Summary:
All articles in House section
PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed rollcall No. 311, adoption of the Rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act amendments of 1995. Had I been present...
(House of Representatives - May 10, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages H4690-H4788]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed
rollcall No. 311, adoption of the Rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Act amendments of 1995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). Pursuant to House Resolution
140 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 961.
{time} 1316
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with Mr.
McGinnis in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will be
recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]
will be recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] for purposes of debate only, and I
ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana control the
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], and I ask unanimous consent that
he may control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1995.
This debate, Mr. Chairman, is essentially between two groups, between
the professional environmentalists, the Washington-knows-best crowd,
the EPA, the career bureaucrats, and the K-Street lobbyists on the one
hand and the rest of America on the other hand.
It is extremely important to note, Mr. Chairman, that we bring this
bill to the floor with strong bipartisan support. This bill passed the
subcommittee by an overwhelming 19-to-5 vote with both a majority of
Republicans and Democrats voting in favor of it. This bill passed the
full committee by an overwhelming vote of 42 to 16, an overwhelming
majority of Republicans voting for it and a full half of all the
Democrats voting for it.
This bill, contrary to some of the fiction that is being spread
about, keeps the goals of the successful clean water program while it
fixes the problems that we have uncovered. And indeed, our process has
been a very open process all along the way.
We have heard some crocodile tears here today about how quickly this
bill has moved. The truth of the matter is, this essentially is the
bipartisan bill that we tried to pass last year. Indeed, it is very
significant to note that, while we have proceeded with an open process
in committee and on the floor here today, an open rule today, last year
this legislation was bottled up by the Democratic majority to the point
that we were never even permitted to get a vote on this legislation.
So now we hear complaints about the process not being open enough
when, in fact, it was worse than a closed process. It was a slammed-
door process last year, and now I am very pleased that we do, indeed,
have an open process and, in fact, the bill as reported out of
committee was on the Internet 24 hours after it passed committee and
has been available for the past several weeks.
Well, what does this bill do? It gives more flexibility to the State
and local water quality officials. It is a fundamental shift from
current Federal, top-down approach. Those who oppose the approach in
this bill are saying that they do not trust the Governors and the State
regulators. It
provides a more reasonable risk-based regulation, consistent with
recent House-passed legislation.
This bill requires EPA to subject its mandates and its regulations to
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. In a major victory for
common sense, this bill gives State and local government the
flexibility to manage and control stormwater like other forms of
runoff. And this bill provides market-based approaches allowing for
trading in certain circumstances to provide the most cost-effective
pollution reduction.
And this bill addresses unfunded mandates by providing regulatory
flexibility. The bill reduces the cost of unfunded mandates,
particularly in the area of stormwater management, where billions, yes,
not millions, billions of dollars can be saved as a result of the
approach in this bill.
Cities estimated--get this--cities estimated that the unfunded
Federal mandates in the Clean Water Act cost the cities $3.6 billion in
1993. Grand Rapids, MI, a city of 250,000 people, had to spend $400,000
preparing its stormwater permit. The average cost to larger cities for
stormwater permits exceeds $600,000. Tulsa, OK, had to spend $1.1
million just on their permit application, without solving the problem
at all.
This bill also reforms the wetlands program. It provides for
comprehensive reforms to the beleaguered wetlands permitting program.
No longer will we have a situation, as in Morristown, NJ, where an
airplane, the airport there, the pilot was unable to see the runway.
And they were told they could not cut down a tree that was blocking the
view because it was in a wetland. Or in Muncie, IN, an 80-year-old
farmer, who had farmed his land all his life and his father and
grandfather before him, inadvertently broke a water pipe and it flooded
the field. They went in and told him he was no longer allowed to farm
his farm because it was a wetland.
And there are hundreds and thousands of horror stories of the
excessive
[[Page H4691]] regulation of wetlands, and this bill attempts to cure
that. In fact, we have heard today about the National Academy of
Sciences coming out with, finally, its wetlands approach and saying,
alleging, that our approach is not scientific. Well, there is
absolutely no scientific approach in the original clean water bill,
because the original clean water bill does not even mention wetlands.
In fact, it is very interesting and sad to see the National Academy
of Sciences politicized because their report was due 19 months ago.
Then we were told, our staff was informed just last week that it would
be, even though it was 19 months late, it would be impossible to have
it before the 18th of May. And surprise, surprise, we scheduled this
legislation for floor debate today, and it appears magically yesterday.
Well, of course, the American people should know that the study was
funded by the EPA bureaucrats downtown. So, sadly, the National Academy
of Sciences has been politicized for this debate. We regret that.
Beyond the wetlands issue, our bill provides renewed investment in
our Nation's clean water infrastructure. We provide over $3 billion a
year authorized for this program. Antienvironmental? We provide more
money for the program than has previously been provided. Indeed, in
spite of all the money we provide, clean water costs in 1996, estimated
by EPA, are $23 billion for our country. Yet the total Federal
environmental grants to State and local governments will total a little
over $3 billion. In fact, EPA estimates that the States face long-term
clean water capital needs of over $137 billion over the next 20 years.
Well, what is it that this bill does not do? There has been a
concerted effort to mischaracterize the provisions of this bill. This
bill does not, as has been alleged in the left-wing press, abolish a
requirement that industry treat contaminated water for toxic chemicals
and heavy metals for discharging it into urban reservoirs.
The bill allows for the removal of redundant pretreatment
requirements before Industry sends their wastewater to municipal
treatment plants. Those plants must still enforce local pretreatment
standards that prevent pollutants from interfering with or passing
through the treatment works.
This bill does not wipe out the coastal nonpoint program, and, as
some claim, make nonpoint programs weaker everywhere. The bill
authorizes more funding for nonpoint programs. It retains environmental
safeguards such as achieving water quality standards while providing
more flexibility in getting there.
Yes, it repeals the controversial coastal zone provision, but--and
get this--it includes the successful components into the national
nonpoint program. It eliminates two separate nonpoint programs, but it
combines them into one in a victory for both State flexibility and
regulatory reform.
Nothing has been sadder than to see our process mischaracterized. The
New York Times, in what could only be described as yellow journalism,
wrote that this bill was written by Republicans behind closed doors
with industry.
{time} 1330
What is the truth? What is the easily verifiable set of facts? The
original introduction of this bill had 16 cosponsors, 8 Republicans, 8
Democrats. Written by Republicans? Behind closed doors? The National
Governors Association sent us a letter commending us for including them
more than they had ever been included in the past. Behind closed doors?
With industry?
Let me share with Members just some of the groups that strongly
support our legislation, and were key participants. Just today, today,
May 9, we received this letter from the National Governors Association
which said, and I quote: ``we urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.''
Let me say it again: ``We urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.''
They go on to say:
Once again, we wish to express our strong appreciation for
the unprecedented opportunities for State input in the
development of an effective Clean Water Act reauthorization
bill.
Written behind closed doors? I thank the governors of America,
Republican and Democrat, for saying they support our bill, and for
thanking us for including them in the process.
It does not end there. We have a letter, again dated today, from the
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which says:
Of particular concern to the Nation's local elected
officials is the future of the stormwater management program.
The National Association of Counties, the National League of
Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors--who together
represent all the Nation's local elected officials--strongly
oppose any efforts to amend the stormwater program approved
by the Committee.
They go on to say:
Charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection
and that it guts the Clean Water Act are totally unfounded,
this from all the local officials across America.
However, it does not end there. Again we have another letter today
from the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators, the people on the firing line, the people who have to
implement our laws, who write:
With its new comprehensive approaches to nonpoint source,
watershed and stormwater management, H.R. 961 sets forth a
framework that better protects this Nation's waterways.
It goes on to say:
It maintains a firm commitment to the Clean Water Act's
goals, with more flexibility at the State and local levels to
determine how they are best achieved.
It does not stop there. We have in front of us a letter dated today
from the Water Environment Federation, 42,000 water quality specialists
across America and around the world, which says:
We therefore want to again urge you to support the Clean
Water Act Amendments of 1995 (H.R. 961) on the House floor.
Therefore, what about these spurious allegations that the bill was
written behind closed doors, by Republicans, with industry? They are
demonstrably factually false. Why is the national media writing that?
The national media is in the hip pocket of the environmental
bureaucrats here in this town, and they have not given us a fair shake.
The American people should understand that. There is no sense in our
ducking that reality. It needs to be said, and it needs to be said
very, very clearly.
Beyond the support I have just outlined, agriculture across America
strongly supports our bill. The NFIB has said that not only is final
passage of this legislation a key NFIB vote this year, but they have
informed us in writing that a vote against the Boehlert substitute will
also be a key NFIB vote this year, so we have not only the National
Governors, the NFIB, the League of Cities, the Association of Counties,
the Conference of Mayors, the Association of State Water Pollution
Control Administrators, the State Metropolitan Sewage Association, the
Water Environment Federation, and on and on, a broad-based support to
this bill.
What kind of attacks have we been subjected to? I must confess that
originally I was a little perturbed when some environmental extremists
attempted to disrupt our markup by throwing at us bottles of dirty
water marked ``Shuster spring water.'' That did not pleasure me. Then
when they started passing out posters ``Wanted, Bud Shuster, for
polluting our Nation's Waters.''
However, upon reflection, I was delighted that they did this. I was
delighted that they did it, because it gives the American people an
opportunity to see the kind of hysterical, irrational opposition we
have to our legislation, so I thank those radical environmentalists for
giving us this opportunity to point out the lack of substance to their
arguments,
and the fact that they must resort to these kinds of personal attacks.
Indeed, if the election last November was about anything, it was
about our reforming government control, top-down government
regulations, and clean water is one of the areas crying out for reform.
Let me conclude by quoting something that Supreme Court Justice
Breyer, a Democrat, wrote in a recent book. He talked about the
environmental regulations, and he called environmental regulations an
example of the classic administrative disease of tunnel vision. He
wrote:
[[Page H4692]] Tunnel vision arises when an agency so
organizes its tasks that each employee's individual
conscientious performance effectively carries single-minded
pursuit of a single goal too far, to the point when it brings
about more harm than good. The regulating agency * * *
promulgates standards so stringent that the regulatory action
ultimately imposes high costs without achieving significant
additional safety benefits. Removing that last little bit [of
pollution] can involve limited technological choice, high
cost, * * * large legal fees, and endless arguments.
That is what this bill is about today, to fix these problems. I would
urge my colleagues to support the bill we bring to the floor today, the
bill which has strong bipartisan support, overwhelming Republican
support in the committee, and a full half of the Democrats in the
committee voting for passage of this bill. It deserves to be passed.
Let me also commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has been quoted
numerous times as saying if legislation does not get authorized, there
are not going to be any appropriations.
I would say to my friends, and particularly some in the other body,
who I am told think that perhaps the way to stymie these reform efforts
is to simply block this so there no authorization, ``If you care about
the environment, I urge you to be in support of having an authorizing
bill, because if there is no authorizing bill, according to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, there are
not going to be any appropriations for clean water,'' so I think all of
us had better get together and support good legislation so we can
continue to clean up our Nation's waters.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, Americans know that there is very little as
important in their daily lives as clean water. Their health depends on
it, the quality of life in their community depends on it, and the
prospects for economic growth depend on it. That is why Americans hold
in such high regard the efforts we have made over the past two decades
to clean up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and coastal areas.
Americans know they cannot clean up the water in their own community
by themselves, because the pollution in their water comes from others
upstream, maybe even in another State. It may come from a factory, it
may come from a sewage treatment works, it may come from a feed lot--
but what somebody else in another jurisdiction puts in the river
becomes one of the most important issues in their lives. They drink it,
their kids swim in it, they rely on a supply of clean water to attract
new jobs to their area.
That is why we have a Federal Clean Water Act. And that is why we
should not weaken the Clean Water Act now on the books.
There are many complex provisions in the Clean Water Act. But what
matters most to the majority of Americans is that somebody is limiting
the amount of pollution being dumped into the river upstream from them
by factories and by sewage treatment works. That is what the American
people want. That's what they have in the existing Clean Water Act. And
that is exactly what this bill would take away from them.
This is a bill by and for major polluters.
There are differences of opinion about how to fix problems in the
stormwater program. There are differences of opinion about how to fix
the wetlands program. There are differences of opinion about whether or
not we should do more to deal with pollution which runs off farms.
But when you get to the core of the Clean Water program, and you ask
the question whether factories and sewage treatment works should be
able to do less treatment than they are doing today before they
discharge into the river, very few Americans would say that is what
they want. Some want factories and sewage treatment works to do more,
but very few think they should do less.
Yet that is exactly what this bill would so. Over a hundred pages of
this bill are rollbacks, waivers, and loopholes for factories and
sewage treatment works to dump more pollution upstream than they are
allowed to today. Americans did not march in here and ask for that.
Americans do not want that.
How did all these rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers for big industry
and big sewage treatment works get into this bill? Almost none of them
were in the introduced bill. Almost none of them were in the bill we
held hearings on. Almost all of them first appeared after hearings were
over and right before we went into markup, at which point the bill
roughly doubled in size.
What do these hundred-plus pages do? Too much to itemize here, but
the administration's veto statement provides a brief summary. It says,
H.R. 961 would undermine the strong standards which have
produced significant water quality improvements in the last
twenty years. H.R. 961 would allow polluters to circumvent
national industrial performance standards * * * [and] would
also undercut the existing Clean Water Act commitment to
fishable and swimmable waters by allowing new ways to avoid
or waive water quality standards. These provisions could
create incentives for polluters to pressure states into
offering environmental concessions. * * * Lower standards in
an upstream state would mean higher costs to achieve clean
water in downstream states.
These rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers sometimes repeal a
requirement outright; they are sometimes written as though they are a
waiver at the discretion of the regulating agency, but under the bill
the agency in fact would have no discretion; and they are sometimes
written as though it really is up to the regulating agency, but if the
agency says no, the polluter will have new grounds to sue and to tie
the issue up in courts for years, while the pollution continues. This
is, in fact, one of the worst features of this bill, because it will
make the Clean Water program more like the Superfund program, all
litigation and no cleanup.
This bill has many other features which are contrary to the public
interest.
It attempts to fix the wetlands program, but in so doing eliminates
60 to 80 percent of all wetlands from the program, including parts of
the Everglades; it directly contradicts the National Academy of
Sciences study just released; and it puts huge new cost burdens on
taxpayers.
It attempts to fix the stormwater program as it effects cities, but
then uses that as an excuse to virtually eliminate the stormwater
program as it effects industrial sites.
It adds billions to the deficit just in the next 3 years, and much
more beyond that, according to OMB.
It adopts a version of risk assessment which was rejected on the
floor of the House after the advocates of risk assessment argued it
would be unworkable.
And it would result in increased costs to many municipal ratepayers
who will have to try to pay for more pollution cleanup because others
are doing less.
But the worst thing it does is to allow factories and sewage
treatment works, upstream from somebody else's town, somebody else's
property, somebody else's drinking water intake, to pollute more than
they do today. That is wrong, and we should not allow that to happen.
In some cases industries would be turning off treatment facilities they
have already built and are successfully operating. Whatever you think
about wetlands or stormwater or feedlots, there is no excuse at the end
of the day for voting yes on a bill that allows factories and sewage
treatment works to do less than they are already doing.
I and other Members will offer amendments to strike these industrial
and sewage rollbacks. But if we are not successful, then I would urge
you to vote no on the bill itself. Make no mistake about it, this
Nation would be better off, and our people would enjoy cleaner water,
if we passed no bill, than if we passed this bill.
If we defeat this bill we can go back and do what we should have done
all along--produce a moderate bill which fixes the wetlands program
without throwing out most wetlands protection and raiding the Treasury;
which fixes the municipal stormwater situation; which provides the
basic authorization; and which, unlike this bill, can be signed into
law.
{time} 1345
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4693]] Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], chairman of the
Blue Dog Coalition.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the committee, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member,
for their graciousness in allowing us their time. We appreciate that
very, very much. It gives us an opportunity to add some constructive
and positive input into H.R. 961. We want to thank them publicly for
that.
Let me also make recognition of the contribution on the committee of
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Laughlin]. They have done a great service to this House and to
people across this country in fighting the good battle of adding
language and having a constructive input in that process, in making
this what we believe to be a better bill.
Let me just remind the Members that are listening that what H.R. 961
does, some of the things that we have been working and fighting on for
a long period of time. It provides comprehensive wetlands reform, which
we have worked on and taken action on already this year, but we need to
do it once again.
It establishes something that we have been fighting for for a long
time in this House, and that is risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
consistent with what we did with H.R. 9. It also helps place greater
emphasis on voluntary incentives to base nonpoint source programs,
which is extremely important to those of us who represent agricultural
areas throughout this country.
Finally, what this bill does that I think is extremely important, it
adds flexibility and responsibility to States and local governments
which they have been asking for for a number of years. We have a great
opportunity today, and that is to make changes in the Clean Water Act,
at the same time protecting the public interest.
I once again want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes]
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], and particularly the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the
committee, for their leadership in this area. I encourage all the
Members who are interested in those issues that I have mentioned, plus
other issues to come down today, listen to the debate, reject those
amendments that do not improve this bill, and pass this bill on final
passage.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me the time and for his efforts on this important reform
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Amendments of 1995, because it provides a progressive and innovative
framework for addressing the environmental water quality issues that
our Nation faces. It is a practical, bipartisan bill that builds upon
the important environmental standards and safeguards encased in the
1972 Clean Water Act, but reassesses the direction of the legislation
to provide flexibility for States and local communities in achievement
of those standards.
Everyone recognizes that the Clean Water Act of 1972 was a seminal
piece of legislation which laid the groundwork for significant
improvement in our Nation's water quality. When it was written over 20
years ago, it focused on the major environmental problem facing our
country at the time, point source pollution. By imposing uniform
nationwide standards and centralizing control of those standards in
Washington, the Clean Water Act of 1972 provided a successful initial
approach to pollution cleanup. It has been an effective tool for
getting us to where we are today.
But times have changed, and it has become apparent that the one-size-
fits-all approach that worked over two decades ago is not wholly and
completely relevant or effective today. Point source pollution has been
reined in significantly. Now it is evident that the problems associated
with non-point source pollution have not been adequately addressed.
In fact, there are many unintended problems that have emerged from
this old legislation, most notably the unacceptable costs and
regulatory burdens that have been placed on States and local
communities which dwarf dwindling environmental gains. My State of
Massachusetts, for example, faces the highest per capita cost in the
country for compliance with the mandates imposed by the current Clean
Water Act.
The one-size-fits-all approach worked well to level the playing field
initially, but it overlooked the fact that our Nation is composed of a
series of diverse regions.
Mr. Chairman, I would end by saying I strongly support this Clean
Water Reform Act. I commend the chairman for his work in this area.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 31/2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking Democrat on the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment who has done so much
work on this.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong opposition to H.R. 961, a
bill that is inaccurately called the Clean Water Act Amendments of
1995.
Let us be clear about this, Mr. Chairman. If this bill becomes law,
our waters will be dirtier, there will be more outbreaks of waterborne
disease and there will be far fewer valuable wetlands.
It cannot be hidden behind talk of flexibility or local option, the
goal of this bill is to make it easier to pollute our Nation's waters.
This bill takes us back to the days before 1972 when many rivers were
open sewers and some even caught on fire.
In 1972, when the Clean Water Act was passed, only one-third of our
Nation's rivers were fit for fishing and swimming. Today, more than 60
percent of our waters meet that test.
This is a record which should make us proud. It is not time for
reversal of the Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 will lead us backward by removing 60 to 80 percent of our
Nation's wetlands from protection, including parts of the Florida
Everglades, the great dismal swamp, and the New Jersey shore.
It will do virtually nothing to reduce pollution from runoff, the No.
1 cause of pollution in our Nation's waters. Polluted run-off into
drinking water caused 400,000 illnesses and 104 deaths in Milwaukee 2
years ago.
This bill will mean more Milwaukees in the future. This bill even
eliminates the one effective program we have to control run-off
pollution in coastal areas--over the objections of the coastal States
organization.
It is not just the coastal States organization that has concerns
about this bill. It is the National conference of State Legislators,
the Association of State Wetland Managers, the National Governors'
Association, inconsistent with their wetlands policy, the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations.
There are just too many concerns that have been raised by too many
groups about this bill.
It is a bill that will gut the core of the Clean Water Act, the basic
national clean water standards that everyone must meet.
This bill will give us anti-environment races all over the country as
local governments compete to attract development by reducing
environmental standards and sending the pollution downstream. This is
simply the wrong direction for the Clean Water Act.
We should be working to fix what needs to be fixed in the Clean Water
Act so we can continue to protect the environment while promoting
economic growth.
I have had my frustrations with parts of the Clean Water Act and the
way some of it has been implemented.
These parts should be fixed.
We should fix the stormwater program to make it rational and
sensible.
We should eliminate the unnecessary administrative requirements of
the State Revolving Loan Fund and get the money out to the States.
[[Page H4694]]
We should fix the coastal zone Non-Point Pollution Program to allow
targeting of impaired or threatened waters.
We should approve the new combined sewer overflow policy to help the
Nation's older urban areas.
We should fix the wetlands permitting process that ties up too many
projects in a snarl of red tape and treats all wetlands alike.
Instead, this bill gives us waivers, exemptions, repeals and
limitations that will mean less environment protection for all
Americans.
The American people do not want us to allow more water pollution.
They want us to protect them from corporate polluters.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 961 and let us write a bill
that gives the American people clean water and environmental protection
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Shuster
and members of our committee who have worked tirelessly in producing
what I think is a common sense balance between Federal and local
control over clean water programs.
This bipartisan bill recognizes the critical need for flexibility at
the State and local level. While, at the same time, the bill retains
all existing EPA water quality standards and requirements.
Most importantly, this bill represents a renewed investment in our
Nation's clean water infrastructure by authorizing $15 billion for the
State revolving loan fund, among other programs.
This bill gives States and local officials the flexibility to manage
and control stormwater like other forms of runoff. By providing this
regulatory flexibility, the bill reduces the cost of unfunded mandates
to our States.
The bill also provides needed comprehensive reforms to the Wetlands
Permitting Program, while protecting true wetlands for all of us to
enjoy.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a commonsense approach to reauthorizing
the Clean Water Act, and would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
granting me time, because I rise with some hesitation to speak against
the bill as it came from the committee.
On the one hand, I appreciate what the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
the chairman of the committee, has done, because clearly we need more
commonsense application of the laws governing the environment and the
regulations that are formulated.
At the same time, coming from the State of Michigan, which has more
coastline than any of the 48 contiguous States and which has numerous
wetlands, I must rise to speak against the wetlands provisions of the
bill. They are unworkable. It would do great damage to wetlands in many
States, and particularly in the State of Michigan, if those standards
were applied in our State.
In particular, the hunters and fishers of our State, and of many
States around the Midwest who come to Michigan to pursue their sport,
will be deeply disappointed in the wetlands provisions because they are
going to have a very deleterious effect upon the population of
waterfowl, the population of fish, and, of course, there will be
environmental damage as well due to the loss of the filtration
properties of the wetlands that we have in our beautiful State.
Therefore, although I support the attempt to have a more commonsense
approach to environmental regulation, and I will continue to support
that, through risk assessment, and so forth, I do oppose the new
provisions regarding wetlands and certain other portions of the bill
and support the Saxton-Boehlert substitute.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a former colleague on our committee who has now
gone on to the Committee on Commerce, but who has exhibited a great
deal of interest in the work of our committee.
{time} 1400
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take my 2 minutes if I
could to talk about the economic impact of this bill. It is interesting
because I think that many of the proponents have been making the
argument, looking at the so-called cost-benefit or the risk assessment
provisions and suggesting that somehow we need to revise the Clean
Water Act during this reauthorization to look at cost-benefit and risk
and other things which I might characterize as monetizing the Clean
Water Act, something that was mentioned in the New York Times.
From my perspective though and I think from that from many of the
coastal states and other parts of the country, by severely weakening
the Clean Water Act as this bill does it is jeopardizing many of our
most important industries, most notably the tourism industry.
In my part of New Jersey, in fact New Jersey as a whole, tourism is
the No. 1 industry and we know that estimates are something like $400
billion a year in this country nationwide comes from the travel and
tourism industry.
We also have to note that clean water is very important to the
fishing industry, a $55 billion a year industry in this great Nation
and also concerns about drinking water. Everyone relies on drinking
water, municipal drinking water or other drinking water supplies.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that by severely
weakening the Clean Water Act we are in effect putting on our country
and on our citizens and on our taxpayers a great deal of expense
because if they lose the money that comes from travel and tourism, if
we lose the money that comes from the fishing industry, if we are
required to spend billions of dollars in the future to provide for
better drinking water or cleaner water than ultimately the taxpayers
and the country and the economic output of the country suffers. And I
think that those who are urging that somehow weakening this act
benefits the taxpayer because the taxpayer is in some way going to save
some money is simply a false argument.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 961, the bipartisan clean
water reauthorization. I would like to say at the outset no one
disputes the importance of clean water to our citizens. Nor does anyone
that I know of dispute that the Clean Water Act has generally been a
successful vehicle for improving the quality of our water.
Having said that, I think that it is equally clear that some of the
provisions of the act need reform. In my view the area of current law
that is in most need of an overhaul is section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Over the years in our part of the country this section has been
increasingly abused by Federal regulation and regulators. This abuse
has made the wetlands permitting process a nightmare for private land
owners and has led in some cases to literally an assault on the rights
of many Americans.
This bill which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] have helped to author takes, I
think, constructive steps to correct some of these problems. The new
wetlands classification process will permit the protection of our
valuable wetlands while pragmatically allowing development of property
that is of no importance to our environmental concerns.
Additionally the bill includes language from H.R. 925 that was
overwhelmingly passed earlier this year in the House, and it would
simply require compensation for landowners whose property value is
diminished through government regulatory action.
I think most everyone agrees that as protectors and defenders of our
Constitution no one can countenance the taking of private property
without just compensation.
I have been contacted by many people in our district in middle and
west Tennessee in what is a rural district
[[Page H4695]] over the years. Many of these farmers have been crying
for relief from the burden of this out-of-control wetland permitting
process. And I think this bill today is a most important step in this
process.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Tate].
Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
First of all I would like to commend the chairman for his fine work
on this particular piece of legislation. This truly is a clean water
bill. And it advances our congressional commitment to protecting our
environment. It is common sense, it is cost effective. Things are now
going to be based on sound science and not on fad, not on emotion and
not on the whims of the day.
And it upholds property rights, protects fairness, and provides
incentives for people to comply, not a big club, but encourages people
to do what they believe is right and that is protecting our clean
waters.
It also streamlines the bureaucracy, and we need the bureaucrats back
here in Washington, DC, not to be making every decision for cities that
they cannot even pronounce in my district.
Most importantly, this bill protects the Puget Sound which is the
pristine waters that border my district. It is a bipartisan bill, has
strong bipartisan support and it upholds the true values that we are
concerned about and that is clean water, not just more redtape, and I
urge the support of Members of this body to support truly a clean water
bill.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong
opposition to H.R. 961. The Clean Water Act was written in 1972. In my
State of Rhode Island, we have made a great deal of progress since
then, thanks to the act.
In 1970 the Blackstone River, north of Woonsocket was a dead river.
Today at least 16 different fish species swim in the Blackstone,
including game fish such as large-mouth bass and brown trout.
In 1970 the Rhode Island Department of Health discovered metals in
the fish of Narragansett Bay. Quahogs contained mercury, lead, and
chromium. Today these are down 90 percent and are well within the safe
zone because of private industry cutting back on discharges due to more
stringent permits.
In 1970 because Jamestown had no sewer treatment plant, 200,000
gallons of raw sewage was dumped into Narragansett Bay everyday.
Shellfishing and swimming areas were closed. Today the town has a
secondary sewage treatment plant and most of the Island is open to
shellfishing and swimming.
The Clean Water Act not only provides Rhode Island with the tools
necessary to restore our coastal waterways, but also fosters economic
development by preventing future shellfish bed closures through a full
implementation of its coastal nonpoint source management program.
Anyone who has ever farmed Mount Hope Bay or the Kikamuit River knows
that because of stormwater runoff from parking lots and failing septic
systems the wildlife in the water becomes polluted and inedible. Simply
changing the definition of swimmable and fishable does not change the
fact that the fish will be inedible. Hence, it does not mean the fish
can be sold. The economy and the environment are not competing
interests.
In my State, relaxing standards will do more economic harm than good.
Look at the facts. In Rhode Island commercial fishing industry is a
$100 million industry, up 700 percent since the Clean Water Act was
first implemented in 1972. Oppose H.R. 961. It is bad for the
environment and bad for our economy.
Many of you may not know that Rhode Island is the Ocean State.
Because of the vast array of beaches, rivers, and boating marinas, the
travel and tourism industry generates almost $1.5 billion a year for my
State. The vast majority of this occurs in and around Narragansett Bay.
Salt water swimming is enjoyed by 67 percent of the Rhode Island
population and $70 million is spent in sport fishing every year. I
seriously doubt that Rhode Island would be such an attractive place for
almost 2 million people to visit every year if our waters were polluted
with metals that are especially harmful to our children and the
elderly.
I ask you, who would want to smell the raw sewage blowing off the bay
or pull a dying fish from the water. In short, if we gut the Clean
Water Act today we will not only be jeopardizing our health, but the
economies of our Nation's coastal States.
It was the Clean Water Act regulations that allowed Rhode Island to
reduce pollution in the Mount Hope Bay, adding 800,000 lbs. of
additional quahogs to each years harvest.
It was the Clean Water Act that saved Narragansett Bay so that many
of New England's most important fish, like winter flounder, striped
bass, and fluke could safely repopulate themselves.
And it was the Clean Water Act that helped publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants in Narragansett Bay achieve a 57-percent reduction in
the amount of pollutants they discharge.
I ask all my colleagues to look not at the short-run interests, but
the long-term concerns and quality of life of our citizens. We must act
wisely to avoid the same recklessness that forced us to legislate the
Clean Water Act in the first place.
Unfortunately, environmentalists are typically characterized as
eccentrics, with nothing better to do than complain about obscure
pollutants or rare animals. I abhor that characterization. In my State,
environmentalists come in many forms. They are the hard-working
lobstermen and quahogers who farm Narragansett Bay. They are the
sportsmen who canoe down the Runnins River or fish for striped bass in
the Atlantic. Most importantly they are our children who swim in our
rivers and play in our parks.
I am proud to call myself an environmentalist. A person who sees the
future not just on a balance sheet but by the air we breathe, the water
we swim in, and the diverse variety of life we share our community
with. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, our 26th President and renowned
conservationist:
To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and
exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its
usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our
children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand
down to them amplified and developed.
Oppose H.R. 961 and support economic environmentalism rather than
economic expediency.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman I yield 21/2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
(Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. In
particular, I rise in support of the balance this bill bring to our
public policy on nonpoint source pollution control as well as wetlands
definition and enforcement.
Representing a large rural district in central and southern Illinois
there is not a single day that goes by that I do not deal with these
problems.
The real question facing the rural areas of America is how we can
best manage to come into compliance with the standards of clean water
in this country, and in this bill, in the most cost-effective and
efficient way possible. We do not have unlimited resources in this
country.
The farmers of this country have been good conservationists; they
have to be to sustain a family income on which they can live. They have
proven through the conservation reserve program and other solid
environmental protection measures that they can produce excellent
watershed management on a voluntary basis without additional government
mandates. And those good voluntary watershed management practices have
made positive contributions to the clean water in this country, not
negative.
With respect to wetlands, not every acre that is on the books today
are true wetlands, and even the true wetlands are not all of the same
value. And in any case, there is absolutely no need for three separate
Federal agencies to have jurisdiction over this issue. This bill brings
a commonsense solution to these problems.
To suggest, as someone has already done today, that Americans should
be afraid of turning on their tap water as a result of this bill, that
we are all going to be drinking bottled water, is the kind of talk I
just cannot believe. That kind of talk only fuels the paranoia against
government that is running rampant in this country today.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
[[Page H4696]] (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend Chairman
Shuster for his leadership in bringing H.R. 961 to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 961, and in particular
title I of H.R. 961, which reauthorizes environmental programs that are
critical to the waters of the Great Lakes region. More than $12 billion
in Federal investment has brought the Great Lakes back from the brink
of death and is credited for making the Great Lakes great again. A $4.5
billion annual Great Lakes sport fishing economy is a further testament
that our country will continue to reap important economic benefits by
passing H.R. 961 by providing $3 billion in programs such as wastewater
treatment facilities. This will serve to build on the success of the
Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 also seeks to address the contaminated sediments problem
that clogs the Great Lakes system.
H.R. 961 also contains provisions to better coordinate research
activities among Federal agencies engaged in research on the Great
Lakes.
H.R. 961 is also supportive of making sure the fish in the Great
Lakes are safe to eat.
I urge passage of H.R. 961.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in
opposition to the Boehlert amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for H.R. 961, the Clean
Water Amendments of 1995.
This bill makes significant commonsense reforms to our Nation's clean
water program. It maintains the goals of the Clean Water Act while
providing more flexibility to our States and local authorities who know
their States and their waters and know best how to reach those goals.
Let me point out that this flexibility is given to the States and also
to EPA to utilize if they see fit--industry has not been given sweeping
unilateral waivers from critical requirements of the act as has been
charged.
This bill strengthens the current nonpoint source program and
replaces the current broken stormwater program with one that will be
more effective and gives States a range of tools--from voluntary
measures to site-specific permits--to deal with stormwater runoff.
The section on watershed management encourages States to pursue
comprehensive point and nonpoint source programs on a watershed basis
to most efficiently meet water quality standards. The bill continues
the Federal-State partnership by authorizing Federal assistance to the
States for the construction of wastewater treatment plants, to address
nonpoint source pollution, to continue cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay
and the Great Lakes, and for a host of other pressing water quality
needs.
H.R. 961 also incorporates many of the principles that the House has
already passed, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to
ensure that our limited financial resources are utilized in such a way
as to get the greatest water quality benefit.
Now, with any bill of this length which addresses such complex
issues, there undoubtedly will be some provisions that may cause some
concern. For example, I may have some concerns regarding some of the
wetlands provisions, but I realize that this bill will continue to be a
work in progress and undoubtedly more revisions will be made before the
bill finally is enacted into law.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we know that Americans want to preserve
and protect our environment, particularly our precious water resources,
and we know that they want commonsense regulation--that was made clear
in last year's elections. I believe we can have both as is accomplished
in this bill, and I urge the House to approve H.R. 961.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller], the very distinguished ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Resources.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today exemplifies the
dangerous liaison between private interests and the majority in the
House when it comes to amending our Nation's laws.
That close partnership is no where more evident than in the proposed
revisions of the Clean Water Act--the law that has cleaned up San
Francisco Bay near my district, and thousands of other rivers, streams,
bays, and other bodies of water throughout America over the past
quarter century.
Are there problems with the Clean Water Act? Of course. I have
concerns about some of the ways in which the law has been implemented,
too, and if we had a real commitment to reform, I have little doubt we
could develop a sound alternative to this bill.
But let us make no mistake: H.R. 961 is not about fixing the
mistakes. It is about devastating one of the great achievements of
environmental policy in this country. And this emasculation of the law
is taking place at the request, and at the direction of, powerful
special interests who have been granted unprecedented access to the
drafting of the legislation.
Strewn throughout H.R. 961, particularly in title III, are special
exemptions, waivers, and exclusions that benefit these special
interests:
An exemption from effluent limitations for coal remining operations
that discharge into waters that already fail to meet water quality
standards;
A provision limiting EPA's ability to upgrade discharge standards for
industrial polluters which benefits the pulp and paper industry and
others;
An exemption from wetlands permit requirements for iron and steel
manufacturers;
An exemption from the silver discharge standard for the
photoprocessing industry;
An exemption for oil and gas pipelines.
Exemption after exemption provided to high polluting industries by
this legislation that masquerades as reform.
This is not reform. It is a clear example of special interest
legislation, written on behalf of powerful interests and at the expense
of our environment and the health and safety of the people of the
United States.
I have introduced legislation that would require that the authors of
any legislation prepared by private entities be disclosed before the
Congress voted to make special interest provisions the law of the land.
Although the majority has not yet accorded me a hearing on my bill, I
am hopeful that the majority will voluntarily disclose who sought and
wrote these special interest provisions before asking our colleagues to
vote them into law.
Regardless who authored these exemptions, they are bad policy and
should be rejected by the House.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 2, 1995.
To: Distribution.
From: Patricia Law.
Re: Clean Water Task Forces.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in a very ambitious
legislative timetable for reporting a Clean Water bill, but
one which we hope you will find constructive and will result
in a product that we can all support.
Attached is the list of participants from yesterday's
meeting indicating each organization's primary area of focus
if it was provided. We will notify you as soon as possible of
the Subcommittee Member assignments and dates for Task Force
meetings. Our hope is to have these meetings at the beginning
of next week. In the meantime, we encourage you to work
together to identify outstanding issues and to formulate your
proposals for addressing them. The following groups have
agreed to take the lead for this front work. If you are not
identified on the attached list as having an interest in a
particular task force, we suggest that you call the lead.
Nonpoint Source and Watershed: Thomas W. Curtis, Director,
Natural Resources Group, National Governors Association, Hall
of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 267,
Washington, D.C. 20001-1512, 202/624-5389, 202/624-5313
(fax).
Point Source: Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager,
Environment Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water
Industry Coalition, 1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20062-2000, 202/463-5627, 202/887-3445 (fax).
Funding and Unfunded Mandates: Robert K. Reeg, Manager,
Congressional & State Relations, National Society of
Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA
22314-2794, 703/684-2873, 703/836-4875 (fax).
Stormwater: Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and
Federal Relations, National League of Cities, 1301
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2004, 202/626-
3028, 202/626-3043 (fax).
Wetlands: Kim Putens, Executive Director, National Wetlands
Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298-1886, 202/338-2361 (fax).
[[Page H4697]] Please feel free to call me with any
questions or assistance that you require from us. Again, we
appreciate your involvement and look forward to working with
you.
clean water task force participants
Joseph M. McGuire, Director, Legislative and Regulatory
Affairs, Allied Signal, 1001 Pennsy
Major Actions:
All articles in House section
PERSONAL EXPLANATION Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed rollcall No. 311, adoption of the Rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act amendments of 1995. Had I been present...
(House of Representatives - May 10, 1995)
Text of this article available as:
[Pages H4690-H4788]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed
rollcall No. 311, adoption of the Rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Act amendments of 1995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). Pursuant to House Resolution
140 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 961.
{time} 1316
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with Mr.
McGinnis in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will be
recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]
will be recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] for purposes of debate only, and I
ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana control the
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], and I ask unanimous consent that
he may control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1995.
This debate, Mr. Chairman, is essentially between two groups, between
the professional environmentalists, the Washington-knows-best crowd,
the EPA, the career bureaucrats, and the K-Street lobbyists on the one
hand and the rest of America on the other hand.
It is extremely important to note, Mr. Chairman, that we bring this
bill to the floor with strong bipartisan support. This bill passed the
subcommittee by an overwhelming 19-to-5 vote with both a majority of
Republicans and Democrats voting in favor of it. This bill passed the
full committee by an overwhelming vote of 42 to 16, an overwhelming
majority of Republicans voting for it and a full half of all the
Democrats voting for it.
This bill, contrary to some of the fiction that is being spread
about, keeps the goals of the successful clean water program while it
fixes the problems that we have uncovered. And indeed, our process has
been a very open process all along the way.
We have heard some crocodile tears here today about how quickly this
bill has moved. The truth of the matter is, this essentially is the
bipartisan bill that we tried to pass last year. Indeed, it is very
significant to note that, while we have proceeded with an open process
in committee and on the floor here today, an open rule today, last year
this legislation was bottled up by the Democratic majority to the point
that we were never even permitted to get a vote on this legislation.
So now we hear complaints about the process not being open enough
when, in fact, it was worse than a closed process. It was a slammed-
door process last year, and now I am very pleased that we do, indeed,
have an open process and, in fact, the bill as reported out of
committee was on the Internet 24 hours after it passed committee and
has been available for the past several weeks.
Well, what does this bill do? It gives more flexibility to the State
and local water quality officials. It is a fundamental shift from
current Federal, top-down approach. Those who oppose the approach in
this bill are saying that they do not trust the Governors and the State
regulators. It
provides a more reasonable risk-based regulation, consistent with
recent House-passed legislation.
This bill requires EPA to subject its mandates and its regulations to
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. In a major victory for
common sense, this bill gives State and local government the
flexibility to manage and control stormwater like other forms of
runoff. And this bill provides market-based approaches allowing for
trading in certain circumstances to provide the most cost-effective
pollution reduction.
And this bill addresses unfunded mandates by providing regulatory
flexibility. The bill reduces the cost of unfunded mandates,
particularly in the area of stormwater management, where billions, yes,
not millions, billions of dollars can be saved as a result of the
approach in this bill.
Cities estimated--get this--cities estimated that the unfunded
Federal mandates in the Clean Water Act cost the cities $3.6 billion in
1993. Grand Rapids, MI, a city of 250,000 people, had to spend $400,000
preparing its stormwater permit. The average cost to larger cities for
stormwater permits exceeds $600,000. Tulsa, OK, had to spend $1.1
million just on their permit application, without solving the problem
at all.
This bill also reforms the wetlands program. It provides for
comprehensive reforms to the beleaguered wetlands permitting program.
No longer will we have a situation, as in Morristown, NJ, where an
airplane, the airport there, the pilot was unable to see the runway.
And they were told they could not cut down a tree that was blocking the
view because it was in a wetland. Or in Muncie, IN, an 80-year-old
farmer, who had farmed his land all his life and his father and
grandfather before him, inadvertently broke a water pipe and it flooded
the field. They went in and told him he was no longer allowed to farm
his farm because it was a wetland.
And there are hundreds and thousands of horror stories of the
excessive
[[Page H4691]] regulation of wetlands, and this bill attempts to cure
that. In fact, we have heard today about the National Academy of
Sciences coming out with, finally, its wetlands approach and saying,
alleging, that our approach is not scientific. Well, there is
absolutely no scientific approach in the original clean water bill,
because the original clean water bill does not even mention wetlands.
In fact, it is very interesting and sad to see the National Academy
of Sciences politicized because their report was due 19 months ago.
Then we were told, our staff was informed just last week that it would
be, even though it was 19 months late, it would be impossible to have
it before the 18th of May. And surprise, surprise, we scheduled this
legislation for floor debate today, and it appears magically yesterday.
Well, of course, the American people should know that the study was
funded by the EPA bureaucrats downtown. So, sadly, the National Academy
of Sciences has been politicized for this debate. We regret that.
Beyond the wetlands issue, our bill provides renewed investment in
our Nation's clean water infrastructure. We provide over $3 billion a
year authorized for this program. Antienvironmental? We provide more
money for the program than has previously been provided. Indeed, in
spite of all the money we provide, clean water costs in 1996, estimated
by EPA, are $23 billion for our country. Yet the total Federal
environmental grants to State and local governments will total a little
over $3 billion. In fact, EPA estimates that the States face long-term
clean water capital needs of over $137 billion over the next 20 years.
Well, what is it that this bill does not do? There has been a
concerted effort to mischaracterize the provisions of this bill. This
bill does not, as has been alleged in the left-wing press, abolish a
requirement that industry treat contaminated water for toxic chemicals
and heavy metals for discharging it into urban reservoirs.
The bill allows for the removal of redundant pretreatment
requirements before Industry sends their wastewater to municipal
treatment plants. Those plants must still enforce local pretreatment
standards that prevent pollutants from interfering with or passing
through the treatment works.
This bill does not wipe out the coastal nonpoint program, and, as
some claim, make nonpoint programs weaker everywhere. The bill
authorizes more funding for nonpoint programs. It retains environmental
safeguards such as achieving water quality standards while providing
more flexibility in getting there.
Yes, it repeals the controversial coastal zone provision, but--and
get this--it includes the successful components into the national
nonpoint program. It eliminates two separate nonpoint programs, but it
combines them into one in a victory for both State flexibility and
regulatory reform.
Nothing has been sadder than to see our process mischaracterized. The
New York Times, in what could only be described as yellow journalism,
wrote that this bill was written by Republicans behind closed doors
with industry.
{time} 1330
What is the truth? What is the easily verifiable set of facts? The
original introduction of this bill had 16 cosponsors, 8 Republicans, 8
Democrats. Written by Republicans? Behind closed doors? The National
Governors Association sent us a letter commending us for including them
more than they had ever been included in the past. Behind closed doors?
With industry?
Let me share with Members just some of the groups that strongly
support our legislation, and were key participants. Just today, today,
May 9, we received this letter from the National Governors Association
which said, and I quote: ``we urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.''
Let me say it again: ``We urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.''
They go on to say:
Once again, we wish to express our strong appreciation for
the unprecedented opportunities for State input in the
development of an effective Clean Water Act reauthorization
bill.
Written behind closed doors? I thank the governors of America,
Republican and Democrat, for saying they support our bill, and for
thanking us for including them in the process.
It does not end there. We have a letter, again dated today, from the
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which says:
Of particular concern to the Nation's local elected
officials is the future of the stormwater management program.
The National Association of Counties, the National League of
Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors--who together
represent all the Nation's local elected officials--strongly
oppose any efforts to amend the stormwater program approved
by the Committee.
They go on to say:
Charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection
and that it guts the Clean Water Act are totally unfounded,
this from all the local officials across America.
However, it does not end there. Again we have another letter today
from the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators, the people on the firing line, the people who have to
implement our laws, who write:
With its new comprehensive approaches to nonpoint source,
watershed and stormwater management, H.R. 961 sets forth a
framework that better protects this Nation's waterways.
It goes on to say:
It maintains a firm commitment to the Clean Water Act's
goals, with more flexibility at the State and local levels to
determine how they are best achieved.
It does not stop there. We have in front of us a letter dated today
from the Water Environment Federation, 42,000 water quality specialists
across America and around the world, which says:
We therefore want to again urge you to support the Clean
Water Act Amendments of 1995 (H.R. 961) on the House floor.
Therefore, what about these spurious allegations that the bill was
written behind closed doors, by Republicans, with industry? They are
demonstrably factually false. Why is the national media writing that?
The national media is in the hip pocket of the environmental
bureaucrats here in this town, and they have not given us a fair shake.
The American people should understand that. There is no sense in our
ducking that reality. It needs to be said, and it needs to be said
very, very clearly.
Beyond the support I have just outlined, agriculture across America
strongly supports our bill. The NFIB has said that not only is final
passage of this legislation a key NFIB vote this year, but they have
informed us in writing that a vote against the Boehlert substitute will
also be a key NFIB vote this year, so we have not only the National
Governors, the NFIB, the League of Cities, the Association of Counties,
the Conference of Mayors, the Association of State Water Pollution
Control Administrators, the State Metropolitan Sewage Association, the
Water Environment Federation, and on and on, a broad-based support to
this bill.
What kind of attacks have we been subjected to? I must confess that
originally I was a little perturbed when some environmental extremists
attempted to disrupt our markup by throwing at us bottles of dirty
water marked ``Shuster spring water.'' That did not pleasure me. Then
when they started passing out posters ``Wanted, Bud Shuster, for
polluting our Nation's Waters.''
However, upon reflection, I was delighted that they did this. I was
delighted that they did it, because it gives the American people an
opportunity to see the kind of hysterical, irrational opposition we
have to our legislation, so I thank those radical environmentalists for
giving us this opportunity to point out the lack of substance to their
arguments,
and the fact that they must resort to these kinds of personal attacks.
Indeed, if the election last November was about anything, it was
about our reforming government control, top-down government
regulations, and clean water is one of the areas crying out for reform.
Let me conclude by quoting something that Supreme Court Justice
Breyer, a Democrat, wrote in a recent book. He talked about the
environmental regulations, and he called environmental regulations an
example of the classic administrative disease of tunnel vision. He
wrote:
[[Page H4692]] Tunnel vision arises when an agency so
organizes its tasks that each employee's individual
conscientious performance effectively carries single-minded
pursuit of a single goal too far, to the point when it brings
about more harm than good. The regulating agency * * *
promulgates standards so stringent that the regulatory action
ultimately imposes high costs without achieving significant
additional safety benefits. Removing that last little bit [of
pollution] can involve limited technological choice, high
cost, * * * large legal fees, and endless arguments.
That is what this bill is about today, to fix these problems. I would
urge my colleagues to support the bill we bring to the floor today, the
bill which has strong bipartisan support, overwhelming Republican
support in the committee, and a full half of the Democrats in the
committee voting for passage of this bill. It deserves to be passed.
Let me also commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has been quoted
numerous times as saying if legislation does not get authorized, there
are not going to be any appropriations.
I would say to my friends, and particularly some in the other body,
who I am told think that perhaps the way to stymie these reform efforts
is to simply block this so there no authorization, ``If you care about
the environment, I urge you to be in support of having an authorizing
bill, because if there is no authorizing bill, according to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, there are
not going to be any appropriations for clean water,'' so I think all of
us had better get together and support good legislation so we can
continue to clean up our Nation's waters.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, Americans know that there is very little as
important in their daily lives as clean water. Their health depends on
it, the quality of life in their community depends on it, and the
prospects for economic growth depend on it. That is why Americans hold
in such high regard the efforts we have made over the past two decades
to clean up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and coastal areas.
Americans know they cannot clean up the water in their own community
by themselves, because the pollution in their water comes from others
upstream, maybe even in another State. It may come from a factory, it
may come from a sewage treatment works, it may come from a feed lot--
but what somebody else in another jurisdiction puts in the river
becomes one of the most important issues in their lives. They drink it,
their kids swim in it, they rely on a supply of clean water to attract
new jobs to their area.
That is why we have a Federal Clean Water Act. And that is why we
should not weaken the Clean Water Act now on the books.
There are many complex provisions in the Clean Water Act. But what
matters most to the majority of Americans is that somebody is limiting
the amount of pollution being dumped into the river upstream from them
by factories and by sewage treatment works. That is what the American
people want. That's what they have in the existing Clean Water Act. And
that is exactly what this bill would take away from them.
This is a bill by and for major polluters.
There are differences of opinion about how to fix problems in the
stormwater program. There are differences of opinion about how to fix
the wetlands program. There are differences of opinion about whether or
not we should do more to deal with pollution which runs off farms.
But when you get to the core of the Clean Water program, and you ask
the question whether factories and sewage treatment works should be
able to do less treatment than they are doing today before they
discharge into the river, very few Americans would say that is what
they want. Some want factories and sewage treatment works to do more,
but very few think they should do less.
Yet that is exactly what this bill would so. Over a hundred pages of
this bill are rollbacks, waivers, and loopholes for factories and
sewage treatment works to dump more pollution upstream than they are
allowed to today. Americans did not march in here and ask for that.
Americans do not want that.
How did all these rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers for big industry
and big sewage treatment works get into this bill? Almost none of them
were in the introduced bill. Almost none of them were in the bill we
held hearings on. Almost all of them first appeared after hearings were
over and right before we went into markup, at which point the bill
roughly doubled in size.
What do these hundred-plus pages do? Too much to itemize here, but
the administration's veto statement provides a brief summary. It says,
H.R. 961 would undermine the strong standards which have
produced significant water quality improvements in the last
twenty years. H.R. 961 would allow polluters to circumvent
national industrial performance standards * * * [and] would
also undercut the existing Clean Water Act commitment to
fishable and swimmable waters by allowing new ways to avoid
or waive water quality standards. These provisions could
create incentives for polluters to pressure states into
offering environmental concessions. * * * Lower standards in
an upstream state would mean higher costs to achieve clean
water in downstream states.
These rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers sometimes repeal a
requirement outright; they are sometimes written as though they are a
waiver at the discretion of the regulating agency, but under the bill
the agency in fact would have no discretion; and they are sometimes
written as though it really is up to the regulating agency, but if the
agency says no, the polluter will have new grounds to sue and to tie
the issue up in courts for years, while the pollution continues. This
is, in fact, one of the worst features of this bill, because it will
make the Clean Water program more like the Superfund program, all
litigation and no cleanup.
This bill has many other features which are contrary to the public
interest.
It attempts to fix the wetlands program, but in so doing eliminates
60 to 80 percent of all wetlands from the program, including parts of
the Everglades; it directly contradicts the National Academy of
Sciences study just released; and it puts huge new cost burdens on
taxpayers.
It attempts to fix the stormwater program as it effects cities, but
then uses that as an excuse to virtually eliminate the stormwater
program as it effects industrial sites.
It adds billions to the deficit just in the next 3 years, and much
more beyond that, according to OMB.
It adopts a version of risk assessment which was rejected on the
floor of the House after the advocates of risk assessment argued it
would be unworkable.
And it would result in increased costs to many municipal ratepayers
who will have to try to pay for more pollution cleanup because others
are doing less.
But the worst thing it does is to allow factories and sewage
treatment works, upstream from somebody else's town, somebody else's
property, somebody else's drinking water intake, to pollute more than
they do today. That is wrong, and we should not allow that to happen.
In some cases industries would be turning off treatment facilities they
have already built and are successfully operating. Whatever you think
about wetlands or stormwater or feedlots, there is no excuse at the end
of the day for voting yes on a bill that allows factories and sewage
treatment works to do less than they are already doing.
I and other Members will offer amendments to strike these industrial
and sewage rollbacks. But if we are not successful, then I would urge
you to vote no on the bill itself. Make no mistake about it, this
Nation would be better off, and our people would enjoy cleaner water,
if we passed no bill, than if we passed this bill.
If we defeat this bill we can go back and do what we should have done
all along--produce a moderate bill which fixes the wetlands program
without throwing out most wetlands protection and raiding the Treasury;
which fixes the municipal stormwater situation; which provides the
basic authorization; and which, unlike this bill, can be signed into
law.
{time} 1345
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4693]] Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], chairman of the
Blue Dog Coalition.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the committee, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member,
for their graciousness in allowing us their time. We appreciate that
very, very much. It gives us an opportunity to add some constructive
and positive input into H.R. 961. We want to thank them publicly for
that.
Let me also make recognition of the contribution on the committee of
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Laughlin]. They have done a great service to this House and to
people across this country in fighting the good battle of adding
language and having a constructive input in that process, in making
this what we believe to be a better bill.
Let me just remind the Members that are listening that what H.R. 961
does, some of the things that we have been working and fighting on for
a long period of time. It provides comprehensive wetlands reform, which
we have worked on and taken action on already this year, but we need to
do it once again.
It establishes something that we have been fighting for for a long
time in this House, and that is risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
consistent with what we did with H.R. 9. It also helps place greater
emphasis on voluntary incentives to base nonpoint source programs,
which is extremely important to those of us who represent agricultural
areas throughout this country.
Finally, what this bill does that I think is extremely important, it
adds flexibility and responsibility to States and local governments
which they have been asking for for a number of years. We have a great
opportunity today, and that is to make changes in the Clean Water Act,
at the same time protecting the public interest.
I once again want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes]
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], and particularly the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the
committee, for their leadership in this area. I encourage all the
Members who are interested in those issues that I have mentioned, plus
other issues to come down today, listen to the debate, reject those
amendments that do not improve this bill, and pass this bill on final
passage.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me the time and for his efforts on this important reform
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Amendments of 1995, because it provides a progressive and innovative
framework for addressing the environmental water quality issues that
our Nation faces. It is a practical, bipartisan bill that builds upon
the important environmental standards and safeguards encased in the
1972 Clean Water Act, but reassesses the direction of the legislation
to provide flexibility for States and local communities in achievement
of those standards.
Everyone recognizes that the Clean Water Act of 1972 was a seminal
piece of legislation which laid the groundwork for significant
improvement in our Nation's water quality. When it was written over 20
years ago, it focused on the major environmental problem facing our
country at the time, point source pollution. By imposing uniform
nationwide standards and centralizing control of those standards in
Washington, the Clean Water Act of 1972 provided a successful initial
approach to pollution cleanup. It has been an effective tool for
getting us to where we are today.
But times have changed, and it has become apparent that the one-size-
fits-all approach that worked over two decades ago is not wholly and
completely relevant or effective today. Point source pollution has been
reined in significantly. Now it is evident that the problems associated
with non-point source pollution have not been adequately addressed.
In fact, there are many unintended problems that have emerged from
this old legislation, most notably the unacceptable costs and
regulatory burdens that have been placed on States and local
communities which dwarf dwindling environmental gains. My State of
Massachusetts, for example, faces the highest per capita cost in the
country for compliance with the mandates imposed by the current Clean
Water Act.
The one-size-fits-all approach worked well to level the playing field
initially, but it overlooked the fact that our Nation is composed of a
series of diverse regions.
Mr. Chairman, I would end by saying I strongly support this Clean
Water Reform Act. I commend the chairman for his work in this area.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 31/2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking Democrat on the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment who has done so much
work on this.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong opposition to H.R. 961, a
bill that is inaccurately called the Clean Water Act Amendments of
1995.
Let us be clear about this, Mr. Chairman. If this bill becomes law,
our waters will be dirtier, there will be more outbreaks of waterborne
disease and there will be far fewer valuable wetlands.
It cannot be hidden behind talk of flexibility or local option, the
goal of this bill is to make it easier to pollute our Nation's waters.
This bill takes us back to the days before 1972 when many rivers were
open sewers and some even caught on fire.
In 1972, when the Clean Water Act was passed, only one-third of our
Nation's rivers were fit for fishing and swimming. Today, more than 60
percent of our waters meet that test.
This is a record which should make us proud. It is not time for
reversal of the Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 will lead us backward by removing 60 to 80 percent of our
Nation's wetlands from protection, including parts of the Florida
Everglades, the great dismal swamp, and the New Jersey shore.
It will do virtually nothing to reduce pollution from runoff, the No.
1 cause of pollution in our Nation's waters. Polluted run-off into
drinking water caused 400,000 illnesses and 104 deaths in Milwaukee 2
years ago.
This bill will mean more Milwaukees in the future. This bill even
eliminates the one effective program we have to control run-off
pollution in coastal areas--over the objections of the coastal States
organization.
It is not just the coastal States organization that has concerns
about this bill. It is the National conference of State Legislators,
the Association of State Wetland Managers, the National Governors'
Association, inconsistent with their wetlands policy, the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations.
There are just too many concerns that have been raised by too many
groups about this bill.
It is a bill that will gut the core of the Clean Water Act, the basic
national clean water standards that everyone must meet.
This bill will give us anti-environment races all over the country as
local governments compete to attract development by reducing
environmental standards and sending the pollution downstream. This is
simply the wrong direction for the Clean Water Act.
We should be working to fix what needs to be fixed in the Clean Water
Act so we can continue to protect the environment while promoting
economic growth.
I have had my frustrations with parts of the Clean Water Act and the
way some of it has been implemented.
These parts should be fixed.
We should fix the stormwater program to make it rational and
sensible.
We should eliminate the unnecessary administrative requirements of
the State Revolving Loan Fund and get the money out to the States.
[[Page H4694]]
We should fix the coastal zone Non-Point Pollution Program to allow
targeting of impaired or threatened waters.
We should approve the new combined sewer overflow policy to help the
Nation's older urban areas.
We should fix the wetlands permitting process that ties up too many
projects in a snarl of red tape and treats all wetlands alike.
Instead, this bill gives us waivers, exemptions, repeals and
limitations that will mean less environment protection for all
Americans.
The American people do not want us to allow more water pollution.
They want us to protect them from corporate polluters.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 961 and let us write a bill
that gives the American people clean water and environmental protection
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Shuster
and members of our committee who have worked tirelessly in producing
what I think is a common sense balance between Federal and local
control over clean water programs.
This bipartisan bill recognizes the critical need for flexibility at
the State and local level. While, at the same time, the bill retains
all existing EPA water quality standards and requirements.
Most importantly, this bill represents a renewed investment in our
Nation's clean water infrastructure by authorizing $15 billion for the
State revolving loan fund, among other programs.
This bill gives States and local officials the flexibility to manage
and control stormwater like other forms of runoff. By providing this
regulatory flexibility, the bill reduces the cost of unfunded mandates
to our States.
The bill also provides needed comprehensive reforms to the Wetlands
Permitting Program, while protecting true wetlands for all of us to
enjoy.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a commonsense approach to reauthorizing
the Clean Water Act, and would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
granting me time, because I rise with some hesitation to speak against
the bill as it came from the committee.
On the one hand, I appreciate what the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
the chairman of the committee, has done, because clearly we need more
commonsense application of the laws governing the environment and the
regulations that are formulated.
At the same time, coming from the State of Michigan, which has more
coastline than any of the 48 contiguous States and which has numerous
wetlands, I must rise to speak against the wetlands provisions of the
bill. They are unworkable. It would do great damage to wetlands in many
States, and particularly in the State of Michigan, if those standards
were applied in our State.
In particular, the hunters and fishers of our State, and of many
States around the Midwest who come to Michigan to pursue their sport,
will be deeply disappointed in the wetlands provisions because they are
going to have a very deleterious effect upon the population of
waterfowl, the population of fish, and, of course, there will be
environmental damage as well due to the loss of the filtration
properties of the wetlands that we have in our beautiful State.
Therefore, although I support the attempt to have a more commonsense
approach to environmental regulation, and I will continue to support
that, through risk assessment, and so forth, I do oppose the new
provisions regarding wetlands and certain other portions of the bill
and support the Saxton-Boehlert substitute.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a former colleague on our committee who has now
gone on to the Committee on Commerce, but who has exhibited a great
deal of interest in the work of our committee.
{time} 1400
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take my 2 minutes if I
could to talk about the economic impact of this bill. It is interesting
because I think that many of the proponents have been making the
argument, looking at the so-called cost-benefit or the risk assessment
provisions and suggesting that somehow we need to revise the Clean
Water Act during this reauthorization to look at cost-benefit and risk
and other things which I might characterize as monetizing the Clean
Water Act, something that was mentioned in the New York Times.
From my perspective though and I think from that from many of the
coastal states and other parts of the country, by severely weakening
the Clean Water Act as this bill does it is jeopardizing many of our
most important industries, most notably the tourism industry.
In my part of New Jersey, in fact New Jersey as a whole, tourism is
the No. 1 industry and we know that estimates are something like $400
billion a year in this country nationwide comes from the travel and
tourism industry.
We also have to note that clean water is very important to the
fishing industry, a $55 billion a year industry in this great Nation
and also concerns about drinking water. Everyone relies on drinking
water, municipal drinking water or other drinking water supplies.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that by severely
weakening the Clean Water Act we are in effect putting on our country
and on our citizens and on our taxpayers a great deal of expense
because if they lose the money that comes from travel and tourism, if
we lose the money that comes from the fishing industry, if we are
required to spend billions of dollars in the future to provide for
better drinking water or cleaner water than ultimately the taxpayers
and the country and the economic output of the country suffers. And I
think that those who are urging that somehow weakening this act
benefits the taxpayer because the taxpayer is in some way going to save
some money is simply a false argument.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 961, the bipartisan clean
water reauthorization. I would like to say at the outset no one
disputes the importance of clean water to our citizens. Nor does anyone
that I know of dispute that the Clean Water Act has generally been a
successful vehicle for improving the quality of our water.
Having said that, I think that it is equally clear that some of the
provisions of the act need reform. In my view the area of current law
that is in most need of an overhaul is section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Over the years in our part of the country this section has been
increasingly abused by Federal regulation and regulators. This abuse
has made the wetlands permitting process a nightmare for private land
owners and has led in some cases to literally an assault on the rights
of many Americans.
This bill which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] have helped to author takes, I
think, constructive steps to correct some of these problems. The new
wetlands classification process will permit the protection of our
valuable wetlands while pragmatically allowing development of property
that is of no importance to our environmental concerns.
Additionally the bill includes language from H.R. 925 that was
overwhelmingly passed earlier this year in the House, and it would
simply require compensation for landowners whose property value is
diminished through government regulatory action.
I think most everyone agrees that as protectors and defenders of our
Constitution no one can countenance the taking of private property
without just compensation.
I have been contacted by many people in our district in middle and
west Tennessee in what is a rural district
[[Page H4695]] over the years. Many of these farmers have been crying
for relief from the burden of this out-of-control wetland permitting
process. And I think this bill today is a most important step in this
process.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Tate].
Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
First of all I would like to commend the chairman for his fine work
on this particular piece of legislation. This truly is a clean water
bill. And it advances our congressional commitment to protecting our
environment. It is common sense, it is cost effective. Things are now
going to be based on sound science and not on fad, not on emotion and
not on the whims of the day.
And it upholds property rights, protects fairness, and provides
incentives for people to comply, not a big club, but encourages people
to do what they believe is right and that is protecting our clean
waters.
It also streamlines the bureaucracy, and we need the bureaucrats back
here in Washington, DC, not to be making every decision for cities that
they cannot even pronounce in my district.
Most importantly, this bill protects the Puget Sound which is the
pristine waters that border my district. It is a bipartisan bill, has
strong bipartisan support and it upholds the true values that we are
concerned about and that is clean water, not just more redtape, and I
urge the support of Members of this body to support truly a clean water
bill.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong
opposition to H.R. 961. The Clean Water Act was written in 1972. In my
State of Rhode Island, we have made a great deal of progress since
then, thanks to the act.
In 1970 the Blackstone River, north of Woonsocket was a dead river.
Today at least 16 different fish species swim in the Blackstone,
including game fish such as large-mouth bass and brown trout.
In 1970 the Rhode Island Department of Health discovered metals in
the fish of Narragansett Bay. Quahogs contained mercury, lead, and
chromium. Today these are down 90 percent and are well within the safe
zone because of private industry cutting back on discharges due to more
stringent permits.
In 1970 because Jamestown had no sewer treatment plant, 200,000
gallons of raw sewage was dumped into Narragansett Bay everyday.
Shellfishing and swimming areas were closed. Today the town has a
secondary sewage treatment plant and most of the Island is open to
shellfishing and swimming.
The Clean Water Act not only provides Rhode Island with the tools
necessary to restore our coastal waterways, but also fosters economic
development by preventing future shellfish bed closures through a full
implementation of its coastal nonpoint source management program.
Anyone who has ever farmed Mount Hope Bay or the Kikamuit River knows
that because of stormwater runoff from parking lots and failing septic
systems the wildlife in the water becomes polluted and inedible. Simply
changing the definition of swimmable and fishable does not change the
fact that the fish will be inedible. Hence, it does not mean the fish
can be sold. The economy and the environment are not competing
interests.
In my State, relaxing standards will do more economic harm than good.
Look at the facts. In Rhode Island commercial fishing industry is a
$100 million industry, up 700 percent since the Clean Water Act was
first implemented in 1972. Oppose H.R. 961. It is bad for the
environment and bad for our economy.
Many of you may not know that Rhode Island is the Ocean State.
Because of the vast array of beaches, rivers, and boating marinas, the
travel and tourism industry generates almost $1.5 billion a year for my
State. The vast majority of this occurs in and around Narragansett Bay.
Salt water swimming is enjoyed by 67 percent of the Rhode Island
population and $70 million is spent in sport fishing every year. I
seriously doubt that Rhode Island would be such an attractive place for
almost 2 million people to visit every year if our waters were polluted
with metals that are especially harmful to our children and the
elderly.
I ask you, who would want to smell the raw sewage blowing off the bay
or pull a dying fish from the water. In short, if we gut the Clean
Water Act today we will not only be jeopardizing our health, but the
economies of our Nation's coastal States.
It was the Clean Water Act regulations that allowed Rhode Island to
reduce pollution in the Mount Hope Bay, adding 800,000 lbs. of
additional quahogs to each years harvest.
It was the Clean Water Act that saved Narragansett Bay so that many
of New England's most important fish, like winter flounder, striped
bass, and fluke could safely repopulate themselves.
And it was the Clean Water Act that helped publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants in Narragansett Bay achieve a 57-percent reduction in
the amount of pollutants they discharge.
I ask all my colleagues to look not at the short-run interests, but
the long-term concerns and quality of life of our citizens. We must act
wisely to avoid the same recklessness that forced us to legislate the
Clean Water Act in the first place.
Unfortunately, environmentalists are typically characterized as
eccentrics, with nothing better to do than complain about obscure
pollutants or rare animals. I abhor that characterization. In my State,
environmentalists come in many forms. They are the hard-working
lobstermen and quahogers who farm Narragansett Bay. They are the
sportsmen who canoe down the Runnins River or fish for striped bass in
the Atlantic. Most importantly they are our children who swim in our
rivers and play in our parks.
I am proud to call myself an environmentalist. A person who sees the
future not just on a balance sheet but by the air we breathe, the water
we swim in, and the diverse variety of life we share our community
with. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, our 26th President and renowned
conservationist:
To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and
exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its
usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our
children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand
down to them amplified and developed.
Oppose H.R. 961 and support economic environmentalism rather than
economic expediency.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman I yield 21/2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
(Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. In
particular, I rise in support of the balance this bill bring to our
public policy on nonpoint source pollution control as well as wetlands
definition and enforcement.
Representing a large rural district in central and southern Illinois
there is not a single day that goes by that I do not deal with these
problems.
The real question facing the rural areas of America is how we can
best manage to come into compliance with the standards of clean water
in this country, and in this bill, in the most cost-effective and
efficient way possible. We do not have unlimited resources in this
country.
The farmers of this country have been good conservationists; they
have to be to sustain a family income on which they can live. They have
proven through the conservation reserve program and other solid
environmental protection measures that they can produce excellent
watershed management on a voluntary basis without additional government
mandates. And those good voluntary watershed management practices have
made positive contributions to the clean water in this country, not
negative.
With respect to wetlands, not every acre that is on the books today
are true wetlands, and even the true wetlands are not all of the same
value. And in any case, there is absolutely no need for three separate
Federal agencies to have jurisdiction over this issue. This bill brings
a commonsense solution to these problems.
To suggest, as someone has already done today, that Americans should
be afraid of turning on their tap water as a result of this bill, that
we are all going to be drinking bottled water, is the kind of talk I
just cannot believe. That kind of talk only fuels the paranoia against
government that is running rampant in this country today.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
[[Page H4696]] (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend Chairman
Shuster for his leadership in bringing H.R. 961 to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 961, and in particular
title I of H.R. 961, which reauthorizes environmental programs that are
critical to the waters of the Great Lakes region. More than $12 billion
in Federal investment has brought the Great Lakes back from the brink
of death and is credited for making the Great Lakes great again. A $4.5
billion annual Great Lakes sport fishing economy is a further testament
that our country will continue to reap important economic benefits by
passing H.R. 961 by providing $3 billion in programs such as wastewater
treatment facilities. This will serve to build on the success of the
Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 also seeks to address the contaminated sediments problem
that clogs the Great Lakes system.
H.R. 961 also contains provisions to better coordinate research
activities among Federal agencies engaged in research on the Great
Lakes.
H.R. 961 is also supportive of making sure the fish in the Great
Lakes are safe to eat.
I urge passage of H.R. 961.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in
opposition to the Boehlert amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for H.R. 961, the Clean
Water Amendments of 1995.
This bill makes significant commonsense reforms to our Nation's clean
water program. It maintains the goals of the Clean Water Act while
providing more flexibility to our States and local authorities who know
their States and their waters and know best how to reach those goals.
Let me point out that this flexibility is given to the States and also
to EPA to utilize if they see fit--industry has not been given sweeping
unilateral waivers from critical requirements of the act as has been
charged.
This bill strengthens the current nonpoint source program and
replaces the current broken stormwater program with one that will be
more effective and gives States a range of tools--from voluntary
measures to site-specific permits--to deal with stormwater runoff.
The section on watershed management encourages States to pursue
comprehensive point and nonpoint source programs on a watershed basis
to most efficiently meet water quality standards. The bill continues
the Federal-State partnership by authorizing Federal assistance to the
States for the construction of wastewater treatment plants, to address
nonpoint source pollution, to continue cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay
and the Great Lakes, and for a host of other pressing water quality
needs.
H.R. 961 also incorporates many of the principles that the House has
already passed, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to
ensure that our limited financial resources are utilized in such a way
as to get the greatest water quality benefit.
Now, with any bill of this length which addresses such complex
issues, there undoubtedly will be some provisions that may cause some
concern. For example, I may have some concerns regarding some of the
wetlands provisions, but I realize that this bill will continue to be a
work in progress and undoubtedly more revisions will be made before the
bill finally is enacted into law.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we know that Americans want to preserve
and protect our environment, particularly our precious water resources,
and we know that they want commonsense regulation--that was made clear
in last year's elections. I believe we can have both as is accomplished
in this bill, and I urge the House to approve H.R. 961.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller], the very distinguished ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Resources.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today exemplifies the
dangerous liaison between private interests and the majority in the
House when it comes to amending our Nation's laws.
That close partnership is no where more evident than in the proposed
revisions of the Clean Water Act--the law that has cleaned up San
Francisco Bay near my district, and thousands of other rivers, streams,
bays, and other bodies of water throughout America over the past
quarter century.
Are there problems with the Clean Water Act? Of course. I have
concerns about some of the ways in which the law has been implemented,
too, and if we had a real commitment to reform, I have little doubt we
could develop a sound alternative to this bill.
But let us make no mistake: H.R. 961 is not about fixing the
mistakes. It is about devastating one of the great achievements of
environmental policy in this country. And this emasculation of the law
is taking place at the request, and at the direction of, powerful
special interests who have been granted unprecedented access to the
drafting of the legislation.
Strewn throughout H.R. 961, particularly in title III, are special
exemptions, waivers, and exclusions that benefit these special
interests:
An exemption from effluent limitations for coal remining operations
that discharge into waters that already fail to meet water quality
standards;
A provision limiting EPA's ability to upgrade discharge standards for
industrial polluters which benefits the pulp and paper industry and
others;
An exemption from wetlands permit requirements for iron and steel
manufacturers;
An exemption from the silver discharge standard for the
photoprocessing industry;
An exemption for oil and gas pipelines.
Exemption after exemption provided to high polluting industries by
this legislation that masquerades as reform.
This is not reform. It is a clear example of special interest
legislation, written on behalf of powerful interests and at the expense
of our environment and the health and safety of the people of the
United States.
I have introduced legislation that would require that the authors of
any legislation prepared by private entities be disclosed before the
Congress voted to make special interest provisions the law of the land.
Although the majority has not yet accorded me a hearing on my bill, I
am hopeful that the majority will voluntarily disclose who sought and
wrote these special interest provisions before asking our colleagues to
vote them into law.
Regardless who authored these exemptions, they are bad policy and
should be rejected by the House.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 2, 1995.
To: Distribution.
From: Patricia Law.
Re: Clean Water Task Forces.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in a very ambitious
legislative timetable for reporting a Clean Water bill, but
one which we hope you will find constructive and will result
in a product that we can all support.
Attached is the list of participants from yesterday's
meeting indicating each organization's primary area of focus
if it was provided. We will notify you as soon as possible of
the Subcommittee Member assignments and dates for Task Force
meetings. Our hope is to have these meetings at the beginning
of next week. In the meantime, we encourage you to work
together to identify outstanding issues and to formulate your
proposals for addressing them. The following groups have
agreed to take the lead for this front work. If you are not
identified on the attached list as having an interest in a
particular task force, we suggest that you call the lead.
Nonpoint Source and Watershed: Thomas W. Curtis, Director,
Natural Resources Group, National Governors Association, Hall
of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 267,
Washington, D.C. 20001-1512, 202/624-5389, 202/624-5313
(fax).
Point Source: Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager,
Environment Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water
Industry Coalition, 1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20062-2000, 202/463-5627, 202/887-3445 (fax).
Funding and Unfunded Mandates: Robert K. Reeg, Manager,
Congressional & State Relations, National Society of
Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA
22314-2794, 703/684-2873, 703/836-4875 (fax).
Stormwater: Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and
Federal Relations, National League of Cities, 1301
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2004, 202/626-
3028, 202/626-3043 (fax).
Wetlands: Kim Putens, Executive Director, National Wetlands
Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298-1886, 202/338-2361 (fax).
[[Page H4697]] Please feel free to call me with any
questions or assistance that you require from us. Again, we
appreciate your involvement and look forward to working with
you.
clean water task force participants
Joseph M. McGuire, Director, Legislative and Regulatory
Affairs, Allied Signal, 1
