EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS

∑ This ‘‘bullet’’ symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor.

Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor.

June 8, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — Extensions of Remarks E 1175

TRIBUTE TO WATERFORD TOWNSHIP AT THE TIME OF ITS TRICENTENNIAL

HON. JIM SAXTON OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege

to recognize Waterford Township and its citizens during this celebration of its 300th birthday. This yearlong celebration, with its kickoff

parade and pageant, circus, tree lighting ceremony, ecumenical service, anniversary

‘‘Sweetheart Reception’’ for the 65 couples in

the township who have been married 50 years

or longer, and now, the Finale Fair, pays tribute to the contributions of the 11,000 residents

of this 37-square-mile community, located in

the Third Congressional District of New Jersey.

Lands encompassed by the original Township of Waterford later became Atlantic County

in 1837 and Camden County in 1844. Additional lands were used to form what is now

known as Cherry Hill. Land given from Waterford Township provided for the creation of

Chesilhurst Borough and Voorhees Township,

and the enlargement of the county of Burlington.

Originally viewed by the early settlers of

Philadelphia as a place of fresh air in the

pines, it was the location of many summer

homes for city folk. Today, it is the only community in Camden County to lie totally under

the protection of the Pinelands Preservation

Act. The Wharton State Forest, its open

spaces, streams, and wildlife are an integral

part of the charm and beauty of this community.

However, it is the people of Waterford

Township who have made this community

grow and prosper. The support of the township’s civic organizations such as the Rotary,

Fire Company, schools, churches, and the TriCentennial Committee, demonstrates the commitment of its residents to the betterment of

their community.

It will be the people of Waterford Township

who will protect and ensure its continued prosperity as it begins its fourth century. Their

sharing and showing the spirit of pride in their

heritage and their community today sets them

apart and holds them together. To them, I pay

tribute.

COMMENDING STUDENTS FROM

WAIAKEA HIGH SCHOOL

f

HON. PATSY T. MINK OF HAWAII

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, today I

want to recognize the stellar performance of

Waiakea High School students from Hilo, HI in

the We the People—The Citizen and the Constitution national competition. The outstanding

performance of these students against 49

other schools from across the Nation demonstrated a thorough grasp of the fundamental

principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

I commend the Waiakea High School students and their teacher, Patrick Marquart for

their commitment and dedication to learning

about the freedoms and responsibilities which

the Constitution and Bill of Rights bestows on

us all. The district coordinator, Helen

Kobayashi, and the State coordinator, Sharon

Kaohi also contributed a significant amount of

time and effort to help the team reach the national finals.

The We the People program, supported and

funded by Congress, is the most extensive

educational program in the country developed

specifically to educate young people about the

Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 3-day

national competition simulates a congressional

hearing in which students’ oral presentations

are judged on the basis of their knowledge of

constitutional principles and their ability to

apply them to historical and contemporary issues.

This program provides an excellent opportunity for students to gain an informed perspective of the significance of the U.S. Constitution and its place in our history and our

lives. I am proud of Waiakea High School’s

achievement in reaching the national finals,

and of their outstanding performance in the

national competition.

My congratulations to: Elijah Clark, Brienne

Colton, Deborah Dacallo, Lannis Enriques,

Jeffrey Fuke, Chatney Gram, Rhiannon

Kauwa, Ian Kawamoto, Joy Kobayashi,

Janelle Kuroda, Christine Miyasaki, Jill

Nagashima, Celina Nelson, Shane Okimoto,

Brandon Tenn, Malia Uyehara, and Kristy

Yamamoto.

THOUGHTFUL WORDS ON

fWETLANDS

HON. BUD SHUSTER OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, June 7, 1995

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the absolute

chaos unleashed by the current section 404

wetlands program in the 1972 Clean Water

Act is excellently documented in the following

editorial, which appeared in the Lewistown

Sentinel, a newspaper in my Ninth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Indeed, the

word ‘‘wetlands’’ is not even mentioned in the

main provisions of the original 1972 act. Instead, abuses and distortions that exist currently in the wetlands regulatory program stem

from just 10 words in original 1972 legislation:

‘‘The discharge of dredged or fill material into

navigable waters.’’

It is from this simple phrase that bureaucrats and judges have created what is so eloquently written described in the editorial’s concluding paragraph. This editorial provides a

good overview of the issue and I commend it

to my colleagues and all people interested in

the wetlands debate.

[From the Lewistown Sentinel, May 31, 1995]

CLEAN WATER BILL IS SOLID LEGISLATION

Two years ago last week, conservationist

Bill Ellen was released from the federal prison at Petersburg, Va., after serving a sixmonth sentence for allegedly violating wetland regulations.

Ellen ran afoul of the Environmental Protection Agency in the course of building a

wildlife preserve, where he was the project

supervisor.

A couple of loads of clean fill were placed

on land so dry that his crews were spraying

water on the ground to reduce dust for safety

reasons. But overly broad regulations—upon

which even assorted federal and state agencies did not agree at the time—called the

spot wet, at least by the EPA’s lights.

If revisions to the Clean Water Act adopted

by the House of Representatives this week

become law, there won’t be any more Bill

Ellen cases. The legislation requires the

Army Corps of Engineers—the primary wetlands agency—and the Department of Agriculture to write new regulations, this time

with real definitions that would put wetlands into three categories according to

their ecological importance. Land in the

least significant category could be used for

other purposes, whereas land in the most significant category would be tightly restricted. Property owners might be entitled

to just compensation in such instances.

Rep. Bud Shuster is a sponsor of the bill,

which passed the House in a 240–185 bipartisan vote. Shuster, whose district includes

Mifflin and Juniata counties, is chairman of

the House Committee on Transportation and

Infrastructure.

Central Pennsylvania’s congressman has

spent a good bit of time lately defending the

bill against broadsides from the Clinton administration. The White House is threatening a veto. In a public relations campaign

against the bill, they’re calling it ‘‘The Polluters’ Protection Act,’’ which is utter nonsense.

Among other points, Shuster has correctly

pointed out that the bill contains many

points that align with Clinton’s own blueprint for federal reform. He also noted that

the bill received support from the bipartisan

National Governors’ Association, which Clinton once headed.

‘‘The president read from a script handed

him by the environmental extremists,’’ Shuster said. ‘‘This is a common-sense bill written and supported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of House members.’’

Shuster is right on the money. Like him,

we can’t see the logic in Clinton’s attack.

He’s missing the real question at hand,

which is whether environmental regulation

in this country is going to be governed by

rule of law or by arbitrary bureaucrats.

Americans are entitled, through their

elected representatives, to define what is important and what’s not and to set down some

clear definitions.