H 4978 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, reserving

the right to object, I would like to inquire of the chairman of the committee, as he has just outlined, from what

I can garner on this, that takes us up

to roughly 6 hours and 40 minutes, if

we have votes on all of the 10 amendments being offered, plus the 1 hour on

the Boehlert, 30 minutes on the

Gilchrest and 20 minutes, altogether

that takes us a total, including voting,

of 6 hours 40 minutes. Even if we start

right now that would take us to 7:10

this evening.

I am wondering, given the request

being made here, my preference right

now is to just agree to the 1 hour on

the Boehlert substitute, or to then

have a time agreement through completion of our work in the Committee

on the Whole. That would then take us

through the completion of title X as

well.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would

say to my good friend that would be

my preference also, but we have not

been able to work out an agreement on

title X at this point. We are still attempting to work out an agreement on

title X, so at this point we only have

agreement up to through title IX.

I would also point out to my friend

that some of the amendments I believe

will be accepted, so we should not have

recorded votes and will not take a full

20 minutes. And I would hope that even

on some of the contentious amendments, we will not use the full time.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, further

reserving my right to object, it seems

to me that without some idea about

what is happening, what is going to

happen in title X, I would have some

reservations on the time limitation

that is being outlined here. I am wondering, pending our being able to complete that discussion, could we just

agree to the 1 hour on the Boehlert

substitute for the time being?

Mr. SHUSTER. Until the conclusion

of the 1 hour consideration, I have no

problem. What about Gilchrest as well,

to include Boehlert and Gilchrest?

Mr. MINETA. Thirty minutes on the

gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

GILCHREST], that would be fine with

me.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I revise

my unanimous consent request to include only the first two amendments,

the Boehlert amendment for 1 hour and

the Gilchrest amendment for 30 minutes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is it the

Chair’s understanding that would include other amendments thereto?

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I would

expect to make a unanimous-consent

request on the remaining amendments

at the conclusion of either Boehlert or

Gilchrest, but my unanimous-consent

request at this point is only for the

Boehlert and the Gilchrest amendments and the amendments thereto.

Mr. MINETA. Further reserving the

right to object, Mr. Speaker, let me

yield to our colleague, the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman for yielding. It is my

understanding that title X will in effect act as an amendment to a previous

amendment brought to the floor and

passed relative to the Coastal Zone

Management Act.

If the new title is accepted and is

voted affirmatively, I would like to reserve the right, if that is the necessary

language, to offer a substitute to the

bill, which would in effect amend title

X. I understand that I have the right to

do that under the current rule, and I

would like to affirm that that is in fact

the case and that nothing being done

here would abridge that right.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, if the

gentleman will yield, I would say to

my friend nothing would abridge that

right. This does not deal with title X at

all and my friend would be protected.

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, again,

based on the 1 hour for the Boehlert

substitute and the 30 minutes on the

Gilchrest amendment, I have no objection.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is the

understanding of the Chair the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania

wants to pursue the unanimous consent

request?

Mr. SHUSTER. The Chair is correct.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF

There was no objection.

f1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 140 and rule

XXIII the Chair declares the House in

the Committee of the Whole House on

the State of the Union for the further

consideration of the bill H.R. 961.

b 1235

IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

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

House on the State of the Union for the

further consideration of the bill (H.R.

961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with Mr. MCINNIS in

the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Monday, May

15, 1995, pending was the amendment

offered by the gentleman from New

York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

Under the order of the House of

today, there is 1 hour of debate remaining on the amendment and any amendments thereto, equally divided between

the gentleman from New York [Mr.

BOEHLERT] and the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER].

The chair recognizes the gentleman

from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. BORSKI], the ranking member of the Subcommittee on

Water Resources and the Environment.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, we have

heard a lot about how the States know

this program better than anyone else.

This amendment would strike title

VIII of the bill and substitute the Wetlands and Watershed Management Act

of 1995 proposed by the National Governors Association.

This is the proposal of the Nation’s

Governors on wetlands.

This amendment is similar to the

amendment that I offered in committee and identical to the wetlands language in the Saxton substitute that

was offered last week.

It is clear that the States do not like

what this bill proposes for the wetlands

program.

Here is why: The bill will eliminate

protection for 60 to 80 percent of the

existing wetlands.

In my State of Pennsylvania, 40 percent of all wetlands will be removed

from protection, including more than

150,000 acres of floodplain wetlands

that protect the Chesapeake Bay from

polluted runoff.

In New Jersey, 35 to 50 percent of all

wetlands would lose protection.

In Delaware, more than 50 percent of

the wetlands would lose protection.

H.R. 961 decides, without regard to

science, what wetlands will be protected and which will not.

There are serious problems with the

administration of the wetlands permitting program, but H.R. 961, by eliminating protection for so many wetlands, does not solve them.

The National Governors Association

has proposed a fast-track system for

minor permits and an advisory committee from all levels of government to

reduce duplication and overregulation.

On March 7, Mr. Chairman, the Association of State Wetland Managers

pleaded with the Transportation and

Infrastructure Committee not to adopt

the language in title VIII.

Their testimony said H.R. 961 will

create a program,

That will result in massive Federal budget

requirements, lead to environmental degradation and result in bureaucratic quibbling. Please do not create a new wetland

regulatory program that is not fundable, not

implementable, and not acceptable to the

States.

The State association predicted that

the 2 States, New Jersey and Michigan,

that currently have assumed the section 404 program and the 13 that issue

programmatic general permits will

give back their programs if title VIII is

adopted as written.

This amendment also includes the

same exemptions for agricultural uses

and the same expanded role for the Department of Agriculture that were included in the Boehlert-Roemer-Saxton

substitute that we considered on

Wednesday.

The Agriculture Department would

have the sole authority to perform delineation of agricultural lands.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4979

I urge my colleagues to take this opportunity on this amendment to show

that we really do want to listen to the

voice of the States.

Vote for this amendment, vote with

the National Governors Association

and back up all the words about a new

partnership with the States.

I urge Members to vote for the Boehlert National Governors Association

amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am

pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DELAY], the

distinguished majority whip.

Mr. DELAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me this

time and I appreciate all the hard work

the gentleman and his committee have

done.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to

the Boehlert amendment. Like the

Saxton-Boehlert substitute amendment

which was soundly defeated, this

amendment seeks to undermine everything this House accomplished during

the first 100 days of this session to promote regulatory reform and property

rights.

First, it strikes all property rights

provisions, including the right to compensation for property owners whose

land is devalued by more than 30 percent due to Federal wetlands regulations. These provisions are identical to

provisions in H.R. 925, the Private

Property Protection Act, which the

House passed on March 3 with 277

votes, including 72 Democrats.

My colleagues, let us not reverse the

strides we made so recently for the

rights of private property owners when

it comes to wetlands regulations.

Second, it eliminates the three-tier

classification system created by the

bill which is designed to give greatest

priority to those wetlands that are in

most need of protection. This flies in

the face of common sense. Every wetland is not the same. The current expansive definition of a wetland is the

root of the overregulation so onerous

to this country’s municipalities. Only

by making critical distinctions will we

ensure sensible conservation and a

healthy future for our local and national economies.

And third, it removes provisions that

streamline the current highly bureaucratic system for wetlands permitting,

giving four agencies the power to veto

a wetlands permit application. This is

sheer and utter nonsense. I spoke last

week about Lake Jackson’s current difficulties in the permitting process. I

can only imagine the cost in time,

money, and effort the city would expend in merely getting through the

submission process if this amendment

were adopted.

The American people have been crying out for relief from the intrusiveness of Government, and applauded

heartily when the House voted overwhelmingly to give it to them. We cannot go back on the contract we made

with America to bring sound science

and common sense to the regulatory

process, as well as to take into account

the rights of property owners. I strongly urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on the Boehlert

amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Minnesota [Mr. OBERSTAR].

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding me

this time and compliment our colleague, the gentleman from New York

[Mr. BOEHLERT], for the leadership he

has demonstrated so vigorously and intensively on behalf of clean water and

particularly, in the case, on the wetlands issue.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation was rich in

wetlands when the settlement of America began. But civilization took its

harsh toll: agriculture, highways, railroads, cities, suburbs, exurbs, flood

control, destroying the wetlands along

our Nation’s major riverways and our

coastal waterways. All in the interest

of progress and without concern for an

understanding of the enormous power

and strength of the wetlands as a filtering device, preventing sediment

from getting into the streams, preventing pollution from getting into our

major waterways, estuaries, and lakes.

By the time I was elected to Congress

in the mid-1970’s, the lower 48 States

had been diminished in wetlands by

half. Our migratory waterfowl have declined in numbers over the years, and

few are here in the Chamber today who

can remember, but all of us surely

should have studied the dust bowl days

of the 1930’s caused, not by drying up of

the rains, but by man’s thoughtless and

senseless use and overuse of the land,

draining the wetland-rich prairie pothole region of America’s midsection.

One-third of our endangered and

threatened species are sheltered by

wetlands.

b 1245

Coastal wetlands are the nursery and

spawning grounds for half to 90 percent

of the Nation’s fish catch. Wetlands

protect against floods. They recharge

our groundwater. They filter pollution.

They store water for recycling. They

are a buffer against erosion.

We used to call them swamps and

bogs and worse and drained them,

dredged them and filled them in, then

dug them up to grow crops on them and

put housing on them and pave them

over. We cannot do that any longer.

We are today at the point where I am

reminded of the commons of medieval

England where herdsmen were accustomed to bringing as many of their

sheep as possible to graze on the commons pasture. They overgrazed and

overused it and war and disease reduced the commons to a place of filth

and destruction, and the carrying capacity declined, and so did the commonality of civilization until the people realized that they needed to restore

the commons and build it back.

The tragedy of the commons is a

story about mankind’s determination

to populate the planet to death and develop it to death. One farmer can benefit by putting one more sheep on the

commons even though each time they

do so they degrade it. That is what we

are doing to the wetlands, putting

more and more pressure on them, degrading and destroying these irreplaceable storehouses of water.

Let us work together to learn the lesson of the commons and let it not be

the epitaph for our generation that we

permitted the destruction of our commons, the nation’s wetlands. Please

support the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Delaware [Mr. CASTLE].

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding me this

time.

Mr. Chairman, the issue of wetlands

is a tremendously difficult issue. I

think both sides have done a good job

of actually trying to improve a piece of

legislation that has had some difficulty

in the area of the definition of wetlands.

But I learned something, and that is

development is forever. I saw a man at

Rehoboth Beach, DE, one day. He said,

‘‘Mike, have you ever seen a shopping

center converted into a park?’’ The answer, of course, is ‘‘No,’’ and I would

ask, ‘‘Have you ever seen a wetland

which has been used for some other use

ever converted back to a wetland?’’

And the answer to that is also, ‘‘No.’’

Sometimes we talk about substitute

wetlands. The bottom line is once you

lose them, they are lost forever.

There are some problems, I think,

with the present legislation. There are

costly delays and vague regulations.

The farmers and homeowners do properly, I think, complain about wetland

permit decisions and the time it takes

to get them. The availability of general permits for projects having minimal impact on wetlands should be expanded, and I believe the Boehlert

amendment addresses each of these

very, very well.

The amendment adopts the National

Governors’ Association proposal on

wetlands. The Governors’ proposal

would help coordinate protection efforts in the most efficient use of

States’ scare resources and minimize

inconsistency between State, Federal,

and local programs.

Wetlands management should be integrated with other resource management programs, and I cannot stress

that enough, such as flood control, allocation of water supply, protection of

fish and wildlife and storm water and

nonpoint source pollution control. Wetlands delineation criteria and management policy should recognize the significant regional and even State

variants of wetlands, and land use regulations are traditionally a State and

local function, and decisions on wetlands management should be made at

the local level.

They really differ. They differ from

my State of Delaware than from California or Texas or Maine. They differ
H 4980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

all over the United States of America,

and we should give that authority back

to the States and the Governors where

we can, and I believe that made a lot of

sense when they came up with that

particular program which addressed all

of these issues.

In addition to that, the Boehlert

amendment implements a fast track

permitting process for minor and general wetlands permits that is absolutely needed in America and provides

technical assistance.

For all of these reasons, I would encourage each and every one of us to

consider this amendment. Look very

carefully at it.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa [Mr. LATHAM].

(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the chairman for yielding me this

time.

I rise today in strong opposition to

the amendment to title 8 offered by my

good friend, the gentleman from New

York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

First of all, let me say that everyone

who will speak against this amendment

today shares a commitment to protecting genuine wetlands. The key issue, as

I hope to demonstrate in a moment, is

how broadly a wetland is defined. Because if you are a bureaucrat with the

EPA or other Federal agency, wetland

does not mean something is a pond or

a bog or a swamp or a marsh. In fact,

over the last 8 years, we have seen

areas defined as wetlands where water

never actually stands or where there is

a low spot in a cornfield, and regulators, in their never ending search for

more control, have stretched laws designed to affect navigable waters so

that they can regulate farmland in

north central Iowa that is at least 100

miles from any navigable water. That

is how the environmental extremists

come up with their astonishing claims

about wetlands being left unprotected

by this bill.

In the ideal world the overwhelming

majority of Americans currently live

in areas that could be defined as wetlands. If you define everything as a

wetland, no matter how against common sense that definition may be, you

can pretty much give yourself the right

to regulate what every American does

with his or her property.

Property owners and the general public no longer know what a wetland is.

They expect to see a swamp or marsh

or bog, only to be told by regulators

that land that is usually dry is a wetland or that a set spot in a field of corn

is wetland. This abuse has gone on far

too long.

The current guidelines can allow an

area to be called a wetland even if

water never stands on it or even if the

surface on the ground is never saturated.

As these photographs will demonstrate, the term ‘‘wetland’’ no longer

means what the everyday commonsense interpretation suggests or what

Congress envisioned as the limits of

Federal regulatory jurisdiction.

The first photo is what we would all

believe would be a wetland, obviously

saturated, a pond. The problem today

with the definition is that this land up

here is also considered to be a wetland,

far beyond the scope and definition of

what should be considered. These photographs also show this is land under

cultivation. The regulators can now

say it is a wetland or have determined

to be a wetland even though they have

been in production for years and years.

You can see obviously this land has

been or is slightly damp, but in a couple of days in north central Iowa this

will be dry. It has been under production probably for well over 100 years,

generation after generation, and now a

Federal regulator is coming in and telling this farmer he can no longer farm

that land, and it has totally gone out

of control.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. GILCHREST. It is my understanding that prior to converted cropland, any land converted to cropland

prior to 1985 does not fall under jurisdiction of wetlands by any Federal

agency. There are also a number of

farms and ag areas around the country

that can continue to farm wetlands

even though they still function as a

wetland. They can continue to do that

Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time,

if that is the case, then why are there

Federal regulators out today in prior

converted agricultural lands defining

that as wetlands, changing the use

those people have? This is a very important point, a point that has to be

gotten through to many of you people

who continually think that agricultural land or that somehow we are

abusing the wetlands. These lands are

in production. They have continued to

be. A lot of the tile in here was hand

dug and today regulators are saying

they are not.

Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman

will continue to yield, the confusion on

that, the Boehlert amendment completely eliminates that.

Mr. LATHAM. I understand that. By

your definition, you will continue to

have regulators out there defining that

as wetlands. You certainly will, by

your definition.

Mr. GILCHREST. No, we will not.

Mr. LATHAM. We will need a clear

and defined definition of wetlands. I

think it is very interesting that many

of the proponents of this amendment

who want to make it supposedly easier

for agriculture also voted in the Lipinski amendment to take away 56 percent of the funds for the State of Iowa

to comply with your regulations. Tell

me the justice in that.

I think it is time that we finally

brought some common sense back into

the argument, and for people to put the

dollars that go to the States like Iowa

and then say that they are trying to

help us is absolutely ludicrous.

I strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

New Jersey [Mr. SAXTON].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would

just like to make three very quick,

and, I hope, succinct points. I came to

this House and served for a number of

years on the Merchant Marine and

Fisheries Committee, and while I was

there, I found myself taking part in debates similar to this where we were

making policy decisions based on a

number of factors, and after a couple of

years of serving there and weighing

those factors, I came to the conclusion

that we did not pay a lot of attention

to science, and this debate today points

out that back in those days that I

thought I was right I can prove that, in

fact, I was right, because, as a matter

of fact, the National Academy of

Sciences does not agree in any way,

shape, or form with the definition of

wetlands as it occurs today in H.R. 961.

One of the major thrusts of the Boehlert amendment is that it changes that

definition so that it is in concert with

what we think is a good definition

based on science.

Second, H.R. 961, as it currently

stands, would allow for destruction of

well over half of the Nation’s wetlands,

and those of us who recognize the value

of wetlands in terms of the life cycle,

in terms of its use to slow down floodwater and act as a filter for pollutants

which enter our waters upstream, recognize that it would be a disaster to

permit an opportunity to destroy more

than half of the Nation’s wetlands.

And, third, let me point out that the

debate that just occurred between my

friend from Maryland and my friend

from Iowa, I think, is ample evidence

that we ought to listen to what the

Governors say, because my friend from

Maryland perceives wetlands as being

one thing, and my friend from Iowa, a

different State with a different structure, land structure, perceives wetlands as something quite different. And

the Boehlert amendment adopts the

National Governors Association proposals on wetlands reform, part of

which is to give the States more say in

defining and carrying out the wetlands

programs.

So I wholeheartedly and strongly

support the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

3 minutes to the gentlewoman from

Idaho [Mrs. CHENOWETH].

Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I

rise in opposition to the Boehlert

amendment.

This amendment adds even more uncertainty and bureaucracy to the regulatory process we are already enveloped in.

You see, it gives the Government an

even bigger hammer to penalize landowners and ignores the fact that lawabiding citizens have been charged

with fines and sent to prison for trying

to be good stewards of the land.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4981

The most egregious aspect of this

amendment is that it ignores private

property rights.

I would like to thank the chairman

of the Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure for working with me

to include the Chenoweth provision in

this bill before us today, a provision

with would require the Federal Government to receive written permission

from private property owners when

going on their land for the purpose of

mapping wetlands. It is important to

keep the Federal Government in check,

and I believe the notification provision

I recommended will ensure that the

mapping process is carried out in accordance with our constitutional

rights.

It is time for fairness, and it is time

for sanity, and it is time for reason in

this program.

Title 8 of H.R. 961 recognizes that.

That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the

gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentlewoman, because I

want to congratulate her. This is her

first amendment on a major piece of

transportation legislation. Your involvement has really been significant,

and I want to congratulate you and

thank you very much for your participation.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield such time as she may consume to

the distinguished gentlewoman from

New Jersey [Mrs. ROUKEMA], a leader in

the environmental movement.

Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I

rise in strong support of the Boehlert

amendment, and I would like to address some specifics rather than the

generalities.

This wetlands proposal is not about

some abstract ideas of beauty or maybe

even idealists’ idea of wildlife, but it

has many direct economic impacts, and

I want to concentrate on them.

b 1300

After all, wetlands do act as Mother

Nature’s sponges when water levels

rise, when we are talking about rivers

rising for floods, hurricanes, or whatever the case may be, and the wetlands

help fight shoreline erosion in States

like New Jersey. This is essential for

protecting our beaches. They help purify the water tables by serving as filters and also for toxic pollutants from

man-made runoffs.

When we look at the whole committee bill, of course we take a serious setback from a 20-year effort, and it is a

big step backward. The committee bill

offers a very narrow definition of wetlands, and that is wrong to do. While

we may find that their definition is

feasible in some areas of the country,

in New Jersey it would do serious damage to all of our pioneering efforts.

New Jersey, remember, is a densely

populated State, and so we have to

have a system under the law that will

apply to all States, not a one-size-fitsall situation. In New Jersey we would

be very, very concerned that it would

be a huge setback for all the efforts

that Governors in both parties have

persevered on and pioneered on. The

Boehlert amendment would adopt, and

I want to stress this for all those, particularly on my side of the aisle, that

revere block grants and Governors’

proposals; I want to stress that the

Boehlert amendment adopts the National Governors Association wetlands

proposal in order to replace the committee’s wetlands language. Here the

Governors are right, and we should listen to them and act upon their advice.

The Boehlert amendment is not one

size fits all. What is good for Alaska is

not good for New Jersey or maybe even

for Louisiana’s protection. Vote yes on

the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. DOOLITTLE].

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, last

evening I spoke about the severe problems with the present policies that we

have on wetlands. This bill makes some

badly needed reforms, and the Boehlert

amendment would take us in the opposite direction. It would not be helpful

to the real concerns that we have.

I spoke last evening of Nancy Klein.

She and her husband bought 350 acres

in Sonoma, intended to farm that. It

has been farmed continuously every

year since 1930. In 1989, the owner of

the land raised cattle instead of farming. When the Kleins, with their five

children, tried to begin their farming,

they were informed by the Corps of Engineers that they could not do that,

and they were threatened with $25,000 a

day fines and were actually at one

point, for most of 1994, criminally investigated.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to read

from the letter that she wrote. It is

really prepared testimony that she

gave to the task force on wetlands of

the Committee on Resources which I

chaired, and we had a hearing, and she

came and offered this. This volume of

testimony will be printed and available

for all to see in a couple of weeks, but

just quoting from her letter:

The FBI and EPA interrogated neighbors,

acquaintances and strangers. They asked

about our religion, whether we were intelligent, did we have tempers. They asked how

we treat our children. Our property was surveyed by military Blackhawk helicopters.

Their cars monitored our home and our children’s school. They accused Fred of paying

neighbors to lie. The FBI actually told one

terrified neighbor that this investigation

was top secret with national security implications. The community reeled, as did we.

Our personal papers were subpoenaed; the

grant jury was convened. We spent thousands

of additional dollars to hire more attorneys.

The Justice Department told our attorneys

that, unless we would plead guilty and surrender our land, they would seek a criminal

indictment of both Fred and me. According

to one government attorney I was to be included because I had written a letter to the

editor of a local paper, in their opinion,

quote unquote, publicly undermining the authority of the Army Corps.

Mr. Chairman, the present law has

allowed for this kind of abuse, tremendous abuse by the Federal Government

in the area of wetlands regulation. The

bill that we are supporting, coming out

of the committee, provides for a good

definition of wetlands, a classification

system that uses good science to determine which wetlands are the most valued, those that get the greatest protection through this classification system,

A, B or C. For that reason I urge defeat

of the Boehlert amendment and support of the committee bill.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

California [Mr. MINETA], the ranking

minority member of the committee.

(Mr. MINETA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, no issue

has so defined the controversy of Clean

Water Act reauthorization as has wetlands. We have now debated issues back

and forth for 5 days on this floor and

countless hours in our committee

rooms.

There is general agreement on one

thing—the wetlands program is in need

of reform. However, I strongly disagree

with those who would gut the wetlands

program to the point that 60–80 percent

of the Nation’s wetlands are no longer

subject to any portion of the wetlands

protection program.

I have listened to passionate arguments on both sides of the issue. Some

of my California colleagues were quite

emphatic in that we must reduce the

scope of Federal regulatory jurisdiction. I would remind my colleagues,

however, that California has already

lost over 90 percent of its historic wetlands, including some of its most valuable wetlands. I do not believe that we

can now acquiesce in the potential loss

of the majority of the small number of

wetlands which remain.

The issue is whether we will reform

the wetlands program to make it more

efficient, reasonable and user-friendly;

or, will this House choose to use the

wetlands program shortcomings as an

excuse to undo most of the protections

in the Clean Water Act for wetlands.

The Boehlert amendment removes

small, incidental, and manmade wetlands from the regulatory program.

H.R. 961 removes 60–80 percent of wetlands from the program by creating an

arbitrary, inflexible definition of wetlands. And it does so in the face of, and

contrary to, the just released study of

the National Academy of Sciences on

wetlands.

The Boehlert amendment addresses

the issue of differing values of wetlands

by directing that regionalization be

considered in delineating wetlands.

H.R. 961 creates an expensive and infeasible nationwide classification scheme

which the National Academy of

Sciences stated is beyond the state of

the art to accomplish.
H 4982 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

The Boehlert amendment protects

the rights of the property owners in

this country by adhering to the rights

under the fifth amendment which have

served citizens well for over 200 years.

When property has been taken for public use, the Constitution will guarantee

compensation. H.R. 961 adopts the unsound takings provisions which are opposed by the States and which will cost

the Government tens of billions of taxpayer dollars—billions of dollars when

we are trying to balance the budget.

H.R. 961 ignores the rights of the commercial fishermen who harvest over $10

billion annually, ignores the rights of

waterfowl hunters who spend over $300

million annually, and ignores the

rights of recreational users of wetlands

who spend nearly $10 billion annually.

The Boehlert amendment will fix the

wetlands problem. H.R. 961 would destroy wetlands protection and raid the

Treasury. Most people do not want

that. Support the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. POMBO].

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to the Boehlert amendment

and in support of the committee bill,

and I believe that one of the most important points that needs to be made

on this legislation is that the Boehlert

amendment effectively strips out the

private property rights protection that

was included in the committee bill, and

I want to explain why that is so important, that we include the protection of

private property rights.

The fifth amendment of the Constitution, which was passed for one reason,

to protect private property rights,

stated, ‘‘nor shall property be taken for

public use without just compensation,’’

and for 200 years we operated quite effectively with that protection under

the fifth amendment of the Constitution.

Twenty years ago, Mr. Chairman,

this body began to pass legislation

which increased the regulatory might

and the regulatory power of the Federal Government dramatically, to the

point where in the past 10 years people

have began to lose their private property to the regulation of the Federal

Government without compensation.

Now, if the Federal Government were

to come in, and take someone’s property to build a project, a dam, a road,

a highway, to take their property to

put in a park, they would be required

under current law and under current

practice to pay for that without any

questions asked. I say to my colleagues, they’re taking your property;

they should pay for that. But if they

were to come in and use a regulation

like wetlands, section 404, the Clean

Water Act, and they effectively took

away all use or value of someone’s

property, under current practice and

under the guise of some of my colleagues here they would not have to

pay for that property even though they

took away the value of the property,

they took away the use of the property,

they took away the ability for someone

to continue to make their mortgage

payments and to pay their property

taxes. It is OK because it is all in the

name of the Clean Water Act and preserving wetlands. Well, that is wrong.

When we passed the takings legislation through this House, I felt that was

an important first step in protecting

private property, but the second step in

protecting private property is including that protection in the Clean Water

Act, the Endangered Species Act and

other regulatory issues that we take up

under the House. It is extremely important.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell my

colleagues, if you voted for private

property rights protection as part of

the takings legislation and regulatory

reform through this House, you have

got to support private property rights

and vote against the Boehlert amendment because effectively it strips——

The CHAIRMAN. The time of the

gentleman from California [Mr. POMBO]

has expired.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from Connecticut [Mrs. JOHNSON].

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr.

Chairman, preceding speakers have

provided plenty of examples of extreme

and arrogant actions by EPA, and certainly it is true that we are here in

part to reform the Clean Air Act because EPA has been high-handed and

was abusive of the people of America.

But let us do it right. If we adopt the

Boehlert amendment, we will be adopting the recommendations of the Governors themselves as to how to make

the Clean Water Act effective and citizen friendly. We will adopt all of the

exemptions from the wetlands permitting found in the underlying bill, normal farming, ranching, plowing, seeding, grazing, repairs of dams and levees

and so on. We will also be adopting expanded use of general permits. We will

be adopting a fast track permitting

process for minor and general permits

for people seeking to fill or drain a

wetland area in one acre or less. Those

folks will have an answer in 60 days.

We will be providing landowners with

an effective appeals process using the

very same language in the underlying

bill, and we will be giving the Secretary of Agriculture total control over

agricultural wetlands issues as in the

underlying bill.

This is a good, modest, logical

amendment, but it does a couple of

things that the underlying bill does not

do that are terribly important to Connecticut. It provides, for instance,

grants for technical assistance to small

towns. Our towns have wetland commissions, and they are dealing very

well with the permit process, but they

need better information. They fear the

classification system. They fear the

classification system will do to my

people what some of the arrogant EPA

bureaucrats have done to people in

other parts of the country. They fear

the classification system with deny

them the right in a State with lots of

wetlands and very dependent on

groundwater, will deny them the right

to determine best use of properties

within their boundaries.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the

Boehlert amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman

from Maryland [Mrs. MORELLA].

b 1350

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in strong support of the Boehlert wetlands amendment. This amendment

will be our last opportunity in this bill

to reform our Nation’s wetlands programs by providing the States with the

flexibility they need to manage their

wetlands.

As other speakers have mentioned,

this amendment incorporates the National Governors Association’s wetlands proposal and is identical to the

wetlands provisions included in the

earlier substitute. This amendment

streamlines the permitting process

without endangering millions of acres

of wetlands.

Protection of wetlands is crucial to

both the protection of our wildlife and

the maintenance of our water quality.

Wetlands are vital biological filters, removing sediments and pollutants that

would otherwise suffocate our waters.

Over half of the Nation’s wetlands have

disappeared since the time of Columbus. Recognizing the importance of

this resource, President Bush pledged

‘‘no net loss of wetlands’’ during his

administration.

Sadly, we are falling short of even

this modest and reasonable goal. During the 1980’s, despite the scientific recognition of the value of wetlands, our

own Chesapeake Bay lost wetlands at

the rate of 8 acres a day. No resource

can long endure such depredation.

The Boehlert wetlands amendment

adopts the National Governors Association proposal and deserves our support.

Vote ‘‘Yes’’ on the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

31⁄2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. TAUZIN].

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this is the property

rights vote, 1995. This amendment

strikes property rights from the wetlands bill.

Now, just a few short weeks ago 205

Republicans and 72 Democrats voted in

favor of property rights compensation

to landowners in wetlands regulations.

Today is a real test. We are going to

see today whether 205 Republicans who

signed a contract promising to assist

American landowners in their property

rights battles with the Federal Government in wetlands regulations are ready

to keep that contract, or whether they

just signed a piece of paper. We are

going to see whether 72 Democrats who

voted for their farmers, for their homeowners, for the landowners of America
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4983

who have been regulated to death

under this wetlands regulation, that

nobody ever passed into law, that regulators simply built upon, one regulation after the other, we are going to

find out whether 72 Democrats really

believe in private property rights, or

whether they just vote for it one day

and vote against it another day.

If there is one thing people in America are sick and tired of, it is the old

politics as usual. Vote for something

one day and claim you were for it, and

vote against it another day when it

really counts. Well, today it really

counts. Today it really counts.

The President of the United States

has declared on Earth Day before a

throng of his environmental friends

that he intends to veto the property

rights bill we passed just a few short

weeks ago. That bill is on its way to

death, and it has not even been considered by the Senate.

This bill today is your chance to say

you really meant it when you voted for

property rights just a few weeks ago.

This is your chance to put property

rights in the wetlands bill, where it belongs. So make sure that when the

Government takes people’s property by

regulation, that it does what the Constitution says it ought to do, that it

pays them fair and just compensation.

That is simple. There is no way around

this.

In just a few short minutes this debate will end and people will come

from their offices back to this Chamber, and we will find out whether 205

Republicans really meant it when they

signed a contract in favor of property

rights, and whether 72 Democrats really meant it when they voted for property rights. We will find out today if

they are prepared to vote ‘‘No’’ on this

Boehlert amendment, and stand up for

Americans who deserve and are entitled to be compensated when regulations take away the use and value of

their property.

Mr. Chairman, there is the day of

reckoning. There will be other smaller

amendments offered on the property

rights issue, but this is the big one.

This is the property rights vote of 1995.

This vote and the one that will come

on endangered species when we finally

take up the reform of the Endangered

Species Act, will really tell Americans

how you stand on this issue central to

this debate. If you believe, as I do, that

regulations to protect wetlands are

certainly important and regulations to

protect endangered species are certainly important, but so are people, so

land and rights, so are property rights,

so are jobs, so is the economy in this

country, and there ought to be a balance, that when the Government regulates people’s land in such a way that

they cannot use it anymore or their

use is heavily restricted, if you believe

as I believe, as most in America I think

believe, then this is your chance to

vote no on the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Illinois [Mr. DURBIN].

(Mr. DURBIN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the Boehlert amendment.

People who are listening to this debate

who do not own land may wonder what

difference it makes whether we have

wetlands or how many of them. What it

boils down to is this: These wetlands

act as filters for our underground

water supply that we all rely on. When

the wetland system, the natural system, fails, we have to step in at great

expense to build filtration plants to

make sure that the water we drink is

pure.

As taxpayers, we have a vested interest in helping mother nature do her

job, because it is very expensive to

build filtration systems to try to make

up for mistakes which we have made.

That is why this is an important debate. In my part of the world, in the

Midwest, where there is a lot of row

crop farming, there is a lot of concern

about wetlands.

I have to concede the critics are

right. The administration of the wetlands program is far from exemplary

and should be improved. The Boehlert

amendment does that. The Boehlert

amendment is a much more sensible

choice than the alternative. He follows

the National Governors Association,

gives to the Department of Agriculture

the power to delineate what a wetland

is, and sensible farming practices are

allowed. I think we should support this

amendment as a commonsense approach to help the environment and to

reduce the tax burden which all families will face if our wetlands fail.

Let me close by saying this: I have

listened to this debate over the last 2

days. The references to ‘‘gestapos’’ and

‘‘heavy handed tactics by the Federal

agencies’’ fuel the gross national paranoia which we see so much of in this

country. I beg my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle to temper their rhetoric and realize that some people who

have violence in their heart listen for

these code words. We have an important debate here that does not have to

reach that level.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am

pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. ROBERTS], the

distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, there is no paranoia

here and in the remarks that I want to

make, no code words, no hint of violence; it is just straight facts. And the

straight facts are these: The House defeated this amendment last week as

part of a substitute to the committee

bill. It should be defeated in regard to

this time around as well.

This amendment does nothing to

solve the problems farmers and ranchers are having as they attempt to go

about their daily lives, subject to the

constant hassle, and that is a real

word, of Federal wetlands regulators.

The problem with this amendment is

this: It keeps the 1987 Army corps manual. That manual is the big part of the

whole problem. It continues in effect

something called a memorandum of

agreement between the Department of

Agriculture, the EPA, the Fish and

Wildlife Service and the corps. Too

many agencies in the wetlands soup.

And that document is the source of a

lot of possible mischief, even though

the President and the administration

has hailed it as the problem solver for

farmers and ranchers.

I think it is time to understand that

conserving wetlands is the goal. That

is the goal, not conserving Federal

rules and regulations.

The Boehlert amendment expands

the permitting program with monitoring and tracking systems. It sets up all

sorts of coordinating committees and

ecosystem restoration programs. We

have already seen the first hints of ecosystem management in the proposed

regulations that were published by the

Forest Service. Nobody knows what an

ecosystem is, much less how one should

be managed.

The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.

TAUZIN] last week pointed out to Members that the new definition of dredging and filling contained in the amendment would make cutting grasslands

on a wet spot to be a violation of the

Clean Water Act. That is exactly the

kind of problem we have had before.

Now, under the Boehlert amendment

the regulators, the corps, the EPA, the

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Natural Resource Conservation Service at

the USDA, the old SGS, we changed

the name, they would be given carte

blanche authority to develop supplemental delineation standards for different regions of the country, add to

plant and soil lists and supplement hydrology standards. This will all be done

through the regulatory process. The

same manual, the same regulatory

process, the same hassle, and the same

problem for ranchers and farmers.

What is needed is a clear policy of

where the Congress wants the regulators to take the wetlands legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of

the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from

Maryland [Mr. GILCHREST].

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make

a comment very briefly about the previous speaker. There really are all the

exemptions that a farmer would ever

want in order to continue farming and

certainly preserve vital land contained

in the Boehlert amendment.

What I want to talk about briefly

here, this is the map of the United

States, and I unfortunately had to

omit Alaska and Hawaii, but I have a

great strong feeling for those two illustrious States, but at the top of the map
H 4984 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

of the United States, who benefits from

wetlands? I wanted to ask the question

first, what do wetlands do? What is the

function of a wetland?

Well, wetlands purify water, they

prevent flooding, they ensure wildlife

habitat, and they ensure that fish in

coastal regions, whether it is a tidal estuary or fresh water estuary, will continue to be able to reproduce.

Who would benefit from pure water,

from an area that will not flood, from

wildlife habitat and all the diversity

that goes along with that, and abundant fish? Who benefits? Whose property that is near those areas would be

increased in value? I would say that everybody in the United States will benefit from a preservation program that

ensures the quality of America’s wetlands.

Now, this thick book here is the 1991

field testing manual of the changes in

wetlands delineation criteria. It was

proven to be unworkable. The Bush administration set it aside. This particular manual was very restrictive, and

everybody agreed that we would lose 50

percent of our wetlands if we used this

manual. Now we are using a bill that is

even more restrictive on wetlands, so

we can conclude that we will lose about

60 percent of our wetlands across the

United States.

What I want to do is read from the illustrious text of the National Academy

of Sciences study on wetlands. I am on

page 29. We are going to deal with

water quality and flooding and so on.

Here is a quote. ‘‘As wetland acreage

declines within a watershed, functional

capacity such as maintenance of water

quality begins to become impaired.’’

Right out of the text. If we lose wetlands acreage, water quality in those

particular areas decline.

Now, I want to give some examples. I

am not targeting anybody in particular, but just some examples. This is

also found in the new NAS study on

page 30, if you want to look it up. California has lost since 1780, 91 percent of

its wetlands. As a direct result of those

wetlands lost, you have 220 animals

and 600 plant species that are threatened or endangered.

Since 1955, according to the NAS

study, the mallard population is down

35 percent, pintails are down 50 percent. Forty-one fish species have become extinct in this century as a result

of lost wetlands. Twenty-eight percent

of fresh water species have seriously

been reduced. Prairie potholes are very

important for migrating waterfowl.

Floods in New Orleans, the Midwest,

California, and many other areas have

been mainly to a large extent caused as

a result of where people build. And if

you build on a wetlands, the water is

going to go someplace else.

I wanted to put up one other map. I

want to say something about whether

this should be State regulated or the

Federal Government should work in

harmony with the States and with the

local communities. If each State can

do what they wanted, look what will

happen to the Chesapeake Bay. Up here

you see Washington, DC, which is not a

part of Maryland. We could have real

strict controls over our wetlands, and

you can see the silt that is washed out

of the Potomac River into the Chesapeake Bay.

b 1330

A little further, I have great respect

for the State of Virginia, you see in the

James River, right here, more silt coming into the Chesapeake Bay.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the

Boehlert amendment.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Michigan [Mr. EHLERS]. I am pleased to

have this distinguished scientist supporting the Boehlert amendment.

(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

I also want to begin by expressing my

appreciation to the gentleman from

Pennsylvania, the chairman of the

committee, for his effort to rewrite the

Clean Water Act, which certainly needs

revision. I appreciate his efforts and,

by and large, appreciate the result of

what came out of committee. At the

same time, I did vote against the bill

coming out of committee and primarily did that for just one reason;

that was the wetlands section.

I believe that in our effort to revise

what I call the regulatory overburden

that we have with wetlands, we must

not lose sight of our primary objective,

and that is to try to maintain viable

wetlands in the United States.

I come from a State that has its own

wetlands law. I believe it is the only

State in the Union that does, and it is

one of only two that is delegated total

authority by the EPA. We have a lot of

experience with wetlands. Michigan

has a lot of wetlands and they are very

important to us. We have regulated

them well.

I am concerned about what the bill

does to the regulation of wetlands, but

even more I am concerned about what

happens to the actual standards that

are in the bill, not about the effort to

reduce regulation. I admire that effort

to reduce regulation and I think it is

excellent. But we have to be careful

that we do not relax the standards to

the point that we begin to lose viable

wetlands.

You may ask, why am I concerned

about this since I am from Michigan

and we already have our own law? I am

concerned on behalf of Michiganites,

but I am also concerned with others

throughout the United States. For example, we have a tremendous population of hunters in our State and

many who come from other States to

hunt waterfowl. Without proper maintenance of migratory waterfowl flyway

wetlands, we will not have an adequate

population of waterfowl to satisfy the

needs and desires of those in the sporting professions who hunt waterfowl.

Similarly we need to maintain wetlands so we can maintain pure water in

our Nation.

My plea then is to reduce regulation

but not to reduce standards. I urge support for the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. HAYES].

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, a little

over two decades ago our predecessors

stood in this well and argued the Clean

Water Act. Must have been a tough

philosophical stance to be in favor of

clean water and by implication, I suppose, against dirty water. Not one word

of that debate was uttered regarding

wetlands, because an obscure section

buried in the bill became the vehicle by

which bureaucrats and regulators could

add onto a dredge and fill bill, meaning

most of the Mississippi River, and a

lawsuit in 1978, an appearance in the

Senate and then three delineation

manuals elevating an obscure paragraph to a national debate, a national

debate that by our opponents in this,

with the offer of their amendment,

would have not one EPA but now four

Federal agencies able to veto each and

every permit request in America. I do

not know the definition of streamlining, but that is not it.

I have heard a great deal about

science. The science that is lacking in

this debate is psychiatry, because only

a study of psychiatry could tell me

why in Grand Junction, CO, at 11,000

feet above sea level, I have got a wetland, the jurisdictional waters of the

United States, on the side of a mountain. Only a psychiatrist could explain

to me why the ducks and geese apparently who travel around the country

are so much better at delineating wetlands than five Federal agencies. At

least they can figure out where to land.

They have never landed in the parking

lot at the Sands Hotel which, by the

way, has been declared the jurisdictional waters of the United States of

America.

You can either decide that what occurred since 1972 was that those who

could care less about clean water but

cared about land use made the conclusion that you cannot pass a bill in this

House that will regulate people’s land

and zone it nationally, but you can get

to it if you call it a wetland. And if it

escapes from there, you can get to it if

you claim it has an endangered species

and you can terrify people by putting

criminal sanctions in the Clean Water

Act and send them to prison for not

complying with regulations that no

sane person in so many instances

would be able to understand applied to

their property.

In a few minutes, we are going to

vote, we are going to vote on the distinction between the rights of individuals and the arrogance and power of

government.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

yield myself the balance of my time.

(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4985

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, as

we have come to the close of this debate on wetlands, I just want to be sure

that everyone understands exactly

what this amendment would do. This

amendment adopts the National Governors Association proposal on wetlands reform word for word. And this

amendment gives the Secretary of Agriculture sole control over all agricultural wetlands.

We have had a spirited debate and

sometimes people get carried away a

little bit with the spirit and say some

things that just are not accurate. So I

need to correct some misstatements

about this amendment.

It has been alleged that this amendment protects the status quo. The fact

is this amendment would rewrite the

wetlands provisions of the Clean Water

Act and dramatically reduce the burden of Federal regulation. It has been

alleged that this amendment gives

Federal bureaucrats unbridled authority. The fact is this amendment would

reduce Federal control over wetlands

and give more authority to the States.

That is why the National Governors

Association promoted this proposal.

It has been alleged that this amendment is insensitive to the need of farmers. The fact is this amendment contains each and every agriculture exemption contained in the committee

bill, plus an additional exemption for

the repair and reconstruction of tiles

requested by midwestern farmers.

It has been alleged that this amendment creates new bureaucracies. The

fact is this amendment would create no

additional bureaucracies whatsoever,

just a local/State/Federal advisory

panel uncompensated. This amendment

would reduce the bureaucracy

overseeing agriculture wetlands, giving

the Department of Agriculture sole jurisdiction.

Now let us get down to some specific

cases that came up over the past few

days in debate. We heard about someone who had to go through a convoluted approval process to use a wetland that was only one-eighth of an

acre. What this amendment would actually do would provide fast-track authority that would require a response

within 60 days for wetlands permits of

1 acre or less.

We heard that grazing land was being

classified as wetlands. What this

amendment would do is exempt all

grazing and ranching lands from this

section 404 wetlands permitting process.

We heard about wetlands created by

a leaky pipe or a feeding trough. What

this amendment would actually do is

exempt incidentally created wetlands

from regulation.

We heard that the maintenance of

flood control channels would be regulated under this amendment. What this

amendment actually would do is exempt the maintenance and reconstruction of flood control channels.

So many of the stories we have heard

about this amendment are simply fiction. They are in the long American

tradition of tall tales, and the regulators and regulations they allege to be

part of this amendment are about as

real as Paul Bunyan and his blue ox.

Let me tell you something about the

committee bill. The committee bill

would create an expensive new Federal

bureaucracy. Thousands of new Federal

bureaucrats will have to be employed

under H.R. 961 at a cost of over $1 billion.

H.R. 961 would avoid the findings of

science. The report of the National

Academy of Sciences is not even being

used as a reference. It is being totally

ignored. Why are we afraid of science?

Most importantly, H.R. 961 would

allow the destruction of more than half

the Nation’s wetlands. That destruction could cost the Nation billions and

billions of dollars in lost tourism, in

fishing, and flood control.

I will say again, we are offering a

moderate sensible bipartisan amendment, language presented to us by the

National Governors Association, the

same language that was in last week’s

substitute.

This amendment should have the

support of everyone who believes that

we can reform environmental legislation without eliminating its safeguards, and that we can protect the environment without unduly burdening

the citizenry.

I operate under the assumption that

we did not inherit the Earth from our

ancestors. We are borrowing it from

our children. We owe them an accounting of our stewardship. The American

people should have as a birthright

clean air, pure water, dedicated public

officials.

I thank my colleagues for their patience. I thank the chairman of the

committee. I thank all who have participated in this very important debate. What we are about is the future

of America, the next generation. Let us

give them clean water.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he

may consume to the gentleman from

California [Mr. MINETA].

(Mr. MINETA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the Boehlert amendment.

I want to address a matter that has been of

great concern to me throughout much of the

wetlands debate. That is the issue of legislation by anecdote.

I am deeply troubled by some of the stories

that have been recited during floor debate last

night and today, and throughout consideration

of amendments to the wetlands title of the

Clean Water Act.

My concern prompted me to direct my staff

to look into the anecdotes that have been

raised as examples of the problems with wetlands program. To the extent that the anecdotes are accurate, as a few of them may be,

they must be addressed legislatively. I am as

troubled as anyone by the flaws in the program, such as permitting delays.

But I am also gravely concerned about the

use by Members of this distinguished body of

anecdotes that are not accurate, in order to influence the legislation. Using anecdotes that

so exaggerate the actual events is irresponsible and dangerous, and does a great disservice to this body, to our constituents, and

to the people whose experiences get distorted

to serve political ends.

If there is a problem with the wetlands title,

let’s fix it. If there is a need to illustrate the

problem through examples, by all means let’s

do so, if the examples are accurate. Frankly,

if an experience has to be grossly exaggerated because the undistorted truth does not

demonstrate the existence of a problem, then

I must question the seriousness of the problem.

For example: We were told that the court

awarded Mr. Harold Bowles only $4,500 for

the taking of his property. The real story is

that he was awarded $55,000 plus interest for

the taking of his property.

We were told that wetlands regulations precluded construction of a new school in Juneau, AK. The rest of the story includes that

members of the local community raised several serious concerns about the proposed location for construction of the school, and the

city failed to evaluate the availability of alternative sites what would not destroy wetlands,

as required under the law, even though there

was at least one alternative that had broad

community support, lower costs, and less environmental impact.

We were told about the case of Nancy

Cline. What we were not told is that by filling

approximately 100 acres of wetlands, the

Clines damaged adjacent property owned by

their neighbor.

We were told that a church could not be

built in California due to wetlands regulation.

What we were not told is that the Corps of Engineers assisted the group in redesigning their

project so that it would impact less than an

acre of wetlands and be exempt from the requirement for an individual permit. With the

corps’ assistance, the Church was authorized

to proceed, but proceeded to drain a vernal

pool without authorization, destroying the wetland.

A Member letter circulated to Members of

the House stated that the Clean Water Act

never mentions the word ‘‘wetlands.’’ That is

not so: I am aware of at least five instances

where the word ‘‘wetlands’’ appears in the

Clean Water Act, in sections 119, 120, 208

(twice) and 404.

It is not my intention to consume our precious debate time by arguing over the details

of anecdotes. But, nor can I listen to what I

know are inaccurate statements without calling

attention to them.

Finally, in the face of all of these negative

anecdotes about the impacts of wetlands regulation, I would like to share some examples

of the many instances where wetlands regulation protects citizens from property damage

from flooding and other causes.

In the case of Mr. John Pozsgai, who was

convicted by a jury on 40 counts of knowingly

filling wetlands without a Clean Water Act permit, neighbors had flooded basements and

other property damage from the filling.

In the case of Mr. Ray Hendley in Georgia,

neighboring homeowners began experiencing

flooding problems after Mr. Hendley built

houses on illegally filled wetlands.

These are just a few of many examples of

the important role that wetlands regulation
H 4986 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

plays in protecting the property and livelihood

of everyday citizens.

I urge my colleagues to refrain from the irresponsible use of anecdotes, and to support

the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself the balance of my time.

Make no mistake about it, my colleagues, this Boehlert amendment guts

the wetlands section of our legislation.

Make no mistake about it, this Boehlert amendment does not reform wetlands but actually adds new procedures

and new controls to the existing program which has been a nightmare.

This amendment we have before us

creates an 18-member bureaucracy

chaired by EPA. And guess who appoints 10 of the 18 mechanics? A majority? The EPA. And what is the purpose

of this EPA-controlled new bureaucracy? To ‘‘help coordinate regulatory

programs,’’ to ‘‘help develop criteria

and strategies, to help develop national

policies on delineation, classification

and mitigation.’’ We have had about all

the help we can stand from the bureaucrats at EPA, and we do not need an

additional bureaucracy to give the

American people more help.

This amendment before us is so bad

that it actually expands the list of regulatory activities by adding new categories. It mandates—get this—it mandates the use of the 1987 wetlands manual, which we have heard so much criticism about.

It pretends to include exemptions

from permits but it allows the regulators, the bureaucrats to deny those

exemptions.

Now, we have heard it said how wonderful this amendment is for agriculture. Then why, why, I must ask, is

virtually every agricultural organization in America in writing opposed to

this amendment? Well, they are opposed to it because they realize it is

more regulation, not less regulation.

We have heard the claim that this

amendment will fast track permit

processing. Yes, but—and this is the

big but—the so-called fast track is limited to ‘‘minor activities affecting one

acre or less.’’ And guess who determines whether it is a minor activity or

not? You have got it right. It is the bureaucrats who will determine what the

definition of minor is.

We have heard from some of our good

friends in New Jersey, Michigan, and

Maryland supporting this amendment

because it is so important to their

State. I say to my good friends from

New Jersey and Maryland and Michigan and any other state, if they would

like to have more stringent wetlands

regulations, then adopt them in your

State. There is nothing in our legislation that stops them from imposing

stricter wetlands. They are free to do

it. But what is good for New Jersey

may not be good for Idaho.

So let us have a little common sense

here. Let us say that the States know

something. And let us say there can be

flexibility.

Members can impose whatever wetlands they care to impose upon their

State, but do not try to stuff it down

the throats of the rest of the American

people. We have heard a lot about good

science, and about the National Academy of Sciences. We have heard the

claim that 60 percent of the wetlands

will be lost, and we have said the National Academy of Sciences says that.

Do they really? During a questionand-answer session at a briefing, the

chairman, Dr. William Lewis of the

committee that wrote the report, was

asked, ‘‘What percentage of wetlands

currently under the jurisdiction of the

program would be deregulated’’ under

our bill? Do Members know what his

first response was? It was, and I quote,

‘‘I don’t know.’’

Then he was pushed further for an

answer. By the way, the person asking

the question was my good friend, the

gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT], who was pushing this, and when

pushed further, he said, and I quote, ‘‘I

guess the amount would be in the tens

of percent; 20, 30, maybe 40 percent.’’

Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully

suggest it is highly irresponsible for

the chairman of the committee, no

doubt a scientist, to guess on such an

important issue, then to have that wild

guess taken and turned here on this

floor into something right out of the

New Testament.

The last part of his answer, ‘‘40 percent,’’ differs from the first part by a

100 percent margin of error. Is that

good science, that margin of error? I

think not.

We have also been told how the National Governors Association supports

the Boehlert amendment. What are the

facts? The facts are the only record in

which a subcommittee of that organization went on record was the National

Governors Association’s wetlands policy. In 1992, 3 years ago, they voted in

support of the kind of Boehlert amendment we have before us. It was not the

Governors themselves.

Today, indeed, we have different Governors, and the Governors have already

said they are going to reconsider their

position, so I say vote down the Boehlert amendment, do not gut this bill.

Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, today we

will vote on an amendment to the clean water

bill which will severely weaken the wetlands

reform contained in this bill.

H.R. 961 is a renewed investment and commitment in our Nation’s clean water infrastructure. It reinstates the basic constitutional right

to obtain compensation for takings. This bill

unamended, will allow farmers and landowners to seek a determination of whether a

wetland exists on their property.

My farmers and landowners in the Eighth

District of Georgia are in desperate need of

relief from the overburdensome and heavily

regulated Federal wetlands policy. H.R. 961,

unamended, will give eighth district farmers

and landowners in towns like Ashburn and

Enigma the relief they need. The Republicans

have promised the American people that the

status quo will no longer be the norm. Unfortunately, this amendment does nothing to

change the status quo. We have a responsibility to protect the environment, yet do so without over-regulating the farmers and businesses that drive our economy. I urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’ against any amendment

which weakens wetlands reform.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT].

The question was taken; and the

Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 185, noes 242,

not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 332]

AYES—185

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baldacci

Barrett (WI)

Bass

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Boehlert

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Cardin

Castle

Clay

Clayton

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Coyne

Davis

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Doyle

Durbin

Ehlers

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fawell

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Forbes

Ford

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gilman

Gonzalez

Goss

Green

Greenwood

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hinchey

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klug

Kolbe

Lantos

Lazio

Levin

Lewis (GA)

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martini

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Metcalf

Meyers

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Moran

Morella

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Porter

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Ros-Lehtinen

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Shays

Skaggs

Slaughter

Smith (NJ)

Spratt

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Taylor (MS)

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Upton

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Weldon (PA)

Williams

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Young (FL)

Zimmer

NOES—242

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bateman

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4987

Brewster

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fazio

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Fowler

Franks (CT)

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gillmor

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Graham

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kim

King

Kingston

Knollenberg

LaFalce

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Livingston

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martinez

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Mica

Miller (FL)

Minge

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Pomeroy

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Rose

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Traficant

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Young (AK)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—7

Berman

Bryant (TX)

Collins (IL)

Gephardt

Kleczka

Klink

Lipinski

b 1406

Messrs. COOLEY, BAESLER,

BONILLA, ROEMER, and POMEROY

changed their vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Messrs. PASTOR, HASTINGS of

Florida, and OLVER changed their

vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GILCHREST:

Page 309, strike lines 8 through 12.

Page 309, line 13, strike ‘‘(10)’’ and insert

‘‘(9)’’.

Page 312, line 10, strike ‘‘(11)’’ and insert

‘‘(10)’’.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, it

occasionally happens that rather small

provisions of bills which very few people know about have a tremendous impact.

This amendment seeks to strike such

a provision which will have a significant effect on hunters and other people

who enjoy migratory birds.

The gentleman from Michigan and

the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who

are both members of the Migratory

Bird Commission, are coauthors of this

amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my friend

the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

WELDON].

(Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked

and was given permission to revise and

extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr.

Chairman, I rise in strong support of

this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from

Michigan [Mr. DINGELL] and I serve as

the House Members on the Migratory

Bird Commission and as such we work

on ways to preserve in a voluntary way

the wetlands of this National and

North America that are important to

waterfowl.

Over the past several decades that

this program has existed, we have in

fact preserved 7 million acres of wetlands through the North American

Wetlands Conservation Fund and 4 million acres through the Migratory Bird

Commission funding. All of that has

been done voluntarily.

This amendment allows us to continue to recognize those lands that are

important for the development and the

growth of waterfowl in this country. It

is a good bipartisan amendment. I applaud my colleague for offering it. I applaud my colleague, the gentleman

from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL], for joining in support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I include my statement in support of the amendment as

follows:

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer this

amendment with my colleagues, Mr.

GILCHREST and Mr. DINGELL. This provision in

H.R. 961—which will deny Federal protection

for wetlands that are solely used by migratory

birds—is not only unnecessary but dangerous

for the future of our Nation’s migratory birds.

As members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, Mr. DINGELL and I have

witnessed first hand the role wetlands protection plays in the recovery and protection of our

Nation’s migratory birds. Through the use of

primarily duck stamp monies together with

other proceeds, the commission has provided

for the acquisition and enhancement of waterfowl habitat through the National Wildlife Refuge System.

However, the wildlife refuges alone cannot

provide sufficient habitat to support the millions of waterfowl which annually migrate

across America. As a result, thanks to the effort of my friend, Mr. DINGELL, the North American wetlands conservation fund was created.

NAWCF is truly one of the most cost effective

wetlands preservation initiatives in existence.

It operates as a private-public partnership,

with Federal grant monies being matched,

often times at rates as high as 4 to 1.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4308, a bill to re-authorize and expand the North American wetlands

fund, passed the House by a vote of 368 to

5 last year. Almost every single one of our colleagues recognized the need to preserve our

Nation’s wetlands in order to protect important

migratory bird populations. The provision on

page 309 of H.R. 961 which eliminates protection of wetlands which are solely used by migratory birds will halt the progress we have

achieved through the work of the Migratory

Bird Commission.

We must take into consideration that even

after passage of the North American wetlands

conservation fund, much more still needs to

be done. Recent estimates of North America’s

breeding duck population is 18 percent below

the average of the last 40 years. For certain

species, the numbers are far worse. Mallard

populations, for example, are down 20 percent

and the North Pintail population has declined

by half. Other migratory species have suffered

as well. Populations of Franklin Gulls, Black

Terns, and Soras all have declined significantly since the early 1950’s. It is clear we

cannot roll back the clock in preserving these

species.

Mr. Chairman, the migratory bird provision

in H.R. 961 not only puts at risk our migratory

bird populations, but contradicts case law on

this subject. As Mr. DINGELL has stated, the

U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh District, has

specifically ruled in Hoffman Homes versus

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, that EPA is within its jurisdiction to

view migratory birds as a connection between

wetlands and interstate commerce. Proponents to H.R. 961 will argue that this case

gives the EPA carte blanche to run rough

shod over private landowners. Not true. In

fact, the court ruled in favor of Hoffman, citing

the EPA’s inability to provide substantial evidence of migratory bird use. So you can see,

the burden is on EPA to prove the wetlands is

essential to migratory bird populations.

In addition, I would like to bring to the attention of my colleagues—especially those who

are most concerned with the economic impact

on our citizens with regard to the laws we

pass—exactly the impact H.R. 961, in its current form, will have on our hunting and tourism

industry. In 1991, $3.6 billion was spent on

hunting migratory birds such as waterfowl and

shore birds, $15.9 billion was spent on

nonconsumptive uses of migratory birds. Together, they contribute almost $20 billion to

our Nation’s economy.

I urge my colleagues to support the DingellWeldon-Gilchrest amendment to H.R. 961.

Last year you showed your support for our migratory birds. If you have constituents in your

district who like to hunt, trap, or observe migratory birds, I urge you to show your support

again this year.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield myself such time as I may

consume, and I yield to the gentleman

from Michigan [Mr. DINGELL].
H 4988 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding to

me. My comments will be brief.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend

the distinguished gentleman from

Maryland and my dear friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

WELDON], who serves so ably with me

on the Migratory Bird Commission for

their fine leadership on this matter.

This is a good amendment. I want to

thank my friends, the chairman of the

committee and also the ranking minority member and the other members of

the committee who have been accommodating to us on this.

This will make possible the conservation of a very precious natural resource

much loved by millions of Americans,

by duck hunters, by nonhunters and by

ordinary citizens who enjoy it.

I am grateful to the gentleman for

the leadership he has shown. I thank

my good friend from Pennsylvania. I

urge the amendment be adopted.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield to the gentleman from California

[Mr. MINETA].

(Mr. MINETA asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the

Gilchrest-Dingell amendment. I also applaud

his tenacity in working to improve the wetlands

provisions of this bill.

The Gilchrest-Dingell amendment would delete from the bill another of the arbitrary limitations which have been included to reduce the

protection which is afforded wetlands, regardless of the value of the wetland. Without this

amendment, the bill will deny protection to virtually all isolated wetlands—the very wetlands

which are so valuable to migratory waterfowl,

and which can serve a variety of valuable

functions such as groundwater recharge and

flood control.

As we all know, the Federal Government is

one of limited powers. Often, the basis of the

Federal Government’s authority to regulate an

activity is the commerce clause of the Constitution. In the case of isolated wetlands

which do not cross State boundaries, the presence of migratory birds has been a sufficient

nexus to interstate commerce so as to justify

a Federal interest in the wetland.

If H.R. 961 is allowed to proceed in its current form, there will be no Federal jurisdiction

over isolated wetlands. The mere fact that a

wetland is isolated should not make it automatically less protected than one which is directly linked to the otherwise navigable waters

of the United States. I remind my colleagues

that in the debate on the original Clean Water

Act in 1972, the subject of the breadth of its

coverage was specifically debated, and the

decision was that the act should have the

broadest application possible. This amendment defeats that original purpose with no

concern for water quality or other impacts.

Mr. Chairman, the Gilchrest-Dingell amendment will allow the wetlands program of the

Clean Water Act to exercise its jurisdiction as

allowed by the Constitution. Anything less is

yet another attempt to assure the continuing

loss of our Nation’s valuable wetland resources.

Support the Gilchrest-Dingell amendment

and leave the constitutional interpretation of

the Clean Water Act alone.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield to the distinguished gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], the

chairman of the committee.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an excellent amendment, and I urge its

adoption.

Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the

Gilchrest-Dingell amendment.

Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I believe H.R.

961, as presently drafted, goes too far. The

bill, as reported out of committee, contains a

provision which states that water or wetlands

would no longer be subject to Federal protection solely because they are used by migratory

birds. That provision will open thousands of

wetlands used by migratory birds to destruction.

As any one of the thousands of sportsmen

and women from Minnesota can tell you, protection of isolated wetlands is important for the

continued, stable growth of our migratory waterfowl. The wetlands which this amendment

seeks to protect are particularly important for

certain species of waterfowl, including mallards, teal, and pintails—whose numbers are

critically low.

I was born and raised on a farm in Minnesota, near a principal breeding area for waterfowl in the United States. I come from a

family of hunters, and have fond memories of

the time we spent, enjoying the sport, and absorbing the beauty of Minnesota. If this

amendment is not accepted and isolated wetlands are left unprotected, future generations

may not be able to experience the recreational

opportunities so many of us have had, and the

gains we have made in replenishing our wildlife population over the past several years

could be lost forever.

During our recent district work period I held

many listening sessions and the message my

constituents gave me was clear: Cut back

on Federal over-regulation and micromanagement, but do not roll back essential

protections for our most vital natural resources. Mr. Chairman, there is a legitimate

role for the Federal Government to play in protecting isolated wetlands for the benefit of all

Americans. I therefore urge my colleagues to

support this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

GILCHREST].

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. GILCHREST

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. GILCHREST:

Page 243, strike line 9 and all that follows

through line 7 on page 249 and insert the following:

‘‘(c) WETLANDS CLASSIFICATION.—The Secretary shall issue regulations for the classification of wetlands to the extent practicable based on the best available science.

Requirements of this title based on the classification of wetlands as type A, type B, or

type C wetlands shall not become effective

until regulations are issued under this subsection.

Page 282, line 11, strike ‘‘subparagraphs (B)

and (C)’’ and insert ‘‘subparagraph (B)’’.

Page 282, strike line 12 and all that follows

through line 22 on page 283.

Page 283, strike line 23 and all that follows

through ‘‘any’’ on line 25 and insert the following:

‘‘(B) NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.—Any

Page 311, line 17, strike ‘‘section,’’ and insert ‘‘section and’’.

Page 311, lines 18 through 20, strike ‘‘, and

no exception shall be available under subsection (g)(1)(B),’’.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the

order of the House of today, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. GILCHREST]

and a Member opposed will each be recognized for 15 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman

from Maryland [Mr. GILCHREST].

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield myself such time as I may

consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is extremely straightforward. It seeks to

strike the bill’s provisions for delineation and classification of wetlands.

These are the provisions with which

the National Academy of Sciences disagreed most strongly and they are the

provisions which have driven the Association of State Wetlands Managers to

oppose the bill.

The provisions in question require

that wetlands be inundated for 21 consecutive days in the growing season,

that they meet a very strict vegetation

requirement, and that they have hydric

soils present.

Under such a definition, an acre of

land could be a swamp from October to

March, saturated the first 20 days of

the growing season and the last 20 days

of the growing season, and not meet

the hydrology requirement. It could be

a swamp year round but not display the

right sort of vegetation and not be considered a wetland. Or a landowner

could simply wait for a drought year

when very few acres will display wetland hydrology and again not have the

parcel considered a wetland.

b 1415

Now I know that many of us have

been eager for a statutory definition of

what constitutes a wetland. But H.R.

961 contains a definition which is clearly wrong—it’s definition will only protect a fraction of acres that function as

wetlands in the United States. The National Academy of Sciences could not

assign any scientific justification, let

me say that one more time. The National Academy of Sciences could not

assign any scientific justification to

the wetlands definition contained in

H.R. 961.

Where did the committee get this

definition, you might ask? Well, the

definition is almost identical to the

proposed 1991 manual revisions, but a

little stricter. Those revisions were a
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4989

complete disaster during field testing,

with the inter-agency team calling

them ‘‘technically unsound’’ and urging that the manual be adopted. This

definition was such an utter failure

that the Bush administration had to

abandon its own proposal.

Now I’ve heard that States could provide higher levels of protection for wetlands than what is provided under the

bill. With all due respect, the nutrients

and toxics in surrounding States very

often cause a tremendous amount of

problems in my State, which borders

on the Chesapeake Bay. Until we can

make waterways respect State boundaries, wetlands are going to remain an

interstate matter. Mr. Chairman, every

time farmers from States bordering my

State put down fertilizer in a non-bestmanagement practice, they hurt

watermen in the State of Maryland,

and nobody’s going to talk about compensating the State of Maryland fisherman, although if we adopt this bill I

think we should gain that debate.

My amendment also strikes the wetlands classification system in the bill.

Obviously, we would like to say that

this wetland is more important than

that wetland, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, we do not

have the science right now to make

that determination. This bill blindly

subscribes to the wetter is better theory, but the National Academy of

Sciences essentially says, and we all

want to deal with science and we have

the report, the National Academy of

Sciences report right here, it says we

cannot do that.

Under my amendment the Army

Corps of Engineers would be required

to publish regulations for wetland classification when sufficient science is

available. This replaces the bill’s requirements that classification systems

be implemented whether the science is

available or not. If we go along with

this bill, we are going to determine

what is a wetland without science. Is

that OK? I do not think so.

Let me take a minute about what

this amendment does not do. It does

not change any of the bill’s provisions

about permitting. It does not change

the compensation provisions. It does

not remove any of the six pages of exempted activities. All this amendment

does is remove the two provisions that

the National Academy of Sciences say

are unworkable and unscientific.

My friends from Louisiana, and they

are my friends, from Louisiana will

argue that Congress should decide

which wetlands to regulate, and obviously that is our duty. But in delineating wetlands, literally drawing lines

around wetlands, we should use an appropriate scientific definition of wetlands. Once we have delineated those

wetlands, we may decide not to regulate them, and indeed, H.R. 961 contains about 80 other pages which deregulate various wetlands. But at the

very least, let us keep a little science

in the question of wetlands delineation.

Most of the groups who oppose title

VIII of the bill, the Governors, the

State legislators, the fishermen, among

others, oppose this provision more than

any other. And while I cannot say they

would support it with this provision

gone, that means we take out the delineation criteria, and we inject it with

science, at the very least it would temper their opposition. That means we

would have support of the National

Governors Association, we would have

the support of fishermen, we would

have the support of people who truly

want clean water, who want to prevent

flooding, who want wildlife habitat,

who want a whole range of things that

improve the quality of our lives.

Last week the gentleman from New

Jersey [Mr. ZIMMER] told a story which

I hope everyone heard. He talked about

how a certain State legislature voted

to change pi. Remember in eighth

grade in your math class. It was not

apple pie, it was a mathematical equation, the circumference for circles. The

definition of what is a functional wetland is every bit as scientific as pi. If

we have to deregulate wetlands, this

bill does that. But at the very least, for

delineation purposes, let us keep a scientific definition of wetlands in place.

Let us talk some sense about what

we do today for tomorrow’s children.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance

of my time.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] will

control the opposition to the amendment and is recognized for 15 minutes.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent to temporarily

yield the control of that time to the

distinguished gentleman from Missouri

[Mr. EMERSON].

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

Louisiana [Mr. HAYES].

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, this is

the study that has been referenced here

before of the National Academy of

Sciences, and my copy says advance

copy, not for public release, before

Tuesday, May 9, 1995, eastern standard

time; in other words, right after I can

take advantage of it for news purposes,

but too late for anyone to go through it

and criticize it. It is also interesting

when you turn a few pages, I find out

the academy was doing a lot of

nonscientific things, unless of course

you mean political science. One of the

things they did was make sure they

noted on page 2 that this was paid for

by the EPA and then later after nearly

3 years of work and a mere 19 months

late, they concluded what we should

base science on an EPA delineation

manual. That must have been a tough

and rigorous decision. They also had to

do so under some terrible circumstances. They were forced to travel

to Sedona, Vicksburg, over to Maryland, over to Florida, over to North Dakota, all around the country spending

our tax dollars on field hearings. But

most interestingly of all, it required

four different EPA folks to travel with

them to Arizona to tell them what a

wetland was. And you wonder why people are having problems. It required

four Fish and Wildlife Service members

from Washington to go to North Dakota, and then most importantly, of

course, I wonder how long was the determination that Raphael Lopez of San

Diego would do the cover art of drawing a crane for $1,500.

I do not believe we need to have waited the 19 months to get a report that

merely said Federal agencies have the

leverage to have scientists who are

misled by regulator after regulator

after regulator affect what should be a

scientific process, which is why I have

letters now from different environmental consultants across the Nation

telling me that their participation was

constantly interrupted not by the scientists but by regulators, that the

questions came from regulators, that

the regulators were leading the panel

talking about how you actually implement the manual.

Both scientists and regulators need

to go back to the field, back to talk to

landowners and find out what policy

should be.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, how

much time do I have remaining?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] has

13 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. GILCHREST]

has 9 minutes remaining.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman

from Oregon [Ms. FURSE].

Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding time to me.

I commend my Republican colleague

from Maryland for this excellent

amendment. I rise in strong support.

We do need a workable and scientific

description of wetlands.

I want to speak on behalf of the oldest industry in this country, our commercial fishing industry. That industry

contributes more than $111 billion annually and provides jobs for 11⁄2 million

Americans.

This fishing industry will be put in

jeopardy by H.R. 961. More than 75 percent of fish and shellfish species rely

on wetlands for some portion of their

cycle. Yet, H.R. 961 would allow more

than half of all wetlands to go unprotected by simply redefining them as

dry land.

It is for these reasons that the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s

Associations, that is the largest organization of fishermen and fisherwomen

in the entire length of the west coast,

why they have come out in opposition

of H.R. 961.

If Members care about the future of

America’s fishing industry or if they

just like to eat fish, I urge they vote

yes on the Gilchrest amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. ROBERTS],
H 4990 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for yielding the

time. I would like to engage in a colloquy that is very important to the agricultural sector and would ask the distinguished chairman the following

question: In the chairman’s en bloc

amendment that was agreed to earlier

there is a section beginning on line 20,

page 284, that grandfathers wetlands

delineations made by the Secretary of

Agriculture under the 1985 Food Security Act—1985 FS Act—as amended, if

those delineations were administratively final upon enactment of this legislation. I appreciate the Transportation Committee’s willingness to

amend the committee bill as reported

to incorporate this provision in the

law. It is very important to American

farmers and ranchers; however, I note

that there appears to be a difference

between the term ‘‘delineation’’ as

used in the clean water amendments

and the term as used in the Food Security Act of 1985.

Under the terms of the 1985 Food Security Act, as first enacted, the term

‘‘delineation’’ was not used. However,

in the period 1986 through 1990 several

thousand administrative determinations were made by the Secretary exempting persons from the program ineligibility provisions of section 1221 of

the Food Security Act of 1985. In the

1990 amendments to section 1222 of the

Food Security Act of 1985, made by the

Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and

Trade Act of 1990—FACT Act of 1990—

the concept of delineation was first introduced in the Food Security Act. The

Secretary of Agriculture under section

122 amended by the FACT Act of 1990

included an on-site visit to make a delineation determination, if the landowner requests such an on-site visit.

In addition, section 1222(a)(4) of the

1985 Food Security Act requires the

Secretary to provide a process for the

periodic review and update of the delineations, but a landowner may not be

adversely affected by any actions the

owner may have taken based on an earlier wetland determination made by

the Secretary of Agriculture.

Chairman SHUSTER, I assume it was

your intent by grandfathering delineations of the Secretary of Agriculture

that were final upon enactment of this

bill to mean that administrative determinations made by the Secretary of

Agriculture under the Food Security

Act would also be grandfathered. In

other words, the term delineation as

used in the clean water amendments of

1995 is meant to include the administrative finality of determinations as

that term is used in section 1222 of the

1985 Food Security Act, as amended.

Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will

yield, I would answer by saying that he

is correct, the committee intends for a

wetland delineation made under the

Clean Water Act as we are amending it

today would provide finality of determinations made by the Secretary of

Agriculture under the Food Security

Act.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the gentleman for his clarification. And I

would only add at this time, Mr. Chairman, that I would also like to rise in

opposition to the Gilchrest amendment.

Now the Gilchrest amendment, in the

eyes of the sometimes powerful House

Committee on Agriculture and its

members, would provide authority to

the Federal regulatory community to

decide what classifications will be used

for various functions and values of wetlands. The gentleman from Louisiana

[Mr. HAYES] has already spoken to

that. I associate myself with his remarks. And to some of these regulators, quite frankly, every wet spot is

a valuable wetland. That is the problem. That is the problem with the gentleman’s amendment. They will use a

seat-of-the-pants science to determine

wetlands. I would imagine they would

go out in the field, sit down on the

ground, and if their pants get damp,

why then it would be a wetland.

The Gilchrest amendment eliminates

the statutory wetlands delineation

process of H.R. 961 which requires land

to actually be wet for a significant part

of the growing season. The committee

bill requires some water-loving plants

to be found on the ground.

The gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

GILCHREST] would eliminate that requirement. He would eliminate the requirements for how hydric soils are delineated.

In short, I would tell my colleagues

that the Gilchrest amendment guts the

committee’s well-reasoned, commonsense approach and replaces it with a

program ruled by those who write the

rules, EPA and Fish and Wildlife. That

is part of the problem.

We do not need this amendment. The

gentleman’s intent is good, his leadership is good, he is a fine Member but

we should oppose his amendment. Let

us get on with the adoption of H.R. 961

and defeat this amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

want to make a comment to my good

friend the gentleman from Kansas that

the reason America’s agriculture is as

advanced as it is today is because we

use good science. We do not want to reverse ourselves and go back to a ThirdWorld-nation status not using the best

available knowledge to pursue the agricultural industry.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to

my good friend the gentleman from

California [Mr. WAXMAN].

(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

b 1430

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, this

issue that we have before us is not a

new one. The Competitiveness Council

under Vice President Quayle tried to

define, redefine, wetlands in very much

the same way that H.R. 961 does, and at

that time Governor Wilson from the

State of California did a very smart

thing. He asked State officials to assess the impact of this new definition

on California.

He wrote, because he was so alarmed,

on December 13, 1991, to President Bush

to protest the wetlands definition of

the Competitiveness Council, essentially the same definition in this bill.

And he said, ‘‘This would cause irreparable damage to the State’s natural

resource base.’’ He found that definition we are considering today would

eliminate half of California’s wetlands.

In southern California, the State biologists found the coastal wetlands would

be reduced by 75 percent. Half of San

Francisco’s bay tidal marshes, which

are essential habitats for numerous

fish species, would also lose protection.

He asked that we have a National

Academy of Sciences study, and that

report is now before us, and now this

study is being ignored.

For years we have heard opponents of

environmental protection in this body

talk about the need for sound science.

When we passed H.R. 9 earlier this

year, legislation that rolls back 25

years of environmental protection, we

were told that we were acting in the

name of sound science. When we debated a whole host of bills, opponents

of environmental protection gave impassioned and eloquent lectures on the

need for sound science.

In my remarks in the RECORD I am

going to quote back some of the statements made by our colleagues. Apparently many Members want sound

science only if it matches their political views.

What we have today is a new political correctness that has captured this

House.

The National Academy of Sciences,

our Nation’s premier scientific organization, has completed a rigorous and

comprehensive analysis and concluded

that H.R. 961 does not reflect good

science. The bill’s sponsors react to

this news not by amending their bill

and accepting the Gilchrest amendment but by denouncing the National

Academy of Sciences.

The message is clear. This Congress

will accept sound science only if the

science fits its political agenda. I think

that is wrong, and that is why I am

going to vote for the Gilchrest amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. EMERSON].

(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in opposition to the Gilchrest amendment, and I want to talk a little bit

about wetlands delineation.

Ordinary people no longer know what

a wetland is. They expect to see a

swamp or a marsh, only to be told by

regulators that land that is usually dry

is a wetland, or that a field of corn is

a wetland. It is really time to get the

water back into wetlands.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4991

The current guidelines can allow an

area to be called a wetland even if

water never stands on it or even if the

surface of the ground is never saturated. For Federal regulation under the

Clean Water Act there should be a real

influence of water as well as the presence of wetland vegetation and soils

before property comes under regulatory control. Some say this approach

is unscientific.

Well, the scientists have had 20 years

to decide this, and there is still no

clear, understandable, agreed upon approach. We have heard a lot of rhetoric.

The gentleman from California was

just talking about the National Academy of Sciences study which was released on Tuesday, and while I am personally more than a little suspicious of

their timing and of consideration for

the NAS’s political motivations in releasing this report to coincide with the

debate here in the House of the Clean

Water Act, I am glad to see them finally come forward with a report.

But let me try to dispel some of the

distortions and unfounded allegations

that occurred regarding the bill’s delineations provisions. Some of the selfserving special interest groups backed

by environmental extremists have

claimed the bill is going to result in

anywhere from 50 to 60 to 80 percent reduction in the amount of private property that is regulated as so-called wetlands. There is no scientific basis other

than their own self-interest and political motivations to make such claims.

We should be dealing with the truth;

the truth is that nobody knows the extent of wetlands in this Nation, even

under the existing rules. The truth is

that our bill requires that there be a

reasonable relationship, a reasonable

relationship between water and Federal

regulation under the Clean Water Act.

We have obtained information on how

our bill would affect the extent of Federal jurisdiction in the Florida Everglades but we believe that this would

be helpful, because the liberal extremists claimed our bill would remove the

Everglades from Federal jurisdiction.

The consultants found that our bill

would actually result in an increase in

jurisdiction and not a decrease.

This increase will certainly not occur

in every case throughout the country,

but it serves as a helpful example of

just how desperate some of the opponents of this bill have become.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield myself such time as I may

consume.

If I could, I would like to quickly respond to the gentleman from Missouri.

Approximately 66 percent of the 1989

wetlands acreage at interagency test

sites would have failed the proposed

1991 criteria comments of the Missouri

River Division.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the

gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. NORTON].

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to

strongly support the Gilchrest amendment. I would hate to believe that the

long awaited National Academy of

Sciences study has not gotten here just

in time. A million dollars is what we

put down to get somebody objective to

look at this problem.

The reduction in wetland acres, my

colleagues, is awesome.

This is a radical change based on ignorance.

Indeed, the provisions that are objectionable are based on discredited provisions of the 1991 manual. How can we

use a 1991 manual that failed field testing and not a state-of-the-art study?

In this area, we are spending tax dollars to restore wetlands. Let the Amy

Corps of Engineers use the NAS study,

the only study with any integrity, to

develop delineation criteria. The wetlands title before us is an act of ignorance.

Please, support the Gilchrest amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

California [Mr. MINETA].

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am

pleased to support my colleague’s

amendment.

The Gilchrest amendment would

strike the classification provisions of

the wetlands title, and replace them

with a requirement that any wetlands

classification regulations be based on

the best available science. It also

strikes the arbitrary restrictions on

delineation of wetlands which are contrary to the findings of the National

Academy of Sciences.

The Gilchrest amendment is an opportunity to correct one of the inconsistencies of H.R. 961. The sponsors of

the bill are fond of stating how environmental decisions need to be based

upon sound science and the best information available. Yet, when it comes

to the issue of what is a wetland, the

bill ignores science and creates its own

arbitrary and unscientific definition of

what is a wetland. This is particularly

troubling in light of the recently released report of the National Academy

of Sciences.

The bill includes an absolute standard for wetlands hydrology of 21 days

of inundation. Yet, the Academy says

that Federal regulation should reflect

regional differences. If the Gilchrest

amendment is adopted, the wetlands

program will have the flexibility to acknowledge the differences in wetlands

which occur in this country.

H.R. 961 is often a contradiction in

terms. The use of accurate scientific

information is only to be used when

the polluter believes that it would be

to the polluter’s benefit.

The bill requires States and EPA to

spend millions to develop new test species to determine water quality violations, even when EPA says that such

expenditures are not necessary. Yet

there will be no risk assessment when

determining whether increased

amounts of toxics will be released into

the water because industry says that

such expenditures are not necessary.

The National Academy of Sciences

says that there should be flexibility in

the regional determination of what is a

wetland, yet the bill insists that there

must be standing water at the surface

for 21 days—a requirement that will

leave parts of the Everglades out of the

wetlands program. The result is that

the bill ignores science when it is in

the interest of the polluter to do so.

It is time to bring some common

sense and supportable facts to the wetlands debate. Support the Gilchrest

amendment and allow the wetlands

program to protect true wetlands.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

Massachusetts [Mr. OLVER].

(Mr. OLVER asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the Gilchrest amendment.

This is a straightforward amendment

which simply replaces what are artificial definitions in H.R. 961, with a reliance on the best available science.

We have repeatedly heard, the Republicans have said repeatedly, they want

to rely on sound science in reforming

our environmental laws and other

areas within the Congress. The Speaker

himself, Speaker GINGRICH himself, has

endorsed this principle. Yet here we

have a case where the National Academy of Sciences, a nonpartisan, reliable and highly respected body, has assembled a panel, a very broad and diverse panel, which has studied for 2

years the issue of how to identify a

wetland, and they have found there is

absolutely no scientific justification

for the wetlands provisions and the

wetlands definitions in this legislation,

H.R. 961.

So if you support using sound science

in regulatory decisions, then you must

support the Gilchrest amendment, and

anything less would be sheer hypocrisy.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. BORSKI], a member

of the committee.

(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the

gentleman from Maryland to eliminate

the delineation requirements and to require that classification of wetlands be

based on the best available science.

What could be more common sense

than to require that a technical subject

such as classification of wetlands be required to be based on science?

It makes no sense to set up a classification that has nothing to do with

scientific findings.

Just last week, the National Academy of Sciences at the request of Congress, issued its report on wetlands

which shatters the entire foundation of

title VIII of H.R. 961.

Title VIII defines wetlands without

any regard to science. It doesn’t just

ignore scientific findings—it flies directly in the face of science.
H 4992 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

Supporters of title VIII say this decision is not a scientific decision—it is a

policy decision.

But policy must be based on the best

information possible. H.R. 961 has ignored this information.

It is true that we in Congress should

make the policy determinations. But

we cannot, as a matter of policy, determine what is a wetland and what is

not.

H.R. 961 attempts to define wetlands

despite the scientific finds. We might

as well attempt to define the color of

the sky or the grass.

We cannot do that. What we can do,

based on a scientific definition of wetlands, is determine whether we want to

protect those wetlands.

H.R. 961 has determined that it will

withdraw protection from 60 to 80 percent of the Nation’s wetlands.

That is a policy decision but it is the

wrong policy decision.

I compliment the gentleman from

Maryland for attempting to make sure

that our national wetlands policy is

based on the best available science.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the

amendment.

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I

yield myself the remainder of my time.

My last couple of comments will deal

with who benefits from wetlands. The

people who benefit from wetlands are

those people who want clean water,

those people who want floods prevented

in their neighborhoods and in their regions, those people who understand the

esthetic value, the appeal and the quality of life when it comes to habitat for

wildlife, those people who feel a sense

of closeness to nature, to the economic

value of the coastal fisheries. All

Americans benefit from sound wetlands

policy.

I urge my colleagues to support this

amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, make no mistake

about it, just as the previous amendment which we disposed of overwhelmingly gutted the wetlands provision of

this bill, so does this provision as well.

This is simply another gutting amendment. It is gutting amendment, because it eliminates all efforts to require that wetlands have a closer relationship to water.

Now, this argument that the approach in the bill is not scientific is baloney. The approach in the bill is just

as scientific as the much more rigid approach taken by my good friend from

Maryland. Indeed, the amendment we

have before us now eliminates all the

requirements requiring that a degree of

regulation has got to match the relative value of the wetlands. That is

what we say in the bill.

We say it has got to be under water

21 days. They say 15 days. Which is

more scientific? One is as scientific as

the other.

In fact, very interesting, when we

keep hearing about all of this science

and the importance of it, I refer again

to the very, very importantly point

that the chairman of the National

Academy of Sciences committee, when

asked how many wetlands would be affected by our legislation, his response

was, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ And when pushed

finally, he said, ‘‘Well, maybe in the 10

percent, or 20, or 30 or 40.’’ That is

science? ‘‘I don’t know,’’ and then,

‘‘Maybe 10 percent, maybe 20 percent,

maybe 30 percent, 40 percent.’’ Some

science.

b 1445

So the science we provide in our bill

is every bit as accurate. In fact we require rulemaking by the Army Corps of

Engineers to define and determine

which category of wetland the various

wetlands fall under. And I would emphasize again:

If you do not like what the bill does, if

your State does not like what the bill does,

your State can impose tougher wetlands regulations. We do not inhibit the States from

imposing their own regulations. What we do

through is sat that the State of New Jersey

cannot force the State of Idaho to adopt the

provisions that the State of New Jersey

seems to think are important for that state.

And yes, we have heard about the

Governors’ Association supporting

their wetlands provision. Well, I have a

letter sent to us today from the vicechairman of the Governors’ Association National Resources Committee in

which he says the National Resources

Committee will be reviewing its current policy at its annual meeting in

July. Since many new Governors have

joined the NGA this year, we believe it

is important to examine all the current

policies to determine if the sitting

Governors are in agreement with what

was passed by this subcommittee 3

years ago, and he goes on to say, and

this is important, I quote, H.R. 961, our

bill, does provide States with flexibility to regulate wetlands in accordance

with State needs. So it is important to

realize that the National Governors’

Association, which has come out in

support of our overall bill, in fact in

expressing their reservations about

this particular amendment that we

have before us.

My colleagues, this is simply another

gutting amendment. It should be defeated.

I will close by referring to two examples of what would be a wetland if this

amendment were to be adopted by

friend from Maryland.

Riverside, CA, a picture of a desert.

Well, this desert wants to be the site of

a public flash control project. It was

delineated as waters of the United

States, waters of the United States, a

desert. That is a wetland under the

amendment we have before us. And in

Phoenix, AZ, a picture of another

desert. Yes, this property was declared,

quote, water of the United States for

regulatory purposes, a desert. That is a

wetland.

Let us bring common sense to wetlands. Let us, just as we overwhelmingly did on the last amendment, let us

defeat this amendment so we can have

real wetland reform in the interest of

America and in the interest of sound

environment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

GILCHREST].

The question was taken; and the

Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 180, noes 247,

not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 333]

AYES—180

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baldacci

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bereuter

Bishop

Boehlert

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Castle

Clay

Clyburn

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Coyne

Davis

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Doyle

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fawell

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Forbes

Ford

Fox

Frank (MA)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Furse

Gejdenson

Gekas

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gilman

Gonzalez

Goss

Green

Greenwood

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hinchey

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Kingston

Klink

Klug

Kolbe

LaFalce

Lantos

Lazio

Levin

Lewis (GA)

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martini

Mascara

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Meyers

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Moran

Morella

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Payne (NJ)

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Porter

Pryce

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Shays

Skaggs

Slaughter

Smith (NJ)

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Thompson

Thurman

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Walker

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Weldon (PA)

White

Williams

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Zimmer

NOES—247

Allard

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bentsen

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brewster

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4993

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clayton

Clement

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Coleman

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

de la Garza

Deal

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Durbin

Edwards

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fazio

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Fowler

Franks (CT)

Frisa

Frost

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Geren

Gillmor

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Graham

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hoyer

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kim

King

Knollenberg

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Livingston

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martinez

Matsui

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

McNulty

Metcalf

Mica

Miller (FL)

Minge

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Pastor

Paxon

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Pomeroy

Portman

Poshard

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Thornton

Tiahrt

Traficant

Upton

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walsh

Wamp

Ward

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weller

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—7

Archer

Berman

Collins (IL)

DeLay

Gephardt

Kleczka

Lipinski

b 1508

Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina and

Mr. WHITFIELD changed their vote

from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Messrs. SERRANO, GONZALEZ, and

TORRES changed their vote from ‘‘no’’

to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage

in a colloquy with the chairman concerning a matter that is of great importance to me and to my constituents.

A question has arisen as to whether

the issuance of livestock grazing permits is subject to State certification

under section 401 of the Clean Water

Act.

It is my understanding that under

current law section 401 only applies

where a conveyance of some sort is involved in the discharge. That conveyance may be, but is not necessarily, a

point source.

My interest is in clarifying that section 401 does not apply to a Federal

lease or permit to authorize livestock

grazing on lands owned or under the

control of the United States, unless

there is a conveyance from which pollutants are or may be discharged. Recent litigation in the district court in

Oregon has increased the need to clarify the intent and scope of section 401.

Is it the chairman’s understanding

that section 401 State certification

would not apply absent a conveyance?

Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will

yield, the gentleman is exactly correct.

The answer is yes. Section 401 would

generally not apply to grazing permits.

Where there is no point source or other

conveyance such as a pipe or ditch. The

State certification provision under section 401 should not apply.

I thank the gentleman for raising

this issue so that many people in farming and the ranching communities concerned about this issue may have some

clarification.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. COOLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MINETA. I thank the gentleman

for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would agree with the

chairman that section 401 was not intended to apply to discharges that do

not involve some sort of conveyance.

Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the chairman and ranking minority

member. Based upon this clarification

of existing law, I will not insist on offering an amendment at this time.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MINGE

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an

amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. MINGE: Page

274, after line 19, add the following:

‘‘(10) MITIGATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS.—

Any mitigation requirement approved by the

Secretary under this section for agricultural

lands shall be developed in consultation with

the Secretary of Agriculture.’’

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, this

amendment is a pale substitute for an

amendment that was printed in the

RECORD last week and reported in the

House action reports. My goal with

these amendments to the Clean Water

Act has been to simplify the process for

the public.

Tragically, farmers, ranchers, and

other landowners have had to go from

agency to agency asking for clarification, seeking permits, and making sure

action that they plan to take in using

their own land does not violate the

law. Three Federal departments, one

major Federal agency, and a handful of

State and local agencies are involved

in this process.

Regulatory reform ought to at a minimum include simplification, one-stop

shopping. Answers ought to be prompt,

understandable, and consistent. The

frustration, the delay, and the expense

inherent in the present way that we go

about making decisions regarding wetlands is a tragic story. It is done as

much to drive the demand for regulatory reform as any other factor.

Mr. Chairman, it is my goal to coordinate this convoluted multi-agency

process for dealing with wetlands. In

consulting with the chair of the committee, I understand that the amendment as revised is acceptable.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I do

rise in support of the revised amendment. It is consistent with the overall

theme of the bill, and I urge its support.

Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to also point

out that the amendment as offered

deals with the topic of mitigation, and

it is extremely important that we not

set up a process under the Clean Water

Act that has a framework for mitigation that is incompatible with

swampbuster, which is a part of the

Food Security Act of 1985.

b 1515

Landowners who comply with the requirements of one Federal law should

not find that it is impossible to comply

with the requirements of another Federal law because the laws are inconsistent. Instead, we should make sure that

these laws work together to achieve a

common goal.

Landowners should not have to go to

two different Federal departments and

satisfy each with respect to what is involved in mitigation. Instead, they

should be able to deal with one Federal

agency. And the benefit of this amendment is to require that the Secretary

of the Army and the Secretary of Agriculture work together, that the Secretary of the Army will consult with

respect to mitigation procedures and

their development with the Secretary

of Agriculture.

I am optimistic that I will be able to

pursue the rest of the amendments

that I had intended to offer in the context of the 1995 farm bill. I look forward to working with the chair of this

committee and the chair of the Committee on Agriculture and other officials in trying to develop a consistent,

comprehensive Federal one-stop-shopping process for landowners in America.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I do this simply to announce that we have just passed 28
H 4994 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

hours of debate on this bill, three times

the amount of time spent on the original act. And I urge support for the

amendment that is now before us.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. MINGE].

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RIGGS

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an

amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. RIGGS: On page

276, strike lines 3 through 7 and insert in lieu

thereof the following: ‘‘ponds, wastewater retention or management facilities (including

dikes and berms, and related structures) that

are used by concentrated animal feeding operations or advanced treatment municipal

wastewater reuse operations, or irrigation

canals and ditches or the maintenance of

drainage ditches;’’.

Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I do believe that this will go quickly and that

my amendment is of a noncontroversial nature, having cleared it with the

ranking minority member as well as, of

course, the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a

companion to one I offered earlier to

title IV, dealing with antibacksliding

provisions of the Clean Water Act.

The present proposal would amend

language in section 404, as modified by

the committee. It adds wastewater

reuse operations to the list of activities that are exempt from the section

404 permit process if advanced treatment practices are followed. Applicable

water quality standards would, of

course, still have to be met.

One of the purposes of H.R. 961, as expressed in the committee report, is to

encourage communities to utilize alternative treatment systems such as

constructed wetlands. This amendment

encourages wastewater reuse in agriculture and wetlands by providing relief to municipalities from the unintended consequences of current law.

Section 404, as presently written,

fails to recognize the net environmental benefits that can be provided

by wastewater reuse. Without my

amendment, more wastewater will be

disposed of into the ocean or local rivers.

Years of studies have shown that advanced-treated wastewater can be used

without adverse effects in wetlands to

restore habitat and remove nutrients

that would harm rivers and oceans—

but not wetlands. Existing regulations

and policies that are based on section

404 leave the decision about whether to

allow restoration of wetlands with reclaimed wastewater to bureaucrats.

In northern California and elsewhere,

projects that provide the dual benefit

of wetland restoration and water quality improvement have been arbitrarily

and systematically prevented.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, together with other provisions of H.R.

961, would help reverse the counterproductive and unintended impact of

section 404. By granting relief from the

permitting process to municipal

wastewater facilities that utilize advanced treatment practices, the effect

of the amendment will be to encourage

cities to use properly treated

wastewater to restore degraded wetlands and create new wetlands—precisely what the Clean Water Act should

be encouraging, not discouraging.

I urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield.

Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we

have examined this amendment. It is a

good one and we urge its support.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. RIGGS].

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer

two amendments, printed in the

RECORD as amendments No. 42 and No.

43.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.

Amendments offered by Mr. PALLONE:

Amendment No. 42. Page 240, line 23, after

the semicolon insert ‘‘and’’.

Page 241, line 5, strike the semicolon and

all that follows through the period on line 9

and insert a period.

Page 242, line 4, after the semicolon insert

‘‘and’’.

Page 242, line 7, strike the semicolon and

all that follows through the period on line 11

and insert a period.

Page 276, line 10, strike the comma and all

that follows through the comma on line 11.

Page 292, line 17, after the semicolon insert

‘‘and’’.

Page 292, strike lines 18 through 20.

Page 292, line 21, strike ‘‘(G)’’ and insert

‘‘(F)’’.

Page 292, strike line 24, and all that follows

through line 6 on page 294.

Page 294, line 7, strike ‘‘(3)’’ and insert

‘‘(2)’’.

Page 295, line 3, strike ‘‘(4)’’ and insert

‘‘(3)’’.

Page 295, line 16, strike ‘‘(5)’’ and insert

‘‘(4)’’.

Page 315, strike lines 11 through 15.

Page 315, line 16, strike ‘‘(K)’’ and insert

‘‘(J)’’.

Page 315, line 19, strike ‘‘(L)’’ and insert

‘‘(K)’’.

Page 315, line 21, strike ‘‘(M)’’ and insert

‘‘(L)’’.

Page 316, line 14, strike ‘‘(N)’’ and insert

‘‘(M)’’.

Amendment No. 43: Strike title IX of the

bill (pages 323 through 326).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent that the amendments be considered en bloc.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

New Jersey?

There was no objection.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my

amendments strike the bill’s provisions

which reassign certain regulatory authority over ocean dumping and navigational dredging permits from the

EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Under existing law, ocean dumping of

dredged material currently falls for the

most part under the jurisdiction of the

Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act. Under that act, the EPA

sets up criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications, the EPA

designates recommended sites and

times for dumping. The Secretary of

the Army Corps makes permit decisions on the dumping of dredged materials using the EPA criteria and siting

recommendations.

The EPA has veto power over the

Army Corps’ permitting decisions and

the EPA grants permit waivers to the

Army Corps.

Under H.R. 961, the committee mark,

the corps would be responsible for all

ocean dumping permit decisions. The

corps would set up criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications.

The Army Corps would designate recommended sites and times for dumping, and the Army Corps would grant

its own permit waivers.

The corps only has to consult with

the EPA before issuing a permit, and

the EPA no longer has veto power.

And most importantly, H.R. 961 requires that ‘‘the least costly environmentally acceptable disposal alternative will be selected.’’

The problem with removing the EPA

from the dredging process is essentially

that the corps has engineering and

dredging expertise but not expertise in

environmental management, science,

protection and conservation. The Army

Corps in my opinion should not be the

lead agency to develop plans that are

supposed to ensure protection of the

marine environment and human

health. Keeping the Army Corps environmental authority will jeopardize

our oceans, allowing them to be exposed to dioxins like PCB’s and other

cancer causing pollutants.

Removing the EPA also creates a

conflict of interest in my opinion for

the Army Corps because under H.R. 961

the corps would grant its own permits,

select its own sites and even grant its

own waivers.

If I could just read a selection from a

paper that my own State of New Jersey

department of environmental protection put forward, they say:

The amendments contained in H.R. 961 will

affect dredging in New Jersey in several

ways. The elimination of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from their oversight role in dredging operations will put the

Army Corps of Engineers, the agency

charged with keeping navigation channels

open, in the role of both permitting and enforcing their own operations. This creates a

perceived if not an actual conflict of interest

in the management of dredging operations.

While there would be definite value to consolidating the process in one agency, the environmental protection value of the permits

is best managed by the EPA. Perhaps this

conflict would better then be resolved by

eliminating the corps from the process instead of the EPA.

Last week, Mr. Chairman, the EPA

released its toxicity results from the

mud dump site which is off the coast of

my district in New Jersey and showed
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4995

that sediments there do not meet

ocean dumping criteria. I maintain

that these sediments are another indication of what will happen if the EPA

is removed from the dredging process.

Also, I would like to stress this problem with requiring the least costly disposal alternative which is what H.R.

961 does. Waste disposal should not be

predicated on what is cheapest but on

what methods best ensure that human

environmental health are not jeopardized. The least costly disposal alternative is always ocean disposal, but it

should not be the one that we choose.

I would also like to mention that in

my own State of New Jersey, our Governor, who happens to be a Republican,

has been in the forefront of saying that

contaminated dredged material should

not be disposed of offshore, and I think

that her efforts will be undercut by

having the Army Corps solely administer the dredging disposal permitting

process as opposed to the EPA.

My amendment returns the dredging

process to the status quo, gives the

interagency working group on the

dredging process the latitude to implement its recommendations. In December 1994, after a couple years, the EPA

and the Army Corps together came up

with an action plan that basically

seeks to deal with dredging in a cooperative way and move the permitting

process forward and streamline it pursuant to existing law with the two

agencies working together. Let these

two agencies work together, continue

under the current law. They have devised an action plan that will do well

without having to change the basic underlying statute.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 961 would change

the way that dredging is done in America. It would break the partnership

that currently exists between the EPA

and the Army Corps, handing over authority of every dredging activity solely to the corps. If H.R. 961 passes,

America’s oceans could be exposed to

toxics like PCB’s dioxin and other cancer causing pollutants. That is why I

am asking for support of my amendment to strike the dredging provisions

in H.R. 961. I think the action plan that

both the EPA and the corps have put

together is the right way to go. Let us

not gut this legislation.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word, and I rise in

strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment

would delete the reforms that are

achieved in this bill for our Nation’s

navigational dredging program. Our

country’s ports and harbors are a vital

link not only to interstate commerce

but to global commerce, the national

economy and very importantly, the

creation of jobs.

Under implementation of the current

law, necessary dredging activities, even

though the vast majority are environmentally sound, are subject to excessive delay and to interagency disputes.

Our bill addresses the problem by

streamlining the regulatory requirements applicable to navigational

dredging without sacrificing the environment. And it places a single agency,

the Corps of Engineers, which certainly

has been criticized here today for being

too environmental, places the Corps of

Engineers solely in charge of running

the program so we have an environmentally sensitive agency in charge. It

does not share, therefore, the responsibility with other agencies, creating

needless interagency disputes.

Without these reforms, our balance

of trade will continue to suffer and jobs

will be lost. I urge defeat of this

amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman from Pennsylvania for

yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, representatives of our

Nation’s ports, including those in

North Carolina, support the committee’s inclusion of title VIII and IX in

H.R. 961. Title VIII and IX modifies the

regulatory provisions of the Ocean

Dumping Act to transfer from the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to the Secretary of the

Army the responsibility for navigational dredging. If enacted, the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers would be the

lead Federal agency for: First, issuing

ocean dumping permits for dredged material; second, designating dumping

sites; and third, developing permit criteria.

Consolidation of the management of

navigational dredging in the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers will make this task

more efficient, without compromising

the environment. The corps is wellversed in the relevant Federal environmental statutes as well as the delicate

art of dredging. Since the Chief of Engineers wears both hats, it makes sense

to reassign this responsibility to the

corps.

As my colleagues understand, commercial navigational is critical to our

economy and the maintenance of our

Nation’s ports is necessary to enhance

commerce within—and throughout our

States—and to boost U.S. exports. We

must streamline the dredging process

to eliminate unnecessary delays in this

process.

During committee consideration of

H.R. 961, I supported the Franks

amendment to reduce EPA’s role in the

permitting process for navigational

dredging. The committee overwhelmingly approved this streamlining

amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues

to accept the Franks amendment to

this title which clarifies that the corps

only gains jurisdiction over dredge material. I commend the gentleman from

New Jersey for offering this amendment.

On the other hand, I must object to

the amendment being offered to title

VIII and IX by another of our colleagues from New Jersey, Congressman

FRANK PALLONE, which would strike all

of this title. As I have outlined, the

committee and our constituents have

argued for the efficiency and common

sense which title IX provides.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues

to vote for the Franks amendment and

against the Pallone amendment. I yield

back the balance of my time.

b 1530

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield

back the balance of my time, and I

urge a ‘‘no’’ vote on this amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendments offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

PALLONE].

The amendments were rejected.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I move to

strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage

the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

SHUSTER], the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, in a colloquy so I might

clarify my understanding of a provision

in title VIII. Specifically, I refer to

page 311, line 16 of the bill, which

makes reference to previously-denied

permits. I have provided the chairman

with a copy of the specific language.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentleman

from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am

happy to engage the gentleman from Illinois in a colloquy.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, let me

preface my remarks by regrettably

stating that regardless of the understanding I hope to reach in this colloquy regarding this provision, I do not

support this provision, and believe it is

inconsistent with the intent and goals

of the legislation.

However, for clarification purposes, I

would ask the chairman of the committee to confirm my understanding of

how this provision would apply to a

party that has applied twice for a section 404 permit and has been denied a

permit both times by the Corps of Engineers. If the party applying for the

permit litigates the second permit denial and is successful in court in overturning the Corps of Engineers’ second

permit denial, will the party be able to

file another permit application, or

have their permit application reconsidered under this provision?

Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will

continue to yield, Mr. Chairman, I

would reply that the gentleman is correct. Should the party be successful in

court in overturning the corps’ decision in such a circumstance, it could do

one of the following: First, have their

permit application reconsidered, second, amend their permit application, or

third, reapply to the corps for a permit.

Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman profoundly.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. TAYLOR OF

MISSISSIPPI

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr.

Chairman, I offer an amendment.
H 4996 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi: Page 292, line 20, strike ‘‘and’’.

Page 292, after line 20; insert the following:

(G) standards and procedures that, to the

maximum extent practicable and economically feasible, require the creation of wetlands and other environmentally beneficial

uses of dredged or fill material associated

with navigational dredging; and

Page 292, line 21, strike ‘‘(G)’’ and insert

‘‘(H)’’.

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr.

Chairman, for many decades the Corps

of Engineers, being like all of us, were

creatures of habit in that when they

dredged, they would take the spoils and

throw it to the nearest possible place

without much regard for the effects on

the environment, whether they were

destroying an oyster reef, whether they

were filling in a marsh, whether they

were destroying a swamp. To their

credit, the corps has now gone in another direction, and perhaps to an extreme.

Just recently in south Mississippi a

7-mile pipeline was constructed to remove the dredged material from Biloxi

Bay and pump it farther inland. In another instance, what is known to be

toxic dredged materials in the harbor

at Pass Christian is being hauled inland, but in not every instance, as the

gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

PALLONE] has pointed out, is the dredge

material polluted. In many instances it

is virgin bottom, it is not polluted, and

it can be used for other things.

I think the Corps of Engineers would

be very wise to consider a third alternative other than ocean dumping,

other than hauling the material inland.

That would be to create coastal

marshes or wetlands with the dredged

material. This would do three very valuable things. No. 1, it would create

wetlands. As we all know, we have lost

about half the wetlands in this country

in the past 100 years.

No. 2, it would save money, because

in most instances it would be the

cheapest way to dispose of the dredged

material, the closest to the channels

that are being dredged. No. 3, in States

like Louisiana and my home State of

Mississippi, we are losing some very

valuable property to coastal erosion.

There is a national historic landmark,

the lighthouse at Rhode Island, MS,

that is soon to wash into the sea if

something is not done to prevent the

erosion of that island.

Last, Mr. Chairman, it would create

wildlife habitat. Therefore, I have spoken to both the majority and minority

on this matter. We are asking, but not

directing, the Corps of Engineers that

whenever practicable, to take this

dredged material and consider the use

of it for creating wetlands and marshes

with this dredged material, rather

than, A, hauling it inland, or B, dragging it out to the middle of the ocean.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. I yield

to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

think the gentleman’s amendment is

an excellent environmental contribution to the bill, and I accept it.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. TAYLOR].

The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FRELINGHUYSEN

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

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN: In the matter proposed to be inserted as section 404(l) of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act by section 803 of the

bill (as amended by Mr. Shuster’s amendment) strike paragraph (8) and insert the following:

(8) TREATMENT OF EXISTING PROBLEMS.—

Any State which has received approval to administer a program pursuant to this subsection before the date of the enactment of

the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation

and Management Act of 1995 shall not be required to reapply for approval and shall be

permitted to continue administering such

program.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. First, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to thank the

gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.

SHUSTER], the chairman, for adding

language to his en bloc amendment to

address the concerns of New Jersey and

Michigan regarding their current operation of wetlands permitting under the

section 404 program of the current

Clean Water Act. What I am offering

now is simply a perfecting amendment.

Unfortunately, part of the language

that was included in the en bloc

amendment contradicts the goal of

States rights. I believe that the language in the amendment en bloc goes

too far. As the chairman rightly stated

in his opening remarks on this bill, his

goal is to provide the States with maximum flexibility in wetlands permitting, and to encourage them to take

leadership roles. New Jersey is currently doing just that. This amendment simply allows two States that

have already assumed the responsibility of permitting wetlands to keep

their current programs without going

through another lengthy procedure,

and without having the final decision

thrown into the political arena. It

gives my Govenror the choice to either

accept the new delineation process, or

keep intact the current program. The

argument is simple. The gentleman

from Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER] was

right in his opening statement on the

bill. Let the States decide. Give them

the option. These two States have gone

through several years of the lengthy

assumption process. Let us not penalize them for doing the right thing and

for taking the initiative in creating

programs that actually do work. I urge

adoption of this amendment, coauthored by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. KNOLLENBERG].

Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. Chairman, I rise

to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment because if any part of our legislation that is now on the books is broken, it is the disastrous 404 wetlands

program. We are simply saying that

the two States which have adopted

their own program in conformity with

the Federal program should not hide

behind a Federal program which is now

being changed. The States will have

the total freedom to adopt whatever

State law they want to adopt for their

own wetlands program, but they should

not be able to continue to use, in effect

hide behind, a Federal program which

is being changed here.

Mr. Chairman, it is of great importance, I think, to recognize that a

State may want to assume management of the program. That is what the

political process is all about at the

State level. That is why we have

worked hard to make State assumptions more attractive and more flexible

in the bill.

In fact, the committee’s amendment

in the nature of a substitute included a

modification specifically designed to

allow the opportunity for a State to petition the Secretary for deviations

from the requirement of this bill. This

allows for the real possibility that

States could tailor their Federal delegated program, but does so within the

context of a deliberate, open decision

process that would allow for input from

all affected parties.

Mr. Chairman, we tried to strike a

balance between total, unconstrained

delegation of programs and the need to

achieve some degree of reform, even in

States with federally delegated programs. This bill already does that. This

amendment simply goes too far. Therefore, Mr. Chairman I would say the

State may adopt their own State law.

They should not hide behind a Federal

law which no longer is going to exist.

For that reason, we should defeat this

amendment.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in

support of the Frelinghuysen amendment. Two States, New Jersey and

Michigan, have assumed responsibility

for administering the section 404 wetlands program. Those States should be

encouraged to retain the program, and

other States should be encouraged to

participate as well. The Frelinghuysen

amendment respects the rights of

Michigan and New Jersey to continue

to operate their wetlands program as

they are today. My chairman has repeatedly asked this House to respect

State flexibility, because States know

how to best protect State interests.

The Frelinghuysen amendment respects their efforts and the interests of

the State, and should be supported.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman,

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the

Frelinghuysen amendment. I, too, look
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4997

at this as a States’ rights issue. As has

been pointed out by the gentleman

from New Jersey [Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN]

and the gentleman from California [Mr.

MINETA], we have a unique problem.

My home State of Michigan has been

administering its own wetlands program for some 15 years. We are not trying to hide behind a Federal program,

we are trying to maintain the program

that we have which works. I do not believe in every facet of this program. In

fact, I believe that Michigan and New

Jersey should look to the gentleman

here as a road map to some reform.

However, I believe that the Governor,

the Governors of given States, should

have maximum flexibility to govern

the transition from the current program to a new and better one. This

amendment will simply give the Governor that flexibility by allowing him

to either continue the current program, adopt the new Federal guidelines, or work with the Secretary of

the Army to craft a hybrid approach

that uses the best from both plans.

This is consistent, I believe, with the

current philosophy here in Washington,

and certainly with this Congress, to

give States the specific flexibility to do

what is best for the particular State.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express

my appreciation to the gentleman from

Pennsylvania [Mr. SHUSTER], the chairman. He was very generous in his time.

We did spend a great deal of time in

trying to work out an agreement. Although we could not reach that agreement, I sincerely thank him for his

courtesy and his generosity in terms of

time, effort, and consideration. I do

urge, however, the adoption of the

amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support

of the Frelinghuysen amendment. In

1993, New Jersey became the second

State to assume regulatory authority

of its wetlands program, and I believe

the State assumption streamlines the

permit process while ensuring environmental protection of wetlands. Under

current law, States like New Jersey

adopt their own wetlands programs to

be implemented in place of the Federal

program if that program is at least as

stringent as the Federal program.

Under H.R. 961, New Jersey would be

forced to apply to the Army Corps of

Engineers in order to continue to implement its own wetlands program.

This application would take place in

about a year and a half, when New Jersey’s program next comes up for review. To receive additional approval,

most likely New Jersey would have to

severely weaken its existing program

in order to comply with the demands

for the new title VIII wetlands program, such as the classification and delineation that we have already discussed in this House today and the previous day.

The new wetlands program, under

H.R. 961, I believe, will destroy New

Jersey’s existing program and all the

important gains that have been made

since the program was implemented in

1988. Unlike current law, which allows

a State to administer its own program

with limited oversight by the Federal

Government, H.R. 961 says the States

administering their own programs have

to submit notices to the corps for permit applications. Again, this erases the

greatest benefit of assumption, elimination of the duplicative Federal review process, and this severely weakens the incentive for New Jersey to reapply for assumption of its wetlands

program. Eventually, I think New Jersey and Michigan would probably just

simply go along with the new Federal

program if we do not have the Frelinghuysen amendment. The Frelinghuysen

amendment allows our States to maintain the existing programs, and exempts them permanently from having

to apply for corps approval of their programs.

This would protect the gains that

these two States have already made in

wetlands protection. It would give New

Jersey the latitude to have State law

as stringent or more stringent than

Federal law, and it would negate the

message, most important, Mr. Chairman, that H.R. 961 currently sends, and

that is that those States that actively

work to make progress in environmental protection and compliance with

the Clean Water Act made a mistake in

doing so because their efforts would be

wasted because of the changes, and the

drastic changes, that are being proposed under H.R. 961.

b 1545

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the

Frelinghuysen amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.

FRELINGHUYSEN].

The question was taken; and the

Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were ayes 181, noes 243,

not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 334]

AYES—181

Ackerman

Andrews

Baldacci

Barcia

Barrett (WI)

Bass

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bereuter

Bevill

Boehlert

Bonior

Bono

Borski

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Camp

Cardin

Castle

Chapman

Chrysler

Clay

Clement

Clyburn

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

Davis

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Durbin

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Engel

Ensign

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Forbes

Ford

Fox

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gordon

Greenwood

Gutierrez

Gutknecht

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hilliard

Hinchey

Hoekstra

Horn

Houghton

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kaptur

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Knollenberg

Lantos

Lazio

Levin

Lewis (GA)

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Martini

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Metcalf

Meyers

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Mink

Moakley

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Ney

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Ortiz

Owens

Pallone

Payne (NJ)

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Pomeroy

Porter

Portman

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sanford

Saxton

Scarborough

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Shays

Skaggs

Slaughter

Smith (NJ)

Spratt

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Thompson

Thurman

Torkildsen

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Upton

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Weldon (PA)

Wise

Wolf

Woolsey

Wyden

Yates

Zimmer

NOES—243

Abercrombie

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bateman

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehner

Bonilla

Brewster

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Canady

Chabot

Chambliss

Chenoweth

Christensen

Clayton

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Coleman

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Emerson

English

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fazio

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Fowler

Frank (MA)

Franks (CT)

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gillmor

Gonzalez

Goodlatte

Goodling

Goss

Graham

Green

Gunderson

Hall (OH)

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoke

Holden

Hostettler

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Jefferson

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kanjorski

Kasich

Kim

King

Kingston

Klink

Klug

Kolbe

LaFalce

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Lincoln

Linder

Livingston

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Mascara

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Mica

Miller (FL)

Minge

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Norwood

Nussle

Orton

Oxley

Packard
H 4998 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

Parker

Pastor

Paxon

Payne (VA)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Sawyer

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Thornton

Tiahrt

Traficant

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Williams

Wilson

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—10

Berman

Boucher

Collins (IL)

Fattah

Gephardt

Gilman

Jacobs

Kleczka

Lipinski

Wynn

b 1605

Messrs. CALLAHAN, HASTERT, KASICH, and GONZALEZ changed their

vote from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. DEFAZIO changed his vote from

‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I regret

that my being involved in an event on

the Senate side prevented me from voting on rollcall No. 334. Had I been able

to vote, I would have voted ‘‘yea.’’

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall vote

No. 334. Had I been present, I would

have voted ‘‘yea.’’

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word for the purposes

of a colloquy, and I yield to my good

friend, the gentleman from California

[Mr. HERGER].

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, currently the Army Corps of Engineers

and the Environmental Protection

Agency regulations for implementing

section 404(f) exemptions for agricultural and related activities require

that an activity ‘‘must be part of an

‘established’ or ‘ongoing’ farming,

silviculture or ranching operation’’.

Mr. Chairman, what is the gentleman’s intent in amending section 404(f)

with respect to these exemptions?

Under the amended section 404(f), will

it be permissible to change from one

exempted agriculturally related activity to another without triggering the

permit requirements?

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, the gentleman is

absolutely correct. Changing from one

exempted agricultural activity, such as

grazing, to another exempted agricultural activity, such as plowing, will

not cause the exemption to end. Furthermore, there is no requirement that

the exempted activity be established or

ongoing as the regulations currently

require.

In fact, I emphasize to my good

friend, the gentleman from California

that this is one of the significant differences between current law and what

we are doing in this reform. Under current law the bureaucrats can and have

used the exemption process to say that

when you move from one agricultural

activity to another process you are not

exempt, and that is what we fix in this

legislation.

Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer

an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. WYDEN: Page

251, after line 2, insert the following:

‘‘(C) PREVENTION OF REDUCTION IN FAIR

MARKET VALUE OF PRIVATE HOMES—No compensation shall be made under this section

with respect to an agency action that prevents or restricts any activity that is likely

to result in a total reduction in the fair market value of one or more private homes of

$10,000 or more.

Page 315, after line 15, insert the following:

‘‘(K) PRIVATE HOME.—The term ‘private

home’ means any owner occupied dwelling,

including any multi-family dwelling and any

condominium.

Page 315, line 16, strike ‘‘(K)’’ and insert

‘‘(L)’’.

Page 315, line 19, strike ‘‘(L)’’ and insert

‘‘(M)’’.

Page 315, line 21, strike ‘‘(M)’’ and insert

‘‘(N)’’.

Page 316, line 14, strike ‘‘(N)’’ and insert

‘‘(O)’’.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a

straightforward amendment to protect

the rights of private homeowners

whose property values would be reduced by $10,000 or more when a developer fills in a wetland.

Right now the bill creates a double

standard. There are one set, a generous

set of rules for protecting the rights of

those who want to develop property,

and a far weaker set of rules for the

neighboring homeowners who live nearby. If we do not vote to correct this

double standard, Members will find

citizens coming up to them and asking,

Why did you vote to lower the property

value of my house?

Here is why Members are going to get

that question: By voting for this bill

there are going to be more wetlands

filled. Wetlands help limit flooding by

acting as a huge sponge that can soak

up water and rainfall. When a wetland

is filled, the excess water has to find

someplace to go, and that could be the

basement or the backyard of the homeowners living downstream from the development.

That is why Members are going to

get asked, if we do not vote to correct

the double standard in this bill, why

they have been willing to go along with

reducing the value of their neighbor’s

house under this bill.

In addition, for those who are concerned about the deficit issues in this

bill, this amendment should also be appealing. A 1992 congressional budget

analysis estimated the cost of compensating wetland owners for not developing their property could be as

high as $10 to $15 billion. The entire

corps regulatory budget is in the millions.

Let us make sure that we recognize

that those who develop property in our

country deserve fair treatment. But let

us also recognize that the homeowners

who live next door to wetlands that are

going to be filled under this legislation

also deserve fair treatment.

Vote to give those homeowners a fair

shake by supporting this amendment.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield to

my friend, the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I want

to make sure I understand the gentleman’s amendment. Is the gentleman

saying if I happen to have my home

next to wetland and the developer goes

on that wetland under this bill and

somehow fills it in with a landfill or

whatever so he can build a subdivision

or building of some sort, as a result my

property, my basement floods or something happens to my property, that I

have a right to recover for my loss?

Mr. WYDEN. What I am saying is the

standard to protect you as a homeowner is far weaker than the standard

that protects the developer. The developer, for example, gets compensated if

their property value is just diminished

as a result of the activity that this bill

addresses. You, as a homeowner, do not

get any concern under this bill if your

property value is reduced. You actually

have to have the flooding in your basement before there is any consideration.

Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will

yield, if a person is really in favor of

property rights, then they would be in

favor of those property rights lost because a wetland is filled inasmuch as

they would be if they had land that had

wetlands on it, would they not?

Mr. WYDEN. Not only is the gentleman correct, but let us remember

there are many more homeowners situated in the fashion the gentleman has

described than there are those who

want to develop property. There are 65

million private homeowners in this

country. They enjoy the benefit of environmental laws. Certainly not all of

them obviously live next door to a wetland, but there are many, many more

homeowners like the ones the gentleman’s question addresses than there

are those who want to develop property.

Mr. DURBIN. I would say to the gentleman I have heard many speeches

around here about property rights.

This is an eminently sensible and fair

amendment, and I assume we will pass

it by voice vote, and I support the gentleman’s amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise

in strong opposition to this amendment.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4999

Mr. Chairman, while the intent of

this amendment may not be completely clear, it appears to be totally

unnecessary, duplicative, and indeed,

the source of much litigation. If the intent of the amendment is to protect

other property owners from being

harmed by the issuance of a wetland

permit provisions already contained in

H.R. 961 more than adequately do that.

I refer specifically to page 250, which is

clear.

I would also point out that this

amendment by my good friend from Oregon is essentially the same amendment he offered during the private

property rights debate a few months

ago, and at that time his amendment

was overwhelmingly defeated, 165 to

260. Section 803(b) of our legislation expressly prohibits the payments of compensation if the activity requiring a

wetlands permit would harm another

property owner. It is very clear. The

private property rights protection also

prohibits the payment of compensation

for any activity that would be considered a nuisance under the applicable

State law or is inconsistent with the

local zoning law.

b 1615

These two provisions make it perfectly clear that no one has the right

to take actions on their property that

would damage somebody else’s property.

Now, if my good friend in his amendment is attempting to assure that adjoining property owners are not to be

flooded or directly harmed, his amendment is not needed. However, I suspect

the case really, given my good friend’s

strong opposition to property rights

legislation, is that he is trying to establish a bureaucratic out for compensation in every case, and I must oppose it.

The property rights provision in this

bill, exactly like those contained in

H.R. 961, requires that a direct link be

established between the action requiring a permit and the harm to another’s

property. The absence of this link

would allow neighbors who just do not

want to see development on another

piece of property to undermine the constitutional rights of the property

owner. That is not right. It is not

American, and we should not let it happen.

The other limitation to this amendment is that, if in the mind of some bureaucrat, some mythical reduction in

property values might occur, hundreds,

even thousands, of miles away, then

they could escape the compensation requirements of this act. Again, this is

not what this country is all about.

The amendment is sufficiently vague

that it will almost certainly result in

mountains of litigation. It is a lawyer’s

paradise. We need to protect property

rights, not to provide more work for

lawyers.

I urge the defeat of this amendment.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

support of the amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon, the author of the

amendment.

Mr. WYDEN. I thank the gentleman

for yielding.

I would just like to respond, if I

might, to my friend from Pennsylvania.

First, let me tell my colleagues that

this amendment is far narrower in

terms of protecting the rights of homeowners than any similar issue ever discussed on the floor. We have stipulated,

for example, that there must be damage to the adjoining homeowners of

$10,000 or more.

Second, and I want the Members to

understand exactly what the double

standard is which no more favorably

treats developers than it does homeowners, in the bill, the developer is

compensated if their property value is

merely diminished. The neighboring

homeowner has to meet a higher standard which requires actual physical

damage such as the flooding to their

basement. So there clearly is a double

standard here.

I share the view of the gentleman

from Pennsylvania that a developer deserves a fair shake. Certainly there are

takings in our country, and developers

warrant fair treatment. Let us as we finally move toward the closing of this

bill produce some balance and say the

millions and millions of homeowners

who live next door to these developments have some rights as well. They

should not just have to go out and take

their chances in some local court.

This bill says that the developer gets

a fair shake at the Federal level. Let us

make sure that the adjoining homeowner gets a fair shake at the Federal

level as well.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am

pleased to support the amendment offered by our colleague from Oregon.

While it certainly does not cure the ills

of the takings provisions which are in

the bill, it does make an important

point.

Throughout the takings debate, the

proponents of the legislation always

frame the argument in the context of

the individual property owner against

the Government. They are never willing to acknowledge that often the rationale for regulation is the protection

of the property rights of others. The

amendment specifically acknowledges

this.

The U.S. Treasury, and the taxpayer,

should not be expected to compensate

an individual who has been denied the

opportunity to take an action which

results in the diminution of the property right of another taxpayer. It

would be the greatest of ironies to the

taxpayer for an individual, through his

or her taxes, to pay compensation to a

neighboring property owner for an action which caused a diminution in the

individuals own property.

Whether the bill’s sponsors will agree

or not, what we are really taking about

in the whole takings debate is whether

there is a public interest in the action

taken—whether the various interests

of property owners are correctly balanced one against the other. When one

owner bears a disproportionate burden,

a taking has occurred and the Constitution provides a right to compensation.

The bill has severely tilted an otherwise level playing field in the favor of

the owner who seeks not to be regulated. The Wyden amendment is an attempt to assure that some sense of

fairness to the taxpayer is preserved,

and that the relative rights of property

owners everywhere are recognized.

The amendment makes sense, it creates the proper balance of property

rights, and it deserves our support.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. WYDEN].

The question was taken; and the

Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—ayes 158, noes 270,

not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 335]

AYES—158

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baldacci

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Boehlert

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Clay

Clayton

Clement

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Durbin

Ehlers

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Ford

Fox

Frank (MA)

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gonzalez

Green

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Hastings (FL)

Hinchey

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kaptur

Kelly

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

LaFalce

Lantos

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Meyers

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Moran

Morella

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Pelosi

Pomeroy

Porter

Poshard

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sawyer

Saxton

Schroeder

Scott

Serrano

Shays

Skaggs

Slaughter

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Williams

Wise

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Zimmer
H 5000 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

NOES—270

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brewster

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

Davis

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Forbes

Fowler

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gillmor

Gilman

Goodlatte

Goodling

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Harman

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Jacobs

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kanjorski

Kasich

Kim

King

Kingston

Klink

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

LoBiondo

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martini

Mascara

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

McNulty

Metcalf

Mica

Miller (FL)

Minge

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Murtha

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Payne (VA)

Peterson (FL)

Peterson (MN)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Portman

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Schumer

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Spratt

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (MS)

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Traficant

Upton

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—6

Berman

Collins (IL)

Gephardt

Kleczka

Lipinski

Maloney

b 1642

Messrs. FOLEY, SMITH of New Jersey, and GEKAS changed their vote

from ‘‘aye’’ to ‘‘no.’’

Mr. POMEROY and Mr. MOLLOHAN

changed their vote from ‘‘no’’ to ‘‘aye.’’

So the amendment was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, at this point I would

like to engage the chairman of the full

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, on page 247 of H.R.

961, the Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure classified that type

C wetlands include, and I quote, wetlands within industrial, commercial or

residential complexes or other intensely developed areas that do not

serve significant wetlands functions; is

that correct?

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. MOLINARI. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, the gentlewoman from New York is correct.

Ms. MOLINARI. Is it also correct

that such wetlands are not classified as

type C merely because they are located

in developed or urban areas?

Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlewoman

from New York [Ms. MOLINARI] is absolutely correct. In fact, the committee

specifically recognizes in the report

many valuable wetlands are located in

or adjacent to urban centers or other

developed sites. Any wetlands which

serve significant wetlands functions as

a result of such location would not

automatically be classified as type C

wetlands.

b 1645

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further

amendments to title VIII? If not, the

Clerk will designate title IX.

The text of title IX is as follows:

TITLE IX—NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

SEC. 901. REFERENCES TO ACT.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal

of, a section or other provision, the reference

shall be considered to be made to a section or

other provision of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C.

1401 et seq.).

SEC. 902. OCEAN DUMPING PERMITS.

(a) ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.—Section 102 (33

U.S.C. 1412) is amended—

(1) in the section heading by striking ‘‘ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’’; and

(2) in subsection (a)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Administrator’’ each place it

appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’;

(B) by striking paragraph (G) and redesignating paragraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (F), (H),

and (I) as paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively;

(C) in paragraph (4), as so redesignated, by

redesignating subparagraphs (i) through (iii) as

subparagraphs (A) through (C), respectively;

and

(D) by striking the first and second sentences

following the indented paragraphs.

(b) CATEGORIES OF PERMITS.—Section 102(b)

(33 U.S.C. 1412(b)) is amended by striking ‘‘Administrator’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’.

(c) DESIGNATION OF SITES.—Section 102(c) (33

U.S.C. 1412(c)) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Administrator’’ each place it

appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’; and

(2) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘Secretary’’

each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Administrator’’.

(d) SPECIAL RULES.—Section 102(d) and 102(e)

(33 U.S.C. 1412(d) and 1412(e)) are amended by

striking ‘‘Administrator’’ each place it appears

and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’.

SEC. 903. DREDGED MATERIAL PERMITS.

(a) DISPOSAL SITES.—Section 103 (33 U.S.C.

1413) is amended—

(1) in the section heading by striking ‘‘CORPS

OF ENGINEERS’’ and inserting ‘‘DREDGED MATERIAL’’; and

(2) in subsection (b)—

(A) by striking ‘‘by the Administrator’’ each

place it appears;

(B) by striking ‘‘, with the concurrence of the

Administrator,’’; and

(C) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘Administrator’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’.

(b) CONSULTATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.—Section 103(c) (33 U.S.C. 1413(c) is

amended to read as follows:

‘‘(c) CONSULTATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.—Prior to issuing a permit to any person under this section the Secretary shall first

consult with the Administrator.’’.

(c) WAIVERS.—Section 103(d) (33 U.S.C.

1413(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘request a waiver’’ and all that follows through the period at

the end and inserting ‘‘grant a waiver.’’.

SEC. 904. PERMIT CONDITIONS.

Section 104 (33 U.S.C. 1414) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘Administrator or the Secretary, as the case may be,’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’;

(2) in subsection (a) by inserting a comma before ‘‘after consultation’’;

(3) in subsection (h)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’; and

(B) in the last sentence by striking ‘‘Administrator determines’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary determines’’; and

(4) in subsection (i)—

(A) by striking ‘‘Administrator’’ each place it

appears and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’;

(B) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘Merchant

Marine and Fisheries’’ and inserting ‘‘Transportation and Infrastructure’’; and

(C) in paragraph (4)(D) by striking ‘‘of the

Environmental Protection Agency’’.

SEC. 905. SPECIAL PROVISIONS REGARDING CERTAIN DUMPING SITES.

Section 104A (33 U.S.C. 1414a) is amended by

striking ‘‘Administrator’’ each place it appears

and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’.

SEC. 906. REFERENCES TO ADMINISTRATOR.

With respect to any function transferred from

the Administrator to the Secretary of the Army

by an amendment made by this title and exercised after the effective date of such transfer,

reference in any Federal law to the Administrator shall be considered to refer to the Secretary of the Army.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any

amendments to title IX?

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. FRANKS OF NEW

JERSEY

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.

Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. FRANKS of New

Jersey: Page 323, strike line 1 and all that

follows through line 23 on page 326 and insert

the following:
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5001

TITLE IX—NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING

SEC. 901. REFERENCES TO ACT.

Except as otherwise expressly provided,

whenever in this title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment

to, or repeal of, a section or other provision,

the reference shall be considered to be made

to a section or other provision of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of

1972 (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).

SEC. 902. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PERMITS.

Section 102(c) (33 U.S.C. 1412(c)) is amended—

(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (3) by

striking ‘‘the Administrator, in conjunction

with the Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘the Secretary, in conjunction with the Administrator,’’; and

(2) in the second sentence of paragraph (3)

by striking ‘‘the Administrator and the Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘the Secretary and the

Administrator’’.

SEC. 903. CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITS.

(a) DISPOSAL SITES.—Section 103(b) (33

U.S.C. 1413(b)) is amended—

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)

by striking ‘‘, with the concurrence of the

Administrator,’’; and

(2) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘Administrator’’ and inserting ‘‘Secretary’’.

(b) CONSULTATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.—Section 103(c) (33 U.S.C. 1413(c)) is

amended to read as follows:

‘‘(c) CONSULTATION WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR.—Prior to issuing a permit to any

person under this section, the Secretary

shall first consult with the Administrator.’’.

SEC. 904. PENALTIES.

Section 105 (33 U.S.C. 1415) is amended—

(1) in the first sentence by inserting ‘‘or,

with respect to violations of section 103, the

Secretary’’ before the period at the end;

(2) in the fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences

by inserting ‘‘or the Secretary, as the case

may be,’’ after ‘‘Administrator’’ each place

it appears; and

(3) in subsection (g)(2)(C) by inserting ‘‘or

the Secretary, as the case may be,’’ after

‘‘the Administrator’’ the first place it appears.

SEC. 905. ANNUAL REPORT.

Section 112 (33 U.S.C. 1421) is amended by

striking ‘‘with the concurrence of the Administrator’’.

SEC. 906. REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE.

Section 104(i)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1414(i)(3)) is

amended by striking ‘‘Merchant Marine and

Fisheries’’ and inserting ‘‘Transportation

and Infrastructure’’.

Conform the table of contents of the bill

accordingly.

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr.

Chairman, over the course of the last

21⁄2 years I have worked with a bipartisan group of Members to help resolve

what has increasingly become a pressing environmental and economic concern, not only to my home Port of New

York and New Jersey, but to commerce

throughout this great Nation. In short,

Mr. Chairman, the continuing silting

up of our harbors and waterways

threatens to strangle our ability to

move American products at home and

abroad.

Nearly 67 percent of American exports by dollar value reach their foreign destination by ships that are loaded at our Nation’s network of ports.

Fully 10 percent of this ocean-borne

cargo by value leaves the Port of New

York and New Jersey, the third busiest

port in the Nation, and the largest container port on the east coast, handling

over 38 million tons of cargo a year. In

my region, 180,000 people depend on the

continuing operation of this port for

their employment, and the port contributes over $20 billion a year to the

region’s economy.

If the safe and timely dredging of my

port and ports around the country is

thwarted, people lose jobs and the potential grows for an environmental disaster to occur. In committee, I worked

with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman SHUSTER, to craft language that would help streamline the

dredging permit process in this country. Since that time, Mr. Chairman, I

have worked to refine the text of that

amendment contained in title IX to

more clearly address the crisis at hand.

My amendment would grant the

Army Corps additional jurisdiction

over dredged material permits and

leave the Environmental Protection

Agency in charge of the disposal of

solid waste, sewage sludge, incinerator

residue, or other materials as in current law.

In addition, my amendment ensures

that the EPA will establish and apply

the baseline criteria for reviewing and

evaluating ocean dumping permit applications for all materials. Moreover,

the amendment now ensures that the

opportunity for public comment to

both the Army Corps and the EPA is

retained.

I appreciate all of the assistance that

I have received from Chairman SHUSTER and his staff as I have drafted this

amendment, as well as the substantial

input we have received from environmental, port, business, and labor interests. I urge my colleagues to support

this amendment that will help both

protect the environment and promote

the economic viability of our Nation’s

ports.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. I yield

to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want

to compliment the gentleman for the

leadership he has provided in this. I

strongly support his amendment.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in support

of the Franks amendment. I have to

say that, as I guess was clear from my

previous amendment, I do believe that

it is a mistake as the bill goes to reassign certain regulatory authority over

ocean dumping of dredge materials

from the EPA to the Army Corps of Engineers. I also believe that the problem

that the gentleman from New Jersey,

my colleague, is trying to address, is

best addressed by the interagency

working group that has been worked

out between the corps and the EPA,

which I think ultimately would

streamline the dredging process, the

permitting process, without the need

for changing the underlying law of the

Clean Water Act or the Ocean Dumping

Act.

However, I have to commend the gentleman from New Jersey, my colleague,

Mr. FRANKS, because this amendment

does put the EPA back in charge of certain things and goes far toward, I believe, reasserting the EPA’s authority

over environmental concerns that relate to ocean dumping, as well as

dredging.

As Mr. FRANKS mentioned, the

amendment puts the EPA back in

charge of ocean dumping permits for

material other than dredge material. It

puts the EPA back in charge of establishing criteria for reviewing and evaluating permit applications, and gives

waiver authority back to the EPA for

dredger permits. So clearly there is significant progress here in terms of trying to put back the EPA and having

them cooperate with the corps in the

whole process of dredging, as well as

other forms of ocean dumping.

I would point out unfortunately

though, that the amendment would

still give disposal siting and monitoring authority to the corps and still requires that the least costly disposal alternative be selected. Overall, this is

certainly an improving amendment

that does address many of the concerns

that I discussed before. I would urge

support for the amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. FRANKS].

The amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there further

amendments to the bill?

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an

amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. PETRI: Page 326,

after line 23, add the following:

TITLE X—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 1001. COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6217(a)(1) of the

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘shall’’ the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘may’’; and

(2) by striking ‘‘the Secretary and’’.

(b) PROGRAM SUBMISSION, APPROVAL, AND

IMPLEMENTATION.—Section 6217(c) of such

Act is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) by striking ‘‘the Secretary and the Administrator shall jointly’’ and inserting ‘‘the

Administrator shall’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘The program’’ and all that

follows through the period at the end of the

paragraph and inserting ‘‘The program shall

be approved if the Administrator determines

that the program meets the requirements of

this section.’’; and

(2) in paragraph (3)—

(A) by striking ‘‘If the Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘If the Administrator’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘the Secretary shall withhold’’ and inserting ‘‘the Administrator shall

direct the Secretary to withhold’’; and

(C) by striking ‘‘The Secretary shall

make’’ and inserting ‘‘The Administrator

shall direct the Secretary to make’’.

(c) FINANICAL ASSISTANCE.—Section 6217(f)

of such Act as amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) by striking ‘‘the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator,’’ and inserting ‘‘the Administrator’’; and
H 5002 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

(B) by inserting ‘‘and implementing’’ after

‘‘developing’’;

(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘and implementing’’ after ‘‘developing’’; and

(3) in paragraph (4)—

(A) by striking ‘‘the Secretary’’ each place

it appears and inserting ‘‘the Administrator’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘, in consultation with the

Administrator,’’; and

(C) by inserting ‘‘and implementing’’ after

‘‘preparing’’.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

Section 6217(h)(2) of such Act is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘, other

than for providing in the form of grants

under subsection (f)’’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘the

Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘the Administrator’’.

Conform the table of contents of the bill

accordingly.

Mr. PETRI (during the reading). Mr.

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

that the amendment be considered as

read and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this

amendment, which I am offering with

Representative TAUZIN, makes certain

additional revisions, as requested by

the States, to the coastal nonpoint pollution program under section 6217 of

the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments of 1990.

First, this amendment keeps in law

the coastal zone program, as we voted

last week, but provides that it is up to

each State to determine whether to

participate in the program.

While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will still

play a role, the amendment provides

the EPA will be the lead agency in administering the program, and it makes

Federal grants available for implementation of coastal zone programs in addition to simply development of the

plans.

Mr. Chairman, last week, we went

back and forth as to who and what

groups were supporting what position.

Let me be clear—we have worked

with the National Governors’ Association and the State water pollution control officials in drafting these improvements to the program. The amendments to the 6217 program made by

Chairman BOEHLERT’s amendment last

week were necessary and positive and

we do not change any of that language,

but further improvements can be made

to the program.

This amendment gives flexibility to

the Governors in determining how to

address coastal pollution. But the

amendment also keeps in place the 6217

program so that States which want to

continue to move forward with programs—those States which have found

it to be successful for their State—may

continue to pursue the 6217 program.

This amendment would allow a State

to opt out of the program if it wishes.

But I would point out that the State

will still have to address nonpoint

source pollution through the Clean

Water Act section 319 nonpoint source

program. Again, States that want to

continue under the coastal zone program are fully able to do so. Let me

note that, in essence, participation in

section 6217 already is voluntary. If a

State has a management program approved pursuant to section 306 of the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,

then it must submit a nonpoint program under section 6217.

But it is up to a coastal State to determine whether to participate in the

basic coastal zone management program in the first place. A State currently can simply withdraw from the

entire program if it wishes and section

6217 does not apply. My own State of

Wisconsin is currently considering

doing just that.

This amendment streamlines the program so that States will deal with only

one agency. That agency will be the

EPA—which is, after all, the Federal

agency with the expertise in nonpoint

source pollution. However, NOAA will

continue to be involved in the program.

As we have heard repeatedly, a constant source of frustration for those

trying to implement programs is when

various Federal agencies administer a

single program, and we correct that

here.

As we heard last week, some States

are about ready to submit their programs and so this amendment makes

Federal funds eligible for the next

phase—that of implementation. Currently, Federal grants may be used

only for development of programs.

The revisions made to the program

through the Boehlert amendment last

week are very necessary and do improve the program. These are further

improvements to section 6217, as requested by the States.

I urge the House to adopt this

amendment to provide needed flexibility to ensure that States can develop

effective coastal nonpoint programs.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman

from Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for yielding. I join him

in offering this amendment.

I want to point out to the House

again, this amendment does not repeal

or even undercut the Boehlert amendment nor the CZM program. It simply

does what the gentleman from New

York [Mr. BOEHLERT] said he wanted to

do, give the States a choice to either

use that program or in fact work with

section 319 of the clean water bill.

It, second, harmonizes those two sections by allowing the coordination of

management under the EPA, and it

does a very good thing I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT]

would like. It allows the funds for the

program that can only be used right

now to plan the CZM nonpoint source

pollution program, to be used to implement that plan. So it really extends

and further implements the plans if the

States want to in fact go forward with

them.

In short, it allows for State option to

either use a CZM program or to in fact

use section 319 and to operate their

program accordingly.

I want the House to know the first

thing I received when we began talking

about this amendment was a notice

from Mr. KANJORSKI, head of our program in Louisiana, saying this is exactly what the State of Louisiana

would like. I suspect that more States

would prefer doing exactly this, giving

the States the flexibility to use one or

the other programs, to harmonize them

under one agency and to use the funds

not only to plan, but to actually implement those plans.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman for the amendment and join

him in offering it, and urge its adoption by the House.

Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, I

would point out that our Governor,

Tommy Thompson, has felt this is of

extreme importance to the State of

Wisconsin, too, and they want the

flexibility, not whether or not to have

a program, but to administer it with

the EPA.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the

very difficult position of having to oppose the amendment offered by the

gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PETRI].

As we suggested over the last several

days, modifications to the amendment

could have been made to shore up some

of the problem areas, but were not. As

a matter of fact, when the debate of

this issue started a few minutes ago,

we were still off the floor trying to understand how we could arrive at those

agreements. Unfortunately, we were

unable to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I must say

that this amendment, while it is true it

does not touch the language of the

Boehlert amendment, does do violence

to the CZMA Program, in that it essentially takes away the motivation that

is currently in the current law to provide for those aspects that encourage

people to be in the program.

As a matter of fact, I have before me

a memorandum from the Coastal

States Organization which I would like

to quote directly from, because the

Coastal States Organization very much

opposes the Tauzin-Petri amendment.

They say that they have reviewed this

amendment and determined that it is

not consistent with either the policy of

the National Governors’ Association or

with the Coastal States Organization.

In regards to the revised version of

Tauzin-Petri they say the following:

The revised version has the same problems as the original version in that the

amendment would allow States to operate out of CZMA section 6217, contrary to what we have heard from some

of the proponents of Tauzin-Petri

amendment. Allowing States to operate out of the program does not serve

the purpose of additional flexibility to

the States. Rather, it will put increased pressure on the States by those
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5003

who would have the States opt out,

namely, causers of pollution, polluters,

to opt out of CZARA 6217 in favor of

the 319 program which holds little prospect of improving water.

b 1700

This is the statement brought to us

today, May 16, by Kerry Kehoe of the

Coastal States Organization. In the interest of the integrity of CZMA as it

relates to nonpoint source pollution,

this is simply a revote, this is nothing

more than a revote of the amendment

that we voted last week.

In addition, the proposed amendment

deletes the enforceable policy requirements from CZARA. As you are aware,

NOAA and the EPA have recently

agreed to longstanding policies which

this apparently also deletes.

Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance

but with a sense of determination that

this revote on the amendment that was

offered last week, which has the same

effect, and that is to gut the CZMA

nonpoint pollution program, must be

defeated.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

thank the gentleman for his leadership

on this issue. I want him to know and

my colleagues to know that we are still

working at a fever pitch to preserve

the basic integrity of the program and

yet have some basis for accommodation.

So the debate will continue and I am

with my colleague 100 percent, but the

negotiations are ongoing. I think we

are about this close, because I could

not agree more with the distinguished

chairman, that we have to preserve the

basic integrity of the program.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I am informed by staff that the amendment

that we have introduced does not delete the enforceability provisions. I

just wanted to correct the record so far

as that is concerned and also assure

both my colleagues that should this

amendment be adopted, we would be

eager to continue working with the

gentleman as the bill moved forward

through conference and so on to work

out any problems. We are not trying to

do anything to hurt the Coastal Zone

Program. What we are tying to do is

give States the opportunity to deal

with one Federal agency, if that makes

sense.

Mr. SAXTON. We can certainly agree

on that point, Mr. Chairman. We can

certainly agree. I think there are three

items that are contentious. We can certainly agree on two, the one the gentleman just mentioned, whether this is

a program and whether this is a program that is administered through the

EPA or NOAA, but the ability of States

who have internal political pressure to

opt out of the program or to fail to opt

into the program is something that is

very contentious and something that

we have not and cannot agree to.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, let me correct perhaps

a statement that I am sure was not

made on purpose. We are not revoting

the Boehlert amendment. The Boehlert

amendment was an amendment designed in fact to place the coastal zone

management nonpoint source pollution

back in the bill. It had been repealed

by the original bill. This amendment

does not take it back out. In fact, it

says, any State that wants to can, in

fact, implement that coastal zone

nonpoint source pollution program,

just as they would without this amendment.

The only thing this amendment does

is say to States, which want to use a

section 319, with the enforceability provision still in the bill, they have to do

the nonpoint source program but they

do it under section 319 instead of under

this new reinvented wheel program. It

gives the States the flexibility.

It does exactly what the gentleman

from New York [Mr. BOEHLERT], I

think, said he wanted to do, and that is

give the States the real chance to run

their program the way we intended.

If, in fact, if, in fact, the purpose of

the Boehlert amendment was to represent the will of the States, as it was

presented on the floor of the House,

then this is a perfecting amendment.

This makes it very clear that the

States make the choice. The States

have the option.

I want to point out to you that the

existing coastal zone management program was indeed a voluntary program.

It involved land use decisions which

had been traditionally and correctly

reserved for the States. It was not a

program where the Federal Government came in and dictated the coastal

zone boundaries, nor was it a program

where the Federal Government dictated land use decisions within that

coastal zone boundary.

The amendment we offer preserves

that voluntary State-managed program

under CZM. It gives a certain amount

of assurance that there will be coordination in the program, because it says

that now one agency, the EPA, rather

than two agencies, NOAA on the one

hand, EPA on the other hand, are managing two very similar programs that

might collide with one another.

Lastly, it aids in the success of

nonpoint source pollution control in

that it allows the moneys that are

available to be used in implementing

the program not just planning. I think

most Americans are rather fed up with

the notion that so much Federal

money gets spent on studies and planning and so little actually is used to

accomplish the good that a program is

designed to accomplish.

To that end, this amendment makes

sure that money can be used to actually carry out the program, not just to

plan it.

So for those very good three reasons:

First, the States ought to have the

flexibility to coordinate the programs

as the States feel work best in their

own State, particularly when you consider that CZM has always been a

State-run voluntary program; second,

that coordination under a single Federal agency makes sense, why have two

different agencies running two programs at a parallel that might in fact

and generally do collide running, run

into conflicts with one another; and

third, why not provide, as we do in this

amendment, that moneys available

under the program can in fact be used

to implement it, not just to plan and

keep planning and keep planning ad infinitum and wasting Federal and local

resources in planning processes when

we could be using it to actually begin

controlling nonpoint source pollution

in the coastal zone.

I urge the Members of the House,

again, to consider, we are not repealing

the Boehlert amendment, not at all.

We are saying that Boehlert amendment stands. The CZM Program stands.

If your State wants to implement it as

the Fed wants you to do, you can go

right ahead. It simply says that a

State like Louisiana, which wants to

coordinate its 319 programs with the

CZM nonsource program, can do so and

further that it can use the money to

implement the program and it will be

coordinated by only one Federal agency, not a pair of agencies which are

often in conflict. That makes sense.

If this session of Congress is about

rationalizing programs, ending duplication, creating flexibility for those on

the local level who implement the programs, this amendment, the Petri-Tauzin amendment is exactly the way to

make the Boehlert amendment work

well.

I will say it again, either you really

meant what you said when you said

that you were trying to represent the

will of the States in this point of view

or you did not. if you really meant to

represent the will of the States, this

amendment perfects that. It gives the

States the flexibility, the option to

make the decisions that best suit the

CZM Program in a given State, a program that has always been voluntary,

always been State-run, always been defined by State law and regulated, and

managed by State managers.

If you believe that, if that is the purpose of the original Boehlert amendment, this amendment strengthens it,

makes it clearer that States do have

that option. If your State wants to run

it the way it is currently run, you have

full authority to do so under this

amendment. If your State is one like

mine that wants to coordinate it under

section 319, this amendment gives you

that power.

I urge the Members to adopt this

amendment.
H 5004 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. I commend

the gentleman from Wisconsin and the

gentleman from Louisiana for this effort. This corrects what I think is a serious defect in the bill created by the

earlier Boehlert amendment which

takes away the kind of flexibility that

the States need to have in dealing with

nonpoint-source pollution problems.

The State of Virginia that I represent is a very diverse State. It has

very diverse types of geography in different parts of the State. And it is the

State itself and the State agencies and

the elected officials in the State of Virginia that best understand the competing needs of different parts of the

State.

The State of Virginia borders a great

deal of the Chesapeake Bay, and we

very much value and treasure the

Chesapeake Bay, but we also understand the needs of those in other parts

of the State. And it is far more appropriate for the State to be able to take

the lead in deciding this and not have

to work with two competing different

Government agencies, Federal Government agencies dictating to the State of

Virginia how to handle a wide variety

of land use issues that take place all

across the State.

I commend the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Wisconsin. I strongly urge this as a very good

amendment which will correct a problem that exists in the bill.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman

for his statement. I want to point out

that when I was a young State legislator, many years ago, that I managed a

CZM bill through the Louisiana Legislature. I remember all the promises

that were made then, that the State

would always run its program, define

its boundaries, decide land use practices. In fact it was always going to be

a State-run program.

This amendment perfects the Boehlert amendment to make sure that

process is kept, that each State runs

its program in the way that makes

sense, that it is coordinated properly,

and that moneys can be used to carry

out the intent of the Boehlert amendment.

I commend the gentleman for his

support and urge other Members to do

the same thing.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Reclaiming my

time, I thank the gentleman and I concur in his statement. I think that it is

definitely the case and so often overlooked here that nobody has a greater

incentive to make sure that the waters

and lands of the State of Virginia, the

State of Louisiana, the State of Wisconsin, and every other State than

those people who live in the States.

This is clearly an issue of States rights

and States’ opportunity to have the

flexibility to handle this problem

themselves.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard an interesting interpretation of this supposedly

de minimis amendment. There are a

couple of things I find disturbing. Obviously on lines 8 and 9 we strike the

word shall and replace it with may, and

on page 4 we go to elimination of requirement of enforceable mechanisms.

So in fact this does become——

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. DEFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I

think the gentleman is reading a previous amendment.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Is there another version?

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes.

Mr. DEFAZIO. So you are working on

another version as we speak?

Mr. SHUSTER. No. The Petri amendment before us is another version from

the earlier version which the gentleman is referring to.

Mr. DEFAZIO. There is some confusion on this side of the aisle then regarding exactly what it is we are voting on at the moment. I heard the issue

of States——

Mr. SHUSTER. The amendment was

submitted at the desk. We could ask

the desk to provide it to the gentleman.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, what

we have been hearing here is, we still,

I still see a line 7 and 8, shall and may.

So that part has not changed. This was

just handed to me. And then I guess

perhaps you took out the enforcement

part. So enforcement is still in, but it

is now, we are going to enforce something that you may do or you may

choose.

The problem I have here is water pollution does not really follow State

boundaries. I heard a lot of talk about

States rights here. But water pollution

does not rather strictly adhere to

States’ boundaries.

And many of the bodies of water we

are talking about in this bill deregulating happen to affect more than one

State. In my region, we border California and Washington. We have upstate

concerns, upstream concerns with

Idaho, Montana, another country even,

dealing with the Columbia River. So I

have a concern when we begin to move

major mechanisms we have to deal

with precious coastal estuaries, fragile

estuaries, extraordinarily valuable resources in terms of shellfish where we

have had shellfish beds close, spawning

grounds for our endangered salmon.

And we are going to go to something

that says, you may, you may, if you so

choose, comply.

Well, certainly, I do not believe my

neighboring State of Washington or

California is going to do anything to

our detriment, but on the other hand I

would be a lot more comfortable if we

were applying a uniform Federal standard in this bill and not weakening that

standard.

b 1715

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. DEFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. PETRI. I thank the gentleman

for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I am informed by the

staff that the national estuary program formed for the specific purpose of

protection across State lines is not affected by this. We have the national estuary program, we have the nonpoint

source program, and then we have an

additional coastal thing. We are just

saying we do not really need three programs to accomplish what the gentleman is trying to do.

Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman is

saying is absolutely right, we do need

to have comprehensive watershed based

approaches that follow the real world,

rather than political jurisdiction of

lines, and we have it, and it is not affected by this amendment. It is the national estuary program.

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank

the gentleman for his clarification. It

certainly sounds better than the way it

was described by some of the earlier

speakers in terms of this portion of the

bill.

However, I guess I will go back to a

problem I have had throughout the bill,

which is in a number of critical cases

we have seen the bill essentially written, rewritten, and amendments sort of

mutating as we go along in this process, and no capability of really explaining them.

Some might remember my debate

over the section 401, hydropower licensing, last Thursday night, where the authors of the substitute amendment

could not explain it. They could not explain the laws they were referencing,

and what principles would still apply.

Mr. Chairman, our water resources

are too precious, just too precious, to

have either outside influences, polluters, or to have others writing on the

back of the napkin and rewriting these

laws. This should be a more deliberate

process.

Certainly, in this case, I thank the

gentleman for his clarification. It

seems that they have substantially

amended the original version and improved it, but I think that this is not

the first instance during the consideration of this bill where we have had

this problem. I think it should be instructive to the chairman and others

that this is not the best way for such

an important piece of legislation to be

rushed through the House. I do not see

a rush. The Clean Water Act has been

working substantially across the country, working well. It is one of the few

success stories that we can all point to

in terms of Federal enforcement. We

should modify it carefully and deliberately, where there has been excess,
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5005

but where it has been a success, we

should build and improve upon it. Our

water resources are too precious, our

progress has been so hard won, that we

should not go backward.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I

move to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Chairman, again, the way I understand the amendment now, in its

latest version, basically it is saying

that this coastal nonpoint source pollution program on the part of the State

would be enforceable, but is still voluntary. That is really the crux of the

matter, is that the program would be

voluntary, whereas the Boehlert

amendment, again, when the Boehlert

amendment was passed, it essentially

kept the existing mandatory nature of

the program.

I was listening to the gentleman

from Louisiana and what he said about

flexibility. States have always had

flexibility with regard to implementing

the program, because they can devise

ways in which the program is effective

or not. Different States may devise different ways of dealing with land use or

agricultural runoff or some of the

other things that might impact on

coastal nonpoint source pollution.

The bottom line is that the current

law requires that there be a nationwide

program, and that States have to put a

program in place. If the Petri-Tauzin

amendment passes, those States could

voluntarily decide not to have a coastal nonpoint source program. That is

the problem. Nonpoint source pollution

of the Nation’s unique and precious

coastal waters is real and serious. It is

causing significant economic harm.

Mr. Chairman, commercial recreational fisheries are being shut down

due to runoff pollution, beaches are

being closed, habitat is being degraded.

Coastal States report that about a

third of their estuarine waters are impaired and a third are threatened.

Nonpoint source problems are responsible for half of all instances of coastal

water-quality degradation. The bottom

line is that coastal nonpoint source

pollution must be abated now. By passing the Boehlert amendment last week,

the House fully indicated it does not

want to weaken coastal programs controlling nonpoint source pollution, but

the Petri-Tauzin amendment would do

just that.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important, even though I know we are not

amending, we are not just totally repealing the Boehlert amendment, but

what we are doing is making the program voluntary, and even if States, if

States want to do it and they want to

enforce it, that is fine, but I am afraid

that many States will simply not have

a program, and that is why we should

oppose this amendment.

(Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given

permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I move

to strike the requisite number of

words.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the last speaker

discuss this as a voluntary program. As

I understand the Petri-Tauzin amendment, it tells the State they have a

choice. It does not make it mandatory.

It says to States ‘‘You have got to do

it under one act or another act. You

cannot just say ‘I don’t want to do it.’’’

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. LAUGHLIN. I am delighted to

yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my

understanding that we have worked

out a compromise now. It is my understanding that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PETRI] is going to ask

unanimous consent to withdraw his

amendment and to offer the compromise that has been worked out. If

my friend would yield the balance of

his time, we might be able to finish

this bill tonight.

Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, if it

is considered good judgment to stop

talking and accept the agreement, I

will use good judgment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I ask

unanimous consent to withdraw the

pending amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,

the amendment is withdrawn.

There was no objection.

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an

amendment. The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr PETRI: Page 362,

after line 23, add the following:

TITLE X—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 1001. COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6217(a)(1) of the

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note) is amended—

(1) by striking ‘‘shall’’ the first place it appears and inserting ‘‘may’’; and

(2) by striking ‘‘the Secretary and’’.

(3) After the first sentence, insert the following sentence: ‘‘Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, if the Administrator determines, in consultation with the State, such

program is needed to supplement the program under section 319 of the Clean Water

Act as it relates to the Coastal Zone, the

State shall prepare and submit such program.’’

(b) PROGRAM SUBMISSION, APPROVAL, AND

IMPLEMENTATION.—Section 6217(c) of such

Act is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) by striking ‘‘the Secretary and the Administrator shall jointly’’ and inserting ‘‘the

Administrator shall’’; and

(B) by striking ‘‘The program’’ and all that

follows through the period at the end of the

paragraph and inserting ‘‘The program shall

be approved if the Administrator determines

that the program meets the requirements of

this section’’; and

(2) in paragraph (3)—

(A) by striking ‘‘If the Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘If the Administrator’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘the Secretary shall withhold’’ and inserting ‘‘the Administrator shall

direct the Secretary to withhold’’; and

(C) by striking ‘‘The Secretary shall

make’’ and inserting ‘‘The Administrator

shall direct the Secretary to make’’.

(c) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.—Section 6217(f)

of such Act is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1)—

(A) by striking ‘‘the Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator,’’ and inserting ‘‘the Administrator’’; and

(B) by inserting ‘‘and implementing’’ after

‘‘developing’’;

(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ‘‘and implementing’’ after ‘‘developing’’; and

(3) in paragraph (4)—

(A) by striking ‘‘the Secretary’’ each place

it appears and inserting ‘‘the Administrator’’;

(B) by striking ‘‘, in consultation with the

Administrator,’’; and

(C) by inserting ‘‘and implementing’’ after

‘‘preparing’’.

(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—

Section 6217(h)(2) of such Act is amended—

(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘, other

than for providing in the form of grants

under subsection (f)’’; and

(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ‘‘the

Secretary’’ and inserting ‘‘the Administrator’’.

Conform the table of contents of the bill

accordingly.

Mr. PETRI (during the reading). Mr.

Chairman, I ask unanimous consent

that the amendment be considered as

read and printed in the RECORD.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection

to the request of the gentleman from

Wisconsin?

There was no objection.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

Mr. MINETA. I have a parliamentary

inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will

state it.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, do we

have a copy of the amendment? We are

not aware of what the gentleman is referring to.

The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk is preparing copies.

The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.

PETRI] is recognized for 5 minutes in

support of his amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would

just attempt to summarize the language that has been worked out.

Mr. Chairman, we will have to, I

think, continue working on this problem in conference. Frankly, like any

compromise, it is not fully acceptable

to me, and I will have to check with

my State administrators and others,

but in the spirit of comity and to try to

move this process forward and get this

bill acted on tonight, we have, I think,

reached an agreement which provides

that after discussions and consultation

between the EPA and the various

States, the administrator of EPA

would determine whether a State’s

plan, as far as coastal nonpoint source

runoff, was adequate or not, and if it

was adequate, then they would move

forward.

It would not be at the discretion or

election of the Governor or of the

State, it would be at the discretion or

election of the EPA, so there would be

national standards there, but we would

gain the opportunity of being able to

actually spend money on cleaning up

the environment instead of on planning, as is required in the law now, and

we think that is important. We are trying to clean up the environment, not
H 5006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

write plans. Plans are tools, not the objective.

Second, we would have the opportunity of dealing with the EPA, potentially, rather than with a multiplicity

of Federal agencies, and that is important in terms of simplicity.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman

from New Jersey.

Mr. SAXTON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank all parties for their

cooperation over the last 3 or 4 days.

The gentleman from New York [Mr.

BOEHLERT] and I have worked together

with the gentleman’s very cooperative

staff to arrive at an agreement, which,

as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.

PETRI] points out correctly, is not perfect.

However, we believe it does move in

the right direction and solve some of

our problems, particularly relative to

the ability to opt out of the program.

It does provide that the EPA Administrator has the power to review and to,

subsequent to the review, require a

CZMA program that would have to do

with nonpoint coastal pollution.

The State would then be required to

adopt programs that would bring their

CZMA nonpoint coastal pollution program to quality water standards, and

while this is not perfect, certainly it is

something that we believe at this late

stage in negotiations we can live with.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will

the gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I

want to echo what my colleague from

New Jersey says. The important thing

is this protects the basic integrity of

the coastal zone program, critically

important to 30 States, the Great

Lakes States, and the Gulf of Mexico

States.

These are tough issues, but we have

worked together and we have come out

with, I think, a reasonable compromise. Let me add, Mr. Chairman,

while we are about this, all of us are up

here and we are highly visible, but the

professional staff, and they are that,

very professional, whether they are

proponents or opponents of any one

section or the bill in its entirety, have

worked very hard for a long period of

time. I think we all owe them a debt of

gratitude.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman

from Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. As I understand, Mr.

Chairman, the compromise goes to literally ensure that when the States

have made their selection, and actually

put together their plans, that EPA has

some say as to whether or not that

plan is adequate, and actually addresses the problem.

I think that is a workable compromise, but I, like the gentleman, reserve the right to continue to work

with the gentleman through the conference to make sure that we have this

thing tied down properly, where the

balance is respective between the

States and the Federal Government.

Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, I

would urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment as it is before the

House.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. PETRI].

The amendment was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on

the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.

The committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute, as amended, was

agreed to.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today

to address the Clean Water Act legislation.

After careful examination of the committee bill,

H.R. 961, and the Boehlert substitute, I have

decided to support H.R. 961 on final passage.

Though I do not agree with every provision, I

believe it is an improvement on current law

and addresses many of the specific problems

that my constituents have identified in the

Clear Water Act. it makes the Clean Water Act

more flexible and less prescriptive and addresses a number of regulatory issues of concern to me.

The Clean Water Act is widely regarded as

one of the Nation’s most successful environmental laws in terms of cleaning up dirty

water. I am pleased at the level of cleanup in

Ohio generally and in my district specifically.

One beneficiary has been the Little Miami

River, Ohio’s first State and national scenic

river, which runs through my district. Although

the Little Miami is considered to be an exceptional warmwater habitat, it has one of the

highest volumes of treated sewage pumped

into it. The water quality has improved over

the last decade in part because fewer pollutants are being discharged from these treatment plants along the river. And this is in part

due to the Clean Water Act. However, problems with the act itself persist.

H.R. 961 works to address some of the

problems that the Ohio EPA recently identified

regarding the cleanliness of the Little Miami

River. One of the major threats to the Little

Miami includes increased stormwater runoff. In

1987, Congress charged the EPA with implementing a specific permit program for

stormwater discharges from industrial sources

and municipalities. The permit program has resulted in the creation of one of the most burdensome unfunded Federal mandates in history. It has been brought to my attention time

and time again by local governments. I have

been told, for example, that a permit application alone can cost over $600,000 to prepare.

Compliance costs could be in the billions by

requiring stormwater to meet fishable and

swimmable quality standards without taking

into account the sudden, short-term nature of

storms. The EPA’s own estimate of costs to

municipalities to comply with the current

stormwater permitting requirements of the

Clean Water Act is between $3.4 and $5.3 billion annually.

It is evident that these wet-weather flows

are not amenable to traditional end-of-pipe,

command and control regulatory approaches.

Attempts to impose these controls on wetweather flows have led to regulations that require results that are only achievable at an

enormous cost. Accordingly, the current law

has been unable to effectively address the

problems with this type of pollution.

H.R. 961 would essentially convert the current stormwater permit program into a

nonpoint source management-type program.

Nonpoint source discharges include

stormwater and runoff from farm fields,

streets, and other areas. The new bill requires

States to develop stormwater management

programs within 4 years and to meet the goal

of attainment of water quality standards for

stormwater within 15 years of program approval. To meet that goal, States have the

flexibility to target receiving waters and

sources of stormwater discharges. State controls begin with pollution prevention plans and

may proceed to general and site-specific permits as determined to be necessary by the

State.

By returning this program to the States,

Ohio can adopt a program that will best eliminate stormwater pollution. Currently, a onesize-fits-all approach exists, which in many

cases does not provide the best solutions for

communities along the Little Miami River and

every other river in Ohio. Flexibility is necessary to achieve the greatest environmental

benefits from scarce resources. I believe that

States working with local communities are

simply better equipped to address these problems.

Regarding the larger problem of nonpoint

source pollution, the bill adds to and improves

upon current law. Nonpoint source pollution is

believed to account for more than half of all

remaining pollution nationwide. Although Congress attempted to address nonpoint source

pollution in 1987, there is more that Congress

can and should do. For example, H.R. 961

provides grants for preparing reports and management programs in addition to grants for implementing programs—under current law.

These are new Federal grants to address specific problems. The share of a project which

may be funded by grants is also increased

from 60 to 75 percent. Finally, it requires

States to resubmit management programs

every 5 years. Should a State fail to submit a

program, the EPA is directed to prepare and

implement one for the State.

I do want to note that I am disappointed that

the House adopted an amendment to strike a

provision in the bill that would have authorized

$500 million annually for a new State revolving

loan fund program to reduce nonpoint source

pollution. I opposed this amendment when it

was considered by the House. I believe these

funds would have helped to reduce some of

the problems that we are currently facing with

nonpoint source pollution.

In addition, H.R. 961 works to eliminate

many of the unfunded mandates that exist in

current law. These provisions are in the spirit

of H.R. 5, the unfunded mandates bill I sponsored that are overwhelmingly approved by

the House and Senate earlier this year and

signed into law by the President.

During the debate in the House earlier this

year on unfunded Federal mandates (H.R. 5),

the Clean Water Act was mentioned again and

again as imposing particularly burdensome

mandates on State and local governments.

Because H.R. 5 did not address retroactively

the impact of mandates that are currently in

effect and does not apply to reauthorizations
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5007

until next year, Congress did not have the opportunity to strike any mandates in the Clean

Water Act. H.R. 961 gives us that opportunity.

Among other things, H.R. 961 gets at the

mandate problem by authorizing increased

funding for several important clean water programs. For example, grants for State revolving

funds would be authorized at $2.5 billion annually for the next 5 years, compared with the

current appropriation of $1.2 billion. This is a

significant clean water financial burden that is

lifted from the shoulders of States.

H.R. 961 also includes two provisions that I

supported in the Contract With America—costbenefit analysis and takings. H.R. 961 inserts

greater consideration of cost into the Clean

Water Act. Current law does not expressly include analysis of cost effectiveness of water

quality standards. In the past decade, the cost

to our citizens of complying with environmental

regulations has risen dramatically. It is estimated that each household spends $1,500 per

year on environmental protection. Approximately one-third of these costs are attributable

to the Clean Water Act. Although many regulations perform a valuable function, the cost of

some regulations simply outweighs the benefits. With resources of this magnitude being

obligated to protect our Nation’s water quality,

it is extremely important that policymakers

have information that is based on sound scientific analyses of potential risks to public

health and the environment. In addition, the

costs of proposed Clean Water Act regulations

must be weighed against their benefits before

they are promulgated. Through cost-benefit

and risk analysis, H.R. 961 helps to eliminate

problematic regulations and focus our limited

resources on the most-pressing environmental

problems.

I also support the concept of takings which

is part of H.R. 961. The current wetlands program has resulted in serious infringements on

private property rights. It is estimated that 75

percent of wetlands in the United States are

located on private property. H.R. 961 requires

the Government to compensate individuals for

an amount equivalent to the diminution in

value if a Federal agency diminishes the fair

market value of property by 20 percent or

more. Twenty percent may be too low, but the

concept is sound. If the diminution is more

than 50 percent, the Federal Government is

required to buy the affected portion of the

property.

I have only touched on some of the highlights of H.R. 961. Although H.R. 961 is not a

perfect bill, I believe it will lead to improved

water policy in the United States in a responsible and efficient and more flexible manner,

and will help maintain the high quality of our

Nation’s water as we move into the next century.

Ms. ESHOO. I rise in strong opposition to

H.R. 961, the so-called Clean Amendments of

1995.

When Republicans talked about a rising tide

lifting all boats, they did not say how polluted

the tide water would be. Yet enactment of this

legislation would repeal or weaken key sections of one of the most successful environmental laws on the books.

I have fought hard in the past to strengthen

the Clean Water Act to further protect our

coasts and fragile estuaries. This bill does

nothing to strengthen current law—indeed, it is

harmful in a number of ways. It deregulates 50

percent of existing wetlands, repeals the

coastal zone nonpoint pollution program, removes secondary treatment requirements in

certain ocean waters, eliminates storm water

permit requirements, and exempts pointsource dischargers.

In a recent editorial, the San Francisco

Chronicle called it the Polluters Revenge Act

of 1995, claiming it was written by the very interests the law was intended to regulate. If the

people of this country were at the table when

it was drafted, we would have a completely

different bill. The American people want to be

able to drink and swim in clean water and

H.R. 961 does nothing to achieve these goals.

In sum, the bill reverses more than 20 years

of progress in fighting water pollution. I urge

my colleagues to oppose what should be

called the Dirty Water Amendments of 1995.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 961. This bill does not deserve the

title its authors have given it. Unfortunately,

H.R. 961 is no Clean Water Act.

It is a cornucopia of special interest loopholes, waivers, and exemptions that weaken

the Clean Water Act at a time when we should

be strengthening it.

We should be building on the two decades

of progress we have made cleaning up our

Nation’s lakes, rivers, and streams. Instead of

making the Clean Water Act work better for

the American people, H.R. 961 makes it easier for polluters to pollute.

The Clean Water Act is not a perfect law.

Any statute of this scope and complexity will

never be immune from shortcomings. As we

had the experience of implementing the Clean

Water Act, certain problems have come to the

surface. Even if action on these problems is

overdue, this cannot be an excuse for steps

that threaten to undermine our Nation’s commitment to clean water.

Where there are problems, we should correct them. For example, most of us agree that

existing wetlands regulation are needlessly

burdensome and in need of reform. But H.R.

961 is not about reform. Instead of fixing the

wetlands provisions, H.R. 961 redefines most

wetlands out of existence.

I am particularly concerned about the effect

this bill would have on the Great Lakes. My

State of Michigan has the toughest pollution

standards in the region. For 6 years, the

States in our region have been working on a

bipartisan basis with the Environmental Protection Agency on the Great Lakes Initiative

[GLI].

The GLI is a program established in 1990 to

ensure that all States within the Great Lakes

basin have uniform water quality standards.

The Great Lakes Initiative is a carefully balanced compromise that has been subjected to

extensive scientific scrutiny and rigorous costbenefit analysis. It incorporates significant

State flexibility. Wide consultation with effected

industries and the public led to significant revisions and lower costs.

H.R. 961 undermines the fundamental purpose of the Great Lakes Initiative by giving

States more discretion to ignore the Federal

requirement for strong, uniform standards.

Without uniform rules, Great Lakes States, like

Michigan, with strong environmental standards

will continue to lose jobs to neighbors with

looser standards. We should not water down

this critical program.

The Clean Water Act has the strong support

of the American people. Today we are debating an extreme bill that would turn back the

clock on two decades of environmental

progress. H.R. 961 deserves to be defeated.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong

opposition to H.R. 961, the so-called Clean

Water Act of 1995. The bill’s proponents

would have us believe that it simply reauthorizes the original Clean Water Act, with, perhaps, a bit of fine-tuning. I hope that the

American people can see clearly that this bill

goes far beyond fine-tuning, would bring to a

screeching halt further improvements in our

water quality, and would allow for backsliding

on the important progress we have already

made toward cleaner water.

The original Clean Water Act, enacted in

1972 to clean up our Nation’s badly polluted

rivers, lakes, and harbors, is one of the most

successful environmental laws on the books

today. But all that is about to change. With

H.R. 961, the new Republican majority in Congress would gut the current law, rolling back

water quality standards, allowing industries to

pollute more, not less, and leaving taxpayers

to foot the bill to clean up the mess.

While the bill purports to respond to some

mysterious mandate from the people for regulatory reform, recent polls have shown that 76

percent of Americans think clean water laws

need to be strengthened, not weakened. It is

clear that H.R. 961 responds to industry interests, not the people’s mandate.

H.R. 961 will result in backsliding on water

quality, by letting industries seek waivers allowing them to dump toxics and other wastes

to municipal wastewater treatment plants not

allowed under current law. To preserve the

same level of water quality, these toxics would

have to be removed at the treatment facility, at

the taxpayer’s expense. In addition, H.R. 961

lets States downgrade the designated use of

a body of water, so that a lake or river could

be subject to a lower standard of water quality

than it is today. Finally, the bill will allow industrial polluters to undertake vaguely defined

pollution prevention activities instead of complying with the water quality standards in current law.

H.R. 961 devastates our wetlands protection

program. Under this bill, which includes a new

and highly unscientific method of defining and

classifying wetlands, two-thirds of our Nation’s

wetlands would be defined right out of existence. And many of the remaining wetlands will

receive less protection than under current law.

Finally, the Government will have to pay landowners to preserve wetlands on their property,

even when protection of the wetland increases

the overall value of the property. Again, the

taxpayer pays. Wetlands are important because they filter and purify water, act as

sponges during storms to reduce flood damage, and provide valuable ecosystems for

many plant and animal species. We already

have lost more than half our Nation’s wetlands; we must provide adequate protection

for the wetlands that remain.

H.R. 961 fails to make progress in the one

area where progress is needed most. Polluted

run-off from farms, industrial facilities, and city

streets—called non-point source pollution—is

the most important source of water pollution

remaining today. H.R. 961 tells States to develop programs to make reasonable further

progress toward bringing the non-point source

pollution problem under control but does not

require such programs to be enforced. In addition, the bill allows for delays, possibly of as
H 5008 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

long as nearly two decades, in the implementation of the voluntary initiatives. This provision

could have a devastating impact on our

multibillion dollar fishing and tourism industries. In New England, our fishermen already

are suffering due to declining stocks, and are

currently seeking disaster relief. H.R. 961 will

only exacerbate the difficulties faced by our

fishermen.

We must not allow the Clean Water Act to

be gutted. It is an extremely important and

successful statute that has been largely responsible for cleaning up many of our Nation’s

waters. In Boston, we once had the notoriety

of having the filthiest harbor in America.

Thanks to the Clean Water Act, and an enormous commitment on the part of Massachusetts residents, the Boston Harbor is cleaner

now than it has been in decades. Surely we

cannot go back to the dirty water days after all

that we have contributed to get to where we

are now.

Many of us can still remember the days

when open pipes led into our streams and

lakes, spewing forth all kinds of toxics and pollutants. In most communities, those days are

gone because of the Clean Water Act. But the

job is not done. Unfortunately, over 40 percent

of our Nation’s waters are still not fishable or

swimmable. We must continue working to enforce tough clean water standards to protect

the health and safety of every American. As

the tragic 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in

Milwaukee plainly demonstrated, our water is

not yet too clean, we do not have too many

wetlands, and our fish are not too safe to eat.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ‘‘no’’

on H.R. 961 and say ‘‘yes’’ to clean water.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, as we continue to debate H.R. 961, there is a need to

clarify some of the bill’s provisions.

One of the provisions, included in my en

bloc amendments, modifies the goals contained in section 101 of the Clean Water Act.

It clarifies that the act should not unnecessarily restrict outdoor recreational activity and

other socially beneficial activities. A related

provision in title VIII of the bill addresses outdoor recreational activities.

The amendments I am submitting to H.R.

961 included in the chairman’s amendments

will clarify, among other things, that the Clean

Water Act is intended by Congress to benefit

society and not unreasonably restrict outdoor

recreational activity.

It has come to my attention that several lawsuits have recently been brought claiming that

certain recreational activities conducted

around water require permitting under the

Clean Water Act. These lawsuits have become an invitation to judicially expand the

Clean Water Act beyond what Congress originally enacted. These lawsuits may be a sham

effort to shut down rightful outdoor recreation,

specifically hunting and the shooting sports.

The Clean Water Act was not designed to require NPDES permits under section 402 or

wetlands dredge and fill permits under section

404 as a condition of enjoying our traditional

outdoor recreational activities. My amendment

makes clear that the act was not intended to

be abused in the manner employed in certain

lawsuits.

Another regulatory provision relates to

waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding operations [CAFO’s]. Section 401

clarifies that an existing CAFO that uses a

natural topographic impoundment or structure

on the effective date of this act, which is not

hydrologically connected to any other waters

of the United States, as a waste treatment

system or wastewater retention facility may,

for purposes of this act, continue to use that

natural topographic feature for waste storage

regardless of its size, capacity, or previous

use.

Some of H.R. 961’s funding provisions need

additional clarification, as well. The bill does

not specify any set-asides or allocations off

the top for section 106 moneys. Our intent

however, is that one-half of 1 percent or

$500,000—whichever is greater—should be

allocated to the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators

for assistance in administering programs for

the prevention, reduction, and elimination of

pollution and to serve as the State liaison

forum with the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency on policy development.

Administration of the funding provided in

section 102(d) also needs clarification. Section

102(d) of H.R. 961 authorizes the Administrator of the EPA to make grants to the States

for planning, design, and construction of publicly owned treatment works in rural communities of 3,000 people or less which are severely economically disadvantage. The committee report states the committee’s intention

to work closely with the Administrator to develop appropriate criteria regarding severely

economically disadvantaged. I wish to clarify

that the committee considers eligible communities as those having a per capita income of

no more than 80 percent of the national average and an unemployment rate of 1 percent or

more above the national average.

Mr. Chairman, I insert the following communication for the RECORD:

MAY 16, 1995.

Hon. BUD SHUSTER,

Chairman.

Hon. NORM MINETA,

Ranking Minority Member, Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S.

House of Representatives, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR GENTLEMEN: We write this letter in

response to the debate on H.R. 961 that took

place last Thursday evening, May 9, 1995, in

which Representative Laughlin offered a substitute amendment to that offered by Representative Emerson regarding section 401 of

the Clean Water Act.

It is indeed unfortunate that we were not

given the opportunity to review the amendment prior to its introduction, as we believe

that our input may have proved valuable in

the ensuing discussion.

We wish to state now for the record that

we believe states should have the authority

to determine the quality of the waters within the state. As we have consistently maintained, we do not believe any amendments to

section 401 are warranted; and we cannot

support the amendment to section 401 that

was adopted last Thursday evening.

The adopted amendment would have the

following adverse repercussions;

The amendment takes from states the authority to determine the water quality of

state waters, and improperly gives such authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC) for hydroelectric

projects located within the state.

The amendment reverses PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. State of Washington Department of Ecology, otherwise known as

the Tacoma case, in which the Supreme

Court affirmed that section 401 authorizes

states to impose conditions in water quality

certifications to ensure that discharges from

federally licensed activities comply with

state law.

The amendment causes inequities between

state licensed activities which must comply

with state law, and hydroelectric projects

which FERC may exempt from state law.

The amendment will likely spawn significant litigation regarding its implementation

and how agencies are to interpret presumptions of validity.

In sum, we believe that section 401 strikes

the appropriate balance between state and

federal authority over state water quality,

and that no amendment to section 401 is necessary. We thank you for the opportunity to

share our views with you.

Sincerely,

Governor Mike Lowry, Chair, Committee

on Natural Resources, National Governors’ Association.

Governor Michael O. Leavitt, Chair,

Western Governors’ Association.

Tom Udall, Attorney General of New

Mexico.

Governor Terry E. Branstad, Vice Chair,

Committee on Natural Resources, National Governors’ Association.

Governor E. Benjamin Nelson, Vice

Chair, Western Governors’ Association.

Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General

of Washington.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in

strong opposition to H.R. 961, the Clean

Water Amendments of 1995. I believe this title

is a misnomer as this bill will dramatically undermine the progress we have made over the

past 20 years in cleaning up the Nation’s waters, improving public health, and furthering

economic development. I urge my colleagues

to vote against this measure to send a strong

signal that the House will not turn back the

clock on environmental protection.

The Clean Water Act, signed into law in

1972, is arguably our most successful environmental protection statute. When it was passed

more than two decades ago, the majority of

our waters were off-limits to swimming and

fishing, toxic pollutants and sewage were discharged almost at will, and in extreme cases,

certain bodies of water were so fouled that

they actually caught fire. Many communities

nationwide were not served by sewage treatment plants and many that were had antiquated systems which failed to protect public

health. Companies were able to discharge

toxic pollutants, including some which cause

cancer, directly into our rivers, lakes, and

streams. Finally, wetlands were being filled in

and drained at a rate of approximately

450,000 acres per year with subsequent adverse impacts on fish, wildlife, and bird populations, water quality, and flood control.

Over the past 23 years we have made tremendous progress in addressing these and

other water quality issues. Nearly twice as

many people are served by modern sewage

treatment plants today than in 1972. Annually

900 million tons of sewage are not discharged

into our lakes, streams, and rivers. Under the

State Revolving Fund program and a previous

grant program, the Federal Government has

invested $66 billion in sewage treatment plant

construction and upgrades. Investment in sewage treatment has made fundamental improvements in public health for millions of

American citizens. More than 1 billion pounds

of toxic pollutants are removed yearly from

waters discharged by companies and other

entities which utilize them.
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5009

Twice as many bodies of water meet their

designated uses today than prior to the passage of the act. These water quality improvements have expanded recreational opportunities, opened multimillion-dollar shellfish beds

to harvest, and brought tourists back to communities along our coasts. Finally, the Clean

Water Act has helped to cut wetland losses almost in half. Currently, the lower 48 States

have about 10 percent of the wetlands that existed in the late 1700’s. While wetlands have

a ‘‘bad rap’’ in this body, which I believe is

completely unfounded and used for political

expediency, they provide vital habitat to a myriad of fish, wildlife, and bird species, improve

water quality by filtering out organic and

nonorganic contaminants, and serve valuable

flood control functions without the need for

costly levees, dikes, and dams.

While we have made tremendous progress

over the past two decades, problems remain.

More than one-third of our waters do not meet

their designated uses. Thousands of miles of

rivers and acres of lakes are off-limits to swimming and fishing. Sewage treatment facilities

in many communities remain inadequate and

often discharge raw sewage directing into our

waterways during storms. Pathogens in sewage poses a serious threat to public health. Ineffective sewage treatment also results in excessive nutrients being added to our waters

which cause algae blooms, deplete oxygen

content, and adversely affect shell- and fin-fish

and marine habitat. Nonpoint source pollution

accounts for at least half of our remaining

water pollution problems. Wetlands continue to

disappear at rate of 250,000 acres per year.

As a result, certain migratory bird populations

and species of fish have suffered and flooding

has been exacerbated. In fact, some believe

that the devastating flooding in the Midwest in

1993 could have been mitigated if wetlands

had not been filled or drained to grow crops or

for sites for housing developments. The bottom line is that we have a long way to go and

should not be passing legislation which will

turn the clock back to the 1960’s.

I have numerous concerns with H.R. 961

and will touch on the most significant ones. I

am especially concerned about the effects this

bill will have on water quality in coastal communities. My district borders Long Island

Sound, which is a vital economic and environmental resource for my State of Connecticut.

Connecticut has invested tens of millions of

dollars in cleaning up the sound in an effort to

improve public health, fisheries, tourism, and

quality of life for our residents. The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], New York

and Connecticut have spent the past 10 years

and $11 million conducting a comprehensive

study of the problems facing the sound. Last

fall, the agency and the States approved a

comprehensive conservation and management

plan [CCMP] which sets forth a schedule to

implement specific measures for remediating

water quality problems and restoring the

sound to health status. H.R. 961 threatens to

completely undermine these efforts and investments.

It would repeal section 6217 of the Omnibus

Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 which requires coastal States to develop enforceable

programs to control nonpoint discharges which

impair coastal waters. Nonpoint source contamination is the greatest threat to our coastal

waters and is partially responsible for thousands of beach closures each year and contaminated shelfish and finfish populations.

Beach closures and shell- and fin-fish bans

cost local economies millions of dollars each

year when tourists can’t go to the beach and

fish products can’t be harvested and sold.

Connecticut is the second leading producer of

oysters in the United States with annual sales

between $40 and $50 million and tourism

pumps nearly $4 billion into my State’s economy. Repealing section 6217 does not make

good environmental or economic sense for my

State or any other coastal State.

The assistant commissioner of Connecticut’s

Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]

has written me to express his strong opposition to the committee’s action. While he admits

section 6217 is not perfect, he firmly believes

that repeal is completely counterproductive.

The committee’s action is even more egregious when one considers that the Coastal

States Organization submitted a proposal to

reform section 6217 to the committee. The

CSO proposal represented a compromise developed by the States, but was cast aside by

the committee. Without a program which approximates section 6217, Connecticut’s efforts

to reduce nonpoint contamination of Long Island Sound will be seriously undermined.

Unfortunately, the outlook for the sound gets

bleaker when one considers the provisions of

section 309 relating to secondary treatment.

According to the EPA, secondary treatment,

which removes oxygen-depleting nutrients as

well as toxic contaminants from wastewater,

has played a substantial role in improving

water quality across the Nation over the last

20 years. Secondary treatment is especially

important for communities along Long Island

Sound because it is plagued by severe hypoxia during the summer months. Hypoxia is

a state of low dissolved oxygen in the water

which adversely affects fish populations and

marine habitat. The best way to eliminate hypoxia is to reduce the input of excess nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorous. Secondary treatment is one of the most effective

methods of reducing nutrient loading.

Connecticut has 84 treatment plants, all of

which employ secondary treatment. In fact, 25

plants, or about 25 percent of the total, employ advanced treatment to reduce nitrogen

loading more dramatically. Under section 309

of H.R. 961, coastal or other communities with

fewer than 20,000 residents would be exempt

from secondary treatment requirements if a

treatment works will provide an adequate level

of protection to receiving waters. The bill does

not define ‘‘adequate level’’ and I am very

concerned that this exemption will seriously

undermine our efforts to improve water quality

in the sound.

In Connecticut, 52 plants could be allowed

to discontinue secondary treatment under this

section. This would bring little, if any, savings

to the ratepayers because these plants currently utilize secondary treatment technology.

At the same time, it will exacerbate hypoxia

which will adversely affect the fishing, aquaculture, and tourism industries. These effects

will cost my State millions of dollars in the

short term and many millions more over the

long run because Long Island Sound cleanup

will become more costly. This provision is bad

for the environment, the economy, and taxpayers in my State.

I am also concerned about the effects of

loosening pretreatment standards for the discharge of toxic pollutants to publicly owned

treatment works [POTW]. The Clean Water

Act establishes uniform national requirements

that certain highly toxic pollutants, which cannot be effectively treated by POTW’s or which

adversely affect the operation of such works,

must be treated by those entities discharging

them to reduce their negative impacts prior to

releasing wastewaters containing these contaminants to the POTW. This requirement

guarantees that every community will receive

a similar level of protection from toxic pollutants.

Under H.R. 961, uniform requirements

would be replaced by a system which would

allow individual treatment works to reduce

pretreatment standards if those standards

drive up administrative costs. This would create a hodge-podge of standards within States

and watersheds and undermine rational water

pollution control policy. Furthermore, this provision shifts the costs of controlling toxic pollutants from entities producing those pollutants

to the ratepayers at the POTW. It is very likely

that these toxics will ultimately adversely affect

the operations of the POTW and the ratepayers will be left with the bill.

While nonpoint source pollution is responsible for at least one-half of our remaining

water pollution problems, H.R. 961 fails to

tackle this important issue. The provisions of

section 319 effectively postpone the date of

compliance with nonpoint source controls for

15 years. Moreover, compliance may never

have to be achieved because the section provides yearly extensions of compliance deadlines for every year that Congress fails to appropriate every dollar authorized by this section. While I believe that Congress should do

its level best to provide funding to States to

assist with compliance, it is unreasonable to

provide extensions if Congress falls $1 short

of the authorized level. I believe this provision

is even more unreasonable when one considers that Congress has done a relatively good

job in providing States with substantial funding

to improve water quality. This provision renders compliance deadlines meaningless.

The risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis portions of this bill are tilted toward polluters and will undermine public health. Federal

agencies will be required to conduct lengthy

and unproven risk assessment reviews of virtually every regulatory action which could cost

more than $25 million. These reviews will add

substantial layers of bureaucracy and delay

timely action to address health concerns. In

addition, the cost-benefit portion of the bill is

weighted toward assessing the economic and

social costs of complying with a requirement

but makes no mention of assessing the benefits to society from environmental protection.

Moreover, the bill does not provide an exemption from these onerous requirements to allow

the EPA to respond quickly to an imminent

threat to public health or the environment.

These provisions are merely an attempt to gut

environmental protection through backdoor

maneuvers.

Finally, the wetlands portion of the bill will

open much of our remaining wetlands to uncontrolled filling, draining, and development. If

these provisions are enacted, many species of

fish and wildlife will be pushed toward extinction, water quality will suffer, and flooding will

worsen. As a result, the American people will

be forced to pay more for clean water, flood

insurance premiums will increase, and our

quality of life will suffer.
H 5010 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

In spite of all the talk by my Republican colleagues about the need to use ‘‘good science’’

when developing environmental regulations,

this portion of the bill has no connection to

good science whatsoever. The bill proposes to

designate wetlands as class A, B, or C with

class A receiving the highest degree of protection, class B less protection, and class C could

be developed at will. The criteria to be used

to classify wetlands is arbitrary as well. For

example, the Secretary of the Army can only

designate a portion of land as class A wetlands if it consists of 10 or more contiguous

acres of land and there is unlikely to be any

other overriding public use for that land. Wetlands should receive protection based on the

ecological value and not because protection is

convenient because someone doesn’t believe

the land can be developed under any circumstances. Moreover, the bill stipulates that

no more than 20 percent of the wetlands classified by the Secretary may be classified as

class A. This is a baseless cutoff designed to

subjugate ecological considerations to the desire of developers to have unrestricted access

to as much land as possible.

In addition, the protections for class A and

B wetlands can be weakened considerably

under the bill if they are not economically

practicable or if the wetlands are located in a

State with substantial conserved wetlands.

The exemption based on a State having wetlands conserved by the Federal Government

completely disregards the fact that wetlands

serve important local functions which are completely separate from the benefits provided by

wetlands clear across the State. Once again,

short-term economic considerations are given

precedence while the long-term interests of

the majority of Americans are pushed aside.

Finally, development can take place in class

C wetlands without a permit. The skewed classification requirements of this bill work to winnow as many acres of wetlands toward class

C designation as possible. This bill falsely assumes that small wetlands or those that are in

highly developed areas serve no significant

function. This couldn’t be further from the

truth. In fact, small wetlands in developed

areas provide critical habitat for birds, ducks,

and wildlife, help to recharge the groundwater,

and act to purify runoff from surrounding

areas. These wetlands should receive a high

degree of protection rather than be opened up

to unchecked development. Moreover, 18 different activities, including building logging

roads, clearing rights-of-way, and just about

any infrastructure project whatsoever in a

State with substantial conserved wetlands, are

specifically exempt from any restrictions governing activities in wetlands.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 961 should be defeated

for the reasons I have enumerated here and

many others. Most significantly, this is a bad

bill for the people of my State who would see

years of hard work and tens of millions of dollars literally go down the drain. The Connecticut River would once again be fouled by sewage and our efforts to restore Long Island

Sound would be dealt a tremendous blow. The

costs of cleaning up pollution would be transferred from polluters to the American public.

Public health will be compromised, recreation

opportunities lost, and the economic growth

will be stymied in countless communities nationwide. I urge my colleagues to vote against

H.R. 961.

Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, this bill will

reverse the significant progress we have made

under the Clean Water Act. For the first time

in 25 years, our water is expected to become

dirtier instead of cleaner. We may well be returning to a time when our rivers catch fire, we

cannot swim and fish in our lakes, and human

health is jeopardized by toxic chemicals in our

water.

It is no secret that the House Republican

leadership worked hand in hand with the

chemical companies and other special interests to draft a bill littered with loopholes for

polluters and developers. The bill includes a

myriad of exemptions and waivers for industry

which will significantly increase water pollution.

It also removes approximately 50 percent of

wetlands—which provide a natural water filtering system—from Federal protection. It is

deeply disturbing that the attack on the environment that was so prevalent in the Contract

With America has now reached into environmental successes like the Clean Water Act.

I am pleased that this bill reauthorizes funds

for the State revolving loan fund that helps

towns, like rural towns in my State of Vermont,

upgrade their sewage treatment facilities. It

also authorizes funds to help these same

towns clean up agricultural pesticide runoff.

Unfortunately, in today’s environment of cutbacks I am seriously concerned that these

needed funds will not become a reality. I

strongly urge the appropriators to fully fund

these programs so that small rural towns can

meet their environmental responsibilities.

I am deeply disappointed that the House rejected an amendment which included these

important authorizations and linked them with

meaningful relief from unnecessarily burdensome regulations. Instead the House is considering a bill that gives industry free rein to

pollute our waterways and developers the right

to develop our ecologically important wetlands.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support

the bipartisan committee-passed version of

H.R. 961.

One message that the American public has

made clear—one message that this Congress

has seen fit to heed in passing several pieces

of legislation this year—has been the fact that

this Nation has entered an era in which new

approaches and local flexibility are needed to

provide lasting solutions to our Nation’s greatest problems.

Mr. Chairman, this bill continues the great

traditions of the leaders of the Republican

Party who made the protection of the environment and natural resources a top priority—

Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt and

Richard Nixon. This bill not only reaffirms the

importance of the 1972 Clean Water Act and

preserves its successes, it significantly updates that historic legislation to meet the water

quality needs and circumstances of this Nation

in 1995 and beyond.

As many members have explained throughout this debate, our State and local communities are now well-equipped, and in most

cases, better equipped, to devise and implement solutions to the expensive point source

and nonpoint source pollution problems within

their communities. H.R. 961, as it stands now,

gives the State and local governments the

flexibility and authority they need to implement

those solutions. Solutions, mind you, that will

improve our communities’ water quality both

more quickly and at less cost.

Let me share a couple of examples of particular problems in my district which will greatly benefit from passage of the committeepassed H.R. 961. In a rural town in my district,

Francesville, IN, a major wastewater treatment

facility construction project which will greatly

improve the quality of water for tens of thousands of people along the watershed, was delayed. This delay lasted more than 2 years

due to a concern that the plant would interfere

with less than 1 acre of a man-made pit which

environmental officials had determined to be a

wetland.

Another example in my backyard illustrates

how small communities throughout Indiana are

struggling to meet complex Federal requirements which are financially prohibitive. H.R.

961 seeks to loosen these types of regulatory

constraints on small communities which have

the effect of actually hindering their ability to

improve their water quality. My hometown of

Buffalo, IN, which has a population of 250 is

undertaking a sewer system construction

which will improve the water quality on the

Tippecanoe River and Lakes Shafer and Freeman. Unfortunately, they’ve been bitten by

these same regulatory restrictions that hinder

their ability to use new and innovative technology like constructed wetlands treatment facilities. The impact could not only be the

delays they now face in construction, but local

sewer bills could soar from a projected $35

per month to reach $90 per month.

As if that isn’t clear enough, I have another

example of the impact of current law and enforcement on municipalities and small communities. Approximately 5,000 people reside in

Rensselaer, IN. They have a $3.5 million

sewer treatment facility serving their community. The city of Rensselaer was informed by

regulators that they are not in compliance and

must conduct combined sewer overflow [CSO]

monitoring. They learned that it was estimated

to cost each person in the town $1,000 per

year. This translates into nearly $5 million in

costs to implement this CSO Program, nearly

twice the amount it costs to build the entire

sewer treatment facility, all just to monitor and

not treat the water.

My final story shows the inability of the Federal Government, without clear definitions and

political accountability, to provide simple, effective, and cost-efficient solutions to the situations families, farmers, businesses, and communities face. A Cass County farmer in my

district had less than one-quarter of an acre of

ground in the middle of a farm field determined as a wetland. Despite the fact that he

could potentially have profited only $20 annually from farming the area, Federal regulators

slapped him with over $300,000 in fines and

lost benefits. Yet, as if it isn’t enough, under

the current law, he could have sold this land

to any number of retailers, such as Wal-Mart,

who could have paved this wetland and made

it part of a parking lot without any penalties or

fines whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that

these are not isolated instances. We must

continue and follow up on the bipartisan message which was sent to not only State and

local governments, but also the Federal regulators. We must encourage flexible, commonsense rationality to our regulatory policies.

For instance, title VIII of H.R. 961 establishes a new Federal wetlands policy by replacing the current section 404 of CWA with

comprehensive new language to regulate the

discharge of dredge and fill materials into U.S.

waters and wetlands, as well as the drainage,
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5011

channelization, and excavation of wetlands.

For the first time in legislation, this bill establishes a procedure for both classifying and delineating wetlands, directing the Secretary of

the Army to issue classification regulations

and delineation rules within 1 year of enactment. It outlines application procedures for

persons seeking to undertake activities in wetlands, as well as property owners who seek a

determination of whether a wetland exists on

their property, and provides for judicial review.

Thus, H.R. 961 provides for greater certainty

and expedited procedures to applicants. This

provision is comparable to legislation I cosponsored last year to address wetlands issues.

This bill modifies the list of exempt activities

in order to clarify the intent of Congress where

agency and court decisions have resulted in

broader regulations than intended. H.R. 961

includes the following to those activities already exempted by the act: First, maintenance

and emergency reconstruction of facilities for

flood control, water supply, reservoirs, utility

lines, and transportation structures; second,

farming activities such as constructing stock

ponds, irrigation canals, and drainage ditches;

third, activities to enhance aviation safety,

such as clearing vegetation that obscures a

control tower’s view of the runway approach;

and fourth, activities that are consistent with a

State-approved land management plan approved by the Army Secretary, as well as a

few other limited activities.

It is also extremely important to note that

H.R. 961 is consistent with the provisions

bipartisanly passed by this Congress under

H.R. 925. In doing so, this bill requires that

property owners who have their property value

diminished by 20 percent or more as a result

of a Federal agency wetlands management

action must be compensated by the Government for that amount.

H.R. 961 provides not only flexibility with the

reiteration of regulatory reforms and just compensation, but it also authorizes billions of additional dollars for State and local governments to prioritize solutions and utilize advanced technologies. I support the commonsense bipartisan solution H.R. 961 provides.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move

that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose;

and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.

WALKER) having assumed the chair, Mr.

MCINNIS, Chairman of the Committee

of the Whole House on the State of the

Union, reported that that Committee,

having had under consideration the

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

Water Pollution Control Act, pursuant

to House Resolution 140, he reported

the bill back to the House with an

amendment adopted by the Committee

of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the rule, the previous question is ordered.

Is a separate vote demanded on any

amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute

adopted in the Committee of the

Whole? If not, the question is on the

amendment.

The amendment was agreed to.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

question is on the engrossment and

third reading of the bill.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed

and read a third time, and was read the

third time.

MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. BONIOR

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a

motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the

gentleman opposed to the bill?

Mr. BONIOR. I am, Mr. Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The

Clerk will report the motion to recommit.

The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. BONIOR moves to recommit the bill to

the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure with instructions to report it back

to the House promptly with the following

changes:

With standards for the discharge of industrial pollution into water no move lax than

those which exist today;

With water pollution prevention and control protections no less than those which

exist today for public water supplies which

are used for drinking;

With a report on this bill by the Congressional Budget Office which complies with

section 101 of Public Law 104–4, the ‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995’’, as

such section would otherwise be in effect on

January 1, 1996.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. BONIOR] is

recognized for 5 minutes in support of

his motion to recommit.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, the American people want us to make this Government work better.

But they do not want us to turn back

20 years of progress on clean water.

They do not want us to turn back 20

years of progress on safe drinking

water.

But that is exactly what this bill before us today does. There is a reason

why the Baltimore Sun calls this bill

‘‘the Polluters Protection Act.’’

Because it stops 20 years of progress

dead in its tracks.

How do you think the American people would feel if they knew that this

bill allowed raw sewage to be dumped

just 1 mile off our shores?

How do you think they’d feel if they

knew that this bill weakens the safeguards we’ve put in place to make sure

our drinking water is safe?

How do you think they’d feel if they

knew—as USA Today pointed out just

yesterday—that this bill ‘‘dramatically

eases requirements on industrial waste,

urban runoff, and sewage treatment

* * * and permits more waivers for

pouring pollution into lakes and rivers.’’

Mr. Speaker, have we all forgotten

Milwaukee?

Have we all forgotten the 100 people

who died in 1993—and the 400,000 people

who got sick—when a deadly toxin

called cryptosperidium infiltrated Milwaukee’s drinking water?

Do we want to go back to the days of

Love Canal—and poisoned fish, when

Lake Erie was dead—and the Cuyahoga

River was so polluted it actually

caught on fire?

I’m certain the American people

don’t want to go back. And they can’t

seem to understand why we’d pass a

bill that makes it easier to pollute the

water we all need to survive.

Why? Because a few corporations oppose the safeguards we have now?

Because a few special interests oppose the tough anti-pollution protections on the books now?

Is that any reason to put safe drinking water at risk?

Let me ask this: Does anybody really

believe these people are looking out for

the public interest and public safety

first?

This bill is the ultimate example of

putting the fox in charge of the hen

house. Not only does it let the polluters off the hook—it actually let them

write the bill.

I have here a memo, a copy of a

memo that the committee itself sent

out to lobbyists and special interests.

A memo inviting them to help write

the bill.

It says, and I quote, ‘‘we encourage

you to work together to identify outstanding issues and to formulate your

proposals for addressing them.’’ The

following groups have agreed to take

the lead for this front work.

Do you think these people had the

public interest in mind?

Mr. Speaker, I think we can do a lot

better. And that’s what this motion to

recommit is all about.

This motion insists on three things:

First, that we keep environmental

standards strong and don’t allow

rollbacks for industrial polluters;

Second, that we keep drinking water

safe;

And third, that in improving the

Clean Water Act, we don’t pass along

any costs to the States that we don’t

pay for first.

In other words, we’re simply asking

that the Clean Water Act be allowed to

live up to its name—and build on the

progress we’ve made the past 20 years.

Today, over 60 percent of our waterways are clean—and drinking water is

safe.

But we’ve still got a lot of work left

to do—and we can’t afford to turn the

clock back now.

We can never forget—that in the

end—even though we have many differences as Americans;

We all drink the same water;

We all swim in the same lakes;

We all depend on the same water to

cook with, to clean with, and to bathe

in.

And we all have an interest in seeing

our water remain safe and clean.

But I would remind all of you here

today: we may not win this vote on the

motion to recommit—and we may not

win the vote on final passage.

But this is a defining issue for our

Nation.

And I am confident that we will have

more than enough votes today to sustain a Presidential veto.

In the end, this vote comes down to

one simple question: Whose side are

you on? Are you on the side of the special interests—or are you on the side of

the American people?
H 5012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 16, 1995

Are you on the side of clean water for

ourselves and for the future—or do you

want to roll the clock back? That’s the

question.

I urge my colleagues: vote ‘‘yes’’ on

the motion to recommit. Vote ‘‘no’’ on

final passage.

b 1730

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, what we have heard on

this motion to recommit is simply

nothing more than the same old delaying tactics. This motion if it were

adopted would gut the bill. What we

have heard here now is nothing more

than the same old scare tactics. In

fact, I was somewhat astonished to

hear our friend in the well refer to the

Milwaukee tragedy as an example of

something that presumably the bureaucrats could have prevented or

could prevent in the future if we were

somehow to adopt the big-government

bill that they would prefer.

As we all know, the tragedy in Milwaukee occurred because of wildlife in

the stream, because of deer polluting

the water, and so I can see apparently

if we follow through my good friend’s

suggestion to its logical conclusion

that we will have bureaucrats from

EPA out there in Wisconsin with lassos

lassoing the deer to keep them out of

the stream. It obviously simply does

not wash. This whole idea that they

somehow through more government

and more command control from the

top on down can somehow correct these

problems does not wash. Indeed, we

have before us an historic environmental bill, a sound environmental

bill, a balanced environmental bill.

I would point out to my friends that

as we have worked through over 30

hours of debate on this historic legislation, we have defended the committee

position with overwhelming votes. We

have reformed the wetlands and we

have defeated the weakening amendments by 50, 60, 70, 80 votes. We have

reformed stormwater. We have defeated the weakening amendments by

60, 70, 80 votes. We have provided a

workable nonpoint source program.

And, yes, we have provided flexibility

to the States and to the localities. We

have created a situation where a city

like San Diego will not have to spend

$3 billion needlessly which is what the

EPA was attempting to force the city

of San Diego to do even though the

California EPA and an eminent group

of scientists said that it was unnecessary for San Diego.

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of

reforms and improvements which have

been made in this historic legislation.

Yes, we have also provided substantial

funding. Not as much as many of us

would like to see, but substantial funding so we can continue with this very

successful program.

As we move along to conference, we

certainly continue to have an open

mind. If there are other suggestions

and as we sit down with Members of

the other body for further improvements to this legislation, we certainly

will be able to address those issues and

we will do our very best to do so.

I know some Members have concerns

about the formula. You have my commitment to work in conference to fix

the formula.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues, they can proudly and

proenvironmentally vote ‘‘yes’’ on final

passage, vote ‘‘no’’ on this motion to

recommit. Vote ‘‘yes’’ on final passage

to pass this historic clean water legislation.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

WALKER). The question is on the motion to recommit.

The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced that

the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I object to

the vote on the ground that a quorum

is not present and make the point of

order that a quorum is not present.

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

The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 169, nays

256, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 336]

YEAS—169

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baldacci

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Bishop

Boehlert

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Clay

Clayton

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Costello

Coyne

de la Garza

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Doyle

Durbin

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Forbes

Ford

Frank (MA)

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gonzalez

Green

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hinchey

Holden

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klink

LaFalce

Lantos

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Mascara

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Mollohan

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Pomeroy

Rahall

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sawyer

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Serrano

Shays

Skaggs

Skelton

Slaughter

Smith (MI)

Spratt

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Taylor (MS)

Thompson

Thornton

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Volkmer

Ward

Waters

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Williams

Wise

Woolsey

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Zimmer

NAYS—256

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baesler

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bliley

Blute

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Brewster

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Castle

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

Davis

Deal

DeLay

Diaz-Balart

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Fowler

Fox

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frelinghuysen

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gillmor

Gilman

Goodlatte

Gordon

Goss

Graham

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson (CT)

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

King

Kingston

Klug

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Lazio

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Martini

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Meyers

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Montgomery

Moorhead

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Peterson (FL)

Petri

Pickett

Pombo

Porter

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Ramstad

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Roemer

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Ros-Lehtinen

Rose

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Sanford

Saxton

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Sensenbrenner

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Smith (NJ)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Thurman

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Traficant

Upton

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weldon (PA)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Wolf

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

NOT VOTING—9

Berman

Collins (IL)

Gephardt

Goodling

Hilliard

Hunter

Kleczka

Lipinski

Peterson (MN)
May 16, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 5013

b 1756

Messrs. HOLDEN, TAYLOR of Mississippi, and CONYERS changed their

vote from ‘‘nay’’ to ‘‘yea.’’

So the motion to recommit was rejected.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

CAMP). The question is on the passage

of the bill.

The question was taken; and the

Speaker pro tempore announced that

the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, on that

I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were—yeas 240, nays

185, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 337]

YEAS—240

Allard

Archer

Armey

Bachus

Baker (CA)

Baker (LA)

Ballenger

Barcia

Barr

Barrett (NE)

Bartlett

Barton

Bass

Bateman

Bereuter

Bevill

Bilbray

Bilirakis

Bishop

Bliley

Blute

Boehner

Bonilla

Bono

Browder

Brownback

Bryant (TN)

Bunn

Bunning

Burr

Burton

Buyer

Callahan

Calvert

Camp

Canady

Chabot

Chambliss

Chapman

Chenoweth

Christensen

Chrysler

Clement

Clinger

Coble

Coburn

Collins (GA)

Combest

Condit

Cooley

Costello

Cox

Cramer

Crane

Crapo

Cremeans

Cubin

Cunningham

Danner

de la Garza

Deal

DeLay

Dickey

Dooley

Doolittle

Dornan

Doyle

Dreier

Duncan

Dunn

Edwards

Emerson

English

Ensign

Everett

Ewing

Fawell

Fields (TX)

Flanagan

Foley

Fowler

Frank (MA)

Franks (CT)

Franks (NJ)

Frisa

Funderburk

Gallegly

Ganske

Gekas

Geren

Gillmor

Goodlatte

Gordon

Graham

Gutknecht

Hall (TX)

Hamilton

Hancock

Hansen

Hastert

Hastings (WA)

Hayes

Hayworth

Hefley

Hefner

Heineman

Herger

Hilleary

Hilliard

Hobson

Hoekstra

Hoke

Holden

Horn

Hostettler

Houghton

Hunter

Hutchinson

Hyde

Inglis

Istook

Johnson (SD)

Johnson, Sam

Jones

Kasich

Kelly

Kim

King

Kingston

Klink

Knollenberg

Kolbe

LaHood

Largent

Latham

LaTourette

Laughlin

Leach

Lewis (CA)

Lewis (KY)

Lightfoot

Linder

Livingston

Longley

Lucas

Manzullo

Mascara

McCollum

McCrery

McDade

McHugh

McInnis

McIntosh

McKeon

Metcalf

Mica

Miller (FL)

Molinari

Mollohan

Montgomery

Moorhead

Myers

Myrick

Nethercutt

Neumann

Ney

Norwood

Nussle

Ortiz

Orton

Oxley

Packard

Parker

Paxon

Peterson (MN)

Pickett

Pombo

Portman

Poshard

Pryce

Quillen

Quinn

Radanovich

Regula

Riggs

Roberts

Rogers

Rohrabacher

Rose

Roth

Royce

Salmon

Scarborough

Schaefer

Schiff

Seastrand

Shadegg

Shaw

Shuster

Sisisky

Skeen

Skelton

Smith (MI)

Smith (TX)

Smith (WA)

Solomon

Souder

Spence

Stearns

Stenholm

Stockman

Stump

Talent

Tanner

Tate

Tauzin

Taylor (NC)

Tejeda

Thomas

Thornberry

Tiahrt

Torkildsen

Traficant

Upton

Volkmer

Vucanovich

Waldholtz

Walker

Walsh

Wamp

Watts (OK)

Weldon (FL)

Weller

White

Whitfield

Wicker

Wilson

Young (AK)

Young (FL)

Zeliff

NAYS—185

Abercrombie

Ackerman

Andrews

Baesler

Baldacci

Barrett (WI)

Becerra

Beilenson

Bentsen

Boehlert

Bonior

Borski

Boucher

Brown (CA)

Brown (FL)

Brown (OH)

Bryant (TX)

Cardin

Castle

Clay

Clayton

Clyburn

Coleman

Collins (MI)

Conyers

Coyne

Davis

DeFazio

DeLauro

Dellums

Deutsch

Diaz-Balart

Dicks

Dingell

Dixon

Doggett

Durbin

Ehlers

Ehrlich

Engel

Eshoo

Evans

Farr

Fattah

Fazio

Fields (LA)

Filner

Flake

Foglietta

Forbes

Ford

Fox

Frelinghuysen

Frost

Furse

Gejdenson

Gibbons

Gilchrest

Gilman

Gonzalez

Goss

Green

Greenwood

Gunderson

Gutierrez

Hall (OH)

Harman

Hastings (FL)

Hinchey

Hoyer

Jackson-Lee

Jacobs

Jefferson

Johnson (CT)

Johnson, E. B.

Johnston

Kanjorski

Kaptur

Kennedy (MA)

Kennedy (RI)

Kennelly

Kildee

Klug

LaFalce

Lantos

Lazio

Levin

Lewis (GA)

Lincoln

LoBiondo

Lofgren

Lowey

Luther

Maloney

Manton

Markey

Martinez

Martini

Matsui

McCarthy

McDermott

McHale

McKinney

McNulty

Meehan

Meek

Menendez

Meyers

Mfume

Miller (CA)

Mineta

Minge

Mink

Moakley

Moran

Morella

Murtha

Nadler

Neal

Oberstar

Obey

Olver

Owens

Pallone

Pastor

Payne (NJ)

Payne (VA)

Pelosi

Peterson (FL)

Petri

Pomeroy

Porter

Rahall

Ramstad

Rangel

Reed

Reynolds

Richardson

Rivers

Roemer

Ros-Lehtinen

Roukema

Roybal-Allard

Rush

Sabo

Sanders

Sanford

Sawyer

Saxton

Schroeder

Schumer

Scott

Sensenbrenner

Serrano

Shays

Skaggs

Slaughter

Smith (NJ)

Spratt

Stark

Stokes

Studds

Stupak

Taylor (MS)

Thompson

Thornton

Thurman

Torres

Torricelli

Towns

Tucker

Velazquez

Vento

Visclosky

Ward

Watt (NC)

Waxman

Weldon (PA)

Williams

Wise

Wolf

Wyden

Wynn

Yates

Zimmer

NOT VOTING—9

Berman

Brewster

Collins (IL)

Gephardt

Goodling

Kleczka

Lipinski

Waters

Woolsey

b 1814

So the bill was passed.

The result of the vote was announced

as above recorded.

A motion to reconsider was laid on

the table.

GENERAL LEAVE

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that all Members

may have 5 legislative days in which to

revise and extend their remarks, and to

insert extraneous material in the

RECORD, on H.R. 961, the bill just

passed.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

CAMP). Is there objection to the request

of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO

There was no objection.

MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENfGROSSMENT OF H.R. 961, CLEAN

WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask

unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 961, the

Clerk be authorized to correct section

numbers, punctuation, and cross references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may

be necessary to reflect the actions of

the House in amending the bill, H.R.

961.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?

There was no objection.

fb 1815

CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1158,

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATIONS FOR DISASTER

ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS,

FISCAL YEAR 1995

Mr. LIVINGSTON submitted the following conference report and statement on the bill (H.R. 1158) making

emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance

and making rescissions for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1995, and for

other purposes:

CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. 104–124)

The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.

1158) ‘‘making emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal

year ending September 30, 1995, and for other

purposes,’’ having met, after full and free

conference, have agreed to recommend and

do recommend to their respective Houses as

follows:

That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, and

agree to the same with an amendment, as

follows:

In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted

by said amendment, insert:

That the following sums are appropriated, out

of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to provide emergency supplemental

appropriations for additional disaster assistance, for anti-terrorism initiatives, for assistance in the recovery from the tragedy that occurred at Oklahoma City, and making rescissions for the fiscal year ending September 30,

1995, and for other purposes, namely: