cranberry Production.--Activities associated with 
     expansion, improvement, or modification of existing cranberry 
     production operations shall be deemed in compliance, for 
     purposes of sections 309 and 505, with section 301, if--
       ``(1) the activity does not result in the modification of 
     more than 10 acres of wetlands per operator per year and the 
     modified wetlands (other than where dikes and other necessary 
     facilities are placed) remain as wetlands or other waters of 
     the United States; or
       ``(2) the activity is required by any State or Federal 
     water quality program.''.

     SEC. 816. STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(cc) State Classification Systems.--
       ``(1) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, shall establish guidelines to aid States 
     and Indian tribes in establishing classification systems for 
     the planning, managing, and regulating of wetlands.
       ``(2) Establishment.--In accordance with the guidelines 
     established under paragraph (1), a State or Indian tribe may 
     establish a wetlands classification system for lands of the 
     State or Indian tribe and may submit such classification 
     system to the Secretary for approval. Upon approval, the 
     Secretary shall use such classification system in making 
     permit determinations and establishing mitigation 
     requirements for lands of the State or Indian tribe under 
     this section.
       ``(3) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to affect a State with an 
     approved program under subsection (h) or a State with a 
     wetlands classification system in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection.''.
     SEC. 817. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(26) The term `wetland' means those areas that are 
     inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a 
     frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under 
     normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 
     typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions.
       ``(27) The term `discharge of dredged or fill material' 
     means the act of discharging and any related act of filling, 
     grading, draining, dredging, excavation, channelization, 
     flooding, clearing of vegetation, driving of piling or 
     placement of other obstructions, diversion of water, or other 
     activities in navigable waters which impair the flow, reach, 
     or circulation of surface water, or which result in a more 
     than minimal change in the hydrologic regime, bottom contour, 
     or configuration of such waters, or in the type, 
     distribution, or diversity of vegetation in such waters.
       ``(28) The term `mitigation bank' shall mean wetland 
     restoration, creation, or enhancement projects undertaken 
     primarily for the purpose of providing mitigation 
     compensation credits for wetland losses from future 
     activities. Often these activities will be, as yet, 
     undefined.
       ``(29) The term `cooperative mitigation ventures' shall 
     mean wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement projects 
     undertaken jointly by several parties (such as private, 
     public, and nonprofit parties) with the primary goal of 
     providing compensation for wetland losses from existing or 
     specific proposed activities. Some compensation credits may 
     also be provided for future as yet undefined activities. Most 
     cooperative mitigation ventures will involve at least one 
     private and one public cooperating party.
       ``(30) The term `normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture 
     and ranching activities' means normal practices identified as 
     such by the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with 
     the Cooperative Extension Service for each State and the land 
     grant university system and agricultural colleges of the 
     State, taking into account existing practices and such other 
     practices as may be identified in consultation with the 
     affected industry or community.
       ``(31) The term `agricultural land' means cropland, 
     pastureland, native pasture, rangeland, an orchard, a 
     vineyard, nonindustrial forest land, an area that supports a 
     water dependent crop (including cranberries, taro, 
     watercress, or rice), and any other land used to produce or 
     support the production of an annual or perennial crop 
     (including forage or hay), aquaculture product, nursery 
     product, or wetland crop or the production of livestock.''.
                        TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS

     SEC. 901. OBLIGATIONS AND EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       No provision or amendments of this Act shall be construed 
     to make funds available for obligation or expenditure for any 
     purpose except to the extent provided in advance in 
     appropriation Acts.

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my personal 
appreciation and the appreciation of many of my colleagues for the 
cooperation shown by the chairman of the committee in helping to bring 
forward this rule, and the opportunity of those of us who have some 
differences with the committee bill, and giving us an opportunity to 
express those differences as well as to offer amendments like the one 
at the desk.
  I would also like to express my appreciation for the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], 
both of whom have worked many long hours along with me and my staff in 
working to bring forth the amendment that we are considering at this 
time.
  I think it is noteworthy to mention that while this is a substitute 
amendment, that it adopts some 70 to 75 percent of the committee draft, 
and that the language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] 
in those cases remains the same.
  There are several however, sections of the bill that we believe can 
be improved, and I just would like to talk about those several sections 
for just a minute.
  As many of my colleagues know, having heard previous statements that 
I and others have made today, those of us who live in and represent 
areas of the country that are densely populated, or that are in coastal 
areas or that are in areas such as the Mississippi River Valley and 
other environmentally sensitive ecosystem type areas around the country 
have very serious concerns with at least four sections. One is the 
section that involves wetlands. The second is the section that involves 
nonpoint sources of pollutions. The third is in the permitting system, 
and what the committee mark does to the permitting process in terms of 
eliminating it is very effective. And the fourth, at least for me and 
for others I believe, is the issue of ocean dumping, and I would just 
like to address those four areas for just a minute.
  With regard to wetlands, it is pretty obvious that in New Jersey, 
where we estimate that 90 percent of our wetlands would be declassified 
as wetlands under the language of the committee bill, this causes a 
great deal of concern inasmuch as wetlands play a very vital 
environmental role in coastal areas, and so if I, as I am, were a 
representative of a coastal area anywhere from Maine to Florida on the 
east coast I would be terribly concerned about the effect of this bill, 
or if I were a representative from the Gulf States bordering on the 
Gulf of Mexico I would be terribly concerned about the provisions of 
bill, and of course if I were from California or Oregon or Washington 
State I would be equally concerned by the provisions as they relate to 
wetlands.
  Of course we all know as well that wetlands act as a natural 
filtering system and act as the very basis of life in many cases, and 
so the committee mark, which does what we think is wrong things to the 
concept of wetlands protection, needs to be rewritten, and our bill 
does that.
  With regard to the nonpoint source pollution program and the Coastal 
Zone Management Act, which in its very nature creates a partnership 
between State governments and the Federal Government with regard to 
this very important nonpoint issue, was also done, we think, 
significant harm by the committee mark. And we believe, therefore, that 
changes are necessary.
  Those of us who have had problems with point sources of pollution 
have been able to identify such things as outfalls into our streams and 
rivers and bays and oceans. We have been able to deal with them. They 
are a relatively simple task to take care of, and I say relatively 
simple. It is never easy nor it is ever simple, but at least you can 
identify the source of pollution.
  With regard to nonpoint sources, it is a much more difficult task, 
and the CZMA sets up this partnership between the State and Federal 
Government in order to identify and develop programs in order to deal 
with nonpoint sources, and here again we would maintain what the 
coastal States association have endorsed, as a matter of fact 
[[Page H4733]]  CZMA language which solves this problem.
  With regard to storm water discharge, obviously it is a very big 
issue and a problem that creates a great deal of damage to our coastal 
environment as well as to other tributaries around the country, and 
here again the permitting process is damaged severely under the 
language of the committee mark. And so we would make significant 
changes and do in the committee substitute which we will be voting on a 
little bit later today.
  Finally with regard to ocean dumping, this has been a tremendous task 
which we have done on a bipartisan basis; the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Pallone] is here and our former colleague, Bill Hughes, all worked 
together to put an end to ocean dumping. We address in our substitute 
only that section of the bill that has to do with dredge spoil deposit 
offshore.
  So we ask our colleagues to support our substitute, and I thank the 
Members for their consideration.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I represent an area that has a lot 
of wetlands, and I have been involved with this issue all of my 
political career in the State legislature, and now since I have been in 
Congress to some extent, and I think people ought to read what is in 
this bill.
  The gentleman says they have 75 percent of what is in the Shuster 
bill, but you have to look at what the content is and realize some of 
things that have been left out. First of all, there is no risk 
assessment at all in this bill, No. 1.
  No. 2, in the wetlands area, you know in our country we have been 
trying to simplify this process. What is driving people crazy is they 
have got to go to all of these agencies and they overrule each other 
and they do not talk to each other and they do not agree on things, and 
cause an untold amount of problems for my constituents. What this bill 
is going to do if you take it out and read it, it is going to create a 
new wetlands coordinating commission that is going to be appointed by 
the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, which we have 
been trying to get out of this process because frankly they do not 
belong in the process in the farm country, and they are going to create 
a coordinating committee that is going to have 18 Federal agencies 
trying to coordinate some kind of wetlands policy. And if I could just 
read some of the things that this new committee is supposed to do, I 
think that folks when they start taking a look at what is in this bill 
are going to have some different ideas.
  They are going to help coordinate Federal, State, local wetland 
planning, regulatory restoration programs on an ongoing basis to reduce 
duplication, resolve potential conflicts, and efficiently allocate 
manpower.
  But let me tell Members what the problem is in my county, it is not 
the law that is the problem so much, it is the people that are trying 
to implement the law.
  I have a county, two counties right next to each other, and in one 
county where the people used some common sense and worked together they 
resolved all of the wetlands problems without a single ripple. You go 
to the next county where you had some people that were rigid and did 
not want to work with each other, and you have the biggest hornets' 
nest and the biggest mess you have ever seen, and I submit any change 
in the law is not going to solve that kind of problem.
  And clearly setting up a coordinating committee with 18 Federal 
agencies is not going to make this situation better. It is going to 
make it worse.
  Last of all, I also heard this story that the wetlands are so 
important, a public treasure, and they are important to all of us in 
this country and we agree with that. But there is this point of view 
and mostly I think by urban folks, they somehow or another think we out 
in the country ought to pay that entire burden.
                              {time}  1600

  Well, I submit that if wetlands are that important, and I think we 
agree that they are, then we all, as a nation, need to pay for the cost 
of this, and that is what we are trying to do with some of the changes 
that were in the private property rights bill, and also some of the 
changes that are in 961, by taking that, recognizing that wetlands are 
important and something that we want to maintain, but spreading that 
cost across all of the people in this country, not just the people upon 
which the wetlands happen, their property where the wetlands happen to 
reside.
  Mr. Chairman, last of all, I have been working on the conservation 
reserve program in the Committee on Agriculture. When that program was 
set up, wetlands were excluded from the Conservation Reserve program. 
We created another program called the wetlands reserve which was never 
funded and does not have public support.
  What we need to do, rather than take this regulatory approach to 
wetlands, we need to take and change the Conservation Reserve so the 
No. 1 priority to go into the CRP is wetlands, a voluntary program, a 
10-year program. We are going to preserve way more wetlands in that 
kind of an approach than we are setting up some kind of a committee 
with 18 agencies involved and some kind of bureaucracy. That is the 
last thing we need to do.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to point out to the gentleman I share 
your concerns about building bigger bureaucracies and establishing 
committees on top of committees.
  The Wetlands Coordinating Committee is something that is endorsed by 
the Governors, that would have Federal Representation, State 
Representation, local representation in order to look at individual 
cases to try and determine where we believe this is warranted. If we 
all agree, as you stated, I agree with you, that wetlands are 
important, we have to have some mechanism in which to deal with them. 
This is a partnership effort established and created in cooperation 
with the States in order to carry out this coordinating function.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Boehlert and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Peterson of Minnesota was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. If I could just respond to the question, 
you know, with all due respect, you ought to come and see what is going 
on in Minnesota. It is the State of Minnesota that has created the 
bigger hornet's nest than the Federal Government. From my standpoint, 
if you see what has been happening with these State laws, they are 
causing more problems than we are, and as I understand it, it is the 
wetlands managers in the States that support this, not the Governors 
and elected officials.
  Mr. SAXTON. The National Governors' Association supports this.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to make two points. If it is the State of 
Minnesota that is giving you some problems, I suggest you deal with the 
State and not question the Federal law.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. The Federal law is a problem, too.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to point out on delineation, section 809 of the 
bill. I want to stress this, delineation by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, for purposes of this section, wetlands located on 
agricultural land and associated nonagricultural lands shall be 
delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture. That is critically 
important; not by the Environmental Protection Agency, not by some 
commission, solely by the Secretary of Agriculture. We are very 
sensitive to the needs of the agriculture community.
  I am privileged to represent a district that has a large agricultural 
interest.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Just to answer the question, why do we 
need a coordinating committee with all of these agencies, if we are 
going to give the power to the Secretary of Agriculture? I mean, the 
trouble that I have had out there is that we get everybody else 
involved in these permits but you cannot get an answer half of the time 
from these agencies. If we get 
[[Page H4734]]  set up some new structure, we have got all of these 
agencies involved, and the EPA is in charge; even if you give it to the 
Secretary of Agriculture, I do not think it is going to work.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson] 
has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Boehlert and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Peterson of Minnesota was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me stress once again on agriculture, solely by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, not some commission, but the commission that 
is set up outside of this to deal with nonagricultural lands is set up 
to give guidance to the States. The National Governors' Association, we 
have embraced in our substitute specific language of the National 
Governors' Association dealing with the subject of wetlands. We agree 
with you, we want to give our Governors, those are the laboratories, we 
want to give them more responsibility, more flexibility.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Just to close this off, I have a letter 
here from just about every agriculture group, soil-water conservation 
groups that I know of in my State, they are opposed to this substitute. 
They support the chairman's bill, 961. I would urge defeat of the 
Boehlert substitute.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield further, let me point out 
that this is a 334-page bill that was just made available Thursday. The 
report was just available yesterday for the first time. They have not 
read the report.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan, 
commonsense, locally driven bill to provide solutions to provide clean 
water to our constituents.
  I want to start out by articulating my great respect for the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert].
  I think the elections in November of 1994 were about bipartisanship 
and common sense and trying to reinvent Washington, DC, and come up 
with locally driven solutions, and that is precisely what this 
substitute does.
  When I was a little boy and we used to go up to Lake Michigan, Lake 
Michigan borders my district, the Third District of Indiana, and we 
would try to find a spot in the sand to spread beach towels where there 
were not dead fish and dead seaweed and trash and all kinds of problems 
from Lake Michigan washed upon the shore. It was difficult to do it. 
Certainly we did not compete much with other people trying to go 
swimming or catch some sun.
  We had huge difficulties with pollution on Lake Michigan. Now it is 
beautiful. The water is clean. We have festivals and fishing exhibits. 
We have all kinds of development. We have boating. We have condos and 
houses springing up along Lake Michigan is my district.
  What we need to do, ladies and gentlemen, is come up with a common 
sense bill that does not swing so far to the left or to the right but 
comes firmly down in the middle to protect our clean water, to 
encourage business, to encourage a strong economy and to encourage a 
clean water future for our children.
  I talk about the Great Lakes and Lake Erie as a great example of 
this. Twenty years ago, people used to joke about lighting Lake Erie on 
fire or walking across Lake Erie. Now they have built a brand new 
baseball stadium that is the pride of Cleveland that has a view of Lake 
Erie that has brought back the city.
  The Clean Water Act has been part of that. Now, certainly, we can say 
that there are a great deal of problems with the Clean Water Act. They 
did not use, they have not used enough common sense. They have been too 
prescriptive in a lot of ways, especially in the wetlands where I hear 
from my farmers time in and time out, day after day, and what we try to 
do with this legislation, we try to keep about 70 percent of 961 and we 
try to come up with commonsense solutions on wetlands and other areas 
and incorporate that to improve this bill.
  I have been on farms in my district where a farmer says to me, he has 
taken a backhoe in his back yard and accidentally broken some tile, and 
then the Federal Government wants to come along and say, ``This is a 
wetlands. I am sorry, Harry, this is our land.''
  Our legislation gives the property right to the owner. We do want to 
make sure that that farmer has the privilege and the right to protect 
his land.
  But we also want to attain a balance of not taking away 60 or 70 
percent of the wetlands in this country.
  I would also like to talk a little bit about the economy and 
businesses. A small business owner in my district who employees 700 
people in four different plants was in my office. He said, ``I strongly 
support the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute. I belong to the chamber 
of commerce. I belong to the host of business organizations, but I 
manufacture small boats and employ 700 people. We cannot roll back 
legislation that protects clean water. We need a fair compromise 
here.'' That is what this substitute achieves. It does not do it by 
achieving Washington standards on our wetlands solution.
  We say that the National Governors' Association should develop the 
answer. They have simplified the permitting process and expanded the 
role for State wetland managers, moving the decision process directly 
to the local level. We have adopted the State solution.
  I encourage my colleagues, for the sake of common sense and 
bipartisanship, to support this Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the substitute amendment and in 
support of H.R. 961, and make no mistake about it, this substitute is 
being presented as a middle-of-the-road compromise, but it is much more 
than that.
  Basically, it returns the status quo. It really retains many of the 
provisions in the existing law that have been the source of most of the 
objections and criticisms that we have seen come against the Clean 
Water Act.
  In the time that I have been in the House, I think it has become very 
clear to me this institution as an institution resists change. It is 
reluctant to embrace change, is reluctant to recognize that times 
change and that, therefore, legislation needs to be fashioned to meet 
that change. It really is my belief that some of the opponents of the 
committee's bill and the supporters of this bill fear change, because 
it represents change in doing business by removing highly prescriptive, 
top-down federalism which is now integral to virtually all 
environmental programs that we have dealt with over the years.
  This bill, I think, represents for the first time in recent memory 
the Federal Government will cede, this is almost unheard of, will cede 
some authority in the environmental arena to State and local 
government, giving them greater latitude to provide solutions to vexing 
pollution problems.
  What the opponents of the committee bill and the proponents of the 
substitute choose to ignore rather artfully, I would have to say, is 
H.R. 961 does not turn back the clock on environmental standards. It 
does, in fact, lateral some of the responsibility and sets the stage 
for implementing locally designed solutions. And is that not what 
really we heard in the election last year, that people are crying out 
for the opportunity to use their own creativity to come up with 
solutions to unique problems? We are not talking about eroding or 
cutting back standards. We are saying give localities the ability to 
deal creatively with their own problems.
  Environmentalists, the more rigid environmentalists, embrace the 
current program because it has worked and worked rather well these past 
23 years. But I think in the face of vastly changed circumstances which 
we have now, they are unwilling to cede to State and local governments 
any degree of autonomy as we move to address more complicated and 
difficult problems, and they are unwilling to embrace innovative 
approaches that may achieve comparable or better cleanup standards at 
significantly lower costs.
  Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that when the clean water program was 
first established, the national deficit was a mere fraction of its 
current size, and 
[[Page H4735]]  the Federal Government was at that time handing out 
huge grants to pay for up to 80 percent of the construction costs. 
Those days are long gone, have been gone forever. Today the market is 
radically different. The chief distinction being the elimination of the 
grants, as I have said, and communities now contemplating construction 
of wastewater plants are generally very small, secondary treatment 
standards are high, and the cost of technology has gone through the 
roof.
  These small communities, in my congressional district, are emblematic 
of others around this country. This results in a very serious 
affordability problem.
  Earlier this year the Congress, I think, recognized the tough 
financial challenges which face our communities when it passed the 
unfunded mandates legislation which I had the honor to bring to the 
floor saying we are no longer going to impose new requirements without 
providing resources to pay for them, a very simple proposal, but one 
which we, frankly, had difficulty even getting consideration for in 
this Congress.
  This bill, the committee bill, is consistent with this public law by 
increasing the Federal contribution to State revolving funds and giving 
greater flexibility to States and localities to comply with the Clean 
Water Act, and I think that, to me, is the most critical part of this 
legislation, the fact that it does provide flexibility for the first 
time.
  Take a close look at those who support and those who oppose the 
committee bill. Groups favoring the bill include many associations, as 
we have heard, representing State and local governments. Those opposed 
are nonprofit associations, environmentally oriented, nonprofit 
associations. State and local governments do not want to turn back the 
clock on environmental cleanup, and I think that is implicit perhaps in 
some of the dialogue we have heard today that somehow the States and 
local governments cannot be trusted, that they are going to insidiously 
subvert all the efforts made over the years to clean up, but State and 
local governments merely want a greater voice in devising cost-
effective solutions.
                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Chairman, I would urge opposition to the substitute amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Clinger] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Boehlert and by unanimous consent, Mr. Clinger 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman thank you for the 
time. Let me complete my statement, and then I'll be happy to yield.
  I would just stress that we think it is of interest. I think that for 
the first time we are really going to have some consideration for what 
are the compliance costs, what does it cost to carry out the number of 
the mandates that we have had in the past, but I think that the 
environmental community, which has never shown too much concern or 
interest in, frankly, what the costs that we have imposed on the 
communities would be, I think would still rather straitjacket small 
communities insisting that they adhere to a national prescribed program 
specifically detailing in detail precisely how each community must meet 
the requirements without with regard to the financial consequences 
borne by the rate of players, and for that reason I would again oppose 
the amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my colleague points out that the bill 
will not turn back the clock. I would point out that the bill, as 
reported by the Committee, would repeal the storm water section. The 
bill would repeal the coastal zone section.
  I would also point out that we recognize that there are a number of 
provisions in existing law that need to be addressed and some changes 
need to be made. That is why the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute has 
70 percent of the language identical to the committee bill, because we 
do recognize some changes are in order. But we want to do it in a 
commonsense way, not just throw out everything in the name of 
flexibility, and I could not agree more with the gentleman, that we do 
want to give the Governors more responsibility. That is why our section 
on wetlands totally embraces the proposal advanced by the National 
Governors Association. That is why our section dealing with coastal 
zone management totally embraces the language advanced by the Coastal 
States Organization which represents 30 States and 30 Governors.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my support for the substitute offered 
by the gentleman from New Jersey.
  I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer] for their work on this substitute which gives the members 
of this House a true choice.
  The substitute makes practical and commonsense changes to the Clean 
Water Act while maintaining environmental protection.
  H.R. 961 reverses 20 years of environmental progress.
  The committee bill simply rolls back the Clean Water Act with waiver 
piled on top of exemption piled on top of loophole.
  H.R. 961 would stop the cleanup that has taken place for 2 decades. 
It would not maintain current national water standards.
  The committee bill has one purpose and one purpose only--to allow 
more pollution in our Nation's rivers, lakes and streams.
  H.R. 961 weakens the requirements for industry to treat its 
discharges.
  The bill provides far too many chances for local governments to 
discharge sewage that has not received secondary treatment.
  It is waiver after waiver, loophole after loophole.
  On top of that, the bill removes protection for 60 to 80 percent of 
the Nation's wetlands simply by ignoring the scientific evidence and 
redefining wetlands.
  The authors of this bill couldn't even wait for the National Academy 
of Sciences to finish its study of wetlands which was released 
yesterday.
  H.R. 961 simply tells us what a wetland is, regardless of the 
scientific evidence. Next, it will tell us the world is flat.
  H.R. 961 also rejects the advice of the Coastal States Organization 
and repeals the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program--the one effective 
non-point pollution program we have.
  The substitute has none of the weakening provisions of the committee 
bill.
  It does provide needed flexibility in changes in the State Revolving 
Loan Fund Program.
  It makes the changes in the Coastal Nonpoint Program that were 
requested by the Coastal States Organization.
  It proposes language on wetlands and watersheds requested by the 
National Governors' Association with additional changes--changes that 
were included in H.R. 961--to help the Nation's farmers.
  This substitute will restore reason and common sense to this process.
  The substitute will make many of the changes that are needed in the 
Clean Water Program.
  What it will not do is roll back clean water standards.
  For anyone who wants to continue an effective Clean Water Program, 
this substitute should be your choice.
  I urge support of the Boehlert-Roemer-Saxton substitute.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, on behalf of business, and industry and farmers in 
Upstate New York where I come from, I rise in the strongest possible 
opposition to the Boehlert amendment.
  As my colleagues know, a strange thing happened back in 1974. It was 
the year of Watergate.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, there was a big turnover in the House, and a lot 
of people were elected. They, unfortunately, were not businessmen. For 
the most part they were lawyers. There is nothing bad about lawyers, 
but most of them were lawyers, or professors, or professional 
politicians or bureaucrats. 
[[Page H4736]]  They came in, and they took over this place, and they 
proceeded over the next 5 or 6 years to ramrod through legislation, as 
my colleagues know, creating the Department of Education, the 
Department of Energy, and vastly expanding the Environmental Protection 
Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and they brought the economy in 
this country to a standstill.
  In upstate New York, Mr. Chairman, our people have been persecuted by 
these regulations. We are the most overtaxed, overregulated State in 
the Nation, and today they are about to get a little relief. I was 
sitting in my office because we do not have a Committee on Rules 
meeting today, which normally I spend all day there, and have to come 
back at 8 o'clock at night and work for 4 or 5 hours to get caught up. 
But today I was going to get caught up during the daytime, and I heard 
a lot of these people, still here from maybe that Watergate class of 
1974, but a lot of later ones, too, coming from New York City, some of 
them, a lot of the metropolitan areas. They are talking about the dirty 
polluters and how this Boehlert amendment is going to stick it back to 
them again. We are not going to put up with those dirty polluters, they 
say.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just read briefly this letter from these dirty 
polluters. They are my constituents.
  The New York State Corn Growers Association, some of the most 
admirable people in America, the Dairy League Cooperative, New York 
Farm Bureau, the New York State Grange; these are people who have 
volunteered their lives for their communities, not only in military 
service, but in Little League and Boy Scouts. These are the dirty 
polluters. As my colleagues know, I could go on and read all of these 
names from all of
 these organizations, but they oppose the Boehlert amendment because 
they want change. They want to be treated like decent human beings, and 
they have not been for a long time now. When Ronald Reagan came into 
office, he could not change things back then because all the laws were 
in place. We could not change these laws because this House was 
controlled by the far left. We lost in 1974, lost a lot of good 
Democrats, too. As you know, we had a lot of good conservative 
Democrats controlling committees in those days. Now they are all gone, 
and all we had left in control before last November was the far left of 
the Democratic Party which would not allow us to make these changes. We 
could not put through risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis for 
regulations. We could not pass a balanced budget amendment and line 
item veto because we could not even get it on the floor of this House.

  Well, we have our chance today to make vital correction, and that is 
why we need to defeat the Boehlert amendment, and we need to pass the 
committee reported legislation which is supported by all of these 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record letters in support of the 
original legislation and against my good friend's amendment:

                                                     May 10, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chair, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Agriculture in the State of New York is 
     alive and well. We are a leading producer of many fruits and 
     vegetables, as well as being the nation's third leading dairy 
     state. Once concern which crosses all commodity lines is the 
     fate of the Clean Water Act. We have watched the debate in 
     the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with 
     interest. After careful review, we, the undersigned 
     representing all facets of production agriculture and 
     agribusiness in the Empire State, fully support the 
     provisions of H.R. 961.
       This bill embraces a spirit of bipartisan cooperation much 
     like we have seen develop in New York to address non-point 
     source water pollution. Voluntary, incentive based programs 
     which are watershed specific will be successful if given the 
     opportunity. Also included in this bill is an improved 
     wetlands definition. It assures the farmer gets fair and 
     prompt wetlands decisions and compensation when regulatory 
     decisions devalue property.
       Thank you for your leadership in bringing this bill to the 
     floor for a scheduled vote May 12th. Again, we support H.R. 
     961 in its current form and do not support attempts by any 
     member of congress to make significant modifications.
           Sincerely,
         Agway, Inc., Stephen Hoefer, Vice President; NYS Corn 
           Growers, James Czub, President; Dairylea Cooperative, 
           Inc., Clyde Rutherford, President; New York Farm 
           Bureau, John Lincoln, President; New York State Grange, 
           William Benson, Master; Empire Farm Credit, Robert 
           Egerton Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer; 
           Pioneer Farm Credit, William Lipinski, President and 
           Chief Executive Officer; Farm Credit of Western New 
           York, Robert Kesler, President and Chief Executive 
           Officer; Milk Marketing, Inc., Eastern Region, Joseph 
           C. Mathis, Assistant General Manager.
                                                                    ____

                                                 The American Farm

                                            Bureau Federation,

                                      Washington, DC, May 4, 1994.
     Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Abercrombie: The American Farm Bureau 
     Federation wants to reiterate our strong support for H.R. 961 
     as reported from the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. This bill strengthens efforts to address our 
     remaining water quality problems and establishes a much 
     needed common-sense approach to wetland regulation.
       We are strongly opposed to the Boehlert-Shays-Saxton 
     substitute and any similar amendments that would roll back 
     the bipartisan and popularly backed wetland reforms contained 
     in this bill. Such amendments would perpetuate the current 
     bureaucratic and regulatory maze that has burdened 
     agriculture and many other segments of society for years.
       We consider the defeat of these hostile amendments to H.R. 
     961 to be key votes of the highest priority for farmers and 
     ranchers.
       We appreciate your support and commitment to the long-
     sought reforms contained in this important legislation.
                                                 Dean R. Kleckner,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                                      May 3, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned agricultural, 
     agribusiness and soil and water conservation organizations 
     wish to express our strong support for H.R. 961, The Clean 
     Water Amendments of 1995, approved by the House 
     Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 6, 1995. 
     Our Community of interests has a direct investment in 
     protecting water quality. Under your able leadership, H.R. 
     961 was passed with strong bipartisan support, 42-16. We are 
     urging your colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 961 when it 
     is considered by the full House beginning May 10.
       This bill strengthens efforts to ensure clean water and to 
     address remaining water quality problems by stressing state 
     and local leadership, as well as voluntary, incentive-based 
     solutions to nonpoint source, stormwater and watershed 
     planning. The top-down, command and control methods of the 
     last twenty-five years do not hold the solutions to our 
     nation's remaining water quality problems. We commend 
     Chairman Shuster and the bipartisan supporters of H.R. 961 
     for their leadership and consensus building process in 
     advancing a more workable and constructive approach to 
     achieving water quality success. These reforms help 
     agriculture and rural communities achieve clean water goals 
     without putting them out of business.
       H.R. 961 is a reasonable and cost-effective approach to 
     addressing water quality challenges. The bill provides common 
     sense water quality policies based on a prioritized, risk-
     based strategy. It establishes clear goals for nonpoint 
     source pollution for the first time and empowers states to 
     establish partnerships with private landowners to address 
     impaired waters through more flexible and cost-effective 
     means. The legislation strengthens the nonpoint source 
     program and encourages watershed planning through voluntary 
     incentives, not federal mandates.
       The bill also provides new resources to States for carrying 
     out their Clean Water Act responsibilities. Major increases 
     in funding for nonpoint source, state revolving funds, and 
     other programs are necessary steps in continuing our efforts 
     to improve water quality.
       H.R. 961 also contains positive tools to help the 
     agricultural community meet its water quality 
     responsibilities. The bill provides incentives to individuals 
     to implement site-specific water quality management plans. 
     This legislation also includes significant wetlands policy 
     reforms that are extremely important to agriculture. Written 
     into the bill is an improved wetlands definition. The bill 
     gives sole authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to 
     delineate wetlands on agricultural lands. H.R. 961 assures 
     the regulated community gets fair and prompt wetland 
     decisions and compensation for landowners when regulatory 
     decisions devalue property, consistent with the House-passed 
     property rights legislation.
       Again, we thank you for your strong leadership on this 
     important legislation. H.R. 961 reflects water quality policy 
     principles our organizations adopted by consensus well over a 
     year ago. These principles, and the related provisions found 
     in H.R. 961, will provide farmers the opportunity they desire 
     to help 
[[Page H4737]]  address our nation's remaining water quality problems. 
The attached provides additional points on H.R. 961 from our 
perspective.
           Sincerely,
         AgriBank, FCB; Agricultural Retailers Association; Agway, 
           Inc.; American Association of Nurserymen; American Crop 
           Protection Association; American Crystal Sugar Company; 
           American Farm Bureau Federation; American Feed Industry 
           Association; American Sheep Industry Association; 
           American Soybean Association; Apricot Producers of 
           California; CENEX, Inc.; CF Industries, Inc.; ConAgra, 
           Inc.; Countrymark Cooperative, Inc.; Egg Association of 
           America; Equipment Manufacturers Institute; Farm Credit 
           Bank of Wichita; Farmland Industries, Inc.; 
           International Apple Institute; Maine Potato Growers, 
           Inc.; MBG Marketing; MFA Incorporated; Milk Marketing 
           Inc.; Minnesota Association of Cooperatives; National 
           Association of State Departments of Agriculture; 
           National Association of Wheat Growers; National Barley 
           Growers Association; National Broiler Council; National 
           Cattlemen's Association; National Corn Growers 
           Association; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; 
           National Grain and Feed Association; National Grange; 
           National Milk Producers Federation; National Potato 
           Council; National Pork Producers Council; National 
           Turkey Federation; National Water Resources 
           Association; Riceland Foods, Inc.; Southern States 
           Cooperative, Inc.; The Agricultural Council of 
           California; The Fertilizer Institute; Tree Top Inc.; 
           USA Rice Federation.

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York, my very good 
friend.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I want my colleague to know that I am just as sensitive 
as he is to the plight of America's farmers. That is why, as the 
chairman of the northeast ag caucus, I have worked for 10 years to 
protect the interests of the farmers. That is why our bill includes, 
our substitute, not just Boehlert's, Saxton and Roemer, the same 
exemptions for agriculture as does the committee bill. That is why we 
have added in committee a $500 million provision per year for nonpoint-
source pollution, because our farmers are sick of sanctimonious 
sermons. They want some assistance. They are responsible stewards of 
our land but they need some assistance as they deal with best 
management practices and the type of thing that they need to have to 
get on with the job because they are responsible stewards.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, that is enough. Reclaiming my time, 
the gentleman's heart is in the right place, his legislation is in the 
wrong place. That is why all the dairy farmers and the apple growers 
oppose the gentleman's legislation and support the position of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that, if this is 
so good for the farmers, why are the farmers all opposed to it?
  Mr. SOLOMON. They are not just opposed, they are vehemently opposed, 
and they want this legislation to pass.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  It has already been stated, but let me make it clear again. This 
amendment deletes property rights compensation from the bill.
  I will say it again. It deletes property rights compensation from the 
bill, so that whatever one believe about wetlands management and 
wetlands regulation, if they believe that people ought to be 
compensated when their property is taken because of a wetlands 
regulation, they ought not vote for this amendment. This deletes it.
  Second, it deletes risk assessment cost-benefit analysis. Many of you 
voted for this principle on the House floor in days gone by.
  I say to my colleagues, if you believe in that principle, why would 
you support an amendment that deletes it from wetlands management and 
wetlands regulation? Little inconsistent, I would suggest. But let me 
give you some other reasons why you ought to oppose this amendment.
  This amendment, unlike the original bill, literally takes the science 
academy scientific definition of wetlands and makes it the regulatory 
definition. I say to my colleagues, now, if you read the academy 
report, the academy report said this is how we think you ought to 
scientifically define wetlands, but how you ought to regulate them, 
which ones you ought to regulate and how in the public policy, is a 
political decision we can't make. You need a referenced decision. Here 
is one. Here is the definition, but then you decide on policy on how to 
regulate.
  This bill will in fact mandate that the manuals adopt the scientific 
definition which, by the way, is the current kind of definition that is 
causing the problem in America today, definitions that talk about 
hydrology and vegetation and sometimes have very little to do with the 
real functional aspects of the wetland that is to be regulated.
  Third, this bill not only does not compensate someone when the 
Government regulates your property away. This amendment says that you 
will mandatorily be required to mitigate in all cases where permits are 
granted and wetland functions are disturbed. In effect this bill 
mandates that in every permit given in this regulatory regime set up 
under this massive new Federal coordinating agency, that in every case 
the landowner is not only not going to be compensated for the taking of 
his property, he is going to have to pay for the privilege of being 
regulated and, in fact, lose the use of this property in every case 
where a permit is granted.
  Imagine that. Not only does this amendment destroy the property 
rights provisions that my colleagues, and I, and 72 Democrats and 
almost all the Republicans joined in supporting just in the last 
hundred days, but it turns it on its head and says that:

       If you're granted a permit, not only will we not compensate 
     you for any loss of value that may be a part of the 
     limitation under that permit, but you're going to have to 
     compensate the government and the public at large for the 
     fact that you've been granted a permit.

  Now the amendment goes on. It is even worse. When it defines what is 
a fill of a wetlands, this really gets good. The definition of a fill 
of a wetland now includes under this amendment the cutting of 
vegetation, cutting the grass. Cutting the grass on a lot that they are 
going to describe as a wetland is now filling a wetland under this 
definition.
                              {time}  1630

  Protecting the vegetation now becomes a part of this wetlands 
protection program. You think you have problems with the Corps of 
Engineers today? You think you have problems with the EPA today, who 
works in cooperation with the environmental groups who support this 
amendment, going so far as to send them information that is 
confidential and illegally distributed, as I demonstrated on the House 
floor last night? You think you got problems with an agency out of 
control like that? Wait until you see an agency with the power to say 
we can regulate your grass cutting in America. We are going to go that 
far. That is the kind of amendment you fellows want to support on this 
side. That is the kind of amendment you want to support on this side.
  Shame on you. If you think you have problems with regulations today, 
imagine, envision a situation where the scientists, not policymakers, 
not the Congress, the scientists say what is a wetland, what is going 
to get regulated. If you get a permit, you have to pay the Government 
for getting that permit. You do not get compensated for the loss of 
your property. And if you dare cut your grass without a permit, look 
out. That is a filling of a wetland under this definition.
  This amendment creates a whole new regulatory authority to monitor 
all decisions, to coordinate not only wetlands regulations, but all 
flood control, all water management decisions, on a State and local and 
regional basis, and it creates it under authority that, as I pointed 
out to you, destroys property rights.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, it destroys property rights provisions, 
eliminates risk assessment cost-benefit analysis, turns it on its head, 
and forces you to pay the Government to 
[[Page H4738]]  get regulated. What a beautiful amendment. Anybody that 
votes for this better not go home.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, I 
agree that scientists and researchers should not dictate policy for the 
United States. But if we are going to make policy, we ought to know 
what the scientists say what a wetland is.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the scientists in the 
study told us what they think a wetland is. Read the report carefully. 
This is a reference definition. We are not telling you to regulate all 
the wetlands.
  Mr. GILCHREST. The scientists recommended we go on a region-by-region 
basis. Your bill does not do that.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Let me complete the answer, please. The academy said this 
is a reference decision, a scientific decision. We are not telling you 
you ought to regulate all these wetlands. Your amendment says regulate 
all them if they meet the reference definition criteria. This amendment 
ought to be defeated.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in strong support of the 
substitute amendment. I might just say in comment to that last 
interchange, I would suggest that we are not here today to pass a know-
nothing piece of legislation. We should be here today passing 
legislation based on the 20 years of experience, more than 20 years of 
experience, that we have had, so that we can look at the successes of 
the past 20 years and correct the errors of the past.
  I believe that is exactly what the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute 
does. It takes the best of both worlds. It does not say we are going to 
take two steps backwards instead of two steps forward. That is exactly 
why I am supporting it today. We must strive to maintain those aspects 
of the law that have proved clearly successful over the past 20 years 
and apply what we have learned in 20 years to the present situation. 
That is exactly the merit of this particular legislation.
  With or without the dispute about what the National Academy of 
Sciences does or does not do, I think the best of the National Academy 
of Sciences wisdom is incorporated in this amendment and used to 
supplement it.
  I also want to point out from the point of view of the State of New 
Jersey, but I think New Jersey's experience and concerns are equal in 
many other States, I want to point out that this is a very serious 
issue in the State of New Jersey, particularly the State which is the 
most densely populated State in the Nation and is clearly a coastal 
State. I think the committee bill proposes a much narrower definition 
of wetlands, and consequently large tracts of valuable wetlands will 
lose their protection in the State of New Jersey.
  As has already been documented by my colleague, the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], upwards of 80 percent of existing wetlands in 
New Jersey would face a changed status, and this would have a very 
serious detrimental effect on the quality of life and the drinking 
water quality for all of our citizens. The gentleman has laid that out 
for us.
  It seems appropriate to me that we should take the advice of the 
experience of the last 20 years and apply it.
  Second, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] also carefully 
documented in his opening statements, the committee bill's language 
regarding nonpoint source pollution represents a dramatic change in 
existing policy that a coastal State like New Jersey simply cannot 
afford to endure.
  These changes would bring significant negative economic impacts not 
only to New Jersey, but those negative impacts would apply to all 
coastal States. I suggest that my colleagues pay close attention to the 
problems of the Coastal Zone Management Act that Mr. SAXTON has already 
pointed out.
  Third, the committee bill section on dredging is of some great 
concern to those of us in New Jersey, as I know it is to 
Representatives of other adjoining States. Although I know that some of 
our New Jersey people have been working on adjustments in the committee 
print, or the mark, on that subject, it is my understanding they are 
grossly inadequate to the standards that we want to see maintained in 
New Jersey.
  In conclusion, I simply want to again endorse strongly this 
substitute amendment that we have before us.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer 
substitute amendment to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Acts Amendments of 
1995.
  Given that it is now more than 20 years after the original Clean 
Water Act was written, we must modify and improve this pivotal 
environmental law based on our experience and the documented successes 
of the period.
  Mr. Chairman, this must not be a one step forward/two steps back 
exercise.
  In updating the Clean Water Act, the Congress should strive to fix 
shortcomings of the existing program, without jeopardizing the progress 
that the United States has made in cleaning-up our water supply, at the 
same time we strive to maintain those aspects of this law that have 
clearly been successful. And that is what the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer 
amendment does.
  After reviewing the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee's 
version of H.R. 961, and consulting with the State of New Jersey's 
Department of Environmental Protection [DEP], I cannot supports its 
passage, in its present form.
  In several areas, this legislation poses a serious threat to the 
State of New Jersey and its own efforts to carefully manage our water 
supply and environment.
  First, the committee bill is proposing a new, much narrower 
definition of ``wetlands''. Consequently, large tracts of valuable 
wetlands will lose their protection, and could be vulnerable to 
development. According to some estimates, upwards of 80 percent of the 
existing wetlands in New Jersey would face a change in status under the 
committee's new language. And this in New Jersey the most densely 
populated State in the Nation which means that this would have a 
negative detrimental effect on the drinking water quality of our 
citizens.
  On the other hand, the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer alternative uses the 
definition of wetlands being proposed by the National Academy of 
Sciences which studied this issue exhaustively, and just released its 
recommendations to the Congress yesterday.
  It seems appropriate to me that, on issues of considerable 
controversy and complexity, such as wetlands policy, the Congress can, 
and should, defer to nonpartisan scientific recommendations such as 
these.
  Second, as my colleague, from New Jersey, Representative Saxton, has 
documented the committee bill's language regarding nonpoint source 
pollution represents a dramatic change in existing policy that a 
coastal State like New Jersey simply cannot afford to endure. The 
committee bill, for example, repeals current requirements on States to 
implement aggressive programs to contain run-off from farms, land-use 
or cities. These changes would bring significant negative economic 
impact.
  The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer alternative contains language that 
basically reauthorizes the current Coastal Zone Management Act, which 
has worked well in helping States like New Jersey address the serious 
problems associated with run-off. This is of significant economic 
importance to New Jersey and to all coastal States.
  Third, the committee bill's section on dredging is of some concern to 
the State of New Jersey. I know that some of my colleagues from New 
Jersey have been working with the committee on this portion of the 
bill, but I understand that our State remains concerned about how the 
committee bill's language would impact on its dredging program.
  Before concluding, I would also note that while the Saxton-Boehlert-
Roemer substitute differs from the committee bill in these specific 
respects, it has retained large segments of H.R. 961. For example, 
titles I, II, V, VI, Vii of the alternative are identical to the 
committee's proposal.
  In conclusion, I will be supporting the Saxton-Boehlert alternative 
and urge all of my colleagues in the House to join me in working 
together to protect our water supply and environment, while providing 
State and local officials with some much-needed flexibility in doing 
so.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I do not see the gentleman from Louisiana 
on the floor, but I did want to just briefly respond to a little bit of 
what the gentleman was saying.
  [[Page H4739]] In our substitute on page 130 there are exemptions on 
the wetlands and activities that do not require the permits, and in 
general this section reads:

       (A) . . . Activities are exempt from the requirements of 
     this section and are not prohibited or otherwise subject to 
     regulation under this section . . . if . . . (i) result from 
     normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture, and ranching 
     activities and practices, including but not limited to 
     plowing, seeding, cultivating, haying, grazing, normal 
     maintenance activities, minor drainage, burning of vegetables 
     in connection with such activities, harvesting for the 
     production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland 
     soil and water conservation practices . . .

  We are not trying to say what will take place when somebody cuts some 
grass. We are exempting many of these things. There are these 
exemptions on the permits.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. I know. The scare tactics do not hold up under close 
examination.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the substitute. Of course, I want to 
commend Mr. Saxton and the other cosponsors of this substitute. I think 
it is important Mr. Saxton mentioned in the beginning that this 
substitute adopts 75 percent of the draft of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster.
  So those who think that somehow the substitute is a radical document 
that is significantly changing the bill are wrong. But the substitute 
does make four major changes in four major areas to the substitute that 
I think are necessary in order to protect the Nation's water quality.
  With regard to wetlands, if I could go through the four, with regard 
to wetlands, it is a significant change for the better. As was 
mentioned, the bill itself classifies wetlands and specifically 
provides the takings language that has been looked at in this House 
before. I would submit that by doing the classification in the bill, 
you eliminate a significant amount of the Nation's wetlands, as well as 
wetlands in New Jersey, from any kind of supervision or any kind of 
regulatory process, and essentially you gut some of the wetlands 
protection that exists under the Clean Water Act.
  The substitute by contrast does not include the classification 
system, does not include the takings language, and actually encourages 
States to get more involved in wetlands protection and taking over 
Federal regulatory authority.
  Some of you know, I think, in our own State of New Jersey the Federal 
Government has actually approved New Jersey's wetlands program. This 
substitute would encourage that kind of delegation to the State and in 
effect encourages moving away from Federal regulatory control.
  With regard to the nonpoint source pollution under the Coastal Zone 
Management Act and storm water discharge, in both cases the existing 
statute provides for mandatory program and States are moving in the 
direction of providing adequate nonpoint source pollution programs, 
also storm water discharge programs.
  This bill that we have before us today would change the existing law 
and move essentially towards a voluntary system. A voluntary system 
will not work. Some States will adopt it and other States will not. We 
will not have a consistent program around the country to protect 
against nonpoint source and storm water discharges.
  Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the dredging 
provisions, because they are important. The bill right now changes the 
current Clean Water Act by essentially taking EPA out of the role of 
dealing with dredging of contaminated materials and disposal of 
contaminated dredge materials. I think that is wrong.
  Essentially what the committee bill, or the committee mark does is to 
say that the Army Corps can provide and decide when contaminated dredge 
materials will be disposed, where they will be disposed, and also 
allows the Army Corps to provide for waivers against the very criteria 
that the corps might establish for disposal of contaminated dredge 
material. I think that that is wrong.
  The EPA is our Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA should be 
involved in deciding whether or not we are going to have sites for 
disposal of contaminated dredge materials and where those should be and 
when it should be permitted and certainly when those waivers should be 
granted.
  If you look at this substitute, it really makes some significant 
changes in these four areas, which are vital and increasingly more 
important to preserving our Nation's water quality, because as we know, 
the point source pollution increasingly has been dealt with. Our Clean 
Water Act has dealt with point source pollution, and we have made 
significant progress on that.
  When you talk about wetlands preservation, nonpoint source, storm 
water discharge, these are the areas over the next 5 or 10 years where 
we need to make significant progress on trying to improve the Nation's 
water quality. If we move toward a voluntary system and get our EPA out 
of the process, if we declassify wetlands so that much of the wetlands 
of the Nation is no longer provided or included under any permit 
program, we are not going to see the goals of fishable and swimmable 
waters under the Clean Water Act met over the next decade or the next 
20 years.
  So I wanted to say how important I think it is for all of us to 
support this substitute. It is a bipartisan substitute, and the 
sponsors have really crafted some excellent legislation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition this afternoon to this substitute 
that has been offered. Basically, I have one reason for opposing this 
substitute, and that is because it only destroys all the work and 
effort that I have tried to bring to this Congress in the area of using 
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment.
  I think if we take a minute and look back and reflect on the last 
election, you had the people of this country making a statement, and 
that statement that they made was a very clear statement that they did 
not want business as usual in the House of Representatives; that they 
did not want regulation as usual in the Congress of the United States 
or in its agencies. What they wanted was a change, a different 
approach.
  You know, last year on the floor of the House of Representatives, and 
I served in this House and I will tell you it was run under a rather 
oppressive regime, because I tried to bring up cost-benefit analysis on 
the floor and it was denied, and it was denied in committee to give 
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment an opportunity, it was denied 
in the Committee on Rules upstairs to give this an opportunity. We 
brought the issue before the House on February 2, and what happened? 
The entire House rebelled because we had an opportunity to bring up the 
question of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment and applying it 
to regulations and to the biggest regulatory agency in the Federal 
Government, the Environmental Protection Agency.

                              {time}  1645

  And this entire House of Representatives, bucking the Vice President 
of the United States, bucking the Speaker of the House, bucking the 
committee chairman, bucking the House leadership, came out there and 
voted down that rule. That was the beginning of the change. It was the 
beginning when people started to say, Let us make some common sense out 
of the way this Congress and this Government imposes regulations on its 
citizens.
  This substitute wipes out risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis. So 
what are we doing here? What progress have we made? Are we prepared to 
set back the clock on regulatory reform? And then under the Contract 
With America, the Members came out here, bipartisan, and the vote was, 
what, 1286 to 141. And if my math is correct, that is a bipartisan 
vote. They supported the cost-benefit analysis provisions and risk 
assessment provisions that are in this legislation.
  So are we prepared this afternoon and in this legislation to wipe out 
all our progress, to say regulatory reform that the people have 
demanded and this Congress has demanded and the Members have voted on, 
is it time to wipe that out?
  So there is only one problem with this bill. It wipes out everything 
we have done. It wipes out regulatory reform. It wipes out cost-benefit 
analysis.
  [[Page H4740]] Let me tell you what else it wipes out. I want to tell 
you, the other day I went to a grocery store and I met a gentleman. His 
name, I think, was Chuck. He was working behind the counter and I was 
buying a few items.
  And Chuck said, ``You are my Congressman. Mr. Mica, I want to tell 
you, you all are doing a good job.''
  I said, ``Do you have any message? What would you like to see us 
do?''
  He said, ``Mr. Mica, there is just one thing I would like to see the 
Congress do.'' He says, ``Use common sense.''
  That is what this legislation proposes, common sense, that we look at 
the costs, that we look at the benefit and we use risk assessment.
  This amendment wipes all that out. It wipes out the hope of that 
gentleman, hundreds and thousands of Americans who sent to the polls 
and said, there needs
 to be a change in the conduct and the way this Government conducts its 
business.

  So we have an opportunity. We are not going to throw out regulations. 
This bill does not throw out any regulations. It does not destroy the 
environment. It does not harm the environment. It does not do anything 
bad.
  What it does is says, let us look at the costs. Let us look at the 
risks. Let us look at the benefits. Yes, indeed, my colleagues, we have 
had years to look at this. We have seen every county, every city, every 
State has said, let us make a change. They support the change that is 
advocated on a bipartisan basis by our committee.
  So we can come out here and we can vote to set the clock back. We can 
return to the time of yesterday when we overregulated, when we put 
people out of jobs, when we put people out of business, when we lost 
our competitiveness stance, or we can make some progress and we can 
pass this legislation as it is proposed, without accepting this 
substitute, without going back and without destroying the progress that 
this Congress has made, both in the Contract With America and in every 
successive vote on the question of cost-benefit analysis and risk 
assessment.
  There is only one thing wrong with this amendment and this proposal 
and this substitute. In fact, it destroys everything that we stand for 
as far as this Congress, everything we voted for, the 286 Members who 
supported regulatory reform, the successive votes that we have had in 
this Congress and the will of the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this substitute, to enact the bill 
without changes, that we have a bipartisan agreement, that we have 
cities, counties, States, local government, associations and a broad 
base of support for what we are trying to do. And what we are trying to 
do is to do one thing, and that is what Chuck asked us to do, bring 
common sense to this process.
  The CHAIRMAN. For the Members' understanding, this Chair will follow 
the precedent that members of the committee receive priority 
recognition and will go in that order.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly must oppose the substitute to H.R. 961 
offered by Mr. Saxton and Mr. Boehlert--two Members of Congress who are 
dedicated and sincere in their efforts and support for clean water 
programs.
  Many of the provisions in the substitute are laudable and certainly 
deserve support. It is what is not in the amendment which is the 
problem. Unfortunately, many of the provisions of H.R. 961 which I 
believe make meaningful and significant reforms to the Clean Water Act 
are not included in this substitute.
  For example, this substitute does not contain the stormwater program 
reforms which are found in section 322 of H.R. 961.
  There is little dispute that the current stormwater permitting 
program simply does not work and hasn't since the day it was enacted. 
H.R. 961 corrects this problem by treating stormwater runoff as 
runoff--and not trying to regulate discharges through cumbersome and 
confusing permits. Instead, States will have a variety of tools--
including site specific permits if necessary--which can be used to 
fashion a program that will be more effective and cover more facilities 
than is possible under the current program.
  The stormwater provisions in H.R. 961 were developed with the close 
cooperation and consultation of the States and cities which are, after 
all, responsible for implementing the program. They support this new 
approach to stormwater control.
  Let me also briefly mention one other area which has generated a lot 
of discussion over the past few weeks--that is the repeal of section 
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments and the 
incorporation of certain successful elements of that coastal program 
into the nonpoint source program.
  Over the past several years, I have spent many hours listening to 
various officials from my State of Wisconsin expressing their concerns 
about this program. In fact, Wisconsin may even pull out of the program 
because they just don't think it is worth it.
  The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supports the repeal of 
section 6217. The secretary of the department sent a letter to me a few 
weeks ago which includes this statement about H.R. 961:

       We also support the elimination of the coastal non-point 
     pollution control program contained in Section 6217 * * *. 
     With the provisions proposed to be added to Section 319 to 
     provide for protection of coastal waters, Section 6217 is no 
     longer needed. We favor having one non-point source 
     management program in Wisconsin that provides for the 
     achievement of water quality goals in all the waters of the 
     State, including coastal areas.

  Again, while I applaud the intentions and sincerity of the sponsors 
of this substitute, I do not believe their amendment is preferable to 
the overall approach of H.R. 961, and so I must urge defeat of this 
amendment.
  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I thought long and hard about this bill that we have 
before us here today. I have been a member of the committee with 
jurisdiction over this bill for the last 3 years. I have been a Member 
of this body. I have seen up close the difference between this bill and 
the one in the last Congress, the 103d Congress. I know there are a lot 
of concerns over the issues of nonpoint source pollution, storm water 
management, wetlands and risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses.
  I have heard the complaints from witnesses who have testified in 
committee hearings. What I am hearing from people across the country, 
Mr. Chairman, from farmers as well as from business men and women is 
that the frustration level has reached a peak.
  I commend the efforts the present chairman has made, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], in addressing many of these issues and 
many of these problems in his Clean Water Act. I thank him for the good 
job he is trying to do in trying to bring together many diverging 
points of view. However, in the final analysis, I submit that it comes 
down to one thing and one thing only in mind. And that is, does this 
bill make our water cleaner or not?
  On closer examination of this bill, Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to 
oppose the bill and to support the substitute. Our Nation's rivers, 
lakes and coastal waters have become cleaner and more fishable and 
swimmable since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972. That is 
23 years of progress toward a better environment for our future, our 
children's future.
  I have heard time and again from my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle that we must fight to reduce the budget deficit so that we do 
not place a financial burden on our children's future or, as it has 
been commonly coined, so that we do not mortgage our children's future. 
I think it is equally important to leave a world that is 
environmentally secure so that we do not give away our children's 
future.
  I think that is imperative. It is imperative that we fix the 
provisions of this act that have not worked well, but that does not 
mean reducing standards that have made our waters cleaner. The Saxton-
Boehlert-Roemer substitute amendment takes this approach. This 
substitute is a reasoned approach, fixing the Clean Water Act. It 
addresses the wetlands issue without putting real wetlands at risk. It 
is silent on the issue of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, 
contrary to what some of my colleagues would have you believe.
  [[Page H4741]] It allows more input at the State and local level 
regarding decisions on development of wetlands. The substitute provides 
more flexibility for States under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The 
substitute would not take away standards needed to keep our fisheries 
and oyster beds in good health, and it reduces the loopholes and 
exemptions that allow the release of pollutants into our waterways. 
There would be a 10-year moratorium on the implementation of any new 
storm water requirements on smaller communities and light industry, and 
it provides the much-needed funds to farmers and others who are working 
hard to control nonpoint source pollution.
  Mr. Chairman, in light of all the circumstances surrounding this 
substitute, I simply wanted to urge a vote for this moderate and what I 
believe to be a well-reasoned approach, safeguarding our Nation's 
waterways. A vote for the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute to H.R. 961 
is a vote for safeguarding the clean water of our children, the 
children who deserve a clean future.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TUCKER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to commend the gentleman on his very 
thoughtful and fine statement and we appreciate very much the 
gentleman's support.
  I would just say to the gentleman that he has correctly pointed out, 
just as we owe our children a legacy in terms of the finances and the 
way we spend our money today and the way we borrow our money today, we 
certainly owe our children a legacy in terms of the world and the 
physical condition that we leave it. I appreciate very much the support 
of the gentleman.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the alternative. I want to make 
some comments, first, about wetlands. We cannot preserve clean water. 
We cannot have fish, we cannot preserve waterfowl and we cannot limit 
flooding unless we have wetlands. I know the controversy about which 
wetlands to regulate and which wetlands not to regulate. But if the 
bill goes through the way it is, we will not have any wetlands to 
regulate.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, there are serious flaws in the lack of science, or the 
complete absence of science, in the evaluation on how to delineate a 
wetland. People have been talking about the loss of value to people's 
property. If we will look at this in a broad sense, the vast majority 
of people in the United States will have their property value increased 
as a result of a carefully crafted, well-managed wetlands program. I do 
not know whose property value would be diminished if we continue to 
have wetlands.
  If Members will look at this map, this is the State of Maryland up 
here, and this is the Chesapeake Bay. The value of wetlands to the 
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed in this region that we see on the map 
is in the billions of dollars. What the wetlands do, they filter out 
pollution, they limit flooding, they provide habitat for waterfowl, 
they do a whole host of things that increase the value of people's 
property in the region of the Chesapeake Bay.
  I want Members to look at something. I am going to turn the map 
upside down. This, as we notice, is the Chesapeake Bay. Here we are in 
Washington, DC, and this is the Potomac River. We have a lot of
 development around Washington, DC, and there is much limited 
development in these other areas, which means they soak up the 
nutrients, the toxins, the silt that the rain normally washes into the 
water. We can see we do not have that protection around Washington, DC.

  If we look down here in Richmond, VA, nothing against these great 
communities, if we look in the vicinity of Richmond, VA, we also see 
the lack of protection, because of the lack of wetlands, and we see the 
silt going into the water.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to turn the map upside down. I want Members 
to imagine that this is a root that goes up to the trunk of a tree. 
When we have a root in the ground, the root absorbs nutrients. It 
absorbs anything that is in the ground, whether it is water, whether it 
is water inundated with nutrients, a whole variety of things.
  If there is a tree in a wetland, this tree is going to absorb those 
nutrients before they go anywhere else, and preserve the quality of 
water where the tree happens to stand, and it could be a forested 
wetland, or it could be a wetland. If this is a tree, these nutrients 
that you see pouring into the Chesapeake Bay would not pour into the 
Chesapeake Bay. This diminishes, right now, because they are not being 
absorbed, the value of the Chesapeake Bay, and reduces its 
productivity.
  One other comment I want to make about the bill. That is the pure 
lack of science that is in the delineation criteria for what is a 
wetland. Right now in the bill, in order for an area to be considered a 
wetland, it has to be saturated at the surface, that means water ponded 
on the surface for 21 consecutive days during the growing season, and 
it has to have hydric soil, and it has to have the wettest of obligate 
vegetation. That is like a cattail.
  In this picture, this area is wet for 21 consecutive days during the 
growing season, it has hydric soil, but it does not have the third 
criteria which meets the provisions of the bill to be a wetland, 
obligate plant species. If that is not a wetland, even if that is wet 
for 40 days during the growing season, if it does not have that third 
criteria, it is not a wetland.
  There is one other comment that I think is worth mentioning. This is 
a pond in Nebraska. This pond in Nebraska, and I will show it to the 
other side, in case they cannot see it there, this is a pond in 
Nebraska. What it does, it offers habitat for migrating waterfowl. This 
is not always wet for 21 consecutive days during the growing season, or 
has obligate wetland species. It has hydric soil. It could be, 
unfortunately, wet for 20 days during the growing season, 20 days right 
after the growing season, and even if it had the obligate wetland 
species, still would not be classified as a wetland.
  When we are traveling long distances if we are going on a trip with 
the family, you have to stop some places. My kids like McDonald's and I 
like diners, but we generally have to stop to consume a little 
refreshment. If we lose these wetlands, we lose an awful lot of value 
to property, we lose a lot of value to this Nation.
  The CHAIRMAN. the time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Shuster and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Gilchrest was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is it true that 
under our bill, Maryland and Nebraska, the two examples the gentleman 
used, would be totally free to designate the two examples he gives as a 
wetland and regulate them as a wetland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is my 
understanding that the States go by that. Since wetlands are regulated 
as waters of the United States, and they come under the Federal 
jurisdiction, the wetland delineation criteria is also used by the 
State.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to my friend that the law 
is very clear, and the technical staff tells me that in these examples, 
the State of Maryland or the State of New Jersey could regulate that 
land as a wetland under State regulations.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, even if that is 
true----
  Mr. SHUSTER. It is.
  Mr. GILCHREST. As the greatest legislative body in the world, which 
is the U.S. Congress, I think we should use the best scientific 
evidence available to determine the delineation criteria for a wetland, 
which is not the case in this bill now, and once we know the science, 
which is available to use now, we can make the policy. However, I think 
we are making policy in the absence of information.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will yield further, I would say to my 
friend 
[[Page H4742]]  what may well be good for Maryland, what Maryland under 
this bill is totally free to do, may not be good for Arizona or Utah. 
That is the very reason we say let the States make these decisions. I 
thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I think the States should have the 
information that the National Academy of Sciences has to offer to us as 
Congress.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time for the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest 
] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Saxton and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other comment 
on the compensation criteria, which people say is absent in this bill. 
We already passed a law to compensate landowners for wetlands and for 
the Endangered Species Act, so putting it into the Clean Water Act I 
think is totally unnecessary.
  I do want to make a comment about compensation and the Fifth 
Amendment property rights. If your property is taken away for the 
public good, you are to be compensated. Everybody endorses that. 
However, if your property is, in my judgment, reasonably regulated to 
prevent pollution of your neighbor's property or to prevent public 
harm, compensation in this area is a whole other different story. 
Should we compensate people to prevent them from polluting? I do not 
think we should.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. I just want to clarify the position of many people who 
support the substitute, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on risk assessment, 
if the President signs the legislation, and the Senate passes that, I 
voted for this legislation that would apply to this bill, as the same 
with takings. Therefore, just because we do not put every new thing in 
there----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Roemer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, it is the strong position of many people 
who support this substitute that we support such ideas as cost-benefit 
analysis, risk assessments, and the takings. I was one of the 72 
Democrats who voted for that legislation. I hope if those two pieces of 
legislation pass this body, that we apply both pieces of legislation to 
this bill and to this substitute, if it passes.
  However, to hear other people argue on the floor of the House of 
Representatives that we have to attach this stuff to every single bill 
that comes through here would make the case, illogical as it might be, 
that we have to put the Balanced Budget amendment on every single piece 
of legislation that goes through here. That is simply not true. Many of 
us support those ideas and those reforms. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I urge a 
vote on the Saxton substitute.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Boehlert-Saxton-
Roemer substitute. This better, safer alternative represents a 
moderate, common-sense and bi-partisan--quite frankly, an above party--
approach to cleaning up our rivers, lakes and beaches without turning 
our back on the health and safety of Americans--and it insures that my 
constituents in San Diego will not have to spend billions to build an 
unnecessary sewage plant.
  Fortunately from a purely parochial viewpoint both H.R. 961 and this 
safer alternative provide regulatory relief for San Diego and 
recognizes that our current sewage treatment system adequately protects 
our ocean. Let me repeat, this means that both bills would remove the 
requirement that would force San Diego to waste billions of dollars to 
modify our sewage treatment system.
  But with Dan Diego assured of regulatory relief and the savings of 
billions of dollars, we must also be sure that our drinking water is 
protected, and that we can fish and swim in San Diego's rivers, lakes 
and beaches.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 961 will radically change the Nations' laws that 
protect our beaches and drinking water.
  H.R. 961 would increase the dangers of pesticides and chemical 
contamination of our drinking water--imposing higher costs to clean up 
our drinking water or forcing all of us to buy bottled water. It would 
let large agribusiness and industrial polluters off the hook from 
preventing the contamination of our drinking water--and it would pass 
those costs along to all San Diegans. That right, we consumers will pay 
more to protect a few special interests.
  San Diego gets its drinking water from the Colorado River. Many 
smaller cities from four States dump their treated sewage into the 
Colorado River, and before this water gets to San Diego, it must go 
through one of the largest agricultural areas in the country. Unlike 
the safer alternative. H.R. 961 would allow these cities and large 
agribusiness corporations to flood chemicals and other pollutants--at 
will--into our drinking water supply.
  H.R. 961 also threatens our economy and our health. It includes the 
repeal of a section of the Coastal Zone Management Act--which will 
eliminate current protections for our beaches. How can we attract 
tourism if visitors cannot swim in our beaches? San Diego's beaches are 
already closed to often. Is this really the time to get rid of the very 
protections that help to keep the beaches safe for our families?
  The safer alternative would not repeal the Coastal Zone Management 
Act program that protects our beaches. In fact, the substitute has 
adopted the language drafted by the Coastal States Organization, which 
represents the Governors of our Nation's coastal States, and continues 
to protect our beaches--for our children's health and for our economic 
health.
  There are three critical questions that on behalf of San Diegans, I 
must ask about these bills: First, will we have clean water to drink? 
second, will we have a clean beach to swim at? and, third, will we get 
relief from the multi-billion dollar secondary treatment boondoggle?
  With the safer alternative the answers are: Yes to safe drinking 
water, yes to clean beaches, and yes to relief from higher sewage 
taxes.
  Without the safer alternative the answers are no, no, and yes.
  San Diego will get the regulatory relief it needs in either bill. But 
I cannot in good conscience support H.R. 961--a bill that purports to 
help San Diego on the one hand, but destroys the safety of our drinking 
water and beaches on the other.
  San Diegans are asking three important questions. Let's not get one 
out of three right. Support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute 
``Safer Alternative'' and answer ``yes'' to all three.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, first it was school lunches, student loans, 
and Medicare. Now the Republican leadership has trained its sights on 
clean water.
  As cochair of the Long Island Sound Caucus, I rise to support the 
Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute. Unlike H.R. 961's sweeping, 326-page 
rollback of one our most effective environmental laws, the substitute 
recognizes that the battle for clean water has not yet been won.
  Unlike H.R. 961, this proposal will not be a boon for polluters, and 
penalize anyone who bathes, swims, fishes, boats, or recreates in 
lakes, rivers, and oceans. Unlike H.R. 961, this substitute recognizes 
that if you allow polluters upstream to discharge more pollutions into 
the water--as H.R. 961 does--it's the people downstream who will 
ultimately get saddled with the bill to clean up the pollution.
  As my constituents who live near Long Island Sound and the Hudson 
River know, all is not well with our rivers and bays. More than half of 
New York's rivers and 85 percent of its estuaries are closed to 
activities such as fishing and swimming at some time during the year. 
According to the most recent statistics available, New York's ocean 
beaches were closed completely on 93 occasions and more 
[[Page H4743]]  than 700 advisories were issued against swimming. More 
than 400 fishing advisories were issued to protect the public from 
ingesting contaminated fish.
  In New York and Connecticut, business, labor, and environmental 
groups have set aside old disagreements and joined together in 
developing--with the aid of the EPA--a plan to clean up Long Island 
Sound. None of this would have been possible without the underpinning 
of the Clean Water Act, and now is certainly not the time to pull the 
rug out from under their feet. If H.R. 961 is enacted, it will only 
cause more delay and more expense to move forward with environmental 
clean-up in my region.
  The vast majority of New York's water quality problems are caused by 
nonpoint pollution--from sources other than factory or sewage 
discharges. And yet H.R. 961 repeals the only Federal program that can 
reduce nonpoint pollution. In fact, two-thirds of coastal States have 
invested millions of dollars over the past 4 years crafting runoff 
control programs that are nearly ready for approval under the auspices 
of the Clean Water Act. In keeping with the wishes of the coastal 
States themselves, the substitute preserves this important program.
  The substitute also removes some of H.R. 961's more egregious 
rollbacks of environmental protection.
  Across the Nation, swimming and fishing are not available to millions 
of Americans because of pollution that runs into waterways every time 
it rains. In fact, more than one-third of all our Nation's water 
quality impairment is the result of stormwater discharge. Yet, H.R. 961 
repeals the entire EPA stormwater permitting system, thereby ending all 
monitoring and enforceable requirements for the 342 cities and 134,000 
industrial facilities that currently have stormwater discharge permits. 
Thankfully, the substitute preserves the act's stormwater permitting 
program, while providing a 10-year moratorium on any new requirements 
for cities under 100,000 or small industries.
  The substitute also repeals 961's disastrous wetlands classification 
system--adopting the National Governors Association's reasonable 
wetlands proposal instead.
  Now is not the time to relax our efforts to ensure clean water. 
Estuaries like Long Island Sound--a $6 billion-a-year resource for the 
entire region's fishing, boating, and recreation industries--are at 
stake. I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer 
substitute. Let's not turn back the clock.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] 
has expired.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
may have an additional 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman can seek her own time in due course. 
There are Members of the committee who have not had an opportunity to 
speak.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to object. There are 
Members of the committee who have not had a chance to speak yet.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Chair traditionally 
recognizes 1- or 2-minute extensions of time, with unanimous consent.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and 
extend my remarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from new York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, debate here in the House of Representatives lends 
itself to some interesting concepts. I must say to my dear friend, the 
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], that I have never quite 
thought of the Chesapeake Bay as a tree. However, now I am getting that 
concept into my head, and I want to respond simply by saying that I 
think the answer of the chairman of the committee was an appropriate 
one.
  H.R. 961 is a good bill, and it will be a good law for the whole 
country. If individual States want to exact a higher standard, in 
accordance with the process that are available to them from State to 
State to State, they are at liberty to adopt that.
  However, I rise in very strong opposition to the substitute.

                              {time}  1715

  For some reason proponents are billing this measure as 75 percent 
H.R. 961, as though that percentage justifies the substitute. Come on. 
The substitute guts the bill, and there is a big difference between the 
bill and the substitute.
  The substitute fails to address any of the major themes of H.R. 961 
dealing with regulatory reform, unfunded mandates relief, risk 
assessment, cost-benefit analysis, protection regarding private 
property takings, allowing States to demonstrate their ability in 
finding solutions to water quality issues, and wetlands policy. 
Instead, the substitute retains the current top-down, the ``bureaucracy 
knows best'' approach to solving the country's remaining water quality 
problems.
  The Clean Water Amendments of 1995 provide for voluntary incentive-
based programs in local, State, and Federal partnership to advance 
clean water goals with nonpoint source pollution. The substitute does 
not.
  It also gives State and local officials the flexibility to manage and 
control stormwater like other forms of runoff, which helps reduce the 
high cost of unfunded mandates. The substitute does not.
  Finally, it requires the Environmental Protection Agency to subject 
its mandates and regulations to risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis, and the substitute does not.
  For the first time in a long time, we are successfully working 
together at all levels of government to meet our water quality needs. 
We do not need straitjackets to have clean drinking water, nor should 
we allow the Federal bureaucracy who knows the least about forming or 
operating a small business to deem what is a wetland from their 
Washington offices.
  Through its increased flexibility, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995 
benefits citizens, farmers, businesses, consumers, local and State 
governments, and the taxpayers.
  Mr. Chairman, these last-minute attempts to derail and weaken this 
strong bipartisan effort, whether they are in the form of amendments or 
so-called substitutes, should be voted down. Such efforts, in my view, 
are a breach of faith with the changes the American people demand. They 
renege on the need for smart regulation, good science, cost-effective 
risk reduction, and common sense.
  The Washington bureaucracy and the professional environmental 
elitists have been ramming these edicts down the throat of the American 
taxpayer for far too long. It is time for citizens to have a say in the 
process. I am delighted that in this bill we have provided for that 
forum, for a citizen voice. Vote for the Clean Water Amendments of 1995 
and against the Boehlert-Roemer substitute.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert 
substitute.
  The proposed clean water amendments, H.R. 961, amount in my mind to 
nothing less than environmental sacrilege. The underlying principle 
behind the bill seems to be pollute now and leave a debased environment 
for our children. They take us back 20 years to an environmental stone 
age.
  H.R. 961 would have a severe and negative impact on New Jersey and 
the 13th Congressional District in particular. The EPA 1992 toxic 
inventory shows release of toxic material into New Jersey surface water 
of more than 400,000 pounds. The current law would be modified by H.R. 
961 to allow for downgrading water quality standards where they result 
in disproportionate costs over benefits.
  This is unfair to the more than 90 percent of major industrial 
facilities and municipal facilities that are in compliance with the 
Clean Water Act in New Jersey. It rewards those who have resisted 
investing in pollution cleanup measures and punishes those who were 
responsible corporate citizens.
  The State of New Jersey has a thriving tourism industry doing over 
$10 billion in business annually. The State 
[[Page H4744]]  has engaged in aggressive fish consumption and 
beachwater quality monitoring. Under H.R. 961, EPA is now directed to 
issue guidance instead of regulation with regard to fish consumption 
advisories and monitoring beachwater quality.
  Nonpoint source pollution is responsible for roughly half of the 
remaining pollution in the country. H.R. 961 modifies current law to 
clarify that voluntary or incentive-based approaches are allowable in 
lieu of regulatory programs. It also repeals sections of the Coastal 
Zone Management Act which requires coastal States to develop nonpoint 
source control programs. This would hit New Jersey's coastal tourism 
industries and port activities very hard, since they are at the 
receiving end of newly degraded waters.
  Simply put, H.R. 961 sets the clock back more than 20 years.
  The bill pushes back deadlines, requires waivers, creates huge new 
exemptions and mandates major changes in the core of the program, the 
water quality standards, and permit conditions.
  This is a piece of legislation that has been the most successful 
pollution cleanup program in existence.
  However, H.R. 961 does also the following: It waives industrial 
pretreatment of waste; delays dates for meeting deadlines if Federal 
funding falls short of the authorized levels; severely limits EPA's 
ability to control dangerous toxic substances; removes thousands of 
acres of wetlands from Federal protection, which could lead to more 
flooding, lower fish catches and poorer water quality.
  We have talked about the Coastal Zone Management Act. It also 
eliminates the ban on building sewage treatment plants in flood plains 
and wetlands and thereby encourages sewage overflow; and it puts it on 
a deadline for the control of agricultural runoff, to the detriment of 
downstream users.
  There are provisions in this bill that no one is quite sure what is 
meant. The antibacksliding provisions, which are supposed to ensure 
that permit changes do not result in different kinds of water 
pollution, are virtually, in my mind, incomprehensible. The provision 
for trading point source pollution credits between air and water may 
not be a bad idea, but it is completely unclear how it is supposed to 
work or how it will affect downstream users.
  That was before the markup. Now it is worse.
  There is a wholesale exemption for livestock feeder operations, no 
matter how large. It is a total exemption for an entire industry to 
dump animal waste into lagoons, retention ponds, wetlands, and other 
waters of the United States without a permit. This is the exact source 
of the deadly cryptosporidium contamination which killed so many people 
in Wisconsin.
  Current law lists 5 nonconventional pollutants for which a discharger 
may seek a modification of the best available standards of treatment. 
This bill goes from 5,000 to 70,000 different listings.
  There are terms which go beyond vague. Pollution credit trading, 
statistical compliance, and innovative technologies are frequent 
additions to provide flexibility which are in reality techno-babble for 
loopholes.
  This bill is a great leap backward in the control of water pollution. 
It is government by anecdote. If a special interest group wanted a 
small change in the law, it was generally granted at the expense of the 
environment. The result is a bill which has numerous contradictory 
provisions and repeals many longstanding commitments to water quality.
  It is not the type of legacy we want to bequeath to our children, the 
next generation, as we approach a new century.
  I urge support of the substitute and defeat of the legislation.
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961 and oppose the Boehlert 
substitute. Everyone here today supports clean water, and H.R. 961 
works to keep our water clean.
  Chairman Shuster has done yeoman's work in bringing together all 
sides in a compromise fashion, and has earned overwhelming bipartisan 
support from Republicans and Democrats in committee with an 
overwhelming 46 to 16 vote when this legislation passed the committee.
  It has also earned bipartisan support from State and local officials. 
Let me list them once again. This is a list of some of the public 
sector groups that have endorsed H.R. 961:
  The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group; the National 
League of Cities, a bipartisan group Association of State and 
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, a bipartisan group; 
American Public Works Association, a bipartisan group; Association of 
Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, a bipartisan group; Association of 
Metropolitan Water Agencies, a bipartisan group.
  In fact, I have with me a letter that the President of the 
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators sent to the committee, highlighting the many major 
improvements the States have repeatedly asked for and requested. 
Finally they were included in H.R. 961.
  I would like to quickly list those 12 items that the committee has 
agreed to help State and locals by including. In fact, the letter says 
that while the States have repeatedly requested from Congress and that 
by working together they believe that considerable strides have been 
made to more efficiently and effectively deliver environmental results.

       With its new comprehensive approaches,

and I am quoting this letter,

       to non-point source, watershed and stormwater management, 
     H.R. 961 sets forth a framework that better protects this 
     Nation's waterways.

  They have listed below provisions which are consistent with the goals 
of States and this association has asked for in a bipartisan fashion. 
According to the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution 
Control Administrators, H.R. 961
 clearly anticipates and enhanced State management role relative to 
clean water program implementation.

  H.R. 961 maintains a firm commitment to the Clean Water Act's goals, 
with more flexibility at State and local levels to determine how they 
can be best achieved.
  The letter also says that H.R. 961 establishes a national program to 
bring nonpoint source pollution under control, which provides a 
comprehensive rather than site-specific demonstration program, an 
unambiguous goal to meet water quality standards within a specified 
deadline, increased program funding to assist States with expanded 
implementation activities.
  The fourth point they make in their letter says that H.R. 961 enables 
States to focus scarce resources on priority problems by providing 10-
year permits, control strategies that consider the relative 
contributions of both point and nonpoint sources, the incorporation and 
active promotion of pollution prevention, and continued State 
certification authority under section 401 over hydropower facilities.
  The letter also points out that H.R. 961 establishes a comprehensive 
framework to address stormwater runoff that goes beyond the limited 
number of sources covered by current law and addresses the multitude of 
stormwater problems, sets an unambiguous goal to comply with water 
quality standards within a specified deadline, and gives State 
flexibility to tailor solutions to local circumstances.
  H.R. 961, according to this letter, encourages States to take the 
watershed approach to problem solving and consolidate planning and 
reporting requirements. H.R. 961 also, according to the letter, 
increases authorized funding for State implementation under section 106 
in a State revolving loan fund.
  H.R. 961 also streamlines SRF requirements to assure the construction 
of more projects at less cost. H.R. 961 addresses the special needs of 
small and hardship communities, and H.R. 961 codifies a consensus 
agreement of the States, the cities, and the U.S. EPA on combined sewer 
overflows.
  H.R. 961 clarifies that as coregulators, States' consultations with 
U.S. EPA are not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Last, 
this letter points out that H.R. 961 requires Federal facilities to 
comply with the law to the same extent as other dischargers.
  [[Page H4745]] Mr. Chairman, H.R. 961 is a product of discussions 
with local and State officials, those who are responsible for 
administering and living with the Clean Water Act. For the first time, 
we have legislation----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Weller was allowed to proceed for an 
additional 30 seconds.)
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a bipartisan effort. 
H.R. 961 passed the committee with a vote of 46 to 16, clearly 
overwhelming bipartisan support.
  I urge Members of the House to support the committee, vote for H.R. 
961, and reject the substitute.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say there are many Governors and State 
legislators in favor of this substitute. The National Governors' 
Association wrote, ``We believe the provisions on wetlands in H.R. 961 
are inconsistent with the Governors' wetlands policy in several 
important respects.''
  The National Conference of State Legislators, ``We could not support 
the bill unless a number of important revisions are made.''
  Finally, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 
Control on coastal nonpoint programs, ``Significantly changing this 
portion at this time would not only waste taxpayer money, but would 
send the wrong message.''
  I think that is just some quotes from a number of States' legislators 
that support the substitute. And I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. WISE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
substitute. It is not all I would want it to be, but then none of this 
legislation is, to be honest with you, and somewhere between this bill 
and the present law that we are operating under is the perfect 
solution.
  But let me just make a couple of notes. I come from an industrial 
area, and so I do not look with total alarm at some of the changes that 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and committee have 
brought, and in fact I think there is a need for some flexibility 
dealing with the emissions requirements, because I point out that many 
of our industries have made significant investment and have complied 
with cleanup requirements, and often what we are finding is in meeting 
the final 10 percent of cleanup that you have is that it can be far 
more expensive then the previous 90 percent, and that some flexibility 
should be allowed.
  The current Clean Water Act has reduced large amounts of point source 
pollution. Now we must look at how we can make sure that we continue 
that effort. While having done a lot of good, the remaining problems 
become more specialized, they become harder to fix with rigid one-size-
fits-all solutions. The point source provisions of H.R. 961 do attempt 
to tap some of that creativity.
  I have some concern, Mr. Chairman, about the current system of 
command-and-control regulation, and I think probably in some cases they 
have gone about as far as they can in making major gains for the 
environment.
  For instance, Mr. Chairman, I look at the H.R. 961 section 301, 
subsection (q), which for instance permits the Administrator to 
authorize States to modify or permit requirements if pollution 
prevention pressures or practices will result in greater overall 
reduction than would otherwise be achievable under the existing 
command-and-control regime. This would seem to make sense. Pollution 
trading, which there are provisions of that in the existing Clean Air 
Act, also I think is something that should be looked at. The 
President's own reinventing environmental regulation initiative clause 
on the effluent trading program similar to this one is a cost-effective 
approach for reducing water pollution. So I think we should not be 
afraid of some flexibility.
  But the reason I am supporting this substitute, Mr. Chairman, is 
about other areas as well, wetlands for instance. I hold a candle to no 
one being frustrated by wetlands bureaucrats. They make honest and 
responsible landowners be in fear of cattails that might suddenly 
spring up, but at some time I believe Congress should make decisions 
based on science. It should look at the fact it chartered to study by 
the National Science Academy a few years ago designed to help shed some 
light on this subject, and we have the results of that study, and yet 
we are racing ahead with the legislation.
  I too believe that you ought to eliminate most of the agencies that 
are involved in wetlands disputes, it ought not to be some kind of 
lottery that you go through: Did you satisfy Fish and Wildlife, did you 
satisfy Interior, did you satisfy this, and just when you think you 
have gotten to the end of the obstacle course, whoops, up pops another 
agency.
  But by the same token, I am not sure we ought to be putting into 
legislation the kind of scientific standards or hoped to be scientific 
standards that are here.
  I so I have great concern about that. And I also have concern about 
attaching the risk assessment provisions to this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a reason that many of the people in this 
Chamber today are drinking bottled water out of the offices. There is a 
reason that bottled water has become one of fastest-growing industries 
in the country. There is a reason when I go to the grocery store I am 
now seeing whole shelves of bottled water. For some reason, I do not 
know whether I was ignorant or not, I used to turn the tap on and now 
worry. Now I worry. So it seems to me that this Congress ought to be 
taking a little more time being a little more reflective before it 
passes the law of the forest, and for that reason I support the 
substitute, and would urge my colleagues to do the same.
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 
1 minute.)

        tribute to duke cunningham, first ace of the vietnam war

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the body that at 
precisely this moment, 5:35, 23 years ago today, our colleague, 
Congressman ``Duke'' Cunningham became the first ace of the Vietnam 
war, was attacked by 22 MiG's, shot down 3 MiG's then was shot down 
himself, and as he was ejected and was about to be captured, a Marine 
helicopter swooped in, rescued him. And so on this anniversary of that 
momentous occasion I think we all want to join in saluting the first 
ace of the Vietnam war, our colleague, Congressman ``Duke'' Cunningham.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute amendment, and 
let me begin by saying that I have the highest respect for the 
distinguished gentleman offering this amendment, and I admire their 
commitment to clean water. But having said that, I believe there are at 
least two fundamental flaws to the substitute amendment.
  First, as it stands, H.R. 961 provides individuals flexibilities for 
individual States to implement storm water programs, watershed 
management programs, and provides commonsense relief to small and rural 
communities.
  The substitute does not include crucial regulatory reform provisions 
that this House has already overwhelmingly approved in principle, the 
ideas of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and ending unfunded 
Federal mandates.
  Under the substitute, it will be harder for States to regulate 
smarter in order to provide more pollution prevention at a far less 
cost.
  Second, I must oppose the substitute amendment because it does not 
take critical steps towards fairness that are in H.R. 961. No subject 
arouses more passionate opposition in my district than the excesses of 
the Federal wetlands programs administered under the Clean Water Act.
  H.R. 961 includes commonsense classification and delineation criteria 
for wetlands that reflect the genuine differences in quality and 
utility of wetlands.
  I would just like to tell a little bit about the State of Iowa. In 
Iowa we have 25 percent of the grade A farmland in the world, not just 
in the United States, but in the world. And if the requirements that 
are in this substitute amendment were in place in 
[[Page H4746]]  1993 when we had the floods in the Midwest, that grade 
A farmland could be determined to be a permanent wetland. It is not 
enough today that farmers have to fight weather problems and fight the 
markets, but now they have a threat from the Government itself coming 
in and taking over their land and telling them how they can use their 
land. And you talk about property values. What more would reduce the 
value of agricultural crop land than to determine that to be a 
permanent wetland?
  Also, much of the land that I am referring to has been in families 
like my own for well over 100 years. They have had to put some tile in, 
much of it was hand dug by our ancestors, 80, 90 years ago, and today 
because of these requirements you can no longer improve or repair those 
tile lines, because again of the bureaucrats.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it absolutely clear that 
the alternative permits repair of tiles on agricultural land. Our 
alternative does permit that.
  Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time, but you also talk about delineation 
of what is a wetland, and today under this substitute those wetlands 
can be defined as a permanent wetland, any pothole out there that a 
duck would not land in under this substitute can be classified as a 
wetland.
  I really resent the idea too that somehow farmers are not 
conservationists, are not environmentalists. I tell you on our land, on 
our farm, we are the ones who have to make a living off of that land. 
We are the ones who are raising families who drink that water. And 
anyone who has the idea that a farmer is not concerned about the 
quality of life and the preservation of that land and also seeing to it 
that that water is purified is simply wrong and has no idea of what 
agriculture is about today or about what a family farm is about. And 
once again, people who think we are out there trying to pollute the 
environment simply do not understand reality.
  Earlier someone tried to blame what happened in Milwaukee on a 
farmer. And the fact of the matter is, and it has been shown that that 
was wildlife that put that bacteria in the river, and if anyone thinks 
that a new Federal mandate or regulation is going to control wildlife 
out here again they certainly do not understand what is outside of the 
Beltway here in Washington.
  This debate, folks, is about Washington regulators against the farm 
families, the small business people, and the local governments in 
America. H.R. 961 reflects the interests of the farm families and the 
small business people and the local governments, and the substitute 
represents the idea of the regulators, and I ask Members to vote no on 
the substitute and support H.R. 961.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the substitute bill being 
offered by my colleagues, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Roemer, and Mr. Boehlert. 
During the lengthy committee markup of H.R. 961, I listened closely to 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as they delivered thoughtful 
opinions on every aspect of this complex legislation. In the end, I 
voted not to report H.R. 961 out of committee.
  Mr. Chairman, my vote against H.R. 961 is not a vote against clean 
water. In fact, it is very much the opposite. My vote against H.R. 961 
is a vote for clean water, for good health, and for an adequate level 
of environmental protection. I believe the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert 
substitute is a sensible solution that can provide us with all of those 
things.
  In my State of South Carolina, many programs under the current act 
are administered by the South Carolina Department of Health and 
Environmental Control--DHEC.
  On yesterday, I was contacted by DHEC and they expressed to me they 
would rather have no change than the damaging changes found in H.R. 
961. Now when the agency that was created to protect the health and 
environment of the people oppose a bill, that should cause us all to 
wonder about the ramifications of it.
  The comments made by DHEC are not unfounded. Let me tell you why.
  Throughout the debate on clean water in both this Congress and the 
last, we have heard what some call tales about people who catch their 
evening meals in the streams behind their homes, or our of the rivers 
that run through their communities. Let me assure you that these are 
not just fish tales.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a reality, especially in rural districts such 
as the one I proudly serve in South Carolina. Over 48 States have 
issued over 1,300 fish advisories for recreational and subsistence 
anglers. As of 1994 in South Carolina, there were 18 fish advisories in 
effect. That is up from only three in 1992. Do the math anyway you 
like, but the sum adds up to there is more that needs to be done.
  The provisions in the substitute bill would keep these waters clean 
and allow these people to keep fishing in the waters, and their 
children to keep playing in the waters without the hazards they could 
encounter if H.R. 961 were to be put in place. Among other harmful 
changes, H.R. 961 would allow water quality standards to be relaxed for 
up to 70,000 pollutants.
  I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but I feel that is 70,000 more 
pollutants than the people of the Sixth Congressional District of South 
Carolina need to be exposed to.
  I imagine if I asked for a show of hands of those Members who have 
visited the South Carolina coast, there would be quite a few.
  Our State is one of 35 that belong to the Coastal States 
Organization. This is yet another reason to support this substitute 
because it contains provisions developed by the Coastal States 
Organization that are intended to protect these fragile coastal areas 
from runoff pollution.
  The coastal lands need special provisions. The Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert 
substitute would give these special protections as developed by the 
Coastal States Organization, and allow for continued responsible use of 
our coastal areas.
  Mr. Chairman, it is no doubt that people all across the country know 
the value of clean water. In a recent Times-Mirror poll, 76 percent of 
Americans said they felt we should do more, not less to protect our 
Nation's waters. However, no one knows the value of clean water as much 
as the residents of rural communities across America. There is a term 
we like to use today--``Environmental Justice.''
  I don't care what you call it, but the concept remains the same. 
People living in small, mostly rural and poorer communities across 
America consistently suffer from more health problems due to 
environmental negligence. It is for those people that I rise today to 
support the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the markup of 
H.R. 961 in the Transportation of Infrastructure Committee. I want my 
chairman, Mr. Shuster, to know that even though we ultimately came down 
on different sides on H.R. 961, I congratulate him on the job he did in 
presiding over the markup, and I appreciate the sincerity of his views.
  And I want my ranking member, Mr. Mineta, to know how much I 
appreciate his leadership and commitment on this critical issue.
  Mr. Chairman, in the South we tend to tell stories to make a point, 
or use cliches to describe things. In keeping with that tradition, I 
would like to share two old adages we should all heed. One is ``if it 
ain't broke don't fix it,'' and the other is ``if you mess it up, clean 
it up.'' Mr. Chairman, this is the underlying message behind the 
substitute legislation being offered today, and I encourage all of my 
colleagues to joint with me in supporting clean water with a ``yes'' 
vote on the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert substitute.
                              {time}  1745

  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute and commend 
my colleagues for their fine work on this bill.
  [[Page H4747]] As a strong supporter or regulatory reform, I was 
proud to vote for the regulatory reform proposals contained in the 
Contract With America.
  And I rise today in the strong belief that indiscriminant regulation 
will sap our economic strength, our competitiveness and our future.
  I believe that this substitute is consistent with regulatory reform.
  First, most of the provisions of the substitute reflect the 
provisions in the chairman's bill. But, the substitute recognizes the 
importance of controlling stormwater runoff.
  At the same time, the substitute provides States with flexibility in 
dealing with this problem. States would be able to target runoff 
control programs where they are needed most. And States would be given 
greater authority to use incentive-based programs and planning and 
management.
  Similarly, the substitute would not overburden our small businesses 
and small municipalities with onerous regulations. They would fall 
under a 10-year moratorium on the implementation of new requirements 
under the stormwater management program.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent a district that is surrounded on three 
sides by coastal waters. In our coastal areas in New Jersey, our 
businesses, indeed our economy, relies on having a clean coastal 
environment.
  The family-owned hotels and motels in my district have approximately 
3 months in the summer to earn their living for the year. If the 
beaches are closed because of pollution, those businesses are hurt and 
may not survive.
  Mr. Chairman, commercial fishing is a $55 billion industry 
nationwide--and lets face it, people are not going to eat fish that 
they believe were caught in polluted waters.
  In my district, nonpoint source pollution and storm water were major 
sources of ocean pollution. Actions taken at the State level have 
sharply reduced pollution in our ocean and bays. It is a testament to 
the commitment New Jersey has made, as a State, to protecting our 
coastal environment.
  But we need a Federal standard. Our coastal waters do not recognize 
State boundaries. If New Jersey makes a commitment to prevent pollution 
from nonpoint sources and storm water runoff, that could be negated if 
another State does not.
  Mr. Chairman, the substitute is a good bill.
  Again, I commend my colleagues on a fine substitute and urge members 
on both sides of the aisle to support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer 
substitute.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I commend 
the authors. I urge that the amendment be adopted. And I hope that in 
so doing, we will improve the bill.
  I would inform my colleagues that the Clean Water Act is not only the 
most successful but it is the oldest of our major environmental 
statutes, and it was not passed by a bunch of left-wing kooks. It was 
passed overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities on both sides of the 
aisle, and it came out of the Committee on Public Works overwhelmingly.
  There is good reason for everything that is in the current law, and 
the wonderful fact is that it works.
  What would the bill that is now before us do? First of all, in the 
State of Michigan, it would eliminate wetlands protection for some of 
our 5,583,000 acres of wetlands. Altogether, it would risk the 
potential loss of 3,629,000 acres.
  The current law is a good law, but it does not do all that it should. 
In recent times, better than 10,000 beaches have been shut because of 
pollution of coastal waters, and better than one-third of our
 shellfish beds are at risk.

  Now, what does the bill do here? First of all, it does not really 
protect wetlands as it should. As I mentioned, it puts Michigan 
wetlands and Michigan migratory waterfowl populations at risk. Indeed, 
I would warn my colleagues that this bill puts migratory waterfowl and 
migratory birds and migratory bird hunting at risk. I speak as a member 
of the Migratory Bird Commission which works to try and save the lands 
for these species.
  The bill would go further than that. The bill would repeal the 
Coastal Zone Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. It would remove 60 
percent of our Nation's wetlands from any protection, and allow total 
destruction of possibly as high as 80 percent. It would weaken the 
standards governing industrial pollution and discharges into lakes, 
rivers, and harbors. It would threaten the Great Lakes fishery, which 
is worth better than $4 billion a year. It would hamper efforts to 
control nonpoint source pollution, the source of over 50 percent of 
water quality impairment in the United States, and it would create, 
interestingly enough, an extraordinarily unworkable bureaucracy which 
would supposedly address the question of wetlands protection within the 
Corps of Engineers, and cost the American people millions of dollars a 
year.
  The amendment is a responsible piece of legislation. It accepts about 
70 percent of the legislation written in the committee. It would make 
possible continued progress, albeit at a somewhat slower rate than we 
have seen, because of the programs which we are now addressing which 
have been, I repeat, enormously successful in terms of preserving 
natural resources and protecting the clean water and protecting the 
health of the American people.
  Tourism is a great industry in this country, and it is one of the 
most important we have. I know of no one who will go to see dirty 
water. They go to see places where the water is clean, where the 
fishing is good, where the swimming is safe, and where one may eat the 
fish that they catch. They do not go to Gowanus Canal or to places 
which are fabled with their filth.
  Legislation which we have before us would roll back in a startling 
fashion better than 40 years of progress which we have made in cleaning 
up the waters of the Nation. It would not help the polluters 
particularly. It would simply allow them to evade their 
responsibilities. It would not help the American people. It would 
simply inflict upon them continued destruction of their most precious 
and important natural resource, the water of this country.
  The legislation which this country wants, if you ask the people, and 
better than 70 percent of them will say so if inquired of, is 
legislation which protects the waters, which protects the environment, 
which protects the health of the American people.
  I would urge that the amendment sponsored by my colleagues, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] be adopted. 
I would urge that my colleagues reject the bill.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make reference to some 
comments made by a colleague and member of the committee, the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Latham], earlier, particularly as they apply to 
agriculture. I want everyone to know we are very sensitive to the needs 
of agriculture. Our alternative specifically provides exemptions for 
the repair and construction of tiles.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Boehlert and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the exemptions specifically allow repair 
and construction of tiles. We also have in our substitute the same 
exemptions for agriculture as are contained in H.R. 961.
  Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman says all this talk about how your 
substitute is going to hurt agriculture; it cannot, because it is the 
same language they have in the bill?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. He was genuinely concerned about that. The concern was 
heartfelt.
  Mr. DINGELL. I do not care whether it is heartfelt or not, I want to 
know if it is factual. I gather you are telling me some of the concerns 
expressed are not factual.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Some of the concerns expressed here have not been 
factual.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

[[Page H4748]]

  Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman mentioned beach closures. I just want to 
say what the gentleman spoke of in terms of the Coastal Zone Management 
Act and the provisions that have to do with nonpoint source pollution 
and the benefits provided for wetlands go a long way to prevent beach 
closures.
  In 1987 and 1988, I lived through those beach closures along with the 
Northeast coast, and I can say, I think uncategorically, that by 
repealing the laws which the committee bill proposes to repeal, that we 
are bound to repeat summers like those summers when we had those beach 
closures, because we are eliminating the protections that we have since 
put in place that have worked very, very well, and so I thank the 
gentleman for pointing out those very, very important aspects of this 
substitute.
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I want to 
rise in strong support for H.R. 961 and urge that it be passed without 
major modification.
  I would like to commend my outstanding chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, for his outstanding and yeoman work that he has done in 
regard to this legislation. It is outstanding legislation, and it 
deserves the support of all of the Members of this body.
  H.R. 961, as reported out of our committee, will reduce Federal power 
and will give us cleaner water. It gives control of water resource 
management to those who have the biggest stake in maintaining these 
resources, while taking control from bureaucrats here in Washington.
  Even the Administrator of the EPA, Carol Browner, has said, ``We must 
allow for flexibility, innovation and common sense as States and 
communities look for ways to achieve the standards.'' That is what the 
committee-approved bill does, Mr. Chairman. It restores common sense to 
our clean water regulation.
  I have great respect for all of the authors of this substitute 
amendment. They are all good friends of mine. But I am afraid, Mr. 
Chairman, that the amendment in the nature of a substitute would 
eliminate the flexibility that is needed and that Ms. Browner called 
for, in that it seeks to retain Federal command and control in pursuit 
of clean water.
  A one-size-fits-all approach to clean water regulation is no longer 
sound, if it ever was. The EPA bureaucrats and Army Corps of Engineers 
officials are simply not capable of making qualified, correct decisions 
for every State legislature, every city manager, every farmer, every 
land owner, every business owner in the Nation.
  H.R. 961, as reported, lifts that responsibility from them and gives 
it back to the people and their representatives at the local level.
  I do not need to repeat, Mr. Chairman, and would not have time to do 
so anyway, all the horror stories about EPA and Army Corps of Engineers 
regulations under our clean water laws at this time, one stupid, 
expensive, unfair decision after another.
  A few years ago one of the officials of the National Association of 
Home Builders told me that if our wetlands laws were strictly enforced, 
that it would close up over 60 percent of the developable land in this 
country. It would make the dream of home ownership just go out of sight 
from an economic standpoint for most young couples in this country.
  It has been mentioned before, but I think it bears repeating, that 
support for moving forward with H.R. 961 has come from a wide range of 
groups, including the National Governors' Association, the National 
League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 
Association of Counties, the Association of State and Interstate Water 
Pollution Control Administrators.
                              {time}  1800

  The water pollution control administrators are people who work full 
time in this area, and I can assure my colleagues they would not 
support this legislation were it not good clean water legislation. This 
bill is also supported by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage 
Agencies, the American Public Works Association, the Clean Water 
Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses among 
many, many others.
  H.R. 961 was reported out of our committee by a strong bipartisan 
vote of 42 to 16. This bill deserves bipartisan support now. It will 
return common sense to our signatory efforts in regard to clean water. 
It will return flexibility. It will do away with many of the unfair 
bureaucratic burdensome decisions that have come out in recent years.
  Most importantly of all, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to emphasize 
this, if H.R. 961 passes as is, it will be the toughest clean water law 
in the world. This bill passing as is will be the toughest clean water 
bill in the world. It just does not go to some of the extremes that 
some people would have us do, some of the ridiculous extremes that some 
people would have us go.
  So let us vote for the toughest clean water law in the world. Let us 
vote for Chairman Shuster's bill, H.R. 961. I urge its passage.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this substitute 
measure authored by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert]. It is not a perfect fix of H.R. 961's problems, but it 
offers a rational middle ground that preserves the rights of H.R. 961 
while turning back H.R. 961's most damaging proposals, and it is 
interesting to note that many of my colleagues served in State 
legislatures before coming here, and I would like to point out that in 
a letter that I received from the National Conference of State 
Legislators they indicate that unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended 
during the floor consideration, the NCSL urges them to vote against 
this bill, and they point out that the problems with the bill that is 
before us that are addressed by this amendment is that the bill in 
print limits State discretion to impose effluent limits which are 
different than Federal limits. It also reduces State authority to 
update and strengthen controls on toxic and other discharges by 
providing that effluent limitations only be reviewed every 10 years.
  So not only myself and others are urging our colleagues to support 
this, but the State legislatures are as well. The substitute amendment 
restores vital protections for wetlands, but makes commonsense 
exemptions for agriculture, flood control and other important 
activities. These provisions are based on wetlands language offered by 
the National Governors Association and increase the States' role in 
wetland's protection.
  The substitute amendment replaces the repeal of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act non-point source program included in H.R. 961 with 
amendments to improve the program proposed by Coastal States 
Organizations. Any legislator representing a coastal State knows the 
significance of having the ability to control non-point source run off 
because it runs into the ocean. Our local economies are based on the 
fact that people make livings off that ocean, both for recreation and 
primarily for commercial fishing, and if that environment is not safe, 
and sound, and clean, then we are going to destroy the very economic 
base of many of our coastal regions.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this bill in its drafted
   form goes a long way to doing that, so that is why I support the 
Saxton proposal, because it is a reasonable alternative, it is going to 
help protect clean water, and we need to do that because we are just 
borrowing time from future generations, and we need to turn over the 
world in a better shape than which it is in now. So I urge my 
colleagues to support this substitute.

                                        National Conference of

                                           State Legislatures,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.
     Re H.R. 961, Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995.
     Hon. Sam Farr,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Farr: On behalf of the National 
     Conference of State Legislatures, I am writing to express 
     concerns about H.R. 961 as reported by committee. Unless H.R. 
     961 is significantly amended during 
[[Page H4749]]  floor consideration, NCSL urges you to vote against the 
bill.
       In partnership with the federal government, states have 
     worked diligently for more than two decades to achieve the 
     Clean Water Act's goals of restoring and maintaining our 
     nation's waters. The Clean Water Act serves as a baseline for 
     state programs, while giving states flexibility to go beyond 
     federal minimum requirements. Many of the problems facing our 
     nation's water bodies are interstate in character and cannot 
     be addressed by any state acting alone. Over the past two 
     decades states have come to rely upon the state-federal 
     partnership that is the cornerstone of our system of public 
     health protection.
       While NCSL applauds H.R. 961's proposed increases in SRF 
     funding, efforts to provide states with greater flexibility, 
     and other provisions that directly benefit state and local 
     government, we are concerned with other aspects of the bill. 
     For instance, if enacted in its present form, H.R. 961 would 
     permit increased degradation of our nation's waters and allow 
     for delay in achieving the Clean Water Act's goals. We urge 
     you to seriously consider any amendments which aim to strike 
     a proper balance between increased state authority and 
     preservation of minimum federal standards.
       One of our specific concerns with H.R. 961 is that it would 
     reverse our nation's goal of eliminating the net loss of both 
     wetlands acreage and wetlands habitat values. Wetlands are an 
     integral component of both the environmental and economic 
     health of our nation. They provide important economic and 
     recreational benefits such as hunting, fishing, natural flood 
     control, recharge zones for groundwater aquifers, reduced 
     shoreline erosion and water purification through filtration 
     of sediments and toxic pollutants from runoff. Given the 
     direct and indirect economic benefits that are derived from 
     wetlands, we are concerned by provisions in H.R. 961 that 
     would encourage and increase development activities in 
     wetlands.
       In addition to the above, NCSL is also concerned with other 
     provisions of H.R. 961. For instance, as reported by 
     committee, H.R. 961 would: Limit state discretion to impose 
     effluent limits which are different than federal limits; 
     reduce state authority to update and strengthen controls on 
     toxic and other discharges by providing that effluent 
     limitations can only be reviewed every ten years; relax 
     effluent pretreatment standards for waste waters destined for 
     Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's); and waive compliance 
     time deadlines for any year in which actual funding levels 
     fall short of authorized levels.
       While NCSL supports many of the bill's provisions that 
     would directly benefit states and their political 
     subdivisions, we nonetheless do have concerns with other 
     aspects of the bill. It is our sincere hope that floor 
     amendments during consideration of the bill will succeed in 
     addressing and resolving our concerns.
       Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with 
     you.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jane Campbell,
        President, NCSL, Assistant Minority Leader, Ohio House of 
                                                  Representatives.

  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act 
Amendments of 1995. This substitute is a sensible, reform measure which 
fixes many of the problems associated with Clean Water Act regulations, 
without sacrificing essential protections, particularly in the areas of 
wetlands policy and coastal zone management.
  Long Islanders have always had a special appreciation for the 
delicate nature of our Nation's waters and the need to protect them for 
our economic health, as well as for future generations. My constituents 
carry on this tradition of concern. Long Island is, after all, an 
island. My district on the south shore has over 35 miles of coastal 
shoreline. Long Island's coastal waters are a premier source of 
recreation and the backbone of an essential tourism industry, which 
relies on our vast stretch of sandy beaches. In addition, they house 
thousands of acres of shellfish beds, and support both commercial and 
sport fishing.
  Because of this reliance on our coastal waters, both wetlands 
protection and coastal zone management are essential to both the 
economic health and quality of life on Long Island. Wetlands are a 
natural filtering system which help protect the health of our fish 
population as well as help filter pollutants from seeping into our 
groundwater. Yet H.R. 961 would remove over 60 percent of our Nation's 
wetlands from any level of protection.
  The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute addresses the concerns of 
private landowners by putting in place a proposal developed and 
supported by the National Governor's Association which simplifies and 
expedites the wetlands permitting process by expanding the role of 
State wetlands managers in the permitting process. This will help 
encourage decisions about wetlands management to be made on the local 
level, without paving the way for widespread wetlands destruction.
  H.R. 961 would also repeal section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act 
Reauthorization Amendments [CZARA], which is the only enforceable 
program developed by Congress to deal with nonpoint source pollution of 
coastal waters. Consequently, this bill would expect an already weak 
nonpoint source pollution program, section 319, to somehow attend to 
the special problems associated with coastal pollution. This pollution 
has resulted in the closure of 200,000 acres of New York City and Long 
Island shellfish beds. It has severely impacted both commercial and 
recreational fishing on Long Island. I clearly remember recent summers 
when medical waste, including used syringes, washed up on shore and 
forced the closure of certain Long Island beaches on hot summer days. 
In fact, more than 10,000 beaches nationwide were closed to bathing 
over the past 5 years due to pollution. My district cannot afford this 
kind of loss. The coastal State governors have spent years working on 
sensible State-managed programs to this threat to coastal waters. 
Working with CZARA, the coastal States have finally come up with 
solutions that they feel will work best for their States. The Saxton-
Boehlert-Roemer substitute acknowledges this effort by adopting the 
reforms proposed by the 29 States of the Coastal States Organization 
for implementing CZARA.
  Like many other coastal areas around the country, Long Island is 
dependent upon its waters to support its economy as well as its quality 
of life. By including provisions developed by the National Governor's 
Association and Coastal States Organization, the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer 
substitute, gives each State the flexibility to develop the best 
programs to protect its water, while maintaining critical Federal 
support. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.
  Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Saxton-Boehlert 
substitute to H.R. 961.
  Let us face it, colleagues. The Clean Water Act has made great 
strides in improving the quality of water sources and aquatic habitats 
across our Nation. However, unintended consequences of the provisions 
of the act as well as advances in environmental science and technology 
over the past 20 years have necessitated a revision of this law. H.R. 
961, as passed by the Transportation Committee, brings a 1970's law 
into the 1990's and the 21st century.
  With wastewater treatment needs of communities across the United 
States projected to cost over $120 billion during the next 20 years, it 
is essential that innovative financing and treatment methods be 
utilized. States need to be provided flexibility in the implementation 
of clean water programs in order to best address the particular water 
resource needs and conditions of their communities. Cost-benefit 
analysis, risk assessment and the use of sound science need to be 
included in a national clean water program to ensure that regulations 
do not burden the States, localities, and individual land owners.
  Finally, commonsense reforms of the current section 404 wetlands 
permitting process are needed to relieve private landowners of the 
current regulatory maze and to protect their rights as guaranteed by 
the Constitution of the United States. Under the current Clean Water 
Act, landowners have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for 
removing trash, adding fill dirt, repairing a levee, installing a 
tennis court, plowing land, and planting crops without a section 404 
permit.
  A great deal of time and effort has been invested by Chairman Shuster 
and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to ensure that 
these issues are all addressed in H.R. 961 and that all perspectives on 
clean water issues have been taken into consideration. At the same 
time, H.R. 961 facilitates the continued improvement in 
[[Page H4750]]  the quality of our Nation's water resources. This bill 
has had resounding bi-partisan support throughout the committee 
process, having passed the subcommittee by a vote of 19 to 5 and the 
full committee by a vote of 42 to 16. I commend Chairman Shuster for 
his commitment to reforming the Clean Water Act to be a more effective 
and efficient national policy without compromising America's water 
quality, and for his dedication to seeing that this legislation comes 
to the floor during this Congress.
  The Saxton-Boehlert substitute would gut the provisions of H.R. 961 
which bring the Clean Water Act into the 21st century. The Saxton-
Boehlert substitute does little to change the inflexible Federal 
Stormwater and non-point source regulations that are breaking the 
financial backs of small and rural communities across the Nation. The 
substitute does not adequately relieve the States, localities and 
landowners from onerous regulations and loss of private property 
rights. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the substitute.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ZELIFF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said this would gut the 
provisions of the bill that bring us into the 21st century. It would be 
helpful to us if the gentleman elucidates those particular provisions 
because we are all anxious to go into the 21st century.
  Mr. ZELIFF. I agree, and, although we have an honest disagreement, I 
think that the Contract With America and all that we were trying to do 
in terms of giving back some of the power to the States to make 
decisions classifying what a wetlands is and a wetland is not makes all 
the sense in the world, and so that kind of common sense brings us into 
the 21st century. Regulations and laws that cost all of us in taking 
precious rights away from us as individuals, putting those regulations 
back with the States and all those things make a lot of good common 
sense and hopefully go----
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Wetlands provision we have adopted the language 
advanced by the National Governors Association because, like the 
gentleman, we agree that the Governors are in the best position to deal 
with these very sensitive issues.
  Mr. ZELIFF. The Governors do not support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. The Governors support title VIII to the bill as----
  Mr. ZELIFF. Support the gentleman's position.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer 
substitute amendment. It is far preferable to the underlying bill that 
has been brought to the floor.
  Let me comment for a moment, if I might, about the efforts we have 
made in Maryland in regard to the Chesapeake Bay. This is an effort 
that has been undertaken now for over 15 years in which the people of 
Maryland have made a tremendous sacrifice in order to reclaim the 
quality of the water of the Chesapeake Bay. This has not just been an 
effort by the people of Maryland. It has been a cooperative effort 
between the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the Nation's 
Capital. It has been an effort between the private sector and the 
Government working together in order to deal with some very serious 
pollution problems within the Bay. It has been a model program.
  Mr. Chairman, we have seen this partnership has worked through some 
very tough changes in the manner in which we deal with water quality, 
including land use management, and fishing restrictions and other 
policies that we have undertaken in order to deal with the Chesapeake 
Bay, and it has been successful. The underlying bill would be a major 
step backward on the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.
  Let me mention 3 significant differences between the underlying bill 
and the substitute that is before us. First, as it relates to the 
wetlands protection, the surge of nutrients into the Bay acts as a 
strangling of the oxygen that is important for the fish life, for the 
waterfowl, for oysters, crabs, and I could go on.
                              {time}  1815

  The quality of what we know on the Chesapeake Bay, whether it is for 
commercial or recreational purposes, is contingent upon us being able 
to control the level of nutrient in the Bay. That is why under the Bay 
Agreement we have a commitment to reduce the levels of nutrients by 40 
percent by the year 2000.
  The wetlands operate as a filtering system to remove nutrients and 
sediment from the Bay. Between 1982 and 1989, in the States of 
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, we lost 37,000 acres of wetlands. 
That is equivalent to the size of the District of Columbia.
  The substitute uses the standards helped developed by the National 
Governors' Association in order to put sensible restrictions on 
wetlands to protect wetlands. The underlying bill would literally allow 
the destruction of thousands, tens of thousands of acres of wetlands in 
our region and around the Nation.
  A second reason why the substitute is far preferable is the pollution 
from storm water systems. We have a lot of old urban sewage systems in 
our State. During heavy storms, pollution, raw sewage, will just 
literally flow into the tributaries that lead into the Chesapeake Bay. 
The substitute that is before us offers some hope that we can deal with 
this issue. The underlying bill does nothing at all to protect us from 
the problems of storm water pollution.
  Let me mention a third issue why the substitute is far preferable 
than the underlying bill, and that is the coastal zone non-pointed 
source runoff controls. Again, we are dealing with the nutrient level 
that I mentioned before. The underlying bill will allow the nutrients 
to continue, which act as a suffocation to the oxygen necessary for 
aquatic life. The substitute provides protection in this area, again 
allowing us to deal with the unacceptable level of nutrients that are 
flowing into the Chesapeake Bay and other waters.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is this: We have invested an awful lot 
in cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay in this region. We have put a lot of 
time, effort, and resources, both governmental and private sector. We 
have a choice in a few moments whether we are going to move forward in 
partnership with our States and with our local governments and with the 
private sector to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay, or whether we are 
going to move backwards.
  The Federal Government has been a partner in this effort, a very 
proud partner in this effort, in helping the region deal with the 
Chesapeake Bay, which has been a model of a multi-jurisdictional body 
of water in dealing with pollution. It has acted as a model.
  I hope the Congress, I hope my colleagues, will continue that fine 
tradition. Vote for the substitute, vote against the underlying bill. 
Let us continue that partnership and allow the people of our region to 
continue their efforts to reclaim one of the most important assets that 
we have, the Chesapeake Bay.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin] 
has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Saxton and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cardin 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to ask the gentleman, the nutrification 
process that you speak of in bodies of waters such as the Chesapeake 
Bay where nutrients create a situation where aquatic life cannot exist, 
at least in a healthy way, comes from in most cases the non-point 
source pollution issue that we are addressing in the substitute. The 
educational process, to enlist the help of the army of people necessary 
to change our forms of behavior, is absolutely necessary, as included 
in this bill.
  I bring this up because the Chesapeake Bay is the great example of a 
great body of water that everybody is in love with and that everybody 
would like to help to nurture back to a good state of health, if only 
we had programs to help people understand how to do that.
  [[Page H4751]] I grew up in northeastern Pennsylvania on the south 
branch of the Tunkhannock Creek, which nobody has heard of. But it 
feeds into the east branch of the Susquehanna River, which is of course 
the source of fresh water for the Bay, and that is where the nutrients 
come from. My father a few years ago adopted the south branch of the 
Tunkhannock Creek and went about trying to eliminate the nutrients 
coming from that area.
  Throughout Pennsylvania, those kinds of programs are necessary in 
order to help bring the Bay back to an appropriate level of 
healthfulness.
  So I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his comments. He is absolutely correct. The nutrients are acting as 
a suffocation to aquatic life. Non-point pollution is the cause. 
Education is important. The substitute moves us in that direction to 
control the issues. The underlying bill would prevent the actions. I 
appreciate the comments made by the gentleman on this.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a ``while I'' speech. While I share the concern 
and admire the leadership of Messrs. Boehlert and Shays and formerly 
Mr. Saxton, I must rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Let the record show that I am for a clean Chesapeake Bay. Let the 
record show I hope the gentleman from New Jersey is able to swim as 
long as he wants in the Susquehanna, or whatever. But I must say that 
agriculture has a stake in this. I think there has been debate here, 
and as chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I feel compelled 
to inform Members that most of those interested in agriculture are very 
concerned about this substitute.
  Now, you are going to say ``Who is that,'' and I am going to tell 
you. The Agricultural Retailers, American Association of Nurserymen, 
American Crop Protection Association, American Farm Bureau, American 
Feed Industry, American Sheep Industry, American Soybean Association, 
CF Industries, Inc., Agriculture Association, Farmland Industries, the 
dairymen, and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. 
They are extremely important as you work on the environment. You have 
got to work with the state departments of agriculture as well as the 
state departments of environmental protection.
  We have the wheat growers, the cattlemen, the corn growers, the 
cotton council. I can go on and on and on. But basically all of 
agriculture says while they understand the concern and the apprehension 
of those who have offered this substitute, that we need this bill. We 
need the other bill.
  Now, why? Let me also add, if you are from rural and small town 
America, the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the 
many outfits here that rates Members of Congress. Some Members of 
Congress that are about, wake up in the offices, wake up here. The NFIB 
rating, two times, one on the substitute and one on final passage. They 
are opposed to the substitute; they are for the final passage.
  Why would the NFIB and agriculture indicate their opposition to the 
substitute? Well, the substitute allows the 1987 Core Delineation 
Manual to be used for making wetlands determinations. That is the 
manual that has caused all the problems. That has been the problem.
  This bill sets out a better determination, a much better definition. 
This 1987 manual would let the regulators decide wetland hydrology by 
looking at watermarks on trees, even though there is no water on the 
land. A parcel of land could be damp a foot below the surface and still 
meet their requirement. That has been part of the problem. We do 
require 21 consecutive days where a wetland would be wet. I think that 
makes a little sense. If more than 50 percent of the vegetation on the 
land is made up of plants that also thrive in other areas, well, there 
you are, that requirement of qualification is met.
  This bill, the chairman's bill, the bill that we also support on the 
House Committee on Agriculture, requires some water-loving wetland 
plant to be present. I think that makes common sense.
  I will tell you, I know the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert] 
and the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell] and I have the utmost 
respect for him, has said it does not harm agriculture. I know the 
gentleman has made a very honest effort in that regard. But the 
chairman's bill allows State and local cooperation to restore a wetland 
ecosystem.
  You know what? We have debated this and debated this. No one here 
knows exactly what an ecosystem is, a wetlands ecosystem, and that is 
the problem. Because when these matters end up in a Federal District 
Court, the judge then turns to the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service to tell him what a wetlands ecosystem is, and we are right back 
to the regulator and we are right back to the problem that has caused 
all of the problem in regards to farm country.
  We have heard a lot about the Chesapeake and the Susquehanna. We have 
got a river in Kansas, one of the few rivers in Kansas. It is called 
the Arkansas. There is a community there called Great Bend, Kansas. And 
we heard a lot about nutrients and the different standards.
  That community is now going to spend $12 million for a new waterworks 
system. You know why? There is too much chlorine in the water. It could 
endanger an endangered species fish called the shiner in the local 
river. One basic problem, there is no water in the river and there is 
no fish. Now, other than that, it makes a great deal of common sense.
  That is an extreme example, but that is the kind of thing we are 
facing in agriculture. Low spots in the field where, as I said before, 
no self-respecting duck would ever land.
  I urge you, if you come from rural and small town America, if you 
care about the NFIB rating, and if you serve on the Committee on 
Agriculture, vote against this substitute and support the bill.
  amendment offered by mr. minge to the amendment in the nature of a 
                    substitute offered by mr. saxton

  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). The gentleman reserves a point 
of order on the amendment.
  The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Minge to the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Saxton: ``Page 130, 
     after line 5, add the following: `(5) Agricultural Permit 
     Authority.--The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to 
     issue permits in accordance with this section for any 
     activity resulting from normal farming, silviculture, 
     aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices carried 
     out on agricultural lands or for any activity incidental 
     thereto carried out on agricultural lands if the agricultural 
     land is not subject to sections 1221-1223 of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821-3823). Any activity 
     allowed by the Secretary of Agriculture under sections 1221-
     1223 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821-3823) 
     shall be deemed permitted under this section and no 
     individual request for or granting of a permit shall be 
     required.'''
       ``Page 146, after line 7, add the following: `(z) 
     Mitigation of Agricultural Lands.--Any mitigation approved by 
     the Secretary of Agriculture for agricultural lands shall be 
     accepted by the Secretary as mitigation under this 
     section.'''

  Mr. MINGE (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 
Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly discuss the reason 
for this amendment. The problem that we face in rural areas with 
wetland delineation and permitting under section 404 is largely a 
problem that results from several Government agencies trying to make 
decisions about the same land. We have the Army Corps of Engineers, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
and the Fish and Wildlife Service all focusing on what ought to be 
done. The farmers and others in the rural area have found that this 
vast array of agencies at the State, Federal, and 
[[Page H4752]]  local level has resulted in delays of years, 
frustration, expense, and despair.
  What is important I believe is that we clearly recognize here in 
Congress that although we have committees and we have jurisdiction and 
are concerned that we maintain clear lines of authority, that out there 
in the field, in the real world, it is terribly important, individuals, 
that we at the Federal level speak with one voice.
  The purpose of my amendment is to make it possible for farmers and 
rural America to ask for an opinion on whether or not their situation 
requires a permit, whether or not mitigation that is acceptable to one 
Federal agency is acceptable to another, and have a straight answer 
from one Federal officer.
  I submit that part of the credibility that we as Members of Congress 
and the Federal Government face is that we have been unable to put 
things together so that our agencies do in fact work with one voice, 
and we have one-stop shopping.
  For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I request that this body approve this 
amendment and improve the way that we deal with people in rural 
America. This is not an amendment that goes to the merits of the 
legislation in terms of policy decisions, over what should and should 
not be a wetland. Instead, it goes to the procedure by which people 
deal with our Federal agencies. I request that this amendment be 
passed.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of 
order. As I understand, the amendment will be accepted by the author of 
the substitute, and we may have problems with this, but we can fight 
that battle within the context of the whole substitute.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the authors of the substitute, 
we do accept the amendment. We believe that it goes to the best 
interests of the farmers that the gentleman from Kansas was speaking so 
eloquently about just a few minutes ago. We commend the gentleman for 
his foresight in bringing this matter to our attention.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman, 
too, because we are vitally concerned with the interests of 
agriculture. The gentleman has evidenced a sensitivity to that, and we 
are glad to accept that proposal.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, as one of the authors of 
the substitute as well, that we feel that we want to do everything we 
can to work closely with agriculture. We feel this improves the bill 
for farmers, for conservation, and for the convenience of farmers as 
one-stop shopping. And we are happy to accept the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was 
agreed to.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Saxton-Boehlert 
substitute to the Clean Water Act. I have serious concerns about the 
impact of certain provisions of H.R. 961 on my State of Connecticut.
  First, the Shuster bill repeals the coastal water protection program 
established by the Coastal Zone Management Act, which recognizes the 
unique water pollution issues facing coastal States and requires these 
States to take special steps to control nonpoint source pollution.
  Connecticut has been a leader in this area, developing an innovative 
and successful program. Scaling back the Federal program would have 
serious negative consequences for my State's shores because no matter 
how committed Connecticut is to coastal quality, negligence by neighbor 
states could pollute our shores and our waterways. Nonetheless, the 
significant changes in the Coastal Zone Management Act are long overdue 
and to address these problems with the current program, the Saxton-
Boehlert substitute adopts the recommendations made by the coastal 
State Governors, to preserve the benefits of the Coastal Zone 
Management Act but gives States greater flexibility to delineate the 
scope of their managed areas, expand the time frame for implementation 
of reforms and allow States to select and prioritize the projects they 
believe will address their nonpoint source pollution problems.
  Given the facts that in the past 5 years over 10,000 beaches in the 
United States have been closed because of coastal water pollution and 
that over one-third of all shellfish beds are closed or threatened by 
water pollution, including 32 in Connecticut, we must focus greater 
attention, not less, on the problems of water pollution in our coastal 
zones.
  This is both an economic and an environmental imperative. The 
pollution threatening our coasts stems mainly from nonpoint sources, 
storm water runoff from urban, suburban, commercial and industrial 
areas now accounts for 30 percent of water quality impairment. The 
current Clean Water Act mandates a program to control polluted storm 
water from municipal industrial sources and has already been phased 
into effect in most of the largest cities and industries.
  Even though 342 cities and 134,000 industrial sources already have 
their permit and abatement programs in place, the problem of 
controlling storm water runoff has proven to be quite complicated. EPA 
has placed a 6-year moratorium on any new requirements on smaller 
cities or smaller industries while it works out the problems the 
programs have encountered in regard to small cities and small 
businesses.
  The substitute adopts the EPA moratorium as law and extends it for 10 
years. This is the right approach, because it maintains the pressure on 
States to deal with these issues while at the same time relieving 
States of taking irrational steps in regard to small towns and small 
industries.
  Another provision with serious potential implications for Connecticut 
is the wastewater treatment standards, specifically secondary treatment 
waivers. The current Clean Water Act establishes secondary treatment as 
a minimum standard for municipal sewage treatment plants, governing how 
clean wastewater must be before it is discharged into rivers, oceans 
and other bodies of water. All municipally owned sewage treatment 
plants were required to provide secondary treatment by 1988 and all 
municipal facilities in Connecticut have already attained at least 
secondary treatment capability and some have gone beyond that standard.
  Despite the fact that this requirement has been in effect for almost 
7 years, the underlying bill seeks to exempt towns of less than 10,000 
people from secondary treatment requirements.
  Along the Connecticut River, which cuts through the heart of all of 
New England, this exemption would create havoc. Most of the towns in 
New England are smaller than 10,000 people. A town of 10,000 people 
gives off a million gallons of sewage a day.
  Like most other States, Connecticut still has a long way to go in 
achieving its clean water goals. More than a third of the assessed 
rivers and estuaries cannot sustain fishing, permit swimming or 
maintain aquatic life year round. Exempting the majority of our towns 
as a majority of less than 10,000 people from secondary treatment 
requirements will not continue the progress we have made at great 
expense.
  Finally, I am pleased to support the wetlands provisions of the 
Saxton-Boehlert substitute. This title adopts the recommendations of 
the National Governors Association with input from State wetlands 
managers.
  I would remind Members that both in the wetlands section and in the 
coastal 
[[Page H4753]]  management section the Boehlert substitute simply 
adopts the recommendations of the State Governors for the reforms that 
their people say are needed in these programs.
  I am troubled by title VIII of H.R. 961 for several reasons. The bill 
establishes a new entitlement for property owners whose property value 
is diminished by 20 percent. We have discussed this at great length. I 
will not repeat that discussion.
  Secondly, the bill would require the Army Corps of Engineers to 
classify all wetlands into three categories with only the top category 
being fully protected.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, this would have a harsh 
effect on Connecticut where at least 60 percent of the wetlands would 
be declassified. Though I support the concept of classifying wetlands, 
this bill sets out criteria for classification not based on sound 
science, according to the newly released National Academy of Sciences 
wetlands report.
  Further, the costs associated with classifying every wetland in the 
Nation would be staggering. A far less extensive plan to map all flood 
plain areas, which in Connecticut we have accomplished, wound up taking 
10 years in the nation and cost a billion dollars.
  In contrast, the substitute's wetlands provisions allow the Army 
Corps greater flexibility in wetlands delineation and encourage states 
to adopt their own permitting program independent of federal control. 
It encourages wetlands classification based on science with exceptions 
only for certain functioning wetlands and certain agricultural lands.
  State and individuals have had difficulty applying current wetlands 
laws in recent years, but I am confident that the proposal put together 
by the States themselves and incorporated in the Saxton-Boehlert 
substitute addresses these problems effectively.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut was allowed to 
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, faced with serious water 
quality problems a generation ago, the state of Connecticut passed its 
only Clean Water Act, and this is why I wanted the 30 additional 
seconds. We passed the first one.
  The Federal law is modeled on our act. And since its passage, we have 
become the Nation's leader in the production of oysters because we have 
so cleaned up our offshore waters. With that, I ask Members' support of 
the Boehlert amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], as amended by 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. This substitute amendment is 
a reasonable alternative to H.R. 961, and I urge all of my colleagues 
to support it.
  The substitute lessens the devastating impact of H.R. 961 by 
including the recommendation of the National Governors Association for 
protecting wetlands.
  In addition, it incorporates a proposal for addressing coastal 
nonpoint pollution developed by the Coastal States Organization. The 
substitute, unlike H.R. 961, will not roll back toxicity standards that 
are working, and it will not provide a laundry list of exemptions for 
various industries to release new pollutants at will.
  Mr. Chairman, of special concern to my state of California and to all 
coastal States, and I might add my native State of Maryland, home of 
the great Chesapeake Bay, is a provision which repeals the only
 existing program for reducing agricultural and urban runoff. This type 
of runoff is an especially significant contributor to coastal pollution 
and results in the closing of beaches, declining coastal fisheries, 
threats to drinking water and the shutting down of the shellfish beds. 
We are all concerned about the enforcement of regulations over the 
wetlands. We have heard this over and over, and I think it deserves 
attention. But, Mr. Chairman, this legislation goes too far because it 
affects millions of acres of wetlands by allowing these natural areas 
to be developed and polluted.

  This would jeopardize over 75 percent of our fish and shellfish, 
which depend on marshes and other wetland environment.
  Wetlands are an integral component of both the environmental and 
economic health of our Nation. They provide important recreational 
benefits, natural flood control, reduce shoreline erosion and water 
purification through filtration of sediments and toxic pollutants from 
runoff. The provisions of H.R. 961 would cause irreparable damage to 
these sensitive lands.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act is a tremendously complex piece of 
legislation dealing with national issues of critical importance. Unlike 
previous reauthorizations, however, H.R. 961 fails to make progress 
toward a cleaner environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by our colleagues is reasonable 
and sensible, when compared to H.R. 961. Virtually every provision of 
H.R. 961 is harmful to both people and the environment and would 
degrade rivers, streams, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal zones 
throughout the country, including the sources of drinking water for 
two-thirds of all Americans.
  Our Nation will never have a clean bill of health in any respect 
without clean water. I urge my colleagues to support the Saxton-
Boehlert-Roemer substitute and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 961.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair, with the 
gentleman from Indiana, if we might explore limiting debate time to 
perhaps an additional period of time. May I ask the gentleman, how many 
additional speakers he believes he may have.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, we have one additional speaker.
  Mr. SAXTON. I believe on our side we have three or four, possibly 
three additional speakers.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I think there is one speaker in support of 
the substitute and one in opposition to the substitute on this side.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit 
additional debate time to 30 minutes, to be divided equally between the 
proponents and the opponents of the substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I think 
that works contrary to the interests of the authors of the amendment 
because there are four of us who wish to speak as advocates, so those 
four should each receive 5 minutes. I think there are two opposed. That 
would be four and two. So there would be seven more speakers, 5 minutes 
apiece.
  Mr. SHUSTER. There are four opposed. Four are in favor, four opposed. 
That is 40 minutes.
  Mr. SAXTON. If we could limit debate to 45 minutes, that would take 
care of the situation.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit 
further debate to 45 minutes, to be equally divided between the 
opponents and proponents.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  Mr. BORSKI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could we 
just limit it to seven speakers, 5 minutes each?

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I amend my unanimous-consent request.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will yield, I understand he has 4 in 
favor and we have 4 opposed, so that is 8.
  Mr. SAXTON. I amend my unanimous consent request to that effect.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). The pending unanimous consent 
request is to limit debate on the Saxton amendment and amendments 
thereto to 45 minutes, controlled by 
[[Page H4754]]  the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Shuster], and they will yield debate 
as they see fit.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable discussion on this floor about 
the role of science in the consideration of this legislation, and 
legislation in general. Surely I would agree that we, as Members of 
Congress, have the responsibility to write the laws, but we also have a 
responsibility to take into account the facts of nature that scientists 
can describe for us. In that regard, there is an anecdote that may shed 
some light on this issue.
  As we know, Mr. Chairman, from our high school geometry classes, the 
ratio between the diameter of a circle and the circumference of a 
circle is known as pi, and is equal to roughly 3.14159. It is a long 
decimal number that is hard to remember, so in 1897 the legislature of 
the State of Indiana decided that they would make life easier for high 
school students by passing a law that the value of pi would be 3.0 
exactly.
  Mr. Chairman, the legislators of the State of Indiana had it wrong, 
because regardless of what any legislature or Congress says the value 
of pi is, it will remain and will always be 3.14159.
  There is a parallel here to the legislative definition of wetlands. 
Wetlands are defined by what they do in nature. They are not defined by 
any arbitrary formula written in legislation. Wetlands are useful. 
Wetlands control flooding. Wetlands provide wildlife habitat. Wetlands 
provide water purification and aquifer recharge.
  If lands are covered with water for any period of time, and they 
perform those functions, they are wetlands, regardless of what the 
committee says, regardless of what this Congress says. We should 
recognize that, and we should protect the value of the wetlands because 
of what they do.
  Mr. Chairman, in my State of New Jersey, the arbitrary legislative 
definition of wetlands proposed by this bill will devastate wetlands 
protection. That is why I support the Saxton substitute. According to 
the New Jersey Governor's office, under the provisions of H.R. 961, 90 
percent of New Jersey's remaining wetlands will no longer qualify as 
federally protected. Most of the State's remaining wetlands are 
invaluable to flood control, but they do not meet the test that is set 
forth in the legislation that they have to be wet in the growing season 
for at least 21 consecutive days. This is a hard blow to a State that 
has lost 50 percent of its wetlands to development over the last 25 
years.
  Michigan and New Jersey are unique in that they are the only two 
States in the Union that have assumed wetlands delineation authority 
from the Federal Government under a provision of the 1987 act. While it 
is true that H.R. 961 places no restrictions on a State's ability to 
run its own stricter wetlands program, because of the State's 
assumption of the Federal program, there is no separate State-run 
program in New Jersey. New Jersey's laws and regulations are all based 
on and refer to definitions and legislative language in the current 
section, 404. Therefore, by changing section 404, we are limiting the 
ability of the State of New Jersey to protect its own wetlands in the 
manner that its own legislators have chosen to do.
  To retain the current level of protection, the State legislature must 
pass a new set of wetlands laws without section 404 references, and 
promulgate new regulations with the normal lengthy notice and comment 
process. This will put the few remaining wetlands in my State of New 
Jersey at considerable risk.
  According to Congressional Quarterly, wetlands save this country $31 
billion a year as a result of flood mitigation. New Jersey rightly does 
not want to expose the communities along the Raritan River, the Passaic 
River, the Delaware River, to the enormous damage of flooding that has 
occurred in recent decades and in recent years in our State. However, 
that would be the effect of this legislation, unless it is amended by 
the Saxton substitute.
  In addition, CBO scored H.R. 1330, the bill on which the chairman, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], based title VIII of this 
legislation, to cost $10 to $15 billion to protect only type A 
wetlands. Congressional Quarterly estimates that the American taxpayers 
could shell out up to $45 billion if the Army Corps of Engineers does 
not permit development of all the wetlands covered by H.R. 961. Because 
the corps has a budget of only $4 to $6 billion, this poses an obvious 
problem. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Saxton amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the 
chairman for the earlier recognition. At this time I would have been 
swimming out of the mouth of the Red River over North Vietnam, and I 
want to tell the Members, it was not a river of pollution that you 
would want to swim in, or your children to swim in.
  Would a Clean Water Act help clean up that river? Absolutely. Would 
the current Clean Water Act of today be supported by members? I think 
with clearer definitions. however, the last gentleman from New Jersey, 
according to him, a mud puddle that would replenish the aquifer would 
be considered a wetland. That is the lunacy of the bill. That is why, 
exactly why we are fighting.
  There is probably not a Member in here that would not support the 
current Clean Water Act. There is not a Member that would not support 
the bill offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. The 
clean water and clean air and endangered species, and yes, even the 
EPA, the organization, would be supported, but they have gone too far. 
There have been extreme cases.
  However, there are honest attempts, and I appreciate, first of all, 
the dialogue. I do not think there has been a lot of mudslinging on 
either side of the issue. We have been talking about the issues, and 
they have been honest. I think they have been honest attempts to 
achieve elemental environmental security.
  However, we have in this body fundamentalists, fundamentalist 
leftists, that have violated the interests and used the well-meaning 
legislation to the extremes. I am not talking about the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] but 
there is an element in this organization that are extremist, and they 
have used these bills, aforementioned, as weapons against people.
  Why are we even having a substitute, or a bill in the first place? To 
me it is not the Clean Water Act, it is to come somewhere within logic 
of what reasonable men and women would have us to save the environment. 
However, that has not been the case. That is why I think both the 
substitute and the bill is to try and bring us somewhere back to the 
center.
  If we take a look, I had 3 Russian generals come into my office a few 
months ago. I asked one of them
 what was the most treasured right that they had gained since they had 
their freedom. They said ``Congressman, it is the right to own 
property.''

  The problem is, for every item that I read here, there are going to 
be items on the other side that are violated. I recognize that. 
However, for example, in private property rights, I personally believe 
it is wrong from environmentalists, often extreme groups, to go in and 
take on somebody's property, devalue that property, and then say that 
is fair market value. That is wrong. However, that has existed.
  I think that is why these laws and why these substitutes and bills 
have been changed, they are trying to change the current act, because 
there have been those violations.
  Mr. Chairman, I look at Mexico. We discussed here once about a boy 
that was lost for three days, and the helicopter could not land because 
he went into a wilderness area. Fish and Game would not allow the 
helicopter to land. That is ludicrous. That is stupid. However, those 
kinds of things are allowed to exist.
  In California, we had homes where the people had asked if they could 
disk around there homes because of the fire. We have a lot of fires and 
earthquakes 
[[Page H4755]]  in California. They said ``Can we disk around them?'' 
They said ``No, because it is an endangered species area.'' We lost 34 
homes. The people that went ahead and did it and violated the law saved 
their homes. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman.
  For each of those issues that I could talk about, about the 
violations, we look at the Colorado slag, we look at the pollution in 
the Great Lakes. Talk about the Chesapeake Bay, look how the Great 
Lakes have been cleaned up.
  There are advantages to the current Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act 
and endangered species. However, something has to bring the legislation 
to where logical decisions can be made, not by regulators. Government 
officials run amok, whether it is an RTC or whether it is an 
environmental group, they run amok. We have to change that.
  California, the No. 1 economic product in California is agriculture. 
Yet, agriculture in the past, pesticides go into the lakes and into the 
rivers and into our oceans, where the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Filner] is from. Down there in the district, we need to clear that up. 
It is not so much our outfall in sewage, it is the Tijuana raw sewage 
that is coming out of Mexico that is polluting our beaches. We need to 
attend to that.
  I think there is an honest attempt for the Members in favor of the 
substitute and the Members in favor of the bill to resolve not the 
Clean Air Act, but to resolve logical decisions. That has not existed 
in the past.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Saxton-Boehlert-
Roemer substitute and in opposition to H.R. 961 as reported. Members 
know I feel strongly, because I waited all afternoon to speak.
  Mr. Chairman, among all of our environmental protection efforts, the 
Clean Water Act stands as a shining success story and as an 
international model.
  In the twenty years of this program, the quality of our rivers, 
streams, and coastal waters has dramatically improved. The percentage 
of waters failing to meet swimming safety criteria has fallen. Ohio's 
Cuyahoga River, which once attracted firemen, now attracts fishermen. 
And our own Chesapeake Bay is making tough, halting steps on the long 
road to recovery.
  Protection of wetlands is crucial both to 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 Chesapeake Bay remains in a precarious state. Our oyster and shad 
fisheries are virtually gone; blue crab, the region's premier catch, 
has fallen into precipitous decline.
  We have made great progress in other areas: point-source discharges 
of phosphorus to the Bay have fallen off by 70 percent and we are 
beginning to make strides controlling nitrogen contamination.
  Those positive strides are directly attributable to the Nation's 
aggressive Clean Water Program. Much more needs to be done, 
particularly in the control of agricultural and municipal runoff. I am 
disappointed that H.R. 961 would allow decades of delay before we 
seriously address these problems.
  Furthermore, the redefinition of wetlands under the Committee bill 
will remove vast areas from the scope of legal protections. I stood 
here on the floor two months ago as we debated risk assessment, and one 
principle we all agreed on was the need for the best possible science 
in formulating our environmental strategies.
  We now have a situation where, at the expressed request of Congress, 
the National Academy has performed an exhaustive scientific analysis of 
the wetlands issue. Their conclusions are antithetical to those in H.R. 
961. Are we in Congress, committed to good science, to ignore the 
verdict of the nation's foremost scientific advisory body?
  H.R. 961 would divide currently protected wetlands into three 
categories. Wetlands at the lower end would effectively lose 
protection. I am reminded with a hint of irony of those famous words of 
Julius Caesar: ``Gaul is divided in three parts.'' Division of the 
province into three sections was the prelude to subjugation.
  H.R. 961 would undermine the health of the Bay, and, in the process, 
undermine the health and economic well-being of the residents of this 
region. I opposed private property takings legislation before; I will 
oppose it now where it applied to the preservation of wetlands.
  There have been costs for this progress, but the benefits have been 
immeasurable. It would be unfortunate indeed if this Congress were to 
succumb to the whim of the moment and undercut this crown jewel of our 
nation's environmental efforts. I urge defeat of H.R. 961 and passage 
of the bipartisan substitute.
                              {time}  1900

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would commend to the attention of my colleagues words 
from the Mesa Tribune in March of this year. Mark Flatten and Chris 
Coppola write the article. ``In Arizona, sewage must be treated to 
drinking quality standards before discharged so that it won't harm 
phantom fish in a dry river.''
  The passage points up the challenge we face, the absurdity of 
regulation run amuck. For that reason, I stand in opposition to the 
amendment and in strong support of H.R. 961.
  I have good friends who sponsor this amendment. I have no doubt to 
the nobility and the aim and the intent of the amendment. Here is my 
problem, colleagues. It seems to me that though the amendment is born 
of a noble impulse, it assumes the worst about duly elected 
representatives at the State level.
  In other words, the assumption is that our friends in the State 
legislatures, that our friends in local and county government cannot 
move effectively to solve problems on their own. Indeed, the 
overwhelming sentiment and the underlying philosophy of the first 100 
days of this new Congress was this concept: That those on the front 
lines can best fight the battles.
  I am pleased to hear of the strides here on the East Coast. I am 
pleased to hear of the improvements, and indeed no one in this body, I 
believe, disputes the notion of the need a quarter century ago to stop 
and take stock of pollution and move toward meaningful conservation. 
But the problem comes, as I see it, in making the Federal Government 
always the instrument, and indeed making the unelected the final 
arbiters of what measures should be taken.
  With that, I oppose the amendment, and I stand in strong support of 
H.R. 961.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman points out some legitimate 
concerns, reading from that Arizona publication. I wish to point out 
that in title III, section 301, entitled ``Arid Areas,'' we address the 
legitimate concern you have. So the substitute does address that 
legitimate concern.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert substitute here 
today. I would like to say why because I have a great deal of respect 
for the sponsor of the bill itself.
  [[Page H4756]] Having worked in this area for 20 years in the State 
of Delaware, I have seen that of all the pieces of environmental 
legislation which I think have actually worked, that the Clean Water 
Act probably stands at the top. I believe that the substitute does more 
to support that original piece of legislation, but correcting or 
remedying some of the problems which existed, than does the actual bill 
before us.
  I believe that the substitute deals with the problems of wetlands, it 
gives more control to the States, but it does not give up the wetlands 
which are a valuable source of nutrients, as we know. I believe that it 
preserves the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is extremely 
important.
  We have the Delaware River and Bay in my State, and I cannot tell you 
how important that is to the environment of our State. The revolving 
loan fund is extremely important for infrastructure as far as water is 
concerned. The financial and technical needs of the farmers are 
something else that sometimes we overlook. That is a very dramatic 
problem that they are dealing with, and they are right on the edge of 
the water in many instances.
  The stormwater program, which would be repealed by H.R. 961, is of 
vital importance. We have had to close our oceans, I have had to 
actually close down swimming in Rehoboth Beach, DE, because of 
stormwater runoff, and the same thing is true of non-point source 
pollution. It is the exact same thing. We get to the point where we 
actually have to close swimming and take other measures because of 
pollution caused by non-point source pollution. It does not have what I 
consider to be an onerous takings provision.
  For all of those reasons, but mostly because ultimately when you are 
managing these kinds of programs and trying to create clean water in 
your jurisdiction, you have to take all these different aspects and you 
have to add them all up.
  In the aggregate, eventually you begin to clean your water and you 
get rid of the burning rivers and you get rid of where the fish could 
not live. Eventually you get to the point where waters are swimmable, 
and you get to the point where our children can enjoy it for some 
period of time into their futures.
  For all those reasons, I do support the bipartisan substitute. I 
would encourage all of us to do it.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
is going to be our last speaker. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I wish to 
yield whatever time the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] did not 
use, in addition to the 5 minutes, to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has 16 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not have two more 
speakers?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 19\1/2\ minutes. 
The gentleman may divide that as he wishes with his speakers.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have two more speakers.
  The CHAIRMAN. But the gentleman has 19\1/2\ minutes left under the 
agreement.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I would ask the Chair to recalculate. I do not think 
that is quite accurate.
  The CHAIRMAN. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I would say, if he 
has two more speakers remaining, under the agreement, as I understand 
it, each speaker has 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. So we have 5 minutes apiece. That is 10 minutes on our 
side.
  The CHAIRMAN. If that is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
asking for, that is fine.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is requesting that the gentleman from 
New York close; is that correct? The gentleman has no more speakers?
  Mr. SHUSTER. He would close on their side. I have the right to close, 
but he would have 5 minutes plus whatever minutes are left over, a 
total of 8 minutes.

                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me put this in the form of 
a parliamentary inquiry.
  My understanding, then, is that on our side we have a total of 10 
minutes. I am going to next yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes]. Then the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
will be recognized for his 5 minutes, plus the 3 that has been yielded, 
so he will have 8 minutes to close on his side. Then I will close the 
debate for 5 minutes. That is my understanding of the parliamentary 
situation. Is that accurate?
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the agreement made earlier, the gentleman 
still has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining. After his second speaker, he may 
yield back the balance of his time if he wishes.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I would say, then, Mr. Chairman, that I think our 
agreement is that we will both yield back our time, so we will take a 
total of 10 minutes and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] will 
take a total of 8 minutes, so there will be a total of 18 minutes used.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we could 
reclaim some of the time that was yielded back. We have the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Boehlert] who wants to close. However, we have the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and I would ask if we could 
give 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SHUSTER. I do not object to the 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman, but our 
agreement is that we will have 10 minutes left and the other side will 
have 5 plus 3, or 8 minutes left.
  Mr. ROEMER. Eight minutes is fine.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, this has been a wonderful debate. The 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and I have particularly enjoyed 
it because it was so informative for us to have an opportunity to learn 
what we learned today.
  Starting early this afternoon, we learned that the bill that he and I 
had been working on for over 10 years, even though we sent over 900 
copies of what was then H.R. 1330 to every environmental organization, 
every Member of Congress and everyone else when it was first filed in 
1987, his property rights bill that was filed in the mid-1980's that 
has been discussed in just about every forum possible was in fact done 
in the dead of night, in seclusion, rushed without hearings.
  He and I have attended between us 32 hearings on this subject in the 
time he and I have been in Congress and yet that is rushed through.
  So what are we told to do? We are told by certain elements of 
leadership to vote against that product because it was not aired to the 
fullest degree. So what are we supposed to vote for?
  Well, we have one speaker after another saying ``Well, it's obvious, 
you vote for the substitute,'' that was released at a press conference 
two days ago that is 250 pages long, that has never had one hearing on 
one section, that has no idea by whom it was written, did not 
participate in a committee or subcommittee process, and that is open 
and above board.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and I, and we are referred 
to on occasion as sneaky, but this elevates the term to a whole new 
level. And then we are told an even more extraordinary thing.
  We are told, ``Well, wait for the science. Wait for the science.'' We 
have had 16 different scientific studies in the last decade. We waited 
for the study that is not before us and has been mentioned on several 
occasions 19 months after its due date.
  The results of that study, by the way, absolutely no one has 
mentioned clearly. After 3 years and over $1 million, a group of 
eminent scientists, paid by the EPA, concluded that the 1987 manual 
written by the EPA was the thing to do. I am shocked at the conclusion.
  What is incredible to me is it took 3 years to figure out who was 
footing the bill so you better do what they told you in the first 
place, and that to me is the biggest, biggest element of surprise.
  But even more so, I am told that we should examine this study, even 
though it says do what you did in 1987 that did not work, caused 
everyone in America to complain about it, and required that you are on 
the floor here 
[[Page H4757]]  today amending it, even though that is the conclusion 
they have, we should take time to study the document because it was not 
released until 6 p.m. on Tuesday, for some people.
  For others, it was released days earlier in order to allow those 
people who agreed with the study that said 1987 was the right thing to 
do after the cost of $1 million, to give them additional opportunity to 
prepare to place it in legislation in the above-board and open process.
  My copy of it says ``Advance Copy Not To Be Released Till 6 p.m. on 
Tuesday.''
  That does not sound scientific, does it? Unless of course we include 
the field of political science in which I got my degree.
  The next extraordinary thing that I consider before us is the most 
unusual dissertation of all, and that is on individual rights. ``We do 
not need to change the law. The law is working well.''
  I have heard some unusual examples of it. I heard about a stadium in 
Cleveland as a success story, even though the adjoining property houses 
a museum that a former Congressman from Cleveland had to get a waiver 
placed into a piece of legislation before my committee because it had 
been declared navigable. The successful stadium is in the 
jurisdictional waters of the United States unless your Congressman had 
enough influence to get it out.
  I think the rest of America that does not have that individual 
influence to effect a piece of legislation ought to get the same break 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] is trying to give 
everybody.
  I heard another example about State regulators in South Carolina 
saying we are for the substitute. Understand, South Carolina is the 
same State where Mr. Lucas had to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme 
Court to get his rights finally preserved by the court.
  You know what they said? They said, ``Mr. Lucas, South Carolina is 
wrong, their State regulators are wrong, their zone management is 
wrong, you were cheated, and we're going to give you over $1 million.''

                              {time}  1915

  You know what the State did to pay the judgment? Since they got the 
property, they sold it to someone to build a house, which is what Lucas 
wanted to do in the first place. So when they needed the money they did 
precisely what they told him not to do.
  And I am supposed to be told this is the system that works? I am 
suppose to support a bipartisan substitute?
  We had a committee vote in which half of the Democrats, overwhelming 
majority of Republicans voted for the bill of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. If that is not bipartisan I do not know 
what is. So I am going to support the bipartisan measure and oppose the 
substitute, which remains to be seen where the chips may fall in 
bipartisanship.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman 
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would 
like to rise in support of the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute. I 
support amending section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The district I 
represent is largely rural, and farmers in my district have real 
concerns about the way in which agricultural wetlands have been 
regulated, and I understand that because I own a farm myself and it has 
about 200 or 300 acres of bottom lands on it. I understand farmers' 
concerns about being overridden by the Corps of Engineers.
  At the same time, in my State in particular, the gentleman who was 
just in the well referred to the State of South Carolina. We adopted a 
Beachfront Management Act to control the development of our beachfront. 
We have a Coastal Zone Management Act because we recognize the benefits 
of wetlands to one of the largest industries in our State, the tourism 
industry, a large and growing part of our economy, and our environment 
will benefit and what wetlands yield for water quality helps tourism, 
home owners, and farmers alike.
  Title VIII, section 8 contains the language that is essentially the 
same as that the gentleman who just spoke offered in H.R. 1330 in the 
last Congress. I did not cosponsor it then. I do not cosponsor it now. 
I do not support it now because I think a national classification 
system as mandated in the bill is not workable. It mandates a national 
system for classifying it. The Corps is instructed to classify the land 
of any property owner who requests it and is required to get it done in 
10 years' time. Not one single organization or person that I have heard 
has explained how the Corps, already overburdened, will be able to 
classify every single wetland in 10 years. Nor have I heard why all of 
a sudden property owners want to welcome the Corps of Engineers onto 
their land to decide whether or not it contains wetlands.
  Mr. Chairman, the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute is a good piece 
of work. It is reform without going too far. I wholeheartedly support 
it and urge others to do likewise. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Chairman, now we come to the moment of decision. The vote on our 
amendment presents this House with a clear, stark question: Are we 
truly for reform of the Clean Water Act, or is the word reform simply 
an alias to mask the evisceration of our Nation's most successful 
environmental statute?
  That is the choice. If what Members want is to retreat on the Clean 
Water Act, support H.R. 961 as reported. However, if what they want is 
true reform of the Clean Water Act, this substitute provides it.
  Let me give some of the details that highlight the difference between 
reform and repeal.
  Let us look at the wetlands provisions. Are there problems with the 
wetlands provisions of current law? Of course there are. My district 
has wetlands, including agricultural wetlands. I know there are 
problems. How would H.R. 961 propose to deal with these problems? By 
allowing the wholesale elimination of wetlands, wetlands that purify 
our waters, and prevent flooding.
  Is that a remedy?
  And on what basis does H.R. 961 allow the destruction of these 
wetlands? Certainly not on a scientific basis. The National Academy of 
Sciences' distinguished panel on this issue has stated that the 
definitions in H.R. 961 have no scientific basis, and with all due 
respect to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] let me 
point out that these eminent scientists are not paid by the 
Environmental Protection Agency. There services are on a voluntary 
basis the Environmental Protection Agency only pays the National 
Academy of Sciences for printing and distribution of the report.
  The wetlands provisions of H.R. 961 would not reform current law. 
They would reform the surface of the Earth by allowing the destruction 
of precious wetlands.
  Our substitute on the other hand propose true reform. Where do our 
wetlands reform provisions come from? From the National Governors' 
Association, not exactly a bunch of tree-huggers. We give the States 
more control over the regulation of there own wetlands, local control, 
not Federal control. We take a sensible, middle-ground approach, State 
control to allow more sensible regulation without threatening essential 
wetland protection.
  Another example of real reform in our bill, control of coastal zone 
nonpoint source pollution. H.R. 961 would simply repeal the current 
program of protection. On what basis? None, really. You do not have to 
be a scientist to understand the problem runoff causes in coastal 
areas. All you have to be is someone who has not been able to go to a 
beach on a hot summer day because the beach was closed because of 
pollution; 10,000 beaches in America last year. Eliminating the coastal 
zone program is not reform. It would allow toxic substances to reform 
our Nation's beaches.
  But are there problems with current law? Of course there are. Our 
substitute would take care of those problems with real reform.
  [[Page H4758]] Where did our proposal come from? From the Coastal 
States Organization, which represents 30 Governors of coastal States. 
Again not a bunch of environmental radicals. Here again we allow more 
State control to eliminate red tape while maintaining environmental 
protection.
  And what about stormwater runoff? Same situation. H.R. 961 would just 
pretend that stormwater does not cause pollution, despite all of the 
scientific evidence to the contrary. Are there problems with current 
stormwater law? Of course there are. We offer real reform. We create an 
exemption for cities with populations under 100,000 and for light 
industry. Regulations of these entities may not be worth the cost of 
compliance, and we recognize it. But we do not allow larger cities and 
major industries to just return to using our Nation's lakes and rivers 
as sewers.
  What about point source pollution? We cannot ignore this. More than 
40 percent of the Nation's waters are still impaired, so in this case 
we do retain the provisions of current law.
  And what about the many other areas H.R. 961 would affect? In those 
areas 70 percent of the bill, our alternative, 70 percent of that bill 
retains the language of H.R. 961. There are many areas of agreement.
  Where H.R. 961 offers real reform, we adopt its provision. Where H.R. 
961 raises the banner of reform to mask environmental degradation, we 
substitute real reform for sleight of hand.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the bipartisan Saxton-Roemer-
Boehlert amendment. It would accomplish exactly what the public is 
seeking. Our substitute will prevent environmental damage while 
lessening the burden of regulation.
  Our amendment substitutes pragmatism for ideology. Our amendment 
substitutes reform of regulation for its repeal. Our amendment 
substitutes hope for the future, not the abandonment of future 
generations.
  I urge passage of the bipartisan substitute alternative.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
  (Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, in both my committees, I have heard from the 
EPA and specifically from EPA Administrator Carol Browner that they 
need our help in using sound scientific research to make policy 
decisions. Many of the complaints I have heard about the EPA over the 
years is that there seems to be, to put it mildly, a poor match between 
their decisionmaking and their research. Now I'm not seeking to rake 
EPA over the coals one more time here, but to offer positive steps to 
solve the problem. Many of my colleagues agree that it is time to put 
our money where their mouth is. I offered an amendment in subcommittee, 
later revised in the full committee and again in consultation with 
Science Committee chairman Bob Walker's input in the Shuster en-bloc 
amendment here today, to make sure that in these tight budget times we 
do not lose sight of the fact that water quality research remains a 
vital function of how the federal government can participate in making 
our environment better.
  But more importantly, my amendment has the intent not to fund the 
continued ``paper-pushing research'' of Washington bureaucrats, but to 
invest in cooperative efforts of localities and small municipalities, 
counties, and cities to find solutions to their clean water challenges. 
Specifically, asking EPA to use nonprofit and private organizations 
with expertise in water quality research, combined with the technical 
assistance necessary to get that information into the hands of rural 
and small town water authorities, will give us an independent body of 
information to make more sound decisions and achieve cleaner water.
  I'd like to include in the Record a letter I have received from one 
such independent organization, stating the need for funding such 
research.

                                                 Water Environment

                                          Research Foundation,

                                   Alexandria, VA, March 29, 1995.
     Mr. Bob Castro,
     Legislative Assistant, Office of Congressman Zack Wamp, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: Thanks for the news that Congressman Wamp is 
     supportive of legislation supportive of water quality 
     research. We believe that increased funding on the national 
     level is critical to ensure:
       1. Science base for environmental decision-making. 
     Wastewater utilities are concerned with ``unfounded 
     mandates''. They believe that improving water quality is not 
     a mandate, but a responsibility. Water quality professionals 
     seek assurance, through sound science, that public money 
     spent on water quality improvement programs achieve the 
     desired results.
       2. Simply stated, the technology of today is based upon the 
     research of the past. The promise of the future is based upon 
     the research of today.
       3. The research needs focus is changing. In the past water 
     quality concerns focused on fishable/swimmable waters and the 
     technical issues of volume of wastewater, suspended solids, 
     organics, and pathogens. The new focus is on health impacts, 
     risk, watersheds, conservation, and others. New technologies 
     are needed to focus on nutrients, toxics, residuals, air, 
     reuse, and prevention.
       Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional input. 
     If there is any additional information required, please don't 
     hesitate to contact me.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Glenn Reinhardt,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, our friends are trying to represent that this 
substitute is 70 percent of the committee bill. That simply is not 
true. The substitute guts the committee bill which passed 
overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in committee.
  They are trying to portray this substitute as having widespread 
support. Does the National Governors' Association support it? No. Does 
the National League of Cities support it? No. Do the State water 
pollution control officials support it? No. Does the Conference of 
Mayors support it? No. Do the agricultural groups support it? No. Does 
the NFIB support it? Not only do they not support it, they list this 
vote as a key vote as they measure our performance in the Congress. In 
writing, as we have demonstrated earlier here today, all of these 
organizations support the committee bill.
  In fact, the nonpoint source, the substitute really does damage to 
what we do in the committee bill. The committee bill requires the 
States to develop comprehensive nonpoint source management plans. If 
the States do not develop the programs, the bill requires the EPA to do 
it.
  As far as coastal management is concerned, we do not eliminate 
coastal management. We fold it into a unified nonpoint source program. 
So we eliminate the duplicative regulation of nonpoint sources of 
pollution.
  The Boehlert substitute actually will continue this duplicative 
regulation on behalf of the coastal zone management officials, the 
bureaucrats who of course want to keep their separate offices and their 
separate funding.
  On stormwater, one of the most glaring omissions in the Boehlert 
substitute is the failure to address the existing stormwater permitting 
program.
  On unfunded mandates, during the debate on unfunded mandates cited 
most often were the greatest burdens on local government from the Clean 
Water Act, and indeed, the Boehlert substitute does not include any 
flexibility with regard to the unfunded mandates.
  On risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, get this, the Boehlert 
substitute incredibly completely wiped out any risk-assessment or 
benefit-cost requirement for Clean Water Act regulations. And on 
wetlands, this is absolutely extraordinary too. The Boehlert substitute 
not only does not streamline or reform the 404 program, but it actually 
adds new regulatory requirements into the existing law, so if you like 
the wetlands provisions that your people are living under today, you 
will love what they are going to have to live with under the Boehlert 
substitute. And yes, we heard from our friends in New Jersey about the 
loss of wetlands. I would say to my good friends in New Jersey or any 
other State, your State can pass whatever wetlands regulations they 
want to pass. If you want tougher wetlands regulations, pass them for 
your State. Just do not impose your view of life on the other 49 
States.
  Overall, this substitute guts the bill. If the election in November 
was about anything, it was about returning back to the States the 
decision-making process on so many of the regulations that, indeed, we 
must live under.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan bill that 
passed the committee overwhelmingly, that passed the subcommittee 19 to 
5, passed the full committee 42 to 19. Overwhelming bipartisan support.
  If this substitute is adopted, we will be gutting reform of clean 
water, and we will have to go home and tell our 
[[Page H4759]]  people, tell our farmers, tell our homeowners, tell our 
small business people we are sorry, we have not really reformed those 
problems that you have come and told us about. You are going to have to 
live with the same old EPA, Washington-knows-best mentality.
  So I urge Members to defeat this substitute and support the bill, 
which is true, balanced environmental reform.
  Mr. HOYER. I rise today in support of the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer 
substitute. This substitute is a reasonable and commonsense reform of 
the Clean Water Act.
  Clearly, the present Clean Water Act needs to be reformed. As the 
reauthorization debate began there were several different approaches to 
how to best protect our Nation's lakes, streams, estuaries, and coastal 
waters.
  This substitute will provide relief to farmers, industry, and 
individual landowners from costly and time-consuming mandates. It will 
also, however, continue many of the programs and provisions which have 
made the Clean Water Act one of our Nation's most effective 
environmental statutes.
  The Chesapeake Bay, much of which borders my district, is the largest 
and most productive estuary in North America. Maryland, Virginia, and 
Pennsylvania experienced first-hand the bay's low point in the mid-
1970's.
  The habitat, especially the blue crab population, water quality, and 
the overall economy of the Bay were at an all time low.
  Mr. Chairman, thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Bay and its 
industries made a remarkable comeback. The Chesapeake Bay Program, in 
conjunction with the Clean Water Act requirements, led the Bay's 
restoration.
  Today, watermen in my district in southern Maryland, earn a living on 
the Chesapeake Bay. Previously, we have been up to the task of 
restoring the Bay and protecting their livelihood, and today their 
families are relying on us to continue our efforts.
  I am pleased that the substitute provides funding for this successful 
partnership between State, local, and Federal Governments.
  The substitute also continues the Coastal Zone Management Program 
which was initiated to implement coastal nonpoint pollution and control 
programs.
  Nonpoint source pollution today provides us with our greatest 
environmental challenge, as it is the most difficult to detect and 
control.
  Over 10,000 beaches were closed in the last 5 years due to pollution. 
Sixteen counties, in my home State of Maryland, make up the coastal 
zone, well over 65 percent of the State.
  This substitute recognizes that our Nation's $400 billion a year 
travel and tourism industry and $55 billion a year fishing industry are 
directly reliant upon our coasts and continues our commitment to the 
Coastal Zone Program.
  One of the more controversial aspects of clean water reauthorization 
has been wetlands reform. Clearly, the Federal Government must continue 
its commitment and environmental obligations to protect our Nations 
wetlands.
  At the same time, however, wetlands policies have resulted in 
substantial burdens on our Nations farmers, industry, and individual 
landowners.
  The substitute simplifies and expedites the wetlands permitting 
process by implementing a plan submitted by the National Governor's 
Association.
  The NGA approached Congressman Boehlert in March with their proposal, 
as they deemed the provisions on wetlands contained in H.R. 961 to be 
inconsistent with the recommendations of the Nation's Governors.
  This proposal will give more authority on wetlands management to the 
States where action can be more accurate, appropriate, and prompt. It 
will also make many needed administrative and regulatory changes in the 
way the system is run.
  Mr. Chairman, most Members of this body agree that there are 
administrative and regulatory problems with the Clean Water Act.
  However, the same percentage of Members would also agree about its 
importance and environmental successes.
  This substitute will continue to provide environmental safeguards and 
promote programs to continue pollution cleanup and prevention well into 
the 21st century, while also providing regulatory relief to farmers, 
landowners, and industry.
  I urge support for the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute and support 
smart, environmentally sound, commonsense reform to the Clean Water 
Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I insert the following correspondence for the Record:
                               National Governors Association,

                                                   March 28, 1995.
     Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
         U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: We have been greatly encouraged by your 
     willingness, as well as that of Rep. Shuster and others in 
     the bipartisan group, to include states in the development of 
     H.R. 961. We support the intent of that bill to provide 
     substantially greater flexibility to states and local 
     governments in our efforts to protect water quality. We 
     support the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee in 
     its efforts to expeditiously move this comprehensive 
     legislation reforming the Clean Water Act.
       We have not yet completed our review of all provisions of 
     the bill. However, as you know, the provisions on wetlands 
     are not consistent with the recommendations of the nation's 
     Governors. We raised concerns over this issue in our March 22 
     letter to Rep. Shuster (copy attached). In response to your 
     request, we enclose an alternative approach to wetlands 
     reform developed by the Association of State Wetland 
     Managers, based on NGA policy recommendations. This proposal 
     reflects the state perspective on wetlands management and we 
     urge your consideration of this proposal as a substitute for 
     the wetlands provisions of H.R. 961.
       We look forward to working with you in advancing this 
     important legislation, and will be in touch shortly 
     concerning other issues.
           Sincerely,
                                              Governor Mike Lowry,
                            Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
                                           Gov. Terry E. Branstad,
     Vice Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
                                                                    ____

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, the 
Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995, and in support of the Saxton-
Boehlert substitute to the bill.
  Maintaining a strong Clean Water Act is essential for Connecticut and 
the Nation. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 does not build on the success the 
Clean Water Act has had over the past 23 years. Instead, it rolls back 
standards, loosens regulations and weakens protections.
  Under H.R. 961, 60 to 80 percent of our Nation's wetlands would be 
either removed from any level of protection or destroyed. Industrial 
pollution standards would be significantly weakened, allowing discharge 
of industrial waste into lakes, rivers, and harbors. The entire coastal 
zone nonpoint source pollution control program would be repealed, and 
the Federal Government would be saddled with payments of more than $15 
billion as a result of illogical and unfair takings provisions.
  While it is important the Clean Water Act is reauthorized, it must 
not be at the environmental cost that would result from passage of H.R. 
961. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute is a sensible alternative that 
makes necessary modifications without repealing or rolling back 
important protections that have contributed to the Clean Water Act's 
enormous success.
  Specifically, the substitute makes improvements over H.R. 961 in four 
important areas: wetlands protection, storm water management, coastal 
water pollution, and nonpoint source pollution.
  The Saxton-Boehlert substitute recognizes that there have been 
problems with the wetlands permitting process. But unlike title VIII of 
H.R. 961, the substitute streamlines the permitting process without 
leaving millions of acres of wetlands unprotected. It utilizes 
recommendations made by the National Governors Association to simplify 
and expedite the wetlands permitting process without establishing a 
bureaucratic classification system.
  Wetlands serve as a breeding ground for fish, are critical habitat 
for wildlife and are necessary for most migratory birds. They are 
critical to Connecticut, where they also serve to filter out
 nutrients and toxics that would otherwise end up in Long Island Sound. 
The sound is already suffering from nitrogen overload that has resulted 
in hypoxia--low levels of dissolved oxygen which cause significant, 
adverse ecological effects in the bottom water habitats of the sound. 
Local, State, and Federal Government resources are being spent to 
reduce nitrogen levels in the sound, and it doesn't make sense to 
counter these efforts by removing wetlands from protection.

  H.R. 961 would repeal the entire stormwater program in the Clean 
Water Act. This is unnecessary and harmful to health and safety. 
Stormwater is one of our most significant water pollution programs, but 
H.R. 961 would allow it to be freely discharged into our waters.
  H.R. 961 would also repeal the coastal pollution control program. 
Over the past 5 years more than 10,000 beaches in the United States 
have been closed because of coastal water pollution. Over one-third of 
all shellfish beds in the United States are closed or threatened by 
water pollution. Connecticut is a world leader in oyster production, 
and this industry is dependent on clean water for prosperity. Repealing 
the coastal pollution program is harmful for Connecticut economically 
and environmentally.
  The majority of coastal water quality impairment is the result of 
nonpoint sources of pollution, another major contributor to problems in 
Long Island Sound. In fact, nonpoint source pollution impairs more 
water bodies nationwide than any other pollution source, resulting in 
beach closings and declining fisheries. It threatens drinking water 
quality and impacts millions of coastal residents. Yet H.R. 961 loosens 
regulations for nonpoint source pollution. While the legislation 
authorizes funds for 
[[Page H4760]]  polluted runoff programs, it doesn't require 
accountability for the moneys it provides.
  Clean water is essential to the economy, health, and livelihood of 
everyone, not only in my State of Connecticut, but in the entire 
country. We have made solid progress in clean water protection since 
enactment of the act in 1972. As we look for improvements to the act 
and solutions to the challenges that lie ahead, we must be both 
ambitious and thoughtful. We must seek rational policies that make 
sense. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute, not H.R. 961, achieves that 
goal.
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the 
substitute to H.R. 961 offered by Representatives Saxton, Boehlert, and 
Roemer. This substitute will vastly improve what is now a flawed bill.
  Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act is one of our most effective 
environmental laws. It has significantly improved the quality of our 
Nation's rivers, streams and lakes over the past 25 years.
  While the law has been extremely successful, there are significant 
problems with the Clean Water Act as well. Like many of our 
environmental laws, there have been instances of regulatory overkill 
under the act. That's why the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute 
incorporates 70 percent of H.R. 961's provisions. But the remainder of 
H.R. 961's provisions go too far.
  H.R. 961 removes over 60 percent of our Nation's remaining wetlands 
from any level of protection. The destruction of these wetlands would 
increase flooding, decrease the supply of fresh water and lead to a 
decline in the fishing and tourism industries, all of which are 
concerns to my district.
  The bill also includes takings provisions which would require the 
Federal Government to compensate a landowner when a portion of his or 
her property is devalued by 20 percent because of wetlands regulations. 
This provision could cost the Federal Government billions of dollars. 
As a fiscal conservative, I cannot support H.R. 961 in its current form 
because of this provision alone.
  H.R. 961 would also repeal the entire coastal zone nonpoint source 
pollution program. When more than 10,000 beaches in the United States 
have been closed over the past 5 years because of coastal water 
pollution, it simply does not make sense to weaken efforts to limit 
nonpoint source pollution affecting these areas.
  The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute is a reasonable approach to 
reauthorizing the Clean Water Act. It includes a proposal developed and 
endorsed by the National Governor's Association for protecting 
wetlands. This is a middle-ground approach which gives the States a 
greater say and more flexibility in protecting wetlands.
  It also incorporates a proposal for addressing coastal nonpoint 
pollution developed by the Coastal States Organization. At a time when 
we are returning power to the States, we should respect the views of 
the 30 Governors representing the Coastal States Organization with 
regard to coastal zone protection.
  I urge my colleagues to support the substitute. It is strong, 
sensible, environmentally sound and affordable.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended, offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Saxton].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184, 
noes 242, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 312]

                               AYES--184

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

                               NOES--242

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     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
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     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, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     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
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bunning
     Collins (IL)
     Fattah
     Harman
     Lewis (KY)
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers

                              {time}  1948

  Mr. McINTOSH and Mr. BISHOP changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. BILBRAY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment, in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was 
rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 1?
  The Clerk will designate section 2.
  The text of section 2 is as follows:

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
  The Clerk will designate section 3.
  The text of section 3 is as follows:

[[Page H4761]]

     SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     Act 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 Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).

  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will now designate title I.
  The text of title I is as follows:
                 TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
     SEC. 101. NATIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES.

       (a) Nonpoint Source Pollution; State Strategies.--Section 
     101(a) (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) by inserting ``, including public and private sector 
     programs using economic incentives,'' after ``programs'';
       (B) by inserting ``, including stormwater,'' after 
     ``nonpoint sources of pollution'' the first place it appears; 
     and
       (C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) it is the national policy to support State efforts 
     undertaken in consultation with tribal and local governments 
     to identify, prioritize, and implement water pollution 
     prevention and control strategies;''.
       (b) Role of State, Tribal, and Local Governments.--Section 
     101(a) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) it is the national policy to recognize, support, and 
     enhance the role of State, tribal, and local governments in 
     carrying out the provisions of this Act;''.
       (c) Reclamation and Reuse.--
       (1) Reclamation.--Section 101(a)(4) is amended by inserting 
     after ``works'' the following: ``and to reclaim waste water 
     from municipal and industrial sources''.
       (2) Beneficial reuse.--Section 101(a) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) it is the national policy that beneficial reuse of 
     waste water effluent and biosolids be encouraged to the 
     fullest extent possible; and''.
       (d) Water Use Efficiency.--Section 101(a) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(11) it is the national policy that water use efficiency 
     be encouraged to the fullest extent possible.''.
       (e) Net Benefits.--Section 101 is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(h) Net Benefits.--It is the national policy that the 
     development and implementation of water quality protection 
     programs pursuant to this Act--
       ``(1) be based on scientifically objective and unbiased 
     information concerning the nature and magnitude of risk; and
       ``(2) maximize net benefits to society in order to promote 
     sound regulatory decisions and promote the rational and 
     coherent allocation of society's limited resources.''.

     SEC. 102. RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND 
                   INFORMATION.

       (a) National Programs.--Section 104(a) (33 U.S.C. 1254(a)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and 
     local agencies, conduct, promote, and encourage to the 
     maximum extent feasible, in watersheds that may be 
     significantly affected by nonpoint sources of pollution, 
     monitoring and measurement of water quality by means and 
     methods that will help to identify the relative contributions 
     of particular nonpoint sources.''.
       (b) Grants to Local Governments.--Section 104(b)(3) (33 
     U.S.C. 1254(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``local 
     governments,'' after ``interstate agencies,''.
       (c) Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment 
     Works.--Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide 
     technical assistance and training to rural and small publicly 
     owned treatment works to enable such treatment works to 
     achieve and maintain compliance with the requirements of this 
     Act; and
       ``(9) disseminate information to rural, small, and 
     disadvantaged communities with respect to the planning, 
     design, construction, and operation of treatment works.''.
       (d) Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished Communities.--
     Section 104(q) (33 U.S.C. 1254(q)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(5) Small impoverished communities.--
       ``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to States 
     to provide assistance for planning, design, and construction 
     of publicly owned treatment works to provide wastewater 
     services to rural communities of 3,000 or less that are not 
     currently served by any sewage collection or water treatment 
     system and are severely economically disadvantaged, as 
     determined by the Administrator.
       ``(B) Authorization.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 per 
     fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 104(u) (33 
     U.S.C. 1254(u)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``(6)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``; and (7) not to exceed $50,000,000 per fiscal 
     year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying 
     out the provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and (b)(9), 
     except that not less than 20 percent of the sums appropriated 
     pursuant to this clause shall be available for carrying out 
     the provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)''.
     SEC. 103. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.

       Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$75,000,000'';
       (2) by inserting after ``1990'' the following: ``, such 
     sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1991 
     through 1995, and $150,000,000 per fiscal year for each of 
     fiscal years 1996 through 2000''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``States or 
     interstate agencies receiving grants under this section may 
     use such funds to finance, with other States or interstate 
     agencies, studies and projects on interstate issues relating 
     to such programs.''.
     SEC. 104. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

       Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

       ``(a) Acidic and Other Toxic Mine Drainage.--The 
     Administrator shall establish a program to demonstrate the 
     efficacy of measures for abatement of the causes and 
     treatment of the effects of acidic and other toxic mine 
     drainage within qualified hydrologic units affected by past 
     coal mining practices for the purpose of restoring the 
     biological integrity of waters within such units.
       ``(b) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any State or Indian tribe may apply to 
     the Administrator for a grant for any project which provides 
     for abatement of the causes or treatment of the effects of 
     acidic or other toxic mine drainage within a qualified 
     hydrologic unit affected by past coal mining practices.
       ``(2) Application requirements.--An application submitted 
     to the Administrator under this section shall include each of 
     the following:
       ``(A) An identification of the qualified hydrologic unit.
       ``(B) A description of the extent to which acidic or other 
     toxic mine drainage is affecting the water quality and 
     biological resources within the hydrologic unit.
       ``(C) An identification of the sources of acidic or other 
     toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.
       ``(D) An identification of the project and the measures 
     proposed to be undertaken to abate the causes or treat the 
     effects of acidic or other toxic mine drainage within the 
     hydrologic unit.
       ``(E) The cost of undertaking the proposed abatement or 
     treatment measures.
       ``(c) Federal Share.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a 
     project receiving grant assistance under this section shall 
     be 50 percent.
       ``(2) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--Contributions 
     of lands, easements, and rights-of-way shall be credited 
     toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under 
     this section but not in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the 
     total project cost.
       ``(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interest 
     shall bear 100 percent of the cost of operation and 
     maintenance of a project under this section.
       ``(d) Prohibited Projects.--No acidic or other toxic mine 
     drainage abatement or treatment project may receive 
     assistance under this section if the project would adversely 
     affect the free-flowing characteristics of any river segment 
     within a qualified hydrologic unit.
       ``(e) Applications From Federal Entities.--Any Federal 
     entity may apply to the Administrator for a grant under this 
     section for the purposes of an acidic or toxic mine drainage 
     abatement or treatment project within a qualified hydrologic 
     unit located on lands and waters under the administrative 
     jurisdiction of such entity.
       ``(f) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve an 
     application submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (e) after 
     determining that the application meets the requirements of 
     this section.
       ``(g) Qualified Hydrologic Unit Defined.--For purposes of 
     this section, the term `qualified hydrologic unit' means a 
     hydrologic unit--
       ``(1) in which the water quality has been significantly 
     affected by acidic or other toxic mine drainage from past 
     coal mining practices in a manner which adversely impacts 
     biological resources; and
       ``(2) which contains lands and waters eligible for 
     assistance under title IV of the Surface Mining and 
     Reclamation Act of 1977.''.
     SEC. 105. WATER SANITATION IN RURAL AND NATIVE ALASKA 
                   VILLAGES.

       (a) In General.--Section 113 (33 U.S.C. 1263) is amended by 
     striking the section heading and designation and subsections 
     (a) through (f) and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Grants.--The Administrator is authorized to make 
     grants--
       ``(1) for the development and construction of facilities 
     which provide sanitation services for rural and Native Alaska 
     villages;
       ``(2) for training, technical assistance, and educational 
     programs relating to operation and maintenance for sanitation 
     services in rural and Native Alaska villages; and
       ``(3) for reasonable costs of administering and managing 
     grants made and programs and projects carried out under this 
     section; except that not to exceed 4 percent of the amount of 
     any grant made under this section may be made for such costs.
     [[Page H4762]]   ``(b) Federal Share.--A grant under this 
     section shall be 50 percent of the cost of the program or 
     project being carried out with such grant.
       ``(c) Special Rule.--The Administrator shall award grants 
     under this section for project construction following the 
     rules specified in subpart H of part 1942 of title 7 of the 
     Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(d) Grants to State for Benefit of Villages.--Grants 
     under this section may be made to the State for the benefit 
     of rural Alaska villages and Alaska Native villages.
       ``(e) Coordination.--In carrying out activities under this 
     subsection, the Administrator is directed to coordinate 
     efforts between the State of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing 
     and Urban Development, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and the recipients of grants.
       ``(f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 
     1995, to carry out this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 113(g) is amended by 
     inserting after ``(g)'' the following: ``Definitions.--''.

     SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHESAPEAKE 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 117(d) (33 U.S.C. 1267(d)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $3,000,000 
     per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
     after ``1990,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $18,000,000 
     per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000'' 
     after ``1990,''.

     SEC. 107. GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.
       (a) Great Lakes Research Council.--
       (1) In general.--Section 118 (33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(E) `Council' means the Great Lakes Research Council 
     established by subsection (d)(1);'';
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
       (iii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(K) `Great Lakes research' means the application of 
     scientific or engineering expertise to explain, understand, 
     and predict a physical, chemical, biological, or 
     socioeconomic process, or the interaction of 1 or more of the 
     processes, in the Great Lakes ecosystem.'';
       (B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
       ``(d) Great Lakes Research Council.--
       ``(1) Establishment of council.--There is established a 
     Great Lakes Research Council.
       ``(2) Duties of council.--The Council--
       ``(A) shall advise and promote the coordination of Federal 
     Great Lakes research activities to avoid unnecessary 
     duplication and ensure greater effectiveness in achieving 
     protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem through the goals of 
     the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
       ``(B) not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 
     of this subparagraph and biennially thereafter and after 
     providing opportunity for public review and comment, shall 
     prepare and provide to interested parties a document that 
     includes--
       ``(i) an assessment of the Great Lakes research activities 
     needed to fulfill the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality 
     Agreement;
       ``(ii) an assessment of Federal expertise and capabilities 
     in the activities needed to fulfill the goals of the Great 
     Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including an inventory of 
     Federal Great Lakes research programs, projects, facilities, 
     and personnel; and
       ``(iii) recommendations for long-term and short-term 
     priorities for Federal Great Lakes research, based on a 
     comparison of the assessments conducted under clauses (i) and 
     (ii);
       ``(C) shall identify topics for and participate in 
     meetings, workshops, symposia, and conferences on Great Lakes 
     research issues;
       ``(D) shall make recommendations for the uniform collection 
     of data for enhancing Great Lakes research and management 
     protocols relating to the Great Lakes ecosystem;
       ``(E) shall advise and cooperate in--
       ``(i) improving the compatible integration of multimedia 
     data concerning the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
       ``(ii) any effort to establish a comprehensive multimedia 
     data base for the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
       ``(F) shall ensure that the results, findings, and 
     information regarding Great Lakes research programs conducted 
     or sponsored by the Federal Government are disseminated in a 
     timely manner, and in useful forms, to interested persons, 
     using to the maximum extent practicable mechanisms in 
     existence on the date of the dissemination, such as the Great 
     Lakes Research Inventory prepared by the International Joint 
     Commission.
       ``(3) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Council shall consist of 1 research 
     manager with extensive knowledge of, and scientific expertise 
     and experience in, the Great Lakes ecosystem from each of the 
     following agencies and instrumentalities:
       ``(i) The Agency.
       ``(ii) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
       ``(iii) The National Biological Service.
       ``(iv) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
       ``(v) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that 
     expends $1,000,000 or more for a fiscal year on Great Lakes 
     research.
       ``(vi) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that a 
     majority of the Council membership determines should be 
     represented on the Council.
       ``(B) Nonvoting members.--At the request of a majority of 
     the Council membership, any person who is a representative of 
     a Federal agency or instrumentality not described in 
     subparagraph (A) or any person who is not a Federal employee 
     may serve as a nonvoting member of the Council.
       ``(4) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the Council shall be 
     a member of the Council from an agency specified in clause 
     (i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (3)(A) who is elected by a 
     majority vote of the members of the Council. The chairperson 
     shall serve as chairperson for a period of 2 years. A member 
     of the Council may not serve as chairperson for more than 2 
     consecutive terms.
       ``(5) Expenses.--While performing official duties as a 
     member of the Council, a member shall be allowed travel or 
     transportation expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(6) Interagency cooperation.--The head of each Federal 
     agency or instrumentality that is represented on the 
     Council--
       ``(A) shall cooperate with the Council in implementing the 
     recommendations developed under paragraph (2);
       ``(B) on written request of the chairperson of the Council, 
     may make available, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise, 
     such personnel, services, or facilities as may be necessary 
     to assist the Council in carrying out the duties of the 
     Council under this section; and
       ``(C) on written request of the chairperson, shall furnish 
     data or information necessary to carry out the duties of the 
     Council under this section.
       ``(7) International cooperation.--The Council shall 
     cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the 
     research coordination efforts of the Council of Great Lakes 
     Research Managers of the International Joint Commission.
       ``(8) Reimbursement for requested activities.--Each Federal 
     agency or instrumentality represented on the Council may 
     reimburse another Federal agency or instrumentality or a non-
     Federal entity for costs associated with activities 
     authorized under this subsection that are carried out by the 
     other agency, instrumentality, or entity at the request of 
     the Council.
       ``(9) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council.
       ``(10) Effect on other law.--Nothing in this subsection 
     affects the authority of any Federal agency or 
     instrumentality, under any law, to undertake Great Lakes 
     research activities.'';
       (C) in subsection (e)--
       (i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the Program Office and 
     the Research Office shall prepare a joint research plan'' and 
     inserting ``the Program Office, in consultation with the 
     Council, shall prepare a research plan''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``the Research Office, 
     the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and 
     Great Lakes States'' and inserting ``the Council, the Agency 
     for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and Great Lakes 
     States,''; and
       (D) in subsection (h)--
       (i) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
       (ii) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and 
     inserting a period; and
       (iii) by striking paragraph (3).
       (2) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section 
     403(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries 
     Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1447b(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``Great Lakes Research Office authorized under'' and 
     inserting ``Great Lakes Research Council established by''.
       (b) Consistency of Programs With Federal Guidance.--Section 
     118(c)(2)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following: ``For purposes of this section, a 
     State's standards, policies, and procedures shall be 
     considered consistent with such guidance if the standards, 
     policies, and procedures are based on scientifically 
     defensible judgments and policy choices made by the State 
     after consideration of the guidance and provide an overall 
     level of protection comparable to that provided by the 
     guidance, taking into account the specific circumstances of 
     the State's waters.''.
       (c) Reauthorization of Assessment and Remediation of 
     Contaminated Sediments Program.--Section 118(c)(7) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) Reauthorization of assessment and remediation of 
     contaminated sediments program.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the 
     Program Office, in consultation and cooperation with the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for 
     civil works, shall conduct at least 3 pilot projects 
     involving promising technologies and practices to remedy 
     contaminated sediments (including at least 1 full-scale 
     demonstration of a remediation technology) at sites in the 
     Great Lakes System, as the Administrator determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(ii) Selection of sites.--In selecting sites for the 
     pilot projects, the Administrator shall give priority 
     consideration to--

       ``(I) the Ashtabula River in Ohio;
       ``(II) the Buffalo River in New York;
       ``(III) Duluth and Superior Harbor in Minnesota;
       ``(IV) the Fox River in Wisconsin;
       ``(V) the Grand Calumet River in Indiana; and
       ``(VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.

       ``(iii) Deadlines.--In carrying out this subparagraph, the 
     Administrator shall--

       ``(I) not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this subparagraph, identify at 
     [[Page H4763]]  least 3 sites and the technologies and 
     practices to be demonstrated at the sites (including at least 
     1 full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology); and
       ``(II) not later than 5 years after such date of enactment, 
     complete at least 3 pilot projects (including at least 1 
     full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology).

       ``(iv) Additional projects.--The Administrator, acting 
     through the Program Office, in consultation and cooperation 
     with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having 
     responsibility for civil works, may conduct additional pilot- 
     and full-scale pilot projects involving promising 
     technologies and practices at sites in the Great Lakes System 
     other than the sites selected under clause (i).
       ``(v) Execution of projects.--The Administrator may 
     cooperate with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having 
     responsibility for civil works to plan, engineer, design, and 
     execute pilot projects under this subparagraph.
       ``(vi) Non-federal contributions.--The Administrator may 
     accept non-Federal contributions to carry out pilot projects 
     under this subparagraph.
       ``(vii) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph 
     $3,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
       ``(E) Technical information and assistance.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the 
     Program Office, may provide technical information and 
     assistance involving technologies and practices for 
     remediation of contaminated sediments to persons that request 
     the information or assistance.
       ``(ii) Technical assistance priorities.--In providing 
     technical assistance under this subparagraph, the 
     Administrator, acting through the Program Office, shall give 
     special priority to requests for integrated assessments of, 
     and recommendations regarding, remediation technologies and 
     practices for contaminated sediments at Great Lakes areas of 
     concern.
       ``(iii) Coordination with other demonstrations.--The 
     Administrator shall--

       ``(I) coordinate technology demonstrations conducted under 
     this subparagraph with other federally assisted 
     demonstrations of contaminated sediment remediation 
     technologies; and
       ``(II) share information from the demonstrations conducted 
     under this subparagraph with the other demonstrations.

       ``(iv) Other sediment remediation activities.--Nothing in 
     this subparagraph limits the authority of the Administrator 
     to carry out sediment remediation activities under other 
     laws.
       ``(v) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph 
     $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) Research and management.--Section 118(e)(3)(B) (33 
     U.S.C. 1268(e)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting before the 
     period at the end the following: ``, such sums as may be 
     necessary for fiscal year 1995, and $4,000,000 per fiscal 
     year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998''.
       (2) Great lakes programs.--Section 118(h) (33 U.S.C. 
     1268(h)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' before ``$25,000,000''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period at the end of the first 
     sentence the following: ``, such sums as may be necessary for 
     fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and $17,500,000 per fiscal 
     year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
  The Clerk will designate title II.
  The text of title II is as follows:
                     TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

     SEC. 201. USES OF FUNDS.

       (a) Nonpoint Source Program.--Section 201(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1281(g)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end of 
     the first sentence and all that follows through the period at 
     the end of the last sentence and inserting the following: 
     ``and for any purpose for which a grant may be made under 
     sections 319(h) and 319(i) of this Act (including any 
     innovative and alternative approaches for the control of 
     nonpoint sources of pollution).''.
       (b) Retroactive Eligibility.--Section 201(g)(1) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``The 
     Administrator, with the concurrence of the States, shall 
     develop procedures to facilitate and expedite the retroactive 
     eligibility and provision of grant funding for facilities 
     already under construction.''.

     SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSEOUT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT 
                   PROGRAM.

       Section 205(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1285(g)(1)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator may 
     negotiate an annual budget with a State for the purpose of 
     administering the closeout of the State's construction grants 
     program under this title. Sums made available for 
     administering such closeout shall be subtracted from amounts 
     remaining available for obligation under the State's 
     construction grant program under this title.''.

     SEC. 203. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.

       Section 211(a) (33 U.S.C. 1291(a)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (1) by striking ``an existing collection 
     system'' and inserting ``a collection system existing on the 
     date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
     1995''; and
       (2) in clause (2)--
       (A) by striking ``an existing community'' and inserting ``a 
     community existing on such date of enactment''; and
       (B) by striking ``sufficient existing'' and inserting 
     ``sufficient capacity existing on such date of enactment''.

     SEC. 204. TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

       (a) Inclusion of Other Lands.--Section 212(2)(A) (33 U.S.C. 
     1292(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``any works, including site'';
       (2) by striking ``is used for ultimate'' and inserting 
     ``will be used for ultimate''; and
       (3) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and acquisition of other lands, and interests in 
     lands, which are necessary for construction''.
       (b) Policy on Cost Effectiveness.--Section 218(a) (33 
     U.S.C. 1298(a)) is amended by striking ``combination of 
     devices and systems'' and all that follows through ``from 
     such treatment;'' and inserting ``treatment works;''.

     SEC. 205. VALUE ENGINEERING REVIEW.

       Section 218(c) (33 U.S.C. 1298(c)) is amended by striking 
     ``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.
     SEC. 206. GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

       (a) Coastal Localities.--The Administrator shall make 
     grants under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act to appropriate instrumentalities for the purpose of 
     construction of treatment works (including combined sewer 
     overflow facilities) to serve coastal localities. No less 
     than $10,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be used 
     for water infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, no less 
     than $3,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be used 
     for water infrastructure improvements in Bristol County, 
     Massachusetts, and no less than \1/3\ of the amount of such 
     grants shall be used to assist localities that meet both of 
     the following criteria:
       (1) Need.--A locality that has over $2,000,000,000 in 
     category I treatment needs documented and accepted in the 
     Environmental Protection Agency's 1992 Needs Survey database 
     as of February 4, 1993.
       (2) Hardship.--A locality that has wastewater user charges, 
     for residential use of 7,000 gallons per month based on Ernst 
     & Young National Water and Wastewater 1992 Rate Survey, 
     greater than 0.65 percent of 1989 median household income for 
     the metropolitan statistical area in which such locality is 
     located as measured by the Bureau of the Census.
       (b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 202(a)(1) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal share of 
     grants under subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of the cost 
     of construction, and the non-Federal share shall be 20 
     percent of the cost of construction.
       (c) Small Communities.--The Administrator shall make grants 
     to States for the purpose of providing assistance for the 
     construction of treatment works to serve small communities as 
     defined by the State; except that the term ``small 
     communities'' may not include any locality with a population 
     greater than 75,000. Funds made available to carry out this 
     subsection shall be allotted by the Administrator to the 
     States in accordance with the allotment formula contained in 
     section 604(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for making grants under this section 
     $300,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain 
     available until expended and shall be equally divided between 
     subsections (a) and (c) of this section. Such authorization 
     of appropriation shall take effect only if the total amount 
     appropriated for fiscal year 1996 to carry out title VI of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is at least 
     $3,000,000,000.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
  The Clerk will designate title III.
  The text of title III is as follows:
                  TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

     SEC. 301. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.
       (a) Compliance Schedules.--Section 301(b) (33 U.S.C. 
     1311(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``not later than July 
     1, 1977,'';
       (2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``not 
     later than 3 years after the date such limitations are 
     established;''; and
       (3) by striking ``, and in no case later than March 31, 
     1989'' each place it appears.
       (b) Modifications for Nonconventional Pollutants.--
       (1) General authority.--Section 301(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1311(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``(when determined by the 
     Administrator to be a pollutant covered by subsection 
     (b)(2)(F)) and any other pollutant which the Administrator 
     lists under paragraph (4) of this subsection'' and inserting 
     ``and any other pollutant covered by subsection (b)(2)(F)''.
       (2) Procedural requirements for listing and removal of 
     pollutants.--Section 301(g) (33 U.S.C. 1311(g)) is further 
     amended by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).
       (c) Coal Remining.--Section 301(p)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
     1311(p)(2)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``; except where monitoring demonstrates 
     that the receiving waters do not meet such water quality 
     standards prior to commencement of remining and where the 
     applicant submits a plan which demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Administrator or the State, as the case 
     may be, that identified measures will be utilized to improve 
     the existing water quality of the receiving waters''.
       (d) Preexisting Coal Remining Operations.--Section 301(p) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Preexisting coal remining operations.--Any operator 
     of a coal mining operation who conducted remining at a site 
     on which coal mining originally was conducted before the 
     effective date of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 
     Act of 1977 shall be deemed to be in compliance with sections 
     301, 302, 306, 307, and 402 of this Act if--

[[Page H4764]]

       ``(A) such operator commenced remining at such operation 
     prior to the adoption of this subsection in a State program 
     approved under section 402 and performed such remining under 
     a permit pursuant to such Act; and
       ``(B) the post-mining discharges from such operation do not 
     add pollutants to the waters of the United States in excess 
     of those pollutants discharged from the remined area before 
     the coal remining operation began.''.

     SEC. 302. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES.

       (a) Innovative Production Processes.--Subsection (k) of 
     section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311(k)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(k) Innovative Production Processes, Technologies, and 
     Methods.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any point source subject 
     to a permit under section 402, the Administrator, with the 
     consent of the State in which the point source is located, or 
     the State in consultation with the Administrator, in the case 
     of a State with an approved program under section 402, may, 
     at the request of the permittee and after public notice and 
     opportunity for comment, extend the deadline for the point 
     source to comply with any limitation established pursuant to 
     subsection (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E) and make other 
     appropriate modifications to the conditions of the point 
     source permit, for the purpose of encouraging the development 
     and use of an innovative pollution prevention technology 
     (including an innovative production process change, 
     innovative pollution control technology, or innovative 
     recycling method) that has the potential to--
       ``(A) achieve an effluent reduction which is greater than 
     that required by the limitation otherwise applicable;
       ``(B) meet the applicable effluent limitation to water 
     while achieving a reduction of total emissions to other media 
     which is greater than that required by the otherwise 
     applicable emissions limitations for the other media;
       ``(C) meet the applicable effluent limitation to water 
     while achieving a reduction in energy consumption; or
       ``(D) achieve the required reduction with the potential for 
     significantly lower costs than the systems determined by the 
     Administrator to be economically achievable.
       ``(2) Duration of extensions.--The extension of the 
     compliance deadlines under paragraph (1) shall not extend 
     beyond the period necessary for the owner of the point source 
     to install and use the innovative process, technology, or 
     method in full-scale production operations, but in no case 
     shall the compliance extensions extend beyond 3 years from 
     the date for compliance with the otherwise applicable 
     limitations.
       ``(3) Consequences of failure.--In determining the amount 
     of any civil or administrative penalty pursuant to section 
     309(d) or 309(g) for any violations of a section 402 permit 
     during the extension period referred to in paragraph (1) that 
     are caused by the unexpected failure of an innovative 
     process, technology, or method, a court or the Administrator, 
     as appropriate, shall reduce or eliminate the penalty for 
     such violation if the permittee has made good-faith efforts 
     both to implement the innovation and to comply with any 
     interim limitations.
       ``(4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall review, 
     analyze, and compile in a report information on innovative 
     and alternative technologies which are available for 
     preventing and reducing pollution of navigable waters, submit 
     such report to Congress, and publish in the Federal Register 
     a summary of such report and a notice of the availability of 
     such report. The Administrator shall annually update the 
     report prepared under this paragraph, submit the updated 
     report to Congress, and publish in the Federal Register a 
     summary of the updated report and a notice of its 
     availability.''.
       (b) Pollution Prevention Programs.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 
     1311) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (l) by striking ``subsection (n)'' and 
     inserting ``subsections (n), (q), and (r)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Pollution Prevention Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of the 
     State) or a State with an approved program under section 402, 
     after public notice and an opportunity for comment, may issue 
     a permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of 
     subsection (b) of this section or section 306 and makes 
     appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or 
     may modify the requirements of section 307, if the 
     Administrator or State determines that pollution prevention 
     measures or practices (including recycling, source reduction, 
     and other measures to reduce discharges or other releases of 
     pollutants to the environment beyond those otherwise required 
     by law)
      together with such modifications will achieve an overall 
     reduction in emissions to the environment (including 
     emissions to water and air and disposal of solid wastes) 
     from the facility at which the permitted discharge is 
     located that is greater than would otherwise be achievable 
     if the source complied with the requirements of subsection 
     (b) or section 306 or 307 and will result in an overall 
     net benefit to the environment.
       ``(2) Term of modification.--A modification made pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) shall extend for the term of the permit or, 
     in the case of modifications under section 307(b), for up to 
     10 years, and may be extended further if the Administrator or 
     State determines at the expiration of the initial 
     modifications that such modifications will continue to enable 
     the source to achieve greater emissions reduction than would 
     otherwise be attainable.
       ``(3) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of a 
     modification that is not extended further under paragraph 
     (2), the source shall have a reasonable period of time, not 
     to exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise 
     applicable requirements of this Act.
       ``(4) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit 
     to Congress a report on the implementation of this subsection 
     and the emissions reductions achieved as a result of 
     modifications made pursuant to this subsection.''.
       (c) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--Section 301 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of the 
     State) or a State with an approved program under section 402, 
     after public notice and an opportunity for comment, may issue 
     a permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of 
     subsection (b) of this section or section 306 and makes 
     appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or 
     may modify the requirements of section 307, if the 
     Administrator or State determines that the owner or operator 
     of the source of the discharge has entered into a binding 
     contractual agreement with any other source of discharge in 
     the same watershed to implement pollution reduction controls 
     or measures beyond those otherwise required by law and that 
     the agreement is being implemented through modifications of a 
     permit issued under section 402 to the other source, by 
     modifications of the requirements of section 307 applicable 
     to the other source, or by nonpoint source control practices 
     and measures under section 319 applicable to the other 
     source. The Administrator or State may modify otherwise 
     applicable requirements pursuant to this section whenever the 
     Administrator or State determines that such pollution 
     reduction control or measures will result collectively in an 
     overall reduction in discharges to the watershed that is 
     greater than would otherwise be achievable if the parties to 
     the pollution reduction agreement each complied with 
     applicable requirements of subsection (b), section 306 or 307 
     resulting in a net benefit to the watershed.
       ``(2) Notification to affected states.--Before issuing or 
     modifying a permit under this subsection allowing discharges 
     into a watershed that is within the jurisdiction of 2 or more 
     States, the Administrator or State shall provide written 
     notice of the proposed permit to all States with jurisdiction 
     over the watershed. The Administrator or State shall not 
     issue or modify such permit unless all States with 
     jurisdiction over the watershed have approved such permit or 
     unless such States do not disapprove such permit within 90 
     days of receiving such written notice.
       ``(3) Term of modification.--Modifications made pursuant to 
     this subsection shall extend for the term of the modified 
     permits or, in the case of modifications under section 307, 
     for up to 10 years, and may be extended further if the 
     Administrator or State determines, at the expiration of the 
     initial modifications, that such modifications will continue 
     to enable the sources trading credits to achieve greater 
     reduction in discharges to the watershed collectively than 
     would otherwise be attainable.
       ``(4) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of a 
     modification that is not extended further under paragraph 
     (3), the source shall have a reasonable period of time, not 
     to exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise 
     applicable requirements of this Act.
       ``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to authorize the 
     Administrator or a State, as appropriate, to compel trading 
     among sources or to impose nonpoint source control practices 
     without the consent of the nonpoint source discharger.
       ``(6) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit 
     a report to Congress on the implementation of paragraph (1) 
     and the discharge reductions achieved as a result of 
     modifications made pursuant to paragraph (1).''.
       (d) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(o)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D)--
       (A) by inserting ``301(q), 301(r),'' after ``301(n),''; and
       (B) by striking ``or'' the last place it appears;
       (2) in subparagraph (E) by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) the permittee is taking pollution prevention or water 
     conservation measures that produce a net environmental 
     benefit, including, but not limited to, measures that result 
     in the substitution of one pollutant for another pollutant; 
     increase the concentration of a pollutant while decreasing 
     the discharge flow; or increase the discharge of a pollutant 
     or pollutants from one or more outfalls at a permittee's 
     facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in the 
     discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other outfalls at 
     the permittee's facility.''.
       (e) Antidegradation Review.--Section 303(d) (33 U.S.C. 
     1313(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Antidegradation review.--The Administrator may not 
     require a State, in implementing the antidegradation policy 
     established under this section, to conduct an antidegradation 
     review in the case of--
       ``(A) increases in a discharge which are authorized under 
     section 301(g), 301(k), 301(q), 301(r), or 301(t);
       ``(B) increases in the concentration of a pollutant in a 
     discharge caused by a reduction in wastewater flow;
       ``(C) increases in the discharge of a pollutant or 
     pollutants from one or more outfalls at a permittee's 
     facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in the 
     discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other outfalls at 
     the permittee's facility;
     [[Page H4765]]   ``(D) reissuance of a permit where there is 
     no increase in existing effluent limitations and, if a new 
     effluent limitation is being added to the permit, where the 
     new limitation is for a pollutant that is newly found in an 
     existing discharge due solely to improved monitoring methods; 
     or
       ``(E) a new or increased discharge which is temporary or 
     short-term or which the State determines represents an 
     insignificant increased pollutant loading.''.
       (f) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes.--
     Subsection (e) of section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317(e)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(e) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes, 
     Technologies, and Methods.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any facility that 
     proposes to comply with the national categorical pretreatment 
     standards developed under subsection (b) by applying an 
     innovative pollution prevention technology (including an 
     innovative production process change, innovative pollution 
     control technology, or innovative recycling method) that 
     meets the requirements of section 301(k), the Administrator 
     or the State, in consultation with the Administrator, in the 
     case of a State which has a pretreatment program approved by 
     the Administrator, upon application of the facility and with 
     the concurrence of the treatment works into which the 
     facility introduces pollutants, may extend the deadlines for 
     compliance with the applicable national categorical 
     pretreatment standards established under this section and 
     make other appropriate modifications to the facility's 
     pretreatment requirements if the Administrator or the State, 
     in consultation with the Administrator, in the case of a 
     State which has a pretreatment program approved by the 
     Administrator determines that--
       ``(A) the treatment works will require the owner of the 
     source to conduct such tests and monitoring during the period 
     of the modification as are necessary to ensure that the 
     modification does not cause or contribute to a violation by 
     the treatment works under section 402 or a violation of 
     section 405;
       ``(B) the treatment works will require the owner of the 
     source to report on progress at prescribed milestones during 
     the period of modification to ensure that attainment of the 
     pollution reduction goals and conditions set forth in this 
     section is being achieved; and
       ``(C) the proposed extensions or modifications will not 
     cause or contribute to any violation of a permit granted to 
     the treatment works under section 402, any violation of 
     section 405, or a pass through of pollutants such that water 
     quality standards are exceeded in the body of water into 
     which the treatment works discharges.
       ``(2) Interim limitations.--A modification granted pursuant 
     to paragraph (1) shall include interim standards that shall 
     apply during the temporary period of the modification and 
     shall be the more stringent of--
       ``(A) those necessary to ensure that the discharge will not 
     interfere with the operation of the treatment works;
       ``(B) those necessary to ensure that the discharge will not 
     pass through pollutants at a level that will cause water 
     quality standards to be exceeded in the navigable waters into 
     which the treatment works discharges;
       ``(C) the limits established in the previously applicable 
     control mechanism, in those cases in which the limit from 
     which a modification is being sought is more stringent than 
     the limit established in a previous control mechanism 
     applicable to such source.
       ``(3) Duration of extensions and modifications.--The 
     extension of the compliance deadlines and the modified 
     pretreatment requirements established pursuant to paragraph 
     (1) shall not extend beyond the period necessary for the 
     owner to install and use the innovative process, technology, 
     or method in full-scale production operation, but in no case 
     shall the compliance extensions and modified requirements 
     extend beyond 3 years from the date for compliance with the 
     otherwise applicable standards.
       ``(4) Consequences of failure.--In determining the amount 
     of any civil or administrative penalty pursuant to section 
     309(d) or 309(g) for any pretreatment violations, or 
     violations by a publicly owned treatment works, caused by the 
     unexpected failure of an innovative process, technology, or 
     method, a court or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall 
     reduce, or eliminate, the penalty amount for such violations 
     provided the facility made good-faith efforts both to 
     implement the innovation and to comply with the interim 
     standards and, in the case of a publicly owned treatment 
     works, good-faith efforts were made to implement the 
     pretreatment program.''.

     SEC. 303. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.

       (a) No Reasonable Relationship.--Section 303(b) (33 U.S.C. 
     1313(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) No reasonable relationship.--No water quality 
     standard shall be established under this subsection where 
     there is no reasonable relationship between the costs and 
     anticipated benefits of attaining such standard.''.
       (b) Revision of State Standards.--
       (1) Review of revisions by the administrator.--Section 
     303(c)(1) is amended by striking ``three'' and all that 
     follows through ``1972'' and inserting the following: ``5-
     year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the 
     Clean Water Amendments of 1995 and, for criteria that are 
     revised by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(a), on 
     or before the 180th day after the date of such revision by 
     the Administrator''.
       (2) Factors.--Section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) is amended 
     by striking paragraph (2)(A) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) State adoption of water quality standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Submission to administrator.--Whenever the State 
     revises or adopts a new water quality standard, such standard 
     shall be submitted to the Administrator.
       ``(ii) Designated uses and water quality criteria.--The 
     revised or new standard shall consist of the designated uses 
     of the navigable waters involved and the water quality 
     criteria for such waters based upon such uses.
       ``(iii) Protection of human health.--The revised or new 
     standard shall protect human health and the environment and 
     enhance water quality.
       ``(iv) Development of standards.--In developing revised or 
     new standards, the State may consider information reasonably 
     available on the likely social, economic, energy use, and 
     environmental cost associated with attaining such standards 
     in relation to the benefits to be attained. The State may 
     provide a description of the considerations used in the 
     establishment of the standards.
       ``(v) Record of state's review.--The record of a State's 
     review under paragraph (1) of an existing standard or 
     adoption of a new standard that includes water quality 
     criteria issued or revised by the Administrator after the 
     date of the enactment of this sentence shall contain 
     available estimates of costs of compliance with the water 
     quality criteria published by the Administrator under section 
     304(a)(12) and any comments received by the State on such 
     estimate.
       ``(vi) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to limit or delay the use 
     of any guidance of the Administrator interpreting water 
     quality criteria to allow the use of a dissolved metals 
     concentration measurement or similar adjustment in 
     determining compliance with a water quality standard or 
     establishing effluent limitations.''.
       (c) Revision of Designated Uses.--Section 303(c)(2) (33 
     U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(C) Revision of designated uses.--
       ``(i) Regulations.--After consultation with State officials 
     and not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this subparagraph, the Administrator shall propose, and not 
     later than 2 years after such date of enactment shall issue, 
     a revision to the Administrator's regulations regarding 
     designation of uses of waters by States.
       ``(ii) Waters not attaining designated uses.--For navigable 
     waters not attaining designated uses, the Administrator shall 
     identify conditions that make attainment of the designated 
     use infeasible and shall allow a State to modify the 
     designated use if the State determines that such condition or 
     conditions are present with respect to a particular receiving 
     water, or if the State determines that the costs of achieving 
     the designated use are not justified by the benefits.
       ``(iii) Waters attaining designated uses.--For navigable 
     waters attaining the designated use applicable to such waters 
     for all pollutants, the Administrator shall allow a State to 
     modify the designated use only if the State determines that 
     continued maintenance of the water quality necessary to 
     support the designated use will result in significant social 
     or economic dislocations substantially out of proportion to 
     the benefits to be achieved from maintenance of the 
     designated use.
       ``(iv) Modification of point source limits.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, water 
     quality based limits applicable to point sources may be 
     modified as appropriate to conform to any modified designated 
     use under this section.''.
     SEC. 304. USE OF BIOLOGICAL MONITORING.

       (a) Laboratory Biological Monitoring Criteria.--
     Subparagraph (B) of section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) 
     is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``Criteria for toxic pollutants.--'' after 
     ``(B)'';
       (2) by moving such subparagraph 4 ems to the right;
       (3) by inserting after the third sentence the following: 
     ``Criteria for whole effluent toxicity based on laboratory 
     biological monitoring or assessment methods shall employ an 
     aquatic species indigenous, or representative of indigenous, 
     and relevant to the type of waters covered by such criteria 
     and shall take into account the accepted analytical 
     variability associated with such methods in defining an 
     exceedance of such criteria.''.
       (b) Permit Procedures.--Section 402 is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(q) Biological Monitoring Procedures.--
       ``(1) Responding to exceedances.--If a permit issued under 
     this section contains terms, conditions, or limitations 
     requiring biological monitoring or whole effluent toxicity 
     testing designed to meet criteria for whole effluent toxicity 
     based on laboratory biological monitoring or assessment 
     methods described in section 303(c)(2)(B), the permit shall 
     establish procedures for responding to an exceedance of such 
     criteria that includes analysis, identification, reduction, 
     or, where feasible, elimination of any effluent toxicity. The 
     failure of a biological monitoring test or whole effluent 
     toxicity test shall not result in a finding of a violation 
     under this Act, unless it is demonstrated that the permittee 
     has failed to comply with such procedures.
       ``(2) Discontinuance of use.--The permit shall allow the 
     permittee to discontinue such procedures--
       ``(A) if the permittee is an entity, other than a publicly 
     owned treatment works, if the permittee demonstrates through 
     a field bio-assessment study that a balanced and healthy 
     population of aquatic species indigenous, or representative 
     of indigenous, and relevant to the type of waters exists in 
     the waters that are affected by the discharge, and if the 
     applicable water quality standards are met for such waters; 
     or
     [[Page H4766]]   ``(B) if the permittee is a publicly owned 
     treatment works, the source or cause of such toxicity cannot, 
     after thorough investigation, be identified.''.
       (c) Information on Water Quality Criteria.--Section 
     304(a)(8) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(8)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``, after'' and all that follows through 
     ``1987,''; and
       (2) by inserting after ``publish'' the following: ``, 
     consistent with section 303(c)(2)(B) of this Act,''.

     SEC. 305. ARID AREAS.

       (a) Constructed Water Conveyances.--Section 303(c)(2) (33 
     U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(D) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
       ``(i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercises jurisdiction 
     over constructed water conveyances in establishing standards 
     under this section, the State may consider the following:

       ``(I) The existing and planned uses of water transported in 
     a conveyance system.
       ``(II) Any water quality impacts resulting from any return 
     flow from a constructed water conveyance to navigable waters 
     and the need to protect downstream users.
       ``(III) Management practices necessary to maintain the 
     conveyance system.
       ``(IV) State or regional water resources management and 
     water conservation plans.
       ``(V) The authorized purpose for the constructed 
     conveyance.

       ``(ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or reviews water 
     quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall 
     not be required to establish recreation, aquatic life, or 
     fish consumption uses for such systems if the uses are not 
     existing or reasonably foreseeable or such uses impede the 
     authorized uses of the conveyance system.''.
       (b) Criteria and Guidance for Ephemeral and Effluent-
     Dependent Streams.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) Criteria and guidance for ephemeral and effluent-
     dependent streams.--
       ``(A) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this paragraph, and after providing 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator 
     shall develop and publish--
       ``(i) criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent 
     streams; and
       ``(ii) guidance to the States on development and adoption 
     of water quality standards applicable to such streams.
       ``(B) Factors.--The criteria and guidance developed under 
     subparagraph (A) shall take into account the limited ability 
     of ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams to support 
     aquatic life and certain designated uses, shall include 
     consideration of the role the discharge may play in 
     maintaining the flow or level of such waters, and shall 
     promote the beneficial use of reclaimed water pursuant to 
     section 101(a)(10).''.
       (c) Factors Required To Be Considered by Administrator.--
     Section 303(c)(4) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``In revising or adopting any new standard for 
     ephemeral or effluent-dependent streams under this paragraph, 
     the Administrator shall consider the factors referred to in 
     section 304(a)(9)(B).''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(21) The term `effluent-dependent stream' means a stream 
     or a segment thereof--
       ``(A) with respect to which the flow (based on the annual 
     average expected flow, determined by calculating the average 
     mode over a 10-year period) is primarily attributable to the 
     discharge of treated wastewater;
       ``(B) that, in the absence of a discharge of treated 
     wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or 
     subsurface flows, would be an ephemeral stream; or
       ``(C) that is an effluent-dependent stream under applicable 
     State water quality standards.
       ``(22) The term `ephemeral stream' means a stream or 
     segments thereof that flows periodically in response to 
     precipitation, snowmelt, or runoff.
       ``(23) The term `constructed water conveyance' means a 
     manmade water transport system constructed for the purpose of 
     transporting water in a waterway that is not and never was a 
     natural perennial waterway.''.

     SEC. 306. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.

       Section 303(d)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(C)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(C) Total maximum daily loads.--
       ``(i) State determination of reasonable progress.--Each 
     State shall establish, to the extent and according to a 
     schedule the State determines is necessary to achieve 
     reasonable progress toward the attainment or maintenance of 
     water quality standards, for the waters identified in 
     paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with 
     the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those 
     pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 
     304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation.
       ``(ii) Phased total maximum daily loads.--Total maximum 
     daily loads may reflect load reductions the State expects 
     will be realized over time resulting from anticipated 
     implementation of best management practices, storm water 
     controls, or other nonpoint or point source controls; so long 
     as by December 31, 2015, such loads are established at levels 
     necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards 
     with seasonal variations and a margin of safety.
       ``(iii) Considerations.--In establishing each load, the 
     State shall consider the availability of scientifically valid 
     data and information, the projected reductions achievable by 
     control measures or practices for all sources or categories 
     of sources, and the relative cost-effectiveness of 
     implementing such control measures or practices for such 
     sources.''.
     SEC. 307. REVISION OF CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Revision of Water Quality Criteria.--
       (1) Factors.--Section 304(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C)''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``(D) on the organisms that are likely to be 
     present in various ecosystems; (E) on the bioavailability of 
     pollutants under various natural and man induced conditions; 
     (F) on the magnitude, duration, and frequency of exposure 
     reasonably required to induce the adverse effects of concern; 
     and (G) on the bioaccumulation threat presented under various 
     natural conditions.''.
       (2) Certification.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) Certification.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this paragraph, and at least once every 5 
     years thereafter, the Administrator shall publish a written 
     certification that the criteria for water quality developed 
     under paragraph (1) reflect the latest and best scientific 
     knowledge.
       ``(B) Updating of existing criteria.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the 
     Administrator shall publish a schedule for updating, by not 
     later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, the criteria for water quality developed under 
     paragraph (1) before the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection.
       ``(C) Deadline for revision of certain criteria.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall revise and publish 
     criteria under paragraph (1) for ammonia, chronic whole 
     effluent toxicity, and metals as necessary to allow the 
     Administrator to make the certification under subparagraph 
     (A).''.
       (b) Consideration of Certain Contaminants.--Section 304(a) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(11) Consideration of certain contaminants.--In 
     developing and revising criteria for water quality criteria 
     under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider 
     addressing, at a minimum, each contaminant regulated pursuant 
     to section 1412 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300g-1).''.
       (c) Cost Estimate.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) Cost estimate.--Whenever the Administrator issues or 
     revises a criteria for water quality under paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator, after consultation with Federal and State 
     agencies and other interested persons, shall develop and 
     publish an estimate of the costs that would likely be 
     incurred if sources were required to comply with the criteria 
     and an analysis to support the estimate. Such analysis shall 
     meet the requirements relevant to the estimation of costs 
     published in guidance issued under section 324(b).''.
       (d) Revision of Effluent Limitations.--
       (1) Elimination of requirement for annual revision.--
     Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is amended in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``and, at least annually 
     thereafter,'' and inserting ``and thereafter shall''.
       (2) Special rule.--Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is 
     amended by striking the period at the end of the first 
     sentence and inserting the following: ``; except that 
     guidelines issued under paragraph (1)(A) addressing 
     pollutants identified pursuant to subsection (a)(4) shall not 
     be revised after February 15, 1995, to be more stringent 
     unless such revised guidelines meet the requirements of 
     paragraph (4)(A).''.
       (e) Schedule for Review of Guidelines.--Section 304(m)(1) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1314(m)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Publication.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, the 
     Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a plan 
     which shall--
       ``(A) identify categories of sources discharging pollutants 
     for which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) of this section 
     and section 306 have not been previously published;
       ``(B) establish a schedule for determining whether such 
     discharge presents a significant risk to human health and the 
     environment and whether such risk is sufficient, when 
     compared to other sources of pollutants in navigable waters, 
     to warrant regulation by the Administrator; and
       ``(C) establish a schedule for issuance of effluent 
     guidelines for those categories identified pursuant to 
     subparagraph (B).''.
       (f) Revision of Pretreatment Requirements.--Section 
     304(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1314(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``and 
     review at least annually thereafter and, if appropriate, 
     revise'' and insert ``and thereafter revise, as 
     appropriate,''.
       (g) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--Section 304 (33 
     U.S.C. 1314) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--The exemption 
     from effluent guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing 
     Point Source Category set forth in section 420.01(b) of title 
     40, Code of Federal Regulations, for the facilities listed in 
     such section shall remain in effect for any facility that met 
     the requirements of such section on or before July 26, 1982, 
     until the Administrator develops alternative effluent 
     guidelines for the facility.''.

     SEC. 308. INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES.

       Section 304(i)(2)(D) (33 U.S.C. 1314(i)(2)(D)) is amended 
     by striking ``any person'' and all that follows through the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: ``any person 
     (other than a 
     [[Page H4767]]  retiree or an employee or official of a city, 
     county, or local governmental agency) who receives a 
     significant portion of his or her income during the period of 
     service on the board or body directly or indirectly from 
     permit holders or applicants for a permit).''.

     SEC. 309. SECONDARY TREATMENT.

       (a) Coastal Discharges.--Section 304(d) (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Coastal discharges.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     any municipal wastewater treatment facility shall be deemed 
     the equivalent of a secondary treatment facility if each of 
     the following requirements is met:
       ``(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced primary 
     treatment.
       ``(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, discharges through an ocean outfall into an open 
     marine environment greater than 4 miles offshore into a depth 
     greater than 300 feet.
       ``(C) The facility's discharge is in compliance with all 
     local and State water quality standards for the receiving 
     waters.
       ``(D) The facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean 
     monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal and State 
     regulatory agencies.''.
       (b) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(s) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, with the concurrence 
     of the State, shall issue a 10-year permit under section 402 
     which modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of 
     this section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant 
     from a publicly owned treatment works into marine waters 
     which are at least 150 feet deep through an ocean outfall 
     which discharges at least 1 mile offshore, if the applicant 
     demonstrates that--
       ``(A) there is an applicable ocean plan and the facility's 
     discharge is in compliance with all local and State water 
     quality standards for the receiving waters;
       ``(B) the facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean 
     monitoring program determined to be acceptable by relevant 
     Federal and State regulatory agencies;
       ``(C) the applicant has an Agency approved pretreatment 
     plan in place; and
       ``(D) the applicant, at the time such modification becomes 
     effective, will be discharging effluent which has received at 
     least chemically enhanced primary treatment and achieves a 
     monthly average of 75 percent removal of suspended solids.
       ``(2) Discharge of any pollutant into marine waters 
     defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     `discharge of any pollutant into marine waters' means a 
     discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea or the 
     waters of the contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine 
     waters where there is strong tidal movement.
       ``(3) Deadline.--On or before the 90th day after the date 
     of submittal of an application for a modification under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant 
     a modified permit under section 402 or a written 
     determination that the application does not meet the terms 
     and conditions of this subsection.
       ``(4) Effect of failure to respond.--If the Administrator 
     does not respond to an application for a modification under 
     paragraph (1) on or before the 90th day referred to in 
     paragraph (3), the application shall be deemed approved and 
     the modification sought by the applicant shall be in effect 
     for the succeeding 10-year period.''.
       (2) Extension of application deadline.--Section 301(j) (33 
     U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(6) Extension of application deadline.--In the 365-day 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, municipalities may apply for a modification 
     pursuant to subsection (s) of the requirements of subsection 
     (b)(1)(B) of this section.''.
       (c) Modifications for Small System Treatment 
     Technologies.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(t) Modifications for Small System Treatment 
     Technologies.--The Administrator, with the concurrence of the 
     State, or a State with an approved program under section 402 
     may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the 
     requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with 
     respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly 
     owned treatment works serving a community of 20,000 people or 
     fewer if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of 
     the Administrator that--
       ``(1) the effluent from such facility originates primarily 
     from domestic users; and
       ``(2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and 
     operated alternative treatment system (including 
     recirculating sand filter systems, constructed wetlands, and 
     oxidation lagoons) which is equivalent to secondary treatment 
     or will provide in the receiving waters and watershed an 
     adequate level of protection to human health and the 
     environment and contribute to the attainment of water quality 
     standards.''.
       (d) Puerto Rico.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(u) Puerto Rico.--
       ``(1) Study by government of puerto rico.--Not later than 3 
     months after the date of the enactment of this section, the 
     Government of Puerto Rico may, after consultation with the 
     Administrator, initiate a study of the marine environment of 
     Anasco Bay off the coast of the Mayaguez region of Puerto 
     Rico to determine the feasibility of constructing a deepwater 
     outfall for the publicly owned treatment works located at 
     Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Such study shall recommend one or more 
     technically feasible locations for the deepwater outfall 
     based on the effects of such outfall on the marine 
     environment.
       ``(2) Application for modification.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 18 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, an application may be 
     submitted for a modification pursuant to subsection (h) of 
     the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by 
     the owner of the publicly owned treatment works at Mayaguez, 
     Puerto Rico, for a deepwater outfall at a location 
     recommended in the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Initial determination.--On or before the 90th day 
     after the date of submittal of an application for 
     modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall 
     issue to the applicant a draft initial determination 
     regarding the modification of the existing permit.
       ``(4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day 
     after the date of submittal of an application for 
     modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall 
     issue a final determination regarding such modification.
       ``(5) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted pursuant 
     to an application submitted under this subsection, such 
     modification shall be effective only if the new deepwater 
     outfall is operational within 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection. In all other aspects, such 
     modification shall be effective for the period applicable to 
     all modifications granted under subsection (h).''.
     SEC. 310. TOXIC POLLUTANTS.

       (a) Toxic Effluent Limitations and Standards.--Section 
     307(a)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1317(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) Each'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Toxic effluent limitations and standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each'';
       (2) by moving paragraph (2) 2 ems to the right;
       (3) by indenting subparagraph (A), as so designated, and 
     moving the remaining text of such subparagraph 2 ems further 
     to the right; and
       (4) in subparagraph (A), as so designated, by striking the 
     third sentence; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Factors.--The published effluent standard (or 
     prohibition) shall take into account--
       ``(i) the pollutant's persistence, toxicity, degradability, 
     and bioaccumulation potential;
       ``(ii) the magnitude and risk of exposure to the pollutant, 
     including risks to affected organisms and the importance of 
     such organisms;
       ``(iii) the relative contribution of point source 
     discharges of the pollutant to the overall risk from the 
     pollutant;
       ``(iv) the availability of, costs associated with, and risk 
     posed by substitute chemicals or processes or the 
     availability of treatment processes or control technology;
       ``(v) the beneficial and adverse social and economic 
     effects of the effluent standard, including the impact on 
     energy resources;
       ``(vi) the extent to which effective control is being or 
     may be achieved in an expeditious manner under other 
     regulatory authorities;
       ``(vii) the impact on national security interests; and
       ``(viii) such other factors as the Administrator considers 
     appropriate.''.
       (b) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--
       (1) In general.--Section 304 is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(o) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--After consultation 
     with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and after 
     providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the 
     Administrator shall develop and issue, not later than 18 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, guidance 
     that States may use in monitoring water quality at beaches 
     and issuing health advisories with respect to beaches, 
     including testing protocols, recommendations on frequency of 
     testing and monitoring, recommendations on pollutants for 
     which monitoring and testing should be conducted, and 
     recommendations on when health advisories should be issued. 
     Such guidance shall be based on the best available scientific 
     information and be sufficient to protect public health and 
     safety in the case of any reasonably expected exposure to 
     pollutants as a result of swimming or bathing.''.
       (2) Reports.--Section 516(a) (33 U.S.C. 1375(a)) is amended 
     by striking ``and (9)'' and inserting ``(9) the monitoring 
     conducted by States on the water quality of beaches and the 
     issuance of health advisories with respect to beaches, and 
     (10)''.
       (c) Fish Consumption Advisories.--Any fish consumption 
     advisories issued by the Administrator shall be based upon 
     the protocols, methodology, and findings of the Food and Drug 
     Administration.
     SEC. 311. LOCAL PRETREATMENT AUTHORITY.

       Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Local Pretreatment Authority.--
       ``(1) Demonstration.--If, to carry out the purposes 
     identified in paragraph (2), a publicly owned treatment works 
     with an approved pretreatment program demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Administrator, or a State with an 
     approved program under section 402, that--
       ``(A) such publicly owned treatment works is in compliance, 
     and is likely to remain in compliance, with its permit under 
     section 402, including applicable effluent limitations and 
     narrative standards;
       ``(B) such publicly owned treatment works is in compliance, 
     and is likely to remain in compliance, with applicable air 
     emission limitations;
       ``(C) biosolids produced by such publicly owned treatment 
     works meet beneficial use requirements under section 405; and
       ``(D) such publicly owned treatment works is likely to 
     continue to meet all applicable State requirements;

     [[Page H4768]] the approved pretreatment program shall be 
     modified to allow the publicly owned treatment works to apply 
     local limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment standards 
     promulgated under this section.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The publicly owned treatment works may 
     make the demonstration to the Administrator or the State, as 
     the case may be, to apply local limits in lieu of categorical 
     pretreatment standards, as the treatment works deems 
     necessary, for the purposes of--
       ``(A) reducing the administrative burden associated with 
     the designation of an `industrial user' as a `categorical 
     industrial user'; or
       ``(B) eliminating additional redundant or unnecessary 
     treatment by industrial users which has little or no 
     environmental benefit.
       ``(3) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Significant noncompliance.--The publicly owned 
     treatment works may not apply local limits in lieu of 
     categorical pretreatment standards to any industrial user 
     which is in significant noncompliance (as defined by the 
     Administrator) with its approved pretreatment program.
       ``(B) Procedures.--A demonstration to the Administrator or 
     the State under paragraph (1) must be made under the 
     procedures for pretreatment program modification provided 
     under this section and section 402.
       ``(4) Annual review.--
       ``(A) Demonstration relating to ability to meet criteria.--
     As part of the annual pretreatment report of the publicly 
     owned treatment works to the Administrator or State, the 
     treatment works shall demonstrate that application of local 
     limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment standards has not 
     resulted in the inability of the treatment works to meet the 
     criteria of paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Termination of authority.--If the Administrator or 
     State determines that application of local limits in lieu of 
     categorical pretreatment standards has resulted in the 
     inability of the treatment works to meet the criteria of 
     paragraph (1), the authority of a publicly owned treatment 
     works under this section shall be terminated and any affected 
     industrial user shall have a reasonable period of time to be 
     determined by the Administrator or State, but not to exceed 2 
     years, to come into compliance with any otherwise applicable 
     requirements of this Act.''.
     SEC. 312. COMPLIANCE WITH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

       Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(g) Compliance With Management Practices.--
       ``(1) Special rule.--The Administrator or a State with a 
     permit program approved under section 402 may allow any 
     person that introduces silver into a publicly owned treatment 
     works to comply with a code of management practices with 
     respect to the introduction of silver into the treatment 
     works for a period not to exceed 5 years beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection in lieu of complying 
     with any pretreatment requirement (including any local limit) 
     based on an effluent limitation for the treatment works 
     derived from a water quality standard for silver--
       ``(A) if the treatment works has accepted the code of 
     management practices;
       ``(B) if the code of management practices meets the 
     requirements of paragraph (2); and
       ``(C) if the facility is--
       ``(i) part of a class of facilities for which the code of 
     management practices has been approved by the Administrator 
     or the State;
       ``(ii) in compliance with a mass limitation or 
     concentration level for silver attainable with the 
     application of the best available technology economically 
     achievable for such facilities, as established by the 
     Administrator after a review of the treatment and management 
     practices of such class of facilities; and
       ``(iii) implementing the code of management practices.
       ``(2) Code of management practices.--A code of management 
     practices meets the requirements of this paragraph if the 
     code of management practices--
       ``(A) is developed and adopted by representatives of 
     industry and publicly owned treatment works of major urban 
     areas;
       ``(B) is approved by the Administrator or the State, as the 
     case may be;
       ``(C) reflects acceptable industry practices to minimize 
     the amount of silver introduced into publicly owned treatment 
     works or otherwise entering the environment from the class of 
     facilities for which the code of management practices is 
     approved; and
       ``(D) addresses, at a minimum--
       ``(i) the use of the best available technology economically 
     achievable, based on a review of the current state of such 
     technology for such class of facilities and of the effluent 
     guidelines for such facilities;
       ``(ii) water conservation measures available to reduce the 
     total quantity of discharge from such facilities to publicly 
     owned treatment works;
       ``(iii) opportunities to recover silver (and other 
     pollutants) from the waste stream prior to introduction into 
     a publicly owned treatment works; and
       ``(iv) operating and maintenance practices to minimize the 
     amount of silver introduced into publicly owned treatment 
     works and to assure consistent performance of the management 
     practices and treatment technology specified under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(3) Interim extension for potws receiving silver.--In any 
     case in which the Administrator or a State with a permit 
     program approved under section 402 allows under paragraph (1) 
     a person to comply with a code of management practices for a 
     period of not to exceed 5 years in lieu of complying with a 
     pretreatment requirement (including a local limit) for 
     silver, the Administrator or State, as applicable, shall 
     modify the permit conditions and effluent limitations for any 
     affected publicly owned treatment works to defer for such 
     period compliance with any effluent limitation derived from a 
     water quality standard for silver beyond that required by 
     section 301(b)(2), notwithstanding the provisions of section 
     303(d)(4) and 402(o), if the Administrator or the State, as 
     applicable, finds that--
       ``(A) the quality of any affected waters and the operation 
     of the treatment works will be adequately protected during 
     such period by implementation of the code of management 
     practices and the use of best technology economically 
     achievable by persons introducing silver into the treatment 
     works;
       ``(B) the introduction of pollutants into such treatment 
     works is in compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2); and
       ``(C) a program of enforcement by such treatment works and 
     the State ensures such compliance.''.
     SEC. 313. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Adjustment of Penalties.--Section 309 (33 U.S.C. 1319) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Adjustment of Monetary Penalties for Inflation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection, and at least once every 4 
     years thereafter, the Administrator shall adjust each 
     monetary penalty provided by this section in accordance with 
     paragraph (2) and publish such adjustment in the Federal 
     Register.
       ``(2) Method.--An adjustment to be made pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall be determined by increasing or decreasing 
     the maximum monetary penalty or the range of maximum monetary 
     penalties, as appropriate, by multiplying the cost-of-living 
     adjustment and the amount of such penalty.
       ``(3) Cost-of-living adjustment defined.--In this 
     subsection, the term `cost-of-living' adjustment means the 
     percentage (if any) for each monetary penalty by which--
       ``(A) the Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the 
     calendar year preceding the adjustment; is greater or less 
     than
       ``(B) the Consumer Price Index for--
       ``(i) with respect to the first adjustment under this 
     subsection, the month of June of the calendar year preceding 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection; and
       ``(ii) with respect to each subsequent adjustment under 
     this subsection, the month of June of the calendar year in 
     which the amount of such monetary penalty was last adjusted 
     under this subsection.
       ``(4) Rounding.--In making adjustments under this 
     subsection, the Administrator may round the dollar amount of 
     a penalty, as appropriate.
       ``(5) Applicability.--Any increase or decrease to a 
     monetary penalty resulting from this subsection shall apply 
     only to violations which occur after the date any such 
     increase takes effect.''.
       (b) Joining States as Parties in Actions Involving 
     Municipalities.--Section 309(e) (33 U.S.C. 1319(e)) is 
     amended by striking ``shall be joined as a party. Such 
     State'' and inserting ``may be joined as a party. Any State 
     so joined as a party''.
     SEC. 314. RESPONSE PLANS FOR DISCHARGES OF OIL OR HAZARDOUS 
                   SUBSTANCES.

       (a) In General.--The requirements of section 311(j)(5) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
     1321(j)(5)) shall not apply with respect to--
       (1) a municipal or industrial treatment works at which no 
     greater than a de minimis quantity of oil or hazardous 
     substances is stored; or
       (2) a facility that stores process water mixed with a de 
     minimis quantity of oil.
       (b) Regulations.--The President shall issue regulations 
     clarifying the meaning of the term ``de minimis quantity of 
     oil or hazardous substances'' as used in this section.

     SEC. 315. MARINE SANITATION DEVICES.

       Section 312(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1322(c)(1)(A)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Not later than 2 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this sentence, and at 
     least once every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating and after providing notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, shall review such standards 
     and regulations to take into account improvements in 
     technology relating to marine sanitation devices and based on 
     such review shall make such revisions to such standards and 
     regulations as may be necessary.''.
     SEC. 316. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) Application of Certain Provisions.--Section 313(a) (33 
     U.S.C. 1323(a)) is amended by striking all preceding 
     subsection (b) and inserting the following:
     ``SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.

       ``(a) Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate, and 
     Local Laws.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 
     branches of the Federal Government--
       ``(A) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or
       ``(B) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may 
     result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants,
     and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the 
     performance of his official duties, shall be subject to, and 
     comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local 
     requirements, administrative authority, and process and 
     sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water 
     pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any 
     nongovernmental entity, including the payment of reasonable 
     service charges.
     [[Page H4769]]   ``(2) Types of actions covered.--Paragraph 
     (1) shall apply--
       ``(A) to any requirement whether substantive or procedural 
     (including any recordkeeping or reporting requirement, any 
     requirement respecting permits, and any other requirement),
       ``(B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or local 
     administrative authority, and
       ``(C) to any process and sanction, whether enforced in 
     Federal, State, or local courts or in any other manner.
       ``(3) Penalties and fines.--The Federal, State, interstate, 
     and local substantive and procedural requirements, 
     administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred 
     to in paragraph (1) include all administrative orders and all 
     civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of 
     whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in 
     nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or 
     continuing violations.
       ``(4) Sovereign immunity.--
       ``(A) Waiver.--The United States hereby expressly waives 
     any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States with 
     respect to any requirement, administrative authority, and 
     process and sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) (including 
     any injunctive relief, any administrative order, any civil or 
     administrative penalty or fine referred to in paragraph (3), 
     or any reasonable service charge).
       ``(B) Processing fees.--The reasonable service charges 
     referred to in this paragraph include fees or charges 
     assessed in connection with the processing and issuance of 
     permits, renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of 
     plans, studies, and other documents, and inspection and 
     monitoring of facilities, as well as any other 
     nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in connection 
     with a Federal, State, interstate, or local water pollution 
     regulatory program.
       ``(5) Exemptions.--
       ``(A) General authority of president.--The President may 
     exempt any effluent source of any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with 
     any requirement to which paragraph (1) applies if the 
     President determines it to be in the paramount interest of 
     the United States to do so; except that no exemption may be 
     granted from the requirements of section 306 or 307 of this 
     Act.
       ``(B) Limitation.--No exemptions shall be granted under 
     subparagraph (A) due to lack of appropriation unless the 
     President shall have specifically requested such 
     appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the 
     Congress shall have failed to make available such requested 
     appropriation.
       ``(C) Time period.--Any exemption under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be for a period not in excess of 1 year, but additional 
     exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed 1 year 
     upon the President's making a new determination.
       ``(D) Military property.--In addition to any exemption of a 
     particular effluent source, the President may, if the 
     President determines it to be in the paramount interest of 
     the United States to do so, issue regulations exempting from 
     compliance with the requirements of this section any 
     weaponry, equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other 
     classes or categories of property, and access to such 
     property, which are owned or operated by the Armed Forces of 
     the United States (including the Coast Guard) or by the 
     National Guard of any State and which are uniquely military 
     in nature. The President shall reconsider the need for such 
     regulations at 3-year intervals.
       ``(E) Reports.--The President shall report each January to 
     the Congress all exemptions from the requirements of this 
     section granted during the preceding calendar year, together 
     with the President's reason for granting such exemption.
       ``(6) Venue.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
     prevent any department, agency, or instrumentality of the 
     Federal Government, or any officer, agent, or employee 
     thereof in the performance of official duties, from removing 
     to the appropriate Federal district court any proceeding to 
     which the department, agency, or instrumentality or officer, 
     agent, or employee thereof is subject pursuant to this 
     section, and any such proceeding may be removed in accordance 
     with chapter 89 of title 28, United States Code.
       ``(7) Personal liability of federal employees.--No agent, 
     employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally 
     liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State, 
     interstate, or local water pollution law with respect to any 
     act or omission within the scope of the official duties of 
     the agent, employee, or officer.
       ``(8) Criminal sanctions.--An agent, employee, or officer 
     of the United States shall be subject to any criminal 
     sanction (including any fine or imprisonment) under any 
     Federal or State water pollution law, but no department, 
     agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or 
     judicial branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to 
     any such sanction.''.
       (b) Funds Collected by a State.--Section 313 (33 U.S.C. 
     1323) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Limitation on State Use of Funds.--Unless a State law 
     in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection or 
     a State constitution requires the funds to be used in a 
     different manner, all funds collected by a State from the 
     Federal Government in penalties and fines imposed for the 
     violation of a substantive or procedural requirement referred 
     to in subsection (a) shall be used by a State only for 
     projects designed to improve or protect the environment or to 
     defray the costs of environmental protection or 
     enforcement.''.
       (c) Enforcement.--Section 313 is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(d) Federal Facility Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Administrative enforcement by epa.--The Administrator 
     may commence an administrative enforcement action against any 
     department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, 
     legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government 
     pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this 
     Act.
       ``(2) Procedure.--The Administrator shall initiate an 
     administrative enforcement action against a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality under this subsection in the same 
     manner and under the same circumstances as an action would be 
     initiated against any other person under this Act. The amount 
     of any administrative penalty imposed under this subsection 
     shall be determined in accordance with section 309(d) of this 
     Act.
       ``(3) Voluntary settlement.--Any voluntary resolution or 
     settlement of an action under this subsection shall be set 
     forth in an administrative consent order.
       ``(4) Conferral with epa.--No administrative order issued 
     to a department, agency, or instrumentality under this 
     section shall become final until such department, agency, or 
     instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with the 
     Administrator.''.
       (d) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--
     Section 313 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(e) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Any 
     violation with respect to which the Administrator has 
     commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action under this 
     subsection, or for which the Administrator has issued a final 
     order and the violator has either paid a penalty or fine 
     assessed under this subsection or is subject to an 
     enforceable schedule of corrective actions, shall not be the 
     subject of an action under section 505 of this Act. In any 
     action under this subsection, any citizen may intervene as a 
     matter of right.''.
       (e) Definition of Person.--Section 502(5) (33 U.S.C. 
     1362(5)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
     the following: ``and includes any department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the United States''.
       (f) Definition of Radioactive Materials.--Section 502 (33 
     U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(24) The term `radioactive materials' includes source 
     materials, special nuclear materials, and byproduct materials 
     (as such terms are defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 
     1954) which are used, produced, or managed at facilities not 
     licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; except that 
     such term does not include any material which is discharged 
     from a vessel covered by Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C. 
     7158 note; relating to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion 
     Program).''.
       (g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 313(b) (33 U.S.C. 
     1323(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Wastewater Facilities.--
       ``(1) Cooperation for use of wastewater control systems.--
     '';
       (2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Limitation on 
     construction.--'' before ``Construction''; and
       (3) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) 2 ems to the right.
       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall only apply to violations occurring after such date 
     of enactment.
     SEC. 317. CLEAN LAKES.
       (a) Priority Lakes.--Section 314(d)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
     1324(d)(2)) is amended by inserting ``Paris Twin Lakes, 
     Illinois; Otsego Lake, New York; Raystown Lake, 
     Pennsylvania;'' after ``Minnesota;''.
       (b) Funding.--Section 314 (33 U.S.C. 1324) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 per 
     fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
     SEC. 318. COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.

       Section 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after ``(b)'' the following: ``Standard 
     for Cooling Water Intake Structures.--'';
       (2) by inserting before ``Any'' the following: ``(1) In 
     general.--'';
       (3) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph 
     (2) of this section, and moving such paragraph 2 ems to the 
     right; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) New point source considerations.--In establishing a 
     standard referred to in paragraph (1) for cooling water 
     intake structures located at new point sources, the 
     Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(A) The relative technological, engineering, and economic 
     feasibility of possible technologies or techniques for 
     minimizing any such adverse environmental impacts.
       ``(B) The relative technological, engineering, and economic 
     feasibility of possible site locations, intake structure 
     designs, and cooling water flow techniques.
       ``(C) The relative environmental, social, and economic 
     costs and benefits of possible technologies, techniques, site 
     locations, intake structure designs, and cooling water flow 
     techniques.
       ``(D) The projected useful life of the new point source.
       ``(3) Existing point sources.--For existing point sources, 
     the Administrator may require the use of best technology 
     available in the case of existing cooling water intake 
     structures if the Administrator determines such structures 
     are having or could have a significant adverse impact on the 
     aquatic environment. In establishing a standard referred to 
     in paragraph (1) for such existing point sources, the 
     Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(A) The relative technological, engineering, and economic 
     feasibility of reasonably available retrofit technologies or 
     techniques for minimizing any such adverse environmental 
     impacts.

[[Page H4770]]

       ``(B) Other mitigation measures for offsetting the 
     anticipated adverse environmental impacts resulting from the 
     withdrawal of cooling water.
       ``(C) Relative environmental, social, and economic costs 
     and benefits of possible retrofit technologies, techniques, 
     and mitigation measures.
       ``(D) The projected remaining useful life of the existing 
     point source.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) New point source.--The term `new point source' means 
     any point source the construction of which will commence 
     after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a 
     standard for intake structures that will be applicable to 
     such source if such standard is promulgated in accordance 
     with paragraph (2).
       ``(B) Existing point source.--The term `existing point 
     source' means any point source that is not a new point 
     source.''.

     SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) State Assessment Report.--
       (1) Contents.--Section 319(a)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 
     1329(a)(1)(C)) is amended by striking ``best management 
     practices and''.
       (2) Information used in preparation.--Section 319(a)(2) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting ``, reviewing, and revising'' after 
     ``developing''; and
       (B) by striking ``section'' the first place it appears and 
     inserting ``subsection''.
       (3) Review and revision.--Section 319(a) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
     1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State shall review, 
     revise, and submit to the Administrator the report required 
     by this subsection.''.
       (b) State Management Program.--
       (1) Term of program.--Section 319(b)(1) is amended by 
     striking ``four'' and inserting ``5''.
       (2) Contents.--Section 319(b)(2) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A)--
       (i) by striking ``best'';
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)(1)(B)''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``and measure'' after ``practice'';
       (B) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``nonregulatory or regulatory programs for 
     enforcement,'' and inserting ``one or more of the following: 
     voluntary programs, incentive-based programs, regulatory 
     programs, enforceable policies and mechanisms, State 
     management programs approved under section 306 of the Coastal 
     Zone Management Act of 1972,''; and
       (ii) by striking ``achieve implementation'' and all that 
     follows before the period and inserting ``manage categories, 
     subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources to the degree 
     necessary to provide for reasonable further progress toward 
     the goal of attaining water quality standards within 15 years 
     of approval of the State program for those waters identified 
     under subsection (a)(1)(A)'';
       (C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(C) A schedule containing interim goals and milestones 
     for making reasonable progress toward the attainment of 
     standards, which may be demonstrated by one or any 
     combination of the following: improvements in water quality 
     (including biological indicators), documented implementation 
     of voluntary nonpoint source control practices and measures, 
     and adoption of enforceable policies and mechanisms.'';
       (D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``A certification of'' 
     and inserting ``After the date of the enactment of the Clean 
     Water Amendments of 1995, a certification by''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(G) A description of the monitoring or other assessment 
     which will be carried out under the program for the purposes 
     of monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the program, 
     including the attainment of interim goals and milestones.
       ``(H) An identification of activities on Federal lands in 
     the State that are inconsistent with the State management 
     program.
       ``(I) An identification of goals and milestones for 
     progress in attaining water quality standards, including a 
     projected date for attaining such standards as expeditiously 
     as practicable but not later than 15 years after the date of 
     approval of the State program for each of the waters listed 
     pursuant to subsection (a).''.
       (3) Utilization of local and private experts.--Section 
     319(b)(3) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``, including academic institutions, 
     private industry experts, and other individual experts in 
     water resource conservation and planning''.
       (4) New technologies; use of resources; agricultural 
     programs.--Section 319(b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Recognition of new technologies.--In developing and 
     implementing a management program under this subsection, a 
     State may recognize and utilize new practices, technologies, 
     processes, products, and other alternatives.
       ``(6) Efficient and effective use of resources.--In 
     developing and implementing a management program under this 
     subsection, a State may recognize and provide for a 
     methodology which takes into account situations in which 
     management measures used to control one pollutant have an 
     adverse impact with respect to another pollutant. The 
     methodology should encourage the balanced combination of 
     measures which best address the various impairments on the 
     watershed or site.
       ``(7) Recognition of agricultural programs.--Any 
     agricultural producer who has voluntarily developed and is 
     implementing an approved whole farm or ranch natural 
     resources management plan shall be considered to be in 
     compliance with the requirements of a State program developed 
     under this section--
       ``(A) if such plan has been developed under a program 
     subject to a memorandum of agreement between the Chief of the 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Governor, or 
     their respective designees; and
       ``(B) if such memorandum of agreement specifies--
       ``(i) the scope and content of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service program (not an individual farm or ranch 
     plan) in the State or regions of the State;
       ``(ii) the terms of approval, implementation, and duration 
     of a voluntary farm or ranch plan for agricultural producers;
       ``(iii) the responsibilities for assessing implementation 
     of voluntary whole farm and ranch natural resource management 
     plans; and
       ``(iv) the duration of such memorandum of agreement.
     At a minimum, such memorandum of agreement shall be reviewed 
     and may be revised every 5 years, as part of the State review 
     of its management program under this section.''.
       (c) Submission of Management Programs.--Paragraph (2) of 
     section 319(c) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
     Each management program shall be submitted to the 
     Administrator within 30 months of the issuance by the 
     Administrator of the final guidance under subsection (o) and 
     every 5 years thereafter. Each program submission after the 
     initial submission following the date of the enactment of the 
     Clean Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration 
     of reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining 
     water quality standards within 15 years of approval of the 
     State program, including documentation of the degree to which 
     the State has achieved the interim goals and milestones 
     contained in the previous program submission. Such 
     demonstration shall take into account the adequacy of Federal 
     funding under this section.''.
       (d) Approval and Disapproval of Reports and Management 
     Programs.--
       (1) Deadline.--Section 319(d)(1) is amended by inserting 
     ``or revised report'' after ``any report''.
       (2) Disapproval.--Section 319(d)(2) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (B) by inserting before the semicolon 
     the following: ``; except that such program or portion shall 
     not be disapproved solely because the program or portion does 
     not include enforceable policies or mechanisms'';
       (B) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``are not adequate'' 
     and all that follows before the semicolon and inserting the 
     following: ``will not result in reasonable further progress 
     toward the attainment of applicable water quality standards 
     under section 303 as expeditiously as possible but not later 
     than 15 years after approval of the State program''; and
       (C) in the text following subparagraph (D)--
       (i) by striking ``3 months'' and inserting ``6 months''; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``or portion thereof'' before ``within 
     three months of receipt''.
       (3) Failure to submit report.--Section 319(d)(3) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``the report'' and inserting ``a report or 
     revised report'';
       (B) by striking ``30 months'' and inserting ``18 months''; 
     and
       (C) by striking ``of the enactment of this section'' and 
     inserting ``on which such report is required to be submitted 
     under subsection (a)''.
       (4) Program management by the administrator.--Section 
     319(d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Failure of state to submit program.--
       ``(A) Program management by the administrator.--If a State 
     fails to submit a management program or revised management 
     program under subsection (b) or the Administrator disapproves 
     such management program, the Administrator shall prepare and 
     implement a management program for controlling pollution 
     added from nonpoint sources to the navigable waters within 
     the State and improving the quality of such waters in 
     accordance with subsection (b).
       ``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator intends to 
     disapprove a program submitted by a State, the Administrator 
     shall first notify the Governor of the State in writing of 
     the modifications necessary to meet the requirements of this 
     section. The Administrator shall provide adequate public 
     notice and an opportunity for a public hearing for all 
     interested parties.
       ``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after taking into 
     account the level of funding actually provided as compared 
     with the level authorized under subsection (j), the 
     Administrator determines that a State has failed to 
     demonstrate reasonable further progress toward the attainment 
     of water quality standards as required, the State shall 
     revise its program within 12 months of that determination in 
     a manner sufficient to achieve attainment of applicable water 
     quality standards by the deadline established by this Act. If 
     a State fails to make such a program revision or the 
     Administrator disapproves such a revision, the Administrator 
     shall prepare and implement a nonpoint source management 
     program for the State.''.
       (e) Technical Assistance.--Section 319(f) is amended by 
     inserting ``and implementing'' after ``developing''.
       (f) Grant Program.--
       (1) In general.--Section 319(h)(1) is amended--
       (A) by amending the paragraph heading to read as follows: 
     ``Grants for preparation and implementation of reports and 
     management programs.--'';
       (B) by striking ``for which a report submitted under 
     subsection (a) and a management program submitted under 
     subsection (b) is approved under this section'';
       (C) by striking ``the Administrator shall make grants'' and 
     inserting ``the Administrator may make grants under this 
     subsection'';
     [[Page H4771]]   (D) by striking ``under this subsection to 
     such State'' and inserting ``to such State'';
       (E) by striking ``implementing such management program'' 
     and inserting ``preparing a report under subsection (a) and 
     in preparing and implementing a management program under 
     subsection (b)'';
       (F) by inserting after the first sentence the following: 
     ``Grants for implementation of such management program may be 
     made only after such report and management program are 
     approved under this section.''; and
       (G) by adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator 
     is authorized to provide funds to a State if necessary to 
     implement an approved portion of a State program or, with the 
     approval of the Governor of the State, to implement a 
     component of a federally established program. The 
     Administrator may continue to make grants to any State with 
     an program approved on the day before the date of the 
     enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995 until the 
     Administrator withdraws the approval of such program or the 
     State fails to submit a revision of such program in 
     accordance with subsection (c)(2).''.
       (2) Federal share.--Section 319(h)(3) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``management program implemented'' and 
     inserting ``report prepared and management program prepared 
     and implemented'';
       (B) by striking ``60 percent'' and inserting ``75 
     percent'';
       (C) by striking ``implementing such management program'' 
     and inserting ``preparing such report and preparing and 
     implementing such management program''; and
       (D) by inserting ``of program implementation'' after ``non-
     Federal share''.
       (3) Limitation on grant amounts.--Section 319(h)(4) is 
     amended--
       (A) by inserting before the first sentence the following: 
     ``The Administrator shall establish, after consulting with 
     the States, maximum and minimum grants for any fiscal year to 
     promote equity between States and effective nonpoint source 
     management.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The minimum 
     percentage of funds allocated to each State shall be 0.5 
     percent of the amount appropriated.''.
       (4) Allocation of grant funds.--Paragraph (5) of section 
     319(h) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) Allocation of grant funds.--Grants under this section 
     shall be allocated to States with approved programs in a fair 
     and equitable manner and be based upon rules and regulations 
     promulgated by the Administrator which shall take into 
     account the extent and nature of the nonpoint sources of 
     pollution in each State and other relevant factors.''.
       (5) Use of funds.--Paragraph (7) of section 319(h) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) Use of funds.--A State may use grants made available 
     to the State pursuant to this section for activities relating 
     to nonpoint source water pollution control, including--
       ``(A) providing financial assistance with respect to those 
     activities whose principal purpose is protecting and 
     improving water quality;
       ``(B) assistance related to the cost of preparing or 
     implementing the State management program;
       ``(C) providing incentive grants to individuals to 
     implement a site-specific water quality plan in amounts not 
     to exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project from all 
     Federal sources;
       ``(D) land acquisition or conservation easements consistent 
     with a site-specific water quality plan; and
       ``(E) restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and 
     biological integrity of urban and rural waters and watersheds 
     (including restoration and maintenance of water quality, a 
     balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and 
     wildlife, aquatic and riparian vegetation, and recreational 
     activities in and on the water) and protecting designated 
     uses, including fishing, swimming, and drinking water 
     supply.''.
       (6) Compliance with state management program.--Paragraph 
     (8) of section 319(h) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(8) Compliance with state management program.--In any 
     fiscal year for which the Administrator determines that a 
     State has not made satisfactory progress in the preceding 
     fiscal year in meeting the schedule specified for such State 
     under subsection (b)(2)(C), the Administrator is authorized 
     to withhold grants pursuant to this section in whole or in 
     part to the State after adequate written notice is provided 
     to the Governor of the State.''.
       (7) Allotment study.--Section 319(h) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(13) Allotment study.--
       ``(A) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with the 
     States, shall conduct a study of whether the allocation of 
     funds under paragraph (5) appropriately reflects the needs 
     and costs of nonpoint source control measures for different 
     nonpoint source categories and subcategories and of options 
     for better reflecting such needs and costs in the allotment 
     of funds.
       ``(B) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, the 
     Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the study conducted under this subsection, 
     together with recommendations.''.
       (g) Grants for Protecting Ground Water Quality.--Section 
     319(i)(3) is amended by striking ``$150,000'' and inserting 
     ``$500,000''.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 319(j) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$130,000,000'';
       (2) by inserting after ``1991'' the following: ``, such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995, 
     $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal 
     year 1997, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000 
     for fiscal year 1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2000''; and
       (3) by striking ``$7,500,000'' and inserting 
     ``$25,000,000''.
       (i) Consistency of Other Programs and Projects With 
     Management Programs.--Section 319(k) (33 U.S.C. 1329(k)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``allow States to review'' and inserting 
     ``require coordination with States in'';
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``and the State watershed management program''; 
     and
       (3) by adding at the end the following: ``Federal agencies 
     that own or manage land, or issue licenses for activities 
     that cause nonpoint source pollution from such land, shall 
     coordinate their nonpoint source control measures with the 
     State nonpoint source management program and the State 
     watershed management program. A Federal agency and the 
     Governor of an affected State shall enter into a memorandum 
     of understanding to carry out the purposes of this paragraph. 
     Such a memorandum of understanding shall not relieve the 
     Federal agency of the agency's obligation to comply with its 
     own mandates.''.
       (j) Reports of the Administrator.--
       (1) Biennial reports.--Section 319(m)(1) is amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``Annual'' and 
     inserting ``Biennial''; and
       (B) by striking ``1988, and each January 1'' and inserting 
     ``1995, and biennially''.
       (2) Contents.--Section 319(m)(2) is amended--
       (A) by striking the paragraph heading and all that follows 
     before ``at a minimum'' and inserting ``Contents.--Each 
     report submitted under paragraph (1),'';
       (B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``best management 
     practices'' and inserting ``measures''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``best management 
     practices'' and inserting ``the measures provided by States 
     under subsection (b)''.
       (k) Set Aside for Administrative Personnel.--Section 319(n) 
     is amended by striking ``less'' and inserting ``more''.
       (l) Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures.--
     Section 319 is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(o) Guidance on Model Management Practices and 
     Measures.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall publish guidance 
     to identify model management practices and measures which may 
     be undertaken, at the discretion of the State or appropriate 
     entity, under a management program established pursuant to 
     this section.
       ``(2) Consultation; public notice and comment.--The 
     Administrator shall develop the model management practices 
     and measures under paragraph (1) in consultation with the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other 
     appropriate Federal and State departments and agencies, and 
     academic institutions, private industry experts, and other 
     individual experts in water conservation and planning, and 
     after providing notice and opportunity for public comment.
       ``(3) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish 
     proposed guidance under this subsection not later than 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and 
     shall publish final guidance under this subsection not later 
     than 18 months after such date of enactment. The 
     Administrator shall periodically review and revise the final 
     guidance at least once every 3 years after its publication.
       ``(4) Model management practices and measures defined.--For 
     the purposes of this subsection, the term `model management 
     practices and measures' means economically achievable 
     measures for the control of the addition of pollutants from 
     nonpoint sources of pollution which reflect the greatest 
     degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the 
     application of the best available nonpoint pollution control 
     practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, 
     operating methods, or other alternatives. The Administrator 
     may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within any 
     category of nonpoint sources.''.
       (m) Inadequate Funding.--Section 319 is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(p) Inadequate Funding.--For each fiscal year beginning 
     after the date of the enactment of this subsection for which 
     the total of amounts appropriated to carry out this section 
     are less than the total of amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated pursuant to subsection (j), the deadline for 
     compliance with any requirement of this section, including 
     any deadline relating to assessment reports or State program 
     implementation or monitoring efforts, shall be postponed by 1 
     year, unless the Administrator and the State jointly certify 
     that the amounts appropriated are sufficient to meet the 
     requirements of this section.''.
       (n) Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1455b) is repealed.
       (2) Inclusion of coastal management provisions in nonpoint 
     program.--Section 319 is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
       (ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
     and inserting ``(including State management programs approved 
     under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 
     1972); and''; and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) identifies critical areas, giving consideration to 
     the variety of natural, commercial, recreational, ecological, 
     industrial, and aesthetic resources of immediate and 
     potential value to the present and future of the Nation's 
     waters in the Coastal Zone.'';
     [[Page H4772]]   (B) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting ``any 
     management program of the State approved under section 306 of 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,'' after ``314,'';
       (C) in subsection (b)(2) by adding after subparagraph (I), 
     as added by subsection (b) of this section, the following:
       ``(J) For coastal areas, the identification of, and 
     continuing process for identifying, land uses which 
     individually or cumulatively may cause or contribute 
     significantly to degradation of--
       ``(i) those coastal waters where there is a failure to 
     attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or 
     protected designated uses, as determined by the State 
     pursuant to the State's water quality planning processes or 
     watershed planning efforts; and
       ``(ii) those coastal waters that are threatened by 
     reasonably foreseeable increases in pollution loadings.''; 
     and
       (D) in subsection (c)(1) by inserting ``or coastal zone 
     management agencies'' after ``planning agencies''.
       (o) Agricultural Inputs.--Section 319 is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(q) Agricultural Inputs.--For the purposes of this Act, 
     any land application of livestock manure shall not be 
     considered a point source and shall be subject to enforcement 
     only under this section.''.
       (p) Purpose.--Section 319 (33 U.S.C. 1329) is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist 
     States in addressing nonpoint sources of pollution where 
     necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this Act. 
     It is recognized that State nonpoint source programs need to 
     be built upon a foundation that voluntary initiatives 
     represent the approach most likely to succeed in achieving 
     the objectives of this Act.''.
     SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.

       (a) Technical Amendment.--Section 320(a)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C. 
     1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Priority consideration.--The Administrator shall give 
     priority consideration under this section to Long Island 
     Sound, New York and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode 
     Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bay, 
     Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor); 
     Puget Sound, Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York 
     and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey; 
     Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North 
     Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay, 
     California; Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay, 
     Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana; 
     Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Charlotte Harbor, Florida; 
     Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; and Peconic Bay, New York.''.
       (b) Grants.--Section 320(g)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)(2)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and implementation monitoring'' after 
     ``development''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) (33 
     U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``1987'' and all that 
     follows through ``1991'' and inserting the following: ``1987 
     through 1991, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
     1992 through 1995, and $19,000,000 per fiscal year for each 
     of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.
     SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Establishment.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
     ``SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) State Watershed Management Program.--
       ``(1) Submission of program to administrator.--A State, at 
     any time, may submit a watershed management program to the 
     Administrator for approval.
       ``(2) Approval.--If the Administrator does not disapprove a 
     State watershed management program within 180 days of its 
     submittal or 240 days of a request for a public hearing 
     pursuant to paragraph (3) with respect to the program, 
     whichever is later, such program shall be deemed approved for 
     the purposes of this section. The Administrator shall approve 
     the program if the program includes, at a minimum, the 
     following elements:
       ``(A) The identification of the State agency with primary 
     responsibility for overseeing and approving watershed 
     management plans in general.
       ``(B) The description of any responsible entities 
     (including any appropriate State agency or substate agency) 
     to be utilized in implementing the program and a description 
     of their responsibilities.
       ``(C) A description of the scope of the program. In 
     establishing the scope of the program, the State may address 
     one or more watersheds, or pollutants, concurrently or 
     sequentially. The scope of the State program may expand over 
     time with respect to the watersheds, pollutants, and factors 
     to be addressed under the program. In developing the State 
     program, the State shall take into account all regional and 
     local government watershed management programs that are 
     consistent with the proposed State program and shall consult 
     with the regional and local governments that developed such 
     programs. The State shall consider recommendations from units 
     of general purpose government, special purpose districts, 
     local water suppliers, and appropriate water management 
     agencies in the development and scope of the program.
       ``(D) Provisions for carrying out an analysis, consistent 
     with the established scope of the program, of the problems 
     within each watershed covered under the program.
       ``(E) An identification of watershed management units for 
     which management plans will be developed, taking into 
     consideration those waters where water quality is threatened 
     or impaired or otherwise in need of special protection. A 
     watershed management unit identified under the program may 
     include waters and associated land areas in more than 1 State 
     if the Governors of the States affected jointly designate the 
     watershed management unit and may include waters and 
     associated lands managed or owned by the Federal Government.
       ``(F) A description of the activities required of 
     responsible entities (as specified under subsection (e)(1)) 
     and a description of the watershed plan approval process of 
     the State.
       ``(G) Documentation of the public participation in 
     development of the program and description of the procedures 
     that will be used for public participation in the development 
     and implementation of watershed plans.
       ``(H) The identification of goals that will be pursued in 
     each watershed, including attainment of State water quality 
     standards (including site-specific water quality standards) 
     and the goals and objectives of this Act.
       ``(I) An exclusion from the program of federally approved 
     activities with respect to linear utility facilities, such as 
     natural gas pipelines if such facilities extend to multiple 
     watersheds and result in temporary or de minimis impacts.
       ``(J) A description of the process for consideration of and 
     achieving consistency with the purposes of sections 319 and 
     322.
       ``(3) Disapproval process.--If the Administrator intends to 
     disapprove a program of a State submitted under this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall by a written notification 
     advise the State of the intent to disapprove and the reasons 
     for disapproval. If, within 30 days of receipt of such 
     notice, a State so requests, the Administrator shall conduct 
     a public hearing in the State on the intent to disapprove and 
     the reasons for such disapproval. A State may resubmit a 
     revised program that addresses the reasons contained in the 
     notification. If a State requests a public hearing, the 
     Administrator shall conduct the hearing in that State and 
     issue a final determination within 240 days of receipt of the 
     State watershed management program submittal.
       ``(4) Modification of program.--Each State with a watershed 
     management program that has been approved by the 
     Administrator under this section may, at any time, modify the 
     watershed management program. Any such modification shall be 
     submitted to the Administrator and shall remain in effect 
     unless and until the Administrator determines that the 
     modified program no longer meets the requirements of this 
     section. In such event, the provisions of paragraph (3) shall 
     apply.
       ``(5) Status reports.--Each State with a watershed 
     management program that has been approved by the 
     Administrator pursuant to this subsection shall, not later 
     than 1 year after the date of approval, and annually 
     thereafter, submit to the Administrator an annual watershed 
     program summary status report that includes descriptions of 
     any modifications to the program. The status report shall 
     include a listing of requests made for watershed plan 
     development and a listing of plans prepared and submitted by 
     local or regional entities and the actions taken by the State 
     on such plans including the reasons for those actions. In 
     consultation and coordination with the Administrator, a State 
     may use the report to satisfy, in full or in part, any 
     reporting requirements under sections 106, 303(d), 305(b), 
     314, 319, 320, 322, and 604(b).
       ``(b) Watershed Area in 2 or More States.--If a watershed 
     management unit is designated to include land areas in more 
     than 1 State, the Governors of States having jurisdiction 
     over any lands within the watershed management unit shall 
     jointly determine the responsible entity or entities.
       ``(c) Eligible Watershed Management and Planning 
     Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--In addition to activities eligible to 
     receive assistance under other sections of this Act as of the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, the following 
     watershed management activities conducted by or on behalf of 
     the States pursuant to a watershed management program that is 
     approved by the Administrator under this section shall be 
     considered to be eligible to receive assistance under 
     sections 106, 205(j), 319(h), 320, and 604(b):
       ``(A) Characterizing the waters and land uses.
       ``(B) Identifying and evaluating problems within the 
     watershed.
       ``(C) Selecting short-term and long-term goals for 
     watershed management.
       ``(D) Developing and implementing water quality standards, 
     including site-specific water quality standards.
       ``(E) Developing and implementing measures and practices to 
     meet identified goals.
       ``(F) Identifying and coordinating projects and activities 
     necessary to restore or maintain water quality or other 
     related environmental objectives within the watershed.
       ``(G) Identifying the appropriate institutional 
     arrangements to carry out a watershed management plan that 
     has been approved or adopted by the State under this section.
       ``(H) Updating the plan.
       ``(I) Conducting training and public participation 
     activities.
       ``(J) Research to study benefits of existing watershed 
     program plans and particular aspects of the plans.
       ``(K) Implementing any other activity considered 
     appropriate by the Administrator or the Governor of a State 
     with an approved program.
       ``(2) Factors to be considered.--In selecting watershed 
     management activities to receive assistance pursuant to 
     paragraph (1), the following factors shall be considered:
       ``(A) Whether or not the applicant has demonstrated success 
     in addressing water quality problems with broadbased regional 
     support, including public and private sources.
       ``(B) Whether the activity will promote watershed problem 
     prioritization.
     [[Page H4773]]   ``(C) Whether or not the applicant can 
     demonstrate an ability to use Federal resources to leverage 
     non-Federal public and private monetary and in-kind support 
     from voluntary contributions, including matching and cost 
     sharing incentives.
       ``(D) Whether or not the applicant proposes to use existing 
     public and private programs to facilitate water quality 
     improvement with the assistance to be provided pursuant to 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(E) Whether or not such assistance will be used to 
     promote voluntary activities, including private wetlands 
     restoration, mitigation banking, and pollution prevention to 
     achieve water quality standards.
       ``(F) Whether or not such assistance will be used to market 
     mechanisms to enhance existing programs.
       ``(d) Public Participation.--Each State shall establish 
     procedures to encourage the public to participate in its 
     program and in developing and implementing comprehensive 
     watershed management plans under this section. A State 
     watershed management program shall include a process for 
     public involvement in watershed management, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, including the formation and participation 
     of public advisory groups during State watershed program 
     development. States must provide adequate public notice and 
     an opportunity to comment on the State watershed program 
     prior to submittal of the program to the Administrator for 
     approval.
       ``(e) Approved or State-Adopted Plans.--
       ``(1) Requirements.--A State with a watershed management 
     program that has been approved by the Administrator under 
     this section may approve or adopt a watershed management plan 
     if the plan satisfies the following conditions:
       ``(A) If the watershed includes waters that are not meeting 
     water quality standards at the time of submission, the plan--
       ``(i) identifies the objectives of the plan, including, at 
     a minimum, State water quality standards (including site-
     specific water quality standards) and goals and objectives 
     under this Act;
       ``(ii) identifies pollutants, sources, activities, and any 
     other factors causing the impairment of the waters;
       ``(iii) identifies cost effective actions that are 
     necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan, including 
     reduction of pollutants to achieve any allocated load 
     reductions consistent with the requirements of section 
     303(d), and the priority for implementing the actions;
       ``(iv) contains an implementation schedule with milestones 
     and the identification of persons responsible for 
     implementing the actions;
       ``(v) demonstrates that water quality standards and other 
     goals and objectives of this Act will be attained as 
     expeditiously as practicable but not later than any 
     applicable deadline under this Act;
       ``(vi) contains documentation of the public participation 
     in the development of the plan and a description of the 
     public participation process that will be used during the 
     plan implementation;
       ``(vii) specifies a process to monitor and evaluate 
     progress toward meeting of the goals of the plan; and
       ``(viii) specifies a process to revise the plan as 
     necessary.
       ``(B) For waters in the watershed attaining water quality 
     standards at the time of submission (including threatened 
     waters), the plan identifies the projects and activities 
     necessary to maintain water quality standards and attain or 
     maintain other goals after the date of approval or adoption 
     of the plan.
       ``(2) Terms of approved or adopted plan.--Each plan that is 
     approved or adopted by a State under this subsection shall be 
     effective for a period of not more than 10 years and include 
     a planning and implementation schedule with milestones within 
     that period. A revised and updated plan may be approved or 
     adopted by the State prior to the expiration of the period 
     specified in the plan pursuant to the same conditions and 
     requirements that apply to an initial plan for a watershed 
     approved under this subsection.
       ``(f) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this section, the Administrator, after 
     consultation with the States and other interested parties, 
     shall issue guidance on provisions that States may consider 
     for inclusion in watershed management programs and State-
     approved or State-adopted watershed management plans under 
     this section.
       ``(g) Pollutant Transfer Opportunities.--
       ``(1) Pollutant transfer pilot projects.--Under an approved 
     watershed management program, any discharger or source may 
     apply to a State for approval to offset the impact of its 
     discharge or release of a pollutant by entering into 
     arrangements, including the payment of funds, for the 
     implementation of controls or measures by another discharger 
     or source through a pollution reduction credits trading 
     program established as part of the watershed management plan. 
     The State may approve such a request if appropriate 
     safeguards are included to ensure compliance with technology 
     based controls and to protect the quality of receiving 
     waters.
       ``(2) Incentive grants.--The Administrator shall allocate 
     sums made available by appropriations to carry out pollution 
     reduction credits trading programs in selected watersheds 
     throughout the country.
       ``(3) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit 
     to Congress a report on the results of the program conducted 
     under this subsection.''.
       (b) Incentives for Watershed Management.--
       (1) Point source permits.--Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(r) Watershed Management.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, a permit may be issued under this section with a 
     limitation that does not meet applicable water quality 
     standards if--
       ``(A) the receiving water is in a watershed with a 
     watershed management plan that has been approved pursuant to 
     section 321;
       ``(B) the plan includes assurances that water quality 
     standards will be met within the watershed by a specified 
     date; and
       ``(C) the point source does not have a history of 
     significant noncompliance with its effluent limitations under 
     a permit issued under this section, as determined by the 
     Administrator or a State with authority to issue permits 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Synchronized permit terms.--Notwithstanding 
     subsection (b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under this 
     section may be extended for an additional period if the 
     discharge is located in a watershed management unit for which 
     a watershed management plan will be developed pursuant to 
     section 321. Permits extended under this paragraph shall be 
     synchronized with the approval of the watershed management 
     plan of a State adopted pursuant to section 321.''.
       (2) Multipurpose grants.--
       (A) In general.--The Administrator may provide assistance 
     to a State with a watershed management program that has been 
     approved by the Administrator under section 321 in the form 
     of a multipurpose grant that would provide for single 
     application, work plan and review, matching, oversight, and 
     end-of-year closeout requirements for grant funding under 
     sections 104(b)(3), 104(g), 106, 314(b), 319, 320, and 604(b) 
     of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
       (B) Terms.--The Administrator may attach terms that shall 
     apply for more than 1 year to grants made pursuant to this 
     paragraph. A State that receives a grant under this paragraph 
     may focus activities funded under the provisions referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) on a priority basis in a manner 
     consistent with watershed management plans approved by the 
     State under section 321(e) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act.
       (3) Planning.--Section 604(b) (33 U.S.C. 1384(b)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``In any fiscal 
     year in which a State is implementing a State watershed 
     management program approved under section 321, the State may 
     reserve up to an additional 2 percent of the sums allotted to 
     the State for such fiscal year for development of watershed 
     management plans under such program or $200,000, whichever is 
     greater, if 50 percent of the amount reserved under this 
     sentence will be made available to local entities.''.
     SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) State Programs.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:
     ``SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist 
     States in the development and implementation of stormwater 
     control programs in an expeditious and cost effective manner 
     so as to enable the goals and requirements of this Act to be 
     met in each State no later than 15 years after the date of 
     approval of the stormwater management program of the State. 
     It is recognized that State stormwater management programs 
     need to be built on a foundation that voluntary pollution 
     prevention initiatives represent an approach most likely to 
     succeed in achieving the objectives of this Act.
       ``(b) State Assessment Reports.--
       ``(1) Contents.--After notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, the Governor of each State, consistent with or as 
     part of the assessment required by section 319, shall prepare 
     and submit to the Administrator for approval, a report 
     which--
       ``(A) identifies those navigable waters within the State 
     which, without additional action to control pollution from 
     stormwater discharges, cannot reasonably be expected to 
     attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the 
     goals and requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of 
     stormwater discharges that add significant pollution to each 
     portion of the navigable waters identified under subparagraph 
     (A) in amounts which contribute to such portion not meeting 
     such water quality standards or such goals and requirements;
       ``(C) describes the process, including intergovernmental 
     coordination and public participation, for identifying 
     measures to control pollution from each category and 
     subcategory of stormwater discharges identified in 
     subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the level of pollution resulting from such 
     discharges; and
       ``(D) identifies and describes State, local, and as may be 
     appropriate, industrial programs for controlling pollution 
     added from stormwater discharges to, and improving the 
     quality of, each such portion of the navigable waters.
       ``(2) Information used in preparation.--In developing, 
     reviewing, and revising the report required by this 
     subsection, the State--
       ``(A) may rely upon information developed pursuant to 
     sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), 314, 319, 320, and 321 
     and subsection (h) of this section, information developed 
     from the group stormwater permit application process in 
     effect under section 402(p) of this Act on the day before the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, and such other information 
     as the State determines is appropriate; and
       ``(B) may utilize appropriate elements of the waste 
     treatment management plans developed pursuant to sections 
     208(b) and 303, to the extent such elements are consistent 
     with and fulfill the requirements of this section.
     [[Page H4774]]   ``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than 
     18 months after the date of the enactment of the Clean Water 
     Amendments of 1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State 
     shall review, revise, and submit to the Administrator the 
     report required by this subsection.
       ``(c) State Management Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In substantial consultation with local 
     governments and after notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, the Governor of each State for the State or in 
     combination with the Governors of adjacent States shall 
     prepare and submit to the Administrator for approval a 
     stormwater management program based on available information 
     which the State proposes to implement in the first 5 fiscal 
     years beginning after the date of submission of such 
     management program for controlling pollution added from 
     stormwater discharges to the navigable waters within the 
     boundaries of the State and improving the quality of such 
     waters.
       ``(2) Specific contents.--Each management program proposed 
     for implementation under this subsection shall include the 
     following:
       ``(A) Identification of model management practices and 
     measures.--Identification of the model management practices 
     and measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant 
     loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of 
     stormwater discharges designated under subsection (b)(1)(B), 
     taking into account the impact of the practice and measure on 
     ground water quality.
       ``(B) Identification of programs and resources.--
     Identification of programs and resources necessary 
     (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory programs or 
     regulatory programs, enforceable policies and mechanisms, 
     technical assistance, financial assistance, education, 
     training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects) to 
     manage categories or subcategories of stormwater discharges 
     to the degree necessary to provide for reasonable further 
     progress toward the goal of attainment of water quality 
     standards which contain the stormwater criteria established 
     under subsection (i) for designated uses of receiving waters 
     identified under subsection (b)(1)(A) taking into 
     consideration specific watershed conditions, by not later 
     than the last day of the 15-year period beginning on the date 
     of approval of the State program.
       ``(C) Program for industrial, commercial, oil, gas, and 
     mining discharges.--A program for categories or subcategories 
     of industrial, commercial, oil, gas, and mining stormwater 
     discharges identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) for the 
     implementation of management practices, measures, and 
     programs identified under subparagraphs (A) and (B). The 
     program shall include each of the following:
       ``(i) Voluntary activities.--Voluntary stormwater pollution 
     prevention activities for categories and subcategories of 
     such stormwater discharges that are not contaminated by 
     contact with material handling equipment or activities, heavy 
     industrial machinery, raw materials, intermediate products, 
     finished products, byproducts, or waste products at the site 
     of the industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining activity. 
     Such discharges may have incidental contact with buildings or 
     motor vehicles.
       ``(ii) Enforceable plans.--Enforceable stormwater pollution 
     prevention plans meeting the requirements of subsection (d) 
     for those categories and subcategories of such stormwater 
     discharges that are not described in clause (i).
       ``(iii) General permits.--General permits for categories 
     and subcategories of such stormwater discharges if the State 
     finds, based on available information and after providing 
     notice and an opportunity for comment, that reasonable 
     further progress toward achieving water quality standards in 
     receiving waters identified by the State by the date referred 
     to in subparagraph (B) cannot be made despite implementation 
     of voluntary activities under clause (i) or prevention plans 
     under clause (ii) due to the presence of a pollutant or 
     pollutants identified by the State. A facility in a category 
     or subcategory identified by the State shall not be subject 
     to a general permit under this clause if the facility 
     demonstrates that stormwater discharges from the facility are 
     not contributing to a violation of a water quality standard 
     established for designated uses of the receiving waters and 
     are not significantly contributing the pollutant or 
     pollutants identified by the State with respect to the 
     receiving waters under this clause.
       ``(iv) Site-specific permits.--Site-specific permits for 
     categories or subcategories of such stormwater discharges or 
     individual facilities in such categories or subcategories if 
     the State finds, based on available information and after 
     providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that 
     reasonable further progress toward achieving water quality 
     standards in receiving waters identified by the State by the 
     date referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot be made despite 
     implementation of voluntary activities under clause (i) or 
     prevention plans under clause (ii) and general permits under 
     clause (iii) due to the presence of a pollutant or pollutants 
     identified by the State. A facility in a category or 
     subcategory identified by the State shall not be subject to a 
     site-specific permit under this clause if the facility 
     demonstrates that stormwater discharges from the facility are 
     not contributing to a violation of a water quality standard 
     established for designated uses of the receiving waters and 
     are not significantly contributing the pollutant or 
     pollutants identified by the State with respect to the 
     receiving waters under this clause.
       ``(v) Exemption of small businesses.--An exemption for 
     small businesses identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) from 
     clause (iii), relating to general permits, and clause (iv), 
     relating to site-specific permits, unless the State finds 
     that, without the imposition of such permits, such discharges 
     will have a significant adverse effect on water quality.
       ``(D) Program for municipal discharges.--A program for 
     municipal stormwater discharges identified under subsection 
     (b)(1)(B) to reduce pollutant loadings from categories and 
     subcategories of municipal stormwater discharges.
       ``(E) Program for construction activities.--A program for 
     categories and subcategories of stormwater discharges from 
     construction activities identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) 
     for implementation of management practices, measures, and 
     programs identified under subparagraphs (A) and (B). In 
     developing the program, the State shall consider current 
     State and local requirements, focus on pollution prevention 
     through the use of model management practices and measures, 
     and take into account the land area disturbed by the 
     construction activities. The State may require effluent 
     limits or other numerical standards to control pollutants in 
     stormwater discharges from construction activities only if 
     the State finds, after providing notice and an opportunity 
     for comment, that such standards are necessary to achieve 
     water quality standards by the date referred to in 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(F) Bad actor provisions.--Provisions for taking any 
     actions deemed necessary by the State to meet the goals and 
     requirements of this section with respect to dischargers 
     which the State identifies, after notice and opportunity for 
     hearing--
       ``(i) as having a history of stormwater noncompliance under 
     this Act, State law, or the regulations issued thereunder or 
     the terms and conditions of permits, orders, or 
     administrative actions issued pursuant thereto; or
       ``(ii) as posing an imminent threat to human health and the 
     environment.
       ``(G) Schedule.--A schedule containing interim goals and 
     milestones for making reasonable progress toward the 
     attainment of standards as set forth in subparagraph (B) 
     established for the designated uses of receiving waters, 
     taking into account specific watershed conditions, which may 
     be demonstrated by one or any combination of improvements in 
     water quality (including biological indicators), documented 
     implementation of voluntary stormwater discharge control 
     measures, or adoption of enforceable stormwater discharge 
     control measures.
       ``(H) Certification of adequate authority.--
       ``(i) In general.--A certification by the Attorney General 
     of the State or States (or the chief attorney of any State 
     water pollution control agency that has authority under State 
     law to make such certification) that the laws of the State or 
     States, as the case may be, provide adequate authority to 
     implement such management program or, if there is not such 
     adequate authority, a list of such additional authorities as 
     will be necessary to implement such management program.
       ``(ii) Commitment.--A schedule for seeking, and a 
     commitment by the State or States to seek, such additional 
     authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
       ``(I) Identification of federal financial assistance 
     programs.--An identification of Federal financial assistance 
     programs and Federal development projects for which the State 
     will review individual assistance applications or development 
     projects for their effect on water quality pursuant to the 
     procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372 as in effect on 
     September 17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance 
     applications or development projects would be consistent with 
     the program prepared under this subsection; for the purposes 
     of this subparagraph, identification shall not be limited to 
     the assistance programs or development projects subject to 
     Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs listed in 
     the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which 
     may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the 
     State's stormwater management program.
       ``(J) Monitoring.--A description of the monitoring of 
     navigable waters or other assessment which will be carried 
     out under the program for the purposes of monitoring and 
     assessing the effectiveness of the program, including the 
     attainment of interim goals and milestones.
       ``(K) Identification of certain inconsistent federal 
     activities.--An identification of activities on Federal lands 
     in the State that are inconsistent with the State management 
     program.
       ``(L) Identification of goals and milestones.--An 
     identification of goals and milestones for progress in 
     attaining water quality standards, including a projected date 
     for attaining such standards as expeditiously as practicable 
     but not later than 15 years after the date of approval of the 
     State program for each of the waters listed pursuant to 
     subsection (b).
       ``(3) Utilization of local and private experts.--In 
     developing and implementing a management program under this 
     subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     involve local public and private agencies and organizations 
     which have expertise in stormwater management.
       ``(4) Development on watershed basis.--A State shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a 
     stormwater management program under this subsection on a 
     watershed-by-watershed basis within such State.
       ``(5) Regulations defining small businesses.--The 
     Administrator shall propose, not later than 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, and issue, not 
     later than 1 year after the date of such enactment, 
     regulations to define small businesses for purposes of this 
     section.
       ``(d) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.--
       ``(1) Implementation deadline.--Each stormwater pollution 
     prevention plan required under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall 
     be implemented not later than 180 days after the date of its 
     development and shall be annually updated. 
     [[Page H4775]]   ``(2) Plan contents.--Each stormwater 
     pollution prevention plan required under subsection 
     (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall include the following components:
       ``(A) Establishment and appointment of a stormwater 
     pollution prevention team.
       ``(B) Description of potential pollutant sources.
       ``(C) An annual site inspection evaluation.
       ``(D) An annual visual stormwater discharge inspection.
       ``(E) Measures and controls for reducing stormwater 
     pollution, including, at a minimum, model management 
     practices and measures that are flexible, technologically 
     feasible, and economically practicable. For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `model management practices and measures' 
     means preventive maintenance, good housekeeping, spill 
     prevention and response, employee training, and sediment and 
     erosion control.
       ``(F) Prevention of illegal discharges of nonstormwater 
     through stormwater outfalls.
       ``(3) Certification.--Each facility subject to subsection 
     (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall certify to the State that it has 
     implemented a stormwater pollution prevention plan or a State 
     or local equivalent and that the plan is intended to reduce 
     possible pollutants in the facility's stormwater discharges. 
     The certification must be signed by a responsible officer of 
     the facility and must be affixed to the plan subject to 
     review by the appropriate State program authority. If a 
     facility makes such a certification, such facility shall not 
     be subject to permit or permit application requirements, 
     mandatory model management practices and measures, analytical 
     monitoring, effluent limitations or other numerical standards 
     or guidelines under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii).
       ``(4) Plan adequacy.--The State stormwater management 
     program shall set forth the basis upon which the adequacy of 
     a plan prepared by a facility subject to subsection 
     (c)(2)(C)(ii) will be determined. In making such 
     determination, the State shall consider benefits to the 
     environment, physical requirements, technological feasibility 
     and economic costs, human health or safety, and nature of the 
     activity at the facility or site.
       ``(e) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Cooperation requirement.--Any report required by 
     subsection (b) and any management program and report required 
     by subsection (c) shall be developed in cooperation with 
     local, substate, regional, and interstate entities which are 
     responsible for implementing stormwater management programs.
       ``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
     Each management program shall be submitted to the 
     Administrator within 30 months of the issuance by the 
     Administrator of the final guidance under subsection (l) and 
     every 5 years thereafter. Each program submission after the 
     initial submission following the date of the enactment of the 
     Clean Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration 
     of reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining 
     water quality standards as set forth in subsection (c)(2) 
     established for designated uses of receiving waters taking 
     into account specific watershed conditions by not later than 
     the date referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B), including a 
     documentation of the degree to which the State has achieved 
     the interim goals and milestones contained in the previous 
     program submission. Such demonstration shall take into 
     account the adequacy of Federal funding under this section.
       ``(3) Transition.--
       ``(A) In general.--Permits, including group and general 
     permits, issued pursuant to section 402(p), as in effect on 
     the day before the date of the enactment of this section, 
     shall remain in effect until the effective date of a State 
     stormwater management program under this section. Stormwater 
     dischargers shall continue to implement any stormwater 
     management practices and measures required under such permits 
     until such practices and measures are modified pursuant to 
     this subparagraph or pursuant to a State stormwater 
     management program. Prior to the effective date of a State 
     stormwater management program, stormwater dischargers may 
     submit for approval proposed revised stormwater management 
     practices and measures to the State, in the case of a State 
     with an approved program under section 402, or the 
     Administrator. Upon notice of approval by the State or the 
     Administrator, the stormwater discharger shall implement the 
     revised stormwater management practices and measures which, 
     for discharges subject to subsection (c)(2)(C)(i), (c)(2)(D), 
     (c)(2)(E), or (c)(2)(F), may be voluntary pollution 
     prevention activities. A stormwater discharger operating 
     under a permit continued in effect under this subparagraph 
     shall not be subject to citizens suits under section 505.
       ``(B) New facilities.--A new nonmunicipal source of 
     stormwater discharge subject to a group or general permit 
     continued in effect under subparagraph (A) shall notify the 
     State or the Administrator, as appropriate, of the source's 
     intent to be covered by and shall continue to comply with 
     such permit. Until the effective date of a State stormwater 
     management program under this section, the State may impose 
     enforceable stormwater management measures and practices on a 
     new nonmunicipal source of stormwater discharge not subject 
     to such a permit if the State finds that the stormwater 
     discharge is likely to pose an imminent threat to human 
     health and the environment or to pose significant impairment 
     of water quality standards.
       ``(C) Special rule.--Industrial facilities included in a 
     Part 1 group stormwater permit application approved by the 
     Administrator pursuant to section 122.26(c)(2) of title 40, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this section, may, in lieu of continued 
     operation under existing permits, certify to the State or the 
     Administrator, as appropriate, that such facilities are 
     implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan 
     consistent with subsection (d). Upon such certification, the 
     facility will no longer be subject to such permit.
       ``(D) Pre-1987 permits.--Notwithstanding the repeal of 
     section 402(p) by the Clean Water Amendments Act of 1995 or 
     any other amendment made to section 402 on or before the date 
     of the enactment of such Act, a discharge with respect to 
     which a permit has been issued under section 402 before 
     February 4, 1987, shall not be subject to the provisions of 
     this section.
       ``(E) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o) shall not apply to 
     any activity carried out in accordance with this paragraph.
       ``(f) Approval or Disapproval of Reports or Management 
     Programs.--
       ``(1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 
     180 days after the date of submission to the Administrator of 
     any report or revised report or management program under this 
     section, the Administrator shall either approve or disapprove 
     such report or management program, as the case may be. The 
     Administrator may approve a portion of a management program 
     under this subsection. If the Administrator does not 
     disapprove a report, management program, or portion of a 
     management program in such 180-day period, such report, 
     management program, or portion shall be deemed approved for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Procedure for disapproval.--If, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment and consultation with 
     appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested 
     persons, the Administrator determines that--
       ``(A) the proposed management program or any portion 
     thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection (b) of 
     this section or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or in 
     part, the goals and requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate 
     resources are not available, to implement such program or 
     portion; or
       ``(C) the practices and measures proposed in such program 
     or portion will not result in reasonable progress toward the 
     goal of attainment of applicable water quality standards as 
     set forth in subsection (c)(2) established for designated 
     uses of receiving waters taking into consideration specific 
     watershed conditions as expeditiously as possible but not 
     later than 15 years after approval of a State stormwater 
     management program under this section;

     the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the 
     proposed program notify the State of any revisions or 
     modifications necessary to obtain approval. The State shall 
     have an additional 6 months to submit its revised management 
     program, and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove 
     such revised program within 3 months of receipt.
       ``(3) Failure of state to submit report.--If a Governor of 
     a State does not submit a report or revised report required 
     by subsection (b) within the period specified by subsection 
     (e)(2), the Administrator shall, within 18 months after the 
     date on which such report is required to be submitted under 
     subsection (b), prepare a report for such State which makes 
     the identifications required by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) 
     of subsection (b). Upon completion of the requirement of the 
     preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for a 
     comment, the Administrator shall report to Congress of the 
     actions of the Administrator under this section.
       ``(4) Failure of state to submit management program.--
       ``(A) Program management by administrator.--Subject to 
     paragraph (5), if a State fails to submit a management 
     program or revised management program under subsection (c) or 
     the Administrator does not approve such management program, 
     the Administrator shall prepare and implement a management 
     program for controlling pollution added from stormwater 
     discharges to the navigable waters within the State and 
     improving the quality of such waters in accordance with 
     subsection (c).
       ``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator intends to 
     disapprove a program submitted by a State the Administrator 
     shall first notify the Governor of the State, in writing, of 
     the modifications necessary to meet the requirements of this 
     section. The Administrator shall provide adequate public 
     notice and an opportunity for a public hearing for all 
     interested parties.
       ``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after taking into 
     account the level of funding actually provided as compared 
     with the level authorized, the Administrator determines that 
     a State has failed to demonstrate reasonable further progress 
     toward the attainment of water quality standards as required, 
     the State shall revise its program within 12 months of that 
     determination in a manner sufficient to achieve attainment of 
     applicable water quality standards by the deadline 
     established by this section. If a State fails to make such a 
     program revision or the Administrator does not approve such a 
     revision, the Administrator shall prepare and implement a 
     stormwater management program for the State.
       ``(5) Local Management Programs; Technical Assistance.--If 
     a State fails to submit a management program under subsection 
     (c) or the Administrator does not approve such a management 
     program, a local public agency or organization which has 
     expertise in, and authority to, control water pollution 
     resulting from nonpoint sources in any area of such State 
     which the Administrator determines is of sufficient 
     geographic size may, with approval of such State, request the 
     Administrator to provide, and the Administrator shall 
     provide, technical assistance to such agency or organization 
     in developing for such area a management program which is 
     described in subsection (c) and can be approved pursuant to 
     this subsection. After development of such management 
     program, such 
     [[Page H4776]]  agency or organization shall submit such 
     management program to the Administrator for approval.
       ``(g) Interstate Management Conference.--
       ``(1) Convening of conference; notification; purpose.--
       ``(A) Convening of conference.--If any portion of the 
     navigable waters in any State which is implementing a 
     management program approved under this section is not meeting 
     applicable water quality standards or the goals and 
     requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of 
     pollution from stormwater in another State, such State may 
     petition the Administrator to convene, and the Administrator 
     shall convene, a management conference of all States which 
     contribute significant pollution resulting from stormwater to 
     such portion.
       ``(B) Notification.--If, on the basis of information 
     available, the Administrator determines that a State is not 
     meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and 
     requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of 
     significant pollution from stormwater in another State, the 
     Administrator shall notify such States.
       ``(C) Time limit.--The Administrator may convene a 
     management conference under this paragraph not later than 180 
     days after giving such notification under subparagraph (B), 
     whether or not the State which is not meeting such standards 
     requests such conference.
       ``(D) Purpose.--The purpose of the conference shall be to 
     develop an agreement among the States to reduce the level of 
     pollution resulting from stormwater in the portion of the 
     navigable waters and to improve the water quality of such 
     portion.
       ``(E) Protection of water rights.--Nothing in the agreement 
     shall supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water 
     which have been established by interstate water compacts, 
     Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws.
       ``(F) Limitations.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     pollution which is subject to the Colorado River Basin 
     Salinity Control Act. The requirement that the Administrator 
     convene a management conference shall not be subject to the 
     provisions of section 505 of this Act.
       ``(2) State management program requirement.--To the extent 
     that the States reach agreement through such conference, the 
     management programs of the States which are parties to such 
     agreements and which contribute significant pollution to the 
     navigable waters or portions thereof not meeting applicable 
     water quality standards or goals and requirements of this Act 
     will be revised to reflect such agreement. Such management 
     programs shall be consistent with Federal and State law.
       ``(h) Grants for Stormwater Research.--
       ``(1) In general.--To determine the most cost-effective and 
     technologically feasible means of improving the quality of 
     the navigable waters and to develop the criteria required 
     pursuant to subsection (i) of this Act, the Administrator 
     shall establish an initiative through which the Administrator 
     shall fund State and local demonstration programs and 
     research to--
       ``(A) identify adverse impacts of stormwater discharges on 
     receiving waters;
       ``(B) identify the pollutants in stormwater which cause 
     impact; and
       ``(C) test innovative approaches to address the impacts of 
     source controls and model management practices and measures 
     for runoff from municipal storm sewers.

     Persons conducting demonstration programs and research funded 
     under this subsection shall also take into account the 
     physical nature of episodic stormwater flows, the varying 
     pollutants in stormwater, the actual risk the flows pose to 
     the designated beneficial uses, and the ability of natural 
     ecosystems to accept temporary stormwater events.
       ``(2) Award of funds.--The Administrator shall award the 
     demonstration and research program funds taking into account 
     regional and population variations.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $20,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       ``(4) Inadequate funding.--For each fiscal year beginning 
     after the date of the enactment of this subsection for which 
     the total amounts appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     are less than the total amounts authorized to be appropriated 
     pursuant to this subsection, any deadlines established under 
     subsection (c)(2)(L) for compliance with water quality 
     standards shall be postponed by 1 year.
       ``(i) Development of Stormwater Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--To reflect the episodic character of 
     stormwater which results in significant variances in the 
     volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load associated 
     with stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall 
     establish, as an element of the water quality standards 
     established for the designated uses of the navigable waters, 
     stormwater criteria which protect the navigable waters from 
     impairment of the designated beneficial uses caused by 
     stormwater discharges. The criteria shall be technologically 
     and financially feasible and may include performance 
     standards, guidelines, guidance, and model management 
     practices and measures and treatment requirements, as 
     appropriate, and as identified in subsection (h)(1).
       ``(2) Information to be used in development.--The 
     stormwater discharge criteria to be established under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be developed from--
       ``(i) the findings and conclusions of the demonstration 
     programs and research conducted under subsection (h);
       ``(ii) the findings and conclusions of the research and 
     monitoring activities of stormwater dischargers performed in 
     compliance with permit requirements of this Act; and
       ``(iii) other relevant information, including information 
     submitted to the Administrator under the industrial group 
     permit application process in effect under section 402 of 
     this Act on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     section;
       ``(B) shall be developed in consultation with persons with 
     expertise in the management of stormwater (including 
     officials of State and local government, industrial and 
     commercial stormwater dischargers, and public interest 
     groups); and
       ``(C) shall be established as an element of the water 
     quality standards that are developed and implemented under 
     this Act by not later than December 31, 2008.
       ``(j) Collection of Information.--The Administrator shall 
     collect and make available, through publications and other 
     appropriate means, information pertaining to model management 
     practices and measures and implementation methods, including, 
     but not limited to--
       ``(1) information concerning the costs and relative 
     efficiencies of model management practices and measures for 
     reducing pollution from stormwater discharges; and
       ``(2) available data concerning the relationship between 
     water quality and implementation of various management 
     practices to control pollution from stormwater discharges.
       ``(k) Reports of Administrator.--
       ``(1) Biennial reports.--Not later than January 1, 1996, 
     and biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public
      Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal year 
     on the activities and programs implemented under this 
     section and the progress made in reducing pollution in the 
     navigable waters resulting from stormwater discharges and 
     improving the quality of such waters.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1), 
     at a minimum shall--
       ``(A) describe the management programs being implemented by 
     the States by types of affected navigable waters, categories 
     and subcategories of stormwater discharges, and types of 
     measures being implemented;
       ``(B) describe the experiences of the States in adhering to 
     schedules and implementing the measures under subsection (c);
       ``(C) describe the amount and purpose of grants awarded 
     pursuant to subsection (h);
       ``(D) identify, to the extent that information is 
     available, the progress made in reducing pollutant loads and 
     improving water quality in the navigable waters;
       ``(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken to 
     attain and maintain in those navigable waters (i) applicable 
     water quality standards, and (ii) the goals and requirements 
     of this Act;
       ``(F) include recommendations of the Administrator 
     concerning future programs (including enforcement programs) 
     for controlling pollution from stormwater; and
       ``(G) identify the activities and programs of departments, 
     agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States that are 
     inconsistent with the stormwater management programs 
     implemented by the States under this section and recommended 
     modifications so that such activities and programs are 
     consistent with and assist the States in implementation of 
     such management programs.
       ``(l) Guidance on Model Stormwater Management Practices and 
     Measures.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local departments and 
     agencies, and after providing notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, shall publish guidance to identify model 
     management practices and measures which may be undertaken, at 
     the discretion of the State or appropriate entity, under a 
     management program established pursuant to this section. In 
     preparing such guidance, the Administrator shall consider 
     integration of a stormwater management program of a State 
     with, and the relationship of such program to, the nonpoint 
     source management program of the State under section 319.
       ``(2) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish 
     proposed guidance under this subsection not later than 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and 
     shall publish final guidance under this subsection not later 
     than 18 months after such date of enactment. The 
     Administrator shall periodically review and revise the final 
     guidance upon adequate notice and opportunity for public 
     comment at least once every 3 years after its publication.
       ``(3) Model management practices and measures defined.--For 
     the purposes of this subsection, the term ``model management 
     practices and measures'' means economically achievable 
     measures for the control of pollutants from stormwater 
     discharges which reflect the most cost-effective degree of 
     pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the 
     best available practices, technologies, processes, siting 
     criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.
       ``(m) Enforcement With Respect to Stormwater Dischargers 
     Violating State Management Programs.--Stormwater dischargers 
     that do not comply with State management program requirements 
     under subsection (c) are subject to applicable enforcement 
     actions under sections 309 and 505 of this Act.
       ``(n) Entry and Inspection.--In order to carry out the 
     objectives of this section, an authorized representative of a 
     State, upon presentation of his or her credentials, shall 
     have a right of entry to, upon, or through any property at 
     which a stormwater discharge or records required to be 
     maintained under the State stormwater management program are 
     located.
       ``(o) Limitation on Discharges Regulated Under Watershed 
     Management Program.--Stormwater discharges regulated under 
     section 321 in a manner consistent with this section shall 
     not be subject to this section.

[[Page H4777]]

       ``(p) Mineral Exploration and Mining Sites.--
       ``(1) Exploration sites.--For purposes of subsection 
     (c)(2)(F), stormwater discharges from construction activities 
     shall include stormwater discharges from mineral exploration 
     activities; except that, for exploration at abandoned mined 
     lands, the stormwater program under subsection (c)(2)(F) 
     shall be limited to the control of pollutants added to 
     stormwater by contact with areas disturbed by the exploration 
     activity.
       ``(2) Mining sites.--Stormwater discharges at ore mining 
     and dressing sites shall be subject to this section. If any 
     such discharge is commingled with mine drainage or process 
     wastewater from mining operations, such discharge shall be 
     treated as a discharge from a point source for purposes of 
     this Act.
       ``(3) Abandoned mined lands.--Stormwater discharges from 
     abandoned mined lands shall be subject to section 319; except 
     that if the State, after notice and an opportunity for 
     comment, finds that regulation of such stormwater discharges 
     under this section is necessary to make reasonable further 
     progress toward achieving water quality standards by the date 
     referred to in subsection (c)(2)(B), such discharges shall be 
     subject to this section.
       ``(4) Surface mining control and reclamation act sites.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (3), stormwater discharges from 
     abandoned mined lands site which are subject to the Surface 
     Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201-
     1328) shall be subject to section 319.
       ``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     following definitions apply:
       ``(A) Abandoned mined lands.--The term `abandoned mined 
     lands' means lands which were used for mineral activities and 
     abandoned or left in an inadequate reclamation status and for 
     which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under 
     State or Federal laws.
       ``(B) Process waste water.--The term `process waste water' 
     means any water other than stormwater which comes into 
     contact with any raw material, intermediate product, finished 
     product, byproduct, or waste product as part of any mineral 
     beneficiation processes employed at the site.
       ``(C) Mine drainage.--The term `mine drainage' means any 
     water drained, pumped, or siphoned from underground mine 
     workings or mine pits, but such term shall not include 
     stormwater runoff from tailings dams, dikes, overburden, 
     waste rock piles, haul roads, access roads, and ancillary 
     facility areas.''.
       (b) Repeal of Limitation on Permit Requirement.--Section 
     402(l) (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is repealed.
       (c) Repeal of Municipal and Industrial Stormwater 
     Discharges Program.--Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)) is 
     repealed.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of paragraph (14) the following: 
     ``The term does not include a stormwater discharge.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) The term `stormwater' means runoff from rain, snow 
     melt, or any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.
       ``(26) The term `stormwater discharge' means a discharge 
     from any conveyance which is used for the collecting and 
     conveying of stormwater to navigable waters and which is 
     associated with a municipal storm sewer system or industrial, 
     commercial, oil, gas, or mining activities or construction 
     activities.''.
     SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--The Administrator or the Secretary of 
     the Army (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Secretary'), as appropriate, shall develop and publish a 
     risk assessment before issuing--
       ``(1) any standard, effluent limitation, water quality 
     criterion, water quality based requirement, or other 
     regulatory requirement under this Act (other than a permit or 
     a purely procedural requirement); or
       ``(2) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a 
     regulatory requirement, would result in an annual increase in 
     cost of $25,000,000 or more.
       ``(b) Contents of Risk Assessments.--A risk assessment 
     developed under subsection (a), at a minimum, shall--
       ``(1) identify and use all relevant and readily obtainable 
     data and information of sufficient quality, including data 
     and information submitted to the Agency in a timely fashion;
       ``(2) identify and discuss significant assumptions, 
     inferences, or models used in the risk assessment;
       ``(3) measure the sensitivity of the results to the 
     significant assumptions, inferences, or models that the risk 
     assessment relies upon;
       ``(4) with respect to significant assumptions, inferences, 
     or models that the results are sensitive to, identify and 
     discuss--
       ``(A) credible alternatives and the basis for the rejection 
     of such alternatives;
       ``(B) the scientific or policy basis for the selection of 
     such assumptions, inferences, or models; and
       ``(C) the extent to which any such assumptions, inferences, 
     or models have been validated or conflict with empirical 
     data;
       ``(5) to the maximum extent practical, provide a 
     description of the risk, including, at minimum, best 
     estimates or other unbiased representation of the most 
     plausible level of risk and a description of the specific 
     populations or natural resources subject to the assessment;
       ``(6) to the maximum extent practical, provide a 
     quantitative estimate of the uncertainty inherent in the risk 
     assessment; and
       ``(7) compare the nature and extent of the risk identified 
     in the risk assessment to other risks to human health and the 
     environment.
       ``(c) Risk Assessment Guidance.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this section, and after 
     providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the 
     Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, shall 
     issue, and thereafter revise, as appropriate, guidance for 
     conducting risk assessments under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Margin of Safety.--When establishing a margin of 
     safety for use in developing a regulatory requirement 
     described in subsection (a)(1) or guidance described in 
     subsection (a)(2), the Administrator or the Secretary, as 
     appropriate, shall provide, as part of the risk assessment 
     under subsection (a), an explicit and, to the extent 
     practical, quantitative description of the margin of safety 
     relative to an unbiased estimate of the risk being addressed.
       ``(e) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the 
     Secretary, as appropriate, may exempt from the requirements 
     of this section any risk assessment prepared in support of a 
     regulatory requirement described in subsection (a)(1) which 
     is likely to result in annual increase in cost of less than 
     $25,000,000. Such exemptions may be made for specific risk 
     assessments or classes of risk assessments.
       ``(f) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of 
     this section shall apply to any regulatory requirement 
     described in subsection (a)(1) or guidance described in 
     subsection (a)(2) that is issued after the last day of the 1-
     year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(g) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
       ``(1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to the 
     regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in 
     subsection (f), the requirements of this section shall apply 
     to--
       ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, water quality 
     criterion, water quality based requirement, or other 
     regulatory requirement issued under this Act during the 
     period described in paragraph (2) which is likely to result 
     in an annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more; and
       ``(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the period 
     described in paragraph (2) which, if issued as a regulatory 
     requirement, would be likely to result in annual increase in 
     cost of $100,000,000 or more.
       ``(2) Covered period.--The period described in this 
     paragraph is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, and 
     ending on the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       ``(3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     which was issued before the date of the enactment of this 
     section shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such 
     requirement or guidance, the Administrator or the Secretary, 
     as appropriate, shall based on such review--
       ``(A) certify that the requirement or guidance meets the 
     requirements of this section without revision; or
       ``(B) reissue the requirement or guidance, after providing 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, with such 
     revisions as may be necessary for compliance with the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     for which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, 
     does not issue a certification or revisions under paragraph 
     (3) on or before the last day of the 18-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this section shall 
     cease to be effective after such last day until the date on 
     which such certification or revisions are issued.''.

     SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.
       Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.

       ``(a) Decision Criterion.--
       ``(1) Certification.--The Administrator or the Secretary of 
     the Army (hereinafter in this section referred to as the 
     `Secretary'), as appropriate, shall not issue--
       ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or other 
     regulatory requirement under this Act; or
       ``(B) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a 
     regulatory requirement, would result in an annual increase in 
     cost of $25,000,000 or more,

     unless the Administrator or the Secretary certifies that the 
     requirement or guidance maximizes net benefits to society. 
     Such certification shall be based on an analysis meeting the 
     requirements of subsection (b).
       ``(2) Effect of criterion.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, the decision criterion of paragraph 
     (1) shall supplement and, to the extent there is a conflict, 
     supersede the decision criteria otherwise applicable under 
     this Act; except that the resulting regulatory requirement or 
     guidance shall be economically achievable.
       ``(3) Substantial evidence.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, no regulation or guidance subject to 
     this subsection shall be issued by the Administrator or the 
     Secretary unless the requirement of paragraph (1) is met and 
     the certification is supported by substantial evidence.
       ``(b) Benefit and Cost Analysis Guidance.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, and after providing notice 
     and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator, in 
     concurrence with the Administrator of the Office of 
     Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall issue, and 
     thereafter revise, as appropriate, guidance for conducting 
     benefit and cost analyses in support of making certifications 
     required by subsection (a).
     [[Page H4778]]   ``(2) Contents.--Guidance issued under 
     paragraph (1), at a minimum, shall--
       ``(A) require the identification of available policy 
     alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating and 
     any alternatives proposed during periods for public comment;
       ``(B) provide methods for estimating the incremental 
     benefits and costs associated with plausible alternatives, 
     including the use of quantitative and qualitative measures;
       ``(C) require an estimate of the nature and extent of the 
     incremental risk avoided by the
      standard, effluent limitation, or other regulatory 
     requirement, including a statement that places in context 
     the nature and magnitude of the estimated risk reduction; 
     and
       ``(D) require an estimate of the total social, 
     environmental, and economic costs of implementing the 
     standard, effluent limitation, or other regulatory 
     requirement.
       ``(c) Exemptions.--The following shall not be subject to 
     the requirements of this section:
       ``(1) The issuance of a permit.
       ``(2) The implementation of any purely procedural 
     requirement.
       ``(3) Water quality criteria established under section 304.
       ``(4) Water quality based standards established under 
     section 303.
       ``(d) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the 
     Secretary, as appropriate, may exempt from this section any 
     regulatory requirement that is likely to result in an annual 
     increase in costs of less than $25,000,000. Such exemptions 
     may be made for specific regulatory requirements or classes 
     of regulatory requirements.
       ``(e) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of 
     this section shall apply to any regulatory requirement 
     described in subsection (a)(1)(A) or guidance described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B) that is issued after the last day of the 
     1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     section.
       ``(f) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
       ``(1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to the 
     regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in 
     subsection (e), this section shall apply to--
       ``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or other 
     regulatory requirement issued under this Act during the 
     period described in paragraph (2) which is likely to result 
     in an annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more; and
       ``(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the period 
     described in paragraph (2) which, if issued as a regulatory 
     requirement, would be likely to result in annual increase in 
     cost of $100,000,000 or more.
       ``(2) Covered period.--The period described in this 
     paragraph is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, and 
     ending on the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       ``(3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     which was issued before the date of the enactment of this 
     section shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such 
     requirement or guidance, the Administrator or the Secretary, 
     as appropriate, shall based on such review--
       ``(A) certify that the requirement or guidance meets the 
     requirements of this section without revision; or
       ``(B) reissue the requirement or guidance, after providing 
     notice and opportunity for public comment, with such 
     revisions as may be necessary for compliance with the 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B) 
     for which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate, 
     does not issue a certification or revisions under paragraph 
     (3) on or before the last day of the 18-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this section shall 
     cease to be effective after such last day until the date on 
     which such certification or revisions are issued.
       ``(g) Study.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
     Regulatory Affairs, shall publish an analysis regarding the 
     precision and accuracy of benefit and cost estimates prepared 
     under this section. Such study, at a minimum, shall--
       ``(1) compare estimates of the benefits and costs prepared 
     under this section to actual costs and benefits achieved 
     after implementation of regulations or other requirements;
       ``(2) examine and assess alternative analytic methods for 
     conducting benefit and cost analysis, including health-health 
     analysis; and
       ``(3) make recommendations for the improvement of benefit 
     and cost analyses conducted under this section.''.

                    amendment offered by mr. mineta

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Is this title I or III?
  Mr. CHAIRMAN. We are on title III.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Title III?
  The CHAIRMAN. Title III, and the gentleman from California has been 
recognized for an amendment to title III.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we cannot find a copy of the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this has been printed in the Record. We 
will be more than happy to present one.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MINETA. I had understood that the committee had copies of the 
amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. MINETA:

       Page 32, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 6 
     on page 33.
       Page 33, line 7, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       Page 33, strike line 16 and all that follows through line 
     10 on page 34.
       Pages 34 through 47, strike section 302 of the bill.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of title III of the bill 
     accordingly. Conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly.
       Page 47, strike line 20 and all that follows through line 8 
     on page 48 and insert the following:

     SEC. 303. REVISION OF STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

       Section 303(c)(1) is amended by striking
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 48, strike line 16 and all that follows through line 
     10 on page 52.
       Page 64, strike lines 4 through 14.
       Pages 73 through 80, strike sections 311 and 312 of the 
     bill.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of title III of the bill 
     accordingly. Conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly.
       Pages 93 through 95, strike section 318 of the bill.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of title III of the bill 
     accordingly. Conform the table of contents of the bill 
     accordingly.
       Page 130, line 2, after the period insert closing quotation 
     marks and a period.
       Page 130, strike lines 3 through 25.
       Page 131, strike lines 5 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(r) Synchronized Permit Terms.--Notwith-* * *

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an effort to salvage the 
heart of the Clean Water Act. It would do so by striking the provisions 
in title III that roll back standards for industrial dischargers.
  We have all heard repeatedly that the Clean Water Act is the most 
successful Federal environmental law. The widely acknowledged successes 
of the Act are attributable to its control of pollutant discharges from 
so-called point sources. Point sources are industry and sewage 
treatment works discharging their polluted wastewater into our Nation's 
lakes, rivers and streams, and the ocean.
  Ironically, it is precisely the part of the act that is responsible 
for its success that H.R. 961 would dismantle. In the name of increased 
flexibility, loophole by loophole the bill would eliminate fundamental 
protections of the Act that have resulted in the significant gains we 
have seen over the past 20 years.
  Ideally, any amendments to the Clean Water Act would improve water 
quality, since 40 percent of our Nation's waters still do not meet 
state-designated water quality standards. Under that standard, these 
waivers clearly should be stricken.
  However, even under a far lower standard for judging whether the 
bill's industrial waiver provisions should be stricken, the waivers 
must go. That lower standard is simple: will the waiver provision 
increase pollution and degrade water quality below today's level? If 
so, it should be stricken. That is what my amendment would do.
  If a waiver provision will allow us to hold on to the progress that 
our municipalities, industries and citizens have worked so hard to 
achieve, then it might be acceptable. Unfortunately, when measured 
against this minimal standard, the bill's industrial waiver provisions 
fail miserably.
  Here are a few of the many examples of the illogical, and 
environmentally and financially destructive, consequences of the bill's 
many industrial waivers:
  A factory could obtain a permit that allows it to significantly 
increase the toxic pollutants it discharges into a river nearby a 
residential area, if the owner of a factory 100 miles away agrees to 
reduce its emissions into the air.
  An industry that discharges its polluted wasterwater into a municipal 
sewage treatment plant could reduce the level of treatment prior to 
discharge, even if the municipal treatment plant regularly has combined 
sewer overflows that cause untreated 
[[Page H4779]]  waste, including industrial waste, to flow into 
resident's basements, the streets and waterbodies.
  Dischargers of nearly 70,000 chemicals could flood EPA with requests 
for waivers from the current baseline standard for certain toxic and 
nonconventional pollutants. These include most of the pollutants 
referred to as dioxins.
  It has been argued that the waivers will not cause a setback in water 
quality because waivers are not available unless authorized by a State 
or EPA. This supposed safeguard is in most instances an illusion.
  In some instances the waiver is automatic, without State or EPA 
approval. In others, the bill requires EPA or a State to grant a waiver 
if certain conditions are met, and those conditions frequently do not 
focus upon water quality. The bill essentially creates entitlements to 
waivers, and then if the State or Federal agencies deny the waivers, 
the polluter can challenge the denial in court, further straining 
limited State and Federal resources, and making this program more like 
Superfund.
  The bill's industrial waivers create new standards that are vague, 
unclear, and, in come instances, patently impossible to implement. 
These waivers would dramatically increase burdens on States responsible 
for implementing them, cause delays in permitting, and increase the 
amount and complexity of litigation.
  The waivers would cause uncertainty for industry, by eliminating the 
bill's uniform standards and introducing in their place multiple 
ambiguous waivers. They would create competition between communities 
for industry and jobs, resulting in reduced standards for water. They 
would create an unlevel playing field, where the preferences given 
certain industrial dischargers will result in competitive disadvantages 
to those who did not obtain waivers. And, the waivers will especially 
harm those who live downstream, as most of us do, from industrial 
dischargers that may receive waivers from the Clean Water Act's 
treatment requirements.
  My amendment would not increase regulatory requirements or financial 
burdens. It would simply mean that industry could not do less than it 
is already doing. My amendment is about holding on to the benefits of 
one of the Congress' and this Great Nation's true success stories. It 
is about not losing the achievements of the past 20 years. And, it is 
about improving the quality of the water that our children and our 
childrens' children will inherit. A vote for increasing industrial 
water pollution through waivers would be unconscionable. I urge you to 
support my amendment.
                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply a grab bag of deletions of 
both the reform and flexibility provisions in the bill. It deletes the 
provisions of flexibility on the nonconventional pollution. It guts the 
pollution provision opportunities. It deletes the pretreatment 
flexibility. And, perhaps most importantly, it fundamentally 
mischaracterizes the waiver provisions in this bill.
  My good friend from California says that these waivers should be 
eliminated because they give industry and others the opportunity to in 
effect get entitlements to waivers. That simply is not the case. No 
waiver can be granted unless the States water authority officials and 
the EPA approve the waiver.
  Now, are the State water quality officials going to approve a waiver 
that harms the environment? Is the EPA going to approve a waiver that 
harms the environment?
  Of course not. These waivers, when requested, must meet water quality 
standards, and they must get the written approval of the water quality 
officials in the States or the EPA.
  So this simply is an attempt to gut the legislation we have before 
us. The very groups, and I will not take a lot of the committee's time 
to go through this in detail. We covered this in the previous debate. 
The very same groups from the National Governors' Association on down, 
who opposed the previous amendment, oppose this legislation.
  So I would urge my colleagues to vote this down so we can get on with 
the consideration of this bill.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the 
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure. This amendment would strike the many loopholes and 
waivers that are sprinkled throughout the title of this bill. This 
title replaces the strong national standards that have made the Clean 
Water Act a success with national loopholes. The gentleman from 
California has found nine specific provisions that roll back the Clean 
Water Act.
  Does anybody really know the impact of these changes? Has anyone 
examined their long-range implications?
  The Environmental Protection Agency called the waivers and exemptions 
in the bill a wholesale repeal and replacement of the fundamental 
provisions in the Clean Water Act. Strong and predictable national 
standards have been at the heart of the success of the Clean Water Act 
during the past 2 decades. These standards should not be chopped up by 
this combination of waivers and loopholes that some secret industry 
task force had on its wish list.
  The Clean Water Act has meant improved water quality across the 
Nation for every citizen in this country. For 20 years, we have been 
working to make our bath waters cleaner, and in many cases there have 
been much success. I urge my colleagues not to turn their back on the 
success of the past 20 years.
  A vote for this amendment is a vote to maintain the strong Clean 
Water Act that we currently have. I urge Members to vote for the Mineta 
amendment and vote against a weakening of the Clean Water Act.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. H.R. 961, 
as drafted, represents a frontal attack on one of our country's most 
successful environmental laws. We have spent two decades diligently 
cleaning up our Nation's streams and rivers and lakes, and it is 
inconceivable to me that anyone would now advocate back pedaling on the 
great progress we have made.
  In the Portland metropolitan area, which I represent, clean water 
consistently ranks as the top environmental concern of area residents. 
So important is clean water to Oregonians that they have agreed to 
spend more than $750 million to prevent Portland's combined sewer 
overflow from dumping raw sewage into nearby waterways.
  Oregonians remember very well the days when the Willamette River 
which flows through Portland was one of the most polluted rivers in the 
country. The waters of the Willamette were so choked with pollution 
that when live fish were put in a basket and lowered into the river to 
check water quality, it took only a minute and a half for the fish to 
die.
  Obviously, at the same time it was unsafe for people to swim in the 
river, along with the fish. Now, this river, Mr. Chairman, was a 
disgrace. But thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Willamette River is 
now safe to swim in and salmon once again are present in increasing 
numbers.
  Oregonians do not want to go back to the days of polluted waters, and 
neither do the American people. Americans do not want to see raw sewage 
floating in the surf when they visit the beaches. Americans do not want 
to worry about their children getting sick from swimming in a 
neighborhood stream. Americans do not want to think that the fish they 
catch in their favorite fishing hole might be too toxic to eat. And 
Americans do not want to turn back the clock to polluted rivers that 
actually caught fire. When they would go to the sink to get a drink of 
water, Americans do not want to choke on what comes out of the top.
  What Americans people do want is a strong Clean Water Act, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Mineta amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the Mineta 
amendment. The pollution prevention provisions of H.R. 961 are not a 
loophole. Instead, this bill would allow a facility to engage in 
multimedia offsets within a facility, or to trade between facilities, 
if it could 
[[Page H4780]]  demonstrate to EPA or the State that the result would 
produce an overall net benefit to the environment.
  A chemical plant in my district, Union Carbide, identified a 
multimedia pollution prevention project as an alternative to a rigid 
Clean Water Act technology-based numerical effluent limitation for 
certain non-toxic pollutants. Instead of a costly expansion of end-of-
pipe treatment that would just shift waste from the water to a 
landfill, this innovative solution would have recovered 40 thousand 
pounds of product each day, reduced land disposal of sludge by 3,000 
pounds a day, cut air emissions and saved energy. The only problem is 
that while pilot studies showed that the rigid Clean Water Act 
numerical limit could be met under most weather conditions, it could 
not guarantee that it would meet the standard 100 percent of the time. 
Pilot studies show that temperatures below 50 degrees F during the 
months of January and February would decrease the treatment efficiency. 
A conservative estimate, based on the unlikely prospect of 2 months of 
Southern Louisiana temperatures below 50 degrees, would still result in 
the treatment system meeting the standard a minimum of 84 percent of 
the time. Variance from the standard would be between 15 and 25 parts 
per million (ppm) for total suspended solids. The variance could be 
made up by executing a trading agreement with another source under 
section 302(c) of H.R. 961. A few cold days in Louisiana might cause 
the limit to be exceeded by an environmentally insignificant amount.
  The plant could not take the risk of going forward with the project 
without the certainty of meeting the standard. Ironically, it would 
have cost more in initial capital expense than conventional end-of-pipe 
treatment, but the company was willing to do it because it made more 
environmental sense, and would have paid for itself over time. The 
plant was also willing to pay a farmer up-river to reduce his non-point 
discharge of TSS into the river. A greater reduction could have been 
achieved more cheaply. But because there was no flexibility available 
in the foreseeable future, this innovative solution has been shelved. 
Everybody loses. Especially the environment!
  This bill, unlike the current law, will promote and reward innovation 
rather than stifle it. It's about time we started writing laws that 
unleashed creativity rather than shackled our industry to an outdated 
system of one size fits all regulations.
  Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my good friend, Mr. Mineta.
  In particular, I rise in opposition to that part of his amendment 
which deletes the remaining provisions of the bill, which we adopted in 
committee without opposition.
  In 1987, all over the coal mining States of this country, we had 
sites that had previously been mined. They were sitting there with 
recoverable coal left at the site needing to be remined. The coal could 
be extracted and the area brought up to the standards of mine 
reclamation laws in this country.
  The problem was that the coal industry would not go in and remine 
those previously mined lands because operators did not feel certain 
that preexisting discharges of poor water quality could be totally 
eliminated. And they were unwilling to be held liable for a pollutional 
discharge already existing on the site.
  So this Congress said in 1987, OK, we know these sites exist. We know 
they need to be reclaimed. And if the Government has to pay for the 
reclamation it will be expensive to the taxpayers.
  So in order to make it economically feasible for the coal companies 
to go in, remine what remaining coal they could get from the site and 
reclaim the land by bringing it up to present reclamation standards, 
the Congress in the 1987 Clean Water Act provided that a reminer only 
had to insure that his or her operation did not cause discharges to be 
worse than what was found at the site, and in fact, under the 
provisions of the 1987 act, every effort is to be made to improve the 
quality of the discharged water.
  So the effect of this 1987 provision in the Clean Water Act is that 
we got not only the remaining coal on previously remined sites, we 
reclaimed previously mined sites that would not have been reclaimed, 
and in most cases improved the water quality discharges from those 
sites. But in no instance did we make the water quality discharge worse 
than it had previously been before the remining took place.
  So what's the problem? The problem is that certain remining 
operations initiated prior to the 1987 amendments were not afforded 
this relief. While these pre-1987 operations may, in fact, meet the 
criteria set forth in the 1987 amendments, they are not in compliance 
with the Clean Water Act simply because they were initiated prior to 
the amendments. This bill simply provides this class of remining 
operations be accorded the same treatment as those initiated after the 
1987 act.
  The remaining provisions of this bill are just and appropriate and 
should be adopted and this amendment should be defeated.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.

                             recorded vote

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166, 
noes 260, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 313]

                               AYES--166

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

                               NOES--260

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     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
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     [[Page H4781]] Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Baker (CA)
     Bunning
     Collins (IL)
     Fattah
     Lewis (KY)
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers

                              {time}  2030

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Lewis of Kentucky against.

  Mr. HOLDEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would defer to our colleague, the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus], because I understand he has a 
noncontroversial amendment that will be accepted by both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. 
Bachus] rise?
                    amendment offered by mr. bachus

  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer a noncontroversial 
amendment. This is a revised version of amendment 1, as originally 
printed in the Congressional Record.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bachus: Page 146, line 17, strike 
     ``The'' and insert ``Working in conjunction with the 
     Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the 
     Small Business Ombudsman of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, the''.

  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I did allow that amendment to be 
read because it was short, and it basically speaks for itself. The bill 
refers to small businesses, without any definition that allows the 
administrator of the EPA total discretion in defining small business. 
What we have simply done, at the request of small business advocates, 
including the NFIB, is simply ask that the administrator of the Small 
Business Administration and the small business advocate at the EPA have 
input in defining small businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will further clarify the provisions of 
the bill which are intended to reduce the paperwork and regulatory 
burden placed upon small businesses.
  In order to reduce the regulatory burden that strangles small 
businesses in our Nation, the committee bill purports to exempt small 
businesses from general and site-specific stormwater discharge permits.
  While the reformed permit process contained in the committee bill is 
a tremendously positive step in the right direction, the bill leaves it 
to the total discretion of the EPA to promulgate a definition of 
whether or not a business qualifies as a ``small business.'' Many 
members, myself included, fear that EPA will attempt to circumvent the 
clear intent of the bill and define ``small business'' so narrowly that 
it will, as a practical matter, exempt few of the Nation's small 
businesses.
  My amendment requires that the EPA work with the Small Business 
Administration and the EPA's Small Business Ombudsman in defining 
``small business.'' We think, and the NFIB and other small business 
advocacy groups agree, that with SBA and the Small Business Ombudsman's 
input, it will help ensure that in drafting its definition of ``small 
business'' the EPA will not frustrate the intent of the bill.
  While my amendment will continue to give discretion to the EPA in 
coming to a proper definition of ``small business,'' in my personal 
view any EPA definition of ``small business'' which does not include as 
small businesses, at the minimum, all businesses with 100 or fewer 
employees, would frustrate the intent of the bill. Including all such 
businesses as small businesses would be consistent with section 507 of 
the Clean Air Act that defines ``small businesses'' as any business 
with 100 or fewer employees.
  In closing, let me stress that this amendment does not affect those 
provisions in the bill that empower a State to find that stormwater 
discharges from any entity would have a significant adverse effect on 
water quality. In any such case, a permit would be required regardless 
of whether the entity was a small business or not.
  Thus, it should be made very clear that any small business can be 
made subject to the permit requirement if a State finds that the entity 
is conducting an activity that has a truly significant adverse effect 
on water quality. What my amendment does is help protect the goal of 
the committee to reduce cost and paperwork that burdens literally 
thousands of small businesses that do not pose a threat to our Nation's 
water quality.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. We have examined this amendment and we support it, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Alabama yield?
  Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this side has looked at the amendment. We 
have no objections to it at all.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
  The amendment was agreed to.

                   amendment offered by mr. boehlert

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Page 115, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 3 
     on page 117 and insert the following:
       (n) Coastal Zone Management.--Section 6217 of the Coastal 
     Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451 
     note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``Program development.--''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) A State that has not received Federal approval for 
     the State's core coastal management program pursuant to 
     section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1455) shall have 30 months from the date of approval 
     of such program to submit a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution 
     Program pursuant to this section. Any such State shall also 
     be eligible for any extension of time for submittal of the 
     State's nonpoint program that may be received by a State with 
     a federally approved coastal management program,'';
       (2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph 
     (1), by striking ``to protect coastal waters generally'' and 
     inserting ``to restore and protect coastal waters where the 
     State has determined that coastal waters are threatened or 
     significantly degraded'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(3)--
       (A) by striking ``The implementation'' and inserting ``A 
     schedule for the implementation''; and
       (B) by inserting ``, and no less often than once every 5 
     years,'' after ``from time to time'';
       (4) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(7) Identification of priority areas.--A prioritization 
     of the areas in the State in which management measures will 
     be implemented.'';
       (5) in subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Conditional approval.--The Secretary and 
     Administrator may grant conditional approval to a State's 
     program where the State requests additional time to complete 
     the development of its program. During the period during 
     which the State's program is subject to conditional approval, 
     the penalty provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) shall not 
     apply.'';
       (6) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``, 1993, and 1994'' 
     and inserting ``through 2000''; and
       (7) in subsection (h)(2)(B)(iv) by striking ``fiscal year 
     1995'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 1995 through 
     2000''.

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think the last vote, the last recorded 
vote, indicates that there is strong sentiment for making some 
adjustments to H.R. 961, as reported from the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure. As a matter of fact, we had a 184 
vote, indicating that people want some adjustment.
  I have been told that if we break down the overall package and bring 
some of the most important component parts before this body, we will 
have a better chance of achieving our objective. Therefore, we are 
doing just that. This amendment I am offering deals with the Coastal 
Zone Management Program. As we all know, the committee's bill repeals 
that very important program. The program cries out for reform, not 
repeal.
  [[Page H4782]] Nonpoint source pollution impairs more water bodies 
nationwide than any other pollution source. Nearly half of all 
estuarine waters are impaired or threatened, mostly from nonpoint 
sources. Pollution has limited the harvest of over one-third of all 
shellfish beds in the United States, and more than 10,000 beaches, 
10,000 beaches, were closed to the public over the past 5 years, and 46 
out of 50 States have banned or issued health advisories on fish 
consumption, because of contamination from dangerous toxins.
  Clearly, this is a public health-public safety issue, as well as an 
environmental issue. The health costs pose even greater threats to the 
public welfare, not to mention the declining fisheries, the lost 
income, jobs for the tourism industry.
  Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act reauthorization amendments is 
the only enforceable program developed by Congress to prevent nonpoint 
source pollution. It was adopted in 1990 expressly to address polluted 
runoff in coastal areas by creating a State-Federal partnership to 
develop and implement coastal nonpoint source pollution control 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, we look, and we have reached out to others beyond this 
institution, beyond this Nation's Capitol, for input. We have gone to 
those most directly affected by that. In this instance, we have been 
dealing with the Coastal States Organization, representing 30 coastal 
States, all up and down the east and west coasts of the United States 
and along the Gulf of Mexico.
  The Coastal States Organization has endorsed the coastal zone 
provisions that I am referring to in this amendment as a substitute to 
the Clean Water Act reauthorization as it remains silent on that issue. 
Actually, it is more than silent. It repeals it.
  Let me read from the letter of the Coastal States Organization; once 
again, 30 States, 30 Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, people 
who day in and day out have to live with this issue. The letter says:

       We are encouraged to hear you will offer an alternative 
     package to the Clean Water Act reauthorization that would 
     amend, rather than repeal, the coastal nonpoint pollution 
     control program. . . . Runoff pollution causes significant 
     economic harm. Commercial and recreational fisheries are 
     being closed. Beaches are being closed to the public. 
     Nonpoint pollution poses serious human health and safety 
     concerns, while at the same time degrades wildlife habitat. 
     This problem needs to be addressed now, before this country 
     suffers further economic losses, health hazards, and 
     environmental degradation. . . .

  We ``strongly support,'' says the Coastal States Organization, 
representing 30 States, 30 Governors, ``We strongly support your 
efforts to amend, not repeal, the nonpoint pollution coastal program 
established under section 6217 of'' the act.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give this the very 
careful consideration it deserves. I know this has been a long day. It 
has been a good day, however, because the House has proven that we are 
spirited in debate, that competing ideas are considered, pro and con, 
and finally we will render a judgment in the people's behalf. I urge 
support of my amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply was already included in the 
substitute, which was very resoundingly defeated two votes ago. I am 
sure my good friend, the gentleman from New York, would not knowingly 
intentionally mislead the House. The letter the gentleman quoted from 
was not from the Governors. In fact, the National Governors Association 
opposes this provision. The letter he quoted from was from the Coastal 
Zone Management Association, which is made up of the bureaucrats who 
run it, and of course that is quite a difference. Beyond that, the 
Water Quality Association also opposes this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, to say that we eliminate coastal zone management simply 
is not true. Our bill does not gut those protections. What our bill 
does is fold the coastal zone management provision into the section 319 
program, so we bring together the two programs, so we have more 
flexibility, and what we do is eliminate this one-size-fits-all 
provision, which is in the law and which would be followed if my 
friend's amendment is adopted.
  If his amendment is adopted, we would simply continue with the States 
being forced to adopt the same exact program for agriculture, ranching, 
forestry, marinas, and urban areas. It lacks flexibility. It imposes 
restrictive Federal mandates on States. It gives EPA the power to 
determine appropriate land use practices, and requires the States to 
adopt enforceable land use requirements, which would have to be 
approved by EPA.
  States must identify, under the provisions in our bill, States must 
identify critical coastal areas. The States may focus resources on 
priority coastal waters, but have the flexibility to target areas of 
concern. Unlike CZARA, the bill does not allow the Federal Government 
to mandate where a State coastal zones boundary should be.
  If the State already has developed its coastal zone management 
program, it may implement that program, but H.R. 961, the bill, does 
not mandate that States develop two separate programs, one for the 
State generally, and one for the coastal areas. Instead, it eliminates 
this duplicative regulation. In fact, even though it is late in the 
evening, with some difficulty, I can lift this 800-and-some-page tome, 
which now represents all the regulations that the States must follow 
under EPA guidance. This is the kind of thing we are trying to 
eliminate.
  Mr. Chairman, we do not eliminate coastal zone management, we 
streamline it, fold it in, and tell the States they have flexibility to 
achieve what is best for them. I urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will my colleague yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the reason it is very difficult to lift 
that very heavy document is because that is not a document that 
contains regulations, it contains options for the States.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I would take back my time, Mr. Chairman, and point out 
that the gentleman is so right, this was supposed to be guidelines. 
However, the EPA is using this and interpreting it as a basis for 
forcing the States to comply. It is one more example of something that 
is supposed to be an EPA guideline, but ends up really having the force 
of an unfunded mandate, and that is another reason why we should defeat 
this amendment.
                              {time}  2045

  Mr. BOEHLERT. If my distinguished chairman would yield one more time, 
I would point out my amendment fixes the problem you are referring to. 
That is exactly why the amendment deserves to be supported.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my friend. That is not the way we interpret it, 
it is not the way the national Governors interpret it, and it is not 
the way the State Water Quality Association interprets it.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, I know 
there is some confusion over all the letters we have had floating 
around here today, but the letter that the gentleman from New York 
refers to that does endorse this provision, the provision that is the 
subject of this amendment, is a letter from the Coastal States 
Organization which was an organization founded in 1970 to represent the 
Governors of the 35 coastal States, Territories and Commonwealths on 
coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean affairs.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I would take back my time and say the gentleman is 
absolutely right. It is an organization. These are the bureaucrats from 
the various States, and the National Governors Association opposes this 
amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
  (Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I had an identical amendment drafted myself. I commend the 
gentleman from New York and his leadership on this and all other 
matters today.

[[Page H4783]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. H.R. 
961 will undo much of the progress we have made in cleaning up our 
rivers, lakes, and oceans over the last 25 years. The supporters of 
this bill dismiss such concerns as hysterical. But all you have to do 
is read the bill. H.R. 961 throws out the baby and makes the taxpayer 
drink the bathwater. It weakens protection of the aquatic environment 
on nearly every major front. The amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New York would restore some protection on just one of those 
fronts--nonpoint pollution of our coastal waters.
  Those of us that represent coastal areas--and there are many of us in 
this body, know that a clean marine environment is vital to the local 
economy and quality of life. This is important considering that more 
than half of all Americans now live in coastal counties, and this 
proportion is expected to increase in the future. Americans who do not 
live on the coast also benefit from a clean coastal environment, either 
in the form of abundant, healthy seafood or from recreational 
opportunities at the seashore. Fisheries and tourism can only thrive 
along our coasts if the water is clean. Commercial and recreational 
fisheries contribute more than $30 billion to the economy annually. 
Coastal tourism is worth another $10 billion each year.
  While we need to continue to make progress on all fronts, it is only 
fair to say that a major success of the Clean Water Act has been to 
reduce pollution from point source discharges. However, the greatest 
remaining cause of water pollution in the United States is nonpoint 
source pollution--polluted runoff not attributable to a particular 
discharge pipe or outfall.
  Unfortunately, the supporters of H.R. 961 ignore the need to deal 
effectively with nonpoint pollution. The bill before the House repeals 
the coastal nonpoint pollution control program, which is the only 
national program that holds any promise of actually abating nonpoint 
pollution. Repealing the program now is especially ill-timed because 
the coastal States will be submitting their plans for addressing 
nonpoint pollution this year. H.R. 961 would instead rely on existing 
voluntary measures under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Hundreds 
of millions have been spent under section 319 over many years with no 
demonstrable progress. To make matters worse, H.R. 961 weakens section 
319 by pushing back deadlines and relaxing requirements for the State 
to identify meaningful ways of abating nonpoint pollution.
  Under the coastal nonpoint pollution program, coastal States have 
been working hard for 5 years to prepare their plans for controlling 
nonpoint pollution. This has not been easy, but progress has been made. 
Perhaps more importantly, the coastal States support this program. They 
have, however, sought more flexibility in complying. While I believe 
that some of the changes sought by the Coastal States Organization will 
delay progress in reducing nonpoint pollution, that is not really the 
question. The real question is: Do we want a meaningful nonpoint 
pollution control program or do we not? If you support healthy 
fisheries, a strong coastal economy, and beautiful coastlines, the 
answer must be a resounding ``yes.''
  This amendment strikes language in H.R. 961 that repeals the coastal 
nonpoint pollution control program. In addition, it makes the changes 
needed in the nonpoint program to give the States more flexibility in 
complying. Most importantly, it allows more time for States to meet the 
program's requirements and allows States to target priority areas for 
implementation of management measures.
  The coastal States have put 5 hard years of work into this program. 
Don't throw away that progress. I urge the House to support the 
amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment which would 
preserve the coastal zone nonpoint source pollution control program 
while incorporating several important modifications to reflect the 
evolution of the program.
  When Congress approved the nonpoint source program targeted at 
coastal areas, it did so with the recognition that nonpoint source 
pollution in the coastal zone is a serious and growing problem.
  Nonpoint source pollution plays a significant role in nutrient 
enrichment in estuaries. This can lead to direct effects on human 
health, such as shellfish poisoning, as well as a loss of recreational 
uses of the coast and reduced fish mortality.
  Unfortunately, the coastal zone is under tremendous stress from human 
activity. Although the coastal zone accounts for only about 11 percent 
of the country's area, it is home to about one-half of the Nation's 
population. Additionally, about 40 percent of commercial and industrial 
structures built in the United States between 1970 and 1989 were built 
in the coastal zone.
  All of this activity in the coastal zone creates tremendous stress on 
the near-shore waters. Repealing the provisions for coastal protection 
will only exacerbate the decline of our coastal resources.
  The States and EPA have made great progress in preparing plans to 
address nonpoint pollution in the coastal zone. States are preparing 
plans for submission this summer, with implementation likely to begin 
about 1 year later.
  The repeal of the program will mean that the efforts of States and 
EPA and NOAA will have been largely wasted. More seriously, it also 
means that no real progress will be initiated on coastal nonpoint 
source pollution for nearly another 5 years. And that assumes that this 
bill is enacted soon. That is too long to wait when States are 
otherwise ready to go.
  This repeal of coastal nonpoint programs sends exactly the wrong 
statement about our commitment to clean coastal waters. We hear 
repeatedly that we must move this bill quickly to preserve 
appropriations. One thing is near certain. If this committee approves 
legislation repealing the coastal program, how can we expect the 
appropriations committee to provide funding in 1996 or subsequent 
years?
  What we will be creating if this amendment is defeated is an unfunded 
mandate on coastal States. The requirements will continue, but we 
cannot count on continued funding.
  Second, we will be telling the States to stop in their tracks. Why 
would a State continue its efforts to establish a coastal zone program, 
when we are about to repeal it?
  The States have had some differences with EPA over implementation of 
the program. Fortunately, the States and EPA have worked out a number 
of differences in the implementation of the program. These agreements 
are reflected in the amendment restoring the program. The amendment 
addresses the problems which the Coastal States Organization have 
identified. The coastal States do not want the program repealed--they 
want it fixed. This amendment does that.
  Let us preserve those areas of water pollution control where real 
problems have been identified, and real solutions to those problems are 
being put in place. Let us respect the wishes of the States which 
implement the program, and support the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] for bringing this amendment back to the floor 
tonight, and I would also like to commend the ranking minority member 
for having the foresight to support it. I would just say two things.
  Mr. Chairman, the first point I would make is that it is impossible 
for the Congress of the United States to pretend that the issue of 
nonpoint source pollution does not exist around the coasts of the 
United States. It is simply impossible, because the problem is there. 
It is a fact of life as clear as the nose on our faces. Beaches close 
every year. Red tides and blue tides and green tides, they come from 
algae buildup because nutrient buildup is there.
  Organizations form around our coasts like the Committee to Save 
Chesapeake Bay, the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association, and other 
groups like that which recognize the seriousness of this problem. This 
House in 1990 recognized it as well. That is why we amended the Coastal 
Zone Management Act to provide for a nonpoint source pollution program 
and encouraged the States to adopt these programs.
  It is dumb to pretend that the problem does not exist, just plain 
dumb. For us to stop in the middle of the road, amend the Coastal Zone 
Management Act while pretending the problem does not exist, is equally 
dumb. I do not know any other way to say it. It just does not make any 
sense whatsoever.
  The second point that I would make, and I know that the chairman did 
not mean to misrepresent the identity of those organizations that 
support this amendment, but the Coastal States Organization is an 
organization made up of 35 States, Territories, and Commonwealths who 
are coastal States and 
[[Page H4784]]  have an interest in this type of issue and in this 
legislation. The Coastal States Organization was founded in 1970 to 
represent the Governors of coastal States.
  We have a letter here which at the appropriate time I would like to 
make part of the Record, because it is as clear as a bell in support of 
the Boehlert amendment. I would just read one paragraph from that 
letter.

       The serious problem of non-point pollution of the Nation's 
     coastal waters is well-documented. Runoff pollution causes 
     significant economic harm. Commercial and recreational 
     fisheries are being closed. Beaches are being closed to the 
     public. Non-point pollution poses serious human health and 
     safety concerns while at the same time degrades wildlife 
     habitat. This problem needs to be addressed now, before this 
     country suffers further economic losses, health hazards and 
     environmental degradation. With the proper amendments, which 
     we understand your bill contains, the section 6217 program 
     will well serve this purpose.

  It goes on to explain other reasons for supporting the program to do 
something about the very serious problem that remains in the coastal 
areas, namely, nonpoint source pollution, and the program is well under 
way with the States all around the coasts of this country.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to be passed in order to do any kind 
of sane continuation to solve the problem that we all must know exists.
  Mr. Chairman, I include the letter referred to for the Record.

                                  Coastal States Organization,

                                      Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.
     Hon. Jim Saxton,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Saxton: We are encouraged to hear you will 
     offer an alternative package on the Clean Water Act 
     reauthorization that would amend, rather then repeal, the 
     coastal nonpoint pollution control program established by 
     Sec. 6217 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 
     (OBRA). We write to support you in this effort.
       The serious problem of nonpoint pollution of the Nation's 
     coastal waters is well documented. Runoff pollution causes 
     significant economic harm. Commercial and recreational 
     fisheries are being closed. Beaches are being closed to the 
     public. Nonpoint pollution poses serious human health and 
     safety concerns, while at the same time degrades wildlife 
     habitat. This problem needs to be addressed now, before this 
     country suffers further economic losses, health hazards and 
     environmental degradation. With the proper amendments, which 
     we understand your bill contains, the Sec. 6217 program will 
     serve this purpose.
       It is no secret that we have had complaints about the 
     Sec. 6217 program. Nonetheless, we believe that the immediacy 
     of the coastal nonpoint pollution problem calls for this 
     program to be fixed, not killed. The coastal States have over 
     four years worth of work invested in developing the Sec. 6217 
     programs; they are nearly complete, and are due for 
     submission in July. Why throw four years of diligent work out 
     the window two months before the completion date? By amending 
     the Sec. 6217 program as we propose, the Nation will have in 
     place an effective coastal nonpoint pollution control program 
     within 8 months from now. Repealing Sec. 6217, on the other 
     hand, will delay getting any program up and running for 
     another five or six years.
       We strongly support your efforts to amend, not repeal, the 
     coastal nonpoint pollution control program established under 
     Sec. 6217 of OBRA.
            Sincerely,
                                                    H. Wayne Beam,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment to strike the repeal 
of the highly effective coastal zone nonpoint pollution program.
  The amendment would substitute the language that was proposed by the 
Coastal States Organization, a coalition of 30 States.
  The Coastal States Organization has repeatedly expressed its strong 
opposition to the repeal of the coastal nonpoint pollution program.
  On March 17, the Coastal States Organization said, ``Section 6217 
should not be repealed, but amended, to establish a workable and 
effective state-implemented program.''
  This is what the Coastal States Organization had to say on nonpoint 
pollution.

       The problem on non-point pollution of the nation's coastal 
     waters is real and serious.
       Runoff pollution is causing serious economic harm.

  Let me repeat that:

       Runoff pollution is causing serious economic harm.
       Commercial and recreational fisheries are being shut down 
     due to runoff pollution. Beaches are being closed.
       Nonpoint source pollution poses human health and safety 
     concerns, while at the same time degrading wildlife habitat.

  I am still quoting from the Coastal States Organization.

       This problem needs to be addressed now, before this country 
     suffers further economic losses, health hazards and 
     environmental degradation.

  They say the coastal States have 4 years of work invested in this 
program which would be lost if we repeal czara.
  The coastal States letter opposes the very approach that is being 
taken in the bill before us.

       The assertion is often raised that the section 6217 program 
     is Duplicative of the clean water act section 319 program. We 
     assert it is the other way around.
       By amending the section 6217 program as we have suggested, 
     the Nation will have in place an effective coastal nonpoint 
     pollution control program within 10 months from now.
       But, by repealing section 6217 outright and replacing it 
     with the clean water act section 319 program, the Nation will 
     not have a program in place to address this serious problem 
     for another five and a half years after the clean water 
     reauthorization is enacted.
       The reauthorization effort will require at least several 
     more months to finally be enacted, making it about six years 
     before any program is in place to address the serious 
     nonpoint pollution programs degrading our coastal waters.

  These 30 States said:

       We believe the best course of action is not to throw out 4 
     years of State effort developing their coastal nonpoint 
     pollution control programs, but rather to put in place, at 
     the earliest possibility, a workable and effective program to 
     attack nonpoint pollution of the Nation's coastal waters.

  Finally, they said:

       We urge you to help us act against the pollution of our 
     coastal waters as soon as possible and not let the problem 
     fester for another 6 years.

  Mr. Chairman, I urge that we do what the Coastal States Organization 
has asked us to do.
  They want the program maintained with amendments that would allow 
impaired or threatened waters to be targeted and to allow additional 
time for States to receive approval of their programs. This amendment 
would substitute the language the States are seeking for the repeal in 
the bill.
  This is a case of deciding whether the States who run the programs or 
Washington knows best. This amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York supports the States.
                              {time}  2100

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman 
regarding laboratory biological monitoring criteria and the field 
bioassessment in section 304 of H.R. 961 as amended by the chairman's 
en bloc amendment.
  It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that section 304(a) of H.R. 961 
as amended would revise the provisions of the Clean Water Act found in 
section 303(c)(2)(B) by giving additional direction as to the criteria 
for whole effluent toxicity, based on laboratory biological monitoring 
or assessment methods.
  The statute as amended gives three criteria. Common to all three 
criteria is the concept that the test species must have some actual 
relationship to the receiving water.
  The test species cannot, for instance, be selected simply because it 
is highly sensitive to toxicity. The test species must either be 
indigenous to the type of receiving water involved or be able to live 
in the type of receiving water involved.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, that is 
correct.
  Mrs. FOWLER. It is my understanding that section 304(b) of H.R. 961 
as amended would revise section 402 of the Clean Water Act to make it 
clear that exceedence of a laboratory whole effluent bioassay would not 
be regarded as a permit violation, but would give rise to a procedure 
for re-testing and identification of the cause of such exceedence.
  However, the permittee can discontinue such procedure if the 
permittee can demonstrate, through a field bio-assessment, that there 
is no real world toxicity problem because a balanced and healthy 
population of aquatic species, indigenous to the type of water 
involved, exists in the receiving water affected by the discharge.
  [[Page H4785]] To complete this demonstration, the permittee must 
also show that all applicable numerical water quality standards for 
specific pollutants are met. The point here is that this is a real 
world demonstration. There is no reference in this provision to 
laboratory whole effluent bioassays, which can be highly variable and 
unrelated to real world conditions.
  Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I am happy to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from 
Colorado.
  Mr. HEFLEY. First, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida 
for seeking this clarification in section 304(a) of H.R. 961. This 
section as amended seeks only to bring a sense of place-based science 
to the development of criteria based biological monitoring to the Clean 
Water Act.
  Second, I would like to commend the chairman of the full committee 
for including these well crafted provisions on whole effluent criteria 
and use of biological monitoring in the committee bill. These 
provisions faithfully address those issues and provisions of my bill, 
the Publicly Owned Treatment Works Biological Monitoring Use Act, 
introduced this year as H.R. 634 with our colleague form Arizona, 
Congressman Pastor. As further explained in the committee report, this 
section would bring common sense and due process to the use of whole 
effluent toxicity tests by substituting enforceable response procedures 
for locating and reducing toxicity in place of fines and penalties for 
test failures. This is important to local governments particularly 
because of the unreliability of these tests and because sewage 
treatment plants are not designed to treat whole effluent toxicity as 
they are designed to treat specific chemicals.
  I thank the chairman and the committee for including section 304 and 
I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Hefley for his 
supportive comments and I thank the chairman for this understanding.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of misinformation in this Chamber 
about the widespread support this bill has from State and local 
governments. The truth is that the State's interests were ignored when 
it came to the coastal nonpoint pollution program because their wishes 
differed with those of polluters and special interests.
  Today, coastal counties are growing three times faster than the rest 
of the country. Already about half of the U.S. population lives in 
coastal areas. Without adequate protection, this continuing growth will 
only exacerbate coastal
 pollution--resulting in more beach closings, more polluted shellfish 
beds, more contaminated fish, and millions of dollars in lost tourism 
revenue.

  To tackle these threats, Congress enacted the Coastal Nonpoint 
Pollution Program (section 6217) under the Coastal Zone Act 
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. In fact I sponsored the amendment 
at that time. Section 6217 establishes sensible, State-managed 
partnerships to address the threats to coastal waters--the majority of 
which comes from nonpoint sources. It is the only program that will 
bring about significant reductions in nonpoint source pollution. Yet, 
H.R. 961 repeals this important program--even though the coastal States 
themselves want it preserved.
  The Coastal States Organization [CSO], which represents the 35 
coastal States, territories and commonwealths, has made it clear that 
the urgency of the coastal nonpoint pollution problem compels us not to 
pull the plug on this program.
  Let's be clear: This amendment does what the States asked us to do. 
It adopts their suggestions for providing flexibility and targeting of 
coastal nonpoint programs. Our amendment will put an effective Coastal 
Nonpoint Pollution Program in place in less than a year.
  Two-thirds of coastal States have invested millions of dollars over 
the past 4 years crafting innovative runoff control programs that are 
nearly ready for approval. My own State of New York has invested 
considerable time and effort in developing a plan that will benefit 
Long Island Sound, the Hudson River, and the New York City watershed. 
By making sensible investments early-on, it also promises to save 
taxpayers millions of dollars down the road--or downstream as the case 
may be.
  Long Island Sound is a $6 billion a year resource for the region's 
fishing, boating, and recreation industries. In New York and 
Connecticut, business, labor, and environmental groups have set-aside 
old disagreements and joined together in developing a plan to clean up 
the sound. They have forged a powerful coalition. The Coastal Nonpoint 
Pollution Program is an integral component of those efforts, and now is 
certainly not the time to pull the rug out from under their feet.
  As the coastal States themselves are asking: Why throw 4 years of 
diligent work out the window 2 months before the completion date? There 
is no reasonable answer. I urge my colleagues to support their States 
by supporting this amendment.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand. Why do we think we have to 
have more bureaucracy to stop pollution? That is the old approach. The 
new approach is an approach of flexibility, consolidation, elimination 
of unnecessary bureaucracy. All this bill does is streamline, then 
consolidate. Basically the amendment that is being offered is 
essentially the same provision that was in the substitute that was 
rejected decisively by the Members of this House.
  This bill eliminates a duplicative program of regulation and it 
consolidates it into one program. Now the question is why should we do 
this now, because the answer is no State has this coastal management 
program up and running. That is why we should do it now. It makes 
perfect sense to do it now. Because if we wait, then we will have these 
programs up and running. We still allow the States all of the 
flexibility they want to target these resources, to identify the 
programs that they consider to be a problem and to focus resources into 
that. And when we hear the argument that the States want to be told by 
the EPA what to do with their land use, et cetera, I just do not buy 
that, Mr. Chairman.
  What we need to do is to reject this amendment just as we rejected 
the substitute and move ahead, streamline and consolidate and make this 
a workable program.

                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is the 
Chair going to be alternating between the Republican and Democratic 
side in terms of recognition?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is the attempt of the Chair, yes. Was the 
gentleman from California seeking recognition?
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, under that procedure, I believe the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] was standing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Maryland 
[Mr. Gilchrest], a member of the committee. The gentleman from Maryland 
will proceed. Following the gentleman from Maryland's statement the 
Chair would intend to come to this side for recognition. The gentleman 
from Maryland may proceed for a period of 5 minutes.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker did not extend the 
courtesy of yielding at the conclusion of his time. I would like to 
directly rebut a couple of comments he made.
  First of all he said the States do not want it. He is wrong. The 
States do want it. As matter of fact, the secretary of state for New 
York was in town today lobbying for this. I will tell you who wants it: 
every single coastal State up and down the east coast and west coast 
and on along the Gulf of Mexico and along the Great Lakes region.
  And second, and this is very important as my colleague knows, It is 
no secret, say the Coastal States Organization, that we have had 
complaints about this program. Nonetheless, we believe that the 
immediacy of the coastal nonpoint pollution program 
[[Page H4786]]  calls for this program to be fixed, not killed. And 
this is very important. The coastal States, 30 of them, have invested 
over 4 years of work in developing the 6,217 programs; they are nearly 
complete, with that program and it will be submitted in July. Why throw 
out, say the coastal States, 4 years of diligent work, throw it out the 
window 2 months before the completion date.
  I thank my colleague for yielding.
                              {time}  2115

  Mr. GILCHREST. I need to make a couple of quick statements. No. 1, 
the previous gentleman, and a number of people, have been talking about 
giving the States the flexibility, let the States do this, let the 
States do that.
  One comment about the Constitutional Convention, you know, over 200 
years ago, the reason the Constitutional Convention came about was 
because there was a dispute between Maryland and Virginia dealing with 
the Potomac River because it went across State lines, so there is a 
Federal role to play, especially when pollution runs downstream.
  I would like to draw your attention to this map one more time, the 
Chesapeake Bay region. We are talking about nonpoint source pollution, 
and we are talking about the Coastal Zone Management Act which helps 
protect pollution along the coastal waters. If you look at Washington, 
DC, right here, here, we have a certain amount of nonpoint source 
protection, but you still see this urban area putting pollution, silt, 
and a number of other things into the Potomac River which gradually 
gets into the coastal waters.
  If you look at the coast of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, you see 
no such thing during that storm, and the reason is because the Coastal 
Zone Management Act was able to protect this particular area of the 
coastline, and if we go with the same rule of nonpoint programs and 
fold the Coastal Zone Management Act into that program, we stand the 
chance of having this that you see on this map, polluting the 
Chesapeake Bay and eventually the coastal waters, happening over here 
along the coast.
  The last thing is, there are a lot of people that have approached me 
on the House floor today and said, ``Washington, DC, was built on a 
wetland. What do you think about that?'' I guess there was not a sense 
of the problem of population and urban sprawl and unbridled development 
200 years ago, 200 years ago, let us say 1795; there were 3 million 
people in the world; 100 years ago in 1895, there were 76 million 
people in the world. Today, 1995, there are 265 million people in the 
United States.
  Now, there is a certain sense of sharing the resources and what we do 
or do not do to our neighbor downstream. And so the cumulative impact 
of population growth which is expanding now to the coastal areas of 
this country poses a certain threat to the resources of those areas, 
and it is up to us, this legislative body, to understand how we can 
help the State and local communities create an environment where we can 
manage resources and still have people living in areas where they do 
not have to worry about their drinking water, their natural resources.
  And one more comment before my time is up, I want to point to the 
areas that have urban sprawl and urban development. If you will notice, 
during this rain storm, all of the silt that comes down the Potomac 
River, but you do not see that because of the protection of the coastal 
areas along Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes.
  I did want to make reference though to a previous speaker, the 
gentleman from California, and his statement about the vote being very 
close on the Saxton-Boehlert amendment, and also the suggestion that 
somehow this amendment was not in order. I would point out that the 
vote was actually fairly close on the Boehlert-Saxton amendment, and 
also that this amendment is a very important part of that overall 
substitute which I think should be addressed separately.
  I think one of the things that needs to be pointed out tonight is 
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] basically is a reasonable compromise, if you will, based on 
the recommendations of the Coastal States Organization. The amendment 
does not take us back to the original language of the existing statute 
but, rather, it is a carefully crafted compromise that allows States 
that have not received Federal approval of their coastal zone 
management program to have 30 months to submit their coastal nonpoint 
source pollution program. It only applies to threatened or 
significantly degraded waters as opposed to coastal waters generally. 
It allows for prioritization of areas for implementation of management 
measures. It allows for conditional approval when States request 
additional time to complete their plans without penalty.
  The bottom line is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], again, 
as part of this substitute, has drafted something that seeks to change 
the language, if you will, of the current law without sacrificing the 
mandatory and enforceable nature of the original law, and I think that 
is the key.
  Nonpoint source pollution is really the problem that we face with 
regard to water quality in the future. Over the next 5 or 10 years this 
is likely, if it is not already, to become the major source of 
pollution that would we have, and the committee bill makes this whole 
program voluntary.
  Basically what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is trying 
to do is to put the teeth back into the program, preserving the program 
while also looking at it in a way that I think is very reasonable and 
manageable.
  I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important 
amendment, because section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act reauthorization 
amendments is the only enforceable program developed by Congress to 
prevent nonpoint source pollution, and H.R. 961 basically repeals this 
entire section 6217 and, instead, the bill replaces the enforceable 
provisions with a proviso that State programs make reasonable progress, 
essentially making the program voluntary.
  As my own State of New Jersey has made significant progress with 
regard to this program, and is very proud of the progress we have made, 
there are about 19 other coastal States, including New Jersey, that 
went through a very helpful threshold review, with respect to these 
plans. In our State in the summer of 1994, we did a review. We held 
three public hearings this month. We will be submitting our completed 
section 6217 program proposal in July.
  All of the coastal States are currently making progress in 
development of their coastal nonpoint programs. Thousands of dollars 
and years of efforts have been expended, and proposals for new programs 
have been made.
  The section 6217 program has already gained a significant momentum, 
and shows great promise. But to undermine it with a less substantive 
program that decreases predictability of action would greatly increase 
the risks to valuable coastal resources, and it would penalize those 
coastal States that have made a concerted effort to comply with 
existing law.
  I ask the House, do not pull the rug out from under the program. 
Support the Boehlert amendment. I is what the coastal States want.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take my full 5 minutes either.
  But this is a very, very important issue to coastal States. I do not 
believe this amendment does any damage to the underlying bill. I think 
it is, in fact, perfectly compatible with the underlying bill.
  My colleague from California says we do not want more bureaucracy, we 
are trying to stop bureaucracy, we are trying to create local control. 
That is exactly what this amendment does.
  Now, California takes up almost the entire coast of the Western 
United States. They only have a couple of neighbors to worry about.
  Little States in New England have lots of other States to worry 
about, and so New England with its number of little States along the 
coast, needs a regional plan, needs Federal conformity. And this 
amendment preserves the underlying coastal zone management law, but 
reverts to the States the kind of flexibility, the kind of relief from 
[[Page H4787]]  Federal bureaucracy and Federal control that we all 
know makes for a more cost effective and solid response, that combines 
the environmental interest of the State with the economic interest of a 
State.
  Now, the Governors have proposed, through those who have worked to 
make these plans and to implement that law, three things, and let me 
tell you how they affect my district. The reforms in this plan will 
allow States the flexibility to delineate the scope of the management 
area. That means EPA cannot come in and tell you that every little 
stream that feeds into every river is part of the coastal area 
management section. So it means that a lot of my farmers are no longer 
going to be attacked by EPA to do things that they do not know how to 
do, and that we do not know how to help them to do. That ability in 
this law to let States delineate their area, let States even select the 
projects that they think are important, and implement those projects, 
that is exactly what the States are asking for, and that is what we are 
going to get.
  But why do we need the underlying law?
  We need it because no matter how much money Connecticut puts into 
this, if Massachusetts does not, if Maine does not, and if New York 
does not, then we will lose those fisheries and those shell beds that 
we have spent millions of dollars to bring back on our intracoastal 
water, and if we lose those, we lose jobs in an industry that is 
growing. We lose a coast that attracts tourism.
  This is a big economic issue for our State, and I do not think the 
interior States quite understand what a big economic issue this is for 
the coastal States and how impossible it is going to be for us to 
achieve the level of coastal water cleanliness that is essential to our 
economies as well as to our environments if we do not have the Federal 
uniformity that the underlying coastal zone management law provides, 
complemented by the reforms that the Governors have asked for.
  This amendment does no damage to the underlying bill. It achieves the 
objectives of the underlying bill in harmony with the consistency of 
principle and program that an area of old industrial States, which is 
what the Northeast is, so we have got lots of old site land, that is a 
problem in terms of nonpoint source pollution, gives us that uniformity 
of goal that will return our shores and our shoreline waters to the 
level, to the quality that will assure the economic benefits of clean 
coastal waters as well as the health and environment benefits.
  So I urge you to think about what is the difference between living in 
the middle of the United States and what is the responsibility of the 
coastal States. And, please, do not take from us the program that we 
all now support and give us the flexibility we need to make it work 
right economically and environmentally.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for a very 
eloquent statement.
  I want to point out it is not just the 23 coastal States, also all 
the Great Lakes States are heavily involved and deeply interested in 
this. The Coastal States Organization represents 30, 30 coastal States, 
Great Lakes and coastal States, so it is very important.
  I thank the gentlewoman for a fine statement.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I realize the time is late, but I think it is important 
to correct the Record.
  You heard tonight that all of the coastal States are in support of 
this program called CZARA 6217. That is incorrect.
  We are in possession of a letter from the State of Louisiana opposing 
that section of the CZM law and supporting the provisions of the bill 
that would, in fact, fold language back into section 319 of the current 
Coastal Management Act. We are in possession also of letters from the 
State of Wisconsin indicating support for the bill and for elimination 
of the coastal nonpoint pollution control program contained in section 
6217, and a letter from the Texas department of agriculture similarly 
in support of the changes embodied in the bill.
  Let me correct another point in the Record. The Boehlert amendment 
that contained the same amendment we now debate was not defeated on a 
close vote. If 58 votes is a close vote, I am very surprised in this 
House. That is a very good margin.
  Let me tell you why this amendment ought to be defeated and why the 
bill, as it recommends changes in the law, should be approved. The bill 
that we are talking about does, in fact, repeal a section of the 
Coastal Zone Act, not the act that was passed years ago; it repeals a 
section of the act that was adopted in a budget resolution in 1990, not 
through the normal process. The section of the Coastal Zone Management 
Act that the bill repeals was not adopted as a part of the original 
act. It was adopted as a part of a budget resolution, an amendment 
attached to a budget resolution, not the normal process by which we 
write environmental law in this body.
  It was attached in 1990, and those programs are about to go into 
effect unless we change it here tonight.
  Now, why should we change it here tonight? Because if we do not 
change it here tonight, what will go into effect is a program that 
mandates a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate program on the States 
inflexible, that gives the EPA the power to determine appropriate land 
use practices in coastal zones, that gives the EPA the power to 
determine coastal zone boundaries, unlike the current law which allowed 
the States to make those determinations.

                              {time}  2130

  If we do not repeal that section, you will be giving in effect the 
EPA that authority. What the bill does is repeal that section, fold 
this section of environmental law protection for coastal zone into 
Section 319 where the States have the power to focus their resources on 
the critical coastal areas they want to work on and, in fact, protect 
those areas as much as any of my colleagues in this House want to have 
them protected.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. PETRI. I just want to reiterate what you said as far as the State 
of Wisconsin is concerned. We are just a coastal State. We do oppose 
the Boehlert amendment. DNR has worked on this very closely with 
Chairman Shuster and others. We want a strong non-point source program. 
We have to have an integrated one, not a separate one for coastal, and 
for lakes, and for rivers, and to get the job done, and, to do it most 
effectively, we want one program, not a proliferation of many programs.
  So the gentleman is absolutely right.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.
  Let me say to my colleagues and point out again, if you believe your 
State ought to have the flexibility to adopt its coastal zone program 
to the needs of your coastal zone, then you vote against the Boehlert 
amendment. If you like Federal mandates and new Federal EPA authorities 
to determine land use restrictions and the coastal zone of your State, 
then vote for Mr. Boehlert's amendment because that's what it does. It 
ought to be defeated.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to 
reauthorize the coastal nonpoint source pollution control program known 
as section 6217.
  This program is important because our coastal States have unique and 
significant problems. While there have been some complaints about the 
6217 program, we should look at ways to improve not kill it.
  I had representatives from my State come to me to announce that New 
York will have a management program for approval in July. Approximately 
18 States will be ready to go on September. We can not end the program 
now.
  To repeal this program would punish the States that are making good 
faith efforts to work on their nonpoint pollution. To repeal this 
program would reward States that have not been making strong efforts to 
address the nonpoint problems specific to the coastal States.
  I am worried that to repeal the program now will delay any progress 
that it ready to be made.
  I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.

[[Page H4788]]

  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 224, 
noes 199, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 314]

                               AYES--224

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Callahan
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--199

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bliley
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     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
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Baker (CA)
     Boucher
     Bunning
     Collins (IL)
     Fattah
     Jefferson
     Lewis (KY)
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Rangel
     Rogers
                              {time}  2152

  Messrs. REYNOLDS, CHAPMAN, MILLER of Florida, CALLAHAN, McCOLLUM, 
GRAHAM, and BISHOP changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. TATE. 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. 
Norwood) having assumed the chair, Mr. McInnis, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 961) to 
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________
```