[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4688-H4690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1245
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on the rule which I support and then to assert
that my support for the bill itself is based on several propositions.
No. 1, I am impressed by the fact that this is a bipartisan piece of
legislation that has reached the floor. One can only read the results
of the subcommittee vote and the full committee vote to assert for
themselves that this is indeed a bipartisan crafted piece of
legislation. That in itself answers the request of the American people
that we approach this and many other problems in our country on that
bipartisan basis for which they have been yearning for so many years.
Here is an excellent opportunity to put into play our search for
bipartisan solutions to the Nation's problems.
No. 2, if that were not enough, it also is bipartisan in this
particular unique tenant about which I am concerned. The Chesapeake Bay
has for a long time been a strong concern of the environmental
community of our Nation, and not only nationwide are the
environmentalists interested in the preservation, and the clean up and
the stabilization of Chesapeake Bay, but naturally the regional
interests, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, et cetera, are also
interested in the preservation of the Chesapeake Bay as we once knew
it. In that regard this bill calls for adoption, as a matter of fact,
of increase in, the President's recommendation for reauthorization of
that portion that has to do with funding the Chesapeake Bay, another
facet of the bipartisan approach that we can adopt by supporting the
committee's version of this vital piece of legislation.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the open rule but
against the bill. I think it is very important that we do have an open
rule without time limits on this legislation because it is so
controversial, and I do believe that the bill makes fundamental changes
to the Clean Water Act that are not in the national interest.
I was very pleased to hear my colleague, the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Saxton], speak before because he pointed out and reminded
me about the fact that when we were first elected to the Congress, back
in the mid or late 1980's, that a big part of our election was because
we swore that we would come down here and try to stop ocean dumping and
improve ocean water quality. The fact of the matter is that since those
New Jersey beach closings in 1987 and 1988 the ocean water quality and
the quality of our rivers and harbors have increased dramatically in
the State of the New Jersey and throughout the country. People tell us
every day, and in particular looking forward to the beach season this
summer, they talk about how improved the water quality is and how many
people want to come down to the shore and swim and enjoy our beaches
and our water.
We cannot turn the clock back, and my fear
is that this is what this legislation does. It in effect turns the
clock back and makes it very possible that, if it were to pass 5, 10,
20 years from now, our water quality would significantly decrease.
I would want to mention a few things, and some of them were mentioned
by my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton],
specifically about what the bill does and how it is dangerous.
With regard to coastal run off, contaminated run off is the number
one contributor to water pollution. The committee bill would end an
existing program mandating States to draw up enforceable run-off
control plans in coastal zones, replacing with a voluntary approach
similar to an existing program in inland areas. Environmentalists and
the EPA have said that our efforts should be directed toward making
run-off programs enforceable, not voluntary.
With regard to storm water, the bill would repeal an existing formal
permitting process governing city and industrial storm water releases
into service water, replacing it with a system emphasizing voluntary
measures of compliance, again voluntary rather than mandatory.
With regard to wetlands, by changing definitions, the proposed
legislation would remove as much as half of the Nation's wetlands from
protection. The EPA would also be stripped of its veto power of
decisions by the Army Corps of Engineers to grant wetlands development
permits.
My colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], mentioned a
substitute, and we also from New Jersey have several amendments that
would try to improve and eliminate some of these more egregious
measures that are in the bill. I urge my colleagues on the Democrat
side to support the Saxton-Boehlert substitute. This substitute would
eliminate some of the worst problems that exist in this bill.
I was hopeful, however, that this would be the opportunity, during
the authorization of the Clean Water Act, to actually improve the
existing Clean Water Act, and so I have proposed, pursuant to this open
rule again, certain amendments that would actually improve the existing
law. I am not sure, and I think perhaps in this atmosphere it is
unlikely that some of these will pass, but it is important to put them
forward.
One of them is the Clean Water Enforcement Act. We have noticed that
with the existing Clean Water Act there has not been sufficient
enforcement. In many cases it pays to pollute because the fines that
are imposed for pollution or violating one's discharge permit are too
small. The Clean Water Enforcement Act would go after the bad actors,
the repeat violators of their discharge permits, require mandatory
penalties and increasing penalties so that it does not pay to pollute.
Another amendment that I will be proposing today under the open rule
is something that my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Hughes], has repeatedly introduced and had passed in this House several
times in previous sessions of Congress that would basically require a
national program for beach water quality testing. In New Jersey we have
a very good program that requires the testing of water quality before
we decide whether beaches are open to bathers. I would like to see that
included in the Clean Water Act, and again that would be a
strengthening amendment.
[[Page H4689]] I would urge my colleagues today to, please, support
the substitute. Please support some of the amendments being put forth
by those of us who would like to see the Clean Water Act improved.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs.
Schroeder] talked about the Academy of Sciences and good science. We
agree. First of all, San Diego has had a problem with effluent sewage.
The sewage treatment is actually treated, and then we want to put it 4
miles out to sea, but the EPA, which a rule was written for the Clean
Water Act, was written, ``If you dump that sewage into a river or a
lake.'' The Academy of Sciences and Scripps Oceanographic said it
actually enhances the ocean, but yet the EPA is unwilling to bend, and
what we are trying to do is, when we talk about risk assessment and
fairness, is to look because what it would do is cost the city of San
Diego between $8 to $12 billion. That is $12 billion we do not have for
law enforcement, or housing, or education and those kinds of things,
but yet science says that we do not have to double-treat the sewage. It
is treated in the first place, but we do not have to do secondary
sewage. That is reasonable.
When we take a look at it, when we need to move ahead, a company near
my district named Micogen has a chemical. It is not actually a
chemical, but it is an insecticide type that is created out of DNA,
and, when they use that, the actual farmers would grow their material
or spray it over their crops, and it is not a toxic pesticide that run
off into our lakes, and rivers and oceans. That is what we need to
support as far as good science. But yet the administration has put a
burden on our biotech industry in California. Those are the things we
need to move ahead with.
The EPA, Endangered Species, Clean Water, Clean Air were all written
with good intentions, but there are special interests on both sides of
this area, those that do want to pollute and those that want to use it
as a weapon for no growth at all. What the legislation that the
Republican Party is coming up with is a commonsense application and
suits neither one. Take a look at the issues that burden us every day.
Look at the EPA and Endangered Species. I think we can work on a more
bipartisan area.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule.
The new majority has a case of special interest amnesia.
The special interests and polluters claim they are overregulated.
So the new majority is forgetting the days when our rivers burned,
when fish and wildlife floated dead in our lakes and streams, and when
our drinking water was in imminent danger of contamination.
The Clean Water Act remedied that situation.
Now, the new majority wants to gut the Clean Water Act.
The New York City water supply needs no additional purification,
thanks to safeguards in the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking
Water.
Weakened standards on pollution runoff under this bill will severely
jeopardize the city's drinking water and our rivers and lakes.
So will loosened restrictions on sewage treatment plants that operate
in watershed areas.
When is the new majority going to realize that some government
regulations actually do some good?
This time, they are not just throwing the baby out with the
bathwater.
They are throwing out the drinking water, too.
I implore my colleagues to think about what we drink and to reject
this Dirty Water Act.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule. I urge the passage of
the bill. Amendments to the Clean Water Act are long overdue. I urge
the Members of this body to adopt the rule, and pass the bill, and go
forward with this legislation which is so badly needed.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. QUILLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the
substitute, the alternative that will be advanced by my colleagues, the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
Roemer], and I, 70 percent of our alternative is identical to the
committee bill. So there is much to be said for a number of provisions
in the committee bill that address some problems that concern us all.
We are focusing narrowly on those areas that need the most attention to
preserve, and protect and enhance our Nation's waterways.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). The question is the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 414,
nays 4, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 311]
YEAS--414
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
[[Page H4690]] Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--4
Dingell
Jefferson
Schroeder
Yates
NOT VOTING--16
Bliley
Bunning
Cardin
Collins (IL)
Ford
Graham
Lewis (KY)
Lincoln
Moakley
Murtha
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
Talent
Waxman
White
{time} 1316
Mr. HILLEARY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________