[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4690-H4788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed
rollcall No. 311, adoption of the Rule for H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Act amendments of 1995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). Pursuant to House Resolution
140 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
bill, H.R. 961.
{time} 1316
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with Mr.
McGinnis in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] will be
recognized for 1 hour, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta]
will be recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] for purposes of debate only, and I
ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Louisiana control the
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], and I ask unanimous consent that
he may control that time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] will be
recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1995.
This debate, Mr. Chairman, is essentially between two groups, between
the professional environmentalists, the Washington-knows-best crowd,
the EPA, the career bureaucrats, and the K-Street lobbyists on the one
hand and the rest of America on the other hand.
It is extremely important to note, Mr. Chairman, that we bring this
bill to the floor with strong bipartisan support. This bill passed the
subcommittee by an overwhelming 19-to-5 vote with both a majority of
Republicans and Democrats voting in favor of it. This bill passed the
full committee by an overwhelming vote of 42 to 16, an overwhelming
majority of Republicans voting for it and a full half of all the
Democrats voting for it.
This bill, contrary to some of the fiction that is being spread
about, keeps the goals of the successful clean water program while it
fixes the problems that we have uncovered. And indeed, our process has
been a very open process all along the way.
We have heard some crocodile tears here today about how quickly this
bill has moved. The truth of the matter is, this essentially is the
bipartisan bill that we tried to pass last year. Indeed, it is very
significant to note that, while we have proceeded with an open process
in committee and on the floor here today, an open rule today, last year
this legislation was bottled up by the Democratic majority to the point
that we were never even permitted to get a vote on this legislation.
So now we hear complaints about the process not being open enough
when, in fact, it was worse than a closed process. It was a slammed-
door process last year, and now I am very pleased that we do, indeed,
have an open process and, in fact, the bill as reported out of
committee was on the Internet 24 hours after it passed committee and
has been available for the past several weeks.
Well, what does this bill do? It gives more flexibility to the State
and local water quality officials. It is a fundamental shift from
current Federal, top-down approach. Those who oppose the approach in
this bill are saying that they do not trust the Governors and the State
regulators. It
provides a more reasonable risk-based regulation, consistent with
recent House-passed legislation.
This bill requires EPA to subject its mandates and its regulations to
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. In a major victory for
common sense, this bill gives State and local government the
flexibility to manage and control stormwater like other forms of
runoff. And this bill provides market-based approaches allowing for
trading in certain circumstances to provide the most cost-effective
pollution reduction.
And this bill addresses unfunded mandates by providing regulatory
flexibility. The bill reduces the cost of unfunded mandates,
particularly in the area of stormwater management, where billions, yes,
not millions, billions of dollars can be saved as a result of the
approach in this bill.
Cities estimated--get this--cities estimated that the unfunded
Federal mandates in the Clean Water Act cost the cities $3.6 billion in
1993. Grand Rapids, MI, a city of 250,000 people, had to spend $400,000
preparing its stormwater permit. The average cost to larger cities for
stormwater permits exceeds $600,000. Tulsa, OK, had to spend $1.1
million just on their permit application, without solving the problem
at all.
This bill also reforms the wetlands program. It provides for
comprehensive reforms to the beleaguered wetlands permitting program.
No longer will we have a situation, as in Morristown, NJ, where an
airplane, the airport there, the pilot was unable to see the runway.
And they were told they could not cut down a tree that was blocking the
view because it was in a wetland. Or in Muncie, IN, an 80-year-old
farmer, who had farmed his land all his life and his father and
grandfather before him, inadvertently broke a water pipe and it flooded
the field. They went in and told him he was no longer allowed to farm
his farm because it was a wetland.
And there are hundreds and thousands of horror stories of the
excessive
[[Page H4691]] regulation of wetlands, and this bill attempts to cure
that. In fact, we have heard today about the National Academy of
Sciences coming out with, finally, its wetlands approach and saying,
alleging, that our approach is not scientific. Well, there is
absolutely no scientific approach in the original clean water bill,
because the original clean water bill does not even mention wetlands.
In fact, it is very interesting and sad to see the National Academy
of Sciences politicized because their report was due 19 months ago.
Then we were told, our staff was informed just last week that it would
be, even though it was 19 months late, it would be impossible to have
it before the 18th of May. And surprise, surprise, we scheduled this
legislation for floor debate today, and it appears magically yesterday.
Well, of course, the American people should know that the study was
funded by the EPA bureaucrats downtown. So, sadly, the National Academy
of Sciences has been politicized for this debate. We regret that.
Beyond the wetlands issue, our bill provides renewed investment in
our Nation's clean water infrastructure. We provide over $3 billion a
year authorized for this program. Antienvironmental? We provide more
money for the program than has previously been provided. Indeed, in
spite of all the money we provide, clean water costs in 1996, estimated
by EPA, are $23 billion for our country. Yet the total Federal
environmental grants to State and local governments will total a little
over $3 billion. In fact, EPA estimates that the States face long-term
clean water capital needs of over $137 billion over the next 20 years.
Well, what is it that this bill does not do? There has been a
concerted effort to mischaracterize the provisions of this bill. This
bill does not, as has been alleged in the left-wing press, abolish a
requirement that industry treat contaminated water for toxic chemicals
and heavy metals for discharging it into urban reservoirs.
The bill allows for the removal of redundant pretreatment
requirements before Industry sends their wastewater to municipal
treatment plants. Those plants must still enforce local pretreatment
standards that prevent pollutants from interfering with or passing
through the treatment works.
This bill does not wipe out the coastal nonpoint program, and, as
some claim, make nonpoint programs weaker everywhere. The bill
authorizes more funding for nonpoint programs. It retains environmental
safeguards such as achieving water quality standards while providing
more flexibility in getting there.
Yes, it repeals the controversial coastal zone provision, but--and
get this--it includes the successful components into the national
nonpoint program. It eliminates two separate nonpoint programs, but it
combines them into one in a victory for both State flexibility and
regulatory reform.
Nothing has been sadder than to see our process mischaracterized. The
New York Times, in what could only be described as yellow journalism,
wrote that this bill was written by Republicans behind closed doors
with industry.
{time} 1330
What is the truth? What is the easily verifiable set of facts? The
original introduction of this bill had 16 cosponsors, 8 Republicans, 8
Democrats. Written by Republicans? Behind closed doors? The National
Governors Association sent us a letter commending us for including them
more than they had ever been included in the past. Behind closed doors?
With industry?
Let me share with Members just some of the groups that strongly
support our legislation, and were key participants. Just today, today,
May 9, we received this letter from the National Governors Association
which said, and I quote: ``we urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.''
Let me say it again: ``We urge approval of this bill, H.R. 961.''
They go on to say:
Once again, we wish to express our strong appreciation for
the unprecedented opportunities for State input in the
development of an effective Clean Water Act reauthorization
bill.
Written behind closed doors? I thank the governors of America,
Republican and Democrat, for saying they support our bill, and for
thanking us for including them in the process.
It does not end there. We have a letter, again dated today, from the
National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which says:
Of particular concern to the Nation's local elected
officials is the future of the stormwater management program.
The National Association of Counties, the National League of
Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors--who together
represent all the Nation's local elected officials--strongly
oppose any efforts to amend the stormwater program approved
by the Committee.
They go on to say:
Charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection
and that it guts the Clean Water Act are totally unfounded,
this from all the local officials across America.
However, it does not end there. Again we have another letter today
from the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators, the people on the firing line, the people who have to
implement our laws, who write:
With its new comprehensive approaches to nonpoint source,
watershed and stormwater management, H.R. 961 sets forth a
framework that better protects this Nation's waterways.
It goes on to say:
It maintains a firm commitment to the Clean Water Act's
goals, with more flexibility at the State and local levels to
determine how they are best achieved.
It does not stop there. We have in front of us a letter dated today
from the Water Environment Federation, 42,000 water quality specialists
across America and around the world, which says:
We therefore want to again urge you to support the Clean
Water Act Amendments of 1995 (H.R. 961) on the House floor.
Therefore, what about these spurious allegations that the bill was
written behind closed doors, by Republicans, with industry? They are
demonstrably factually false. Why is the national media writing that?
The national media is in the hip pocket of the environmental
bureaucrats here in this town, and they have not given us a fair shake.
The American people should understand that. There is no sense in our
ducking that reality. It needs to be said, and it needs to be said
very, very clearly.
Beyond the support I have just outlined, agriculture across America
strongly supports our bill. The NFIB has said that not only is final
passage of this legislation a key NFIB vote this year, but they have
informed us in writing that a vote against the Boehlert substitute will
also be a key NFIB vote this year, so we have not only the National
Governors, the NFIB, the League of Cities, the Association of Counties,
the Conference of Mayors, the Association of State Water Pollution
Control Administrators, the State Metropolitan Sewage Association, the
Water Environment Federation, and on and on, a broad-based support to
this bill.
What kind of attacks have we been subjected to? I must confess that
originally I was a little perturbed when some environmental extremists
attempted to disrupt our markup by throwing at us bottles of dirty
water marked ``Shuster spring water.'' That did not pleasure me. Then
when they started passing out posters ``Wanted, Bud Shuster, for
polluting our Nation's Waters.''
However, upon reflection, I was delighted that they did this. I was
delighted that they did it, because it gives the American people an
opportunity to see the kind of hysterical, irrational opposition we
have to our legislation, so I thank those radical environmentalists for
giving us this opportunity to point out the lack of substance to their
arguments,
and the fact that they must resort to these kinds of personal attacks.
Indeed, if the election last November was about anything, it was
about our reforming government control, top-down government
regulations, and clean water is one of the areas crying out for reform.
Let me conclude by quoting something that Supreme Court Justice
Breyer, a Democrat, wrote in a recent book. He talked about the
environmental regulations, and he called environmental regulations an
example of the classic administrative disease of tunnel vision. He
wrote:
[[Page H4692]] Tunnel vision arises when an agency so
organizes its tasks that each employee's individual
conscientious performance effectively carries single-minded
pursuit of a single goal too far, to the point when it brings
about more harm than good. The regulating agency * * *
promulgates standards so stringent that the regulatory action
ultimately imposes high costs without achieving significant
additional safety benefits. Removing that last little bit [of
pollution] can involve limited technological choice, high
cost, * * * large legal fees, and endless arguments.
That is what this bill is about today, to fix these problems. I would
urge my colleagues to support the bill we bring to the floor today, the
bill which has strong bipartisan support, overwhelming Republican
support in the committee, and a full half of the Democrats in the
committee voting for passage of this bill. It deserves to be passed.
Let me also commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations,
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], who has been quoted
numerous times as saying if legislation does not get authorized, there
are not going to be any appropriations.
I would say to my friends, and particularly some in the other body,
who I am told think that perhaps the way to stymie these reform efforts
is to simply block this so there no authorization, ``If you care about
the environment, I urge you to be in support of having an authorizing
bill, because if there is no authorizing bill, according to the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, there are
not going to be any appropriations for clean water,'' so I think all of
us had better get together and support good legislation so we can
continue to clean up our Nation's waters.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, Americans know that there is very little as
important in their daily lives as clean water. Their health depends on
it, the quality of life in their community depends on it, and the
prospects for economic growth depend on it. That is why Americans hold
in such high regard the efforts we have made over the past two decades
to clean up our Nation's rivers, lakes, and coastal areas.
Americans know they cannot clean up the water in their own community
by themselves, because the pollution in their water comes from others
upstream, maybe even in another State. It may come from a factory, it
may come from a sewage treatment works, it may come from a feed lot--
but what somebody else in another jurisdiction puts in the river
becomes one of the most important issues in their lives. They drink it,
their kids swim in it, they rely on a supply of clean water to attract
new jobs to their area.
That is why we have a Federal Clean Water Act. And that is why we
should not weaken the Clean Water Act now on the books.
There are many complex provisions in the Clean Water Act. But what
matters most to the majority of Americans is that somebody is limiting
the amount of pollution being dumped into the river upstream from them
by factories and by sewage treatment works. That is what the American
people want. That's what they have in the existing Clean Water Act. And
that is exactly what this bill would take away from them.
This is a bill by and for major polluters.
There are differences of opinion about how to fix problems in the
stormwater program. There are differences of opinion about how to fix
the wetlands program. There are differences of opinion about whether or
not we should do more to deal with pollution which runs off farms.
But when you get to the core of the Clean Water program, and you ask
the question whether factories and sewage treatment works should be
able to do less treatment than they are doing today before they
discharge into the river, very few Americans would say that is what
they want. Some want factories and sewage treatment works to do more,
but very few think they should do less.
Yet that is exactly what this bill would so. Over a hundred pages of
this bill are rollbacks, waivers, and loopholes for factories and
sewage treatment works to dump more pollution upstream than they are
allowed to today. Americans did not march in here and ask for that.
Americans do not want that.
How did all these rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers for big industry
and big sewage treatment works get into this bill? Almost none of them
were in the introduced bill. Almost none of them were in the bill we
held hearings on. Almost all of them first appeared after hearings were
over and right before we went into markup, at which point the bill
roughly doubled in size.
What do these hundred-plus pages do? Too much to itemize here, but
the administration's veto statement provides a brief summary. It says,
H.R. 961 would undermine the strong standards which have
produced significant water quality improvements in the last
twenty years. H.R. 961 would allow polluters to circumvent
national industrial performance standards * * * [and] would
also undercut the existing Clean Water Act commitment to
fishable and swimmable waters by allowing new ways to avoid
or waive water quality standards. These provisions could
create incentives for polluters to pressure states into
offering environmental concessions. * * * Lower standards in
an upstream state would mean higher costs to achieve clean
water in downstream states.
These rollbacks, loopholes, and waivers sometimes repeal a
requirement outright; they are sometimes written as though they are a
waiver at the discretion of the regulating agency, but under the bill
the agency in fact would have no discretion; and they are sometimes
written as though it really is up to the regulating agency, but if the
agency says no, the polluter will have new grounds to sue and to tie
the issue up in courts for years, while the pollution continues. This
is, in fact, one of the worst features of this bill, because it will
make the Clean Water program more like the Superfund program, all
litigation and no cleanup.
This bill has many other features which are contrary to the public
interest.
It attempts to fix the wetlands program, but in so doing eliminates
60 to 80 percent of all wetlands from the program, including parts of
the Everglades; it directly contradicts the National Academy of
Sciences study just released; and it puts huge new cost burdens on
taxpayers.
It attempts to fix the stormwater program as it effects cities, but
then uses that as an excuse to virtually eliminate the stormwater
program as it effects industrial sites.
It adds billions to the deficit just in the next 3 years, and much
more beyond that, according to OMB.
It adopts a version of risk assessment which was rejected on the
floor of the House after the advocates of risk assessment argued it
would be unworkable.
And it would result in increased costs to many municipal ratepayers
who will have to try to pay for more pollution cleanup because others
are doing less.
But the worst thing it does is to allow factories and sewage
treatment works, upstream from somebody else's town, somebody else's
property, somebody else's drinking water intake, to pollute more than
they do today. That is wrong, and we should not allow that to happen.
In some cases industries would be turning off treatment facilities they
have already built and are successfully operating. Whatever you think
about wetlands or stormwater or feedlots, there is no excuse at the end
of the day for voting yes on a bill that allows factories and sewage
treatment works to do less than they are already doing.
I and other Members will offer amendments to strike these industrial
and sewage rollbacks. But if we are not successful, then I would urge
you to vote no on the bill itself. Make no mistake about it, this
Nation would be better off, and our people would enjoy cleaner water,
if we passed no bill, than if we passed this bill.
If we defeat this bill we can go back and do what we should have done
all along--produce a moderate bill which fixes the wetlands program
without throwing out most wetlands protection and raiding the Treasury;
which fixes the municipal stormwater situation; which provides the
basic authorization; and which, unlike this bill, can be signed into
law.
{time} 1345
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4693]] Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], chairman of the
Blue Dog Coalition.
Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the committee, and the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member,
for their graciousness in allowing us their time. We appreciate that
very, very much. It gives us an opportunity to add some constructive
and positive input into H.R. 961. We want to thank them publicly for
that.
Let me also make recognition of the contribution on the committee of
the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Laughlin]. They have done a great service to this House and to
people across this country in fighting the good battle of adding
language and having a constructive input in that process, in making
this what we believe to be a better bill.
Let me just remind the Members that are listening that what H.R. 961
does, some of the things that we have been working and fighting on for
a long period of time. It provides comprehensive wetlands reform, which
we have worked on and taken action on already this year, but we need to
do it once again.
It establishes something that we have been fighting for for a long
time in this House, and that is risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
consistent with what we did with H.R. 9. It also helps place greater
emphasis on voluntary incentives to base nonpoint source programs,
which is extremely important to those of us who represent agricultural
areas throughout this country.
Finally, what this bill does that I think is extremely important, it
adds flexibility and responsibility to States and local governments
which they have been asking for for a number of years. We have a great
opportunity today, and that is to make changes in the Clean Water Act,
at the same time protecting the public interest.
I once again want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes]
and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], and particularly the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the
committee, for their leadership in this area. I encourage all the
Members who are interested in those issues that I have mentioned, plus
other issues to come down today, listen to the debate, reject those
amendments that do not improve this bill, and pass this bill on final
passage.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me the time and for his efforts on this important reform
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Amendments of 1995, because it provides a progressive and innovative
framework for addressing the environmental water quality issues that
our Nation faces. It is a practical, bipartisan bill that builds upon
the important environmental standards and safeguards encased in the
1972 Clean Water Act, but reassesses the direction of the legislation
to provide flexibility for States and local communities in achievement
of those standards.
Everyone recognizes that the Clean Water Act of 1972 was a seminal
piece of legislation which laid the groundwork for significant
improvement in our Nation's water quality. When it was written over 20
years ago, it focused on the major environmental problem facing our
country at the time, point source pollution. By imposing uniform
nationwide standards and centralizing control of those standards in
Washington, the Clean Water Act of 1972 provided a successful initial
approach to pollution cleanup. It has been an effective tool for
getting us to where we are today.
But times have changed, and it has become apparent that the one-size-
fits-all approach that worked over two decades ago is not wholly and
completely relevant or effective today. Point source pollution has been
reined in significantly. Now it is evident that the problems associated
with non-point source pollution have not been adequately addressed.
In fact, there are many unintended problems that have emerged from
this old legislation, most notably the unacceptable costs and
regulatory burdens that have been placed on States and local
communities which dwarf dwindling environmental gains. My State of
Massachusetts, for example, faces the highest per capita cost in the
country for compliance with the mandates imposed by the current Clean
Water Act.
The one-size-fits-all approach worked well to level the playing field
initially, but it overlooked the fact that our Nation is composed of a
series of diverse regions.
Mr. Chairman, I would end by saying I strongly support this Clean
Water Reform Act. I commend the chairman for his work in this area.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking Democrat on the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment who has done so much
work on this.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
California for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong opposition to H.R. 961, a
bill that is inaccurately called the Clean Water Act Amendments of
1995.
Let us be clear about this, Mr. Chairman. If this bill becomes law,
our waters will be dirtier, there will be more outbreaks of waterborne
disease and there will be far fewer valuable wetlands.
It cannot be hidden behind talk of flexibility or local option, the
goal of this bill is to make it easier to pollute our Nation's waters.
This bill takes us back to the days before 1972 when many rivers were
open sewers and some even caught on fire.
In 1972, when the Clean Water Act was passed, only one-third of our
Nation's rivers were fit for fishing and swimming. Today, more than 60
percent of our waters meet that test.
This is a record which should make us proud. It is not time for
reversal of the Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 will lead us backward by removing 60 to 80 percent of our
Nation's wetlands from protection, including parts of the Florida
Everglades, the great dismal swamp, and the New Jersey shore.
It will do virtually nothing to reduce pollution from runoff, the No.
1 cause of pollution in our Nation's waters. Polluted run-off into
drinking water caused 400,000 illnesses and 104 deaths in Milwaukee 2
years ago.
This bill will mean more Milwaukees in the future. This bill even
eliminates the one effective program we have to control run-off
pollution in coastal areas--over the objections of the coastal States
organization.
It is not just the coastal States organization that has concerns
about this bill. It is the National conference of State Legislators,
the Association of State Wetland Managers, the National Governors'
Association, inconsistent with their wetlands policy, the International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Associations.
There are just too many concerns that have been raised by too many
groups about this bill.
It is a bill that will gut the core of the Clean Water Act, the basic
national clean water standards that everyone must meet.
This bill will give us anti-environment races all over the country as
local governments compete to attract development by reducing
environmental standards and sending the pollution downstream. This is
simply the wrong direction for the Clean Water Act.
We should be working to fix what needs to be fixed in the Clean Water
Act so we can continue to protect the environment while promoting
economic growth.
I have had my frustrations with parts of the Clean Water Act and the
way some of it has been implemented.
These parts should be fixed.
We should fix the stormwater program to make it rational and
sensible.
We should eliminate the unnecessary administrative requirements of
the State Revolving Loan Fund and get the money out to the States.
[[Page H4694]]
We should fix the coastal zone Non-Point Pollution Program to allow
targeting of impaired or threatened waters.
We should approve the new combined sewer overflow policy to help the
Nation's older urban areas.
We should fix the wetlands permitting process that ties up too many
projects in a snarl of red tape and treats all wetlands alike.
Instead, this bill gives us waivers, exemptions, repeals and
limitations that will mean less environment protection for all
Americans.
The American people do not want us to allow more water pollution.
They want us to protect them from corporate polluters.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on H.R. 961 and let us write a bill
that gives the American people clean water and environmental protection
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Shuster
and members of our committee who have worked tirelessly in producing
what I think is a common sense balance between Federal and local
control over clean water programs.
This bipartisan bill recognizes the critical need for flexibility at
the State and local level. While, at the same time, the bill retains
all existing EPA water quality standards and requirements.
Most importantly, this bill represents a renewed investment in our
Nation's clean water infrastructure by authorizing $15 billion for the
State revolving loan fund, among other programs.
This bill gives States and local officials the flexibility to manage
and control stormwater like other forms of runoff. By providing this
regulatory flexibility, the bill reduces the cost of unfunded mandates
to our States.
The bill also provides needed comprehensive reforms to the Wetlands
Permitting Program, while protecting true wetlands for all of us to
enjoy.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a commonsense approach to reauthorizing
the Clean Water Act, and would urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
(Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
granting me time, because I rise with some hesitation to speak against
the bill as it came from the committee.
On the one hand, I appreciate what the gentleman from Pennsylvania,
the chairman of the committee, has done, because clearly we need more
commonsense application of the laws governing the environment and the
regulations that are formulated.
At the same time, coming from the State of Michigan, which has more
coastline than any of the 48 contiguous States and which has numerous
wetlands, I must rise to speak against the wetlands provisions of the
bill. They are unworkable. It would do great damage to wetlands in many
States, and particularly in the State of Michigan, if those standards
were applied in our State.
In particular, the hunters and fishers of our State, and of many
States around the Midwest who come to Michigan to pursue their sport,
will be deeply disappointed in the wetlands provisions because they are
going to have a very deleterious effect upon the population of
waterfowl, the population of fish, and, of course, there will be
environmental damage as well due to the loss of the filtration
properties of the wetlands that we have in our beautiful State.
Therefore, although I support the attempt to have a more commonsense
approach to environmental regulation, and I will continue to support
that, through risk assessment, and so forth, I do oppose the new
provisions regarding wetlands and certain other portions of the bill
and support the Saxton-Boehlert substitute.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone], a former colleague on our committee who has now
gone on to the Committee on Commerce, but who has exhibited a great
deal of interest in the work of our committee.
{time} 1400
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take my 2 minutes if I
could to talk about the economic impact of this bill. It is interesting
because I think that many of the proponents have been making the
argument, looking at the so-called cost-benefit or the risk assessment
provisions and suggesting that somehow we need to revise the Clean
Water Act during this reauthorization to look at cost-benefit and risk
and other things which I might characterize as monetizing the Clean
Water Act, something that was mentioned in the New York Times.
From my perspective though and I think from that from many of the
coastal states and other parts of the country, by severely weakening
the Clean Water Act as this bill does it is jeopardizing many of our
most important industries, most notably the tourism industry.
In my part of New Jersey, in fact New Jersey as a whole, tourism is
the No. 1 industry and we know that estimates are something like $400
billion a year in this country nationwide comes from the travel and
tourism industry.
We also have to note that clean water is very important to the
fishing industry, a $55 billion a year industry in this great Nation
and also concerns about drinking water. Everyone relies on drinking
water, municipal drinking water or other drinking water supplies.
The point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that by severely
weakening the Clean Water Act we are in effect putting on our country
and on our citizens and on our taxpayers a great deal of expense
because if they lose the money that comes from travel and tourism, if
we lose the money that comes from the fishing industry, if we are
required to spend billions of dollars in the future to provide for
better drinking water or cleaner water than ultimately the taxpayers
and the country and the economic output of the country suffers. And I
think that those who are urging that somehow weakening this act
benefits the taxpayer because the taxpayer is in some way going to save
some money is simply a false argument.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
(Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 961, the bipartisan clean
water reauthorization. I would like to say at the outset no one
disputes the importance of clean water to our citizens. Nor does anyone
that I know of dispute that the Clean Water Act has generally been a
successful vehicle for improving the quality of our water.
Having said that, I think that it is equally clear that some of the
provisions of the act need reform. In my view the area of current law
that is in most need of an overhaul is section 404 of the Clean Water
Act.
Over the years in our part of the country this section has been
increasingly abused by Federal regulation and regulators. This abuse
has made the wetlands permitting process a nightmare for private land
owners and has led in some cases to literally an assault on the rights
of many Americans.
This bill which the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] have helped to author takes, I
think, constructive steps to correct some of these problems. The new
wetlands classification process will permit the protection of our
valuable wetlands while pragmatically allowing development of property
that is of no importance to our environmental concerns.
Additionally the bill includes language from H.R. 925 that was
overwhelmingly passed earlier this year in the House, and it would
simply require compensation for landowners whose property value is
diminished through government regulatory action.
I think most everyone agrees that as protectors and defenders of our
Constitution no one can countenance the taking of private property
without just compensation.
I have been contacted by many people in our district in middle and
west Tennessee in what is a rural district
[[Page H4695]] over the years. Many of these farmers have been crying
for relief from the burden of this out-of-control wetland permitting
process. And I think this bill today is a most important step in this
process.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Tate].
Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
First of all I would like to commend the chairman for his fine work
on this particular piece of legislation. This truly is a clean water
bill. And it advances our congressional commitment to protecting our
environment. It is common sense, it is cost effective. Things are now
going to be based on sound science and not on fad, not on emotion and
not on the whims of the day.
And it upholds property rights, protects fairness, and provides
incentives for people to comply, not a big club, but encourages people
to do what they believe is right and that is protecting our clean
waters.
It also streamlines the bureaucracy, and we need the bureaucrats back
here in Washington, DC, not to be making every decision for cities that
they cannot even pronounce in my district.
Most importantly, this bill protects the Puget Sound which is the
pristine waters that border my district. It is a bipartisan bill, has
strong bipartisan support and it upholds the true values that we are
concerned about and that is clean water, not just more redtape, and I
urge the support of Members of this body to support truly a clean water
bill.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong
opposition to H.R. 961. The Clean Water Act was written in 1972. In my
State of Rhode Island, we have made a great deal of progress since
then, thanks to the act.
In 1970 the Blackstone River, north of Woonsocket was a dead river.
Today at least 16 different fish species swim in the Blackstone,
including game fish such as large-mouth bass and brown trout.
In 1970 the Rhode Island Department of Health discovered metals in
the fish of Narragansett Bay. Quahogs contained mercury, lead, and
chromium. Today these are down 90 percent and are well within the safe
zone because of private industry cutting back on discharges due to more
stringent permits.
In 1970 because Jamestown had no sewer treatment plant, 200,000
gallons of raw sewage was dumped into Narragansett Bay everyday.
Shellfishing and swimming areas were closed. Today the town has a
secondary sewage treatment plant and most of the Island is open to
shellfishing and swimming.
The Clean Water Act not only provides Rhode Island with the tools
necessary to restore our coastal waterways, but also fosters economic
development by preventing future shellfish bed closures through a full
implementation of its coastal nonpoint source management program.
Anyone who has ever farmed Mount Hope Bay or the Kikamuit River knows
that because of stormwater runoff from parking lots and failing septic
systems the wildlife in the water becomes polluted and inedible. Simply
changing the definition of swimmable and fishable does not change the
fact that the fish will be inedible. Hence, it does not mean the fish
can be sold. The economy and the environment are not competing
interests.
In my State, relaxing standards will do more economic harm than good.
Look at the facts. In Rhode Island commercial fishing industry is a
$100 million industry, up 700 percent since the Clean Water Act was
first implemented in 1972. Oppose H.R. 961. It is bad for the
environment and bad for our economy.
Many of you may not know that Rhode Island is the Ocean State.
Because of the vast array of beaches, rivers, and boating marinas, the
travel and tourism industry generates almost $1.5 billion a year for my
State. The vast majority of this occurs in and around Narragansett Bay.
Salt water swimming is enjoyed by 67 percent of the Rhode Island
population and $70 million is spent in sport fishing every year. I
seriously doubt that Rhode Island would be such an attractive place for
almost 2 million people to visit every year if our waters were polluted
with metals that are especially harmful to our children and the
elderly.
I ask you, who would want to smell the raw sewage blowing off the bay
or pull a dying fish from the water. In short, if we gut the Clean
Water Act today we will not only be jeopardizing our health, but the
economies of our Nation's coastal States.
It was the Clean Water Act regulations that allowed Rhode Island to
reduce pollution in the Mount Hope Bay, adding 800,000 lbs. of
additional quahogs to each years harvest.
It was the Clean Water Act that saved Narragansett Bay so that many
of New England's most important fish, like winter flounder, striped
bass, and fluke could safely repopulate themselves.
And it was the Clean Water Act that helped publicly owned wastewater
treatment plants in Narragansett Bay achieve a 57-percent reduction in
the amount of pollutants they discharge.
I ask all my colleagues to look not at the short-run interests, but
the long-term concerns and quality of life of our citizens. We must act
wisely to avoid the same recklessness that forced us to legislate the
Clean Water Act in the first place.
Unfortunately, environmentalists are typically characterized as
eccentrics, with nothing better to do than complain about obscure
pollutants or rare animals. I abhor that characterization. In my State,
environmentalists come in many forms. They are the hard-working
lobstermen and quahogers who farm Narragansett Bay. They are the
sportsmen who canoe down the Runnins River or fish for striped bass in
the Atlantic. Most importantly they are our children who swim in our
rivers and play in our parks.
I am proud to call myself an environmentalist. A person who sees the
future not just on a balance sheet but by the air we breathe, the water
we swim in, and the diverse variety of life we share our community
with. In the words of Teddy Roosevelt, our 26th President and renowned
conservationist:
To waste, to destroy, our natural resources, to skin and
exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its
usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our
children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand
down to them amplified and developed.
Oppose H.R. 961 and support economic environmentalism rather than
economic expediency.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
(Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. In
particular, I rise in support of the balance this bill bring to our
public policy on nonpoint source pollution control as well as wetlands
definition and enforcement.
Representing a large rural district in central and southern Illinois
there is not a single day that goes by that I do not deal with these
problems.
The real question facing the rural areas of America is how we can
best manage to come into compliance with the standards of clean water
in this country, and in this bill, in the most cost-effective and
efficient way possible. We do not have unlimited resources in this
country.
The farmers of this country have been good conservationists; they
have to be to sustain a family income on which they can live. They have
proven through the conservation reserve program and other solid
environmental protection measures that they can produce excellent
watershed management on a voluntary basis without additional government
mandates. And those good voluntary watershed management practices have
made positive contributions to the clean water in this country, not
negative.
With respect to wetlands, not every acre that is on the books today
are true wetlands, and even the true wetlands are not all of the same
value. And in any case, there is absolutely no need for three separate
Federal agencies to have jurisdiction over this issue. This bill brings
a commonsense solution to these problems.
To suggest, as someone has already done today, that Americans should
be afraid of turning on their tap water as a result of this bill, that
we are all going to be drinking bottled water, is the kind of talk I
just cannot believe. That kind of talk only fuels the paranoia against
government that is running rampant in this country today.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette].
[[Page H4696]] (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Chairman, first I want to commend Chairman
Shuster for his leadership in bringing H.R. 961 to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 961, and in particular
title I of H.R. 961, which reauthorizes environmental programs that are
critical to the waters of the Great Lakes region. More than $12 billion
in Federal investment has brought the Great Lakes back from the brink
of death and is credited for making the Great Lakes great again. A $4.5
billion annual Great Lakes sport fishing economy is a further testament
that our country will continue to reap important economic benefits by
passing H.R. 961 by providing $3 billion in programs such as wastewater
treatment facilities. This will serve to build on the success of the
Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 also seeks to address the contaminated sediments problem
that clogs the Great Lakes system.
H.R. 961 also contains provisions to better coordinate research
activities among Federal agencies engaged in research on the Great
Lakes.
H.R. 961 is also supportive of making sure the fish in the Great
Lakes are safe to eat.
I urge passage of H.R. 961.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri].
(Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in
opposition to the Boehlert amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for H.R. 961, the Clean
Water Amendments of 1995.
This bill makes significant commonsense reforms to our Nation's clean
water program. It maintains the goals of the Clean Water Act while
providing more flexibility to our States and local authorities who know
their States and their waters and know best how to reach those goals.
Let me point out that this flexibility is given to the States and also
to EPA to utilize if they see fit--industry has not been given sweeping
unilateral waivers from critical requirements of the act as has been
charged.
This bill strengthens the current nonpoint source program and
replaces the current broken stormwater program with one that will be
more effective and gives States a range of tools--from voluntary
measures to site-specific permits--to deal with stormwater runoff.
The section on watershed management encourages States to pursue
comprehensive point and nonpoint source programs on a watershed basis
to most efficiently meet water quality standards. The bill continues
the Federal-State partnership by authorizing Federal assistance to the
States for the construction of wastewater treatment plants, to address
nonpoint source pollution, to continue cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay
and the Great Lakes, and for a host of other pressing water quality
needs.
H.R. 961 also incorporates many of the principles that the House has
already passed, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to
ensure that our limited financial resources are utilized in such a way
as to get the greatest water quality benefit.
Now, with any bill of this length which addresses such complex
issues, there undoubtedly will be some provisions that may cause some
concern. For example, I may have some concerns regarding some of the
wetlands provisions, but I realize that this bill will continue to be a
work in progress and undoubtedly more revisions will be made before the
bill finally is enacted into law.
Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we know that Americans want to preserve
and protect our environment, particularly our precious water resources,
and we know that they want commonsense regulation--that was made clear
in last year's elections. I believe we can have both as is accomplished
in this bill, and I urge the House to approve H.R. 961.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller], the very distinguished ranking Democrat on the
Committee on Resources.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us today exemplifies the
dangerous liaison between private interests and the majority in the
House when it comes to amending our Nation's laws.
That close partnership is no where more evident than in the proposed
revisions of the Clean Water Act--the law that has cleaned up San
Francisco Bay near my district, and thousands of other rivers, streams,
bays, and other bodies of water throughout America over the past
quarter century.
Are there problems with the Clean Water Act? Of course. I have
concerns about some of the ways in which the law has been implemented,
too, and if we had a real commitment to reform, I have little doubt we
could develop a sound alternative to this bill.
But let us make no mistake: H.R. 961 is not about fixing the
mistakes. It is about devastating one of the great achievements of
environmental policy in this country. And this emasculation of the law
is taking place at the request, and at the direction of, powerful
special interests who have been granted unprecedented access to the
drafting of the legislation.
Strewn throughout H.R. 961, particularly in title III, are special
exemptions, waivers, and exclusions that benefit these special
interests:
An exemption from effluent limitations for coal remining operations
that discharge into waters that already fail to meet water quality
standards;
A provision limiting EPA's ability to upgrade discharge standards for
industrial polluters which benefits the pulp and paper industry and
others;
An exemption from wetlands permit requirements for iron and steel
manufacturers;
An exemption from the silver discharge standard for the
photoprocessing industry;
An exemption for oil and gas pipelines.
Exemption after exemption provided to high polluting industries by
this legislation that masquerades as reform.
This is not reform. It is a clear example of special interest
legislation, written on behalf of powerful interests and at the expense
of our environment and the health and safety of the people of the
United States.
I have introduced legislation that would require that the authors of
any legislation prepared by private entities be disclosed before the
Congress voted to make special interest provisions the law of the land.
Although the majority has not yet accorded me a hearing on my bill, I
am hopeful that the majority will voluntarily disclose who sought and
wrote these special interest provisions before asking our colleagues to
vote them into law.
Regardless who authored these exemptions, they are bad policy and
should be rejected by the House.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 2, 1995.
To: Distribution.
From: Patricia Law.
Re: Clean Water Task Forces.
Thank you for agreeing to participate in a very ambitious
legislative timetable for reporting a Clean Water bill, but
one which we hope you will find constructive and will result
in a product that we can all support.
Attached is the list of participants from yesterday's
meeting indicating each organization's primary area of focus
if it was provided. We will notify you as soon as possible of
the Subcommittee Member assignments and dates for Task Force
meetings. Our hope is to have these meetings at the beginning
of next week. In the meantime, we encourage you to work
together to identify outstanding issues and to formulate your
proposals for addressing them. The following groups have
agreed to take the lead for this front work. If you are not
identified on the attached list as having an interest in a
particular task force, we suggest that you call the lead.
Nonpoint Source and Watershed: Thomas W. Curtis, Director,
Natural Resources Group, National Governors Association, Hall
of the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 267,
Washington, D.C. 20001-1512, 202/624-5389, 202/624-5313
(fax).
Point Source: Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager,
Environment Policy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water
Industry Coalition, 1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20062-2000, 202/463-5627, 202/887-3445 (fax).
Funding and Unfunded Mandates: Robert K. Reeg, Manager,
Congressional & State Relations, National Society of
Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA
22314-2794, 703/684-2873, 703/836-4875 (fax).
Stormwater: Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and
Federal Relations, National League of Cities, 1301
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 2004, 202/626-
3028, 202/626-3043 (fax).
Wetlands: Kim Putens, Executive Director, National Wetlands
Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298-1886, 202/338-2361 (fax).
[[Page H4697]] Please feel free to call me with any
questions or assistance that you require from us. Again, we
appreciate your involvement and look forward to working with
you.
clean water task force participants
Joseph M. McGuire, Director, Legislative and Regulatory
Affairs, Allied Signal, 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite
700, Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/662-2657, 202/662-2674
(fax), (point source).
Lee Garrigan, American Consulting Engineers Council, 1015
Fifteenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/347-7474,
202/898-0068 (fax), (funding).
Sam White, America Crop Protection Association, 1156 15th
Street, N.W., Suite 400, Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/872-
3846, 202/463-0474 (fax), (nonpoint source).
Mark Maslyn, American Farm Bureau Federation and Clean
Water Working Group, 600 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Suite 800,
Washington, D.C. 20024, 202/484-3615, 202/484-3604 (fax)
(nonpoint source).
Karla Perri, Director, Legislative Affairs, American Forest
& Paper Association, 1111 19th Street, N.W., Suite 800,
Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/463-2436, 202/463-2424 (fax),
(nonpoint source, wetlands, point source, stormwater).
Christopher Myrick, Director, Government Relations,
American Home Products Corporation, Suite 1001 1726 M Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/659-8320, 202/659-2158
(fax), (point source, nonpoint source).
Cary L. Cox, Ashland Inc. and American Petroleum Institute,
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., North Building, Suite 540,
Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/223-8290 x223, 202/293-2913
(fax), (point source).
Jennifer Boucher, Associated Builders and Contractors, 1300
North Seventeenth Street, Rosslyn, VA 22209, 703/812-2000,
702/812-8202 (fax), (funding).
Heidi H. Stirrup, Director, Congressional Relations,
Associated General Contractors of America, 1957 E Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006-5199, 202/393-2040, 202/347-5412
(fax), (stormwater, funding).
Ken Kirk, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
1000 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 410, Washington, D.C.
20036, 202/833-4653, 202/833-4567 (fax), (funding).
Linda Eichmiller, Deputy Director, Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, 750 First
Street, N.E., Suite 910, Washington, D.C. 20002, 202/898-
0905, 202/898-0929 (fax), (stormwater, point source, nonpoint
source, funding).
Rose Marie Sanders, Legislative Representative, Air & Water
Chemical Manufacturers Association, 2501 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20037, 202/887-1123, 202/463-1598 (fax),
(point source).
Edward M. Kavjian, Washington Representative, General
Motors Corporation, 1660 L Street, N.W., Suite 401,
Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/775-5086, 202/775-5032 (fax).
David T. Modi, Senior Director, Government Affairs, Georgia
Pacific Corporation, 1875 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 775,
Washington, D.C. 20006, 202/828-9631, 202/223-1398 (fax).
Aleesa L. Bell, Washington Representative, International
Paper and Great Lakes Water Quality Coalition, 1101
Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20004,
202/628-1223, 202/628-1368 (fax), (point source).
Victoria Shaw, Senior Manager of Government Relations,
National Association of Metal Finishers, 1200 19th Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, 202/429-5108, 202/223-4579
(fax), (point source).
Greg Ruehle, Director, Private Lands, Water and
Environment, National Cattlemen's Association and Clean Water
Working Group, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 300,
Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/347-0228, 202/638-0607 (fax),
(nonpoint source).
Karen Ann Mogan, Director, Environmental Affairs, National
Food Processors Association, 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/639-5929, 202/637-8068 (fax)
(stormwater, point source).
Thomas W. Curtis, Director, Natural Resources Group,
National Governors Association, Hall of the States, 444 North
Capitol Street, Suite 267, Washington, D.C. 20001-1512, 202/
624-5389, 202/624-5313 (fax), (nonpoint source).
Carol Kocheisen, Counsel, Center for Policy and Federal
Relations, National League of Cities, 1301 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/626-3028, 202/626-
3043 (fax), (stormwater, nonpoint source, watershed,
funding).
Robert S. Long, Vice President, Government Affairs,
National Mining Association, 1130 Seventeenth Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20036-4677, 202/463-2663, 202/833-1965
(fax), (stormwater).
Robert K. Reeg, Manager, Congressional & State Relations,
National Society of Professional Engineers, 1420 King Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314-2794, 703/684-2873, 703/836-4875 (fax),
(funding).
John M. Stinson, Director, Government Affairs, National
Steel Corporation, 1575 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 1100,
Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/638-7707, 202/289-4616 (check
fax), (point source).
A. William Hillman, Director of Government Relations,
National Utility Contractors Association and Clean Water
Council, 4301 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 360, Arlington, VA
22203-1627, 703/358-9300, 703/358-9307 (fax), (funding).
Kim Putens, Executive Director, National Wetlands
Coalition, 1050 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W., 7th Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/298-1886, 202/338-2361 (fax),
(wetlands).
Robert Hurley, Senior Vice President, R Duffy Wall &
Associates, Inc., Suite 410 South, 601 13th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20005, 202/737-0100, 202/628-3965 (fax).
Jean R. Toohey, Manager, Government Relations, Rhone-
Pouleac, 1401 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 200, Washington, D.C.
20005, 202/898-3185, 202/628-0500 (fax).
Jeffrey S. Longworth, Stormwater Reform Coalition, c/o
Collier, Shannon, Rill & Scott, 3050 K Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20007, 202/342-8642, 202/338-5534 (fax),
(stormwater).
Jeffrey L Leiter, Stormwater Reform Coalition, c/o Collier,
Shannon, Rill & Scott, 3050 K Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20007, 202/342-8490, 202/338-5534 (fax), (stormwater).
Charles W. Ingram, Associate Manager, Environment Policy,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Clean Water Industry Coalition,
1615 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20062-2000, 202/463-
5627, 202/887-3445 (fax).
Philip Cummings, Attorney at Law, Clean Water Act
Reauthorization Coalition, McKutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen,
1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800, Washington, D.C.
20004, 202/628-4900, 202/628-4912 (fax), (point source).
Peter A. Molinaro, Assistant Director, Government Affairs,
Union Carbide Corporation and Clean Water Act Reauthorization
Coalition, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 230,
Washington, D.C. 20004, 202/393-3211, 202/347-1684 (fax),
(CWARC, point source).
{time} 1415
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant].
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I support the bill. This is a common-
sense approach and balance between regulations and jobs, and it is
sorely needed in our country.
This Nation has gotten so overzealous with this environmental
business that if a dog accidentally passes water in a parking lot some
government agent might deem it to be a wetland. A farmer cannot even
maintain the creeks on their own property from spilling over and
ruining their own cropland. What kind of sense is this?
The American people have had it. They are asking Congress to employ a
little common sense. That is what this bill does.
I have a couple of amendments. No. 1 is, the first, a standard buy
American, and there should be no problem. The second one, though,
states that my amendment would allow for a waiver for the encouragement
and development and use of innovative pollution prevention
technologies, but only if those technologies are American made to every
extent practicable. I expect to have support on that amendment.
But what I really wanted to talk about today is this Great Lakes
initiative. The report is out. The Great Lakes initiative was
originally to be guidelines, not strict binding rules, guidelines, not
rules. I support the language in this bill that maintains guidelines,
not binding rules for the following reasons: If implemented under
binding status, the Great Lakes States will suffer as much as $11
billion in cost factors and as many as 33,000 jobs. Now, that makes no
sense.
Finally, I want to talk about this we-they business. Manufacturers,
with this bill, are not getting carte blanche to go out and ruin our
environment, and there is a common-sense approach that will, in fact,
encourage jobs to stay here in America instead of being chased offshore
by these overzealous regulators.
And, Congress, let me say this, we are not going to have a job left
in America if you continue with oppressive regulations that allow an
open door policy to leave our country. There is a balance. That balance
can be reached. Let us reach it here today.
I support H.R. 961 and urge its passage.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
(Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, I stand in favor of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, today I stand to applaud the fine bipartisan work of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in crafting, what
should be recognized as a victory for the American people, the
environment, and common sense.
[[Page H4698]] This bill recognizes the critical need for flexibility
at the State and local level. The approach of H.R. 961 is to preserve
environmental standards and safeguards in the Clean Water Act, while
providing flexibility in achieving those standards. The Clean Water
Amendments of 1995 recognizes and reaffirms the fundamental thrust of
the original 1972 act while focusing on those areas where the law
clearly needs updating. H.R. 961 is a common-sense approach to provide
flexibility to local officials, reduce unfunded mandates, ease
redundant and costly regulations, and makes bureaucrats factor risk
assessment into their decisions.
In crafting this bill, Members of both parties have realized that
officials at the local level know how to address their water quality
matters a lot better than the bureaucrats in Washington. It was the
desire to have cleaner water in my small town of Farmington, UT, 30
years ago that brought me into politics. It is the desire of all of us
to have clean, safe water to drink and use. To mandate how standards
must be reached may have worked in 1972, but it is my belief that city
councilmen, mayors, Governors, and State regulators can be fully
trusted to care for the water quality of their communities. They are
closest to the situation and have the most to gain from achieving the
high standards set out in this bill.
Without question, the current section 404 wetlands regulatory program
is badly in need of reform. Since enactment of the Clean Water Act in
1972, the wetlands permitting program has been expanded broadly from a
program affecting navigable waters, to a program regulating activities
on 75 million acres of privately owned property.
I strongly support the wetland provisions of H.R. 961 as a major
victory to achieve the Nation's wetlands conservation goals, while at
the same time respecting the property rights of individuals. I applaud
Chairman Bud Shuster and his committee for their fine work and urge
strong support for passage of this historical bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Kansas
[Mr. Roberts].
(Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The gentleman from California just made an allegory, made a statement
that this is a dangerous liaison. It is not that. It is a partnership
effort to prevent close encounters of the regulatory kind.
This is a good bill. For 15 years we have tried to get a bill like
this making a partnership with industry, agriculture,
environmentalists. Fifteen years we have been spinning our wheels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in finally bringing a good
bill to the floor of the House.
I want to talk about wetlands. The gentleman from Ohio just made a
rather graphic reference to what the problem has been. It is true. We
have now a well established procedure that says the land must be
flooded if it is going to be a wetland. It must support water loving
plants, and it must have hydric soils. The land must show clear
evidence of all three characteristics.
Too long, too long we have been subjected to regulatory nightmares
where a low spot in some farmer's field was declared a wetland in an
area where no self-respecting duck would ever land. Let us end this
business.
Let us pass this bill. It is a good partnership. I commend the
chairman. I commend his leadership. No member of the Committee on
Agriculture on either side should vote against this bill. It is a very
good reform bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Amendments of 1995, as reported by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
As the Transportation Committee noted in its report, the Clean Water
Act was last amended in 1987 and most of its authorizations expired in
1991. Because past Congresses could not get a bill out of either
committee, our Nation's water quality programs have suffered. And, more
importantly, Federal regulators have been allowed to run amok on
private lands, entangling farmers, ranchers and other American
businesses in unlegislated, prescriptive regulation. It is time to tell
the regulators what the policy will be and follow up the enactment of
this bill with vigorous oversight.
This bill sets sound policy for nonpoint pollution protection of the
Nation's waters and amends Section 404 for a commonsense approach to
the conservation of wetlands. Farmers and ranchers will find this
policy to be both understandable, reasonable--and with proper
implementation, very workable for American agriculture.
I want to emphasize two important parts of this bill that make it
essential policy for the future of American agriculture: amendments to
section 319 dealing with nonpoint source programs and title VIII
amendments that rewrite section 404 provisions dealing with wetlands.
State water quality programs under section 319 of the bill are to be
developed using voluntary, incentive-based standards that are likely to
be achieved within the 15-year timetable set out in the bill. The
amendments fully express the committee's correct understanding that the
way to achieve water quality standards is not through command-and-
control regulations, but by adopting policies that are possible, and
timeliness and deadlines that make sense.
To the extent agriculture is responsible for nonpoint source
discharges, the committee rightly chose to avoid the top-down approach
to regulation. We cannot regulate nonpoint sources as if pollution was
coming from the end of a pipe. In addition, the bill includes section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Management Act within section 319, ending a
duplicative regulatory regime for agricultural producers in coastal
areas.
I would caution Members about one provision that admittedly has
caused me some concerns--concerns the Agriculture Committee may want to
address once this bill is law and the 1995 farm bill has been enacted.
That provision gives authority for the chief of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enter
into written agreements with States as they develop their section 319
water quality programs. The incentive for such an agreement would be to
give agricultural producers the
assurance that they are in compliance with the Clean Water Act. But,
the problem is how the agreement may be written.
Frankly, farmers and ranchers have not been well served by a similar
agreement on wetlands that was hailed by the Clinton administration as
the end of controversy on the regulation of wetlands under both the
Clean Water Act and the 1985 Food Security Act. We were told under this
agreement farmers would no longer be subject to successive visits by
Federal bureaucrats. There would be a final outcome on wetland
determinations on the ground. Unfortunately, the members of the
Agriculture Committee took this announcement on good faith. That faith
has been sorely abused. The same kind of regulatory abuse is possible
here. The Agriculture Committee intends to watch this closely.
The wetlands provisions of this bill are redesigned to finally end
the abuse of farmers, ranchers, and other landowners. Title VIII is
sound policy. It is derived from H.R. 1330, a bill introduced by the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] to restore sanity to our national
wetlands policy. It recognizes there are different functions and values
of wetlands and allows for a ``type C'' wetlands classification that
will be left outside of Federal jurisdiction.
The Chairman's amendment to be offered today eliminates the concept
that land no longer meeting wetland criteria can be classified a prior
converted wetland, serving limited wetland functions. A prior converted
cropland, one that was drained or filled prior to December 1985, no
longer exhibits wetland characteristics--and, should be in law and
regulation considered as an upland. These agricultural bottomlands,
many of which have been dry for a generation or more, are not wetlands.
However, under current law, regulators look at prior converted
croplands as just another parcel of private property they control
through regulatory fiat which means more regulation, more hassles for
the landowner, but no significant gains are realized for the
environment. I want to make certain this is clear: prior converted
croplands are not wetlands. Under this bill, they fall outside of
Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
The delineation procedures established under the committee-reported
bill will make sense to farmers and ranchers. The land must be flooded.
It must support water-loving plants. It must have hydric soils. The
land must show clear evidence of all three characteristics.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, farmed wetlands and other agricultural lands
determined to be exempt from subtitle C of the 1985 Food Security Act
shall be exempt from the Clean Water Act so long as those lands are
used for agricultural purposes.
To my colleagues, I say this is good, positive legislation. It
protects the wetlands the public believes need protection; it,
hopefully, will keep the bureaucrats off private property at least for
the purposes of the Clean Water Act. It will bring to an end nearly a
decade of abusive, over-reaching regulation. I urge its enactment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our very fine
colleague, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall], the ranking
Democrat on the
[[Page H4699]] Surface Transportation Subcommittee of our committee.
(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed fitting that we are
considering this bill today, this alleged reauthorization, the Clean
Water Act.
I say this because on this day, 123 years ago, President Grant signed
into law a bill that has perhaps created more environmental disasters
than any other single measure.
The law he signed has left us with a legacy of acidified rivers and
streams, devoid of aquatic life, running shades of orange and red.
A law that has left us with a legacy of mammoth open pits that serve
as toxic swimming pools for migrating birds.
A law that has left us with a legacy of cyanide laced rock and
debris, a ticking timebomb for future generations.
In short, a law that has given rise to more Superfund sites due to
the activities it endorses than has any other type of activity.
This activity is hardrock mining, for minerals such as gold and
silver, on Federal lands in the Western States. And the law is known as
the mining law of 1872.
So today, on its 123d anniversary, we find ourselves considering
another bill that if enacted promises to cause further environmental
degradation and depravation.
I say this because the pending legislation represents a direct
assault on the goals of the Clean Water Act.
Make no mistake about it, these are goals which are widely supported
by the citizens of this country.
Moreover, the pending bill even goes so far as to significantly roll-
back the progress that has already been made in achieving water
quality.
And it does so for no particular reason at all.
In the Appalachian Region of this country--where we do not have
hardrock mining under the mining law of 1872, but rather live on a
daily basis with the environmental, health and safety threats of past
coal mining practices--in many places we too have acidified rivers and
streams running those shades of orange and red.
For example, the Cheat River in West Virginia, once a prime
destination of whitewater rafting enthusiasts, today is so acidic that
its water irritates the eyes and skin of anyone who dares traverse its
rapids.
Our loss is not only the aquatic life that once inhabited parts of
this river, but a healthy amount of revenue from tourism.
But rather than seek to promote the rehabilitation of this river,
rather than seek to require that its designated water quality standards
are met, the pending legislation takes the position that if something
is polluted, well, it just might as well stay polluted.
And it does so by gutting the NPDES process, creating countless
loopholes and waivers for point-source pollutants.
It does so by allowing effluent limitations for point sources of
pollution to be based on new, weaker standards.
It does so by repealing the entire stormwater permit program, and by
hampering efforts to control nonpoint source pollution.
And it does so by attacking the very basis for the promulgation of
water quality standards, allowing non-scientific, arbitrary and
capricious factors to be used in standard setting.
No Member from the Appalachian region should be able to vote for this
bill.
And I would submit that those of our constituents who live with the
ravages of mining, whether it be hardrock or coal, simply did not elect
us to come up here and endorse the continued contamination of their
water sources: The rivers, the streams, the groundwater that serves as
the very lifeblood of our natural environment.
Finally, on the question of wetlands, I think all of us agree that
something must be done to provide relief from a permitting process that
has become a bureaucratic nightmare.
Yet, I do not believe that the majority of Americans want to see over
80 percent of our Nation's wetlands destroyed as could occur under the
pending measure.
This does not constitute responsible wetlands reform, and, it would
have far-reaching consequences.
For instance, I have been advised that this legislation would
significantly reduce duck populations and diminish prospects for future
duck-hunting seasons.
Obviously, ducks require duck habitat to survive, and that habitat--
wetlands--would be seriously threatened by the pending legislation.
This is something of concern to sportsmen and women throughout America,
and I know it is a matter of great concern to sporting groups in my
State of West Virginia.
For these, and many other reasons, I urge this body to reject the
pending measure.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Laughlin], one of the founding coalition members.
(Mr. LAUGHLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank the distinguished
chairman of our committee for turning this bill into a truly bipartisan
bill, and I commend our last chairman, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Mineta], for tying to work with us in the last Congress to pass a
clear water bill.
But let me set the record straight about the we-and-the-they and the
special interests. Half the Democrats on the Transportation
Infrastructure Committee have supported this bill, not three or four,
not a couple from the South, not a couple of boll weevils, 50 percent,
have supported this.
Mr. Chairman, I want to rise in support of the bill and encourage the
continuation of the bipartisan support.
Not only do I support the bill, I want to address a focus on the
nonpoint source pollution provisions, especially as they relate to
agriculture. Too often we have tried to clean up the water of America
by saying it is agriculture's fault, and when we come to cleaning up,
look in the last few years, we have put over $60 billion into the point
source, yet we put less than $1 billion into nonpoint source, and we
have tried to tell agriculture across America, ``You have got to do it
by these rules,'' when in fact agriculture in one part of the country
has a different focus and a different set of rules and a different set
of criteria, and we cannot clean up the agricultural lands of America
simply by having one set of rules that fit all.
In fact, it is farmers like Harley Savage, Steve Ballas, and other
farmers who should have the ability to do what they know how best to
do. They cannot produce a crop with dirty water, even though there are
some in my party that want to say this is a dirty water bill.
But the farmers of America cannot produce what they do better than
any industry in America, and that is to outproduce the rest of the
world in producing their products, whether it is cotton, corn, rice,
poultry, beef, or any other agricultural product, and we need to give
them the flexibility to do what they do best and to make sure that they
continue, unlike some big cities.
The agricultural community is not dirtying the water to the degree
that they are given the blame.
So I urge we implement and pass this bill so the agricultural
community can do the implementation with flexibility to ensure that
they continue giving us the clean water that all of us, whether we are
from the rural areas, from the cities, whether we are Democrats or
Republicans, we not only deserve but we want and we strive to achieve.
So this is not a we-they bill. I urge support of 961, and I wanted at
this point to thank the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] for his
great leadership in ensuring that this is a bipartisan bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time.
I just wanted to remark there has been much said here today about the
economic implications, whether they be good or bad, of this attempt to
change the Clean Water Act as it currently exists.
I would just like to say if you represent a coastal State and if you
look at the provisions of this bill as it stands today and if you think
that is good for your economy, then you should have spent the years of
the middle 1980's with me in New Jersey or with the Representatives of
Long Island when water was dirty. Those were
[[Page H4700]] the dirty water days. And we got past them.
If you think that doing damage to the wetlands provisions as they
exist today, in removing 90 percent of the wetlands in my home State
from the rolls of wetlands, if you think that is good for my economy,
then you should vote for this bill.
If you think it is good for the economy to gut the CZMA provisions
that pertain to nonpoint source pollution, I do not think it is, but if
you think it is, then you should vote for this bill.
I would just say that the Coastal States Association does not think
that is good, because we have adopted their provisions, and we have
done that in the name of the economy. If you think that doing damage to
the storm water discharge permitting process, as it happens in this
bill, is good for the economy of coastal States, then you should vote
for this bill. But I cannot do that, because I know, having lived
through the years of the middle 1980's in New Jersey and what happened
on Long island, that is not good for the economy.
So if you are concerned about the economy of the coastal areas in
this United States, whether it be in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, or Virginia or
the Carolinas, I am not so sure about Georgia; I have never been there,
or Florida or the Gulf States or California or Oregon or Wisconsin, if
you are not concerned about the economic implications of this bill,
then you have not observed what has gone on in those States that have
developed dirty water climates.
In the summers of 1987 and 1988, for example, in New Jersey, people
were afraid to go to the ocean, afraid to go in the water. They were
afraid to take vacations in those kinds of places. So that is our
economy, and this bill does damage to it.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our very fine
colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961,
the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. This bill would roll back decades
of progress in cleaning up our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters, and
it threatens the fragile ecosystems of our Nation's wetlands.
This bill has rightly been called a polluters' bill of rights.
Special interests representing some of our Nation's largest polluters
wrote this bill, so it is not surprising that it is riddled with
custom-made loopholes to let industries pollute.
The bill would increase from just 5 to 70,000 the number of
industrial pollutants that could be dumped into our Nation's waterways.
It would open up our Nation's most fragile wetlands to development,
including more than half of all the wetlands in my home State of
Connecticut.
This bill poses a threat to our safe drinking water and to the
rivers, streams, and lakes in which we swim and fish.
My constituents along Long Island Sound would be especially harmed by
provisions of this bill repealing efforts to clean up our coastal
waters. Our coast protection program has proven to be true--that good
environmental policy is good economic policy. Clean coastal waters
generate billions of dollars in tourism revenue, creates jobs in
fishing and other industries, and provide numerous recreational
activities.
Connecticut's Coastal Zone Management Program has made great strides
at cleaning up the Long Island Sound. It has successfully restored over
1,500 acres of critical tidal wetlands. From 1991 to 1993, the number
of beach closings along Long Island Sound was reduced from 292 to 174.
But we clearly have more work to do. More than 25 percent of Long
Island Sound's beaches still are chronically closed due to pathogen
contamination. We need policies and financial resources to continue our
progress, not reverse them as this bill would do.
I look forward to supporting the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute
because it preserves our coastal cleanup effort, it takes a more
reasonable approach to wetland protection, and closes the polluter
loopholes of H.R. 961. I am grateful that the substitute provides
strong support for the estuary protection goals of H.R. 1438, the Water
Pollution Control and Estuary Protection Act introduced by my colleague
from New York, Ms. Lowey, and myself.
The negative impact of H.R. 961 is immeasurable. It is bad news for
everyone, except for those industries that will enjoy numerous
loopholes and waivers. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting
against this bad bill.
{time} 1430
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. Danner].
(Ms. DANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. DANNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961 which
maintains and builds on the current safeguards in place and complements
the needs of States for flexibility. Those directly responsible for
water quality in our communities, such as the National Association of
Counties, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of
Mayors, support H.R. 961 because it makes environmental benefit a
primary focus of H.R. 961 and establishes a program that Congress can
support in a truly bipartisan approach to solving our Nation's
pollution dilemmas.
Let me read just one sentence from a letter that we have received
from the presidents of respectively the National Association of
Counties, National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors,
not the Members of Congress, but members who represent our constituency
across the United States. Charges, and I quote exactly, charges that
H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection and that it guts the Clean
Water Act are totally unfounded. The measure restores common sense to
this unaffordable and undoable mandate.
Remember, my colleagues, we have passed legislation here to do away
with unfunded mandates.
The people that represent our constituents, as well as ourselves, ask
us to recognize unfunded mandates as a real problem. I urge each of my
colleagues to support H.R. 961 and to follow the discretion of the
chairman and the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure by
retaining the allotment formula in the bill and opposing any efforts to
change the formula.
Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Chairman Shuster and the entire
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee staff for their diligence
and exemplary work on H.R. 961.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean
Water Act amendments of 1995 which maintains and builds on the current
safeguards in place in our system and complements the State needs for
more flexibility.
Those directly responsible for water quality in our communities--such
as the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities
and the U.S. Conference of Mayors support H.R. 961 because it makes
environmental benefit a primary focus of H.R. 961 and establishes a
program that Congress can support in a truly bipartisan approach to
solving our Nation's pollution dilemmas.
In a letter submitted from the groups I previously mentioned they
said and I quote:
Charges that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection
and that it guts the Clean Water Act, are totally unfounded.
The measure restores common sense to this unaffordable and
undoable mandate.
I urge each of my colleagues to support H.R,. 961 and to follow the
discretion of Chairman and the full Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee by retaining the allotment formula in the bill and opposing
any efforts to change the formula.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
If I could just have a couple of seconds to give the audience a
history lesson. Late in the 1500's we all remember Galileo, and he said
at that time he was trying to educate people that the sun was the
center of the solar system. Well the Pope heard that, Pope Urban VIII,
the head of the early Roman Empire, and he said, if Galileo repeats
that comment, the sun is the center of the solar system, he will have
his arms and legs dislocated.
Mr. Chairman, I want to put everybody's mind at ease. I do not fear
that my arms will be dislocated by making a comment about the provision
in this Clean Water Act taking away wetlands, but by the Pope telling
that
[[Page H4701]] to Galileo it made no difference. The sun was still the
center of the solar system. In this legislation this will not be a
wetland.
Now we can say anything we want about wetlands. We can describe them
any way we want to describe them. But that does not change the way
nature works, and this type of filtration system is absolutely
essential if we are going to have any productive coastal fishery, if we
are going to have any clean water.
This, my colleagues, regardless of what the bill says, is a wetland.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from San
Diego, CA [Mr. Filner], a very fine member of our committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
(Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, but
more importantly I thank the gentleman for his tireless efforts on
behalf of protecting our environment. I say to him, ``Mr. Mineta, we
may lose today's battle, but under your leadership I'm confident we're
going to be back, and we will win the long-range war.''
Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I rise today during this debate to urge
my colleagues not to turn our back on the health and safety of
Americans and to, once again, reassure my constituents in San Diego
that they will not have to spend billions for an unnecessary sewage
facility. San Diego is assured to regulatory relief with either of the
major alternatives on the floor, but we must also be sure that we can
fish and swim in San Diego's rivers, lakes, and beaches.
The critical questions that San Diegans must ask themselves about
these bills before us is, will I have clean water to drink, will I have
a clean beach to swim at, and will I get relief from the multi-billion-
dollar secondary treatment boondoggle? With the Boehlert substitute,
which I am supporting, the answers are ``yes'' to safe drinking water,
``yes'' to clean beaches, and ``yes'' to relief from increased sewage
bills. I cannot support any bill that purports to help San Diego on the
one hand and destroys the safety of our drinking water and beaches on
the other.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
particularly want to thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for bringing this bill to the floor,
and I particularly want to pay a great debt of gratitude, I hope, on
behalf of this entire House for the efforts, the long-standing efforts
that have been made by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], in this effort that has finally reached the
floor to reform the wetland laws of America and create some sound,
sensible regulations of wetlands in America combined with the right of
property owners to be reimbursed when their property is taken for these
regulatory purposes.
My colleagues, one of my colleagues from California rose earlier
today to complain about lobbyists' hands in the writing of this bill.
Let me set the record straight. This bill, the reforms have long been
on this table, not this year when the new majority came to town. These
reforms have long been on the table, never brought to the floor of this
House unfortunately, but long on the table, drafted in part by the
efforts, personal efforts of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes],
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin], many other Members of this
body who have urged this House to consider these amendments for many,
many years when the Democratic Party was in the majority.
I want to remind my colleagues from California that it was at a
meeting with lobbyists of the radical environmental groups in this town
on March 4, 1992, with some Members of this House, that a decision was
made then to kill the holy trinity, ``unholy trinity'' they called it,
ideas called property rights, unfunded mandates and the risk assessment
cost-benefit analysis regulatory reform. It was that link, that
collusion between the radical environmental left and Members of this
House that prevented this bill, these ideas, from ever getting to the
floor.
Let me finally make a point. I say to my colleagues, this bill is not
just about pollution and clean water. This bill is also about land
regulations and activities that are not polluting activities,
activities like building a home, activities like forming your property,
activities like simply digging a drainage ditch on your property so it
drains properly, nonpolluting activities that do not create nuisances
for anybody, that have nothing to do with violations of local zoning
laws, that simply have to do with the right of a person to use his
property for the purposes he intended it for, perhaps to cut a tree for
timber purposes, to grow some corn for agricultural purposes, perhaps
just to build a house for that son or daughter on the farm so that they
can live close to their parents. Those activities are regulated as
land-regulated activities under this clean water bill in the guise of
wetlands protection, and so when we discuss this bill, and you hear
talk about pollution and this bill being only a bill dealing with
pollution, remember this is land regulation, too, of nonpolluting
activities.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this reauthorization
of the Clean Water Act. It allows us to protect our precious waterways
in a cost-effective manner.
I have a particular interest in the Great Lakes provisions in this
bill. Lake Erie is a tremendous asset to my home State of Ohio. States
like Ohio want to be able to protect this resource in a way that makes
regulatory and financial sense.
The language in this bill gives them the flexibility to do exactly
that, and we will achieve more real progress than we would get if the
EPA's Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative was imposed as a rigid,
mandatory regulation.
Municipalities in my district have been concerned about the costly
provisions of the G-L-I. Wastewater treatment plants are being told to
reduce the discharge of mercury to a level lower than what naturally
occurs in rainwater. That amounts to spending millions of dollars to
remove a substance that is put back into the Great Lakes every time it
rains.
Even if implemented as written, there is no guarantee that the G-L-I
will lead to the lifting of a single fish advisory or the opening of an
additional mile of shoreline for unrestricted use.
Mr. Chairman, this is a strong bill. Let us support it.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy], a member of the Committee on Science and the
Committee on Small Business, who has been contributing a lot to this
effort.
(Ms. McCARTHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
[Mr. Mineta] for yielding this time to me and for his efforts on behalf
of sound legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns with H.R. 961, the
Clean Water Amendments of 1995. My State of Missouri is a land of
mighty rivers, and clean water is a gift from our ancestors and our
legacy to our children.
H.R. 961 would mean the end of our coordinated efforts to improve the
quality of this national resource. The strange patchwork of waivers and
credits envisioned by this bill would allow polluters to choose the way
they will diminish our water quality.
Mr. Chairman, the nine States in the Midwest which suffered
devastating floods in 1993, including Missouri, are working to expand
wetlands that will help absorb the shock of future flooding.
The National Conference of State Legislatures agrees that title VIII
of this bill will cripple those efforts, expose Midwesterners to
greater risk of flooding, and expose U.S. taxpayers to greater risk of
having to pay for future flood cleanups.
While the funding formula currently in the legislation would provide
for additional pollution run-off funds for Missouri, H.R. 961 does not
explain to
[[Page H4702]] Missourians how to pay for new treatment plants when
the lifeblood of their State, the great Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers, run thick once again with pollution. It does not explain how to
pay for new homes and businesses when the rivers overflow their banks.
I hope that as we debate amendments to H.R. 961 we will focus on
quality of life, and that includes not only new jobs but a clean
environment. I hope, too, that we adopt amendments to strike a proper
balance between increased State authority and preservation of minimum
Federal standards.
These goals are compatible; the Clean Water Act has proven that time
and again.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the debate we begin today
on the Clean Water Act is quite simply the test of whether the center
can hold. We are faced on the one hand by the clean water statute that,
despite its many strengths, has clear flaws that must be remedied.
{time} 1445
We are confronted, on the other hand, with a proposal that instead of
simply repairing those flaws, rolls back existing protections,
imperiling our rivers, lakes, and coastal waters.
Clearly, neither the status quo nor the proposed rewrite of the Clean
Water Act are acceptable alternatives. What is needed is an approach
that preserves our water resources without causing undue economic
hardship. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and I will offer a substitute later today
that offers just such an approach.
What we have done is to take the best proposals being offered around
town and combine them into one bill. Our litmus test has not been
ideology, but practical input, which proposal was the most likely to
reasonably protect our Nation's waters.
For example, we have adopted the National Governors' Association
proposal for wetlands protection, a solid middle ground position. H.R.
961, on the other hand, would allow the wholesale destruction of more
than half the Nation's wetlands. That is not my opinion, that is what
we learned from the scientists. We have just had a report yesterday
from the National Academy of Sciences. That would mean increased
flooding, less fresh water, and a decline in the fishing and tourism
industries.
Current law is too restrictive, and administratively burdensome. The
Governors' proposal, which gives States a greater say over wetlands
protection, is a sensible approach. It is also a cheaper approach,
eliminating the need for a large Federal bureaucracy and a new
entitlement through the takings provisions.
Similarly, we have adopted the Coastal States Organization's proposal
on coastal nonpoint pollution, which gives States a greater say over
how to meet environmental requirements. H.R. 961 would repeal coastal
zone protections, increasing the likelihood that beaches will have to
be closed to the public, 10,000 were closed last year, and that runoff
pollution will close commercial fisheries, threatening a $55 billion
industry.
The Coastal States Organization, a group of 30 Governors, has
endorsed this provision of our substitute, because we amend the Clean
Water Act to eliminate its excesses while retaining its protections.
Let me stress that, we eliminate its excesses while retaining its
protections. This is an approach we have taken throughout the bill,
shopping around for the most sensible, rational approach, eliminating
the bureaucracy and redtape of current law, which preventing the
environmental degradation of H.R. 961.
Such a centrist approach should be welcome in a country that is
clearly sick of ideological warfare and hungry for solutions to our
Nation's problems, a country in which 76 percent of the American people
want us to do more to protect our Nation's waters, but are skeptical of
overbearing Government.
Perhaps that is why our substitute has broad bipartisan support. I
look forward to the debate we will have this afternoon, because we will
pass this substitute if good sense is allowed to triumph over ideology
on both ends of the political spectrum.
A lot of people think Republicans do not give a damn about the
environment. A lot of people are wrong. Keep in mind, one person's
effluent is another person's drinking water.
Finally, let me point out what the National Conference of State
Legislatures has to say. Unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended
during floor consideration, the National Conference of State
Legislatures urges you to vote against the bill.
We have that significant amendment. We urge you to support Saxton,
Boehlert, and Roemer and to oppose the committee bill.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California
for his great leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Amendments Act of 1995, as presently drafted lessens environmental
protection and endangers the very quality of life of all Americans. I
have been listening to the debate and, coming from local government, I
know there are real concerns about storm water runoff, sewage
wastewater, and certainly wetlands. But we must also listen to the EPA
administrator that has criticized the bill as being unworkable.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we will come to this process with a bipartisan
attitude to fix and correct, but not to eliminate. Currently the Clean
Water Act is regarded as one of the most successful environmental
mandates passed by Congress. Yes, some of the portions of the act may
need some additional flexibility or fine-tuning, but we only have one
environment, one planet Earth, and we ought not to take undue risks
with it.
As for Texas, I know firsthand that the city of Houston is spending
$1.3 billion to address its sanitary sewer overflow. It is important
that we follow through. It is important that we continue to improve the
quality of our drinking water. Let us not turn back. Let us make sure
we fix, but not eliminate the Clean Water Act.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R.
961. As chairman of the Committee on Resources, we had joint
jurisdiction over this legislation. But also being ranking on the
committee of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the
chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I
watched the building of this bill and watched what he has been able to
do, and our committee, full committee, with the exception of two
people, fully agreed with what we are attempting to do here, and that
is to have clean water.
We have to keep in mind what has been said prior to some of the other
speakers about how bad this bill is. This bill achieves many things,
but one of the main things that it achieves is clean water
realistically. It requires clean water as it should be without the
regulations, without the dominance of government interference. It is a
needed bill. It has to occur.
One of the things I have heard from most of the Governors around the
country is whatever happens, you must review and revamp the Clean Water
Act so we can make it apply to our communities and stop making us waste
money on testing that is unnecessary, meeting requirements that are
unnecessary. And in Alaska alone, which I will have an amendment later
on, the biggest city in Alaska had to add fish guts to make sure we met
the standards for the particular amount in the water that comes out at
the end of the effluent. We had pure water. I could drink it. To say we
want to stay with the present bill, the regulations that should never
have been applied, is absolutely ludicrous.
More than that, in this bill there is a provision which I hope
everybody is listening. The one provision from this bill
[[Page H4703]] that should draw your attention because it affects
every State in the Union is the wetlands provision.
You have seen what the wetlands have done to this country, how it has
been implemented and enforced by a Federal Government without any
jurisdiction of written law, other than a dredging law through
regulatory law, where they can tell my State of Alaska that all of your
land is wet. You have no longer a right to build or take and construct
schools or do things good for your community because we have decided it
is wet, without compensation. They have put inroads into our ability to
take and produce.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest we also have to keep in mind this Congress in
1971 gave 44 million acres of land to the Alaskan natives, the American
Eskimos in Alaska. We gave that land to them as a commitment to them
for their economic and social well-being. And what do we do under the
wetlands provision? We take it away, because we tell them under the
Federal control it is 98 percent wetlands.
You call that justice? I am saying it is time we support this bill.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the committee have
done an excellent job. When I hear members of the committee say this is
a bad bill, I say shame on you. This is a good bill that should be
passed.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, today's young people think I am making a joke when I
tell them about a river catching fire. That actually happened to the
Cuyahoga in Ohio, it was so polluted with industrial wastes and
inflammable solvents. In Oregon 3 million residents take for granted
the fact they can swim, fish, and even drink Willamette River water.
Well, the Willamette River was more like an open sewer in the mid
1960's than it was a pristine river.
They say you cannot turn back the clock. Who would want to turn back
the clock to those bad old days? Who indeed? Well, watch for the votes
on this bill. A vote for this bill is a vote to turn back the country
to the days when our rivers were more like open sewers and industrial
cesspools than they were precious resources.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. DeLay], the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, in reference to the previous speaker, fear,
fear, fear. That is all we have to offer, is fear. We are here to rise
in support of the Clean Water Act that brings some common sense, good
science, and responsibility, adding much needed reforms to the Clean
Water Act, bringing a responsible approach to the Clean Water Act.
I just want to point out a situation in my own district. The city of
Lake Jackson, TX, is no stranger to the current tangle of regulatory
policies when it comes to wetlands.
Mayor Doris Williams has led that effort since the late eighties to
see that the city be allowed to construct a public golf course, despite
the U.S. Corps of Engineers' objections that Lake Jackson had not
adequately defined all of its jurisdictional wetlands.
You know what that is in this case? Footprints of cows. They had to
go out and map every footprint from a cow on these 400 acres of
property.
This small city purchased 400 acres of property, and after 4 years of
working with regulatory agencies at a cost of well over $100,000, a lot
of money to this small city, the city is only now eligible to submit an
application to the U.S. Corps of Engineers for an individual 404 permit
to construct a public golf course.
There is no guarantee at this time that a permit will be awarded,
despite the city's significant efforts and investment. This bill brings
the promise of reason and relief to communities such as Lake Jackson.
The time has come for sensible environmental reform. The Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1995 provides for risk-based regulation and requires
the EPA to subject its mandates to both risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis. It offers flexibility to the States in their efforts
to determine how each may best comply with Federal law and contribute
to long-term pollution control. Support the bill.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Rhode Island, [Mr. Reed].
(Mr. REED asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 961. The Clean
Water Act has been instrumental in cleaning up our waters and
protecting our environment. H.R. 961, if enacted, would devastate Rhode
Island, both its environment and, just as importantly, its economy. We
depend upon a clean Narragansett Bay to support not only environmental
activities, but also our economy.
In 1989, $42 million was generated by our commercial fishing
industry. $11 million was generated by our shellfishing industry. If we
lose the Clean Water Act, we will lose a lot of these profits and a lot
of the jobs associated with them.
We depend on tourism: $146 million in 1989 for marine recreation
activities; $637 million in 1989 for the marine industry in general.
Without the Clean Water Act, we will not be able to realize this type
of economic activity.
We have to support a strong Clean Water Act. This bill does not do
that. We also have to provide the States the resources through the
revolving fund to provide cleanup until Rhode Island and elsewhere.
Again, this act does not do this. Mr. Chairman, we should reject this
provision and support a Clean Water Act.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Pete Geren], a former member of the committee, now on
temporary leave, who helped enormously on these issues last year.
(Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this very important legislation. I want to commend my colleague, the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], and the chairman, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for bringing us to where we are today.
A lot of work over a lot of years has made this day possible. The
legislation we have today brings long overdue balance back to the
implementation of this most important piece of environmental
legislation.
I would like to talk about a specific provision in the bill, the risk
assessment and the cost benefit analysis provisions in H.R. 961. These
provisions will result in greater improvements in water quality because
they help to focus the Clean Water Act's requirements on significant
risk reduction in a manner that provides the greatest amount of
environmental benefit for the costs expended.
Mr. Chairman, we have reached the point in every area of this
Government where we cannot afford to waste a dime. It is only through
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment that we can make sure that
the scarce dollars are targeted for the most important environmental
initiatives.
For 20 years the Clean Water Act has been addressing the problems of
water quality in this country. The act imposed technology that forced
requirements on industry and municipalities and imposed additional
water quality controls where technology controls were not enough. These
have been successful in cleaning up our Nation's water. It is now time
for more precision in order to better focus the resources that are put
in play by this act.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 961 and commend
those who have worked so hard to make this day possible.
{time} 1500
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has 11\1/
2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has 17
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] has 7
minutes remaining.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Nadler], a member of our committee.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act, since 1972 has been
one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever enacted by this
Congress. Yet many Members of this body
[[Page H4704]] are willing to throw away all the advances we have
made.
During the first 100 days of this Congress, we have heard a lot of
talk of Government waste and commonsense reform. Apparently this talk
applied only to legislation in the first 100 days.
Two years ago, for example, we ordered a study by the National
Academy of Sciences of wetlands to define just what a wetland is. The
findings of that study were released just yesterday.
What use has H.R. 961 made of this information? None. The findings of
this multimillion dollar study are not reflected in this bill at all.
We all knew the study results were promised for May, but the authors of
H.R. 961 could not wait. Apparently whatever is driving this bill, it
is not scientific information.
The Nation's wetlands, of course, provide a vital source of
filtration for our drinking water. But this bill attempts to redefine
wetlands. H.R. 961 provides that only 20 percent of the wetlands in the
region may be deemed a critical wetland. That leaves 80 percent of the
wetlands open for development. Why is only 20 percent of our wetlands
going to be protected? This arbitrary standard will deprive 80 percent
of our wetlands of any protection and will deprive us of the benefits
of that 80 percent.
In New York City we have some of the cleanest drinking water in the
United States. We have accomplished this not by building a massive
filtration system but by protecting the integrity of our watershed and
letting nature do its job. This bill throws out or makes voluntary many
of the regulations that protect our watershed. If this dirty water bill
passes, it is likely that New York City will have to spend between $6
and $8 billion to build a filtration system to imitate what nature has
already accomplished; is that right?
Mr. Chairman, this is not fiscal conservatism. It is not anything we
should do.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
961 and hope all our colleagues know how lucky California is to have
the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
Nowhere will the bill's assault on clean water be felt more strongly
than in my district. H.R. 961's many loopholes, waivers and exemptions
would allow partially treated sewage to be dumped into Santa Monica
Bay, a body of water only now recovering from years of neglect and
pollution.
The EPA has reviewed the ocean discharging provisions in H.R. 961 and
has stated that they are neither scientifically nor environmentally
justifiable and could result in harm to the people who depend upon the
oceans and coasts for their livelihood and enjoyment.
While some claim that economics necessitates granting sewage
treatment exemptions, dirtier and unsafe oceans will actually hurt
southern California's economy by keeping tourists away from our
beaches.
The bill does not just relax sewage treatment standards, it also
dismantles the storm water and wetlands programs. Such disdain for
these important clean water safeguards is especially troubling in Los
Angeles where storm water or nonpoint source pollution is now
recognized as a major threat to the health of Santa Monica Bay.
Mr. Chairman, over the past 20 years, the Clean Water Act has been
one of our most effective and most popular environmental statutes. In
less than 20 weeks, the House will have effectively reversed this
progress, if it passes H.R. 961. I urge my colleagues to stand up for
clean water and to vote against this dirty water bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
(Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 961,
the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, and urge my colleagues to support
the bill as reported by the committee and to reject weakening
amendments which seek to gut the bill and preserve the present
regulatory status quo.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]
for his strong leadership and commitment to clean water.
I would make the points that this bill is very important because it
requires the EPA to subject its mandates and regulations to a risk
assessment. The regulations must be performance-based. Market
incentives can be used to achieve environmental goals. Environmental
regulation should be based on the best science, and it is a major
victory giving States and local governments control over runoff.
Finally, let me say that it ends the wetlands regulations.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 961, the Clean
Water Amendments of 1995, and urge my colleagues to support the bill,
as reported from committee, and to reject weakening amendments which
seek to gut the bill and preserve the present regulatory status quo. I
also want to thank Chairman Shuster for his strong leadership and
commitment to Clean Water Act reform.
For the benefit of my colleagues who do not serve on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and who may be confused by
the rhetoric of the opponents of H.R. 961, I would like to take a few
moments to set the record straight.
H.R. 961 does not weaken the existing Clean Water Act. The
committee's bill preserves the same water quality standards as the
original Clean Water Act, it authorizes $3 billion annually for water
quality programs, and it restores the Founding Father's notion of
federalism by freeing State and local governments from one-size-fits-
all Federal mandates and empowering them with the flexibility to meet
each State's unique regional needs and water quality challenges.
Make no mistake, opponents of H.R. 961 do not trust State and local
officials to do what is right for their communities. They only trust
Federal Government bureaucrats to make responsible decisions. I do not
agree with this type of big government arrogance. The farmers and
landowners in my congressional district have had enough of unnecessary
interference and costly mandates from Federal bureaucrats.
In addition to stressing State and local management solutions, H.R.
961 is consistent with the regulatory reform themes contained in the
Republican Contract With America. H.R. 961 adopts a commonsense
approach which requires EPA to complete a regulatory cost-benefit
analysis before issuing new rules. The bill also protects States and
localities from unfunded Federal mandates, and landowners will receive
compensation for regulatory takings of private property. Some of these
commonsense provisions have been in law for over a decade, but H.R. 961
finally enforces them.
H.R. 961 applies reason and consistency to the Federal wetlands
permitting process. By consolidating the section 404 permitting process
under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, landowners will
not have to waste their resources and spend months, or sometimes years,
trying to obtain the necessary permits from both EPA and the Army
Corps. Title VIII of the bill outlines reasonable wetlands delineation
standards, and represents sound, fair, and workable wetlands policy.
Arguments that the House should refrain from passing wetlands
delineation standards until the National Academy of Sciences study is
complete, only reflect H.R. 961's opponents' desire to leave the
current, fragmented, and overly burdensome wetlands permitting process
in place. Congress has patiently waited for over 19 months from the
time the NAS study was originally due, and the results of the study
will still not resolve our Nation's wetlands permitting difficulties.
Only the language in title VIII of H.R. 961 affirmatively resolves the
wetlands permitting problem.
H.R. 961 also prescribes progressive solutions to regulation of
nonpoint source pollution and stormwater permitting. Indeed, common
sense dictates that there is no need to require permits for stormwater
discharge that does not come into contact with pollutants. Yet most
importantly, the bill recognizes that voluntary compliance incentives
are often more effective than punitive measures.
My colleagues, programmatic change is often met with some resistance,
as illustrated by supporters of the status quo who have been critical
of many provisions in this legislation. But careful examination of H.R.
961 reveals a bill that strikes a reasoned balance between funding
realities and the national goals of the Clean Water Act. It is time to
abandon the outdated logic which claims the Federal Government always
knows what is best for States and localities, and to give States and
the regulated community the flexibility to try
[[Page H4705]] new and innovative approaches to water pollution
control.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject the alarmist
rhetoric of the other side, and to support H.R. 961.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
distinguished gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
(Mr. SCHAEFER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the
legislation before us.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee's efforts to improve the Clean Water Act.
I applaud Chairman Shuster and all of the members of the committee who
worked on this proposal.
There is no doubt that America enjoys extremely clean water. However,
the problem with the current statute is not the intent: maintaining
clean water is an admirable and necessary goal. The problem is its
rigid standards. It imposes Federal mandates without regard to
individual State and local circumstances and, ironically, it exempts
Federal facilities from compliance. H.R. 961 goes a long way toward
correcting these flaws.
State and local water systems as well as businesses are crying for
relief from the current Federal standards. The one-size-fits-all
attitude has created nightmare compliance scenarios for these entities.
The clean water Americans currently enjoy will not be sacrificed.
Rather, the Federal Government will relinquish its stranglehold and
allow State and local officials to determine how to best achieve this
worthy goal.
Most importantly, H.R. 961 brings the Federal Government itself into
compliance with Clean Water Act standards. Currently, the Federal
Government is allowed to taint the very water it claims to protect, all
under the guise of sovereign immunity.
H.R. 961 would end this double standard and ensure full compliance at
all Federal facilities. At last, communities that happen to be near
polluted Federal lands will benefit from the clean water all other
citizens enjoy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to support the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee's thoughtful efforts to improve clean
water regulation and its endeavor to end Federal exemption from
environmental laws.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Farr].
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 961
and urge my colleagues to reject this overreaching piece of
legislation. The Clean Water Act is really one of our Nation's most
effective environmental laws, one of our Nation's most effective
environmental laws.
In 1972, the year of the Clean Water Act's birth, only one our of
three rivers are clean enough for people to fish or swim. Now, the EPA
estimates that over 60 percent of our waters are clean enough for
fishing and swimming.
I am the first to acknowledge that it is not perfect, and that
sometimes it imposes rigid and unneeded requirements that it need not
do. Unfortunately, the bill as written fails to target what is broken
in the Clean Water Act and build on what works. Instead it throws out
good along with the bad.
H.R. 961 would remove 60 percent of our Nation's remaining wetlands
from any level of protection. It would weaken standards that protect
our waters from industrial pollution by creating dozens of waivers and
loopholes. And frankly, it would repeal the entire coastal zone
nonpoint source pollution program which on the coastal counties of
California would severely hamper the State of California's efforts to
preserve the waters off of our coast so that they can be indeed
recreational and economically viable for the fish industry.
These changes do not make environmental sense if they are going to
gut the bill. And they certainly do not make any economic sense.
The drafters of H.R. 961 have created a bill that accounts for the
cost of everything but the value of nothing. I have no doubt that H.R.
961 will save a great many people a great deal of money. But is this
good value for future generations?
Clearly, the answer is no. Future generations will pay dearly in many
ways to recover the environmental and economic damage that H.R. 961
will allow.
The best feature of the Clean Water Act is that it is a prevention
program. It stops pollution before it gets into our waters. H.R. 961
would make the Clean Water Act more like the Superfund, one of the most
broken environmental programs. It litigates first and cleans up later.
I urge my colleagues to support the substitute offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
(Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] on bringing this great bill up. I rise today
to express my strong support for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments
Act reauthorization.
Over the next 3 days, Members of Congress who supported the
regulatory reforms of the Contract With America will have an
opportunity to put those general principles into existing environmental
statute. H.R. 961 restores a proper regulatory balance between Federal,
State, and local governments, and it was developed with unprecedented
input from the real environmental experts, men and women from local
governments and water systems.
It includes individual property rights protection, risk assessment,
cost-benefit analysis, and protects against unfunded mandates.
Ultimately, H.R. 961 is a choice between those who believe good
government should always regulate more and those who believe government
should regulate smarter.
I believe government should regulate smarter, and I encourage my
colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 961.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has 11
minutes remaining, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has
9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes]
has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has the
right to close the debate.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] is recognized
for 3 minutes.
(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlemen for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very strong support of the Clean Water
Act Amendments of 1995 and against the so-called Boehlert-Roemer
substitute. Parochially, let me say that this bill has tremendous
positive implications for both rural America and the critical
agricultural economy that sustains these same rural communities. But
this is also a very genuine bipartisan effort led by the distinguished
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], and I welcome
this opportunity to finally address both the needs and the solutions
that are the subject of this legislation.
The commonsense approach found in this bill is long overdue. I want
to commend the chairman for his leadership in bringing this bill before
this body. With this being the first major piece of environmental
legislation in the new Congress, I am impressed by the broad,
bipartisan support behind this bill.
{time} 1530
Mr. Chairman, we all agree that adequate attention must be given to
preserving and protecting our environment, but I believe that the
pendulum has swung way too far in obstructing the control of this
Nation's private property owners over their own land. There must be an
appropriate balance, and this bill restores balance. Anyone who
believes that private landowners should retain reasonable control over
private land as guaranteed by our Constitution should vote for this
bill.
[[Page H4706]] In addition, for far too long, Federal wetlands law
has been the primary land management tool for any Federal agency that
wants to dictate its own wetlands policy. Without congressional debate
or public comment, various government agencies and departments that
promulgate our wetlands rules and regulations have acted freely in
holding farmers and small business owners hostage to their wetlands
definition. The fact of the matter is that the contrast between
pristine wetlands and a mud puddle is not distinguishable by the
various Federal agencies dealing with wetlands. The approach taken in
this bill resolves the ever-changing definition of what constitutes a
wetland by defining them according to their value and function. This
bill also provides needed reforms in the current regulatory system and
directs Federal regulators to consider the value of wetlands from
competing social, economic, and environmental needs.
In other words, true wetlands have to be wet. And if they are
determined to be a pristine wetland, they are protected. And if they
are taken by the Government, then landowners will be paid for their
economic losses. It is a pretty basic concept, but one that the Federal
Government has had a hard time figuring out.
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995 provides for voluntary,
incentive-based programs in local, State, and Federal partnership to
advance clean water goals with nonpoint source pollution. It also gives
State and local officials the flexibility to manage and control
stormwater like other forms of runoff which helps reduce the high cost
of unfunded mandates. Finally, it requires the Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA] to subject its mandates and regulations to risk assessment
and cost benefit analysis.
For the first time in a long time, we are successfully working
together at all levels of government to meet our water quality needs.
We do not need straitjackets to have clean drinking water, nor should
we allow Federal bureaucrats who know the least about farming or
operating a small business to deem what's a wetland from their
Washington offices. Through its increased flexibility, the Clean Water
Amendments of 1995 benefits farmers, businesses, consumers, local and
State governments, and their taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, any last-minute reactions to derail and weaken this
bipartisan effort, whether they be in the form of amendments or so-
called substitutes, should be voted down. Such efforts are a breach of
our Contract With America and renege on the need for smart regulation,
good science, cost-effective risk reduction, and commonsense. The
Washington bureaucracy and professional environmental elitists have
been ramming these edicts down the throats of the American taxpayer for
too long. It is time for the farmer, the rancher, and the small
business owner to finally have a say in the process, and we have
provided for that forum in this legislation. Vote for the Clean Water
Amendments Act of 1995 and vote against any and all efforts to weaken
it.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], our distinguished minority whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, clean water is not just an issue of us
versus them. It is about our health, it is about our environment, it is
about a quality of life. For many of us, it is about jobs. Since 1972,
the Clean Water Act has made great strides in cleaning up our waters.
Today 60 percent of our waterways are clean.
I remember as a boy taking my bike, driving down to Lake St. Clair to
go swimming, and seeing a sign on the beaches, on the fences by the
beaches, saying ``No swimming today--pollution.'' We have cleaned up
about 60 percent of that problem. The bad news is that the remaining 40
percent of our water is still polluted.
In the past few years alone we have seen 104 people die in Milwaukee
due to drinking water poisoned with cryptosporidium. In my
community beaches were closed 2 months last summer, and businesses lost
millions of dollars, due to water so choked off by bacteria and
seaweeds that ducks could literally walk across it. If anything, we
should be strengthening the Clean Water Act, not gutting it. However,
the bill before us today will stop a quarter century of progress dead
in its tracks.
Mr. Chairman, why do we want to make it easier to poison or lakes and
our streams? Why do we want cities and factories dumping raw sewage
into the same lakes and rivers we get our drinking water from? Because
a few corporations and lobbyists oppose the safeguards we have now?
Does anybody really believe these people are looking out for the public
interest and public safety first?
In the Great Lakes region, we have seen recent stories of some
mothers who ate fish from Lake Michigan during pregnancy and are
finding that their children are having developmental problems. Instead
of finding answers, however, some people are now suggesting that we
weaken the Great Lakes water quality initiative, which was put together
so painstakingly with Republicans and Democrats during the Bush
administration and into this administration over the last few years.
I sure hope this is not the case, but Mr. Chairman, after all this
time, can we not agree that making our waterways safe benefits us all,
especially business?
When Lake St. Clair, which borders on my district, was shut down for
2 months last summer, it did not just affect the quality of life, it
devastated business. Local marinas and restaurants, businesses which
bring in over $1 billion each year from boaters and beachgoers,
suffered losses in the millions. When we wondered how it happened, we
found out that State inspections were lax, sewer overflow discharges
unchecked, and in some instances, Mr. Chairman, in some cases, State
permits had not been renewed in nearly 20 years.
I understand the desire to send responsibility back to the States.
That is the movement we are in now at the Federal level. However, we
have to strike some sense of healthy balance here. It seems to me that
a bill written by lobbyists on behalf of some of America's most
notorious polluters takes us exactly in the wrong direction. Therefore,
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for common sense, vote for
clean water, vote ``no'' on this irresponsible bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise the parties of the time
remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] has 6 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has 7\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has 7
minutes remaining.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of
misinformation floating around about this bill. I just want to briefly
touch on a couple of them.
I represent a prairie pothole region up in the northern part of the
United States, and there is letter that has been put out by a wildlife
group that claims that there are going to be, in this bill, changes
that are going to devastate these prairie pothole regions. That is
absolutely not the case. The swampbuster, which is what governs most of
our problems, is not even included in this bill.
Second, there is an exemption for the prairie pothole region, so
clearly, this letter was written by somebody who has not read the bill
and does not understand what the situation is.
The other thing that is thrown around about this bill is this is
somehow or another going to allow industry to pollute. If we believe
that, then we are going to believe that the EPA or the State
Environmental Protection Agency is going to allow this to happen,
because in this bill, they have to sign off for these changes.
I just hope that people would read the bill before they engage in all
of this rhetoric that really, in my judgment, misses the point. I ask
support for the bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, as I listened a few moments ago to the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], I was struck with
something. That is, yes to his question that we have had in this
country tremendous improvements in the water supply and our waterways
over the last 20 years or more, but let us ask ourselves, why have we
seen those changes? Why have the improvements come from? Have they come
from the basic Clean Water Act that we passed over a generation ago?
The answer is yes.
Have those improvements, has that cleaner water, come, though, from
the
[[Page H4707]] numerous additional amendments, regulations, and
bureaucrats that have been foisted on our communities, our businesses,
and our local governments since that time? The answer to that question
is no.
What this bill does, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 961, is get
us back to where we ought to be, and that is with the basic legislation
that is good, and yet does not saddle our communities, our business,
and ultimately, the taxpayers in this country, with needless regulation
that does not do any good, other than raise the cost to our people. Let
us bring balance, let us bring rationality back to this process.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], our very distinguished minority leader.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
defeat this bill, to let all of America know that when it comes to the
water that we all drink every day, the water we use to cook, and to
feed to our children, there can be no compromise, and we can allow no
special interest agenda.
The fact is this so-called clean water bill is anything but clean. It
rolls back decades of environmental controls designed with one purpose
in mind: to make sure that the water that comes out of our faucets, the
water that we swim in and bathe in, is clean and safe.
That is not a Democratic or a Republican goal. Basic health and
safety, freedom from pollution and contamination, is something that
knows no bound of party or politics. However, in my view, this bill
serves an interest that is outside the political process. It serves the
interests of industrial polluters looking to save a few pennies, even
if that means contaminated water and disease for people.
If Members ask me, that is not what the American voter voted for last
November: polluted drinking water, contaminated soil in which to grow
good food, filthy water in which to swim.
Some will try to argue that there is no national role in clean water,
that States should set their own standards. However, clean water is a
national issue. My town of St. Louis, MO, gets all of its drinking
water from the Mississippi River, which originates in other States. If
those States allow pollution, we in St. Louis drink the consequences.
At the same time, I know that this bill will cost my State millions
of dollars in lost sewage treatment funds, money that we desperately
need to keep our water clean. Mr. Chairman, if we vote for this bill,
we will have more than dirty water. We will have an unclean conscience.
This is a bill of special interests, by the special interests, for the
special interests. In my opinion, that is reason enough to vote a
resounding no.
Then with our drinking water saved from the special interest assault,
we can roll up our sleeves and go back to work for the people for a
change. I urge Members, in the interests of having safe drinking water
in our towns and villages all across this country, to defeat this bill.
We can do better.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] is recognized
for the balance of his time, a period of 5 minutes.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I wish the leadership in my party, and I
wish my friends in the other party, could all take a short journey with
me right at this instant down the mighty Mississippi River and across a
marsh to a small town that many of Members would not recognize, but it
is named after the gentleman in that portrait, Lafayette. I wish they
could stand for a few moments in what is my home.
In the back of my home are lakes. In the back of my home are marshes.
In the back of my home are cypress trees. I am quite familiar with all
of them. In the back of my home are the last memories I have of the
last time I saw my grandmother. In the back of my home are the
footsteps still left by my father when he filmed a television
commercial, so proud that his son had not only finished school, which
he was never able to do because of the Depression, but had gone on to
be a Congressman, which to him meant public service. The place is a
piece of land, but it is inextricably tied to my family.
I wish I could take those folks to whom land is a few square feet and
a high-rise apartment, to understand the boundaries and the linkages
between individuals who plant it and plow it and love it, and those who
believe it could be better handled by regulators who have never in all
likelihood seen it, and assuredly would not understand it.
My mother still lives in that home. She cannot understand why a lake
that we dug would be treated as a wetland when it was not before we did
it. To her a wetland was made in the marsh by God, not dug by tractors
and Caterpillars. She thinks there is a difference between the two.
My mother, who understands the marshes of Louisiana, which are indeed
class A wetlands, as they are in the marshes of Maryland, cannot
understand why the parking lot of a shopping center in the middle of
our towns been declared by the Corps of Engineers as the jurisdictional
waters of the United States, nor can I understand how anyone could
represent a congressional district, with its half million people,
almost any where and not understand that what we have in this debate is
a clash of rights of individuals versus powers of Government.
I cannot imagine anyone would support a substitute that insists upon
having not one, but 5 Federal agencies veto the actions of potentially
7 other Federal agencies, and want to say that this bill that does
nothing but streamline and have a single stop with a single Federal
agency is for special interests.
{time} 1530
The folks who shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico are special to me. The
folks who live there are special to me. The folks who vote there, and
send me to Congress to be their voice, want somebody to say enough is
enough, and there is a difference between the waterfowl lands that we
know and hunt and the lands in individual residential subdivisions that
are already for years before of no more ecological value but are very
important, and property rights to the individuals who now own them.
I wish somebody could take that journey. Quite frankly, I agree with
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. I wish I could go back a
decade, because right now I am being instructed by folks who cannot
understand how to stop crime in their big city on how to do a crime
bill, for folks who where I live have been pretty managing and able to
have power and rights in their sheriffs to do that for some time, and
who do not want cities to teach them how to fight crime, and who sure
do not want Manhattan and New York City to tell them about the
environment.
They are especially tired of hearing about people that live in
Washington DC, which by the way is a marsh, and which under any
definition would be a wetland, but no one here who is a bureaucrat
would dare treat the people in Washington like they treat the people in
Lafayette, LA, on exactly the same kind of property.
The folks at the EPA who paid for the scientists to do the study talk
about how useful it is. Well, if I paid for it, I would expect it to be
real nice to me, too. Instead I have people who actually paid for it
because they wrote the checks for the tax dollars, and who are
explaining to the EPA that they work for them and that they ought to
have some of their interest in mind.
I wish we could take that journey. It would be more philosophical
than it would be in the 1,200 miles of distance, and it would have more
education than the combined degrees of all of the scientists who
prepared the report, and it would distinguish for you the clear and
simple decision to be made in supporting the Clean Water Act.
Clean water is for people, people who in many cases own property, who
care about the quality of life there more than any of these whose
greatest desire is to exert bureaucratic control over the future of
their lives. They believe more in their hometown than they believe in
Washington. They believe more in their State than they believe in
Washington, and they are right. That will be the degree to which we
measure the independence and individuality of this vote on this floor.
I hope Members will join me in voting yes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
[[Page H4708]] Mr. Chairman, I was astonished by some of the comments
of my good friend from Michigan, the minority whip, and indeed the
gentleman from Missouri, the minority leader. They perhaps were not on
the floor when we quoted directly from the National Governors
Association and others, to have them say that this bill is written and
supported by polluters and by special interests.
Let me share again who some of those so-called polluters and special
interests are. I guess the National Governors Association are polluters
and special interests, because we have a letter from them saying, ``We
urge approval of this bill.''
I suppose the National Association of Counties, National League of
Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors are polluters and special
interests, because we have this letter from them saying that when
together we represent all of the Nation's elected officials and charges
that H.R. 961 rolls back environmental protection and that it guts the
Clean Water Act are totally unfounded.
I suppose, according to their definition, the Association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators are polluters and
special interests, because we have a letter from them saying with its
new comprehensive approaches to nonpoint source watershed and water
management, H.R. 961 sets forth a framework that better protects this
Nation's waterways.
I support the Water Environment Federation, made up of 42,000 water
quality specialists, are polluters and special interests, because we
have a letter from them saying, ``We, therefore, want to again urge you
to support the Clean Water Amendments of 1995 on the House floor.''
So by the definition of my liberal friends on the Democratic side, I
guess the special interests and the polluters are the Governors and the
majors and the county leaders and the people responsible for seeing to
it that clean water is maintained across our States.
However, let us suppose for a moment all the terrible things that we
have heard about this legislation are true. Under this legislation,
every State has the absolute right to impose whatever stricter
standards it chooses to impose in its State.
So assuming the very worst, the States still have the right to impose
whatever standards they choose to impose.
Yes, the bottom line here is what our friends on the other side are
embracing, is the ``Washington knows best'' crowd. That is the argument
here today. Does Washington know best or do our States and our
localities know best?
That is the fundamental issue, and it is for that reason that we
should support this legislation, we should reject the Boehlert
substitute. We should support this legislation because it indeed goes a
long way toward further improving the clean water of America.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes, the balance of our time,
to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy.]
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking member, for the
tremendous work he has done on trying to protect America's clean water.
This bill that has become known as the Clean Water Act is fast
becoming the dirty polluters protection act. The fact is that we have a
nation today where 40 percent of our water fails to meet State
designated water standards for swimming, fishing, drinking, and other
uses. If we are truly interested in protecting this country, not only
for our generation but for future generations, the last thing in the
world we ought to be doing is allowing this country to create dirtier
water that will ultimately affect the basic fundamental health care of
this country.
In this bill, we see specific standards being rolled back. The water
quality standards will be downgraded. There will be a rollback on the
point source pollution issue, which means that big corporations will be
able to pollute the drains that go and take water directly into our
harbors, and the ratepayers that pay for the sewage treatment will be
charged directly for the pollution that the biggest companies in
America will go ahead and continue. We see the storm water runoff
program again being gutted; the nonpoint source pollution program being
gutted.
I heard the chairman of the committee suggest that the mayors and the
Governors are all in favor of this bill, but the fact of the matter is
he knows right well that they oppose unanimously the provisions in this
pertaining to wetlands. The wetlands provisions will absolutely gut the
budget of America. If we end up having to pay the billions and billions
of dollars which this bill calls for to the owners of wetlands that
right now are needed to protect the fundamental environment of this
country, it will not only wreck our environment but it will wreck the
fundamental economy of this country.
Therefore, let's recognize this bill for what it is. This bill is
nothing more than a transfer, again, of power from the ordinary
citizens of this country to the biggest corporations in America, saying
we will turn a blind eye to what they do, to what the polluters do, in
order to look out after the corporations. The Clean Water Act is going
to be flushed down the toilet of the Republican agenda.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time for
closing the debate to the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp], the
distinguished vice chairman of our Subcommittee on Water Resources and
Environment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp] is recognized
for 3\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, several months ago dozens of us were sent to
Washington, DC, to try to bring back to this institution balance and
reason. The American people want the pendulum to come back to the
middle. We have gone too far with regulation. We have gone too far with
litigation. We have gone too far with taxation. I could go on and on.
The pendulum needs to come back to the middle.
We are not, as you hear from the other side, rolling back and gutting
and destroying and all of these emotional words. We are bringing the
pendulum back to the middle and preserving clean water and doing the
right thing, but making it tolerable for our free society.
I am proud to come from Chattanooga, TN, a city that at one time was
on the dirty air list in this country. Through a spirit of cooperation
from the private sector and some government regulations--yes, some but
not too many--we have gone from the dirty air list in this country in
Chattanooga, TN to the clean air list. We are now becoming a model with
respect to water quality and the improvements there in Chattanooga, but
it is done out of a desire to cooperate between the private sector and
the public sector, and it is not a result of Federal Government
micromanagement in every single affair of our citizenry in this
country.
H.R. 961 maintains our commitment to clean water while honoring our
constitutionally protected private property rights. Every mud puddle in
America should not be a wetland. We do not live in Eastern Europe or
the Soviet Union. We must protect our constitutional rights. Sometimes
in order to understand where we need to go, we need to look back.
Today I reference Thomas Jefferson's quote. He said, ``A wise and
frugal government shall restrain men from injuring one another but
shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuit of
industry and improvement.''
The Clean Water Amendments of 1995 meet Thomas Jefferson's charge of
the balance of regulation.
Back home, since I came here, the folks say to me, ``Isn't there
anything that Democrats and Republicans can agree on? Do they always
have to go to the House floor and say they're the worst and we're the
best and engage in all this partisan division?''
Folks, this is it. This is a historic piece of legislation, and
dozens of reasonable Democrats are going to join us. I worked on the
subcommittee and the committee level with these reasonable Democrats
and they led the charge: good men and women from all across the country
saying this is a case where the government has become too big and
[[Page H4709]] intrusive, and we cannot continue to thrive as a free
society with these onerous regulations.
Bring the pendulum back to middle. All of my reasonable colleagues on
both sides of the aisle join us in support of H.R. 961. We will do the
right thing together.
Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the bill
before us today. Most of us agree that the Clean Water Act has been
instrumental in cleaning up our nation's waters, yet we are debating a
bill that, if enacted, would move us backwards and undercut the
progress that we have made to ensure that our nation's waters are
drinkable, swimmable, and fishable.
If enacted, H.R. 961 would devastate Rhode Island. Rhode Island's 420
miles of coastline, beaches, and water have long been a destination for
tourists. Indeed, Narragansett Bay has played an integral role in my
state's historical, social, and financial development. In 1989 alone,
commercial fishing revenues generated over $42 million, marine
recreation generated $146 million, the marine industry generated $637
million, and in 1992, the shellfishing industry yielded a harvest worth
$11 million. Total revenues associated with Narragansett Bay exceeded
$1 billion for the State of Rhode Island in 1989.
This sort of economic stability is predicated on clean water.
However, there is still more work to be done. Beaches are monitored but
periodically exceed safe water quality tests. And bans against
shellfishing in Rhode Island still occur all too frequently. In
December of 1992, 2,800 acres of prime winter shellfish harvesting
areas were closed, causing a loss of $1 million in revenues. The state
was able to begin to address this environmental and economic disaster
because of the support provided under the Clean Water Act's coastal
nonpoint source management program, the National Estuary Program, and
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
In 1994, the state was able to re-open part of the shellfish
harvesting area. However, 40 percent of the shellfish beds are still
periodically closed due to coastal nonpoint source pollution,
stormwater runoff, and combined sewer overflows. Rhode Island's share
of our nation's total quahog landings was nearly 50 percent in 1986. In
1993, it had dropped to 13 percent. Seventy percent of this drop was
due to a decrease in water quality. What this means is that every time
it rains, shellfishermen in Rhode Island are reminded that the problem
has not been fixed yet.
Rhode Islanders also recognize the importance of a clean bay. A 1992
poll by the state Department of Environmental Management and the
Narragansett Bay Project found that 98 percent of those surveyed
believed that Narragansett Bay is important to Rhode Island, and 93
percent said that it is important to take steps to reduce pollution in
Narragansett Bay.
And today we are debating a bill, which, if enacted, would repeal the
Clean Water Act's coastal nonpoint source management program. It does
not contain any of the language of the DeLauro-Lowey Water Pollution
Control and Estuary Restoration Act. And, it eliminates the storm water
permit program.
Our water resources are already being pushed to their limits.
Population in coastal areas continues to increase. In fact, by the year
2010, Rhode Island's population is expected to grow by 10 percent, with
47 percent of this growth occurring in coastal areas. This increase in
population, along with development and pollution, puts more strain on
our natural resources, particularly estuaries. And 75 percent of the
fish caught by sportsmen and fishermen are estuarine-dependent.
The Clean Water Act has meant jobs, increased revenues for my state,
and an increased quality of life for the residents of Rhode Island, as
well as many other coastal states. The Clean Water Act provides states
with the tools they need to combat the problems that still pollute our
waterways. We should increase funding for the State Revolving Funds,
but we need to do it in a meaningful way.
Now is not the time to rollback regulations that have improved our
nation's economy, environmental resources, and health. I urge my
colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. MANTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my deep concern
about the Clean Water Act amendments we are considering this week.
Twenty years ago, Congress passed the landmark Clean Water Act that is
responsible for remarkable improvement in the quality of our Nation's
streams, rivers, and oceans. The Clean Water Act is a success story. It
demonstrates the ability of Government to positively address a serious
national problem. Today, economic development and revitalization, as
well as tourism, are thriving along once threatened waterways. And
while I encourage careful scrutiny of Federal agency actions, a balance
must be struck between economic interests and Federal regulations
affecting our water resources. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 does not strike
this balance and simply goes too far.
As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Management
and a member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, I have
serious problems with the provisions of H.R. 961 that would eliminate
protection for a large percentage of American wetlands and
significantly relax our national water quality standards.
Wetland protection is not just a local issue. It affects all parts of
our country and provides billions of dollars in economic benefits.
Wetlands are vital for both flood control and water quality as well as
providing the spawning grounds for fish that are important to the
commercial and recreational fishing industries. Our Nation's coastal
communities, that support a multimillion-dollar fishing and tourism
industry, are dependent on the continued safety and protection of our
water resources.
As a member representing this nation's largest port city, I am
fearful that H.R. 961 will halt the progress the Clean Water Act has
achieved in cleaning up the Hudson River, New York Harbor, and Long
Island Sound. Over the past 20 years, the Clean Water Act has been
successful in both improving the quality of our Nation's ocean and
coastal waters and in renewing the public's faith in Government's
ability to protect our environment.
Mr. Chairman, clean water is crucial to ensuring public health,
welfare, and quality of life. I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-
conceived measure.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R.
961, the Clean Water Act amendments, even knowing that it is a flawed
bill. While this legislation accomplishes a number of positive things,
it also unnecessarily retreats on some important clean water
initiatives. Nonetheless, no other clean water legislation can secure
sufficient votes to pass this House and failure to address the
inadequacies of the current Clean Water Act is not an alternative which
I can support.
It is important to continue to move the clean water debate forward,
and it is my hope that the Senate and conference committee will improve
this legislation so that the final version of this bill will be a more
carefully deliberated and moderate legislative effort.
Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961 and commend
Chairman Shuster and the other members of our committee who have put
this comprehensive reform package together.
Our committee spent months working with governors, state
legislatures, local governments, and the regulated community to learn
what the problems are with the current law and how to solve them. We
kept what is best in the Clean Water Act and provided the necessary
funding to tackle the really difficult problems like nonpoint source
pollution.
Our bill is a bipartisan bill with strong committee support,
introduced by 8 Republicans and 8 Democrats, and passed the
subcommittee 19 to 5 and full committee 42 to 16.
Don't be fooled, this bill has strong support at home and in
Congress.
As you listen to the debate over the next 3 days, remember what this
past election taught us. The American people want a government that
achieves results. They want a government that respects their rights,
their property and returns authority to the States.
This bill does all of this: reforms the disastrous wetlands program;
sets strong water quality criteria that are also cost effective;
provides States the flexibility to meet these standards; respects
private property rights; and most importantly, it has the money to
achieve its goals.
wetlands example--1992 ventura flood
Let me give you one example of why we need to pass HR 961:
In 1992 Ventura County tried for months--unsuccessfully--to get a 404
wetlands permit to clear vegetation out of a flood control channel. The
county knew that a severe rainstorm would cause terrible flooding if
the channel was clogged with plants. The EPA called the area a wetland
and spent months processing the permit. When torrential rains finally
came, Ventura was forced to have Governor Wilson and two Congressman
secure an emergency wetlands permit. The county set bulldozers into the
channel during the storm and a few hours before the flood hit.
The flooding devastated communities and took several lives.
It is clear that any program that results in these problems must be
reformed.
cost effective goals and standards
Our bill sets tough water quality goals for the States to achieve;
allows the Federal Government to enforce water quality criteria;
requires EPA to consider costs and benefits; and makes risk assessment
a prominent element of water quality decisionmaking.
state flexibility
As a former city engineer, I know that the solutions to water quality
problems in my district are different than New York's solutions.
[[Page H4710]] The goal is the same, but the ways to get there are as
diverse as the communities in our country. That's why we need
flexibility in the law.
Our bill recognizes this diversity and gives States the tools to
achieve Federal goals:
Authorizes pollutant trading within watersheds.
Allows States to develop watershed protection programs that integrate
nonpoint source and point source solutions to reach Federal water
quality goals.
Again, if the States fail to improve water quality, then the Federal
Government can enforce the Federal criteria.
private property rights
The American people are tired of a Federal Government that fails to
recognize the economic repercussions of its actions.
Our bill is consistent with HR 965 which already passed the House.
Requires the Federal Government to compensate landowners whose
property value has been diminished 20 percent or more by a Federal
wetland restriction.
This does not prevent important health or safety regulations, but
recognizes the constitutional requirement of private property
compensation.
funding--ends unfunded mandates
Perhaps the strongest argument that our bill improves water quality
is that it gives States the money to achieve Federal water quality
goals: It authorizes $15 billion over 5 years for the State revolving
loan fund; authorizes $1 billion over 5 years for nonpoint source
funding, and $750 million over 5 years for state administration block
grants.
Many Members would have you believe that you can't have clean water
without bureaucratic nightmares, burdensome regulations, or unfunded
mandates. But you can. The American people demand it. And this bill
will give it to you.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support the chairman's bill and
oppose weakening amendments.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, for many years now I have been
advocating that we make use of scientific and technological information
in the formulation and implementation of public policy. Listening to
the many calls for, and endorsements of, the use of sound science that
have been made in the 104th Congress you would think that I would feel
some sense of accomplishment. Instead, I am shocked and appalled at how
far the rhetoric has diverged from reality. The gap has never been
wider. Although many supporters of this legislation have emphasized to
me their wish to have public policy based upon sound science I cannot
reconcile the concept of sound science with the legislation before us.
H.R. 961 contains provisions that demonstrate a flagrant disregard for
that state of scientific and technological knowledge in the area of
water quality. In many cases, it seems the Committee went out of its
way to ignore scientific information. The wetlands classification
provisions of this bill are but one illustration of this.
Yesterday, the National Academy of Sciences released their study,
``Wetlands: Characteristics and Boundaries.'' This review of wetland
delineation was undertaken at the request of Congress. Anyone who takes
the time to read through this report or its Executive Summary cannot
possibly claim that the wetland classification and delineation scheme
contained in this bill has a basis in science. It does not. H.R. 961
contains a political wetland classification scheme that is designed to
undermine both federal and state protection of these valuable
ecosystems. Defend this scheme, if you wish, on its political merits,
but since science was left out of the process of drafting it, be
consistent and leave science out of the defense of it.
In looking at this bill, there are many provisions that have been
driven by a number of factors: politics, special interests, short-term
concerns about the costs and benefits as they affect water pollution-
prone industries, and a blind faith that good intentions will maintain
water quality. However, I find little evidence that science or
commonsense were included and this bill shows a staggering lack of
consideration of the many factors embodied by the term ``social
justice.'' Every human being, every household on this planet requires
water. Every one.
There are many competing uses for our water resources, and they
should all be carefully considered and weighed against one another. The
discharge of wastewater into water bodies is one of these uses, and it
is one that has the potential to preclude other critical uses if not
carefully monitored and managed. Numerous provisions in this bill give
more consideration to minimizing the cost to polluters of controlling
pollution discharges than they do to minimizing the social and economic
costs of degrading our water supplies, thus elevating the disposal use
above all others. To make cheap pollution disposal the primary focus of
this country's water quality policy is totally irresponsible and
scientifically, economically, and socially indefensible.
The Clean Water Act is one of our greatest public health and
environmental success stories. There are some challenges that remain,
and there are sections of the law that should be altered to address the
achievement of water quality in a more cost-effective manner. H.R. 961
does not do this. I cannot believe that after all the public money that
has been spent to clean up air, water, and land when we have failed to
adequately control disposal of pollutants that we will now proceed to
return to failed policies that promoted pollution rather than
prevention.
Our constituents do not want to return to the days before the Clean
Water Act was implemented in this country. Clean water is essential for
public health and economic health. Enactment of this bill will be
devastating to both. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this bill,
and to insist that the Members of the Transportation Committee draft a
responsible piece of legislation that balances all competing uses and
all human needs for water in an equitable and truly cost-effective
manner.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose H.R. 961, the Clean Water
Amendments of 1995, a bill that would turn back progress of the Clean
Water Act and undermine two decades of progress in improving the Great
Lakes--an important recreational and economic resource to the people of
my State. Millions of jobs are directly or indirectly dependent upon
water from that body of surface water. H.R. 961 would threaten the
economic and environmental resources that the lakes provide.
I am concerned that H.R. 961 eliminates the concept of a level
playing field for businesses in the Great Lakes basin, the basis of the
Great Lakes Governors' Agreement of 1986 and the Great Lakes
initiative. H.R. 961 allows a State to adopt some provisions of the
recent Great Lakes initiative, and not others. Clearly, this creates
interstate competition based on willingness to degrade the environment.
H.R. 961 also allows companies and municipalities to avoid compliance
with proven and accepted environmental standards and in effect rewards
those who have done the least to prevent pollution with the greatest
opportunity to reduce the cost of wastewater treatment. Indeed, time
and time again, this bill guts the Clean Water Act and seriously
weakens the Great Lakes water quality initiative--a landmark program
designed to ensure that all States within the Great Lakes basin have
uniform water quality standards to protect these national treasures--
the Great Lakes.
Mr. Speaker, many of the problems facing the Great Lakes are
interstate in character and cannot be addressed by any State acting
alone. Over the past two decades my State and others have come to rely
upon the State-Federal partnership that is the cornerstone of our
system of public health protection. This concept of partnership was the
basis for the cooperative effort of eight States to develop a water
quality guidance program to protect the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
overall objective is a consistent, basin-wide water quality standard
for the protection of human health, aquatic life, and for the first
time, wildlife. This bill would significantly erode that partnership.
H.R. 961 steps backward, away from the call for cost-effective best
management practices at the earliest possible date. The new deadline
for action would be 20 years from now--a generation away. At the same
time some industries would continue to release significant amounts of
hazardous substances into the lakes.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that now is not the time to weaken the current
clean water law which has been highly effective in improving the
Nation's water resources. The argument that the Clean Water Act has
become more burdensome than pollution itself is without foundation.
What is clear, and rests on a secure factual foundation, is that the
Clean Water Act has done much to protect the public's health and
increase social and economic opportunities. And even more must be done.
Unfortunately, H.R. 961 will ensure that we do less, not more. For
these reasons I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 961.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the Committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered by titles as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment. The first three sections
and each title are considered as read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
who has caused an amendment to be printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as read.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider the amendment printed in House Report 104-114. The amendment
may be
[[Page H4711]] offered only by a Member designated in the report, may
amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be
considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and
controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
If the amendment is adopted, the Committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute as so amended shall be considered as original text for the
purpose of further amendment.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean
Water Amendments of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
Sec. 3. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Sec. 101. National goals and policies.
Sec. 102. Research, investigations, training, and information.
Sec. 103. State management assistance.
Sec. 104. Mine water pollution control.
Sec. 105. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages.
Sec. 106. Authorization of appropriations for Chesapeake program.
Sec. 107. Great Lakes management.
TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Sec. 201. Uses of funds.
Sec. 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program.
Sec. 203. Sewage collection systems.
Sec. 204. Treatment works defined.
Sec. 205. Value engineering review.
Sec. 206. Grants for wastewater treatment.
TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 301. Effluent limitations.
Sec. 302. Pollution prevention opportunities.
Sec. 303. Water quality standards and implementation plans.
Sec. 304. Use of biological monitoring.
Sec. 305. Arid areas.
Sec. 306. Total maximum daily loads.
Sec. 307. Revision of criteria, standards, and limitations.
Sec. 308. Information and guidelines.
Sec. 309. Secondary treatment.
Sec. 310. Toxic pollutants.
Sec. 311. Local pretreatment authority.
Sec. 312. Compliance with management practices.
Sec. 313. Federal enforcement.
Sec. 314. Response plans for discharge of oil or hazardous substances.
Sec. 315. Marine sanitation devices.
Sec. 316. Federal facilities.
Sec. 317. Clean lakes.
Sec. 318. Cooling water intake structures.
Sec. 319. Nonpoint source management programs.
Sec. 320. National estuary program.
Sec. 321. State watershed management programs.
Sec. 322. Stormwater management programs.
Sec. 323. Risk assessment and disclosure requirements.
Sec. 324. Benefit and cost criterion.
TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES
Sec. 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding
operations.
Sec. 402. Permit reform.
Sec. 403. Review of State programs and permits.
Sec. 404. Statistical noncompliance.
Sec. 405. Anti-backsliding requirements.
Sec. 406. Intake credits.
Sec. 407. Combined sewer overflows.
Sec. 408. Sanitary sewer overflows.
Sec. 409. Abandoned mines.
Sec. 410. Beneficial use of biosolids.
Sec. 411. Waste treatment systems defined.
Sec. 412. Thermal discharges.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Consultation with States.
Sec. 502. Navigable waters defined.
Sec. 503. CAFO definition clarification.
Sec. 504. Publicly owned treatment works defined.
Sec. 505. State water quantity rights.
Sec. 506. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to
vegetable oil.
Sec. 507. Needs estimate.
Sec. 508. General program authorizations.
Sec. 509. Indian tribes.
Sec. 510. Food processing and food safety.
Sec. 511. Audit dispute resolution.
TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS
Sec. 601. General authority for capitalization grants.
Sec. 602. Capitalization grant agreements.
Sec. 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
Sec. 604. Allotment of funds.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving
funds.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Technical amendments.
Sec. 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research
Laboratory.
Sec. 703. Wastewater service for colonias.
Sec. 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs.
TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings and statement of purpose.
Sec. 803. Wetlands conservation and management.
Sec. 804. Definitions.
Sec. 805. Technical and conforming amendments.
Sec. 806. Effective date.
TITLE IX--NAVIGATIONAL DREDGING
Sec. 901. References to act.
Sec. 902. Ocean dumping permits.
Sec. 903. Dredged material permits.
Sec. 904. Permit conditions.
Sec. 905. Special provisions regarding certain dumping sites.
Sec. 906. References to Administrator.
{time} 1545
Amendments Offered by Mr. Shuster
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer en bloc amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Shuster:
Page 6, line 21, before the first period insert the
following:
and not unreasonably restrict outdoor recreation and other
socially beneficial activities
Page 7, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert the
following:
(b) Basic Research and Grants to Local Governments.--
Section 104(b)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1254(B)(3)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(3) in cooperation with Federal, State and local agencies
and public or private institutions, organizations, or
individuals, conduct and promote a comprehensive program of
basic research, experiments, and studies relating to causes,
sources, effects, extent, prevention, and detection of water
pollution and make grants to State water pollution control
agencies, interstate agencies, local governments, other
public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions,
organizations, and individuals for such purposes;''.
Page 8, line 1, after ``grants to'' insert ``States, local
governments, and''.
Page 8, line 3, after ``works'' insert ``(including
treatment works that utilize an alternative wastewater
treatment system)''.
Page 8, line 17, after ``works'' insert ``and alternative
wastewater treatment systems''.
Page 8, line 20, strike ``water'' and insert
``wastewater''.
Page 9, strike lines 6 through 13 and insert the following:
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; (7) not to exceed $21,243,100 per fiscal year
for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying out
the provisions of subsection (b)(3); and (8) not to exceed
$10,000,000 per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996
through 2000 for carrying out the provisions of subsections
(b)(8) and (b)(9)''.
Page 31, line 15, after ``works'' insert ``and alternative
wastewater treatment systems''.
Page 32, line 15, strike ``not later than'' and all that
follows through ``established'' on line 16 and insert the
following:
within a reasonable period of time as determined by the
Administrator or the State, as appropriate, considering
facility planning, design, construction, and other
implementation factors
Page 34, line 5, strike ``such Act'' and insert ``the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977''.
Page 34, strike lines 6 through 10 and insert the
following:
``(B) the post-mining levels of pollutants (other than pH)
discharged from such operation do not exceed the levels of
pollutants discharged from the remined area before the coal
remining operation began and the post-mining pH levels of the
discharges from the remined area are not reduced below the pH
levels of the discharges from the remined area before the
coal remining operation began.''.
Page 36, line 14, strike ``shall reduce'' and all that
follows through the period on line 17 and insert the
following:
shall take into account the permittee's good-faith efforts to
implement the innovation and to comply with any interim
limitations and may reduce or eliminate the penalty for such
violation.
Page 37, line 5, strike the closing quotation marks and the
final period.
Page 37, after line 5, insert the following:
``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to authorize the
Administrator or a State to enforce, place conditions on, or
otherwise regulate emissions into the air or the treatment,
storage, or disposal of solid waste or require or enforce
conditions on the manufacturing or processing of a chemical
substance or mixture in any permit issued under this Act.''.
Page 37, lines 12 and 13, strike ``Notwithstanding any
other provision of this Act, the Administrator'' and insert
``The Administrator''.
Page 37, line 15, insert ``at the request of the permittee
and'' before ``after public notice''.
Page 37, lines 17 and 18, strike ``subsection (b)'' and
insert ``subsection (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E)''.
Page 37, line 24, insert ``from the facility'' after
``pollutants''.
[[Page H4712]]
Page 38, line 7, strike ``subsection (b)'' and insert
``subsection (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E)''.
Page 38, after line 23, insert the following:
``(4) Limitations on modifications.--A modification of an
otherwise applicable limitation or standard may not be made
under this subsection if such modification--
``(A) will cause a receiving body of water that is meeting
its designated use for all pollutants to no longer meet such
use;
``(B) will prevent a receiving body of water that is not
meeting its designated use for all pollutants from meeting
such use; or
``(C) will cause the introduction of pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works that interferes with, passes
through, or is otherwise incompatible with such works or will
cause such works to violate its permit under section 402 of
this Act.
``(5) Guidance.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall
publish guidance for determining whether a modification of an
otherwise applicable limitation or standard under this
subsection will achieve an overall reduction in emissions to
the environment and result in an overall net benefit to the
environment. In developing such guidance, the Administrator
shall consult with the States and other interested parties.
``(6) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to authorize the
Administrator or a State to enforce, place conditions on, or
otherwise regulate emissions into the air or the treatment,
storage, or disposal of solid waste or require or enforce
conditions on the manufacturing or processing of a chemical
substance or mixture in any permit issued under this Act.
Page 38, line 24, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(7)''.
Page 39, lines 8 and 9, strike ``Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the Administrator'' and insert ``The
Administrator''.
Page 41, line 22, after the period insert the following:
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize
the Administrator or a State to enforce, place conditions on,
or otherwise regulate emissions into the air or the
treatment, storage, or disposal of solid waste or require or
enforce conditions on the manufacturing or processing of a
chemical substance or mixture in any permit issued under this
Act.
Page 41, after line 22, insert the following:
``(6) Limitations on modifications.--A modification of an
otherwise applicable limitation or standard may not be made
under this subsection if such modification--
``(A) will cause a receiving body of water that is meeting
its designated use for all pollutants to no longer meet such
use;
``(B) will prevent a receiving body of water that is not
meeting its designated use for all pollutants from meeting
such use; or
``(C) will cause the introduction of pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works that interferes with, passes
through, or is otherwise incompatible with such works or will
cause such works to violate its permit under section 402 of
this Act.
``(7) Guidance.--Not later than 270 days after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall
publish guidance for determining whether a modification of an
otherwise applicable limitation or standard under this
subsection will achieve an overall reduction in discharges to
the watershed and result in an overall net benefit to the
environment. In developing such guidance, the Administrator
shall consult with the States and other interested parties.
Page 41, line 23, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(8)''.
Page 51, line 8, insert ``applicable to such waters for all
pollutants'' after ``uses''.
Page 51, strike line 18 and all that follows through line 4
on page 52.
Page 52, line 5, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
Page 52, after line 10, insert the following:
(d) Consideration of Influence of Exotic Species.--Section
303(c)(2) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Consideration of influence of exotic species.--In
establishing, adopting, or reviewing standards or goals based
upon fishable or swimmable uses or uses to assure protection
or propagation of a balanced population of fish, shellfish,
and wildlife, the State or the Administrator shall consider
the influence of exotic or introduced species upon such
standards, goals, or uses.
``(E) Reclaimed wastewater.--If a State adopts or reviews
water quality standards and policies pursuant to this
section, the State may consider and balance, in addition to
other factors referred to in this section, the need for
allowing the discharge of reclaimed wastewater to navigable
waters to promote the beneficial use of reclaimed wastewater.
In addition, the State may take into consideration and
reflect in the standards--
``(i) the use and value of reclaimed wastewater for public
water supplies;
``(ii) the physical, chemical, and biological conditions
that influence water quality in the area subject to the
standards, including extremes of temperature, water flow,
turbidity, mineralization, salinity, and flooding; and
``(iii) whether the discharge of reclaimed wastewater will
result in a net environmental benefit to the watershed
subject to the standards.''.
(e) Clarification of Mixing Zone Authority.--Section 303
(33 U.S.C. 1313) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(i) Continuation of Mixing Zones.--Nothing in this Act
shall be construed to authorize the Administrator to prohibit
or discontinue mixing zones established by any State for any
pollutant or class of pollutants.''.
Page 52, line 22, strike ``an aquatic species'' and all
that follows through ``criteria'' on line 24 and insert the
following:
an aquatic species that is indigenous to the type of waters,
a species that is representative of such a species, or an
appropriate species that indicates the toxicity of the
effluent in the receiving waters
Page 54, line 1, after ``demonstrates'' insert ``to the
permitting authority''.
Page 54, lines 3 and 4, strike ``indigenous, or
representative of indigenous, and relevant'' and insert
``indigenous''.
Page 54, line 6, after ``applicable'' insert ``numerical''.
Page 54, line 7, after ``standards'' insert ``for specific
pollutants''.
Page 54, line 10, strike ``works'' and all that follows
through the final period on line 12 and insert the following:
works--
``(i) if the source or cause of such toxicity cannot, after
thorough investigation, be identified; or
``(ii) if the permittee makes to the permitting authority a
demonstration described in subparagraph (A).''.
Page 54, line 23, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(F)''.
Page 61, line 16, after the first period insert the
following:
In the case of ammonia, the Administrator shall revise the
criteria only to the extent that the current criteria are
more stringent than necessary to achieve the objectives of
this Act.
Page 63, after line 3, insert the following:
(e) Industrial Publicly Owned Treatment Works.--Section
304(d) (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(5) Industrial publicly owned treatment works.--
``(A) Guidelines.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator, after
consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies and
other interested persons, shall publish guidelines for
effluent limitations under section 301 and sludge use and
disposal requirements under section 405 applicable to
publicly owned treatment works designed to treat a
predominance of industrial wastewater. Such guidelines shall
take into account differences in constituents, treatability,
available technology procedures, and costs resulting from the
fact that the publicly owned treatment works treat wastewater
and manage sludge derived predominantly from industrial
sources.
``(B) Permits.--Following the issuance of guidelines under
this paragraph, permits under section 402 for such publicly
owned treatment works shall be derived using the guidelines
issued under this paragraph in lieu of applying the
regulations otherwise applicable to publicly owned treatment
works promulgated under paragraph (1) of this subsection and
section 405(d).''.
Page 63, line 4, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 63, line 7, strike ``3 years'' and insert ``1 year''.
Page 63, line 24, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
Page 63, line 4, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
Page 64, strike line 15 and insert the following:
SEC. 308. PERSONNEL AND REPORTING.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Page 64, line 16, before ``Section'' insert ``(a)
Permitting Boards.--''.
Page 64, after line 23, insert the following:
(b) Reporting.--Section 305(b) (33 U.S.C. 1315(b)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking the matter preceding
subparagraph (A) and inserting ``Not later than 3 years after
the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of
1995, and every 5 years thereafter, each State shall prepare
and submit to the Administrator a report which shall
include--''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Consolidation of Reporting Requirements.--A State may
consolidate any of the reporting requirements of this Act
that relate to ambient water quality into the report required
under this section.''.
Page 65, line 5, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 68, line 20, strike ``20,000'' and insert ``10,000''.
Page 68, line 25, after ``alternative'' insert
``wastewater''.
Page 74, line 19, strike ``and''.
Page 74, line 22, after the semicolon insert ``and''.
Page 74, after line 22, insert the following:
``(E) local limits established by such treatment works in
its approved pretreatment program are preventing and will
continue to prevent the introduction of pollutants into such
treatment works that interfere with, pass through, or are
otherwise incompatible with such treatment works;
Page 75, lines 1 and 5, before ``local'' insert
``approved''.
Page 84, line 14, strike ``or runoff''.
[[Page H4713]]
Page 92, line 2, after ``vessel'' insert ``or other
facility''.
Page 93, strike line 7 and all that follows through line 2
on page 95 and insert the following:
SEC. 318. COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.
Section 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``(b)'' the following: ``Regulation
of Cooling Water Intake Structures.--'';
(2) by inserting before ``Any'' the following: ``(1) In
general.--'';
(3) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph
(2) of this section, and moving such paragraph 2 ems to the
right; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Intake structure considerations.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall require the
application of the best technology available to new and
existing cooling water intake structures in instances where
the Administrator has determined that such a structure is
having or could have a significant adverse impact on the
aquatic environment.
``(B) New intake structure.--In identifying the best
technology available for any new cooling water intake
structure pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator
shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
``(i) The relative technological, engineering, and economic
feasibility of available intake structure technologies for
minimizing adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
``(ii) The relative technological, engineering, and
economic feasibility of available alternatives as to the
location, design, construction, and capacity of the intake
structure.
``(iii) The relative environmental, social, and economic
costs and benefits of available technologies and alternatives
identified pursuant to this subparagraph or subparagraph (D).
``(iv) The projected useful life of the point source at
which the new cooling water intake structure is located.
``(C) Existing intake structures.--In identifying the best
technology available for an existing cooling water intake
structure pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator
shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
``(i) The relative technological, engineering, and economic
feasibility of reasonably available intake structure retrofit
technologies for minimizing adverse impacts to the aquatic
environment.
``(ii) The relative environmental, social, and economic
costs and benefits of available technologies and alternatives
identified pursuant to this subparagraph or subparagraph (D).
``(iii) The projected remaining useful life of the point
source at which the existing cooling water intake structure
is located.
``(D) Consideration of alternatives.--In identifying the
best technology available for any new or existing cooling
water intake structure, the Administrator shall consider
environmental enhancements or any other technique that the
owner or operator has identified as appropriate alternatives
for minimizing adverse impacts to the aquatic environment.
``(3) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) New cooling water intake structure.--The term `new
cooling water intake structure' means any intake structure
the construction of which commences after the publication of
final regulations implementing this subsection.
``(B) Existing cooling water intake structure.--The term
`existing cooling water intake structure' means any intake
structure that is not a new cooling water intake
structure.''.
Page 109, line 3, strike ``and''.
Page 109, after line 3, insert the following:
``(E) providing financial assistance with respect to those
water pollution control activities which have as their
principal purpose the protection of public water supplies;
and
Page 109, line 4, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(F)''.
Page 114, line 23, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(h)''.
Page 117, line 7, before ``livestock'' insert
``agricultural inputs, including''.
Page 117, line 7, after ``manure'' insert a comma.
Page 117, after line 18, insert the following:
(q) Control of Salt Water Intrusion.--Section 319 is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(s) Control of Salt Water Intrusion.--Nothing in this
section authorizes the Administrator to require a State to
identify or establish procedures and methods to control salt
water intrusion beyond what is provided for in section
208(b)(2)(I).''.
Page 136, line 16, strike ``and'' and all that follows
through the period on line 24 and insert the following:
, based on available information, and submit to the
Administrator for approval a stormwater management program--
``(A) that controls pollution added from stormwater
discharges to the navigable waters within the boundaries of
the State and improves the quality of such waters; and
``(B) that the State proposes to establish and administer
under State law or interstate compact to apply and assure
compliance with this section.
The initial program submission must meet the requirements of
this subsection and specifically address the first 5 fiscal
years beginning after the date of submission of such
management program.
Page 137, lines 24 and 25, strike ``established under
subsection (i)''.
Page 148, line 24, after the period insert the following:
If, upon review of a stormwater pollution prevention plan,
the State determines that the plan is inadequate, the State
may require the facility to modify the plan.
Page 150, line 24, after the first comma insert ``or''.
Page 150, line 24, strike ``or (c)(2)(F),''.
Page 152, line 8, after ``permits'' insert ``and effluent
guidelines''.
Page 152, line 12, after ``a'' insert ``stormwater''.
Page 152, line 14, after ``1987,'' insert ``or with respect
to which an effluent guideline has been issued before
February 4, 1987''.
Page 153, line 15, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 159, lines 17 and 18, strike ``of this Act''.
Page 161, strike line 4 and all that follows through line
24 on page 162.
Page 163, line 1, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(i)''.
Page 163, line 14, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(j)''.
Page 163, line 16 strike ``1996'' and insert ``1998''.
Page 165, line 10, strike ``(l)'' and insert ``(k)''.
Page 165, line 10, strike ``Stormwater''.
Page 166, line 12, before the comma insert ``and section
304(a)(13)''.
Page 166, line 20, strike ``(m)'' and insert ``(l)''.
Page 167, line 1, strike ``(n)'' and insert ``(m)''.
Page 167, line 8, strike ``(o)'' and insert ``(n)''.
Page 167, line 12, strike ``(p)'' and insert ``(o)''.
Page 168, line 2, after the period insert the following:
Land that was previously used for mining activities for which
reclamation requirements of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 have been met and a performance bond
or deposit required under section 509 of such Act has been
released under section 519 of such Act shall no longer be
considered an ore mining and dressing site.
Page 168, after line 17, insert the following:
``(5) Active coal mining sites.--Discharges comprised
entirely of stormwater from an active coal mining site
operating under a permit issued under the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 shall be subject to
section 319.
Page 168, line 18, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(6)''.
Page 169, after line 19, insert the following:
(d) Development of Stormwater Criteria.--Section 304(a) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(13) Development of stormwater criteria.--
``(A) In general.--To reflect the episodic character of
stormwater which results in significant variances in the
volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load associated
with stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall
establish, as an element of the water quality standards
established for the designated uses of the navigable waters,
stormwater criteria which protect the navigable waters from
impairment of the designated beneficial uses caused by
stormwater discharges. The criteria shall be technologically
and financially feasible and may include performance
standards, guidelines, guidance, and model management
practices and measures and treatment requirements, as
appropriate, and as identified in section 322.
``(B) Information to be used in development.--The
stormwater discharge criteria to be established under this
paragraph--
``(i) shall be developed from--
``(I) the findings and conclusions of the demonstration
programs and research conducted under section 322(h);
``(II) the findings and conclusions of the research and
monitoring activities of stormwater dischargers performed in
compliance with permit requirements of this Act; and
``(III) other relevant information, including information
submitted to the Administrator under the industrial group
permit application process in effect under section 402 of
this Act on the day before the date of the enactment of this
paragraph;
``(ii) shall be developed in consultation with persons with
expertise in the management of stormwater (including
officials of State and local government, industrial and
commercial stormwater dischargers, and public interest
groups); and
``(iii) shall be established as an element of the water
quality standards that are developed and implemented under
this Act by not later than December 31, 2008.''.
Page 169, line 20, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 169, line 24, before the period insert ``that is
subject to section 322''.
Page 182, line 1, strike ``An'' and insert ``If an''.
Page 182, line 2, strike ``that''.
Page 182, line 6, strike ``may'' and all that follows
through ``use'' on line 9 and insert ``, such system or
facility is exempt from this Act''.
Page 183, strike lines 4 through 11 and insert the
following:
[[Page H4714]]
(c) Discharge Limit.--Section 402(a) (33 U.S.C. 1342(a)) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Quantitation level.--
``(A) Establishment.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
establish quantitation levels for pollutants based on the
lowest level at which a pollutant can be reliably quantified
on an interlaboratory basis for each test method published
under section 304(h).
``(B) Permit levels.--Whenever a limitation for a permit
issued under this section is set at a level below the
quantitation level established for that pollutant under
subparagraph (A) for the test method specified in the permit,
any measurement of the pollutant greater than the limitation
but less than the quantitation level shall not be considered
a violation of the permit. All measurements less than the
quantitation level shall be deemed equal to zero for purposes
of determining compliance with the limitation.''.
(d) Discharges Under Permit Applications.--Section 402(k)
(33 U.S.C. 1342(k)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``except'' and
inserting ``except for'';
(2) in the second sentence--
(A) by striking ``Until December 31, 1974, in'' and
inserting ``In''; and
(B) by striking ``(1) section 301, 306, or 402 of this Act,
or (2)'' and inserting ``section 402 of this Act or''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and provided further that if the discharge
results in a violation of effluent limitations or standards
promulgated under section 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, or 307 of
this Act that would be applicable upon issuance of a permit
such discharge shall be considered unlawful under section 301
of this Act''; and
(3) by striking the last sentence.
Page 184, line 17, strike ``be'' and all that follows
through ``limitation'' on line 18 and insert ``have an
affirmative defense to such alleged noncompliance''.
Page 185, line 20, strike ``be'' and all that follows
through ``Act'' on line 21 and insert ``have an affirmative
defense to such alleged noncompliance''.
Page 187, line 12, strike the semicolon and insert ``or are
directly and proximately connected; or''.
Page 187, strike lines 13 through 17.
Page 187, line 18, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(ii)''.
Page 187, line 23, strike ``if, for conventional
pollutants,'' and insert ``for conventional pollutants, to
the extent that the discharger demonstrates that''.
Page 188, line 1, insert ``or substantially similar to''
after ``the same as''.
Page 188, line 12, strike ``that'' and all that follows
through the period on line 13 and insert the following:
in circumstances that do not meet the requirements of
paragraph (1), including circumstances in which the source of
the intake water meets the maximum contaminant levels or
treatment techniques for drinking water contaminants
established pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act for the
pollutant of concern. An appropriate credit for pollutants
found in intake water is a credit that assures that an owner
or operator of a point source is not required to remove,
reduce, or treat the amount of any pollutant in an effluent
below the amount of such pollutant that is present in the
intake water for such facility, except to the extent that the
level of such pollutant in the intake water will cause
adverse water quality impact that would not otherwise occur.
Page 194, line 20, strike ``paragraph (3)'' and insert
``paragraphs (2) and (3)''.
Page 198, line 13, strike ``approved within 180 days'' and
insert ``submitted within 90 days''.
Page 201, after line 2, insert the following:
``(F) Deemed approval of compliance plans.--A compliance
plan submitted under subparagraph (A)(iv) shall be deemed to
be approved on the 90th day following the date of such
submission, unless the Administrator notifies the remediating
party before such 90th day that the plan has been
disapproved.''.
Page 201, line 8, strike ``or its political
subdivisions,''.
Page 201, line 12, strike ``a person described in clause
(i)'' and insert ``a State or Indian tribe''.
Page 202, line 4, strike ``not actively mined or'' and
insert ``neither actively mined nor''.
Page 202, line 7, strike ``section'' and insert
``subsection''.
Page 203, line 17, strike ``law'' and insert ``this Act''.
Page 211, line 17, strike ``VEGETABLE OIL'' and insert
``NONPETROLEUM OIL PRODUCTS AND OIL SUBSTITUTES''.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Page 211, lines 18 and 19, strike ``Fats, Oils, and
Greases'' and insert ``Petroleum and Nonpetroleum Products''.
Page 211, lines 22 and 23, strike ``a Federal law related
to water pollution control,'' and insert ``the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990 or the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,''.
Page 212, line 2, strike ``for--'' and insert the
following:
for petroleum and nonpetroleum oil products and oil
substitutes, including animal fats, vegetable oils, and
silicone fluids; and
Page 212, strike lines 3 through line 6.
Page 212, line 10, strike ``fat and oil'' and insert
``petroleum and nonpetroleum oil products and oil
substitutes''.
Page 212, lines 13 through 15, strike ``animal fats and
vegetable oils referred to in paragraph (1)(A)(i) and the
classes of oils described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii)'' and
insert ``petroleum products and nonpetroleum oil products and
oil substitutes''.
Page 213, strikes lines 15 and 16 and insert the following:
SEC. 508. PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) Limit on Authorizations.--No funds are authorized for
any fiscal year after fiscal year 2000 for carrying out the
programs and activities for which funds are authorized by
this Act, including amendments made by this Act.
(b) General Program Authorizations.--Section 517 (33 U.S.C.
1376) is amended--
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Page 214, after line 7, insert the following:
(b) Treatment as States.--Section 518(e) (33 U.S.C.
1377(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``water resources which are'' and inserting
``water resources within the exterior boundaries of a Federal
Indian reservation which are on or appurtenant to lands'';
(B) by inserting ``or'' after ``Indians,'';
(C) by striking ``member of an Indian tribe'' and inserting
``member of the reservation's governing Indian tribe'';
(D) by striking ``, or otherwise within the borders of an
Indian reservation''; and
(E) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (3) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) the Administrator's action does not authorize the
Indian tribe to regulate lands owned in whole or in part by
nonmembers of the tribe or the use of water resources on or
appurtentant to such lands.''.
Page 214, line 8, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
Page 215, line 4, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 215, line 17, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
Page 216, line 1, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Page 222, line 13, after ``quality'' insert ``of navigable
waters''.
Page 224, line 22, after ``year'' insert ``or \1/2\ percent
per year of the current valuation of such fund''.
Page 225, line 19, strike ``amended by striking'' and
insert the following:
amended--
(1) by striking ``is consistent'' and inserting ``is not
inconsistent''; and
(2) by striking
Page 226, line 2, before ``treatment'' insert ``publicly
owned''.
Page 226, line 4, before the semicolon insert ``without
regard to the rank of such project on the State's priority
list''.
Page 243, line 15, after ``Secretary'' insert ``, in
consultation with the States,''.
Page 246, line 2, before the semicolon insert ``based on
verifiable, objective science''.
Page 247, strike line 3.
Page 247, line 4, strike ``(iv)'' and insert ``(iii)''.
Page 247, line 5, strike ``(v)'' and insert ``(iv)''.
Page 256, strike line 16 and all that follows through page
257, line 6, and insert the following:
``(A) Analysis.--The Secretary shall determine whether to
issue a permit for an activity in waters of the United States
classified under subsection (c) as type A wetlands based on--
``(i) a sequential analysis that seeks, to the maximum
extent practicable, to--
``(I) avoid adverse impact on the wetlands;
``(II) minimize such adverse impact on wetlands functions
that cannot be avoided; and
``(III) compensate for any loss of wetland functions that
cannot be avoided or minimized; and
``(ii) the public interest analysis described in paragraph
(3).
``(B) Water dependent activity.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(i)(I), if an activity is water dependent, an
alternative in an area that is not wetlands or waters of the
United States shall not be presumed to be available. A water
dependent activity is an activity that requires access or
proximity to or siting within the wetlands or waters of the
United States in question to fulfill its basic purpose.
Page 257, line 7, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(C)''.
Page 266, line 20, strike ``and''.
Page 266, after line 20, insert the following:
``(vi) provide, where appropriate, for dual use of wetlands
within the mitigation bank, as long as the use other than
providing compensatory mitigation under this section (I)
shall not interfere with the functioning of such bank for
providing such mitigation, and (II) shall not adversely
impact wetlands or other waters of the United States; and
Page 266, line 21, strike ``(vi)'' and ``(vii)''.
Page 280, line 3, strike ``or''.
Page 280, line 20, strike ``or''.
Page 280, line 23, strike the period and insert ``; or''.
Page 280, after line 23, insert the following:
``(v) result from any silvicultural activity or practice
undertaken on economic base lands; or
``(S) result from the conduct of recreational hunting or
shooting.
Page 284, strike lines 10 through 18.
Page 284, line 19, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(2)''.
[[Page H4715]] Page 285, line 1, strike ``section'' and all
that follows through the final period on line 2 and insert
the following:
subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.).
Page 285, lines 11 and 19, after ``used'' insert the
following:
, or a good faith effort is shown by the owner or operator to
use such lands,
Page 285, after line 20, insert the following:
``(D) Delineations grandfathered.--Delineations by the
Secretary of Agriculture regarding wetlands on agricultural
lands and associated nonagricultural lands that have become
administratively final on or before the date of enactment of
the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of
1995 shall not be subject to further delineation unless the
owner requests a new delineation by the Secretary of
Agriculture.
Page 289, after line 9, insert the following:
``(G) Permission to enter onto private property.--The
Secretaries shall obtain written permission from the owner of
private property before entering such property to conduct
identification and classification of wetlands pursuant to
this paragraph.
Page 293, line 4, before the semicolon insert the
following:
; except that, in any case in which guidelines based on such
criteria alone would prohibit the specification of a disposal
site, the economic impact on navigation and anchorage shall
be considered
Page 305, after line 4, insert the following:
``(8) Treatment of existing programs.--Any State which has
received approval to administer a program pursuant to this
subsection before the date of the enactment of the
Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of
1995 shall not be required to reapply for approval and shall
be permitted to continue administering such program in a
manner consistent with the provisions of this section. Upon
receipt of a request from the Governor of such State, the
Secretary, with the concurrence of the Governor, shall amend
the program.
Page 312, after line 9, insert the following:
``(11) Certification.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act, the Administrator shall not, either directly or
indirectly, impose any requirement or condition in a
certification required under section 401 that the Secretary
determines is inconsistent with the provisions of this
section.
Page 312, line 10, strike ``(11)'' and insert ``(12)''.
Page 316, after line 13, insert the following:
``(N) Vernal pools.--The term `vernal pools' means
individual isolated wetlands that have exceptional waterfowl
habitat functions and that exhibit the following
characteristics:
``(i) an area greater than \1/2\ acre;
``(ii) seasonal standing for no less than 45 consecutive
days during the fall and winter in an average precipitation
season;
``(iii) an impermeable subsurface hard pan soil layer that
prevents subsurface water drainage or percolation; and
``(iv) a surface outlet for relief of water flow.
Page 316, line 14, strike ``(N)'' and insert ``(O)''.
Page 317, after line 16, insert the following:
``(31) The term `farmed wetland' means those agricultural
lands, as defined in section 404, and associated
nonagricultural lands exhibiting wetlands characteristics, as
delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Page 317, line 17, strike ``(31)'' and insert ``(32)''.
Page 317, line 23, strike ``(32)'' and insert ``(33)''.
Page 318, line 4, strike ``(33)'' and insert ``(34)''.
Page 318, line 7, strike ``(34)'' and insert ``(35)''.
Page 318, line 12, strike ``(35)'' and insert ``(36)''.
Page 318, line 18, strike ``(36)'' and insert ``(37)''.
Page 318, line 22, strike ``(37)'' and insert ``(38)''.
Page 319, strike lines 5 through 11.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] will each
be recognized for 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding after we engage in a colloquy
that this en bloc amendment may be accepted. I would simply like to
point out that the en bloc amendment improves upon this already widely
supported bill that we reported out. This package of agreements
includes agreements reached with chairmen of the other committees of
jurisdiction, noncontroversial items brought to our attention since the
committee markup, and other technical matters and miscellaneous issues.
The en bloc also reflects an ongoing dialog with State and local
water officials including various provisions directly responding to the
concerns and clarifying existing environmental safeguards in the bill.
I would emphasize it is very important that once the en bloc
amendment is passed it will be open for amendment by title as we go
through the bill so Member's rights are protected as we go through the
bill and they will be able, if they choose, to offer amendments to the
en bloc amendment.
In the en bloc amendment we deal with several State issues, for
examples, reducing from 20,000 to 10,000 the population ceiling for
eligibility for the modification of secondary treatment requirements,
this at the request of the States.
We delete, this is very important because the gentleman from New York
in a previous comment complained about a 20-percent cap on type A
wetlands, we delete the 20-percent cap for the type A wetlands for
county parishes and boroughs, so this is in response to environmental
requests, the various miscellaneous new matters in the bill. At each
stage in the process matters have been brought to us, a very open
process, and as a result we have included several noncontroversial
items in this particular area.
Finally, with regard to committee issues, the package reflects
agreements reached with the other committees of jurisdiction in several
areas, technical and otherwise, and I would particularly focus on the
fact that in this area we provide language that assures that the
classification of isolated wetlands is based on sound science. This
addresses a concern that all wetlands might be prejudged as falling
into a single classification type. Environmentalists have talked with
us about this and we have accepted their recommendations in this area.
And with regard to the technical amendments themselves, we have an
important clarifying technical amendment that clarifies when local
pretreatment limits apply in lieu of categorical pretreatment
standards, such local limits must prevent the introduction of
pollutants into the treatment works that will interfere with, pass
through, or otherwise be incompatible with the treatment works, again,
another proenvironmental provision which we have included in the en
bloc amendments.
So, that is a very brief description of what I believe can be
acceptable, particularly with emphasis that Member's rights are
protected to offer amendments relating to any of these en bloc
amendments as we move through the title-by-title amending process of
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to inquire of my friend from
Pennsylvania, the distinguished chair of the full Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, there is a provision in the en bloc
amendment which affects EPA's authorities under section 401. And as the
gentleman knows, the States are very concerned with any amendments
which might affect section 401 and the rights of States to protect
their water quality. It is my understanding that the provision is not
intended to affect in any way the rights of States to protect water
quality under section 401. Is that correct?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. The provision in
question is intended only to clarify that there is to be no
interference from the EPA in the 401 certification process relating to
section 404 permits.
Mr. MINETA. It is also my understanding that this provision is not
intended to affect the broad issues of States' rights under section 401
and the relationship with hydropower relicensing; is that correct?
Mr. SHUSTER. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, it is also noted, as has my colleague from
Pennsylvania, that each of the provisions included in the en bloc
amendment will be amendable when the appropriate title in the bill is
reached, and I understand that that is the way this works.
So, with that understanding, I have no objections to this en bloc
amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman.
[[Page H4716]] Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of
my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
The amendments were agreed to.
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. saxton
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of
a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Saxton:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Clean
Water Amendments of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definition.
Sec. 3. Amendment of Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
Sec. 101. Research, investigations, training, and information.
Sec. 102. State management assistance.
Sec. 103. Mine water pollution control.
Sec. 104. Water sanitation in rural and Native Alaska villages.
Sec. 105. Authorization of appropriations for Chesapeake program.
Sec. 106. Great Lakes management.
TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Sec. 201. Uses of funds.
Sec. 202. Administration of closeout of construction grant program.
Sec. 203. Sewage collection systems.
Sec. 204. Value engineering review.
Sec. 205. Grants for wastewater treatment.
TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
Sec. 301. Arid areas.
Sec. 302. Secondary treatment.
Sec. 303. Federal facilities.
Sec. 304. National estuary program.
Sec. 305. Nonpoint source management programs.
Sec. 306. Coastal zone management.
Sec. 307. Comprehensive watershed management.
Sec. 308. Revision of effluent limitations.
TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES
Sec. 401. Waste treatment systems for concentrated animal feeding
operations.
Sec. 402. Municipal and industrial stormwater discharges.
Sec. 403. Intake credits.
Sec. 404. Combined sewer overflows.
Sec. 405. Abandoned mines.
Sec. 406. Beneficial use of biosolids.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Publicly owned treatment works defined.
Sec. 502. Implementation of water pollution laws with respect to
vegetable oil.
Sec. 503. Needs estimate.
Sec. 504. Food processing and food safety.
Sec. 505. Audit dispute resolution.
TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS
Sec. 601. General authority for capitalization grants.
Sec. 602. Capitalization grant agreements.
Sec. 603. Water pollution control revolving loan funds.
Sec. 604. Allotment of funds.
Sec. 605. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 606. State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving
funds.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec. 701. Technical amendments.
Sec. 702. John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research
Laboratory.
Sec. 703. Wastewater service for colonias.
Sec. 704. Savings in municipal drinking water costs.
TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Findings and purposes.
Sec. 803. State, local, and landowner technical assistance and
cooperative training.
Sec. 804. Federal, State, and Local Government Coordinating Committee.
Sec. 805. State and local wetland conservation plans and strategies;
grants to facilitate the implementation of section 404.
Sec. 806. National cooperative wetland ecosystem restoration strategy.
Sec. 807. Permits for discharge of dredged or fill material.
Sec. 808. Technical assistance to private landowners, codification of
regulations and policies.
Sec. 809. Delineation.
Sec. 810. Fast track for minor permits.
Sec. 811. Compensatory mitigation.
Sec. 812. Cooperative mitigation ventures and mitigation banks.
Sec. 813. Wetlands monitoring and research.
Sec. 814. Administrative appeals.
Sec. 815. Cranberry production.
Sec. 816. State classification systems.
Sec. 817. Definitions.
TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 901. Obligations and expenditures subject to appropriations.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
In this Act, the term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).
TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
SEC. 101. RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND
INFORMATION.
(a) National Programs.--Section 104(a) (33 U.S.C. 1254(a))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies, conduct, promote, and encourage to the
maximum extent feasible, in watersheds that may be
significantly affected by nonpoint sources of pollution,
monitoring and measurement of water quality by means and
methods that will help to identify the relative contributions
of particular nonpoint sources.''.
(b) Grants to Local Governments.--Section 104(b)(3) (33
U.S.C. 1254(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``local
governments,'' after ``interstate agencies,''.
(c) Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment
Works.--Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide
technical assistance and training to rural and small publicly
owned treatment works to enable such treatment works to
achieve and maintain compliance with the requirements of this
Act; and
``(9) disseminate information to rural, small, and
disadvantaged communities with respect to the planning,
design, construction, and operation of treatment works.''.
(d) Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished Communities.--
Section 104(q) (33 U.S.C. 1254(q)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(5) Small impoverished communities.--
``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to States
to provide assistance for planning, design, and construction
of publicly owned treatment works to provide wastewater
services to rural communities of 3,000 or less that are not
currently served by any sewage collection or water treatment
system and are severely economically disadvantaged, as
determined by the Administrator.
``(B) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 per
fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 104(u) (33
U.S.C. 1254(u)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``(6)''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; and (7) not to exceed $50,000,000 per fiscal
year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying
out the provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and (b)(9),
except that not less than 20 percent of the sums appropriated
pursuant to this clause shall be available for carrying out
the provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)''.
SEC. 102. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``$75,000,000'';
(2) by inserting after ``1990'' the following: ``, such
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1991
through 1995, and $150,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
fiscal years 1996 through 2000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``States or
interstate agencies receiving grants under this section may
use such funds to finance, with other States or interstate
agencies, studies and projects on interstate issues relating
to such programs.''.
SEC. 103. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.
Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.
``(a) Acidic and Other Toxic Mine Drainage.--The
Administrator shall establish a program to demonstrate the
efficacy of measures for abatement of the causes and
treatment of the effects of acidic and other toxic mine
drainage within qualified hydrologic units affected by past
coal mining practices for the purpose of restoring the
biological integrity of waters within such units.
``(b) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Any State or Indian tribe may apply to
the Administrator for a grant for any project which provides
for abatement of the causes or treatment of the effects of
acidic or other toxic mine drainage
[[Page H4717]] within a qualified hydrologic unit affected by past
coal mining practices.
``(2) Application requirements.--An application submitted
to the Administrator under this section shall include each of
the following:
``(A) An identification of the qualified hydrologic unit.
``(B) A description of the extent to which acidic or other
toxic mine drainage is affecting the water quality and
biological resources within the hydrologic unit.
``(C) An identification of the sources of acidic or other
toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.
``(D) An identification of the project and the measures
proposed to be undertaken to abate the causes or treat the
effects of acidic or other toxic mine drainage within the
hydrologic unit.
``(E) The cost of undertaking the proposed abatement or
treatment measures.
``(c) Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project receiving grant assistance under this section shall
be 50 percent.
``(2) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--Contributions
of lands, easements, and rights-of-way shall be credited
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under
this section but not in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the
total project cost.
``(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interest
shall bear 100 percent of the cost of operation and
maintenance of a project under this section.
``(d) Prohibited Projects.--No acidic or other toxic mine
drainage abatement or treatment project may receive
assistance under this section if the project would adversely
affect the free-flowing characteristics of any river segment
within a qualified hydrologic unit.
``(e) Applications From Federal Entities.--Any Federal
entity may apply to the Administrator for a grant under this
section for the purposes of an acidic or toxic mine drainage
abatement or treatment project within a qualified hydrologic
unit located on lands and waters under the administrative
jurisdiction of such entity.
``(f) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve an
application submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (e) after
determining that the application meets the requirements of
this section.
``(g) Qualified Hydrologic Unit Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term `qualified hydrologic unit' means a
hydrologic unit--
``(1) in which the water quality has been significantly
affected by acidic or other toxic mine drainage from past
coal mining practices in a manner which adversely impacts
biological resources; and
``(2) which contains lands and waters eligible for
assistance under title IV of the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1977.''.
SEC. 104. WATER SANITATION IN RURAL AND NATIVE ALASKA
VILLAGES.
(a) In General.--Section 113 (33 U.S.C. 1263) is amended by
striking the section heading and designation and subsections
(a) through (f) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.
``(a) Grants.--The Administrator is authorized to make
grants--
``(1) for the development and construction of facilities
which provide sanitation services for rural and Native Alaska
villages;
``(2) for training, technical assistance, and educational
programs relating to operation and maintenance for sanitation
services in rural and Native Alaska villages; and
``(3) for reasonable costs of administering and managing
grants made and programs and projects carried out under this
section; except that not to exceed 4 percent of the amount of
any grant made under this section may be made for such costs.
``(b) Federal Share.--A grant under this section shall be
50 percent of the cost of the program or project being
carried out with such grant.
``(c) Special Rule.--The Administrator shall award grants
under this section for project construction following the
rules specified in subpart H of part 1942 of title 7 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
``(d) Grants to State for Benefit of Villages.--Grants
under this section may be made to the State for the benefit
of rural Alaska villages and Alaska Native villages.
``(e) Coordination.--In carrying out activities under this
subsection, the Administrator is directed to coordinate
efforts between the State of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and the recipients of grants.
``(f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1995, to carry out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 113(g) is amended by
inserting after ``(g)'' the following: ``Definitions.--''.
SEC. 105. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHESAPEAKE
PROGRAM.
Section 117(d) (33 U.S.C. 1267(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $3,000,000
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
after ``1990,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $18,000,000
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
after ``1990,''.
SEC. 106. GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.
(a) Great Lakes Research Council.--
(1) In general.--Section 118 (33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(3)--
(i) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) `Council' means the Great Lakes Research Council
established by subsection (d)(1);'';
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
(iii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(K) `Great Lakes research' means the application of
scientific or engineering expertise to explain, understand,
and predict a physical, chemical, biological, or
socioeconomic process, or the interaction of 1 or more of the
processes, in the Great Lakes ecosystem.'';
(B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Great Lakes Research Council.--
``(1) Establishment of council.--There is established a
Great Lakes Research Council.
``(2) Duties of council.--The Council--
``(A) shall advise and promote the coordination of Federal
Great Lakes research activities to avoid unnecessary
duplication and ensure greater effectiveness in achieving
protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem through the goals of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
``(B) not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this subparagraph and biennially thereafter and after
providing opportunity for public review and comment, shall
prepare and provide to interested parties a document that
includes--
``(i) an assessment of the Great Lakes research activities
needed to fulfill the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement;
``(ii) an assessment of Federal expertise and capabilities
in the activities needed to fulfill the goals of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including an inventory of
Federal Great Lakes research programs, projects, facilities,
and personnel; and
``(iii) recommendations for long-term and short-term
priorities for Federal Great Lakes research, based on a
comparison of the assessments conducted under clauses (i) and
(ii);
``(C) shall identify topics for and participate in
meetings, workshops, symposia, and conferences on Great Lakes
research issues;
``(D) shall make recommendations for the uniform collection
of data for enhancing Great Lakes research and management
protocols relating to the Great Lakes ecosystem;
``(E) shall advise and cooperate in--
``(i) improving the compatible integration of multimedia
data concerning the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
``(ii) any effort to establish a comprehensive multimedia
data base for the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
``(F) shall ensure that the results, findings, and
information regarding Great Lakes research programs conducted
or sponsored by the Federal Government are disseminated in a
timely manner, and in useful forms, to interested persons,
using to the maximum extent practicable mechanisms in
existence on the date of the dissemination, such as the Great
Lakes Research Inventory prepared by the International Joint
Commission.
``(3) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The Council shall consist of 1 research
manager with extensive knowledge of, and scientific expertise
and experience in, the Great Lakes ecosystem from each of the
following agencies and instrumentalities:
``(i) The Agency.
``(ii) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
``(iii) The National Biological Service.
``(iv) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
``(v) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that
expends $1,000,000 or more for a fiscal year on Great Lakes
research.
``(vi) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that a
majority of the Council membership determines should be
represented on the Council.
``(B) Nonvoting members.--At the request of a majority of
the Council membership, any person who is a representative of
a Federal agency or instrumentality not described in
subparagraph (A) or any person who is not a Federal employee
may serve as a nonvoting member of the Council.
``(4) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the Council shall be
a member of the Council from an agency specified in clause
(i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (3)(A) who is elected by a
majority vote of the members of the Council. The chairperson
shall serve as chairperson for a period of 2 years. A member
of the Council may not serve as chairperson for more than 2
consecutive terms.
``(5) Expenses.--While performing official duties as a
member of the Council, a member shall be allowed travel or
transportation expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
``(6) Interagency cooperation.--The head of each Federal
agency or instrumentality that is represented on the
Council--
``(A) shall cooperate with the Council in implementing the
recommendations developed under paragraph (2);
[[Page H4718]] ``(B) on written request of the chairperson
of the Council, may make available, on a reimbursable basis
or otherwise, such personnel, services, or facilities as may
be necessary to assist the Council in carrying out the duties
of the Council under this section; and
``(C) on written request of the chairperson, shall furnish
data or information necessary to carry out the duties of the
Council under this section.
``(7) International cooperation.--The Council shall
cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
research coordination efforts of the Council of Great Lakes
Research Managers of the International Joint Commission.
``(8) Reimbursement for requested activities.--Each Federal
agency or instrumentality represented on the Council may
reimburse another Federal agency or instrumentality or a non-
Federal entity for costs associated with activities
authorized under this subsection that are carried out by the
other agency, instrumentality, or entity at the request of
the Council.
``(9) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council.
``(10) Effect on other law.--Nothing in this subsection
affects the authority of any Federal agency or
instrumentality, under any law, to undertake Great Lakes
research activities.'';
(C) in subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the Program Office and
the Research Office shall prepare a joint research plan'' and
inserting ``the Program Office, in consultation with the
Council, shall prepare a research plan''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``the Research Office,
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and
Great Lakes States'' and inserting ``the Council, the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and Great Lakes
States,''; and
(D) in subsection (h)--
(i) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(ii) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a period; and
(iii) by striking paragraph (3).
(2) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section
403(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1447b(a)) is amended by striking
``Great Lakes Research Office authorized under'' and
inserting ``Great Lakes Research Council established by''.
(b) Consistency of Programs With Federal Guidance.--Section
118(c)(2)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``For purposes of this section, a
State's standards, policies, and procedures shall be
considered consistent with such guidance if the standards,
policies, and procedures are based on scientifically
defensible judgments and policy choices made by the State
after consideration of the guidance and provide an overall
level of protection comparable to that provided by the
guidance, taking into account the specific circumstances of
the State's waters.''.
(c) Reauthorization of Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments Program.--Section 118(c)(7) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Reauthorization of assessment and remediation of
contaminated sediments program.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the
Program Office, in consultation and cooperation with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for
civil works, shall conduct at least 3 pilot projects
involving promising technologies and practices to remedy
contaminated sediments (including at least 1 full-scale
demonstration of a remediation technology) at sites in the
Great Lakes System, as the Administrator determines
appropriate.
``(ii) Selection of sites.--In selecting sites for the
pilot projects, the Administrator shall give priority
consideration to--
``(I) the Ashtabula River in Ohio;
``(II) the Buffalo River in New York;
``(III) Duluth and Superior Harbor in Minnesota;
``(IV) the Fox River in Wisconsin;
``(V) the Grand Calumet River in Indiana; and
``(VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.
``(iii) Deadlines.--In carrying out this subparagraph, the
Administrator shall--
``(I) not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this subparagraph, identify at least 3 sites and
the technologies and practices to be demonstrated at the
sites (including at least 1 full-scale demonstration of a
remediation technology); and
``(II) not later than 5 years after such date of enactment,
complete at least 3 pilot projects (including at least 1
full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology).
``(iv) Additional projects.--The Administrator, acting
through the Program Office, in consultation and cooperation
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having
responsibility for civil works, may conduct additional pilot-
and full-scale pilot projects involving promising
technologies and practices at sites in the Great Lakes System
other than the sites selected under clause (i).
``(v) Execution of projects.--The Administrator may
cooperate with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having
responsibility for civil works to plan, engineer, design, and
execute pilot projects under this subparagraph.
``(vi) Non-federal contributions.--The Administrator may
accept non-Federal contributions to carry out pilot projects
under this subparagraph.
``(vii) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph
$3,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
``(E) Technical information and assistance.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the
Program Office, may provide technical information and
assistance involving technologies and practices for
remediation of contaminated sediments to persons that request
the information or assistance.
``(ii) Technical assistance priorities.--In providing
technical assistance under this subparagraph, the
Administrator, acting through the Program Office, shall give
special priority to requests for integrated assessments of,
and recommendations regarding, remediation technologies and
practices for contaminated sediments at Great Lakes areas of
concern.
``(iii) Coordination with other demonstrations.--The
Administrator shall--
``(I) coordinate technology demonstrations conducted under
this subparagraph with other federally assisted
demonstrations of contaminated sediment remediation
technologies; and
``(II) share information from the demonstrations conducted
under this subparagraph with the other demonstrations.
``(iv) Other sediment remediation activities.--Nothing in
this subparagraph limits the authority of the Administrator
to carry out sediment remediation activities under other
laws.
``(v) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph
$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Research and management.--Section 118(e)(3)(B) (33
U.S.C. 1268(e)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``, such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal year 1995, and $4,000,000 per fiscal
year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998''.
(2) Great lakes programs.--Section 118(h) (33 U.S.C.
1268(h)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' before ``$25,000,000''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end of the first
sentence the following: ``, such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and $17,500,000 per fiscal
year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.
TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
SEC. 201. USES OF FUNDS.
(a) Nonpoint Source Program.--Section 201(g)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1281(g)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end of
the first sentence and all that follows through the period at
the end of the last sentence and inserting the following:
``and for any purpose for which a grant may be made under
sections 319(h) and 319(i) of this Act (including any
innovative and alternative approaches for the control of
nonpoint sources of pollution).''.
(b) Retroactive Eligibility.--Section 201(g)(1) is further
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Administrator, with the concurrence of the States, shall
develop procedures to facilitate and expedite the retroactive
eligibility and provision of grant funding for facilities
already under construction.''.
SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSEOUT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT
PROGRAM.
Section 205(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1285(g)(1)) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator may
negotiate an annual budget with a State for the purpose of
administering the closeout of the State's construction grants
program under this title. Sums made available for
administering such closeout shall be subtracted from amounts
remaining available for obligation under the State's
construction grant program under this title.''.
SEC. 203. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.
Section 211(a) (33 U.S.C. 1291(a)) is amended--
(1) in clause (1) by striking ``an existing collection
system'' and inserting ``a collection system existing on the
date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of
1995''; and
(2) in clause (2)--
(A) by striking ``an existing community'' and inserting ``a
community existing on such date of enactment''; and
(B) by striking ``sufficient existing'' and inserting
``sufficient capacity existing on such date of enactment''.
SEC. 204. VALUE ENGINEERING REVIEW.
Section 218(c) (33 U.S.C. 1298(c)) is amended by striking
``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.
SEC. 205. GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.
(a) Coastal Localities.--The Administrator shall make
grants under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to appropriate instrumentalities for the purpose of
construction of treatment works (including combined sewer
overflow facilities) to serve coastal localities. No less
than $10,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be used
for water infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, no less
than $3,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be
[[Page H4719]] used for water infrastructure improvements in
Bristol County, Massachusetts, and no less than \1/3\ of the
amount of such grants shall be used to assist localities that
meet both of the following criteria:
(1) Need.--A locality that has over $2,000,000,000 in
category I treatment needs documented and accepted in the
Environmental Protection Agency's 1992 Needs Survey database
as of February 4, 1993.
(2) Hardship.--A locality that has wastewater user charges,
for residential use of 7,000 gallons per month based on Ernst
& Young National Water and Wastewater 1992 Rate Survey,
greater than 0.65 percent of 1989 median household income for
the metropolitan statistical area in which such locality is
located as measured by the Bureau of the Census.
(b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 202(a)(1) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal share of
grants under subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of the cost
of construction, and the non-Federal share shall be 20
percent of the cost of construction.
(c) Small Communities.--The Administrator shall make grants
to States for the purpose of providing assistance for the
construction of treatment works to serve small communities as
defined by the State; except that the term ``small
communities'' may not include any locality with a population
greater than 75,000. Funds made available to carry out this
subsection shall be allotted by the Administrator to the
States in accordance with the allotment formula contained in
section 604(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for making grants under this section
$300,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain
available until expended and shall be equally divided between
subsections (a) and (c) of this section. Such authorization
of appropriation shall take effect only if the total amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1996 to carry out title VI of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is at least
$3,000,000,000.
TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. ARID AREAS.
(a) Constructed Water Conveyances.--Section 303(c)(2) (33
U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
``(i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercises jurisdiction
over constructed water conveyances in establishing standards
under this section, the State may consider the following:
``(I) The existing and planned uses of water transported in
a conveyance system.
``(II) Any water quality impacts resulting from any return
flow from a constructed water conveyance to navigable waters
and the need to protect downstream users.
``(III) Management practices necessary to maintain the
conveyance system.
``(IV) State or regional water resources management and
water conservation plans.
``(V) The authorized purpose for the constructed
conveyance.
``(ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or reviews water
quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall
not be required to establish recreation, aquatic life, or
fish consumption uses for such systems if the uses are not
existing or reasonably foreseeable or such uses impede the
authorized uses of the conveyance system.''.
(b) Criteria and Guidance for Ephemeral and Effluent-
Dependent Streams.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Criteria and guidance for ephemeral and effluent-
dependent streams.--
``(A) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this paragraph, and after providing
notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator
shall develop and publish--
``(i) criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent
streams; and
``(ii) guidance to the States on development and adoption
of water quality standards applicable to such streams.
``(B) Factors.--The criteria and guidance developed under
subparagraph (A) shall take into account the limited ability
of ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams to support
aquatic life and certain designated uses, shall include
consideration of the role the discharge may play in
maintaining the flow or level of such waters, and shall
promote the beneficial use of reclaimed water pursuant to
section 101(a)(10).''.
(c) Factors Required To Be Considered by Administrator.--
Section 303(c)(4) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``In revising or adopting any new standard for
ephemeral or effluent-dependent streams under this paragraph,
the Administrator shall consider the factors referred to in
section 304(a)(9)(B).''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(21) The term `effluent-dependent stream' means a stream
or a segment thereof--
``(A) with respect to which the flow (based on the annual
average expected flow, determined by calculating the average
mode over a 10-year period) is primarily attributable to the
discharge of treated wastewater;
``(B) that, in the absence of a discharge of treated
wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or
subsurface flows, would be an ephemeral stream; or
``(C) that is an effluent-dependent stream under applicable
State water quality standards.
``(22) The term `ephemeral stream' means a stream or
segments thereof that flows periodically in response to
precipitation, snowmelt, or runoff.
``(23) The term `constructed water conveyance' means a
manmade water transport system constructed for the purpose of
transporting water in a waterway that is not and never was a
natural perennial waterway.''.
SEC. 302. SECONDARY TREATMENT.
(a) Coastal Discharges.--Section 304(d) (33 U.S.C. 1314(d))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Coastal discharges.--For purposes of this subsection,
any municipal wastewater treatment facility shall be deemed
the equivalent of a secondary treatment facility if each of
the following requirements is met:
``(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced primary
treatment.
``(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, discharges through an ocean outfall into an open
marine environment greater than 4 miles offshore into a depth
greater than 300 feet.
``(C) The facility's discharge is in compliance with all
local and State water quality standards for the receiving
waters.
``(D) The facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean
monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal and State
regulatory agencies.''.
(b) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(s) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator, with the concurrence
of the State, shall issue a 10-year permit under section 402
which modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of
this section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant
from a publicly owned treatment works into marine waters
which are at least 150 feet deep through an ocean outfall
which discharges at least 1 mile offshore, if the applicant
demonstrates that--
``(A) there is an applicable ocean plan and the facility's
discharge is in compliance with all local and State water
quality standards for the receiving waters;
``(B) the facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean
monitoring program determined to be acceptable by relevant
Federal and State regulatory agencies;
``(C) the applicant has an Agency approved pretreatment
plan in place; and
``(D) the applicant, at the time such modification becomes
effective, will be discharging effluent which has received at
least chemically enhanced primary treatment and achieves a
monthly average of 75 percent removal of suspended solids.
``(2) Discharge of any pollutant into marine waters
defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`discharge of any pollutant into marine waters' means a
discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea or the
waters of the contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine
waters where there is strong tidal movement.
``(3) Deadline.--On or before the 90th day after the date
of submittal of an application for a modification under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant
a modified permit under section 402 or a written
determination that the application does not meet the terms
and conditions of this subsection.
``(4) Effect of failure to respond.--If the Administrator
does not respond to an application for a modification under
paragraph (1) on or before the 90th day referred to in
paragraph (3), the application shall be deemed approved and
the modification sought by the applicant shall be in effect
for the succeeding 10-year period.''.
(2) Extension of application deadline.--Section 301(j) (33
U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Extension of application deadline.--In the 365-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, municipalities may apply for a modification
pursuant to subsection (s) of the requirements of subsection
(b)(1)(B) of this section.''.
(c) Modifications for Small System Treatment
Technologies.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(t) Modifications for Small System Treatment
Technologies.--The Administrator, with the concurrence of the
State, or a State with an approved program under section 402
may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the
requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with
respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly
owned treatment works serving a community of 20,000 people or
fewer if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that--
``(1) the effluent from such facility originates primarily
from domestic users; and
``(2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and
operated alternative treatment system (including
recirculating sand filter systems, constructed wetlands, and
oxidation lagoons) which is equivalent to secondary treatment
or will provide in the receiving waters and watershed an
adequate level of protection to human health and the
environment and contribute to the attainment of water quality
standards.''.
(d) Puerto Rico.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(u) Puerto Rico.--
[[Page H4720]] ``(1) Study by government of puerto rico.--
Not later than 3 months after the date of the enactment of
this section, the Government of Puerto Rico may, after
consultation with the Administrator, initiate a study of the
marine environment of Anasco Bay off the coast of the
Mayaguez region of Puerto Rico to determine the feasibility
of constructing a deepwater outfall for the publicly owned
treatment works located at Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Such study
shall recommend one or more technically feasible locations
for the deepwater outfall based on the effects of such
outfall on the marine environment.
``(2) Application for modification.--Notwithstanding
subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this section, an application may be
submitted for a modification pursuant to subsection (h) of
the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by
the owner of the publicly owned treatment works at Mayaguez,
Puerto Rico, for a deepwater outfall at a location
recommended in the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(3) Initial determination.--On or before the 90th day
after the date of submittal of an application for
modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall
issue to the applicant a draft initial determination
regarding the modification of the existing permit.
``(4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day
after the date of submittal of an application for
modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall
issue a final determination regarding such modification.
``(5) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted pursuant
to an application submitted under this subsection, such
modification shall be effective only if the new deepwater
outfall is operational within 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection. In all other aspects, such
modification shall be effective for the period applicable to
all modifications granted under subsection (h).''.
SEC. 303. FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Application of Certain Provisions.--Section 313(a) (33
U.S.C. 1323(a)) is amended by striking all preceding
subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.
``(a) Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate, and
Local Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Each department, agency, or
instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of the Federal Government--
``(A) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or
``(B) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may
result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants,
and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the
performance of his official duties, shall be subject to, and
comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local
requirements, administrative authority, and process and
sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water
pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any
nongovernmental entity, including the payment of reasonable
service charges.
``(2) Types of actions covered.--Paragraph (1) shall
apply--
``(A) to any requirement whether substantive or procedural
(including any recordkeeping or reporting requirement, any
requirement respecting permits, and any other requirement),
``(B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or local
administrative authority, and
``(C) to any process and sanction, whether enforced in
Federal, State, or local courts or in any other manner.
``(3) Penalties and fines.--The Federal, State, interstate,
and local substantive and procedural requirements,
administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred
to in paragraph (1) include all administrative orders and all
civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of
whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in
nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or
continuing violations.
``(4) Sovereign immunity.--
``(A) Waiver.--The United States hereby expressly waives
any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States with
respect to any requirement, administrative authority, and
process and sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) (including
any injunctive relief, any administrative order, any civil or
administrative penalty or fine referred to in paragraph (3),
or any reasonable service charge).
``(B) Processing fees.--The reasonable service charges
referred to in this paragraph include fees or charges
assessed in connection with the processing and issuance of
permits, renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of
plans, studies, and other documents, and inspection and
monitoring of facilities, as well as any other
nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in connection
with a Federal, State, interstate, or local water pollution
regulatory program.
``(5) Exemptions.--
``(A) General authority of president.--The President may
exempt any effluent source of any department, agency, or
instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with
any requirement to which paragraph (1) applies if the
President determines it to be in the paramount interest of
the United States to do so; except that no exemption may be
granted from the requirements of section 306 or 307 of this
Act.
``(B) Limitation.--No exemptions shall be granted under
subparagraph (A) due to lack of appropriation unless the
President shall have specifically requested such
appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the
Congress shall have failed to make available such requested
appropriation.
``(C) Time period.--Any exemption under subparagraph (A)
shall be for a period not in excess of 1 year, but additional
exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed 1 year
upon the President's making a new determination.
``(D) Military property.--In addition to any exemption of a
particular effluent source, the President may, if the
President determines it to be in the paramount interest of
the United States to do so, issue regulations exempting from
compliance with the requirements of this section any
weaponry, equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other
classes or categories of property, and access to such
property, which are owned or operated by the Armed Forces of
the United States (including the Coast Guard) or by the
National Guard of any State and which are uniquely military
in nature. The President shall reconsider the need for such
regulations at 3-year intervals.
``(E) Reports.--The President shall report each January to
the Congress all exemptions from the requirements of this
section granted during the preceding calendar year, together
with the President's reason for granting such exemption.
``(6) Venue.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prevent any department, agency, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government, or any officer, agent, or employee
thereof in the performance of official duties, from removing
to the appropriate Federal district court any proceeding to
which the department, agency, or instrumentality or officer,
agent, or employee thereof is subject pursuant to this
section, and any such proceeding may be removed in accordance
with chapter 89 of title 28, United States Code.
``(7) Personal liability of federal employees.--No agent,
employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally
liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State,
interstate, or local water pollution law with respect to any
act or omission within the scope of the official duties of
the agent, employee, or officer.
``(8) Criminal sanctions.--An agent, employee, or officer
of the United States shall be subject to any criminal
sanction (including any fine or imprisonment) under any
Federal or State water pollution law, but no department,
agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to
any such sanction.''.
(b) Funds Collected by a State.--Section 313 (33 U.S.C.
1323) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Limitation on State Use of Funds.--Unless a State law
in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection or
a State constitution requires the funds to be used in a
different manner, all funds collected by a State from the
Federal Government in penalties and fines imposed for the
violation of a substantive or procedural requirement referred
to in subsection (a) shall be used by a State only for
projects designed to improve or protect the environment or to
defray the costs of environmental protection or
enforcement.''.
(c) Enforcement.--Section 313 is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d) Federal Facility Enforcement.--
``(1) Administrative enforcement by epa.--The Administrator
may commence an administrative enforcement action against any
department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government
pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this
Act.
``(2) Procedure.--The Administrator shall initiate an
administrative enforcement action against a department,
agency, or instrumentality under this subsection in the same
manner and under the same circumstances as an action would be
initiated against any other person under this Act. The amount
of any administrative penalty imposed under this subsection
shall be determined in accordance with section 309(d) of this
Act.
``(3) Voluntary settlement.--Any voluntary resolution or
settlement of an action under this subsection shall be set
forth in an administrative consent order.
``(4) Conferral with epa.--No administrative order issued
to a department, agency, or instrumentality under this
section shall become final until such department, agency, or
instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with the
Administrator.''.
(d) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--
Section 313 is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Any
violation with respect to which the Administrator has
commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action under this
subsection, or for which the Administrator has issued a final
order and the violator has either paid a penalty or fine
assessed under this subsection or is subject to an
enforceable schedule of corrective actions, shall not be the
subject of an action under section 505 of this Act. In any
action under this subsection, any citizen may intervene as a
matter of right.''.
[[Page H4721]] (e) Definition of Person.--Section 502(5)
(33 U.S.C. 1362(5)) is amended by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``and includes any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States''.
(f) Definition of Radioactive Materials.--Section 502 (33
U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(24) The term `radioactive materials' includes source
materials, special nuclear materials, and byproduct materials
(as such terms are defined under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954) which are used, produced, or managed at facilities not
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; except that
such term does not include any material which is discharged
from a vessel or other facility covered by Executive Order
12344 (42 U.S.C. 7158 note; relating to the Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Program).''.
(g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 313(b) (33 U.S.C.
1323(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Wastewater Facilities.--
``(1) Cooperation for use of wastewater control systems.--
'';
(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Limitation on
construction.--'' before ``Construction''; and
(3) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) 2 ems to the right.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall only apply to violations occurring after such date
of enactment.
SEC. 304. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Nation's estuaries are a vital natural resource to
which many regional economies are closely tied.
(2) Many of the Nation's estuaries are under a severe
threat from point source pollution and polluted run-off
(nonpoint source pollution) and from habitat alteration and
destruction.
(3) Only through expanded investments in waste water
treatment and other water and sediment pollution control and
prevention efforts can the environmental and economic values
of the Nation's estuaries be restored and protected.
(4) The National Estuary Program created under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act has significantly advanced the
Nation's understanding of the declining condition of the
Nation's estuaries.
(5) The National Estuary Program has also provided precise
information about the corrective and preventative measures
required to reverse the degradation of water and sediment
quality and to halt the alteration and destruction of vital
habitat in the Nation's estuaries.
(6) The level of funding available to States,
municipalities, and the Environmental Protection Agency for
implementation of approved conservation and management plans
is inadequate, and additional financial resources must be
provided.
(7) Funding for implementation of approved conservation and
management plans should be provided under the State revolving
loan fund program authorized by title VI of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
(8) Authorization levels for State revolving loan fund
capitalization grants should be increased by an amount
necessary to ensure the achievement of the goals of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 320(a)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C.
1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Priority consideration.--The Administrator shall give
priority consideration under this section to Long Island
Sound, New York and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode
Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bay,
Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor);
Puget Sound, Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York
and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey;
Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North
Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay,
California; Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay,
Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana;
Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Charlotte Harbor, Florida;
Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; and Peconic Bay, New York.''.
(c) Grants.--Section 320(g)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)(2)) is
amended by inserting ``and implementation monitoring'' after
``development''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) (33
U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``1987'' and all that
follows through ``1991'' and inserting the following: ``1987
through 1991, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years
1992 through 1995, and $19,000,000 per fiscal year for each
of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.
SEC. 305. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) Review and Revision.--Section 319(b) (33 U.S.C.
1329(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the State shall
review and revise the report required by this subsection and
submit such revised report to the Administrator for
approval.''.
(b) Approval or Disapproval of Management Programs.--
Section 319(d)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1329(d)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``or revised management program'' after
``management program'' each place it appears.
(c) Grants for Protecting Ground Water Quality.--Section
319(i)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1329(i)(3)) is amended by striking
``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 319(j) (33
U.S.C. 1329(j)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``$130,000,000'';
(2) by inserting after ``1991'' the following: ``, such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995,
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal
year 1997, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year
2000''; and
(3) by striking ``$7,500,000'' and inserting
``$25,000,000''.
(e) Agricultural Inputs.--Section 319 (33 U.S.C. 1329) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Agricultural Inputs.--For the purposes of this Act,
any land application of livestock manure shall not be
considered a point source and shall be subject to enforcement
only under this section.''.
SEC. 306. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT.
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``Program development.--'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) A State that has not received Federal approval for
the State's core coastal management program pursuant to
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16
U.S.C. 1455) shall have 30 months from the date of approval
of such program to submit a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Program pursuant to this section. Any such State shall also
be eligible for any extension of time for submittal of the
State's nonpoint program that may be received by a State with
a federally approved coastal management program.'';
(2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``to protect coastal waters generally'' and
inserting ``to restore and protect coastal waters where the
State has determined that coastal waters are threatened or
significantly degraded'';
(3) in subsection (b)(3)--
(A) by striking ``The implementation'' and inserting ``A
schedule for the implementation''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and no less often than once every 5
years,'' after ``from time to time'';
(4) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Identification of priority areas.--A prioritization
of the areas in the State in which management measures will
be implemented.'';
(5) in subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Conditional approval.--The Secretary and
Administrator may grant conditional approval to a State's
program where the State requests additional time to complete
the development of its program. During the period during
which the State's program is subject to conditional approval,
the penalty provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) shall not
apply.'';
(6) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``, 1993, and 1994''
and inserting ``through 2000''; and
(7) in subsection (h)(2)(B)(iv) by striking ``fiscal year
1995'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 1995 through
2000''.
SEC. 307. COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1300-1330) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 321. COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT.
``(a) Findings, Purpose, and Definitions.--
``(1) Findings.--Congress finds that comprehensive
watershed management will further the goals and objectives of
this Act by--
``(A) identifying more fully water quality impairments and
the pollutants, sources, and activities causing the
impairments;
``(B) integrating water protection quality efforts under
this Act with other natural resource protection efforts,
including Federal efforts to define and protect ecological
systems (including the waters and the living resources
supported by the waters);
``(C) defining long-term social, economic, and natural
resource objectives and the water quality necessary to attain
or maintain the objectives;
``(D) increasing, through citizen participation in the
watershed management process, public support for improved
water quality;
``(E) identifying priority water quality problems that need
immediate attention; and
``(F) identifying the most cost-effective measures to
achieve the objectives of this Act.
``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to encourage
comprehensive watershed management in maintaining and
enhancing water quality, in restoring and protecting living
resources supported by the waters, and in ensuring waters of
a quality sufficient to meet human needs, including water
supply and recreation.
``(3) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Ecosystem.--The term `ecosystem' means the community
of plants and animals (including humans) and the environment
(including surface water, the ground water with which it
interacts, and riparian areas) upon which that community
depends.
[[Page H4722]] ``(B) Environmental objectives.--The term
`environmental objectives' means the goals specified by
States or State-designated watershed management entities to
protect, restore, and maintain water resources and aquatic
ecosystems within a watershed, including applicable water
quality standards and wetlands protection goals established
under the Act.
``(C) State.--The term `State' includes Indian tribes
eligible under section 518(e).
``(b) State Watershed Program.--
``(1) Submittal.--A State, at any time, may submit to the
Administrator for approval a watershed management program for
the State.
``(2) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve a State
watershed program submitted under paragraph (1) if the
program, at a minimum, contains the following elements:
``(A) An identification of the State agency generally
responsible for overseeing and approving watershed management
plans and a designation of watershed management entities and
lead responsibilities for such entities. Such entities may
include other State agencies and sub-State agencies.
``(B) A description of the scope of the program. In
determining the scope of the program, the State may choose to
address all watersheds within the State over a period of time
or to concentrate efforts on selected watersheds. Within each
watershed, the issues to be addressed should be based on a
comprehensive analysis of the problems within the watershed.
The scope of the program may expand over a period of time
both in terms of the number of watersheds and the issues
addressed by the program.
``(C) An identification of watershed management units for
which watershed management plans will be developed. In
selecting such units, the State shall consider those waters
in the State that are water quality threatened or impaired or
are otherwise in need of special protection. To the extent
practicable, the boundaries of each watershed management unit
shall be consistent with United States Geological Service
hydrological units.
``(D) A description of activities required of watershed
management entities (as specified under subsection (f)(1))
and a description of the State's approval process for
watershed management plans.
``(E) A specification of an effective public participation
process, including procedures to encourage the public to
participate in developing and implementing watershed
management plans.
``(F) An identification of the statewide environmental
objectives that will be pursued in each watershed. Such
objectives, at a minimum, shall include State water quality
standards and goals under this Act, and, as appropriate,
other objectives such as habitat restoration and biological
diversity.
``(2) Deadline.--The Administrator, after consultation with
other Federal agencies, shall approve or disapprove a State
watershed program submitted under paragraph (1) on or before
the 180th day following the date of the submittal. If a State
watershed program is disapproved, the State may modify and
resubmit its program under paragraph (1).
``(3) Annual report.--A State with an approved watershed
program under this subsection shall provide to the
Administrator an annual report summarizing the status of the
program, including a description of any modifications to the
program. An annual report submitted under this section may be
used by the State to satisfy reporting requirements under
sections 106, 314, 319, and 320.
``(4) Effective period of approvals.--An approval of a
State watershed program under paragraph (2) shall remain in
effect for a 5-year period beginning on the date of the
approval and may be renewed by the Administrator.
``(5) Withdrawal of approval.--Whenever the Administrator
determines after public hearing that a State is not
administering a watershed program approved under paragraph
(2) in accordance with requirements of this section, he shall
so notify the State and, if appropriate corrective action is
not taken within a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days,
the Administrator shall withdraw approval of such program.
The Administrator shall not withdraw approval of any such
program unless he shall first have notified the State, and
made public, in writing, the reasons for such withdrawal.
``(c) Designation of Additional Watershed Management Units
and Entities.--A State with an approved watershed program
under this section may modify such program at any time in
order to designate additional watershed management units and
entities, including lead responsibilities, for the purpose of
developing and implementing watershed management plans.
``(d) Eligible Watershed Management and Planning
Activities.--The following watershed management activities
are eligible to receive assistance from the Administrator
under sections 205(j), 319(h), and 604(b):
``(1) Characterizing waters and land uses.
``(2) Identifying problems within a watershed.
``(3) Selecting short-term and long-term goals for
watershed management.
``(4) Developing and implementing measures and practices to
meet identified goals.
``(5) Identifying and coordinating projects and activities
necessary to restore and maintain water quality or meet other
environmental objectives within the watershed.
``(6) Identifying the appropriate institutional
arrangements to carry out an approved watershed management
plan.
``(7) Updating an approved watershed management plan.
``(8) Any other activities deemed appropriate by the
Administrator.
``(e) Support for Watershed Management and Planning.--
``(1) Interagency committee.--There is established an
interagency committee to support comprehensive watershed
management and planning. The President shall appoint the
members of the committee. The members shall include a
representative from each Federal agency that carries out
programs and activities that may have a significant impact on
water quality or other natural resource values that may be
appropriately addressed through comprehensive watershed
management.
``(2) Use of other funds under this act.--The planning and
implementation activities carried out by a management entity
pursuant to this section may be carried out with funds made
available through the State pursuant to sections 205(j),
319(h), and 604(b).
``(f) Approved Plans.--
``(1) Minimum requirements.--A State with an approved
watershed program may approve a watershed management plan
when such plan satisfies the following conditions:
``(A) If the watershed includes waters that are not meeting
applicable water quality standards under this Act at the time
of submission, the plan--
``(i) identifies the environmental objectives of the plan
including, at a minimum, State water quality standards and
goals under this Act, and any other environmental objectives
the planning entity deems appropriate;
``(ii) identifies the stressors, pollutants, and sources
causing the impairment;
``(iii) identifies actions necessary to achieve the
environmental objectives of the plan, including source
reduction of pollutants to achieve any allocated load
reductions consistent with the requirements of section 303(d)
and the priority for implementing such actions;
``(iv) contains an implementation plan, with schedules,
milestones, projected completion dates, and the
identification of those persons responsible for implementing
the actions, demonstrating that water quality standards will
be attained as expeditiously as practicable, but not later
than deadlines in applicable sections of this Act and all
other environmental objectives identified in the watershed
management plan will be attained as expeditiously as
practicable;
``(v) contains an effective public participation process in
the development and implementation of the plan;
``(vi) specifies a process to monitor and evaluate progress
toward meeting environmental objectives; and
``(vii) specifies a process to revise the plan as needed.
``(B) For those waters in the watershed attaining water
quality standards at the time of submission (including
threatened waters), the plan identifies those projects and
activities necessary to maintain water quality standards and
attain or maintain other environmental objectives in the
future.
``(2) Terms of plan and plan approval.--Each plan submitted
and approved under this subsection shall extend for a period
of not less than 5 years and include a planning and
implementation schedule with milestones and completion dates
within that period. The approval by the State of a plan shall
apply for a period not exceed 5 years. A revised and updated
plan may be submitted prior to the expiration of the period
specified in the preceding sentence for approval pursuant to
the same conditions and requirements that apply to an initial
plan for a watershed that is approved pursuant to this
subsection.
``(g) Incentives for Watershed Management.--
``(1) Point source permits.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding section 301(b)(1)(C), a
permit may be issued under section 402 with a limitation that
does not meet water quality standards, if--
``(i) the receiving water is in a watershed with an
approved watershed plan;
``(ii) the plan includes enforceable requirements under
State or local law for nonpoint source pollutant load
reductions that in combination with point source requirements
will meet water quality standards prior to the expiration of
plan; and
``(iii) the point source does not have a history of
significant noncompliance with its permit effluent
limitations, as determined by the Administrator or the State
(in the case with an approved permit under section 402).
``(B) Synchronized permit terms.--Notwithstanding section
402(b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under section 402
may be extended by 5 years if the discharge is located in a
watershed planning area for which a watershed management plan
is to be developed.
``(C) 10-year permit terms.--Notwithstanding section
402(b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under section 402
may be extended to 10 years for any point source located in a
watershed management unit for which a watershed management
plan has been approved if the plan provides for the
attainment and maintenance of water quality standards
(including designated uses) in the affected waters and unless
receiving waters are not meeting water quality standards due
to the point source discharge. Such permits may be revised at
any time if necessary to meet water quality standards.
[[Page H4723]] ``(2) Nonpoint source controls.--Not later
than 30 months after the date of the enactment of this
section, a State with an approved watershed program under
this section may make a showing to the Administrator that
nonpoint source management practices different from those
established in national guidance issued by the Administrator
under section 319 will attain water quality standards as
expeditiously as practicable and not later than the deadlines
established by this Act. If the Administrator is satisfied
with such showing, then the Administrator may approve the
State's nonpoint source management program that relies on
such practices as meeting the requirements of section 319.
Alternative watershed nonpoint source control practices must
be identified in the watershed management plan adopted under
subsection (f)(2) of this section.
``(3) Funding.--The Administrator may provide assistance
to a State with an approved watershed management program
under this section in the form of a multipurpose grant that
would provide for single application, workplan and review,
matching, oversight, and end-of-year closeout requirements
for grant funding under sections 104(b)(3), 104(g), 106,
314(b), 319, 320, and 604(b). A State with an approved
multipurpose grant may focus activities funded under such
sections on a priority basis consistent with State-approved
watershed management plans.
``(h) Guidance.--Not later than 12 months after the date of
the enactment of this section, and after consultation with
other appropriate agencies, the Administrator shall issue
guidance on recommended provisions to be included in State
watershed programs and State-approved watershed management
plans.
``(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator for providing grants
to States to assist such States in carrying out activities
under this section $25,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 401(a)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)) is amended by inserting ``and with the provisions
of a management plan approved by a State under section 321 of
this Act'' before the period at the end of the first
sentence.
SEC. 308. REVISION OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.
(a) Elimination of Requirement for Annual Revision.--
Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``and, at least annually
thereafter,'' and inserting ``and thereafter shall''.
(b) Special Rule.--Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is
amended by striking the period at the end of the first
sentence and inserting the following: ``; except that
guidelines issued under paragraph (1)(A) addressing
pollutants identified pursuant to subsection (a)(4) shall not
be revised after February 15, 1995, to be more stringent
unless such revised guidelines meet the requirements of
paragraph (4)(A).''.
TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES
SEC. 401. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL
FEEDING OPERATIONS.
Section 402(a) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Concentrated animal feeding operations.--For purposes
of this section, waste treatment systems, including retention
ponds or lagoons, used to meet the requirements of this Act
for concentrated animal feeding operations, are not waters of
the United States. An existing concentrated animal feeding
operation that uses a natural topographic impoundment or
structure on the effective date of this Act, which is not
hydrologically connected to any other waters of the United
States, as a waste treatment system or wastewater retention
facility may continue to use that natural topographic feature
for waste storage regardless of its size, capacity, or
previous use.''.
SEC. 402. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER DISCHARGES.
(a) Deadlines.--Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C. 1343(p)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``1994'' and inserting
``2005''; and
(2) in paragraph (6) by striking ``1993'' and inserting
``2005''.
(b) Prohibition on Numeric Effluent Limitations for
Municipal Discharges.--Section 402(p)(3) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(C) Prohibition on numeric effluent limitations for
municipal discharges.--Permits for municipal separate storm
sewers shall not include numeric effluent limitations.''.
SEC. 403. INTAKE CREDITS.
Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(q) Intake Credits.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this
Act, in any effluent limitation or other limitation imposed
under the permit program established by the Administrator
under this section, any State permit program approved under
this section (including any program for implementation under
section 118(c)(2)), any standards established under section
307(a), or any program for industrial users established under
section 307(b), the Administrator, as applicable, shall or
the State, as applicable, may provide credits for pollutants
present in or caused by intake water such that an owner or
operator of a point source is not required to remove, reduce,
or treat the amount of any pollutant in an effluent below the
amount of such pollutant that is present in or caused by the
intake water for such facility--
``(A)(i) if the source of the intake water and the
receiving waters into which the effluent is ultimately
discharged are the same;
``(ii) if the source of the intake water meets the maximum
contaminant levels or treatment techniques for drinking water
contaminants established pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water
Act for the pollutant of concern; or
``(iii) if, at the time the limitation or standard is
established, the level of the pollutant in the intake water
is the same as or lower than the amount of the pollutant in
the receiving waters, taking into account analytical
variability; and
``(B) if, for conventional pollutants, the constituents of
the conventional pollutants in the intake water are the same
as the constituents of the conventional pollutants in the
effluent.
``(2) Allowance for incidental amounts.--In determining
whether the condition set forth in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is
being met, the Administrator shall or the State may, as
appropriate, make allowance for incidental amounts of intake
water from sources other than the receiving waters.
``(3) Credit for nonqualifying pollutants.--The
Administrator shall or a State may provide point sources an
appropriate credit for pollutants found in intake water that
does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1).
``(4) Monitoring.--Nothing in this section precludes the
Administrator or a State from requiring monitoring of intake
water, effluent, or receiving waters to assist in the
implementation of this section.''.
SEC. 404. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.
Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(r) Combined Sewer Overflows.--
``(1) Requirement for permits.--Each permit issued pursuant
to this section for a discharge from a combined storm and
sanitary sewer shall conform with the combined sewer overflow
control policy signed by the Administrator on April 11, 1994.
``(2) Term of permit.--
``(A) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any compliance
schedule under section 301(b), or any permit limitation under
section 402(b)(1)(B), the Administrator (or a State with a
program approved under subsection (b)) may issue a permit
pursuant to this section for a discharge from a combined
storm and sanitary sewer, that includes a schedule for
compliance with a long-term control plan under the control
policy referred to in paragraph (1), for a term not to exceed
15 years.
``(B) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance deadline
specified in subparagraph (A), the Administrator or a State
with a program approved under subsection (b) shall extend, on
request of an owner or operator of a combined storm and
sanitary sewer and subject to subparagraph (C), the period of
compliance beyond the last day of the 15-year period--
``(i) if the Administrator or the State determines that
compliance by such last day is not within the economic
capability of the owner or operator; and
``(ii) if the owner or operator demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator or the State reasonable
further progress towards compliance with a long-term control
plan under the control policy referred to in paragraph (1).
``(C) Limitations on extensions.--
``(i) Extension not appropriate.--Notwithstanding
subparagraph (B), the Administrator or the State need not
grant an extension of the compliance deadline specified in
subparagraph (A) if the Administrator or the State determines
that such an extension is not appropriate.
``(ii) New York-New Jersey.--Prior to granting an extension
under subparagraph (B) with respect to a combined sewer
overflow discharge originating in the State of New York or
New Jersey and affecting the other of such States, the
Administrator or the State from which the discharge
originates, as the case may be, shall provide written notice
of the proposed extension to the other State and shall not
grant the extension unless the other State approves the
extension or does not disapprove the extension within 90 days
of receiving such written notice.
``(3) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court order
entered by a United States district court, or administrative
order issued by the Administrator, before the date of the
enactment of this subsection establishing any deadlines,
schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines,
schedules, or timetables, for the evaluation, design, or
construction of treatment works for control or elimination of
any discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary
sewer system shall be modified upon motion or request by any
party to such consent decree or court order, to extend to
December 31, 2009, at a minimum, any such deadlines,
schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines,
schedules, or timetables as is necessary to conform to the
policy referred to in paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the
objectives of this subsection. Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence, the period of compliance with respect to a
discharge referred to in paragraph (2)(C)(ii) may only be
extended in accordance with paragraph (2)(C)(ii).''.
[[Page H4724]] SEC. 405. ABANDONED MINES.
Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by
inserting after subsection (o) the following:
``(p) Permits for Remediating Party on Abandoned or
Inactive Mined Lands.--
``(1) Applicability.--Subject to this subsection, including
the requirements of paragraph (3), the Administrator, with
the concurrence of the concerned State or Indian tribe, may
issue a permit to a remediating party under this section for
discharges associated with remediation activity at abandoned
or inactive mined lands which modifies any otherwise
applicable requirement of sections 301(b), 302, and 403, or
any subsection of this section (other than this subsection).
``(2) Application for a permit.--A remediating party who
desires to conduct remediation activities on abandoned or
inactive mined lands from which there is or may be a
discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States or
from which there could be a significant addition of
pollutants from nonpoint sources may submit an application to
the Administrator. The application shall consist of a
remediation plan and any other information requested by the
Administrator to clarify the plan and activities.
``(3) Remediation Plan.--The remediation plan shall include
(as appropriate and applicable) the following:
``(A) Identification of the remediating party, including
any persons cooperating with the concerned State or Indian
tribe with respect to the plan, and a certification that the
applicant is a remediating party under this section.
``(B) Identification of the abandoned or inactive mined
lands addressed by the plan.
``(C) Identification of the waters of the United States
impacted by the abandoned or inactive mined lands.
``(D) A description of the physical conditions at the
abandoned or inactive mined lands that are causing adverse
water quality impacts.
``(E) A description of practices, including system design
and construction plans and operation and maintenance plans,
proposed to reduce, control, mitigate, or eliminate the
adverse water quality impacts and a schedule for implementing
such practices and, if it is an existing remediation project,
a description of practices proposed to improve the project,
if any.
``(F) An analysis demonstrating that the identified
practices are expected to result in a water quality
improvement for the identified waters.
``(G) A description of monitoring or other assessment to be
undertaken to evaluate the success of the practices during
and after implementation, including an assessment of baseline
conditions.
``(H) A schedule for periodic reporting on progress in
implementation of major elements of the plan.
``(I) A budget and identified funding to support the
activities described in the plan.
``(J) Remediation goals and objectives.
``(K) Contingency plans.
``(L) A description of the applicant's legal right to enter
and conduct activities.
``(M) The signature of the applicant.
``(N) Identification of the pollutant or pollutants to be
addressed by the plan.
``(4) Permits.--
``(A) Contents.--Permits issued by the Administrator
pursuant to this subsection shall--
``(i) provide for compliance with and implementation of a
remediation plan which, following issuance of the permit, may
be modified by the applicant after providing notification to
and opportunity for review by the Administrator;
``(ii) require that any modification of the plan be
reflected in a modified permit;
``(iii) require that if, at any time after notice to the
remediating party and opportunity for comment by the
remediating party, the Administrator determines that the
remediating party is not implementing the approved
remediation plan in substantial compliance with its terms,
the Administrator shall notify the remediating party of the
determination together with a list specifying the concerns of
the Administrator;
``(iv) provide that, if the identified concerns are not
resolved or a compliance plan approved within 180 days of the
date of the notification, the Administrator may take action
under section 309 of this Act;
``(v) provide that clauses (iii) and (iv) not apply in the
case of any action under section 309 to address violations
involving gross negligence (including reckless, willful, or
wanton misconduct) or intentional misconduct by the
remediating party or any other person;
``(vi) not require compliance with any limitation issued
under sections 301(b), 302, and 403 or any requirement
established by the Administrator under any subsection of this
section (other than this subsection); and
``(vii) provide for termination of coverage under the
permit without the remediating party being subject to
enforcement under sections 309 and 505 of this Act for any
remaining discharges--
``(I) after implementation of the remediation plan;
``(II) if a party obtains a permit to mine the site; or
``(III) upon a demonstration by the remediating party that
the surface water quality conditions due to remediation
activities at the site, taken as a whole, are equal to or
superior to the surface water qualities that existed prior to
initiation of remediation.
``(B) Limitations.--The Administrator shall only issue a
permit under this section, consistent with the provisions of
this subsection, to a remediating party for discharges
associated with remediation action at abandoned or inactive
mined lands if the remediation plan demonstrates with
reasonable certainty that the actions will result in an
improvement in water quality.
``(C) Public participation.--The Administrator may only
issue a permit or modify a permit under this section after
complying with subsection (b)(3).
``(D) Effect of failure to comply with permit.--Failure to
comply with terms of a permit issued pursuant to this
subsection shall not be deemed to be a violation of an
effluent standard or limitation issued under this Act.
``(E) Limitations on statutory construction.--This
subsection shall not be construed--
``(i) to limit or otherwise affect the Administrator's
powers under section 504; or
``(ii) to preclude actions pursuant to section 309 or 505
for any violations of sections 301(a), 302, 402, and 403 that
may have existed for the abandoned or inactive mined land
prior to initiation of remediation covered by a permit issued
under this subsection, unless such permit covers remediation
activities implemented by the permit holder prior to issuance
of the permit.
``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Remediating party.--The term `remediating party'
means--
``(i) the United States (on non-Federal lands), a State or
its political subdivisions, or an Indian tribe or officers,
employees, or contractors thereof; and
``(ii) any person acting in cooperation with a person
described in clause (i), including a government agency that
owns abandoned or inactive mined lands for the purpose of
conducting remediation of the mined lands or that is engaging
in remediation activities incidental to the ownership of the
lands.
Such term does not include any person who, before or
following issuance of a permit under this section, directly
benefited from or participated in any mining operation
(including exploration) associated with the abandoned or
inactive mined lands.
``(B) Abandoned or inactive mined lands.--The term
`abandoned or inactive mined lands' means lands that were
formerly mined and are not actively mined or in temporary
shutdown at the time of submission of the remediation plan
and issuance of a permit under this section.
``(C) Mined lands.--The term `mined lands' means the
surface or subsurface of an area where mining operations,
including exploration, extraction, processing, and
beneficiation, have been conducted. Such term includes
private ways and roads appurtenant to such area, land
excavations, underground mine portals, adits, and surface
expressions associated with underground workings, such as
glory holes and subsidence features, mining waste, smelting
sites associated with other mined lands, and areas where
structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other
material or property which result from or have been used in
the mining operation are located.
``(6) Regulations.--The Administrator may issue regulations
establishing more specific requirements that the
Administrator determines would facilitate implementation of
this subsection. Before issuance of such regulations, the
Administrator may establish, on a case-by-case basis after
notice and opportunity for public comment as provided by
subsection (b)(3), more specific requirements that the
Administrator determines would facilitate implementation of
this subsection in an individual permit issued to the
remediating party.''.
SEC. 406. BENEFICIAL USE OF BIOSOLIDS.
(a) References.--Section 405(a) (33 U.S.C. 1345(a)) is
amended by inserting ``(also referred to as `biosolids')''
after ``sewage sludge'' the first place it appears.
(b) Approval of State Programs.--Section 405(f) (33 U.S.C.
1345(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Approval of state programs.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the Administrator shall approve for
purposes of this subsection State programs that meet the
standards for final use or disposal of sewage sludge
established by the Administrator pursuant to subsection
(d).''.
(c) Studies and Projects.--Section 405(g) (33 U.S.C.
1345(g)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting
``building materials,'' after ``agricultural and
horticultural uses,'';
(2) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following:
``Not later than January 1, 1997, and after providing notice
and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall
issue guidance on the beneficial use of sewage sludge.''; and
(3) in paragraph (2) by striking ``September 30, 1986,''
and inserting ``September 30, 1995,''.
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.
Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(25) The term `publicly owned treatment works' means a
treatment works, as defined in section 212, located at other
than an industrial facility, which is designed and
constructed principally, as determined by the Administrator,
to treat domestic sewage or a mixture of domestic sewage and
industrial wastes of a liquid nature. In the case of such
[[Page H4725]] a facility that is privately owned, such term includes
only those facilities that, with respect to such industrial wastes, are
carrying out a pretreatment program meeting all the requirements
established under section 307 and paragraphs (8) and (9) of section
402(b) for pretreatment programs (whether or not the treatment works
would be required to implement a pretreatment program pursuant to such
sections).''.
SEC. 502. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER POLLUTION LAWS WITH RESPECT
TO VEGETABLE OIL.
(a) Differentiation Among Fats, Oils, and Greases.--
(1) In general.--In issuing or enforcing a regulation, an
interpretation, or a guideline relating to a fat, oil, or
grease under a Federal law related to water pollution
control, the head of a Federal agency shall--
(A) differentiate between and establish separate classes
for--
(i)(I) animal fats; and
(II) vegetable oils; and
(ii) other oils, including petroleum oil; and
(B) apply different standards and reporting requirements
(including reporting requirements based on quantitative
amounts) to different classes of fat and oil as provided in
paragraph (2).
(2) Considerations.--In differentiating between the classes
of animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in paragraph
(1)(A)(i) and the classes of oils described in paragraph
(1)(A)(ii), the head of the Federal agency shall consider
differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other
properties, and in the environmental effects, of the classes.
(b) Definitions.--In this section, the following
definitions apply:
(1) Animal fat.--The term ``animal fat'' means each type of
animal fat, oil, or grease, including fat, oil, or grease
from fish or a marine mammal and any fat, oil, or grease
referred to in section 61(a)(2) of title 13, United States
Code.
(2) Vegetable oil.--The term ``vegetable oil'' means each
type of vegetable oil, including vegetable oil from a seed,
nut, or kernel and any vegetable oil referred to in section
61(a)(1) of title 13, United States Code.
SEC. 503. NEEDS ESTIMATE.
Section 516(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1375(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``biennially
revised'' and inserting ``quadrennially revised''; and
(2) in the second sentence by striking ``February 10 of
each odd-numbered year'' and inserting ``December 31, 1997,
and December 31 of every 4th calendar year thereafter''.
SEC. 504. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.
Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is amended by redesignating
section 519 as section 521 and by inserting after section 518
the following:
``SEC. 519. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.
``In developing any effluent guideline under section
304(b), pretreatment standard under section 307(b), or new
source performance standard under section 306 that is
applicable to the food processing industry, the Administrator
shall consult with and consider the recommendations of the
Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services, Department of Agriculture, and Department of
Commerce. The recommendations of such departments and
agencies and a description of the Administrator's response to
those recommendations shall be made part of the rulemaking
record for the development of such guidelines and standards.
The Administrator's response shall include an explanation
with respect to food safety, including a discussion of
relative risks, of any departure from a recommendation by any
such department or agency.''.
SEC. 505. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is further amended by
inserting before section 521, as redesignated by this Act,
the following:
``SEC. 520. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
``(a) Establishment of Board.--The Administrator shall
establish an independent Board of Audit Appeals (hereinafter
in this section referred to as the `Board') in accordance
with the requirements of this section.
``(b) Duties.--The Board shall have the authority to review
and decide contested audit determinations related to grant
and contract awards under this Act. In carrying out such
duties, the Board shall consider only those regulations,
guidance, policies, facts, and circumstances in effect at the
time of the grant or contract award.
``(c) Prior Eligibility Decisions.--The Board shall not
reverse project cost eligibility determinations that are
supported by an decision document of the Environmental
Protection Agency, including grant or contract approvals,
plans and specifications approval forms, grant or contract
payments, change order approval forms, or similar documents
approving project cost eligibility, except upon a showing
that such decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of
law in effect at the time of such decision.
``(d) Membership.--
``(1) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of 7
members to be appointed by the Administrator not later than
90 days after the date of the enactment of this section.
``(2) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for a term of
3 years.
``(3) Qualifications.--The Administrator shall appoint as
members of the Board individuals who are specially qualified
to serve on the Board by virtue of their expertise in grant
and contracting procedures. The Administrator shall make
every effort to ensure that individuals appointed as members
of the Board are free from conflicts of interest in carrying
out the duties of the Board.
``(e) Basic Pay and Travel Expenses.--
``(1) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
members shall each be paid at a rate of basic pay, to be
determined by the Administrator, for each day (including
travel time) during which they are engaged in the actual
performance of duties vested in the Board.
``(2) Prohibition of compensation of federal employees.--
Members of the Board who are full-time officers or employees
of the United States may not receive additional pay,
allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the
Board.
``(3) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
``(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of
the Board, the Administrator shall provide to the Board the
administrative support services necessary for the Board to
carry out its responsibilities under this section.
``(g) Disputes Eligible for Review.--The authority of the
Board under this section shall extend to any contested audit
determination that on the date of the enactment of this
section has yet to be formally concluded and accepted by
either the grantee or the Administrator.''.
TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS
SEC. 601. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.
Section 601(a) (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking
``(1) for construction'' and all that follows through the
period and inserting ``to accomplish the purposes of this
Act.''.
SEC. 602. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.
(a) Requirements For Construction of Treatment Works.--
Section 602(b)(6) (33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(6)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995''; and
(2) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows through
``218'' and inserting ``211''.
(b) Compliance With Other Federal Laws.--Section 602 (33
U.S.C. 1382) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Other Federal Laws.--
``(1) Compliance with other federal laws.--If a State
provides assistance from its water pollution control
revolving fund established in accordance with this title and
in accordance with a statute, rule, executive order, or
program of the State which addresses the intent of any
requirement or any Federal executive order or law other than
this Act, as determined by the State, the State in providing
such assistance shall be treated as having met the Federal
requirements.
``(2) Limitation on applicability of other federal laws.--
If a State does not meet a requirement of a Federal executive
order or law other than this Act under paragraph (1), such
Federal law shall only apply to Federal funds deposited in
the water pollution control revolving fund established by the
State in accordance with this title the first time such funds
are used to provide assistance from the revolving fund.''.
(c) Guidance for Small Systems.--Section 602 (33 U.S.C.
1382) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Guidance for Small Systems.--
``(1) Simplified procedures.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this subsection, the
Administrator shall assist the States in establishing
simplified procedures for small systems to obtain assistance
under this title.
``(2) Publication of manual.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of the enactment of this subsection, and after
providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the
Administrator shall publish a manual to assist small systems
in obtaining assistance under this title and publish in the
Federal Register notice of the availability of the manual.
``(3) Small system defined.--For purposes of this title,
the term `small system' means a system for which a
municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency
seeks assistance under this title and which serves a
population of 20,000 or less.''.
SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.
(a) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--Section 603(c) (33
U.S.C. 1383(c)) is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The amounts of funds available to each
State water pollution control revolving fund shall be used
only for providing financial assistance to activities which
have as a principal benefit the improvement or protection of
water quality to a municipality, intermunicipal agency,
interstate agency, State agency, or other person. Such
activities may include the following:
``(A) Construction of a publicly owned treatment works if
the recipient of such assistance is a municipality.
``(B) Implementation of lake protection programs and
projects under section 314.
``(C) Implementation of a management program under section
319.
``(D) Implementation of a conservation and management plan
under section 320.
``(E) Implementation of a watershed management plan under
section 321.
``(F) Implementation of a stormwater management program
under section 322.
[[Page H4726]] ``(G) Acquisition of property rights for the
restoration or protection of publicly or privately owned
riparian areas.
``(H) Implementation of measures to improve the efficiency
of public water use.
``(I) Development and implementation of plans by a public
recipient to prevent water pollution.
``(J) Acquisition of lands necessary to meet any mitigation
requirements related to construction of a publicly owned
treatment works.
``(2) Fund amounts.--The water pollution control revolving
fund of a State shall be established, maintained, and
credited with repayments, and the fund balance shall be
available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance
described in paragraph (1). Fees charged by a State to
recipients of such assistance may be deposited in the fund
for the sole purpose of financing the cost of administration
of this title.''.
(b) Extended Repayment Period for Disadvantaged
Communities.--Section 603(d)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting after ``20 years'' the
following: ``or, in the case of a disadvantaged community,
the lesser of 40 years or the expected life of the project to
be financed with the proceeds of the loan''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``not later than 20
years after project completion'' and inserting ``upon the
expiration of the term of the loan''.
(c) Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technology.--Section
603(d)(5) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(5)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(5) to provide loan guarantees for--
``(A) similar revolving funds established by municipalities
or intermunicipal agencies; and
``(B) developing and implementing innovative
technologies.''.
(d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 603(d)(7) (33 U.S.C.
1383(d)(7)) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``or $400,000 per year, whichever is
greater, plus the amount of any fees collected by the State
for such purpose under subsection (c)(2)''.
(e) Technical and Planning Assistance for Small Systems.--
Section 603(d) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(8) to provide to small systems technical and planning
assistance and assistance in financial management, user fee
analysis, budgeting, capital improvement planning, facility
operation and maintenance, repair schedules, and other
activities to improve wastewater treatment plant operations;
except that such amounts shall not exceed 2 percent of all
grant awards to such fund under this title.''.
(f) Consistency With Planning Requirements.--Section 603(f)
(33 U.S.C. 1383(f)) is amended by striking ``and 320'' and
inserting ``320, 321, and 322''.
(g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--Section 603(g)
(33 U.S.C. 1383(g)) is amended to read as follows:
``(g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--The State
may provide financial assistance from its water pollution
control revolving fund with respect to a project for
construction of a treatment works only if--
``(1) such project is on the State's priority list under
section 216 of this Act; and
``(2) the recipient of such assistance is a municipality in
any case in which the treatment works is privately owned.''.
(h) Interest Rates.--Section 603 is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Interest Rates.--In any case in which a State makes a
loan pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to a disadvantaged
community, the State may charge a negative interest rate of
not to exceed 2 percent to reduce the unpaid principal of the
loan. The aggregate amount of all such negative interest rate
loans the State makes in a fiscal year shall not exceed 20
percent of the aggregate amount of all loans made by the
State from its revolving loan fund in such fiscal year.
``(j) Disadvantaged Community Defined.--As used in this
section, the term `disadvantaged community' means the service
area of a publicly owned treatment works with respect to
which the average annual residential sewage treatment charges
for a user of the treatment works meet affordability criteria
established by the State in which the treatment works is
located (after providing for public review and comment) in
accordance with guidelines to be established by the
Administrator, in cooperation with the States.''.
(i) Sale of Treatment Works.--Section 603 is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(k) Sale of Treatment Works.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this Act, any State, municipality, intermunicipality, or
interstate agency may transfer by sale to a qualified private
sector entity all or part of a treatment works that is owned
by such agency and for which it received Federal financial
assistance under this Act if the transfer price will be
distributed, as amounts are received, in the following order:
``(A) First reimbursement of the agency of the unadjusted
dollar amount of the costs of construction of the treatment
works or part thereof plus any transaction and fix-up costs
incurred by the agency with respect to the transfer less the
amount of such Federal financial assistance provided with
respect to such costs.
``(B) If proceeds from the transfer remain after such
reimbursement, repayment of the Federal Government of the
amount of such Federal financial assistance less the
applicable share of accumulated depreciation on such
treatment works (calculated using Internal Revenue Service
accelerated depreciation schedule applicable to treatment
works).
``(C) If any proceeds of such transfer remain after such
reimbursement and repayment, retention of the remaining
proceeds by such agency.
``(2) Release of condition.--Any requirement imposed by
regulation or policy for a showing that the treatment works
are no longer needed to serve their original purpose shall
not apply.
``(3) Selection of buyer.--A State, municipality,
intermunicipality, or interstate agency exercising the
authority granted by this subsection shall select a qualified
private sector entity on the basis of total net cost and
other appropriate criteria and shall utilize such competitive
bidding, direct negotiation, or other criteria and procedures
as may be required by State law.
``(l) Private Ownership of Treatment Works.--
``(1) Regulatory review.--The Administrator shall review
the law and any regulations, policies, and procedures of the
Environmental Protection Agency affecting the construction,
improvement, replacement, operation, maintenance, and
transfer of ownership of current and future treatment works
owned by a State, municipality, intermunicipality, or
interstate agency. If permitted by law, the Administrator
shall modify such regulations, policies, and procedures to
eliminate any obstacles to the construction, improvement,
replacement, operation, and maintenance of such treatment
works by qualified private sector entities.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit
to Congress a report identifying any provisions of law that
must be changed in order to eliminate any obstacles referred
to in paragraph (1).
``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`qualified private sector entity' means any nongovernmental
individual, group, association, business, partnership,
organization, or privately or publicly held corporation
that--
``(A) has sufficient experience and expertise to discharge
successfully the responsibilities associated with
construction, operation, and maintenance of a treatment works
and to satisfy any guarantees that are agreed to in
connection with a transfer of treatment works under
subsection (k);
``(B) has the ability to assure protection against
insolvency and interruption of services through contractual
and financial guarantees; and
``(C) with respect to subsection (k), to the extent
consistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement and
the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--
``(i) is majority-owned and controlled by citizens of the
United States; and
``(ii) does not receive subsidies from a foreign
government.''.
SEC. 604. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.
(a) In General.--Section 604(a) (33 U.S.C. 1384(a)) is
amended to read as follows:
``(a) Formula for Fiscal Years 1996-2000.--Sums authorized
to be appropriated pursuant to section 607 for each of fiscal
years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be allotted for
such year by the Administrator not later than the 10th day
which begins after the date of the enactment of the Clean
Water Amendments of 1995. Sums authorized for each such
fiscal year shall be allotted in accordance with the
following table:
Percentage of sums
``States: authorized:
Alabama........................................................1.0110
Alaska.........................................................0.5411
Arizona........................................................0.7464
Arkansas.......................................................0.5914
California.....................................................7.9031
Colorado.......................................................0.7232
Connecticut....................................................1.3537
Delaware.......................................................0.4438
District of Columbia...........................................0.4438
Florida........................................................3.4462
Georgia........................................................1.8683
Hawaii.........................................................0.7002
Idaho..........................................................0.4438
Illinois.......................................................4.9976
Indiana........................................................2.6631
Iowa...........................................................1.2236
Kansas.........................................................0.8690
Kentucky.......................................................1.3570
Louisiana......................................................1.0060
Maine..........................................................0.6999
Maryland.......................................................2.1867
Massachusetts..................................................3.7518
Michigan.......................................................3.8875
Minnesota......................................................1.6618
Mississippi....................................................0.8146
Missouri.......................................................2.5063
Montana........................................................0.4438
Nebraska.......................................................0.4624
Nevada.........................................................0.4438
New Hampshire..................................................0.9035
New Jersey.....................................................4.5156
New Mexico.....................................................0.4438
New York......................................................12.1969
North Carolina.................................................1.9943
North Dakota...................................................0.4438
Ohio...........................................................5.0898
Oklahoma.......................................................0.7304
Oregon.........................................................1.2399
Pennsylvania...................................................4.2145
[[Page H4727]] Rhode Island....................................0.6071
South Carolina.................................................0.9262
South Dakota...................................................0.4438
Tennessee......................................................1.4668
Texas..........................................................4.6458
Utah...........................................................0.4764
Vermont........................................................0.4438
Virginia.......................................................2.2615
Washington.....................................................1.9217
West Virginia..................................................1.4249
Wisconsin......................................................2.4442
Wyoming........................................................0.4438
Puerto Rico....................................................1.1792
Northern Marianas..............................................0.0377
American Samoa.................................................0.0812
Guam...........................................................0.0587
Pacific Islands Trust Territory................................0.1158
Virgin Islands.............................................0.0576.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 604(c)(2) is amended by
striking ``title II of this Act'' and inserting ``this
title''.
SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 607 (33 U.S.C. 1387(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(6) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995;
``(7) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(8) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(9) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(10) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(11) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
SEC. 606. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
REVOLVING FUNDS.
Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381-1387) is amended--
(1) in section 607 by inserting after ``title'' the
following: ``(other than section 608)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 608. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
REVOLVING FUNDS.
``(a) General Authority.--The Administrator shall make
capitalization grants to each State for the purpose of
establishing a nonpoint source water pollution control
revolving fund for providing assistance--
``(1) to persons for carrying out management practices and
measures under the State management program approved under
section 319; and
``(2) to agricultural producers for the development and
implementation of the water quality components of a whole
farm or ranch resource management plan and for implementation
of management practices and measures under such a plan.
A State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving
fund shall be separate from any other State water pollution
control revolving fund; except that the chief executive
officer of the State may transfer funds from one fund to the
other fund.
``(b) Applicability of Other Requirements of This Title.--
Except to the extent the Administrator, in consultation with
the chief executive officers of the States, determines that a
provision of this title is not consistent with a provision of
this section, the provisions of sections 601 through 606 of
this title shall apply to grants made under this section in
the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to
grants made under section 601 of this title. Paragraph (5) of
section 602(b) shall apply to all funds in a State revolving
fund established under this section as a result of
capitalization grants made under this section; except that
such funds shall first be used to assure reasonable progress
toward attainment of the goals of section 319, as determined
by the Governor of the State. Paragraph (7) of section 603(d)
shall apply to a State revolving fund established under this
section, except that the 4-percent limitation contained in
such section shall not apply to such revolving fund.
``(c) Apportionment of Funds.--Funds made available to
carry out this section for any fiscal year shall be allotted
among the States by the Administrator in the same manner as
funds are allotted among the States under section 319 in such
fiscal year.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
SEC. 701. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Section 118.--Section 118(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C.
1268(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking the last comma.
(b) Section 120.--Section 120(d) (33 U.S.C. 1270(d)) is
amended by striking ``(1)''.
(c) Section 204.--Section 204(a)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1284(a)(3))
is amended by striking the final period and inserting a
semicolon.
(d) Section 205.--Section 205 (33 U.S.C. 1285) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``and 1985'' and
inserting ``1985, and 1986'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``through 1985'' and
inserting ``through 1986'';
(3) in subsection (g)(1) by striking the period following
``4 per centum''; and
(4) in subsection (m)(1)(B) by striking ``this'' the last
place it appears and inserting ``such''.
(e) Section 208.--Section 208 (33 U.S.C. 1288) is amended--
(1) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``designed'' and
inserting ``designated''; and
(2) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ``September 31, 1988''
and inserting ``September 30, 1988''.
(f) Section 301.--Section 301(j)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C.
1311(j)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``that'' the first
place it appears and inserting ``than''.
(g) Section 309.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is
amended by striking the second comma following ``Act by a
State''.
(h) Section 311.--Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by moving paragraph (12) (including
subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C)) 2 ems to the right; and
(2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``The'' and inserting
``the''.
(i) Section 505.--Section 505(f) (33 U.S.C. 1365(f)) is
amended by striking the last comma.
(j) Section 516.--Section 516 (33 U.S.C. 1375) is amended
by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
(k) Section 518.--Section 518(f) (33 U.S.C. 1377(f)) is
amended by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(e)''.
SEC. 702. JOHN A. BLATNIK NATIONAL FRESH WATER QUALITY
RESEARCH LABORATORY.
(a) Designation.--The laboratory and research facility
established pursuant to section 104(e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254(e)) that is located in
Duluth, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the
``John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research
Laboratory''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
laboratory and research facility referred to in subsection
(a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John A.
Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research Laboratory''.
SEC. 703. WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR COLONIAS.
(a) Grant Assistance.--The Administrator may make grants to
States along the United States-Mexico border to provide
assistance for planning, design, and construction of
treatment works to provide wastewater service to the
communities along such border commonly known as ``colonias''.
(b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out using funds made available under
subsection (a) shall be 50 percent. The non-Federal share of
such cost shall be provided by the State receiving the grant.
(c) Treatment Works Defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``treatment works'' has the meaning such term has
under section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for making grants under subsection (a)
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.
SEC. 704. SAVINGS IN MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER COSTS.
(a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, shall review, analyze, and
compile information on the annual savings that municipalities
realize in the construction, operation, and maintenance of
drinking water facilities as a result of actions taken under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(b) Contents.--The study conducted under subsection (a), at
a minimum, shall contain an examination of the following
elements:
(1) Savings to municipalities in the construction of
drinking water filtration facilities resulting from actions
taken under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(2) Savings to municipalities in the operation and
maintenance of drinking water facilities resulting from
actions taken under such Act.
(3) Savings to municipalities in health expenditures
resulting from actions taken under such Act.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to
Congress a report containing the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a).
TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Wetlands and Watershed
Management Act of 1995''.
SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds and declares the following:
(1) Wetlands perform a number of valuable functions needed
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including--
(A) reducing pollutants (including nutrients, sediment, and
toxics) from nonpoint and point sources;
(B) storing, conveying, and purifying flood and storm
waters;
(C) reducing both bank erosion and wave and storm damage to
adjacent lands and trapping sediment from upland sources;
(D) providing habitat and food sources for a broad range of
commercial and recreational fish, shellfish, and migratory
wildlife species (including waterfowl and endangered
species); and
(E) providing a broad range of recreational values for
canoeing, boating, birding, and nature study and observation.
(2) Original wetlands in the contiguous United States have
been reduced by an estimated 50 percent and continue to
disappear at a rate of 200,000 to 300,000 acres a year. Many
of these original wetlands have also been altered or
partially degraded, reducing their ecological value.
(3) Wetlands are highly sensitive to changes in water
regimes and are, therefore, susceptible to degradation by
fills, drainage,
[[Page H4728]] grading, water extractions, and other
activities within their watersheds which affect the quantity,
quality, and flow of surface and ground waters. Protection
and management of wetlands, therefore, should be integrated
with management of water systems on a watershed basis. A
watershed protection and management perspective is also
needed to understand and reverse the gradual, continued
destruction of wetlands that occurs due to cumulative
impacts.
(4) Wetlands constitute an estimated 5 percent of the
Nation's surface area. Because much of this land is in
private ownership wetlands protection and management
strategies must take into consideration private property
rights and the need for economic development and growth. This
can be best accomplished in the context of a cooperative and
coordinated Federal, State, and local strategy for data
gathering, planning, management, and restoration with an
emphasis on advance planning of wetlands in watershed
contexts.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to help create a coordinated national wetland
management effort with efficient use of scarce Federal,
State, and local financial and manpower resources to protect
wetland functions and values and reduce natural hazard
losses;
(2) to help reverse the trend of wetland loss in a fair,
efficient, and cost-effective manner;
(3) to reduce inconsistencies and duplication in Federal,
State, and local wetland management efforts and encourage
integrated permitting at the Federal, State, and local
levels;
(4) to increase technical assistance, cooperative training,
and educational opportunities for States, local governments,
and private landowners;
(5) to help integrate wetland protection and management
with other water resource management programs on a watershed
basis such as flood control, storm water management,
allocation of water supply, protection of fish and wildlife,
and point and nonpoint source pollution control;
(6) to increase regionalization of wetland delineation and
management policies within a framework of national policies
through advance planning of wetland areas, programmatic
general permits and other approaches and the tailoring of
policies to ecosystem and land use needs to reflect
significant watershed variance in wetland resources;
(7) to address the cumulative loss of wetland resources;
(8) to increase the certainty and predictability of
planning and regulatory policies for private landowners;
(9) to help achieve no overall net loss and net gain of the
remaining wetland base of the United States through
watershed-based restoration strategies involving all levels
of government;
(10) to restore and create wetlands in order to increase
the quality and quantity of the wetland resources and by so
doing to restore and maintain the quality and quantity of the
waters of the United States; and
(11) to provide mechanisms for joint State, Federal, and
local development and testing of approaches to better protect
wetland resources such as mitigation banking.
SEC. 803. STATE, LOCAL, AND LANDOWNER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
AND COOPERATIVE TRAINING.
(a) State and Local Technical Assistance.--Upon request,
the Administrator or the Secretary of the Army, as
appropriate, shall provide technical assistance to State and
local governments in the development and implementation of
State and local government permitting programs under sections
404(e) and 404(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
State wetland conservation plans under section 805, and
regional or local wetland management plans under section 805.
(b) Cooperative Training.--The Administrator and the
Secretary, in cooperation with the Coordinating Committee
established pursuant to section 804, shall conduct training
courses for States and local governments involving wetland
delineation, utilization of wetlands in nonpoint pollution
control, wetland and stream restoration, wetland planning,
wetland evaluation, mitigation banking, and other subjects
deemed appropriate by the Administrator or Secretary.
(c) Private Landowner Technical Assistance.--The
Administrator and Secretary shall, in cooperation with the
Coordination Committee, and appropriate Federal agencies
develop and provide to private landowners guidebooks,
pamphlets, or other materials and technical assistance to
help them in identifying and evaluating wetlands, developing
integrated wetland management plans for their lands
consistent with the goals of this Act and the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, and restoring wetlands.
SEC. 804. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATING
COMMITTEE.
(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
establish a Federal, State, and Local Government Wetlands
Coordinating Committee (hereinafter in this section referred
to as the ``Committee'').
(b) Functions.--The Committee shall--
(1) help coordinate Federal, State, and local wetland
planning, regulatory, and restoration programs on an ongoing
basis to reduce duplication, resolve potential conflicts, and
efficiently allocate manpower and resources at all levels of
government;
(2) provide comments to the Secretary of the Army or
Administrator in adopting regulatory, policy, program, or
technical guidance affecting wetland systems;
(3) help develop and field test, national policies prior to
implementation such as wetland, delineation, classification
of wetlands, methods for sequencing wetland mitigation
responses, the utilization of mitigation banks;
(4) help develop and carry out joint technical assistance
and cooperative training programs as provided in section 803;
(5) help develop criteria and implementation strategies for
facilitating State conservation plans and strategies, local
and regional wetland planning, wetland restoration and
creation, and State and local permitting programs pursuant to
section 404(e) or 404(g) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act; and
(6) help develop a national strategy for the restoration of
wetland ecosystems pursuant to section 6 of this Act.
(c) Membership.--The Committee shall be composed of 18
members as follows:
(1) The Administrator or the designee of the Administrator.
(2) The Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
(3) The Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service or the designee of the Director.
(4) The Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service
or the designee of the Chief.
(5) The Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere or the
designee of the Under Secretary.
(6) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will
represent the National Governor's Association.
(7) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will
represent the National Association of Counties.
(8) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will
represent the National League of Cities.
(9) One State wetland expert from each of the 10 regions of
the Environmental Protection Agency. Each member to be
appointed under this paragraph shall be jointly appointed by
the Governors of the States within the Environmental
Protection Agency's region. If the Governors from a region
cannot agree on such a representative, they will each submit
a nomination to the Administrator and the Administrator will
select a representative from such region.
(d) Terms.--Each member appointed pursuant to paragraph
(6), (7), (8), or (9) of subsection (c) shall be appointed
for a term of 2 years.
(e) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Committee shall be filled,
on or before the 30th day after the vacancy occurs, in the
manner in which the original appointment was made.
(f) Pay.--Members shall serve without pay, but may receive
travel expenses (including per diem in lieu of subsistence)
in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
(g) Cochairpersons.--The Administrator and one member
appointed pursuant to paragraph (6), (7), (8), or (9) of
subsection (c) (selected by such members) shall serve as
cochairpersons of the Committee.
(h) Quorum.--Two-thirds of the members of the Committee
shall constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold
meetings.
(i) Meetings.--The Committee shall hold its first meeting
not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act. The Committee shall meet at least twice each year
thereafter. Meetings will be opened to the public.
SEC. 805. STATE AND LOCAL WETLAND CONSERVATION PLANS AND
STRATEGIES; GRANTS TO FACILITATE THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 404.
(a) State Wetland Conservation Plans and Strategies.--
Subject to the requirements of this section, the
Administrator shall make grants to States and tribes to
assist in the development and implementation of wetland
conservation plans and strategies. More specific goals for
such conservation plans and strategies may include:
(1) Inventorying State wetland resources, identifying
individual and cumulative losses, identifying State and local
programs applying to wetland resources, determining gaps in
such programs, and making recommendations for filling those
gaps.
(2) Developing and coordinating existing State, local, and
regional programs for wetland management and protection on a
watershed basis.
(3) Increasing the consistency of Federal, State, and local
wetland definitions, delineation, and permitting approaches.
(4) Mapping and characterizing wetland resources on a
watershed basis.
(5) Identifying sites with wetland restoration or creation
potential.
(6) Establishing management strategies for reducing causes
of wetland degradation and restoring wetlands on a watershed
basis.
(7) Assisting regional and local governments prepare
watershed plans for areas with a high percentage of lands
classified as wetlands or otherwise in need of special
management.
(8) Establishing and implementing State or local permitting
programs under section 404(e) or 404(h) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
(b) Regional and Local Wetland Planning, Regulation, and
Management Programs.--Subject to the requirements of this
[[Page H4729]] section, the Administrator shall make grants
to States which will, in turn, use this funding to make
grants to regional and local governments to assist them in
adopting and implementing wetland and watershed management
programs consistent with goals stated in section 101 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and section 802 of this
Act. Such plans shall be integrated with (where appropriate)
or coordinated with planning efforts pursuant to section 319
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Such programs
shall, at a minimum, involve the inventory of wetland
resources and the adoption of plans and policies to help
achieve the goal of no net loss of wetland resources on a
watershed basis. Other goals may include, but are not limited
to:
(1) Integration of wetland planning and management with
broader water resource and land use planning and management,
including flood control, water supply, storm water
management, and control of point and nonpoint source
pollution.
(2) Adoption of measures to increase consistency in
Federal, State, and local wetland definitions, delineation,
and permitting approaches.
(3) Establishment of management strategies for restoring
wetlands on a watershed basis.
(c) Grants To Facilitate the Implementation of Section
404.--Subject to the requirements of this section, the
Administrator may make grants to States which assist the
Federal Government in the implementation of the section 404
Federal Water Pollution Control program through State
assumption of permitting pursuant to sections 404(g) and
404(h) of such Act through State permitting through a State
programmatic general permit pursuant to section 404(e) of
such Act or through monitoring and enforcement activities. In
order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section a
State shall provide assurances satisfactory to the
Administrator that amounts received by the State in grants
under this section will be used to issue regulatory permits
or to enforce regulations consistent with the overall goals
of section 802 and the standards and procedures of section
404(g) or 404(e) of this Act.
(d) Maximum Amount.--No State may receive more than
$500,000 in total grants under subsections (a), (b), and (c)
in any fiscal year and more than $300,000 in grants for
subsection (a), (b), or (c), individually.
(e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of
activities carried out using amounts made available in grants
under this section shall not exceed 75 percent.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999,
and 2000.
SEC. 806. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE WETLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION
STRATEGY.
(a) Development.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in cooperation
with other Federal agencies, State, and local governments,
and representatives of the private sector, shall initiate the
development of a National Cooperative Wetland Ecosystem
Restoration Strategy.
(b) Goals.--The goal of the National Cooperative Wetland
Ecosystem Restoration Strategy shall be to restore damaged
and degraded wetland and riparian ecosystems consistent with
the goals of the Water Pollution Control Amendments and the
goals of section 802, and the recommendations of the National
Academy of Sciences with regard to the restoration of aquatic
ecosystems.
(c) Functions.--The National Cooperative Wetland Ecosystem
Restoration Strategy shall--
(1) be designed to help coordinate and promote restoration
efforts by Federal, State, regional, and local governments
and the private sector, including efforts authorized by the
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act,
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Wetlands
Reserve Program, and the wetland restoration efforts on
Federal, State, local, and private lands;
(2) involve the Federal, State, and local Wetlands
Coordination Committee established pursuant to section 804;
(3) inventory and evaluate existing restoration efforts and
make suggestions for the establishment of new watershed
specific efforts consistent with existing Federal programs
and State, regional, and local wetland protection and
management efforts;
(4) evaluate the role presently being played by wetland
restoration in both regulatory and nonregulatory contexts and
the relative success of wetland restoration in these
contexts;
(5) develop criteria for identifying wetland restoration
sites on a watershed basis, procedures for wetlands
restoration, and ecological criteria for wetlands
restoration; and
(6) identify regulatory obstacles to wetlands ecosystem
restoration and recommend methods to reduce such obstacles.
SEC. 807. PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.
(a) Permit Monitoring and Tracking.--Section 404(a) (33
U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following: ``The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the
Administrator, establish a permit monitoring and tracking
programs on a watershed basis to monitor the cumulative
impact of individual and general permits issued under this
section. This program shall determine the impact of permitted
activities in relationship to the no net loss goal. Results
shall be reported biannually to Congress.''.
(b) Issuance of General Permits.--Paragraph (1) of section
404(e) is amended by inserting ``local,'' before ``State,
regional, or nationwide basis'' in the first sentence.
(c) Revocation or Modification of General Permits.--
Paragraph (2) of section 404(e) is amended by striking the
period at the end and inserting ``or a State or local
government has failed to adequately monitor and control the
individual and cumulative adverse effects of activities
authorized by State or local programmatic general permits.''.
(d) Programmatic General Permits.--Section 404(e) is
amended by adding at the end thereof the following new
paragraph:
``(3) Programmatic general permits.--Consistent with the
following requirements, the Secretary may, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, issue State or local
programmatic general permits for the purpose of avoiding
unnecessary duplication of regulations by State, regional,
and local regulatory programs:
``(A) The Secretary may issue a programmatic general permit
based on a State, regional, or local government regulatory
program if that general permit includes adequate safeguards
to ensure that the State, regional, or local program will
have no more than minimal cumulative impacts on the
environment and will provide at least the same degree of
protection for the environment, including all waters of the
United States, and for Federal interests, as is provided by
this section and by the Federal permitting program pursuant
to section 404(a). Such safeguards shall include provisions
whereby the Corps District Engineer and the Regional
Administrators or Directors of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Marine Fisheries Service (where appropriate), shall
have an opportunity to review permit applications submitted
to the State, regional, or local regulatory agency which
would have more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse
impacts on the environment, attempt to resolve any
environmental concern or protect any Federal interest at
issue, and, if such concern is not adequately addressed by
the State, local, or regional agency, require the processing
of an individual Federal permit under this section for the
specific proposed activity. The Secretary shall ensure that
the District Engineer will utilize this authority to protect
all Federal interests including, but not limited to, national
security, navigation, flood control, Federal endangered or
threatened species, Federal interests under the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act, special aquatic sites of national
importance, and other interests of overriding national
importance. Any programmatic general permit issued under this
subsection shall be consistent with the guidelines
promulgated to implement subsection (b)(1).
``(B) In addition to the requirements of subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall not promulgate any local or regional
programmatic general permit based on a local or regional
government's regulatory program unless the responsible unit
of government has also adopted a wetland and watershed
management plan and is administering regulations to implement
this plan. The watershed management plan shall include--
``(i) the designation of a local or regional regulatory
agency which shall be responsible for issuing permits under
the plan and for making reports every 2 years on
implementation of the plan and on the losses and gains in
functions and acres of wetland within the watershed plan
area;
``(ii) mapping of--
``(I) the boundary of the plan area;
``(II) all wetlands and waters within the plan area as well
as other areas proposed for protection under the plan; and
``(III) proposed wetland restoration or creation sites with
a description of their intended functions upon completion and
the time required for completion;
``(iii) a description of the regulatory policies and
standards applicable to all wetlands and waters within the
plan areas and all activities which may affect these wetlands
and waters that will assure, at a minimum, no net loss of the
functions and acres of wetlands within the plan area; and
``(iv) demonstration that the regulatory agency has the
legal authority and scientific monitoring capability to carry
out the proposed plan including the issuance, monitoring, and
enforcement of permits in compliance with the plan.''.
(e) Grandfather of Existing General Permits.--Section
404(e) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Grandfather of existing general permits.--General
permits in effect on day before the date of the enactment of
the Wetlands and Watershed Management Act of 1995 shall
remain in effect until otherwise modified by the
Secretary.''.
(f) Discharges Not Requiring a Permit.--Section 404(f) (33
U.S.C. 1344(f)) is amended by striking the subsection
designation and paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(f) Exemptions.--
``(1) Activities not requiring permit.--
``(A) In general.--Activities are exempt from the
requirements of this section and are not prohibited by or
otherwise subject to regulation under this section or section
301 or 402 of this Act (except effluent standards
[[Page H4730]] or prohibitions under section 307 of this
Act) if such activities--
``(i) result from normal farming, silviculture,
aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices, including
but not limited to plowing, seeding, cultivating, haying,
grazing, normal maintenance activities, minor drainage,
burning of vegetation in connection with such activities,
harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest
products, or upland soil and water conservation practices;
``(ii) are for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of
currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees,
flood control channels or other engineered flood control
facilities, water control structures, water supply reservoirs
(where such maintenance involves periodic water level
drawdowns) which provide water predominantly to public
drinking water systems, groins, riprap, breakwaters, utility
distribution and transmission lines, causeways, and bridge
abutments or approaches, and transportation structures;
``(iii) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance
of farm, stock or aquaculture ponds, wastewater retention
facilities (including dikes and berms) that are used by
concentrated animal feeding operations, or irrigation canals
and ditches or the maintenance or reconstruction of drainage
ditches and tile lines;
``(iv) are for the purpose of construction of temporary
sedimentation basins on a construction site, or the
construction of any upland dredged material disposal area,
which does not include placement of fill material into the
navigable waters;
``(v) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance of
farm roads or forest roads, in accordance with best
management practices, to assure that flow and circulation
patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the
waters are not impaired, that the reach of the waters is not
reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic
environment will be otherwise minimized;
``(vi) are undertaken on farmed wetlands, except that any
change in use of such land for the purpose of undertaking
activities that are not exempt from regulation under this
subsection shall be subject to the requirements of this
section to the extent that such farmed wetlands are
`wetlands' under this section;
``(vii) are undertaken in incidentally created wetlands,
unless such incidentally created wetlands have exhibited
wetlands functions and values for more than 5 years in which
case activities undertaken in such wetlands shall be subject
to the requirements of this section; and
``(viii) are for the purpose of preserving and enhancing
aviation safety or are undertaken in order to prevent an
airport hazard.''.
(g) Areas Not Considered To Be Navigable Waters.--Section
404(f) is further amended by adding the following:
``(3) Areas not considered to be navigable waters.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
following shall not be considered navigable waters:
``(i) Irrigation ditches excavated in uplands.
``(ii) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to
uplands if the irrigation ceased.
``(iii) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or
diking uplands to collect and retain water, and which are
used exclusively for stock watering, irrigation, or rice
growing.
``(iv) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other
small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or
diking uplands to retain water for primarily aesthetic
reasons.
``(v) Temporary, water filled depressions created in
uplands incidental to construction activity.
``(vi) Pits excavated in uplands for the purpose of
obtaining fill, sand, gravel, aggregates, or minerals, unless
and until the construction or excavation operation is
abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the
definition of waters of the United States.
``(vii) Artificial stormwater detention areas and
artificial sewage treatment areas which are not modified
natural waters.
``(B) Demonstration required.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
apply to a particular water body unless the person desiring
to discharge dredged or fill material in that water body is
able to demonstrate that the water body qualifies under
subparagraph (A) for exemption from regulation under this
section.''.
SEC. 808. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS,
CODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(u)(1) The Secretary and the Administrator shall in
cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and National Marine
Fisheries Service provide technical assistance to private
landowners in delineation of wetlands and the planning and
management of their wetlands. This assistance shall include--
``(A) the delineation of wetland boundaries within 90 days
(providing on the ground conditions allow) of a request for
such delineation for a project with a proposed individual
permit application under this section and a total assessed
value of less than $15,000; and
``(B) the provision of technical assistance to owners of
wetlands in the preparation of wetland management plans for
their lands to protect and restore wetlands and meet other
goals of this Act, including control of nonpoint and point
sources of pollution, prevention and reduction of erosion,
and protection of estuaries and lakes.
``(2) The Secretary shall prepare, update on a biannual
basis, and make available to the public for purchase at cost,
an indexed publication containing all Federal regulations,
general permits, and regulatory guidance letters relevant to
the permitting of activities in wetland areas pursuant to
section 404(a). The Secretary and the Administrator shall
also prepare and distribute brochures and pamphlets for the
public addressing--
``(A) the delineation of wetlands,
``(B) wetland permitting requirements; and
``(C) wetland restoration and other matters considered
relevant.''.
SEC. 809. DELINEATION.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(v) Delineation.--
``(1) In general.--The United States Army Corps of
Engineers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
and other Federal agencies shall use the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Manual for the Delineation of Jurisdictional
Wetlands pursuant to this section until a new manual has been
prepared and formally adopted by the Corps and the
Environmental Protection Agency with input from the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, and other relevant agencies
and adopted after field testing, hearing, and public comment.
Any new manual shall take into account the conclusions of the
National Academy of Sciences panel concerning the delineation
of wetlands. The Corps, in cooperation with the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, shall
develop materials and conduct training courses for
consultants, State, and local governments, and landowners
explaining the use of the Corps 1987 wetland manual in the
delineation of wetland areas. The Corps, in cooperation with
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of
Agriculture, may also, in cooperation with the States,
develop supplemental criteria and procedures for
identification of regional wetland types. Such criteria and
procedures may include supplemental plant and soil lists and
supplementary technical criteria pertaining to wetland
hydrology, soils, and vegetation.
``(2) Agricultural lands.--
``(A) Delineation by secretary of agriculture.--For
purposes of this section, wetlands located on agricultural
lands and associated nonagricultural lands shall be
delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture in
accordance with section 1222(j) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(j)).
``(B) Exemption of lands exempted under food security
act.--Any area of agricultural land or any discharge related
to the land determined to be exempt from the requirements of
subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16
U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall also be exempt from the
requirements of this section for such period of time as those
lands are used as agricultural lands.
``(C) Effect of appeal determination pursuant to food
security act.--Any area of agricultural land or any discharge
related to the land determined to be exempt pursuant to an
appeal taken pursuant to subtitle C of title XII of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall be exempt
under this section for such period of time as those lands are
used as agricultural lands.''.
SEC. 810. FAST TRACK FOR MINOR PERMITS.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(w)(1) Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue
regulations to explore the review and practice of individual
permits for minor activities. Minor activities include
activities of 1 acre or less in size which also have minor
direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts.
``(2) Permit applications for minor permits shall
ordinarily be processed within 60 days of the receipt of
completed application.
``(3) The Secretary shall establish fast-track field teams
or other procedures in the individual offices sufficient to
expedite the processing of the individual permits involving
minor activities.''.
SEC. 811. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(x) General Requirements.--(1) Each permit issued under
this section that results in loss of wetland functions or
acreage shall require compensatory mitigation. The preferred
sequence of mitigation options is as set forth in
subparagraph (A) and (C). However, the Secretary shall have
sufficient flexibility to approve practical options that
provide the most protection to the resource--
``(A) measures shall first be undertaken by the permittee
to avoid any adverse effects on wetlands caused by activities
authorized by the permit.
``(B) measures shall be undertaken by the permittee to
minimize any such adverse effects that cannot be avoided;
``(C) measures shall then be undertaken by the permittee to
compensate for adverse impacts on wetland functions, values,
and acreage;
``(D) where compensatory mitigation is used, preference
shall be given to in-kind restoration on the same water body
and within the same local watershed;
[[Page H4731]] ``(E) where on-site and in-kind compensatory
mitigation are impossible, impractical, would fail to work in
the circumstances, or would not make ecological sense, off-
site and/or out-of-kind compensatory mitigation may be
permitted within the watershed including participation in
cooperative mitigation ventures or mitigation banks as
provided in section 404(y).
``(2) The Secretary in consultation with the Administrator
shall ensure that compensable mitigation by a permitee--
``(A) is a specific, enforceable condition of the permit
for which it is required;
``(B) will meet defined success criteria; and
``(C) is monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions
of the permit and to determine the effectiveness of the
mitigation in compensating for the adverse effects for which
it is required.''.
SEC. 812. COOPERATIVE MITIGATION VENTURES AND MITIGATION
BANKS.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(y)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Administrator
shall jointly issue rules for a system of cooperative
mitigation ventures and wetland banks. Such rules shall, at
the minimum, address the following topics:
``(A) Mitigation banks and cooperative ventures may be used
on a watershed basis to compensate for unavoidable wetland
losses which cannot be compensated on-site due to inadequate
hydrologic conditions, excessive sedimentation, water
pollution, or other problems. Mitigation banks and
cooperative ventures may also be used to improve the
potential success of compensatory mitigation through the use
of larger projects, by locating projects in areas in more
favorable short-term and long-term hydrology and proximity to
other wetlands and waters, and by helping to ensure short-
term and long-term project protection, monitoring, and
maintenance.
``(B) Parties who may establish mitigation banks and
cooperative mitigation ventures for use in specific context
and for particular types of wetlands may include government
agencies, nonprofits, and private individuals.
``(C) Surveys and inventories on a watershed basis of
potential mitigation sites throughout a region or State shall
ordinarily be required prior to the establishment of
mitigation banks and cooperative ventures pursuant to this
section.
``(D) Mitigation banks and cooperative mitigation ventures
shall be used in a manner consistent with the sequencing
requirements to mitigate unavoidable wetland impacts. Impacts
should be mitigated within the watershed and water body if
possible with on-site mitigation preferable as set forth in
section 404(x).
``(E) The long-term security of ownership interests of
wetlands and uplands on which projects are conducted shall be
insured to protect the wetlands values associated with those
wetlands and uplands;
``(F) Methods shall be specified to determine debits by
evaluating wetland functions, values, and acreages at the
sites of proposed permits for discharges or alternations
pursuant to subsections (a), (c), and (g) and methods to be
used to determine credits based upon functions, values, and
acreages at the times of mitigation banks and cooperative
mitigation ventures.
``(G) Geographic restrictions on the use of banks and
cooperative mitigation ventures shall be specified. In
general, mitigation banks or cooperative ventures shall be
located on the same water body as impacted wetlands. If this
is not possible or practical, banks or ventures shall be
located as near as possible to impacted projects with
preference given to the same watershed where the impact is
occurring.
``(H) Compensation ratios for restoration, creation,
enhancement, and preservation reflecting and overall goal of
no net loss of function and the status of scientific
knowledge with regard to compensation for individual
wetlands, risks, costs, and other relevant factors shall be
specified. A minimum restoration compensation ratio of 1:1
shall be required for restoration of lost acreage with larger
compensation ratios for wetland creation, enhancement and
preservation.
``(I) Fees to be charged for participation in a bank or
cooperative mitigation venture shall be based upon the costs
of replacing lost functions and acreage on-site and off-site;
the risks of project failure, the costs of long-term
maintenance, monitoring, and protection, and other relevant
factors.
``(J) Responsibilities for long-term monitoring,
maintenance, and protection shall be specified.
``(K) Public review of proposals for mitigation banks and
cooperative mitigation ventures through one or more public
hearings shall be provided.
``(2) The Secretary, in consultation with the
Administrator, is authorized to establish and implement a
demonstration program for creating and implementing
mitigation banks and cooperative ventures and for evaluating
alternative approaches for mitigation banks and cooperative
mitigation ventures as a means of contributing to the goals
established by section 101(a)(8) or section 10 of the Act of
March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403). The Secretary shall
also monitor and evaluate existing banks and cooperative
ventures and establish a number of such banks and cooperative
ventures to test and demonstrate:
``(A) The technical feasibility of compensation for lost
on-site values through off-site cooperative mitigation
ventures and mitigation banks.
``(B) Techniques for evaluating lost wetland functions and
values at sites for which permits are sought pursuant to
section 404(a) and techniques for determining appropriate
credits and debits at the sites of cooperative mitigation
ventures and mitigation banks.
``(C) The adequacy of alternative institutional
arrangements for establishing and administering mitigation
banks and cooperative mitigation ventures.
``(D) The appropriate geographical locations of bank or
cooperative mitigation ventures in compensation for lost
functions and values.
``(E) Mechanisms for ensuring short-term and long-term
project monitoring and maintenance.
``(F) Techniques and incentives for involving private
individuals in establishing and implementing mitigation banks
and cooperative mitigation ventures.
Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of
this subsection, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a
report evaluating mitigation banks and cooperative ventures.
The Secretary shall also, within this time period, prepare
educational materials and conduct training programs with
regard to the use of mitigation banks and cooperative
ventures.''.
SEC. 813. WETLANDS MONITORING AND RESEARCH.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(z) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator,
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and appropriate State and
local government entities, shall initiate, with opportunity
for public notice and comment, a research program of wetlands
and watershed management. The purposes of the research
program shall include, but not be limited--
``(1) to study the functions, values and management needs
of altered, artificial, and managed wetland systems including
lands that were converted to production of commodity crops
prior to December 23, 1985, and report to Congress within 2
years of the date of the enactment of this subsection;
``(2) to study techniques for managing and restoring
wetlands within a watershed context;
``(3) to study techniques for better coordinating and
integrating wetland, floodplain, stormwater, point and
nonpoint source pollution controls, and water supply planning
and plan implementation on a watershed basis at all levels of
government; and
``(4) to establish a national wetland regulatory tracking
program on a watershed basis.
This program shall track the individual and cumulative impact
of permits issued pursuant to section 404(a), 404(e), and
404(h) in terms of types of permits issued, conditions, and
approvals. The tracking program shall also include mitigation
required in terms of the amount required, types required, and
compliance.''.
SEC. 814. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(aa) Administrative Appeals.--
``(1) Regulations establishing procedures.--Not later than
1 year after the date of the enactment of the Wetlands and
Watershed Management Act of 1995, the Secretary shall, after
providing notice and opportunity for public comment, issue
regulations establishing procedures pursuant to which--
``(A) a landowner may appeal a determination of regulatory
jurisdiction under this section with respect to a parcel of
the landowner's property;
``(B) a landowner may appeal a wetlands classification
under this section with respect to a parcel of the
landowner's property;
``(C) any person may appeal a determination that the
proposed activity on the landowner's property is not exempt
under subsection (f);
``(D) a landowner may appeal a determination that an
activity on the landowner's property does not qualify under a
general permit issued under this section;
``(E) an applicant for a permit under this section may
appeal a determination made pursuant to this section to deny
issuance of the permit or to impose a requirement under the
permit; and
``(F) a landowner or any other person required to restore
or otherwise alter a parcel of property pursuant to an order
issued under this section may appeal such order.
``(2) Deadline for filing appeal.--An appeal brought
pursuant to this subsection shall be filed not later than 30
days after the date on which the decision or action on which
the appeal is based occurs.
``(3) Deadline for decision.--An appeal brought pursuant to
this subsection shall be decided not later than 90 days after
the date on which the appeal is filed.
``(4) Participation in appeals process.--Any person who
participated in the public comment process concerning a
decision or action that is the subject of an appeal brought
pursuant to this subsection may participate in such appeal
with respect to those issues raised in the person's written
public comments.
``(5) Decisionmaker.--An appeal brought pursuant to this
subsection shall be heard and decided by an appropriate and
impartial official of the Federal Government, other
[[Page H4732]] than the official who made the determination
or carried out the action that is the subject of the appeal.
``(6) Stay of penalties and mitigation.--A landowner or any
other person who has filed an appeal under this subsection
shall not be required to pay a penalty or perform mitigation
or restoration assessed under this section or section 309
until after the appeal has been decided.''.
SEC. 815. CRANBERRY PRODUCTION.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(bb) Cranberry Production.--Activities associated with
expansion, improvement, or modification of existing cranberry
production operations shall be deemed in compliance, for
purposes of sections 309 and 505, with section 301, if--
``(1) the activity does not result in the modification of
more than 10 acres of wetlands per operator per year and the
modified wetlands (other than where dikes and other necessary
facilities are placed) remain as wetlands or other waters of
the United States; or
``(2) the activity is required by any State or Federal
water quality program.''.
SEC. 816. STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS.
Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(cc) State Classification Systems.--
``(1) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in
consultation with the Administrator, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, shall establish guidelines to aid States
and Indian tribes in establishing classification systems for
the planning, managing, and regulating of wetlands.
``(2) Establishment.--In accordance with the guidelines
established under paragraph (1), a State or Indian tribe may
establish a wetlands classification system for lands of the
State or Indian tribe and may submit such classification
system to the Secretary for approval. Upon approval, the
Secretary shall use such classification system in making
permit determinations and establishing mitigation
requirements for lands of the State or Indian tribe under
this section.
``(3) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to affect a State with an
approved program under subsection (h) or a State with a
wetlands classification system in effect on the date of the
enactment of this subsection.''.
SEC. 817. DEFINITIONS.
Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(26) The term `wetland' means those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions.
``(27) The term `discharge of dredged or fill material'
means the act of discharging and any related act of filling,
grading, draining, dredging, excavation, channelization,
flooding, clearing of vegetation, driving of piling or
placement of other obstructions, diversion of water, or other
activities in navigable waters which impair the flow, reach,
or circulation of surface water, or which result in a more
than minimal change in the hydrologic regime, bottom contour,
or configuration of such waters, or in the type,
distribution, or diversity of vegetation in such waters.
``(28) The term `mitigation bank' shall mean wetland
restoration, creation, or enhancement projects undertaken
primarily for the purpose of providing mitigation
compensation credits for wetland losses from future
activities. Often these activities will be, as yet,
undefined.
``(29) The term `cooperative mitigation ventures' shall
mean wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement projects
undertaken jointly by several parties (such as private,
public, and nonprofit parties) with the primary goal of
providing compensation for wetland losses from existing or
specific proposed activities. Some compensation credits may
also be provided for future as yet undefined activities. Most
cooperative mitigation ventures will involve at least one
private and one public cooperating party.
``(30) The term `normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture
and ranching activities' means normal practices identified as
such by the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with
the Cooperative Extension Service for each State and the land
grant university system and agricultural colleges of the
State, taking into account existing practices and such other
practices as may be identified in consultation with the
affected industry or community.
``(31) The term `agricultural land' means cropland,
pastureland, native pasture, rangeland, an orchard, a
vineyard, nonindustrial forest land, an area that supports a
water dependent crop (including cranberries, taro,
watercress, or rice), and any other land used to produce or
support the production of an annual or perennial crop
(including forage or hay), aquaculture product, nursery
product, or wetland crop or the production of livestock.''.
TITLE IX--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 901. OBLIGATIONS AND EXPENDITURES SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATIONS.
No provision or amendments of this Act shall be construed
to make funds available for obligation or expenditure for any
purpose except to the extent provided in advance in
appropriation Acts.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my personal
appreciation and the appreciation of many of my colleagues for the
cooperation shown by the chairman of the committee in helping to bring
forward this rule, and the opportunity of those of us who have some
differences with the committee bill, and giving us an opportunity to
express those differences as well as to offer amendments like the one
at the desk.
I would also like to express my appreciation for the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer],
both of whom have worked many long hours along with me and my staff in
working to bring forth the amendment that we are considering at this
time.
I think it is noteworthy to mention that while this is a substitute
amendment, that it adopts some 70 to 75 percent of the committee draft,
and that the language of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]
in those cases remains the same.
There are several however, sections of the bill that we believe can
be improved, and I just would like to talk about those several sections
for just a minute.
As many of my colleagues know, having heard previous statements that
I and others have made today, those of us who live in and represent
areas of the country that are densely populated, or that are in coastal
areas or that are in areas such as the Mississippi River Valley and
other environmentally sensitive ecosystem type areas around the country
have very serious concerns with at least four sections. One is the
section that involves wetlands. The second is the section that involves
nonpoint sources of pollutions. The third is in the permitting system,
and what the committee mark does to the permitting process in terms of
eliminating it is very effective. And the fourth, at least for me and
for others I believe, is the issue of ocean dumping, and I would just
like to address those four areas for just a minute.
With regard to wetlands, it is pretty obvious that in New Jersey,
where we estimate that 90 percent of our wetlands would be declassified
as wetlands under the language of the committee bill, this causes a
great deal of concern inasmuch as wetlands play a very vital
environmental role in coastal areas, and so if I, as I am, were a
representative of a coastal area anywhere from Maine to Florida on the
east coast I would be terribly concerned about the effect of this bill,
or if I were a representative from the Gulf States bordering on the
Gulf of Mexico I would be terribly concerned about the provisions of
bill, and of course if I were from California or Oregon or Washington
State I would be equally concerned by the provisions as they relate to
wetlands.
Of course we all know as well that wetlands act as a natural
filtering system and act as the very basis of life in many cases, and
so the committee mark, which does what we think is wrong things to the
concept of wetlands protection, needs to be rewritten, and our bill
does that.
With regard to the nonpoint source pollution program and the Coastal
Zone Management Act, which in its very nature creates a partnership
between State governments and the Federal Government with regard to
this very important nonpoint issue, was also done, we think,
significant harm by the committee mark. And we believe, therefore, that
changes are necessary.
Those of us who have had problems with point sources of pollution
have been able to identify such things as outfalls into our streams and
rivers and bays and oceans. We have been able to deal with them. They
are a relatively simple task to take care of, and I say relatively
simple. It is never easy nor it is ever simple, but at least you can
identify the source of pollution.
With regard to nonpoint sources, it is a much more difficult task,
and the CZMA sets up this partnership between the State and Federal
Government in order to identify and develop programs in order to deal
with nonpoint sources, and here again we would maintain what the
coastal States association have endorsed, as a matter of fact
[[Page H4733]] CZMA language which solves this problem.
With regard to storm water discharge, obviously it is a very big
issue and a problem that creates a great deal of damage to our coastal
environment as well as to other tributaries around the country, and
here again the permitting process is damaged severely under the
language of the committee mark. And so we would make significant
changes and do in the committee substitute which we will be voting on a
little bit later today.
Finally with regard to ocean dumping, this has been a tremendous task
which we have done on a bipartisan basis; the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Pallone] is here and our former colleague, Bill Hughes, all worked
together to put an end to ocean dumping. We address in our substitute
only that section of the bill that has to do with dredge spoil deposit
offshore.
So we ask our colleagues to support our substitute, and I thank the
Members for their consideration.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I represent an area that has a lot
of wetlands, and I have been involved with this issue all of my
political career in the State legislature, and now since I have been in
Congress to some extent, and I think people ought to read what is in
this bill.
The gentleman says they have 75 percent of what is in the Shuster
bill, but you have to look at what the content is and realize some of
things that have been left out. First of all, there is no risk
assessment at all in this bill, No. 1.
No. 2, in the wetlands area, you know in our country we have been
trying to simplify this process. What is driving people crazy is they
have got to go to all of these agencies and they overrule each other
and they do not talk to each other and they do not agree on things, and
cause an untold amount of problems for my constituents. What this bill
is going to do if you take it out and read it, it is going to create a
new wetlands coordinating commission that is going to be appointed by
the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, which we have
been trying to get out of this process because frankly they do not
belong in the process in the farm country, and they are going to create
a coordinating committee that is going to have 18 Federal agencies
trying to coordinate some kind of wetlands policy. And if I could just
read some of the things that this new committee is supposed to do, I
think that folks when they start taking a look at what is in this bill
are going to have some different ideas.
They are going to help coordinate Federal, State, local wetland
planning, regulatory restoration programs on an ongoing basis to reduce
duplication, resolve potential conflicts, and efficiently allocate
manpower.
But let me tell Members what the problem is in my county, it is not
the law that is the problem so much, it is the people that are trying
to implement the law.
I have a county, two counties right next to each other, and in one
county where the people used some common sense and worked together they
resolved all of the wetlands problems without a single ripple. You go
to the next county where you had some people that were rigid and did
not want to work with each other, and you have the biggest hornets'
nest and the biggest mess you have ever seen, and I submit any change
in the law is not going to solve that kind of problem.
And clearly setting up a coordinating committee with 18 Federal
agencies is not going to make this situation better. It is going to
make it worse.
Last of all, I also heard this story that the wetlands are so
important, a public treasure, and they are important to all of us in
this country and we agree with that. But there is this point of view
and mostly I think by urban folks, they somehow or another think we out
in the country ought to pay that entire burden.
{time} 1600
Well, I submit that if wetlands are that important, and I think we
agree that they are, then we all, as a nation, need to pay for the cost
of this, and that is what we are trying to do with some of the changes
that were in the private property rights bill, and also some of the
changes that are in 961, by taking that, recognizing that wetlands are
important and something that we want to maintain, but spreading that
cost across all of the people in this country, not just the people upon
which the wetlands happen, their property where the wetlands happen to
reside.
Mr. Chairman, last of all, I have been working on the conservation
reserve program in the Committee on Agriculture. When that program was
set up, wetlands were excluded from the Conservation Reserve program.
We created another program called the wetlands reserve which was never
funded and does not have public support.
What we need to do, rather than take this regulatory approach to
wetlands, we need to take and change the Conservation Reserve so the
No. 1 priority to go into the CRP is wetlands, a voluntary program, a
10-year program. We are going to preserve way more wetlands in that
kind of an approach than we are setting up some kind of a committee
with 18 agencies involved and some kind of bureaucracy. That is the
last thing we need to do.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to point out to the gentleman I share
your concerns about building bigger bureaucracies and establishing
committees on top of committees.
The Wetlands Coordinating Committee is something that is endorsed by
the Governors, that would have Federal Representation, State
Representation, local representation in order to look at individual
cases to try and determine where we believe this is warranted. If we
all agree, as you stated, I agree with you, that wetlands are
important, we have to have some mechanism in which to deal with them.
This is a partnership effort established and created in cooperation
with the States in order to carry out this coordinating function.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Boehlert and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. If I could just respond to the question,
you know, with all due respect, you ought to come and see what is going
on in Minnesota. It is the State of Minnesota that has created the
bigger hornet's nest than the Federal Government. From my standpoint,
if you see what has been happening with these State laws, they are
causing more problems than we are, and as I understand it, it is the
wetlands managers in the States that support this, not the Governors
and elected officials.
Mr. SAXTON. The National Governors' Association supports this.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I would like to make two points. If it is the State of
Minnesota that is giving you some problems, I suggest you deal with the
State and not question the Federal law.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. The Federal law is a problem, too.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to point out on delineation, section 809 of the
bill. I want to stress this, delineation by the Secretary of
Agriculture, for purposes of this section, wetlands located on
agricultural land and associated nonagricultural lands shall be
delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture. That is critically
important; not by the Environmental Protection Agency, not by some
commission, solely by the Secretary of Agriculture. We are very
sensitive to the needs of the agriculture community.
I am privileged to represent a district that has a large agricultural
interest.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Just to answer the question, why do we
need a coordinating committee with all of these agencies, if we are
going to give the power to the Secretary of Agriculture? I mean, the
trouble that I have had out there is that we get everybody else
involved in these permits but you cannot get an answer half of the time
from these agencies. If we get
[[Page H4734]] set up some new structure, we have got all of these
agencies involved, and the EPA is in charge; even if you give it to the
Secretary of Agriculture, I do not think it is going to work.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson]
has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Boehlert and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Let me stress once again on agriculture, solely by the
Secretary of Agriculture, not some commission, but the commission that
is set up outside of this to deal with nonagricultural lands is set up
to give guidance to the States. The National Governors' Association, we
have embraced in our substitute specific language of the National
Governors' Association dealing with the subject of wetlands. We agree
with you, we want to give our Governors, those are the laboratories, we
want to give them more responsibility, more flexibility.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Just to close this off, I have a letter
here from just about every agriculture group, soil-water conservation
groups that I know of in my State, they are opposed to this substitute.
They support the chairman's bill, 961. I would urge defeat of the
Boehlert substitute.
Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield further, let me point out
that this is a 334-page bill that was just made available Thursday. The
report was just available yesterday for the first time. They have not
read the report.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan,
commonsense, locally driven bill to provide solutions to provide clean
water to our constituents.
I want to start out by articulating my great respect for the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert].
I think the elections in November of 1994 were about bipartisanship
and common sense and trying to reinvent Washington, DC, and come up
with locally driven solutions, and that is precisely what this
substitute does.
When I was a little boy and we used to go up to Lake Michigan, Lake
Michigan borders my district, the Third District of Indiana, and we
would try to find a spot in the sand to spread beach towels where there
were not dead fish and dead seaweed and trash and all kinds of problems
from Lake Michigan washed upon the shore. It was difficult to do it.
Certainly we did not compete much with other people trying to go
swimming or catch some sun.
We had huge difficulties with pollution on Lake Michigan. Now it is
beautiful. The water is clean. We have festivals and fishing exhibits.
We have all kinds of development. We have boating. We have condos and
houses springing up along Lake Michigan is my district.
What we need to do, ladies and gentlemen, is come up with a common
sense bill that does not swing so far to the left or to the right but
comes firmly down in the middle to protect our clean water, to
encourage business, to encourage a strong economy and to encourage a
clean water future for our children.
I talk about the Great Lakes and Lake Erie as a great example of
this. Twenty years ago, people used to joke about lighting Lake Erie on
fire or walking across Lake Erie. Now they have built a brand new
baseball stadium that is the pride of Cleveland that has a view of Lake
Erie that has brought back the city.
The Clean Water Act has been part of that. Now, certainly, we can say
that there are a great deal of problems with the Clean Water Act. They
did not use, they have not used enough common sense. They have been too
prescriptive in a lot of ways, especially in the wetlands where I hear
from my farmers time in and time out, day after day, and what we try to
do with this legislation, we try to keep about 70 percent of 961 and we
try to come up with commonsense solutions on wetlands and other areas
and incorporate that to improve this bill.
I have been on farms in my district where a farmer says to me, he has
taken a backhoe in his back yard and accidentally broken some tile, and
then the Federal Government wants to come along and say, ``This is a
wetlands. I am sorry, Harry, this is our land.''
Our legislation gives the property right to the owner. We do want to
make sure that that farmer has the privilege and the right to protect
his land.
But we also want to attain a balance of not taking away 60 or 70
percent of the wetlands in this country.
I would also like to talk a little bit about the economy and
businesses. A small business owner in my district who employees 700
people in four different plants was in my office. He said, ``I strongly
support the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute. I belong to the chamber
of commerce. I belong to the host of business organizations, but I
manufacture small boats and employ 700 people. We cannot roll back
legislation that protects clean water. We need a fair compromise
here.'' That is what this substitute achieves. It does not do it by
achieving Washington standards on our wetlands solution.
We say that the National Governors' Association should develop the
answer. They have simplified the permitting process and expanded the
role for State wetland managers, moving the decision process directly
to the local level. We have adopted the State solution.
I encourage my colleagues, for the sake of common sense and
bipartisanship, to support this Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the substitute amendment and in
support of H.R. 961, and make no mistake about it, this substitute is
being presented as a middle-of-the-road compromise, but it is much more
than that.
Basically, it returns the status quo. It really retains many of the
provisions in the existing law that have been the source of most of the
objections and criticisms that we have seen come against the Clean
Water Act.
In the time that I have been in the House, I think it has become very
clear to me this institution as an institution resists change. It is
reluctant to embrace change, is reluctant to recognize that times
change and that, therefore, legislation needs to be fashioned to meet
that change. It really is my belief that some of the opponents of the
committee's bill and the supporters of this bill fear change, because
it represents change in doing business by removing highly prescriptive,
top-down federalism which is now integral to virtually all
environmental programs that we have dealt with over the years.
This bill, I think, represents for the first time in recent memory
the Federal Government will cede, this is almost unheard of, will cede
some authority in the environmental arena to State and local
government, giving them greater latitude to provide solutions to vexing
pollution problems.
What the opponents of the committee bill and the proponents of the
substitute choose to ignore rather artfully, I would have to say, is
H.R. 961 does not turn back the clock on environmental standards. It
does, in fact, lateral some of the responsibility and sets the stage
for implementing locally designed solutions. And is that not what
really we heard in the election last year, that people are crying out
for the opportunity to use their own creativity to come up with
solutions to unique problems? We are not talking about eroding or
cutting back standards. We are saying give localities the ability to
deal creatively with their own problems.
Environmentalists, the more rigid environmentalists, embrace the
current program because it has worked and worked rather well these past
23 years. But I think in the face of vastly changed circumstances which
we have now, they are unwilling to cede to State and local governments
any degree of autonomy as we move to address more complicated and
difficult problems, and they are unwilling to embrace innovative
approaches that may achieve comparable or better cleanup standards at
significantly lower costs.
Bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, that when the clean water program was
first established, the national deficit was a mere fraction of its
current size, and
[[Page H4735]] the Federal Government was at that time handing out
huge grants to pay for up to 80 percent of the construction costs.
Those days are long gone, have been gone forever. Today the market is
radically different. The chief distinction being the elimination of the
grants, as I have said, and communities now contemplating construction
of wastewater plants are generally very small, secondary treatment
standards are high, and the cost of technology has gone through the
roof.
These small communities, in my congressional district, are emblematic
of others around this country. This results in a very serious
affordability problem.
Earlier this year the Congress, I think, recognized the tough
financial challenges which face our communities when it passed the
unfunded mandates legislation which I had the honor to bring to the
floor saying we are no longer going to impose new requirements without
providing resources to pay for them, a very simple proposal, but one
which we, frankly, had difficulty even getting consideration for in
this Congress.
This bill, the committee bill, is consistent with this public law by
increasing the Federal contribution to State revolving funds and giving
greater flexibility to States and localities to comply with the Clean
Water Act, and I think that, to me, is the most critical part of this
legislation, the fact that it does provide flexibility for the first
time.
Take a close look at those who support and those who oppose the
committee bill. Groups favoring the bill include many associations, as
we have heard, representing State and local governments. Those opposed
are nonprofit associations, environmentally oriented, nonprofit
associations. State and local governments do not want to turn back the
clock on environmental cleanup, and I think that is implicit perhaps in
some of the dialogue we have heard today that somehow the States and
local governments cannot be trusted, that they are going to insidiously
subvert all the efforts made over the years to clean up, but State and
local governments merely want a greater voice in devising cost-
effective solutions.
{time} 1615
Mr. Chairman, I would urge opposition to the substitute amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Clinger] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Boehlert and by unanimous consent, Mr. Clinger
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman thank you for the
time. Let me complete my statement, and then I'll be happy to yield.
I would just stress that we think it is of interest. I think that for
the first time we are really going to have some consideration for what
are the compliance costs, what does it cost to carry out the number of
the mandates that we have had in the past, but I think that the
environmental community, which has never shown too much concern or
interest in, frankly, what the costs that we have imposed on the
communities would be, I think would still rather straitjacket small
communities insisting that they adhere to a national prescribed program
specifically detailing in detail precisely how each community must meet
the requirements without with regard to the financial consequences
borne by the rate of players, and for that reason I would again oppose
the amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, my colleague points out that the bill
will not turn back the clock. I would point out that the bill, as
reported by the Committee, would repeal the storm water section. The
bill would repeal the coastal zone section.
I would also point out that we recognize that there are a number of
provisions in existing law that need to be addressed and some changes
need to be made. That is why the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute has
70 percent of the language identical to the committee bill, because we
do recognize some changes are in order. But we want to do it in a
commonsense way, not just throw out everything in the name of
flexibility, and I could not agree more with the gentleman, that we do
want to give the Governors more responsibility. That is why our section
on wetlands totally embraces the proposal advanced by the National
Governors Association. That is why our section dealing with coastal
zone management totally embraces the language advanced by the Coastal
States Organization which represents 30 States and 30 Governors.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my support for the substitute offered
by the gentleman from New Jersey.
I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Roemer] for their work on this substitute which gives the members
of this House a true choice.
The substitute makes practical and commonsense changes to the Clean
Water Act while maintaining environmental protection.
H.R. 961 reverses 20 years of environmental progress.
The committee bill simply rolls back the Clean Water Act with waiver
piled on top of exemption piled on top of loophole.
H.R. 961 would stop the cleanup that has taken place for 2 decades.
It would not maintain current national water standards.
The committee bill has one purpose and one purpose only--to allow
more pollution in our Nation's rivers, lakes and streams.
H.R. 961 weakens the requirements for industry to treat its
discharges.
The bill provides far too many chances for local governments to
discharge sewage that has not received secondary treatment.
It is waiver after waiver, loophole after loophole.
On top of that, the bill removes protection for 60 to 80 percent of
the Nation's wetlands simply by ignoring the scientific evidence and
redefining wetlands.
The authors of this bill couldn't even wait for the National Academy
of Sciences to finish its study of wetlands which was released
yesterday.
H.R. 961 simply tells us what a wetland is, regardless of the
scientific evidence. Next, it will tell us the world is flat.
H.R. 961 also rejects the advice of the Coastal States Organization
and repeals the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Program--the one effective
non-point pollution program we have.
The substitute has none of the weakening provisions of the committee
bill.
It does provide needed flexibility in changes in the State Revolving
Loan Fund Program.
It makes the changes in the Coastal Nonpoint Program that were
requested by the Coastal States Organization.
It proposes language on wetlands and watersheds requested by the
National Governors' Association with additional changes--changes that
were included in H.R. 961--to help the Nation's farmers.
This substitute will restore reason and common sense to this process.
The substitute will make many of the changes that are needed in the
Clean Water Program.
What it will not do is roll back clean water standards.
For anyone who wants to continue an effective Clean Water Program,
this substitute should be your choice.
I urge support of the Boehlert-Roemer-Saxton substitute.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of business, and industry and farmers in
Upstate New York where I come from, I rise in the strongest possible
opposition to the Boehlert amendment.
As my colleagues know, a strange thing happened back in 1974. It was
the year of Watergate.
Now, Mr. Chairman, there was a big turnover in the House, and a lot
of people were elected. They, unfortunately, were not businessmen. For
the most part they were lawyers. There is nothing bad about lawyers,
but most of them were lawyers, or professors, or professional
politicians or bureaucrats.
[[Page H4736]] They came in, and they took over this place, and they
proceeded over the next 5 or 6 years to ramrod through legislation, as
my colleagues know, creating the Department of Education, the
Department of Energy, and vastly expanding the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers, and they brought the economy in
this country to a standstill.
In upstate New York, Mr. Chairman, our people have been persecuted by
these regulations. We are the most overtaxed, overregulated State in
the Nation, and today they are about to get a little relief. I was
sitting in my office because we do not have a Committee on Rules
meeting today, which normally I spend all day there, and have to come
back at 8 o'clock at night and work for 4 or 5 hours to get caught up.
But today I was going to get caught up during the daytime, and I heard
a lot of these people, still here from maybe that Watergate class of
1974, but a lot of later ones, too, coming from New York City, some of
them, a lot of the metropolitan areas. They are talking about the dirty
polluters and how this Boehlert amendment is going to stick it back to
them again. We are not going to put up with those dirty polluters, they
say.
Mr. Chairman, let me just read briefly this letter from these dirty
polluters. They are my constituents.
The New York State Corn Growers Association, some of the most
admirable people in America, the Dairy League Cooperative, New York
Farm Bureau, the New York State Grange; these are people who have
volunteered their lives for their communities, not only in military
service, but in Little League and Boy Scouts. These are the dirty
polluters. As my colleagues know, I could go on and read all of these
names from all of
these organizations, but they oppose the Boehlert amendment because
they want change. They want to be treated like decent human beings, and
they have not been for a long time now. When Ronald Reagan came into
office, he could not change things back then because all the laws were
in place. We could not change these laws because this House was
controlled by the far left. We lost in 1974, lost a lot of good
Democrats, too. As you know, we had a lot of good conservative
Democrats controlling committees in those days. Now they are all gone,
and all we had left in control before last November was the far left of
the Democratic Party which would not allow us to make these changes. We
could not put through risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis for
regulations. We could not pass a balanced budget amendment and line
item veto because we could not even get it on the floor of this House.
Well, we have our chance today to make vital correction, and that is
why we need to defeat the Boehlert amendment, and we need to pass the
committee reported legislation which is supported by all of these
people.
Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record letters in support of the
original legislation and against my good friend's amendment:
May 10, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chair, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
Rayburn House Office Building, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Agriculture in the State of New York is
alive and well. We are a leading producer of many fruits and
vegetables, as well as being the nation's third leading dairy
state. Once concern which crosses all commodity lines is the
fate of the Clean Water Act. We have watched the debate in
the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with
interest. After careful review, we, the undersigned
representing all facets of production agriculture and
agribusiness in the Empire State, fully support the
provisions of H.R. 961.
This bill embraces a spirit of bipartisan cooperation much
like we have seen develop in New York to address non-point
source water pollution. Voluntary, incentive based programs
which are watershed specific will be successful if given the
opportunity. Also included in this bill is an improved
wetlands definition. It assures the farmer gets fair and
prompt wetlands decisions and compensation when regulatory
decisions devalue property.
Thank you for your leadership in bringing this bill to the
floor for a scheduled vote May 12th. Again, we support H.R.
961 in its current form and do not support attempts by any
member of congress to make significant modifications.
Sincerely,
Agway, Inc., Stephen Hoefer, Vice President; NYS Corn
Growers, James Czub, President; Dairylea Cooperative,
Inc., Clyde Rutherford, President; New York Farm
Bureau, John Lincoln, President; New York State Grange,
William Benson, Master; Empire Farm Credit, Robert
Egerton Jr., President and Chief Executive Officer;
Pioneer Farm Credit, William Lipinski, President and
Chief Executive Officer; Farm Credit of Western New
York, Robert Kesler, President and Chief Executive
Officer; Milk Marketing, Inc., Eastern Region, Joseph
C. Mathis, Assistant General Manager.
____
The American Farm
Bureau Federation,
Washington, DC, May 4, 1994.
Hon. Neil Abercrombie,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Abercrombie: The American Farm Bureau
Federation wants to reiterate our strong support for H.R. 961
as reported from the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. This bill strengthens efforts to address our
remaining water quality problems and establishes a much
needed common-sense approach to wetland regulation.
We are strongly opposed to the Boehlert-Shays-Saxton
substitute and any similar amendments that would roll back
the bipartisan and popularly backed wetland reforms contained
in this bill. Such amendments would perpetuate the current
bureaucratic and regulatory maze that has burdened
agriculture and many other segments of society for years.
We consider the defeat of these hostile amendments to H.R.
961 to be key votes of the highest priority for farmers and
ranchers.
We appreciate your support and commitment to the long-
sought reforms contained in this important legislation.
Dean R. Kleckner,
President.
____
May 3, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned agricultural,
agribusiness and soil and water conservation organizations
wish to express our strong support for H.R. 961, The Clean
Water Amendments of 1995, approved by the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 6, 1995.
Our Community of interests has a direct investment in
protecting water quality. Under your able leadership, H.R.
961 was passed with strong bipartisan support, 42-16. We are
urging your colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 961 when it
is considered by the full House beginning May 10.
This bill strengthens efforts to ensure clean water and to
address remaining water quality problems by stressing state
and local leadership, as well as voluntary, incentive-based
solutions to nonpoint source, stormwater and watershed
planning. The top-down, command and control methods of the
last twenty-five years do not hold the solutions to our
nation's remaining water quality problems. We commend
Chairman Shuster and the bipartisan supporters of H.R. 961
for their leadership and consensus building process in
advancing a more workable and constructive approach to
achieving water quality success. These reforms help
agriculture and rural communities achieve clean water goals
without putting them out of business.
H.R. 961 is a reasonable and cost-effective approach to
addressing water quality challenges. The bill provides common
sense water quality policies based on a prioritized, risk-
based strategy. It establishes clear goals for nonpoint
source pollution for the first time and empowers states to
establish partnerships with private landowners to address
impaired waters through more flexible and cost-effective
means. The legislation strengthens the nonpoint source
program and encourages watershed planning through voluntary
incentives, not federal mandates.
The bill also provides new resources to States for carrying
out their Clean Water Act responsibilities. Major increases
in funding for nonpoint source, state revolving funds, and
other programs are necessary steps in continuing our efforts
to improve water quality.
H.R. 961 also contains positive tools to help the
agricultural community meet its water quality
responsibilities. The bill provides incentives to individuals
to implement site-specific water quality management plans.
This legislation also includes significant wetlands policy
reforms that are extremely important to agriculture. Written
into the bill is an improved wetlands definition. The bill
gives sole authority to the Secretary of Agriculture to
delineate wetlands on agricultural lands. H.R. 961 assures
the regulated community gets fair and prompt wetland
decisions and compensation for landowners when regulatory
decisions devalue property, consistent with the House-passed
property rights legislation.
Again, we thank you for your strong leadership on this
important legislation. H.R. 961 reflects water quality policy
principles our organizations adopted by consensus well over a
year ago. These principles, and the related provisions found
in H.R. 961, will provide farmers the opportunity they desire
to help
[[Page H4737]] address our nation's remaining water quality problems.
The attached provides additional points on H.R. 961 from our
perspective.
Sincerely,
AgriBank, FCB; Agricultural Retailers Association; Agway,
Inc.; American Association of Nurserymen; American Crop
Protection Association; American Crystal Sugar Company;
American Farm Bureau Federation; American Feed Industry
Association; American Sheep Industry Association;
American Soybean Association; Apricot Producers of
California; CENEX, Inc.; CF Industries, Inc.; ConAgra,
Inc.; Countrymark Cooperative, Inc.; Egg Association of
America; Equipment Manufacturers Institute; Farm Credit
Bank of Wichita; Farmland Industries, Inc.;
International Apple Institute; Maine Potato Growers,
Inc.; MBG Marketing; MFA Incorporated; Milk Marketing
Inc.; Minnesota Association of Cooperatives; National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture;
National Association of Wheat Growers; National Barley
Growers Association; National Broiler Council; National
Cattlemen's Association; National Corn Growers
Association; National Council of Farmer Cooperatives;
National Grain and Feed Association; National Grange;
National Milk Producers Federation; National Potato
Council; National Pork Producers Council; National
Turkey Federation; National Water Resources
Association; Riceland Foods, Inc.; Southern States
Cooperative, Inc.; The Agricultural Council of
California; The Fertilizer Institute; Tree Top Inc.;
USA Rice Federation.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York, my very good
friend.
Mr. BOEHLERT. I want my colleague to know that I am just as sensitive
as he is to the plight of America's farmers. That is why, as the
chairman of the northeast ag caucus, I have worked for 10 years to
protect the interests of the farmers. That is why our bill includes,
our substitute, not just Boehlert's, Saxton and Roemer, the same
exemptions for agriculture as does the committee bill. That is why we
have added in committee a $500 million provision per year for nonpoint-
source pollution, because our farmers are sick of sanctimonious
sermons. They want some assistance. They are responsible stewards of
our land but they need some assistance as they deal with best
management practices and the type of thing that they need to have to
get on with the job because they are responsible stewards.
Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, that is enough. Reclaiming my time,
the gentleman's heart is in the right place, his legislation is in the
wrong place. That is why all the dairy farmers and the apple growers
oppose the gentleman's legislation and support the position of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that, if this is
so good for the farmers, why are the farmers all opposed to it?
Mr. SOLOMON. They are not just opposed, they are vehemently opposed,
and they want this legislation to pass.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
It has already been stated, but let me make it clear again. This
amendment deletes property rights compensation from the bill.
I will say it again. It deletes property rights compensation from the
bill, so that whatever one believe about wetlands management and
wetlands regulation, if they believe that people ought to be
compensated when their property is taken because of a wetlands
regulation, they ought not vote for this amendment. This deletes it.
Second, it deletes risk assessment cost-benefit analysis. Many of you
voted for this principle on the House floor in days gone by.
I say to my colleagues, if you believe in that principle, why would
you support an amendment that deletes it from wetlands management and
wetlands regulation? Little inconsistent, I would suggest. But let me
give you some other reasons why you ought to oppose this amendment.
This amendment, unlike the original bill, literally takes the science
academy scientific definition of wetlands and makes it the regulatory
definition. I say to my colleagues, now, if you read the academy
report, the academy report said this is how we think you ought to
scientifically define wetlands, but how you ought to regulate them,
which ones you ought to regulate and how in the public policy, is a
political decision we can't make. You need a referenced decision. Here
is one. Here is the definition, but then you decide on policy on how to
regulate.
This bill will in fact mandate that the manuals adopt the scientific
definition which, by the way, is the current kind of definition that is
causing the problem in America today, definitions that talk about
hydrology and vegetation and sometimes have very little to do with the
real functional aspects of the wetland that is to be regulated.
Third, this bill not only does not compensate someone when the
Government regulates your property away. This amendment says that you
will mandatorily be required to mitigate in all cases where permits are
granted and wetland functions are disturbed. In effect this bill
mandates that in every permit given in this regulatory regime set up
under this massive new Federal coordinating agency, that in every case
the landowner is not only not going to be compensated for the taking of
his property, he is going to have to pay for the privilege of being
regulated and, in fact, lose the use of this property in every case
where a permit is granted.
Imagine that. Not only does this amendment destroy the property
rights provisions that my colleagues, and I, and 72 Democrats and
almost all the Republicans joined in supporting just in the last
hundred days, but it turns it on its head and says that:
If you're granted a permit, not only will we not compensate
you for any loss of value that may be a part of the
limitation under that permit, but you're going to have to
compensate the government and the public at large for the
fact that you've been granted a permit.
Now the amendment goes on. It is even worse. When it defines what is
a fill of a wetlands, this really gets good. The definition of a fill
of a wetland now includes under this amendment the cutting of
vegetation, cutting the grass. Cutting the grass on a lot that they are
going to describe as a wetland is now filling a wetland under this
definition.
{time} 1630
Protecting the vegetation now becomes a part of this wetlands
protection program. You think you have problems with the Corps of
Engineers today? You think you have problems with the EPA today, who
works in cooperation with the environmental groups who support this
amendment, going so far as to send them information that is
confidential and illegally distributed, as I demonstrated on the House
floor last night? You think you got problems with an agency out of
control like that? Wait until you see an agency with the power to say
we can regulate your grass cutting in America. We are going to go that
far. That is the kind of amendment you fellows want to support on this
side. That is the kind of amendment you want to support on this side.
Shame on you. If you think you have problems with regulations today,
imagine, envision a situation where the scientists, not policymakers,
not the Congress, the scientists say what is a wetland, what is going
to get regulated. If you get a permit, you have to pay the Government
for getting that permit. You do not get compensated for the loss of
your property. And if you dare cut your grass without a permit, look
out. That is a filling of a wetland under this definition.
This amendment creates a whole new regulatory authority to monitor
all decisions, to coordinate not only wetlands regulations, but all
flood control, all water management decisions, on a State and local and
regional basis, and it creates it under authority that, as I pointed
out to you, destroys property rights.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, it destroys property rights provisions,
eliminates risk assessment cost-benefit analysis, turns it on its head,
and forces you to pay the Government to
[[Page H4738]] get regulated. What a beautiful amendment. Anybody that
votes for this better not go home.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, I
agree that scientists and researchers should not dictate policy for the
United States. But if we are going to make policy, we ought to know
what the scientists say what a wetland is.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the scientists in the
study told us what they think a wetland is. Read the report carefully.
This is a reference definition. We are not telling you to regulate all
the wetlands.
Mr. GILCHREST. The scientists recommended we go on a region-by-region
basis. Your bill does not do that.
Mr. TAUZIN. Let me complete the answer, please. The academy said this
is a reference decision, a scientific decision. We are not telling you
you ought to regulate all these wetlands. Your amendment says regulate
all them if they meet the reference definition criteria. This amendment
ought to be defeated.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I certainly rise in strong support of the
substitute amendment. I might just say in comment to that last
interchange, I would suggest that we are not here today to pass a know-
nothing piece of legislation. We should be here today passing
legislation based on the 20 years of experience, more than 20 years of
experience, that we have had, so that we can look at the successes of
the past 20 years and correct the errors of the past.
I believe that is exactly what the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute
does. It takes the best of both worlds. It does not say we are going to
take two steps backwards instead of two steps forward. That is exactly
why I am supporting it today. We must strive to maintain those aspects
of the law that have proved clearly successful over the past 20 years
and apply what we have learned in 20 years to the present situation.
That is exactly the merit of this particular legislation.
With or without the dispute about what the National Academy of
Sciences does or does not do, I think the best of the National Academy
of Sciences wisdom is incorporated in this amendment and used to
supplement it.
I also want to point out from the point of view of the State of New
Jersey, but I think New Jersey's experience and concerns are equal in
many other States, I want to point out that this is a very serious
issue in the State of New Jersey, particularly the State which is the
most densely populated State in the Nation and is clearly a coastal
State. I think the committee bill proposes a much narrower definition
of wetlands, and consequently large tracts of valuable wetlands will
lose their protection in the State of New Jersey.
As has already been documented by my colleague, the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], upwards of 80 percent of existing wetlands in
New Jersey would face a changed status, and this would have a very
serious detrimental effect on the quality of life and the drinking
water quality for all of our citizens. The gentleman has laid that out
for us.
It seems appropriate to me that we should take the advice of the
experience of the last 20 years and apply it.
Second, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] also carefully
documented in his opening statements, the committee bill's language
regarding nonpoint source pollution represents a dramatic change in
existing policy that a coastal State like New Jersey simply cannot
afford to endure.
These changes would bring significant negative economic impacts not
only to New Jersey, but those negative impacts would apply to all
coastal States. I suggest that my colleagues pay close attention to the
problems of the Coastal Zone Management Act that Mr. SAXTON has already
pointed out.
Third, the committee bill section on dredging is of some great
concern to those of us in New Jersey, as I know it is to
Representatives of other adjoining States. Although I know that some of
our New Jersey people have been working on adjustments in the committee
print, or the mark, on that subject, it is my understanding they are
grossly inadequate to the standards that we want to see maintained in
New Jersey.
In conclusion, I simply want to again endorse strongly this
substitute amendment that we have before us.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer
substitute amendment to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Acts Amendments of
1995.
Given that it is now more than 20 years after the original Clean
Water Act was written, we must modify and improve this pivotal
environmental law based on our experience and the documented successes
of the period.
Mr. Chairman, this must not be a one step forward/two steps back
exercise.
In updating the Clean Water Act, the Congress should strive to fix
shortcomings of the existing program, without jeopardizing the progress
that the United States has made in cleaning-up our water supply, at the
same time we strive to maintain those aspects of this law that have
clearly been successful. And that is what the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer
amendment does.
After reviewing the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee's
version of H.R. 961, and consulting with the State of New Jersey's
Department of Environmental Protection [DEP], I cannot supports its
passage, in its present form.
In several areas, this legislation poses a serious threat to the
State of New Jersey and its own efforts to carefully manage our water
supply and environment.
First, the committee bill is proposing a new, much narrower
definition of ``wetlands''. Consequently, large tracts of valuable
wetlands will lose their protection, and could be vulnerable to
development. According to some estimates, upwards of 80 percent of the
existing wetlands in New Jersey would face a change in status under the
committee's new language. And this in New Jersey the most densely
populated State in the Nation which means that this would have a
negative detrimental effect on the drinking water quality of our
citizens.
On the other hand, the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer alternative uses the
definition of wetlands being proposed by the National Academy of
Sciences which studied this issue exhaustively, and just released its
recommendations to the Congress yesterday.
It seems appropriate to me that, on issues of considerable
controversy and complexity, such as wetlands policy, the Congress can,
and should, defer to nonpartisan scientific recommendations such as
these.
Second, as my colleague, from New Jersey, Representative Saxton, has
documented the committee bill's language regarding nonpoint source
pollution represents a dramatic change in existing policy that a
coastal State like New Jersey simply cannot afford to endure. The
committee bill, for example, repeals current requirements on States to
implement aggressive programs to contain run-off from farms, land-use
or cities. These changes would bring significant negative economic
impact.
The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer alternative contains language that
basically reauthorizes the current Coastal Zone Management Act, which
has worked well in helping States like New Jersey address the serious
problems associated with run-off. This is of significant economic
importance to New Jersey and to all coastal States.
Third, the committee bill's section on dredging is of some concern to
the State of New Jersey. I know that some of my colleagues from New
Jersey have been working with the committee on this portion of the
bill, but I understand that our State remains concerned about how the
committee bill's language would impact on its dredging program.
Before concluding, I would also note that while the Saxton-Boehlert-
Roemer substitute differs from the committee bill in these specific
respects, it has retained large segments of H.R. 961. For example,
titles I, II, V, VI, Vii of the alternative are identical to the
committee's proposal.
In conclusion, I will be supporting the Saxton-Boehlert alternative
and urge all of my colleagues in the House to join me in working
together to protect our water supply and environment, while providing
State and local officials with some much-needed flexibility in doing
so.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I do not see the gentleman from Louisiana
on the floor, but I did want to just briefly respond to a little bit of
what the gentleman was saying.
[[Page H4739]] In our substitute on page 130 there are exemptions on
the wetlands and activities that do not require the permits, and in
general this section reads:
(A) . . . Activities are exempt from the requirements of
this section and are not prohibited or otherwise subject to
regulation under this section . . . if . . . (i) result from
normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture, and ranching
activities and practices, including but not limited to
plowing, seeding, cultivating, haying, grazing, normal
maintenance activities, minor drainage, burning of vegetables
in connection with such activities, harvesting for the
production of food, fiber, and forest products, or upland
soil and water conservation practices . . .
We are not trying to say what will take place when somebody cuts some
grass. We are exempting many of these things. There are these
exemptions on the permits.
Mrs. ROUKEMA. I know. The scare tactics do not hold up under close
examination.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the substitute. Of course, I want to
commend Mr. Saxton and the other cosponsors of this substitute. I think
it is important Mr. Saxton mentioned in the beginning that this
substitute adopts 75 percent of the draft of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster.
So those who think that somehow the substitute is a radical document
that is significantly changing the bill are wrong. But the substitute
does make four major changes in four major areas to the substitute that
I think are necessary in order to protect the Nation's water quality.
With regard to wetlands, if I could go through the four, with regard
to wetlands, it is a significant change for the better. As was
mentioned, the bill itself classifies wetlands and specifically
provides the takings language that has been looked at in this House
before. I would submit that by doing the classification in the bill,
you eliminate a significant amount of the Nation's wetlands, as well as
wetlands in New Jersey, from any kind of supervision or any kind of
regulatory process, and essentially you gut some of the wetlands
protection that exists under the Clean Water Act.
The substitute by contrast does not include the classification
system, does not include the takings language, and actually encourages
States to get more involved in wetlands protection and taking over
Federal regulatory authority.
Some of you know, I think, in our own State of New Jersey the Federal
Government has actually approved New Jersey's wetlands program. This
substitute would encourage that kind of delegation to the State and in
effect encourages moving away from Federal regulatory control.
With regard to the nonpoint source pollution under the Coastal Zone
Management Act and storm water discharge, in both cases the existing
statute provides for mandatory program and States are moving in the
direction of providing adequate nonpoint source pollution programs,
also storm water discharge programs.
This bill that we have before us today would change the existing law
and move essentially towards a voluntary system. A voluntary system
will not work. Some States will adopt it and other States will not. We
will not have a consistent program around the country to protect
against nonpoint source and storm water discharges.
Last, Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the dredging
provisions, because they are important. The bill right now changes the
current Clean Water Act by essentially taking EPA out of the role of
dealing with dredging of contaminated materials and disposal of
contaminated dredge materials. I think that is wrong.
Essentially what the committee bill, or the committee mark does is to
say that the Army Corps can provide and decide when contaminated dredge
materials will be disposed, where they will be disposed, and also
allows the Army Corps to provide for waivers against the very criteria
that the corps might establish for disposal of contaminated dredge
material. I think that that is wrong.
The EPA is our Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA should be
involved in deciding whether or not we are going to have sites for
disposal of contaminated dredge materials and where those should be and
when it should be permitted and certainly when those waivers should be
granted.
If you look at this substitute, it really makes some significant
changes in these four areas, which are vital and increasingly more
important to preserving our Nation's water quality, because as we know,
the point source pollution increasingly has been dealt with. Our Clean
Water Act has dealt with point source pollution, and we have made
significant progress on that.
When you talk about wetlands preservation, nonpoint source, storm
water discharge, these are the areas over the next 5 or 10 years where
we need to make significant progress on trying to improve the Nation's
water quality. If we move toward a voluntary system and get our EPA out
of the process, if we declassify wetlands so that much of the wetlands
of the Nation is no longer provided or included under any permit
program, we are not going to see the goals of fishable and swimmable
waters under the Clean Water Act met over the next decade or the next
20 years.
So I wanted to say how important I think it is for all of us to
support this substitute. It is a bipartisan substitute, and the
sponsors have really crafted some excellent legislation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition this afternoon to this substitute
that has been offered. Basically, I have one reason for opposing this
substitute, and that is because it only destroys all the work and
effort that I have tried to bring to this Congress in the area of using
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment.
I think if we take a minute and look back and reflect on the last
election, you had the people of this country making a statement, and
that statement that they made was a very clear statement that they did
not want business as usual in the House of Representatives; that they
did not want regulation as usual in the Congress of the United States
or in its agencies. What they wanted was a change, a different
approach.
You know, last year on the floor of the House of Representatives, and
I served in this House and I will tell you it was run under a rather
oppressive regime, because I tried to bring up cost-benefit analysis on
the floor and it was denied, and it was denied in committee to give
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment an opportunity, it was denied
in the Committee on Rules upstairs to give this an opportunity. We
brought the issue before the House on February 2, and what happened?
The entire House rebelled because we had an opportunity to bring up the
question of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment and applying it
to regulations and to the biggest regulatory agency in the Federal
Government, the Environmental Protection Agency.
{time} 1645
And this entire House of Representatives, bucking the Vice President
of the United States, bucking the Speaker of the House, bucking the
committee chairman, bucking the House leadership, came out there and
voted down that rule. That was the beginning of the change. It was the
beginning when people started to say, Let us make some common sense out
of the way this Congress and this Government imposes regulations on its
citizens.
This substitute wipes out risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis. So
what are we doing here? What progress have we made? Are we prepared to
set back the clock on regulatory reform? And then under the Contract
With America, the Members came out here, bipartisan, and the vote was,
what, 1286 to 141. And if my math is correct, that is a bipartisan
vote. They supported the cost-benefit analysis provisions and risk
assessment provisions that are in this legislation.
So are we prepared this afternoon and in this legislation to wipe out
all our progress, to say regulatory reform that the people have
demanded and this Congress has demanded and the Members have voted on,
is it time to wipe that out?
So there is only one problem with this bill. It wipes out everything
we have done. It wipes out regulatory reform. It wipes out cost-benefit
analysis.
[[Page H4740]] Let me tell you what else it wipes out. I want to tell
you, the other day I went to a grocery store and I met a gentleman. His
name, I think, was Chuck. He was working behind the counter and I was
buying a few items.
And Chuck said, ``You are my Congressman. Mr. Mica, I want to tell
you, you all are doing a good job.''
I said, ``Do you have any message? What would you like to see us
do?''
He said, ``Mr. Mica, there is just one thing I would like to see the
Congress do.'' He says, ``Use common sense.''
That is what this legislation proposes, common sense, that we look at
the costs, that we look at the benefit and we use risk assessment.
This amendment wipes all that out. It wipes out the hope of that
gentleman, hundreds and thousands of Americans who sent to the polls
and said, there needs
to be a change in the conduct and the way this Government conducts its
business.
So we have an opportunity. We are not going to throw out regulations.
This bill does not throw out any regulations. It does not destroy the
environment. It does not harm the environment. It does not do anything
bad.
What it does is says, let us look at the costs. Let us look at the
risks. Let us look at the benefits. Yes, indeed, my colleagues, we have
had years to look at this. We have seen every county, every city, every
State has said, let us make a change. They support the change that is
advocated on a bipartisan basis by our committee.
So we can come out here and we can vote to set the clock back. We can
return to the time of yesterday when we overregulated, when we put
people out of jobs, when we put people out of business, when we lost
our competitiveness stance, or we can make some progress and we can
pass this legislation as it is proposed, without accepting this
substitute, without going back and without destroying the progress that
this Congress has made, both in the Contract With America and in every
successive vote on the question of cost-benefit analysis and risk
assessment.
There is only one thing wrong with this amendment and this proposal
and this substitute. In fact, it destroys everything that we stand for
as far as this Congress, everything we voted for, the 286 Members who
supported regulatory reform, the successive votes that we have had in
this Congress and the will of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this substitute, to enact the bill
without changes, that we have a bipartisan agreement, that we have
cities, counties, States, local government, associations and a broad
base of support for what we are trying to do. And what we are trying to
do is to do one thing, and that is what Chuck asked us to do, bring
common sense to this process.
The CHAIRMAN. For the Members' understanding, this Chair will follow
the precedent that members of the committee receive priority
recognition and will go in that order.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly must oppose the substitute to H.R. 961
offered by Mr. Saxton and Mr. Boehlert--two Members of Congress who are
dedicated and sincere in their efforts and support for clean water
programs.
Many of the provisions in the substitute are laudable and certainly
deserve support. It is what is not in the amendment which is the
problem. Unfortunately, many of the provisions of H.R. 961 which I
believe make meaningful and significant reforms to the Clean Water Act
are not included in this substitute.
For example, this substitute does not contain the stormwater program
reforms which are found in section 322 of H.R. 961.
There is little dispute that the current stormwater permitting
program simply does not work and hasn't since the day it was enacted.
H.R. 961 corrects this problem by treating stormwater runoff as
runoff--and not trying to regulate discharges through cumbersome and
confusing permits. Instead, States will have a variety of tools--
including site specific permits if necessary--which can be used to
fashion a program that will be more effective and cover more facilities
than is possible under the current program.
The stormwater provisions in H.R. 961 were developed with the close
cooperation and consultation of the States and cities which are, after
all, responsible for implementing the program. They support this new
approach to stormwater control.
Let me also briefly mention one other area which has generated a lot
of discussion over the past few weeks--that is the repeal of section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments and the
incorporation of certain successful elements of that coastal program
into the nonpoint source program.
Over the past several years, I have spent many hours listening to
various officials from my State of Wisconsin expressing their concerns
about this program. In fact, Wisconsin may even pull out of the program
because they just don't think it is worth it.
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supports the repeal of
section 6217. The secretary of the department sent a letter to me a few
weeks ago which includes this statement about H.R. 961:
We also support the elimination of the coastal non-point
pollution control program contained in Section 6217 * * *.
With the provisions proposed to be added to Section 319 to
provide for protection of coastal waters, Section 6217 is no
longer needed. We favor having one non-point source
management program in Wisconsin that provides for the
achievement of water quality goals in all the waters of the
State, including coastal areas.
Again, while I applaud the intentions and sincerity of the sponsors
of this substitute, I do not believe their amendment is preferable to
the overall approach of H.R. 961, and so I must urge defeat of this
amendment.
Mr. TUCKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I thought long and hard about this bill that we have
before us here today. I have been a member of the committee with
jurisdiction over this bill for the last 3 years. I have been a Member
of this body. I have seen up close the difference between this bill and
the one in the last Congress, the 103d Congress. I know there are a lot
of concerns over the issues of nonpoint source pollution, storm water
management, wetlands and risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses.
I have heard the complaints from witnesses who have testified in
committee hearings. What I am hearing from people across the country,
Mr. Chairman, from farmers as well as from business men and women is
that the frustration level has reached a peak.
I commend the efforts the present chairman has made, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], in addressing many of these issues and
many of these problems in his Clean Water Act. I thank him for the good
job he is trying to do in trying to bring together many diverging
points of view. However, in the final analysis, I submit that it comes
down to one thing and one thing only in mind. And that is, does this
bill make our water cleaner or not?
On closer examination of this bill, Mr. Chairman, I am compelled to
oppose the bill and to support the substitute. Our Nation's rivers,
lakes and coastal waters have become cleaner and more fishable and
swimmable since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972. That is
23 years of progress toward a better environment for our future, our
children's future.
I have heard time and again from my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle that we must fight to reduce the budget deficit so that we do
not place a financial burden on our children's future or, as it has
been commonly coined, so that we do not mortgage our children's future.
I think it is equally important to leave a world that is
environmentally secure so that we do not give away our children's
future.
I think that is imperative. It is imperative that we fix the
provisions of this act that have not worked well, but that does not
mean reducing standards that have made our waters cleaner. The Saxton-
Boehlert-Roemer substitute amendment takes this approach. This
substitute is a reasoned approach, fixing the Clean Water Act. It
addresses the wetlands issue without putting real wetlands at risk. It
is silent on the issue of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis,
contrary to what some of my colleagues would have you believe.
[[Page H4741]] It allows more input at the State and local level
regarding decisions on development of wetlands. The substitute provides
more flexibility for States under the Coastal Zone Management Act. The
substitute would not take away standards needed to keep our fisheries
and oyster beds in good health, and it reduces the loopholes and
exemptions that allow the release of pollutants into our waterways.
There would be a 10-year moratorium on the implementation of any new
storm water requirements on smaller communities and light industry, and
it provides the much-needed funds to farmers and others who are working
hard to control nonpoint source pollution.
Mr. Chairman, in light of all the circumstances surrounding this
substitute, I simply wanted to urge a vote for this moderate and what I
believe to be a well-reasoned approach, safeguarding our Nation's
waterways. A vote for the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute to H.R. 961
is a vote for safeguarding the clean water of our children, the
children who deserve a clean future.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TUCKER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to commend the gentleman on his very
thoughtful and fine statement and we appreciate very much the
gentleman's support.
I would just say to the gentleman that he has correctly pointed out,
just as we owe our children a legacy in terms of the finances and the
way we spend our money today and the way we borrow our money today, we
certainly owe our children a legacy in terms of the world and the
physical condition that we leave it. I appreciate very much the support
of the gentleman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the alternative. I want to make
some comments, first, about wetlands. We cannot preserve clean water.
We cannot have fish, we cannot preserve waterfowl and we cannot limit
flooding unless we have wetlands. I know the controversy about which
wetlands to regulate and which wetlands not to regulate. But if the
bill goes through the way it is, we will not have any wetlands to
regulate.
{time} 1700
Mr. Chairman, there are serious flaws in the lack of science, or the
complete absence of science, in the evaluation on how to delineate a
wetland. People have been talking about the loss of value to people's
property. If we will look at this in a broad sense, the vast majority
of people in the United States will have their property value increased
as a result of a carefully crafted, well-managed wetlands program. I do
not know whose property value would be diminished if we continue to
have wetlands.
If Members will look at this map, this is the State of Maryland up
here, and this is the Chesapeake Bay. The value of wetlands to the
Chesapeake Bay and its watershed in this region that we see on the map
is in the billions of dollars. What the wetlands do, they filter out
pollution, they limit flooding, they provide habitat for waterfowl,
they do a whole host of things that increase the value of people's
property in the region of the Chesapeake Bay.
I want Members to look at something. I am going to turn the map
upside down. This, as we notice, is the Chesapeake Bay. Here we are in
Washington, DC, and this is the Potomac River. We have a lot of
development around Washington, DC, and there is much limited
development in these other areas, which means they soak up the
nutrients, the toxins, the silt that the rain normally washes into the
water. We can see we do not have that protection around Washington, DC.
If we look down here in Richmond, VA, nothing against these great
communities, if we look in the vicinity of Richmond, VA, we also see
the lack of protection, because of the lack of wetlands, and we see the
silt going into the water.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to turn the map upside down. I want Members
to imagine that this is a root that goes up to the trunk of a tree.
When we have a root in the ground, the root absorbs nutrients. It
absorbs anything that is in the ground, whether it is water, whether it
is water inundated with nutrients, a whole variety of things.
If there is a tree in a wetland, this tree is going to absorb those
nutrients before they go anywhere else, and preserve the quality of
water where the tree happens to stand, and it could be a forested
wetland, or it could be a wetland. If this is a tree, these nutrients
that you see pouring into the Chesapeake Bay would not pour into the
Chesapeake Bay. This diminishes, right now, because they are not being
absorbed, the value of the Chesapeake Bay, and reduces its
productivity.
One other comment I want to make about the bill. That is the pure
lack of science that is in the delineation criteria for what is a
wetland. Right now in the bill, in order for an area to be considered a
wetland, it has to be saturated at the surface, that means water ponded
on the surface for 21 consecutive days during the growing season, and
it has to have hydric soil, and it has to have the wettest of obligate
vegetation. That is like a cattail.
In this picture, this area is wet for 21 consecutive days during the
growing season, it has hydric soil, but it does not have the third
criteria which meets the provisions of the bill to be a wetland,
obligate plant species. If that is not a wetland, even if that is wet
for 40 days during the growing season, if it does not have that third
criteria, it is not a wetland.
There is one other comment that I think is worth mentioning. This is
a pond in Nebraska. This pond in Nebraska, and I will show it to the
other side, in case they cannot see it there, this is a pond in
Nebraska. What it does, it offers habitat for migrating waterfowl. This
is not always wet for 21 consecutive days during the growing season, or
has obligate wetland species. It has hydric soil. It could be,
unfortunately, wet for 20 days during the growing season, 20 days right
after the growing season, and even if it had the obligate wetland
species, still would not be classified as a wetland.
When we are traveling long distances if we are going on a trip with
the family, you have to stop some places. My kids like McDonald's and I
like diners, but we generally have to stop to consume a little
refreshment. If we lose these wetlands, we lose an awful lot of value
to property, we lose a lot of value to this Nation.
The CHAIRMAN. the time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Shuster and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Gilchrest was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is it true that
under our bill, Maryland and Nebraska, the two examples the gentleman
used, would be totally free to designate the two examples he gives as a
wetland and regulate them as a wetland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, it is my
understanding that the States go by that. Since wetlands are regulated
as waters of the United States, and they come under the Federal
jurisdiction, the wetland delineation criteria is also used by the
State.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to my friend that the law
is very clear, and the technical staff tells me that in these examples,
the State of Maryland or the State of New Jersey could regulate that
land as a wetland under State regulations.
Mr. GILCHREST. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, even if that is
true----
Mr. SHUSTER. It is.
Mr. GILCHREST. As the greatest legislative body in the world, which
is the U.S. Congress, I think we should use the best scientific
evidence available to determine the delineation criteria for a wetland,
which is not the case in this bill now, and once we know the science,
which is available to use now, we can make the policy. However, I think
we are making policy in the absence of information.
Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will yield further, I would say to my
friend
[[Page H4742]] what may well be good for Maryland, what Maryland under
this bill is totally free to do, may not be good for Arizona or Utah.
That is the very reason we say let the States make these decisions. I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I think the States should have the
information that the National Academy of Sciences has to offer to us as
Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The time for the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest
] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Saxton and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one other comment
on the compensation criteria, which people say is absent in this bill.
We already passed a law to compensate landowners for wetlands and for
the Endangered Species Act, so putting it into the Clean Water Act I
think is totally unnecessary.
I do want to make a comment about compensation and the Fifth
Amendment property rights. If your property is taken away for the
public good, you are to be compensated. Everybody endorses that.
However, if your property is, in my judgment, reasonably regulated to
prevent pollution of your neighbor's property or to prevent public
harm, compensation in this area is a whole other different story.
Should we compensate people to prevent them from polluting? I do not
think we should.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. I just want to clarify the position of many people who
support the substitute, Mr. Chairman. First of all, on risk assessment,
if the President signs the legislation, and the Senate passes that, I
voted for this legislation that would apply to this bill, as the same
with takings. Therefore, just because we do not put every new thing in
there----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Roemer and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, it is the strong position of many people
who support this substitute that we support such ideas as cost-benefit
analysis, risk assessments, and the takings. I was one of the 72
Democrats who voted for that legislation. I hope if those two pieces of
legislation pass this body, that we apply both pieces of legislation to
this bill and to this substitute, if it passes.
However, to hear other people argue on the floor of the House of
Representatives that we have to attach this stuff to every single bill
that comes through here would make the case, illogical as it might be,
that we have to put the Balanced Budget amendment on every single piece
of legislation that goes through here. That is simply not true. Many of
us support those ideas and those reforms. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. GILCHREST. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I urge a
vote on the Saxton substitute.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support for the Boehlert-Saxton-
Roemer substitute. This better, safer alternative represents a
moderate, common-sense and bi-partisan--quite frankly, an above party--
approach to cleaning up our rivers, lakes and beaches without turning
our back on the health and safety of Americans--and it insures that my
constituents in San Diego will not have to spend billions to build an
unnecessary sewage plant.
Fortunately from a purely parochial viewpoint both H.R. 961 and this
safer alternative provide regulatory relief for San Diego and
recognizes that our current sewage treatment system adequately protects
our ocean. Let me repeat, this means that both bills would remove the
requirement that would force San Diego to waste billions of dollars to
modify our sewage treatment system.
But with Dan Diego assured of regulatory relief and the savings of
billions of dollars, we must also be sure that our drinking water is
protected, and that we can fish and swim in San Diego's rivers, lakes
and beaches.
Unfortunately, H.R. 961 will radically change the Nations' laws that
protect our beaches and drinking water.
H.R. 961 would increase the dangers of pesticides and chemical
contamination of our drinking water--imposing higher costs to clean up
our drinking water or forcing all of us to buy bottled water. It would
let large agribusiness and industrial polluters off the hook from
preventing the contamination of our drinking water--and it would pass
those costs along to all San Diegans. That right, we consumers will pay
more to protect a few special interests.
San Diego gets its drinking water from the Colorado River. Many
smaller cities from four States dump their treated sewage into the
Colorado River, and before this water gets to San Diego, it must go
through one of the largest agricultural areas in the country. Unlike
the safer alternative. H.R. 961 would allow these cities and large
agribusiness corporations to flood chemicals and other pollutants--at
will--into our drinking water supply.
H.R. 961 also threatens our economy and our health. It includes the
repeal of a section of the Coastal Zone Management Act--which will
eliminate current protections for our beaches. How can we attract
tourism if visitors cannot swim in our beaches? San Diego's beaches are
already closed to often. Is this really the time to get rid of the very
protections that help to keep the beaches safe for our families?
The safer alternative would not repeal the Coastal Zone Management
Act program that protects our beaches. In fact, the substitute has
adopted the language drafted by the Coastal States Organization, which
represents the Governors of our Nation's coastal States, and continues
to protect our beaches--for our children's health and for our economic
health.
There are three critical questions that on behalf of San Diegans, I
must ask about these bills: First, will we have clean water to drink?
second, will we have a clean beach to swim at? and, third, will we get
relief from the multi-billion dollar secondary treatment boondoggle?
With the safer alternative the answers are: Yes to safe drinking
water, yes to clean beaches, and yes to relief from higher sewage
taxes.
Without the safer alternative the answers are no, no, and yes.
San Diego will get the regulatory relief it needs in either bill. But
I cannot in good conscience support H.R. 961--a bill that purports to
help San Diego on the one hand, but destroys the safety of our drinking
water and beaches on the other.
San Diegans are asking three important questions. Let's not get one
out of three right. Support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute
``Safer Alternative'' and answer ``yes'' to all three.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, first it was school lunches, student loans,
and Medicare. Now the Republican leadership has trained its sights on
clean water.
As cochair of the Long Island Sound Caucus, I rise to support the
Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute. Unlike H.R. 961's sweeping, 326-page
rollback of one our most effective environmental laws, the substitute
recognizes that the battle for clean water has not yet been won.
Unlike H.R. 961, this proposal will not be a boon for polluters, and
penalize anyone who bathes, swims, fishes, boats, or recreates in
lakes, rivers, and oceans. Unlike H.R. 961, this substitute recognizes
that if you allow polluters upstream to discharge more pollutions into
the water--as H.R. 961 does--it's the people downstream who will
ultimately get saddled with the bill to clean up the pollution.
As my constituents who live near Long Island Sound and the Hudson
River know, all is not well with our rivers and bays. More than half of
New York's rivers and 85 percent of its estuaries are closed to
activities such as fishing and swimming at some time during the year.
According to the most recent statistics available, New York's ocean
beaches were closed completely on 93 occasions and more
[[Page H4743]] than 700 advisories were issued against swimming. More
than 400 fishing advisories were issued to protect the public from
ingesting contaminated fish.
In New York and Connecticut, business, labor, and environmental
groups have set aside old disagreements and joined together in
developing--with the aid of the EPA--a plan to clean up Long Island
Sound. None of this would have been possible without the underpinning
of the Clean Water Act, and now is certainly not the time to pull the
rug out from under their feet. If H.R. 961 is enacted, it will only
cause more delay and more expense to move forward with environmental
clean-up in my region.
The vast majority of New York's water quality problems are caused by
nonpoint pollution--from sources other than factory or sewage
discharges. And yet H.R. 961 repeals the only Federal program that can
reduce nonpoint pollution. In fact, two-thirds of coastal States have
invested millions of dollars over the past 4 years crafting runoff
control programs that are nearly ready for approval under the auspices
of the Clean Water Act. In keeping with the wishes of the coastal
States themselves, the substitute preserves this important program.
The substitute also removes some of H.R. 961's more egregious
rollbacks of environmental protection.
Across the Nation, swimming and fishing are not available to millions
of Americans because of pollution that runs into waterways every time
it rains. In fact, more than one-third of all our Nation's water
quality impairment is the result of stormwater discharge. Yet, H.R. 961
repeals the entire EPA stormwater permitting system, thereby ending all
monitoring and enforceable requirements for the 342 cities and 134,000
industrial facilities that currently have stormwater discharge permits.
Thankfully, the substitute preserves the act's stormwater permitting
program, while providing a 10-year moratorium on any new requirements
for cities under 100,000 or small industries.
The substitute also repeals 961's disastrous wetlands classification
system--adopting the National Governors Association's reasonable
wetlands proposal instead.
Now is not the time to relax our efforts to ensure clean water.
Estuaries like Long Island Sound--a $6 billion-a-year resource for the
entire region's fishing, boating, and recreation industries--are at
stake. I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer
substitute. Let's not turn back the clock.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner]
has expired.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
may have an additional 5 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman can seek her own time in due course.
There are Members of the committee who have not had an opportunity to
speak.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an
additional 2 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I am constrained to object. There are
Members of the committee who have not had a chance to speak yet.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The Chair traditionally
recognizes 1- or 2-minute extensions of time, with unanimous consent.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from new York?
There was no objection.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, debate here in the House of Representatives lends
itself to some interesting concepts. I must say to my dear friend, the
gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], that I have never quite
thought of the Chesapeake Bay as a tree. However, now I am getting that
concept into my head, and I want to respond simply by saying that I
think the answer of the chairman of the committee was an appropriate
one.
H.R. 961 is a good bill, and it will be a good law for the whole
country. If individual States want to exact a higher standard, in
accordance with the process that are available to them from State to
State to State, they are at liberty to adopt that.
However, I rise in very strong opposition to the substitute.
{time} 1715
For some reason proponents are billing this measure as 75 percent
H.R. 961, as though that percentage justifies the substitute. Come on.
The substitute guts the bill, and there is a big difference between the
bill and the substitute.
The substitute fails to address any of the major themes of H.R. 961
dealing with regulatory reform, unfunded mandates relief, risk
assessment, cost-benefit analysis, protection regarding private
property takings, allowing States to demonstrate their ability in
finding solutions to water quality issues, and wetlands policy.
Instead, the substitute retains the current top-down, the ``bureaucracy
knows best'' approach to solving the country's remaining water quality
problems.
The Clean Water Amendments of 1995 provide for voluntary incentive-
based programs in local, State, and Federal partnership to advance
clean water goals with nonpoint source pollution. The substitute does
not.
It also gives State and local officials the flexibility to manage and
control stormwater like other forms of runoff, which helps reduce the
high cost of unfunded mandates. The substitute does not.
Finally, it requires the Environmental Protection Agency to subject
its mandates and regulations to risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis, and the substitute does not.
For the first time in a long time, we are successfully working
together at all levels of government to meet our water quality needs.
We do not need straitjackets to have clean drinking water, nor should
we allow the Federal bureaucracy who knows the least about forming or
operating a small business to deem what is a wetland from their
Washington offices.
Through its increased flexibility, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995
benefits citizens, farmers, businesses, consumers, local and State
governments, and the taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, these last-minute attempts to derail and weaken this
strong bipartisan effort, whether they are in the form of amendments or
so-called substitutes, should be voted down. Such efforts, in my view,
are a breach of faith with the changes the American people demand. They
renege on the need for smart regulation, good science, cost-effective
risk reduction, and common sense.
The Washington bureaucracy and the professional environmental
elitists have been ramming these edicts down the throat of the American
taxpayer for far too long. It is time for citizens to have a say in the
process. I am delighted that in this bill we have provided for that
forum, for a citizen voice. Vote for the Clean Water Amendments of 1995
and against the Boehlert-Roemer substitute.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert
substitute.
The proposed clean water amendments, H.R. 961, amount in my mind to
nothing less than environmental sacrilege. The underlying principle
behind the bill seems to be pollute now and leave a debased environment
for our children. They take us back 20 years to an environmental stone
age.
H.R. 961 would have a severe and negative impact on New Jersey and
the 13th Congressional District in particular. The EPA 1992 toxic
inventory shows release of toxic material into New Jersey surface water
of more than 400,000 pounds. The current law would be modified by H.R.
961 to allow for downgrading water quality standards where they result
in disproportionate costs over benefits.
This is unfair to the more than 90 percent of major industrial
facilities and municipal facilities that are in compliance with the
Clean Water Act in New Jersey. It rewards those who have resisted
investing in pollution cleanup measures and punishes those who were
responsible corporate citizens.
The State of New Jersey has a thriving tourism industry doing over
$10 billion in business annually. The State
[[Page H4744]] has engaged in aggressive fish consumption and
beachwater quality monitoring. Under H.R. 961, EPA is now directed to
issue guidance instead of regulation with regard to fish consumption
advisories and monitoring beachwater quality.
Nonpoint source pollution is responsible for roughly half of the
remaining pollution in the country. H.R. 961 modifies current law to
clarify that voluntary or incentive-based approaches are allowable in
lieu of regulatory programs. It also repeals sections of the Coastal
Zone Management Act which requires coastal States to develop nonpoint
source control programs. This would hit New Jersey's coastal tourism
industries and port activities very hard, since they are at the
receiving end of newly degraded waters.
Simply put, H.R. 961 sets the clock back more than 20 years.
The bill pushes back deadlines, requires waivers, creates huge new
exemptions and mandates major changes in the core of the program, the
water quality standards, and permit conditions.
This is a piece of legislation that has been the most successful
pollution cleanup program in existence.
However, H.R. 961 does also the following: It waives industrial
pretreatment of waste; delays dates for meeting deadlines if Federal
funding falls short of the authorized levels; severely limits EPA's
ability to control dangerous toxic substances; removes thousands of
acres of wetlands from Federal protection, which could lead to more
flooding, lower fish catches and poorer water quality.
We have talked about the Coastal Zone Management Act. It also
eliminates the ban on building sewage treatment plants in flood plains
and wetlands and thereby encourages sewage overflow; and it puts it on
a deadline for the control of agricultural runoff, to the detriment of
downstream users.
There are provisions in this bill that no one is quite sure what is
meant. The antibacksliding provisions, which are supposed to ensure
that permit changes do not result in different kinds of water
pollution, are virtually, in my mind, incomprehensible. The provision
for trading point source pollution credits between air and water may
not be a bad idea, but it is completely unclear how it is supposed to
work or how it will affect downstream users.
That was before the markup. Now it is worse.
There is a wholesale exemption for livestock feeder operations, no
matter how large. It is a total exemption for an entire industry to
dump animal waste into lagoons, retention ponds, wetlands, and other
waters of the United States without a permit. This is the exact source
of the deadly cryptosporidium contamination which killed so many people
in Wisconsin.
Current law lists 5 nonconventional pollutants for which a discharger
may seek a modification of the best available standards of treatment.
This bill goes from 5,000 to 70,000 different listings.
There are terms which go beyond vague. Pollution credit trading,
statistical compliance, and innovative technologies are frequent
additions to provide flexibility which are in reality techno-babble for
loopholes.
This bill is a great leap backward in the control of water pollution.
It is government by anecdote. If a special interest group wanted a
small change in the law, it was generally granted at the expense of the
environment. The result is a bill which has numerous contradictory
provisions and repeals many longstanding commitments to water quality.
It is not the type of legacy we want to bequeath to our children, the
next generation, as we approach a new century.
I urge support of the substitute and defeat of the legislation.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 961 and oppose the Boehlert
substitute. Everyone here today supports clean water, and H.R. 961
works to keep our water clean.
Chairman Shuster has done yeoman's work in bringing together all
sides in a compromise fashion, and has earned overwhelming bipartisan
support from Republicans and Democrats in committee with an
overwhelming 46 to 16 vote when this legislation passed the committee.
It has also earned bipartisan support from State and local officials.
Let me list them once again. This is a list of some of the public
sector groups that have endorsed H.R. 961:
The National Governors Association, a bipartisan group; the National
League of Cities, a bipartisan group Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, a bipartisan group;
American Public Works Association, a bipartisan group; Association of
Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, a bipartisan group; Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies, a bipartisan group.
In fact, I have with me a letter that the President of the
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control
Administrators sent to the committee, highlighting the many major
improvements the States have repeatedly asked for and requested.
Finally they were included in H.R. 961.
I would like to quickly list those 12 items that the committee has
agreed to help State and locals by including. In fact, the letter says
that while the States have repeatedly requested from Congress and that
by working together they believe that considerable strides have been
made to more efficiently and effectively deliver environmental results.
With its new comprehensive approaches,
and I am quoting this letter,
to non-point source, watershed and stormwater management,
H.R. 961 sets forth a framework that better protects this
Nation's waterways.
They have listed below provisions which are consistent with the goals
of States and this association has asked for in a bipartisan fashion.
According to the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators, H.R. 961
clearly anticipates and enhanced State management role relative to
clean water program implementation.
H.R. 961 maintains a firm commitment to the Clean Water Act's goals,
with more flexibility at State and local levels to determine how they
can be best achieved.
The letter also says that H.R. 961 establishes a national program to
bring nonpoint source pollution under control, which provides a
comprehensive rather than site-specific demonstration program, an
unambiguous goal to meet water quality standards within a specified
deadline, increased program funding to assist States with expanded
implementation activities.
The fourth point they make in their letter says that H.R. 961 enables
States to focus scarce resources on priority problems by providing 10-
year permits, control strategies that consider the relative
contributions of both point and nonpoint sources, the incorporation and
active promotion of pollution prevention, and continued State
certification authority under section 401 over hydropower facilities.
The letter also points out that H.R. 961 establishes a comprehensive
framework to address stormwater runoff that goes beyond the limited
number of sources covered by current law and addresses the multitude of
stormwater problems, sets an unambiguous goal to comply with water
quality standards within a specified deadline, and gives State
flexibility to tailor solutions to local circumstances.
H.R. 961, according to this letter, encourages States to take the
watershed approach to problem solving and consolidate planning and
reporting requirements. H.R. 961 also, according to the letter,
increases authorized funding for State implementation under section 106
in a State revolving loan fund.
H.R. 961 also streamlines SRF requirements to assure the construction
of more projects at less cost. H.R. 961 addresses the special needs of
small and hardship communities, and H.R. 961 codifies a consensus
agreement of the States, the cities, and the U.S. EPA on combined sewer
overflows.
H.R. 961 clarifies that as coregulators, States' consultations with
U.S. EPA are not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Last,
this letter points out that H.R. 961 requires Federal facilities to
comply with the law to the same extent as other dischargers.
[[Page H4745]] Mr. Chairman, H.R. 961 is a product of discussions
with local and State officials, those who are responsible for
administering and living with the Clean Water Act. For the first time,
we have legislation----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Weller was allowed to proceed for an
additional 30 seconds.)
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a bipartisan effort.
H.R. 961 passed the committee with a vote of 46 to 16, clearly
overwhelming bipartisan support.
I urge Members of the House to support the committee, vote for H.R.
961, and reject the substitute.
{time} 1730
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say there are many Governors and State
legislators in favor of this substitute. The National Governors'
Association wrote, ``We believe the provisions on wetlands in H.R. 961
are inconsistent with the Governors' wetlands policy in several
important respects.''
The National Conference of State Legislators, ``We could not support
the bill unless a number of important revisions are made.''
Finally, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control on coastal nonpoint programs, ``Significantly changing this
portion at this time would not only waste taxpayer money, but would
send the wrong message.''
I think that is just some quotes from a number of States' legislators
that support the substitute. And I thank the gentleman.
Mr. WISE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
substitute. It is not all I would want it to be, but then none of this
legislation is, to be honest with you, and somewhere between this bill
and the present law that we are operating under is the perfect
solution.
But let me just make a couple of notes. I come from an industrial
area, and so I do not look with total alarm at some of the changes that
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and committee have
brought, and in fact I think there is a need for some flexibility
dealing with the emissions requirements, because I point out that many
of our industries have made significant investment and have complied
with cleanup requirements, and often what we are finding is in meeting
the final 10 percent of cleanup that you have is that it can be far
more expensive then the previous 90 percent, and that some flexibility
should be allowed.
The current Clean Water Act has reduced large amounts of point source
pollution. Now we must look at how we can make sure that we continue
that effort. While having done a lot of good, the remaining problems
become more specialized, they become harder to fix with rigid one-size-
fits-all solutions. The point source provisions of H.R. 961 do attempt
to tap some of that creativity.
I have some concern, Mr. Chairman, about the current system of
command-and-control regulation, and I think probably in some cases they
have gone about as far as they can in making major gains for the
environment.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, I look at the H.R. 961 section 301,
subsection (q), which for instance permits the Administrator to
authorize States to modify or permit requirements if pollution
prevention pressures or practices will result in greater overall
reduction than would otherwise be achievable under the existing
command-and-control regime. This would seem to make sense. Pollution
trading, which there are provisions of that in the existing Clean Air
Act, also I think is something that should be looked at. The
President's own reinventing environmental regulation initiative clause
on the effluent trading program similar to this one is a cost-effective
approach for reducing water pollution. So I think we should not be
afraid of some flexibility.
But the reason I am supporting this substitute, Mr. Chairman, is
about other areas as well, wetlands for instance. I hold a candle to no
one being frustrated by wetlands bureaucrats. They make honest and
responsible landowners be in fear of cattails that might suddenly
spring up, but at some time I believe Congress should make decisions
based on science. It should look at the fact it chartered to study by
the National Science Academy a few years ago designed to help shed some
light on this subject, and we have the results of that study, and yet
we are racing ahead with the legislation.
I too believe that you ought to eliminate most of the agencies that
are involved in wetlands disputes, it ought not to be some kind of
lottery that you go through: Did you satisfy Fish and Wildlife, did you
satisfy Interior, did you satisfy this, and just when you think you
have gotten to the end of the obstacle course, whoops, up pops another
agency.
But by the same token, I am not sure we ought to be putting into
legislation the kind of scientific standards or hoped to be scientific
standards that are here.
I so I have great concern about that. And I also have concern about
attaching the risk assessment provisions to this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, there is a reason that many of the people in this
Chamber today are drinking bottled water out of the offices. There is a
reason that bottled water has become one of fastest-growing industries
in the country. There is a reason when I go to the grocery store I am
now seeing whole shelves of bottled water. For some reason, I do not
know whether I was ignorant or not, I used to turn the tap on and now
worry. Now I worry. So it seems to me that this Congress ought to be
taking a little more time being a little more reflective before it
passes the law of the forest, and for that reason I support the
substitute, and would urge my colleagues to do the same.
(Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to speak out of order for
1 minute.)
tribute to duke cunningham, first ace of the vietnam war
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inform the body that at
precisely this moment, 5:35, 23 years ago today, our colleague,
Congressman ``Duke'' Cunningham became the first ace of the Vietnam
war, was attacked by 22 MiG's, shot down 3 MiG's then was shot down
himself, and as he was ejected and was about to be captured, a Marine
helicopter swooped in, rescued him. And so on this anniversary of that
momentous occasion I think we all want to join in saluting the first
ace of the Vietnam war, our colleague, Congressman ``Duke'' Cunningham.
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this substitute amendment, and
let me begin by saying that I have the highest respect for the
distinguished gentleman offering this amendment, and I admire their
commitment to clean water. But having said that, I believe there are at
least two fundamental flaws to the substitute amendment.
First, as it stands, H.R. 961 provides individuals flexibilities for
individual States to implement storm water programs, watershed
management programs, and provides commonsense relief to small and rural
communities.
The substitute does not include crucial regulatory reform provisions
that this House has already overwhelmingly approved in principle, the
ideas of risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, and ending unfunded
Federal mandates.
Under the substitute, it will be harder for States to regulate
smarter in order to provide more pollution prevention at a far less
cost.
Second, I must oppose the substitute amendment because it does not
take critical steps towards fairness that are in H.R. 961. No subject
arouses more passionate opposition in my district than the excesses of
the Federal wetlands programs administered under the Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 includes commonsense classification and delineation criteria
for wetlands that reflect the genuine differences in quality and
utility of wetlands.
I would just like to tell a little bit about the State of Iowa. In
Iowa we have 25 percent of the grade A farmland in the world, not just
in the United States, but in the world. And if the requirements that
are in this substitute amendment were in place in
[[Page H4746]] 1993 when we had the floods in the Midwest, that grade
A farmland could be determined to be a permanent wetland. It is not
enough today that farmers have to fight weather problems and fight the
markets, but now they have a threat from the Government itself coming
in and taking over their land and telling them how they can use their
land. And you talk about property values. What more would reduce the
value of agricultural crop land than to determine that to be a
permanent wetland?
Also, much of the land that I am referring to has been in families
like my own for well over 100 years. They have had to put some tile in,
much of it was hand dug by our ancestors, 80, 90 years ago, and today
because of these requirements you can no longer improve or repair those
tile lines, because again of the bureaucrats.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it absolutely clear that
the alternative permits repair of tiles on agricultural land. Our
alternative does permit that.
Mr. LATHAM. Reclaiming my time, but you also talk about delineation
of what is a wetland, and today under this substitute those wetlands
can be defined as a permanent wetland, any pothole out there that a
duck would not land in under this substitute can be classified as a
wetland.
I really resent the idea too that somehow farmers are not
conservationists, are not environmentalists. I tell you on our land, on
our farm, we are the ones who have to make a living off of that land.
We are the ones who are raising families who drink that water. And
anyone who has the idea that a farmer is not concerned about the
quality of life and the preservation of that land and also seeing to it
that that water is purified is simply wrong and has no idea of what
agriculture is about today or about what a family farm is about. And
once again, people who think we are out there trying to pollute the
environment simply do not understand reality.
Earlier someone tried to blame what happened in Milwaukee on a
farmer. And the fact of the matter is, and it has been shown that that
was wildlife that put that bacteria in the river, and if anyone thinks
that a new Federal mandate or regulation is going to control wildlife
out here again they certainly do not understand what is outside of the
Beltway here in Washington.
This debate, folks, is about Washington regulators against the farm
families, the small business people, and the local governments in
America. H.R. 961 reflects the interests of the farm families and the
small business people and the local governments, and the substitute
represents the idea of the regulators, and I ask Members to vote no on
the substitute and support H.R. 961.
Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in favor of the substitute bill being
offered by my colleagues, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Roemer, and Mr. Boehlert.
During the lengthy committee markup of H.R. 961, I listened closely to
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as they delivered thoughtful
opinions on every aspect of this complex legislation. In the end, I
voted not to report H.R. 961 out of committee.
Mr. Chairman, my vote against H.R. 961 is not a vote against clean
water. In fact, it is very much the opposite. My vote against H.R. 961
is a vote for clean water, for good health, and for an adequate level
of environmental protection. I believe the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert
substitute is a sensible solution that can provide us with all of those
things.
In my State of South Carolina, many programs under the current act
are administered by the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control--DHEC.
On yesterday, I was contacted by DHEC and they expressed to me they
would rather have no change than the damaging changes found in H.R.
961. Now when the agency that was created to protect the health and
environment of the people oppose a bill, that should cause us all to
wonder about the ramifications of it.
The comments made by DHEC are not unfounded. Let me tell you why.
Throughout the debate on clean water in both this Congress and the
last, we have heard what some call tales about people who catch their
evening meals in the streams behind their homes, or our of the rivers
that run through their communities. Let me assure you that these are
not just fish tales.
Mr. Chairman, this is a reality, especially in rural districts such
as the one I proudly serve in South Carolina. Over 48 States have
issued over 1,300 fish advisories for recreational and subsistence
anglers. As of 1994 in South Carolina, there were 18 fish advisories in
effect. That is up from only three in 1992. Do the math anyway you
like, but the sum adds up to there is more that needs to be done.
The provisions in the substitute bill would keep these waters clean
and allow these people to keep fishing in the waters, and their
children to keep playing in the waters without the hazards they could
encounter if H.R. 961 were to be put in place. Among other harmful
changes, H.R. 961 would allow water quality standards to be relaxed for
up to 70,000 pollutants.
I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but I feel that is 70,000 more
pollutants than the people of the Sixth Congressional District of South
Carolina need to be exposed to.
I imagine if I asked for a show of hands of those Members who have
visited the South Carolina coast, there would be quite a few.
Our State is one of 35 that belong to the Coastal States
Organization. This is yet another reason to support this substitute
because it contains provisions developed by the Coastal States
Organization that are intended to protect these fragile coastal areas
from runoff pollution.
The coastal lands need special provisions. The Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert
substitute would give these special protections as developed by the
Coastal States Organization, and allow for continued responsible use of
our coastal areas.
Mr. Chairman, it is no doubt that people all across the country know
the value of clean water. In a recent Times-Mirror poll, 76 percent of
Americans said they felt we should do more, not less to protect our
Nation's waters. However, no one knows the value of clean water as much
as the residents of rural communities across America. There is a term
we like to use today--``Environmental Justice.''
I don't care what you call it, but the concept remains the same.
People living in small, mostly rural and poorer communities across
America consistently suffer from more health problems due to
environmental negligence. It is for those people that I rise today to
support the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about the markup of
H.R. 961 in the Transportation of Infrastructure Committee. I want my
chairman, Mr. Shuster, to know that even though we ultimately came down
on different sides on H.R. 961, I congratulate him on the job he did in
presiding over the markup, and I appreciate the sincerity of his views.
And I want my ranking member, Mr. Mineta, to know how much I
appreciate his leadership and commitment on this critical issue.
Mr. Chairman, in the South we tend to tell stories to make a point,
or use cliches to describe things. In keeping with that tradition, I
would like to share two old adages we should all heed. One is ``if it
ain't broke don't fix it,'' and the other is ``if you mess it up, clean
it up.'' Mr. Chairman, this is the underlying message behind the
substitute legislation being offered today, and I encourage all of my
colleagues to joint with me in supporting clean water with a ``yes''
vote on the Saxton-Roemer-Boehlert substitute.
{time} 1745
Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the substitute and commend
my colleagues for their fine work on this bill.
[[Page H4747]] As a strong supporter or regulatory reform, I was
proud to vote for the regulatory reform proposals contained in the
Contract With America.
And I rise today in the strong belief that indiscriminant regulation
will sap our economic strength, our competitiveness and our future.
I believe that this substitute is consistent with regulatory reform.
First, most of the provisions of the substitute reflect the
provisions in the chairman's bill. But, the substitute recognizes the
importance of controlling stormwater runoff.
At the same time, the substitute provides States with flexibility in
dealing with this problem. States would be able to target runoff
control programs where they are needed most. And States would be given
greater authority to use incentive-based programs and planning and
management.
Similarly, the substitute would not overburden our small businesses
and small municipalities with onerous regulations. They would fall
under a 10-year moratorium on the implementation of new requirements
under the stormwater management program.
Mr. Chairman, I represent a district that is surrounded on three
sides by coastal waters. In our coastal areas in New Jersey, our
businesses, indeed our economy, relies on having a clean coastal
environment.
The family-owned hotels and motels in my district have approximately
3 months in the summer to earn their living for the year. If the
beaches are closed because of pollution, those businesses are hurt and
may not survive.
Mr. Chairman, commercial fishing is a $55 billion industry
nationwide--and lets face it, people are not going to eat fish that
they believe were caught in polluted waters.
In my district, nonpoint source pollution and storm water were major
sources of ocean pollution. Actions taken at the State level have
sharply reduced pollution in our ocean and bays. It is a testament to
the commitment New Jersey has made, as a State, to protecting our
coastal environment.
But we need a Federal standard. Our coastal waters do not recognize
State boundaries. If New Jersey makes a commitment to prevent pollution
from nonpoint sources and storm water runoff, that could be negated if
another State does not.
Mr. Chairman, the substitute is a good bill.
Again, I commend my colleagues on a fine substitute and urge members
on both sides of the aisle to support the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer
substitute.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. I commend
the authors. I urge that the amendment be adopted. And I hope that in
so doing, we will improve the bill.
I would inform my colleagues that the Clean Water Act is not only the
most successful but it is the oldest of our major environmental
statutes, and it was not passed by a bunch of left-wing kooks. It was
passed overwhelmingly by bipartisan majorities on both sides of the
aisle, and it came out of the Committee on Public Works overwhelmingly.
There is good reason for everything that is in the current law, and
the wonderful fact is that it works.
What would the bill that is now before us do? First of all, in the
State of Michigan, it would eliminate wetlands protection for some of
our 5,583,000 acres of wetlands. Altogether, it would risk the
potential loss of 3,629,000 acres.
The current law is a good law, but it does not do all that it should.
In recent times, better than 10,000 beaches have been shut because of
pollution of coastal waters, and better than one-third of our
shellfish beds are at risk.
Now, what does the bill do here? First of all, it does not really
protect wetlands as it should. As I mentioned, it puts Michigan
wetlands and Michigan migratory waterfowl populations at risk. Indeed,
I would warn my colleagues that this bill puts migratory waterfowl and
migratory birds and migratory bird hunting at risk. I speak as a member
of the Migratory Bird Commission which works to try and save the lands
for these species.
The bill would go further than that. The bill would repeal the
Coastal Zone Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. It would remove 60
percent of our Nation's wetlands from any protection, and allow total
destruction of possibly as high as 80 percent. It would weaken the
standards governing industrial pollution and discharges into lakes,
rivers, and harbors. It would threaten the Great Lakes fishery, which
is worth better than $4 billion a year. It would hamper efforts to
control nonpoint source pollution, the source of over 50 percent of
water quality impairment in the United States, and it would create,
interestingly enough, an extraordinarily unworkable bureaucracy which
would supposedly address the question of wetlands protection within the
Corps of Engineers, and cost the American people millions of dollars a
year.
The amendment is a responsible piece of legislation. It accepts about
70 percent of the legislation written in the committee. It would make
possible continued progress, albeit at a somewhat slower rate than we
have seen, because of the programs which we are now addressing which
have been, I repeat, enormously successful in terms of preserving
natural resources and protecting the clean water and protecting the
health of the American people.
Tourism is a great industry in this country, and it is one of the
most important we have. I know of no one who will go to see dirty
water. They go to see places where the water is clean, where the
fishing is good, where the swimming is safe, and where one may eat the
fish that they catch. They do not go to Gowanus Canal or to places
which are fabled with their filth.
Legislation which we have before us would roll back in a startling
fashion better than 40 years of progress which we have made in cleaning
up the waters of the Nation. It would not help the polluters
particularly. It would simply allow them to evade their
responsibilities. It would not help the American people. It would
simply inflict upon them continued destruction of their most precious
and important natural resource, the water of this country.
The legislation which this country wants, if you ask the people, and
better than 70 percent of them will say so if inquired of, is
legislation which protects the waters, which protects the environment,
which protects the health of the American people.
I would urge that the amendment sponsored by my colleagues, the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert], and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] be adopted.
I would urge that my colleagues reject the bill.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make reference to some
comments made by a colleague and member of the committee, the gentleman
from Iowa [Mr. Latham], earlier, particularly as they apply to
agriculture. I want everyone to know we are very sensitive to the needs
of agriculture. Our alternative specifically provides exemptions for
the repair and construction of tiles.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Boehlert and by unanimous consent, Mr. Dingell
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the exemptions specifically allow repair
and construction of tiles. We also have in our substitute the same
exemptions for agriculture as are contained in H.R. 961.
Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman says all this talk about how your
substitute is going to hurt agriculture; it cannot, because it is the
same language they have in the bill?
Mr. BOEHLERT. He was genuinely concerned about that. The concern was
heartfelt.
Mr. DINGELL. I do not care whether it is heartfelt or not, I want to
know if it is factual. I gather you are telling me some of the concerns
expressed are not factual.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Some of the concerns expressed here have not been
factual.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
[[Page H4748]]
Mr. SAXTON. The gentleman mentioned beach closures. I just want to
say what the gentleman spoke of in terms of the Coastal Zone Management
Act and the provisions that have to do with nonpoint source pollution
and the benefits provided for wetlands go a long way to prevent beach
closures.
In 1987 and 1988, I lived through those beach closures along with the
Northeast coast, and I can say, I think uncategorically, that by
repealing the laws which the committee bill proposes to repeal, that we
are bound to repeat summers like those summers when we had those beach
closures, because we are eliminating the protections that we have since
put in place that have worked very, very well, and so I thank the
gentleman for pointing out those very, very important aspects of this
substitute.
Mr. DINGELL. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I want to
rise in strong support for H.R. 961 and urge that it be passed without
major modification.
I would like to commend my outstanding chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, for his outstanding and yeoman work that he has done in
regard to this legislation. It is outstanding legislation, and it
deserves the support of all of the Members of this body.
H.R. 961, as reported out of our committee, will reduce Federal power
and will give us cleaner water. It gives control of water resource
management to those who have the biggest stake in maintaining these
resources, while taking control from bureaucrats here in Washington.
Even the Administrator of the EPA, Carol Browner, has said, ``We must
allow for flexibility, innovation and common sense as States and
communities look for ways to achieve the standards.'' That is what the
committee-approved bill does, Mr. Chairman. It restores common sense to
our clean water regulation.
I have great respect for all of the authors of this substitute
amendment. They are all good friends of mine. But I am afraid, Mr.
Chairman, that the amendment in the nature of a substitute would
eliminate the flexibility that is needed and that Ms. Browner called
for, in that it seeks to retain Federal command and control in pursuit
of clean water.
A one-size-fits-all approach to clean water regulation is no longer
sound, if it ever was. The EPA bureaucrats and Army Corps of Engineers
officials are simply not capable of making qualified, correct decisions
for every State legislature, every city manager, every farmer, every
land owner, every business owner in the Nation.
H.R. 961, as reported, lifts that responsibility from them and gives
it back to the people and their representatives at the local level.
I do not need to repeat, Mr. Chairman, and would not have time to do
so anyway, all the horror stories about EPA and Army Corps of Engineers
regulations under our clean water laws at this time, one stupid,
expensive, unfair decision after another.
A few years ago one of the officials of the National Association of
Home Builders told me that if our wetlands laws were strictly enforced,
that it would close up over 60 percent of the developable land in this
country. It would make the dream of home ownership just go out of sight
from an economic standpoint for most young couples in this country.
It has been mentioned before, but I think it bears repeating, that
support for moving forward with H.R. 961 has come from a wide range of
groups, including the National Governors' Association, the National
League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National
Association of Counties, the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators.
{time} 1800
The water pollution control administrators are people who work full
time in this area, and I can assure my colleagues they would not
support this legislation were it not good clean water legislation. This
bill is also supported by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies, the American Public Works Association, the Clean Water
Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses among
many, many others.
H.R. 961 was reported out of our committee by a strong bipartisan
vote of 42 to 16. This bill deserves bipartisan support now. It will
return common sense to our signatory efforts in regard to clean water.
It will return flexibility. It will do away with many of the unfair
bureaucratic burdensome decisions that have come out in recent years.
Most importantly of all, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to emphasize
this, if H.R. 961 passes as is, it will be the toughest clean water law
in the world. This bill passing as is will be the toughest clean water
bill in the world. It just does not go to some of the extremes that
some people would have us do, some of the ridiculous extremes that some
people would have us go.
So let us vote for the toughest clean water law in the world. Let us
vote for Chairman Shuster's bill, H.R. 961. I urge its passage.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this substitute
measure authored by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], and the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert]. It is not a perfect fix of H.R. 961's problems, but it
offers a rational middle ground that preserves the rights of H.R. 961
while turning back H.R. 961's most damaging proposals, and it is
interesting to note that many of my colleagues served in State
legislatures before coming here, and I would like to point out that in
a letter that I received from the National Conference of State
Legislators they indicate that unless H.R. 961 is significantly amended
during the floor consideration, the NCSL urges them to vote against
this bill, and they point out that the problems with the bill that is
before us that are addressed by this amendment is that the bill in
print limits State discretion to impose effluent limits which are
different than Federal limits. It also reduces State authority to
update and strengthen controls on toxic and other discharges by
providing that effluent limitations only be reviewed every 10 years.
So not only myself and others are urging our colleagues to support
this, but the State legislatures are as well. The substitute amendment
restores vital protections for wetlands, but makes commonsense
exemptions for agriculture, flood control and other important
activities. These provisions are based on wetlands language offered by
the National Governors Association and increase the States' role in
wetland's protection.
The substitute amendment replaces the repeal of the Coastal Zone
Management Act non-point source program included in H.R. 961 with
amendments to improve the program proposed by Coastal States
Organizations. Any legislator representing a coastal State knows the
significance of having the ability to control non-point source run off
because it runs into the ocean. Our local economies are based on the
fact that people make livings off that ocean, both for recreation and
primarily for commercial fishing, and if that environment is not safe,
and sound, and clean, then we are going to destroy the very economic
base of many of our coastal regions.
Mr. Chairman, I think this bill in its drafted
form goes a long way to doing that, so that is why I support the
Saxton proposal, because it is a reasonable alternative, it is going to
help protect clean water, and we need to do that because we are just
borrowing time from future generations, and we need to turn over the
world in a better shape than which it is in now. So I urge my
colleagues to support this substitute.
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.
Re H.R. 961, Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995.
Hon. Sam Farr,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Farr: On behalf of the National
Conference of State Legislatures, I am writing to express
concerns about H.R. 961 as reported by committee. Unless H.R.
961 is significantly amended during
[[Page H4749]] floor consideration, NCSL urges you to vote against the
bill.
In partnership with the federal government, states have
worked diligently for more than two decades to achieve the
Clean Water Act's goals of restoring and maintaining our
nation's waters. The Clean Water Act serves as a baseline for
state programs, while giving states flexibility to go beyond
federal minimum requirements. Many of the problems facing our
nation's water bodies are interstate in character and cannot
be addressed by any state acting alone. Over the past two
decades states have come to rely upon the state-federal
partnership that is the cornerstone of our system of public
health protection.
While NCSL applauds H.R. 961's proposed increases in SRF
funding, efforts to provide states with greater flexibility,
and other provisions that directly benefit state and local
government, we are concerned with other aspects of the bill.
For instance, if enacted in its present form, H.R. 961 would
permit increased degradation of our nation's waters and allow
for delay in achieving the Clean Water Act's goals. We urge
you to seriously consider any amendments which aim to strike
a proper balance between increased state authority and
preservation of minimum federal standards.
One of our specific concerns with H.R. 961 is that it would
reverse our nation's goal of eliminating the net loss of both
wetlands acreage and wetlands habitat values. Wetlands are an
integral component of both the environmental and economic
health of our nation. They provide important economic and
recreational benefits such as hunting, fishing, natural flood
control, recharge zones for groundwater aquifers, reduced
shoreline erosion and water purification through filtration
of sediments and toxic pollutants from runoff. Given the
direct and indirect economic benefits that are derived from
wetlands, we are concerned by provisions in H.R. 961 that
would encourage and increase development activities in
wetlands.
In addition to the above, NCSL is also concerned with other
provisions of H.R. 961. For instance, as reported by
committee, H.R. 961 would: Limit state discretion to impose
effluent limits which are different than federal limits;
reduce state authority to update and strengthen controls on
toxic and other discharges by providing that effluent
limitations can only be reviewed every ten years; relax
effluent pretreatment standards for waste waters destined for
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW's); and waive compliance
time deadlines for any year in which actual funding levels
fall short of authorized levels.
While NCSL supports many of the bill's provisions that
would directly benefit states and their political
subdivisions, we nonetheless do have concerns with other
aspects of the bill. It is our sincere hope that floor
amendments during consideration of the bill will succeed in
addressing and resolving our concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with
you.
Sincerely,
Jane Campbell,
President, NCSL, Assistant Minority Leader, Ohio House of
Representatives.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the
Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute to H.R. 961, the Clean Water Act
Amendments of 1995. This substitute is a sensible, reform measure which
fixes many of the problems associated with Clean Water Act regulations,
without sacrificing essential protections, particularly in the areas of
wetlands policy and coastal zone management.
Long Islanders have always had a special appreciation for the
delicate nature of our Nation's waters and the need to protect them for
our economic health, as well as for future generations. My constituents
carry on this tradition of concern. Long Island is, after all, an
island. My district on the south shore has over 35 miles of coastal
shoreline. Long Island's coastal waters are a premier source of
recreation and the backbone of an essential tourism industry, which
relies on our vast stretch of sandy beaches. In addition, they house
thousands of acres of shellfish beds, and support both commercial and
sport fishing.
Because of this reliance on our coastal waters, both wetlands
protection and coastal zone management are essential to both the
economic health and quality of life on Long Island. Wetlands are a
natural filtering system which help protect the health of our fish
population as well as help filter pollutants from seeping into our
groundwater. Yet H.R. 961 would remove over 60 percent of our Nation's
wetlands from any level of protection.
The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute addresses the concerns of
private landowners by putting in place a proposal developed and
supported by the National Governor's Association which simplifies and
expedites the wetlands permitting process by expanding the role of
State wetlands managers in the permitting process. This will help
encourage decisions about wetlands management to be made on the local
level, without paving the way for widespread wetlands destruction.
H.R. 961 would also repeal section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments [CZARA], which is the only enforceable
program developed by Congress to deal with nonpoint source pollution of
coastal waters. Consequently, this bill would expect an already weak
nonpoint source pollution program, section 319, to somehow attend to
the special problems associated with coastal pollution. This pollution
has resulted in the closure of 200,000 acres of New York City and Long
Island shellfish beds. It has severely impacted both commercial and
recreational fishing on Long Island. I clearly remember recent summers
when medical waste, including used syringes, washed up on shore and
forced the closure of certain Long Island beaches on hot summer days.
In fact, more than 10,000 beaches nationwide were closed to bathing
over the past 5 years due to pollution. My district cannot afford this
kind of loss. The coastal State governors have spent years working on
sensible State-managed programs to this threat to coastal waters.
Working with CZARA, the coastal States have finally come up with
solutions that they feel will work best for their States. The Saxton-
Boehlert-Roemer substitute acknowledges this effort by adopting the
reforms proposed by the 29 States of the Coastal States Organization
for implementing CZARA.
Like many other coastal areas around the country, Long Island is
dependent upon its waters to support its economy as well as its quality
of life. By including provisions developed by the National Governor's
Association and Coastal States Organization, the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer
substitute, gives each State the flexibility to develop the best
programs to protect its water, while maintaining critical Federal
support. I urge my colleagues to support this substitute.
Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Saxton-Boehlert
substitute to H.R. 961.
Let us face it, colleagues. The Clean Water Act has made great
strides in improving the quality of water sources and aquatic habitats
across our Nation. However, unintended consequences of the provisions
of the act as well as advances in environmental science and technology
over the past 20 years have necessitated a revision of this law. H.R.
961, as passed by the Transportation Committee, brings a 1970's law
into the 1990's and the 21st century.
With wastewater treatment needs of communities across the United
States projected to cost over $120 billion during the next 20 years, it
is essential that innovative financing and treatment methods be
utilized. States need to be provided flexibility in the implementation
of clean water programs in order to best address the particular water
resource needs and conditions of their communities. Cost-benefit
analysis, risk assessment and the use of sound science need to be
included in a national clean water program to ensure that regulations
do not burden the States, localities, and individual land owners.
Finally, commonsense reforms of the current section 404 wetlands
permitting process are needed to relieve private landowners of the
current regulatory maze and to protect their rights as guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States. Under the current Clean Water
Act, landowners have been prosecuted or threatened with prosecution for
removing trash, adding fill dirt, repairing a levee, installing a
tennis court, plowing land, and planting crops without a section 404
permit.
A great deal of time and effort has been invested by Chairman Shuster
and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to ensure that
these issues are all addressed in H.R. 961 and that all perspectives on
clean water issues have been taken into consideration. At the same
time, H.R. 961 facilitates the continued improvement in
[[Page H4750]] the quality of our Nation's water resources. This bill
has had resounding bi-partisan support throughout the committee
process, having passed the subcommittee by a vote of 19 to 5 and the
full committee by a vote of 42 to 16. I commend Chairman Shuster for
his commitment to reforming the Clean Water Act to be a more effective
and efficient national policy without compromising America's water
quality, and for his dedication to seeing that this legislation comes
to the floor during this Congress.
The Saxton-Boehlert substitute would gut the provisions of H.R. 961
which bring the Clean Water Act into the 21st century. The Saxton-
Boehlert substitute does little to change the inflexible Federal
Stormwater and non-point source regulations that are breaking the
financial backs of small and rural communities across the Nation. The
substitute does not adequately relieve the States, localities and
landowners from onerous regulations and loss of private property
rights. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the substitute.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ZELIFF. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said this would gut the
provisions of the bill that bring us into the 21st century. It would be
helpful to us if the gentleman elucidates those particular provisions
because we are all anxious to go into the 21st century.
Mr. ZELIFF. I agree, and, although we have an honest disagreement, I
think that the Contract With America and all that we were trying to do
in terms of giving back some of the power to the States to make
decisions classifying what a wetlands is and a wetland is not makes all
the sense in the world, and so that kind of common sense brings us into
the 21st century. Regulations and laws that cost all of us in taking
precious rights away from us as individuals, putting those regulations
back with the States and all those things make a lot of good common
sense and hopefully go----
Mr. BOEHLERT. Wetlands provision we have adopted the language
advanced by the National Governors Association because, like the
gentleman, we agree that the Governors are in the best position to deal
with these very sensitive issues.
Mr. ZELIFF. The Governors do not support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. The Governors support title VIII to the bill as----
Mr. ZELIFF. Support the gentleman's position.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer
substitute amendment. It is far preferable to the underlying bill that
has been brought to the floor.
Let me comment for a moment, if I might, about the efforts we have
made in Maryland in regard to the Chesapeake Bay. This is an effort
that has been undertaken now for over 15 years in which the people of
Maryland have made a tremendous sacrifice in order to reclaim the
quality of the water of the Chesapeake Bay. This has not just been an
effort by the people of Maryland. It has been a cooperative effort
between the people of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, the Nation's
Capital. It has been an effort between the private sector and the
Government working together in order to deal with some very serious
pollution problems within the Bay. It has been a model program.
Mr. Chairman, we have seen this partnership has worked through some
very tough changes in the manner in which we deal with water quality,
including land use management, and fishing restrictions and other
policies that we have undertaken in order to deal with the Chesapeake
Bay, and it has been successful. The underlying bill would be a major
step backward on the quality of the Chesapeake Bay.
Let me mention 3 significant differences between the underlying bill
and the substitute that is before us. First, as it relates to the
wetlands protection, the surge of nutrients into the Bay acts as a
strangling of the oxygen that is important for the fish life, for the
waterfowl, for oysters, crabs, and I could go on.
{time} 1815
The quality of what we know on the Chesapeake Bay, whether it is for
commercial or recreational purposes, is contingent upon us being able
to control the level of nutrient in the Bay. That is why under the Bay
Agreement we have a commitment to reduce the levels of nutrients by 40
percent by the year 2000.
The wetlands operate as a filtering system to remove nutrients and
sediment from the Bay. Between 1982 and 1989, in the States of
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania, we lost 37,000 acres of wetlands.
That is equivalent to the size of the District of Columbia.
The substitute uses the standards helped developed by the National
Governors' Association in order to put sensible restrictions on
wetlands to protect wetlands. The underlying bill would literally allow
the destruction of thousands, tens of thousands of acres of wetlands in
our region and around the Nation.
A second reason why the substitute is far preferable is the pollution
from storm water systems. We have a lot of old urban sewage systems in
our State. During heavy storms, pollution, raw sewage, will just
literally flow into the tributaries that lead into the Chesapeake Bay.
The substitute that is before us offers some hope that we can deal with
this issue. The underlying bill does nothing at all to protect us from
the problems of storm water pollution.
Let me mention a third issue why the substitute is far preferable
than the underlying bill, and that is the coastal zone non-pointed
source runoff controls. Again, we are dealing with the nutrient level
that I mentioned before. The underlying bill will allow the nutrients
to continue, which act as a suffocation to the oxygen necessary for
aquatic life. The substitute provides protection in this area, again
allowing us to deal with the unacceptable level of nutrients that are
flowing into the Chesapeake Bay and other waters.
Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is this: We have invested an awful lot
in cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay in this region. We have put a lot of
time, effort, and resources, both governmental and private sector. We
have a choice in a few moments whether we are going to move forward in
partnership with our States and with our local governments and with the
private sector to help clean up the Chesapeake Bay, or whether we are
going to move backwards.
The Federal Government has been a partner in this effort, a very
proud partner in this effort, in helping the region deal with the
Chesapeake Bay, which has been a model of a multi-jurisdictional body
of water in dealing with pollution. It has acted as a model.
I hope the Congress, I hope my colleagues, will continue that fine
tradition. Vote for the substitute, vote against the underlying bill.
Let us continue that partnership and allow the people of our region to
continue their efforts to reclaim one of the most important assets that
we have, the Chesapeake Bay.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Saxton and by unanimous consent, Mr. Cardin
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CARDIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to ask the gentleman, the nutrification
process that you speak of in bodies of waters such as the Chesapeake
Bay where nutrients create a situation where aquatic life cannot exist,
at least in a healthy way, comes from in most cases the non-point
source pollution issue that we are addressing in the substitute. The
educational process, to enlist the help of the army of people necessary
to change our forms of behavior, is absolutely necessary, as included
in this bill.
I bring this up because the Chesapeake Bay is the great example of a
great body of water that everybody is in love with and that everybody
would like to help to nurture back to a good state of health, if only
we had programs to help people understand how to do that.
[[Page H4751]] I grew up in northeastern Pennsylvania on the south
branch of the Tunkhannock Creek, which nobody has heard of. But it
feeds into the east branch of the Susquehanna River, which is of course
the source of fresh water for the Bay, and that is where the nutrients
come from. My father a few years ago adopted the south branch of the
Tunkhannock Creek and went about trying to eliminate the nutrients
coming from that area.
Throughout Pennsylvania, those kinds of programs are necessary in
order to help bring the Bay back to an appropriate level of
healthfulness.
So I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for his comments. He is absolutely correct. The nutrients are acting as
a suffocation to aquatic life. Non-point pollution is the cause.
Education is important. The substitute moves us in that direction to
control the issues. The underlying bill would prevent the actions. I
appreciate the comments made by the gentleman on this.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, this is a ``while I'' speech. While I share the concern
and admire the leadership of Messrs. Boehlert and Shays and formerly
Mr. Saxton, I must rise in opposition to this amendment.
Let the record show that I am for a clean Chesapeake Bay. Let the
record show I hope the gentleman from New Jersey is able to swim as
long as he wants in the Susquehanna, or whatever. But I must say that
agriculture has a stake in this. I think there has been debate here,
and as chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I feel compelled
to inform Members that most of those interested in agriculture are very
concerned about this substitute.
Now, you are going to say ``Who is that,'' and I am going to tell
you. The Agricultural Retailers, American Association of Nurserymen,
American Crop Protection Association, American Farm Bureau, American
Feed Industry, American Sheep Industry, American Soybean Association,
CF Industries, Inc., Agriculture Association, Farmland Industries, the
dairymen, and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
They are extremely important as you work on the environment. You have
got to work with the state departments of agriculture as well as the
state departments of environmental protection.
We have the wheat growers, the cattlemen, the corn growers, the
cotton council. I can go on and on and on. But basically all of
agriculture says while they understand the concern and the apprehension
of those who have offered this substitute, that we need this bill. We
need the other bill.
Now, why? Let me also add, if you are from rural and small town
America, the National Federation of Independent Business, one of the
many outfits here that rates Members of Congress. Some Members of
Congress that are about, wake up in the offices, wake up here. The NFIB
rating, two times, one on the substitute and one on final passage. They
are opposed to the substitute; they are for the final passage.
Why would the NFIB and agriculture indicate their opposition to the
substitute? Well, the substitute allows the 1987 Core Delineation
Manual to be used for making wetlands determinations. That is the
manual that has caused all the problems. That has been the problem.
This bill sets out a better determination, a much better definition.
This 1987 manual would let the regulators decide wetland hydrology by
looking at watermarks on trees, even though there is no water on the
land. A parcel of land could be damp a foot below the surface and still
meet their requirement. That has been part of the problem. We do
require 21 consecutive days where a wetland would be wet. I think that
makes a little sense. If more than 50 percent of the vegetation on the
land is made up of plants that also thrive in other areas, well, there
you are, that requirement of qualification is met.
This bill, the chairman's bill, the bill that we also support on the
House Committee on Agriculture, requires some water-loving wetland
plant to be present. I think that makes common sense.
I will tell you, I know the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Boehlert]
and the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Dingell] and I have the utmost
respect for him, has said it does not harm agriculture. I know the
gentleman has made a very honest effort in that regard. But the
chairman's bill allows State and local cooperation to restore a wetland
ecosystem.
You know what? We have debated this and debated this. No one here
knows exactly what an ecosystem is, a wetlands ecosystem, and that is
the problem. Because when these matters end up in a Federal District
Court, the judge then turns to the EPA and the Fish and Wildlife
Service to tell him what a wetlands ecosystem is, and we are right back
to the regulator and we are right back to the problem that has caused
all of the problem in regards to farm country.
We have heard a lot about the Chesapeake and the Susquehanna. We have
got a river in Kansas, one of the few rivers in Kansas. It is called
the Arkansas. There is a community there called Great Bend, Kansas. And
we heard a lot about nutrients and the different standards.
That community is now going to spend $12 million for a new waterworks
system. You know why? There is too much chlorine in the water. It could
endanger an endangered species fish called the shiner in the local
river. One basic problem, there is no water in the river and there is
no fish. Now, other than that, it makes a great deal of common sense.
That is an extreme example, but that is the kind of thing we are
facing in agriculture. Low spots in the field where, as I said before,
no self-respecting duck would ever land.
I urge you, if you come from rural and small town America, if you
care about the NFIB rating, and if you serve on the Committee on
Agriculture, vote against this substitute and support the bill.
amendment offered by mr. minge to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by mr. saxton
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). The gentleman reserves a point
of order on the amendment.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Minge to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Saxton: ``Page 130,
after line 5, add the following: `(5) Agricultural Permit
Authority.--The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to
issue permits in accordance with this section for any
activity resulting from normal farming, silviculture,
aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices carried
out on agricultural lands or for any activity incidental
thereto carried out on agricultural lands if the agricultural
land is not subject to sections 1221-1223 of the Food
Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821-3823). Any activity
allowed by the Secretary of Agriculture under sections 1221-
1223 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821-3823)
shall be deemed permitted under this section and no
individual request for or granting of a permit shall be
required.'''
``Page 146, after line 7, add the following: `(z)
Mitigation of Agricultural Lands.--Any mitigation approved by
the Secretary of Agriculture for agricultural lands shall be
accepted by the Secretary as mitigation under this
section.'''
Mr. MINGE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly discuss the reason
for this amendment. The problem that we face in rural areas with
wetland delineation and permitting under section 404 is largely a
problem that results from several Government agencies trying to make
decisions about the same land. We have the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and the Fish and Wildlife Service all focusing on what ought to be
done. The farmers and others in the rural area have found that this
vast array of agencies at the State, Federal, and
[[Page H4752]] local level has resulted in delays of years,
frustration, expense, and despair.
What is important I believe is that we clearly recognize here in
Congress that although we have committees and we have jurisdiction and
are concerned that we maintain clear lines of authority, that out there
in the field, in the real world, it is terribly important, individuals,
that we at the Federal level speak with one voice.
The purpose of my amendment is to make it possible for farmers and
rural America to ask for an opinion on whether or not their situation
requires a permit, whether or not mitigation that is acceptable to one
Federal agency is acceptable to another, and have a straight answer
from one Federal officer.
I submit that part of the credibility that we as Members of Congress
and the Federal Government face is that we have been unable to put
things together so that our agencies do in fact work with one voice,
and we have one-stop shopping.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I request that this body approve this
amendment and improve the way that we deal with people in rural
America. This is not an amendment that goes to the merits of the
legislation in terms of policy decisions, over what should and should
not be a wetland. Instead, it goes to the procedure by which people
deal with our Federal agencies. I request that this amendment be
passed.
{time} 1830
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of a point of
order. As I understand, the amendment will be accepted by the author of
the substitute, and we may have problems with this, but we can fight
that battle within the context of the whole substitute.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the authors of the substitute,
we do accept the amendment. We believe that it goes to the best
interests of the farmers that the gentleman from Kansas was speaking so
eloquently about just a few minutes ago. We commend the gentleman for
his foresight in bringing this matter to our attention.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman,
too, because we are vitally concerned with the interests of
agriculture. The gentleman has evidenced a sensitivity to that, and we
are glad to accept that proposal.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, as one of the authors of
the substitute as well, that we feel that we want to do everything we
can to work closely with agriculture. We feel this improves the bill
for farmers, for conservation, and for the convenience of farmers as
one-stop shopping. And we are happy to accept the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] to the
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
The amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute was
agreed to.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Saxton-Boehlert
substitute to the Clean Water Act. I have serious concerns about the
impact of certain provisions of H.R. 961 on my State of Connecticut.
First, the Shuster bill repeals the coastal water protection program
established by the Coastal Zone Management Act, which recognizes the
unique water pollution issues facing coastal States and requires these
States to take special steps to control nonpoint source pollution.
Connecticut has been a leader in this area, developing an innovative
and successful program. Scaling back the Federal program would have
serious negative consequences for my State's shores because no matter
how committed Connecticut is to coastal quality, negligence by neighbor
states could pollute our shores and our waterways. Nonetheless, the
significant changes in the Coastal Zone Management Act are long overdue
and to address these problems with the current program, the Saxton-
Boehlert substitute adopts the recommendations made by the coastal
State Governors, to preserve the benefits of the Coastal Zone
Management Act but gives States greater flexibility to delineate the
scope of their managed areas, expand the time frame for implementation
of reforms and allow States to select and prioritize the projects they
believe will address their nonpoint source pollution problems.
Given the facts that in the past 5 years over 10,000 beaches in the
United States have been closed because of coastal water pollution and
that over one-third of all shellfish beds are closed or threatened by
water pollution, including 32 in Connecticut, we must focus greater
attention, not less, on the problems of water pollution in our coastal
zones.
This is both an economic and an environmental imperative. The
pollution threatening our coasts stems mainly from nonpoint sources,
storm water runoff from urban, suburban, commercial and industrial
areas now accounts for 30 percent of water quality impairment. The
current Clean Water Act mandates a program to control polluted storm
water from municipal industrial sources and has already been phased
into effect in most of the largest cities and industries.
Even though 342 cities and 134,000 industrial sources already have
their permit and abatement programs in place, the problem of
controlling storm water runoff has proven to be quite complicated. EPA
has placed a 6-year moratorium on any new requirements on smaller
cities or smaller industries while it works out the problems the
programs have encountered in regard to small cities and small
businesses.
The substitute adopts the EPA moratorium as law and extends it for 10
years. This is the right approach, because it maintains the pressure on
States to deal with these issues while at the same time relieving
States of taking irrational steps in regard to small towns and small
industries.
Another provision with serious potential implications for Connecticut
is the wastewater treatment standards, specifically secondary treatment
waivers. The current Clean Water Act establishes secondary treatment as
a minimum standard for municipal sewage treatment plants, governing how
clean wastewater must be before it is discharged into rivers, oceans
and other bodies of water. All municipally owned sewage treatment
plants were required to provide secondary treatment by 1988 and all
municipal facilities in Connecticut have already attained at least
secondary treatment capability and some have gone beyond that standard.
Despite the fact that this requirement has been in effect for almost
7 years, the underlying bill seeks to exempt towns of less than 10,000
people from secondary treatment requirements.
Along the Connecticut River, which cuts through the heart of all of
New England, this exemption would create havoc. Most of the towns in
New England are smaller than 10,000 people. A town of 10,000 people
gives off a million gallons of sewage a day.
Like most other States, Connecticut still has a long way to go in
achieving its clean water goals. More than a third of the assessed
rivers and estuaries cannot sustain fishing, permit swimming or
maintain aquatic life year round. Exempting the majority of our towns
as a majority of less than 10,000 people from secondary treatment
requirements will not continue the progress we have made at great
expense.
Finally, I am pleased to support the wetlands provisions of the
Saxton-Boehlert substitute. This title adopts the recommendations of
the National Governors Association with input from State wetlands
managers.
I would remind Members that both in the wetlands section and in the
coastal
[[Page H4753]] management section the Boehlert substitute simply
adopts the recommendations of the State Governors for the reforms that
their people say are needed in these programs.
I am troubled by title VIII of H.R. 961 for several reasons. The bill
establishes a new entitlement for property owners whose property value
is diminished by 20 percent. We have discussed this at great length. I
will not repeat that discussion.
Secondly, the bill would require the Army Corps of Engineers to
classify all wetlands into three categories with only the top category
being fully protected.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, this would have a harsh
effect on Connecticut where at least 60 percent of the wetlands would
be declassified. Though I support the concept of classifying wetlands,
this bill sets out criteria for classification not based on sound
science, according to the newly released National Academy of Sciences
wetlands report.
Further, the costs associated with classifying every wetland in the
Nation would be staggering. A far less extensive plan to map all flood
plain areas, which in Connecticut we have accomplished, wound up taking
10 years in the nation and cost a billion dollars.
In contrast, the substitute's wetlands provisions allow the Army
Corps greater flexibility in wetlands delineation and encourage states
to adopt their own permitting program independent of federal control.
It encourages wetlands classification based on science with exceptions
only for certain functioning wetlands and certain agricultural lands.
State and individuals have had difficulty applying current wetlands
laws in recent years, but I am confident that the proposal put together
by the States themselves and incorporated in the Saxton-Boehlert
substitute addresses these problems effectively.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut was allowed to
proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, faced with serious water
quality problems a generation ago, the state of Connecticut passed its
only Clean Water Act, and this is why I wanted the 30 additional
seconds. We passed the first one.
The Federal law is modeled on our act. And since its passage, we have
become the Nation's leader in the production of oysters because we have
so cleaned up our offshore waters. With that, I ask Members' support of
the Boehlert amendment.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], as amended by
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge]. This substitute amendment is
a reasonable alternative to H.R. 961, and I urge all of my colleagues
to support it.
The substitute lessens the devastating impact of H.R. 961 by
including the recommendation of the National Governors Association for
protecting wetlands.
In addition, it incorporates a proposal for addressing coastal
nonpoint pollution developed by the Coastal States Organization. The
substitute, unlike H.R. 961, will not roll back toxicity standards that
are working, and it will not provide a laundry list of exemptions for
various industries to release new pollutants at will.
Mr. Chairman, of special concern to my state of California and to all
coastal States, and I might add my native State of Maryland, home of
the great Chesapeake Bay, is a provision which repeals the only
existing program for reducing agricultural and urban runoff. This type
of runoff is an especially significant contributor to coastal pollution
and results in the closing of beaches, declining coastal fisheries,
threats to drinking water and the shutting down of the shellfish beds.
We are all concerned about the enforcement of regulations over the
wetlands. We have heard this over and over, and I think it deserves
attention. But, Mr. Chairman, this legislation goes too far because it
affects millions of acres of wetlands by allowing these natural areas
to be developed and polluted.
This would jeopardize over 75 percent of our fish and shellfish,
which depend on marshes and other wetland environment.
Wetlands are an integral component of both the environmental and
economic health of our Nation. They provide important recreational
benefits, natural flood control, reduce shoreline erosion and water
purification through filtration of sediments and toxic pollutants from
runoff. The provisions of H.R. 961 would cause irreparable damage to
these sensitive lands.
Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act is a tremendously complex piece of
legislation dealing with national issues of critical importance. Unlike
previous reauthorizations, however, H.R. 961 fails to make progress
toward a cleaner environment.
Mr. Chairman, the substitute offered by our colleagues is reasonable
and sensible, when compared to H.R. 961. Virtually every provision of
H.R. 961 is harmful to both people and the environment and would
degrade rivers, streams, estuaries, wetlands, and coastal zones
throughout the country, including the sources of drinking water for
two-thirds of all Americans.
Our Nation will never have a clean bill of health in any respect
without clean water. I urge my colleagues to support the Saxton-
Boehlert-Roemer substitute and to vote ``no'' on H.R. 961.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair, with the
gentleman from Indiana, if we might explore limiting debate time to
perhaps an additional period of time. May I ask the gentleman, how many
additional speakers he believes he may have.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, we have one additional speaker.
Mr. SAXTON. I believe on our side we have three or four, possibly
three additional speakers.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I think there is one speaker in support of
the substitute and one in opposition to the substitute on this side.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit
additional debate time to 30 minutes, to be divided equally between the
proponents and the opponents of the substitute.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I think
that works contrary to the interests of the authors of the amendment
because there are four of us who wish to speak as advocates, so those
four should each receive 5 minutes. I think there are two opposed. That
would be four and two. So there would be seven more speakers, 5 minutes
apiece.
Mr. SHUSTER. There are four opposed. Four are in favor, four opposed.
That is 40 minutes.
Mr. SAXTON. If we could limit debate to 45 minutes, that would take
care of the situation.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit
further debate to 45 minutes, to be equally divided between the
opponents and proponents.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. BORSKI. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, could we
just limit it to seven speakers, 5 minutes each?
{time} 1845
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I amend my unanimous-consent request.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will yield, I understand he has 4 in
favor and we have 4 opposed, so that is 8.
Mr. SAXTON. I amend my unanimous consent request to that effect.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). The pending unanimous consent
request is to limit debate on the Saxton amendment and amendments
thereto to 45 minutes, controlled by
[[Page H4754]] the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Shuster], and they will yield debate
as they see fit.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
There was no objection.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, we have had considerable discussion on this floor about
the role of science in the consideration of this legislation, and
legislation in general. Surely I would agree that we, as Members of
Congress, have the responsibility to write the laws, but we also have a
responsibility to take into account the facts of nature that scientists
can describe for us. In that regard, there is an anecdote that may shed
some light on this issue.
As we know, Mr. Chairman, from our high school geometry classes, the
ratio between the diameter of a circle and the circumference of a
circle is known as pi, and is equal to roughly 3.14159. It is a long
decimal number that is hard to remember, so in 1897 the legislature of
the State of Indiana decided that they would make life easier for high
school students by passing a law that the value of pi would be 3.0
exactly.
Mr. Chairman, the legislators of the State of Indiana had it wrong,
because regardless of what any legislature or Congress says the value
of pi is, it will remain and will always be 3.14159.
There is a parallel here to the legislative definition of wetlands.
Wetlands are defined by what they do in nature. They are not defined by
any arbitrary formula written in legislation. Wetlands are useful.
Wetlands control flooding. Wetlands provide wildlife habitat. Wetlands
provide water purification and aquifer recharge.
If lands are covered with water for any period of time, and they
perform those functions, they are wetlands, regardless of what the
committee says, regardless of what this Congress says. We should
recognize that, and we should protect the value of the wetlands because
of what they do.
Mr. Chairman, in my State of New Jersey, the arbitrary legislative
definition of wetlands proposed by this bill will devastate wetlands
protection. That is why I support the Saxton substitute. According to
the New Jersey Governor's office, under the provisions of H.R. 961, 90
percent of New Jersey's remaining wetlands will no longer qualify as
federally protected. Most of the State's remaining wetlands are
invaluable to flood control, but they do not meet the test that is set
forth in the legislation that they have to be wet in the growing season
for at least 21 consecutive days. This is a hard blow to a State that
has lost 50 percent of its wetlands to development over the last 25
years.
Michigan and New Jersey are unique in that they are the only two
States in the Union that have assumed wetlands delineation authority
from the Federal Government under a provision of the 1987 act. While it
is true that H.R. 961 places no restrictions on a State's ability to
run its own stricter wetlands program, because of the State's
assumption of the Federal program, there is no separate State-run
program in New Jersey. New Jersey's laws and regulations are all based
on and refer to definitions and legislative language in the current
section, 404. Therefore, by changing section 404, we are limiting the
ability of the State of New Jersey to protect its own wetlands in the
manner that its own legislators have chosen to do.
To retain the current level of protection, the State legislature must
pass a new set of wetlands laws without section 404 references, and
promulgate new regulations with the normal lengthy notice and comment
process. This will put the few remaining wetlands in my State of New
Jersey at considerable risk.
According to Congressional Quarterly, wetlands save this country $31
billion a year as a result of flood mitigation. New Jersey rightly does
not want to expose the communities along the Raritan River, the Passaic
River, the Delaware River, to the enormous damage of flooding that has
occurred in recent decades and in recent years in our State. However,
that would be the effect of this legislation, unless it is amended by
the Saxton substitute.
In addition, CBO scored H.R. 1330, the bill on which the chairman,
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], based title VIII of this
legislation, to cost $10 to $15 billion to protect only type A
wetlands. Congressional Quarterly estimates that the American taxpayers
could shell out up to $45 billion if the Army Corps of Engineers does
not permit development of all the wetlands covered by H.R. 961. Because
the corps has a budget of only $4 to $6 billion, this poses an obvious
problem. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Saxton amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the
chairman for the earlier recognition. At this time I would have been
swimming out of the mouth of the Red River over North Vietnam, and I
want to tell the Members, it was not a river of pollution that you
would want to swim in, or your children to swim in.
Would a Clean Water Act help clean up that river? Absolutely. Would
the current Clean Water Act of today be supported by members? I think
with clearer definitions. however, the last gentleman from New Jersey,
according to him, a mud puddle that would replenish the aquifer would
be considered a wetland. That is the lunacy of the bill. That is why,
exactly why we are fighting.
There is probably not a Member in here that would not support the
current Clean Water Act. There is not a Member that would not support
the bill offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. The
clean water and clean air and endangered species, and yes, even the
EPA, the organization, would be supported, but they have gone too far.
There have been extreme cases.
However, there are honest attempts, and I appreciate, first of all,
the dialogue. I do not think there has been a lot of mudslinging on
either side of the issue. We have been talking about the issues, and
they have been honest. I think they have been honest attempts to
achieve elemental environmental security.
However, we have in this body fundamentalists, fundamentalist
leftists, that have violated the interests and used the well-meaning
legislation to the extremes. I am not talking about the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] but
there is an element in this organization that are extremist, and they
have used these bills, aforementioned, as weapons against people.
Why are we even having a substitute, or a bill in the first place? To
me it is not the Clean Water Act, it is to come somewhere within logic
of what reasonable men and women would have us to save the environment.
However, that has not been the case. That is why I think both the
substitute and the bill is to try and bring us somewhere back to the
center.
If we take a look, I had 3 Russian generals come into my office a few
months ago. I asked one of them
what was the most treasured right that they had gained since they had
their freedom. They said ``Congressman, it is the right to own
property.''
The problem is, for every item that I read here, there are going to
be items on the other side that are violated. I recognize that.
However, for example, in private property rights, I personally believe
it is wrong from environmentalists, often extreme groups, to go in and
take on somebody's property, devalue that property, and then say that
is fair market value. That is wrong. However, that has existed.
I think that is why these laws and why these substitutes and bills
have been changed, they are trying to change the current act, because
there have been those violations.
Mr. Chairman, I look at Mexico. We discussed here once about a boy
that was lost for three days, and the helicopter could not land because
he went into a wilderness area. Fish and Game would not allow the
helicopter to land. That is ludicrous. That is stupid. However, those
kinds of things are allowed to exist.
In California, we had homes where the people had asked if they could
disk around there homes because of the fire. We have a lot of fires and
earthquakes
[[Page H4755]] in California. They said ``Can we disk around them?''
They said ``No, because it is an endangered species area.'' We lost 34
homes. The people that went ahead and did it and violated the law saved
their homes. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman.
For each of those issues that I could talk about, about the
violations, we look at the Colorado slag, we look at the pollution in
the Great Lakes. Talk about the Chesapeake Bay, look how the Great
Lakes have been cleaned up.
There are advantages to the current Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
and endangered species. However, something has to bring the legislation
to where logical decisions can be made, not by regulators. Government
officials run amok, whether it is an RTC or whether it is an
environmental group, they run amok. We have to change that.
California, the No. 1 economic product in California is agriculture.
Yet, agriculture in the past, pesticides go into the lakes and into the
rivers and into our oceans, where the gentleman from California [Mr.
Filner] is from. Down there in the district, we need to clear that up.
It is not so much our outfall in sewage, it is the Tijuana raw sewage
that is coming out of Mexico that is polluting our beaches. We need to
attend to that.
I think there is an honest attempt for the Members in favor of the
substitute and the Members in favor of the bill to resolve not the
Clean Air Act, but to resolve logical decisions. That has not existed
in the past.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Saxton-Boehlert-
Roemer substitute and in opposition to H.R. 961 as reported. Members
know I feel strongly, because I waited all afternoon to speak.
Mr. Chairman, among all of our environmental protection efforts, the
Clean Water Act stands as a shining success story and as an
international model.
In the twenty years of this program, the quality of our rivers,
streams, and coastal waters has dramatically improved. The percentage
of waters failing to meet swimming safety criteria has fallen. Ohio's
Cuyahoga River, which once attracted firemen, now attracts fishermen.
And our own Chesapeake Bay is making tough, halting steps on the long
road to recovery.
Protection of wetlands is crucial both to the protection of our
wildlife and the maintenance of our water quality. Wetlands are vital
biological filters, removing sediments and pollutants that would
otherwise suffocate our waters. Over half of the nation's wetlands have
disappeared since the time of Columbus. Recognizing the importance of
this resource, President Bush pledged ``no net loss of wetlands''
during his administration.
Sadly, we are falling short of even this modest and reasonable goal.
During the 1980's, despite the scientific recognition of the value of
wetlands, our own Chesapeake Bay lost wetlands at the rate of 8 acres a
day. No resource can long endure such depredation.
The Chesapeake Bay remains in a precarious state. Our oyster and shad
fisheries are virtually gone; blue crab, the region's premier catch,
has fallen into precipitous decline.
We have made great progress in other areas: point-source discharges
of phosphorus to the Bay have fallen off by 70 percent and we are
beginning to make strides controlling nitrogen contamination.
Those positive strides are directly attributable to the Nation's
aggressive Clean Water Program. Much more needs to be done,
particularly in the control of agricultural and municipal runoff. I am
disappointed that H.R. 961 would allow decades of delay before we
seriously address these problems.
Furthermore, the redefinition of wetlands under the Committee bill
will remove vast areas from the scope of legal protections. I stood
here on the floor two months ago as we debated risk assessment, and one
principle we all agreed on was the need for the best possible science
in formulating our environmental strategies.
We now have a situation where, at the expressed request of Congress,
the National Academy has performed an exhaustive scientific analysis of
the wetlands issue. Their conclusions are antithetical to those in H.R.
961. Are we in Congress, committed to good science, to ignore the
verdict of the nation's foremost scientific advisory body?
H.R. 961 would divide currently protected wetlands into three
categories. Wetlands at the lower end would effectively lose
protection. I am reminded with a hint of irony of those famous words of
Julius Caesar: ``Gaul is divided in three parts.'' Division of the
province into three sections was the prelude to subjugation.
H.R. 961 would undermine the health of the Bay, and, in the process,
undermine the health and economic well-being of the residents of this
region. I opposed private property takings legislation before; I will
oppose it now where it applied to the preservation of wetlands.
There have been costs for this progress, but the benefits have been
immeasurable. It would be unfortunate indeed if this Congress were to
succumb to the whim of the moment and undercut this crown jewel of our
nation's environmental efforts. I urge defeat of H.R. 961 and passage
of the bipartisan substitute.
{time} 1900
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth].
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Chairman, I would commend to the attention of my colleagues words
from the Mesa Tribune in March of this year. Mark Flatten and Chris
Coppola write the article. ``In Arizona, sewage must be treated to
drinking quality standards before discharged so that it won't harm
phantom fish in a dry river.''
The passage points up the challenge we face, the absurdity of
regulation run amuck. For that reason, I stand in opposition to the
amendment and in strong support of H.R. 961.
I have good friends who sponsor this amendment. I have no doubt to
the nobility and the aim and the intent of the amendment. Here is my
problem, colleagues. It seems to me that though the amendment is born
of a noble impulse, it assumes the worst about duly elected
representatives at the State level.
In other words, the assumption is that our friends in the State
legislatures, that our friends in local and county government cannot
move effectively to solve problems on their own. Indeed, the
overwhelming sentiment and the underlying philosophy of the first 100
days of this new Congress was this concept: That those on the front
lines can best fight the battles.
I am pleased to hear of the strides here on the East Coast. I am
pleased to hear of the improvements, and indeed no one in this body, I
believe, disputes the notion of the need a quarter century ago to stop
and take stock of pollution and move toward meaningful conservation.
But the problem comes, as I see it, in making the Federal Government
always the instrument, and indeed making the unelected the final
arbiters of what measures should be taken.
With that, I oppose the amendment, and I stand in strong support of
H.R. 961.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYWORTH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman points out some legitimate
concerns, reading from that Arizona publication. I wish to point out
that in title III, section 301, entitled ``Arid Areas,'' we address the
legitimate concern you have. So the substitute does address that
legitimate concern.
I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert substitute here
today. I would like to say why because I have a great deal of respect
for the sponsor of the bill itself.
[[Page H4756]] Having worked in this area for 20 years in the State
of Delaware, I have seen that of all the pieces of environmental
legislation which I think have actually worked, that the Clean Water
Act probably stands at the top. I believe that the substitute does more
to support that original piece of legislation, but correcting or
remedying some of the problems which existed, than does the actual bill
before us.
I believe that the substitute deals with the problems of wetlands, it
gives more control to the States, but it does not give up the wetlands
which are a valuable source of nutrients, as we know. I believe that it
preserves the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is extremely
important.
We have the Delaware River and Bay in my State, and I cannot tell you
how important that is to the environment of our State. The revolving
loan fund is extremely important for infrastructure as far as water is
concerned. The financial and technical needs of the farmers are
something else that sometimes we overlook. That is a very dramatic
problem that they are dealing with, and they are right on the edge of
the water in many instances.
The stormwater program, which would be repealed by H.R. 961, is of
vital importance. We have had to close our oceans, I have had to
actually close down swimming in Rehoboth Beach, DE, because of
stormwater runoff, and the same thing is true of non-point source
pollution. It is the exact same thing. We get to the point where we
actually have to close swimming and take other measures because of
pollution caused by non-point source pollution. It does not have what I
consider to be an onerous takings provision.
For all of those reasons, but mostly because ultimately when you are
managing these kinds of programs and trying to create clean water in
your jurisdiction, you have to take all these different aspects and you
have to add them all up.
In the aggregate, eventually you begin to clean your water and you
get rid of the burning rivers and you get rid of where the fish could
not live. Eventually you get to the point where waters are swimmable,
and you get to the point where our children can enjoy it for some
period of time into their futures.
For all those reasons, I do support the bipartisan substitute. I
would encourage all of us to do it.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]
is going to be our last speaker. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I wish to
yield whatever time the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] did not
use, in addition to the 5 minutes, to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] has 16
minutes remaining.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman not have two more
speakers?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 19\1/2\ minutes.
The gentleman may divide that as he wishes with his speakers.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have two more speakers.
The CHAIRMAN. But the gentleman has 19\1/2\ minutes left under the
agreement.
Mr. SHUSTER. I would ask the Chair to recalculate. I do not think
that is quite accurate.
The CHAIRMAN. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, I would say, if he
has two more speakers remaining, under the agreement, as I understand
it, each speaker has 5 minutes.
Mr. SHUSTER. So we have 5 minutes apiece. That is 10 minutes on our
side.
The CHAIRMAN. If that is what the gentleman from Pennsylvania is
asking for, that is fine.
The gentleman from New Jersey is requesting that the gentleman from
New York close; is that correct? The gentleman has no more speakers?
Mr. SHUSTER. He would close on their side. I have the right to close,
but he would have 5 minutes plus whatever minutes are left over, a
total of 8 minutes.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if I might, let me put this in the form of
a parliamentary inquiry.
My understanding, then, is that on our side we have a total of 10
minutes. I am going to next yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes]. Then the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]
will be recognized for his 5 minutes, plus the 3 that has been yielded,
so he will have 8 minutes to close on his side. Then I will close the
debate for 5 minutes. That is my understanding of the parliamentary
situation. Is that accurate?
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the agreement made earlier, the gentleman
still has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining. After his second speaker, he may
yield back the balance of his time if he wishes.
Mr. SHUSTER. I would say, then, Mr. Chairman, that I think our
agreement is that we will both yield back our time, so we will take a
total of 10 minutes and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] will
take a total of 8 minutes, so there will be a total of 18 minutes used.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we could
reclaim some of the time that was yielded back. We have the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Boehlert] who wants to close. However, we have the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], and I would ask if we could
give 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
Mr. SHUSTER. I do not object to the 3 minutes, Mr. Chairman, but our
agreement is that we will have 10 minutes left and the other side will
have 5 plus 3, or 8 minutes left.
Mr. ROEMER. Eight minutes is fine.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, this has been a wonderful debate. The
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and I have particularly enjoyed
it because it was so informative for us to have an opportunity to learn
what we learned today.
Starting early this afternoon, we learned that the bill that he and I
had been working on for over 10 years, even though we sent over 900
copies of what was then H.R. 1330 to every environmental organization,
every Member of Congress and everyone else when it was first filed in
1987, his property rights bill that was filed in the mid-1980's that
has been discussed in just about every forum possible was in fact done
in the dead of night, in seclusion, rushed without hearings.
He and I have attended between us 32 hearings on this subject in the
time he and I have been in Congress and yet that is rushed through.
So what are we told to do? We are told by certain elements of
leadership to vote against that product because it was not aired to the
fullest degree. So what are we supposed to vote for?
Well, we have one speaker after another saying ``Well, it's obvious,
you vote for the substitute,'' that was released at a press conference
two days ago that is 250 pages long, that has never had one hearing on
one section, that has no idea by whom it was written, did not
participate in a committee or subcommittee process, and that is open
and above board.
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] and I, and we are referred
to on occasion as sneaky, but this elevates the term to a whole new
level. And then we are told an even more extraordinary thing.
We are told, ``Well, wait for the science. Wait for the science.'' We
have had 16 different scientific studies in the last decade. We waited
for the study that is not before us and has been mentioned on several
occasions 19 months after its due date.
The results of that study, by the way, absolutely no one has
mentioned clearly. After 3 years and over $1 million, a group of
eminent scientists, paid by the EPA, concluded that the 1987 manual
written by the EPA was the thing to do. I am shocked at the conclusion.
What is incredible to me is it took 3 years to figure out who was
footing the bill so you better do what they told you in the first
place, and that to me is the biggest, biggest element of surprise.
But even more so, I am told that we should examine this study, even
though it says do what you did in 1987 that did not work, caused
everyone in America to complain about it, and required that you are on
the floor here
[[Page H4757]] today amending it, even though that is the conclusion
they have, we should take time to study the document because it was not
released until 6 p.m. on Tuesday, for some people.
For others, it was released days earlier in order to allow those
people who agreed with the study that said 1987 was the right thing to
do after the cost of $1 million, to give them additional opportunity to
prepare to place it in legislation in the above-board and open process.
My copy of it says ``Advance Copy Not To Be Released Till 6 p.m. on
Tuesday.''
That does not sound scientific, does it? Unless of course we include
the field of political science in which I got my degree.
The next extraordinary thing that I consider before us is the most
unusual dissertation of all, and that is on individual rights. ``We do
not need to change the law. The law is working well.''
I have heard some unusual examples of it. I heard about a stadium in
Cleveland as a success story, even though the adjoining property houses
a museum that a former Congressman from Cleveland had to get a waiver
placed into a piece of legislation before my committee because it had
been declared navigable. The successful stadium is in the
jurisdictional waters of the United States unless your Congressman had
enough influence to get it out.
I think the rest of America that does not have that individual
influence to effect a piece of legislation ought to get the same break
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] is trying to give
everybody.
I heard another example about State regulators in South Carolina
saying we are for the substitute. Understand, South Carolina is the
same State where Mr. Lucas had to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court to get his rights finally preserved by the court.
You know what they said? They said, ``Mr. Lucas, South Carolina is
wrong, their State regulators are wrong, their zone management is
wrong, you were cheated, and we're going to give you over $1 million.''
{time} 1915
You know what the State did to pay the judgment? Since they got the
property, they sold it to someone to build a house, which is what Lucas
wanted to do in the first place. So when they needed the money they did
precisely what they told him not to do.
And I am supposed to be told this is the system that works? I am
suppose to support a bipartisan substitute?
We had a committee vote in which half of the Democrats, overwhelming
majority of Republicans voted for the bill of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]. If that is not bipartisan I do not know
what is. So I am going to support the bipartisan measure and oppose the
substitute, which remains to be seen where the chips may fall in
bipartisanship.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would
like to rise in support of the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute. I
support amending section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The district I
represent is largely rural, and farmers in my district have real
concerns about the way in which agricultural wetlands have been
regulated, and I understand that because I own a farm myself and it has
about 200 or 300 acres of bottom lands on it. I understand farmers'
concerns about being overridden by the Corps of Engineers.
At the same time, in my State in particular, the gentleman who was
just in the well referred to the State of South Carolina. We adopted a
Beachfront Management Act to control the development of our beachfront.
We have a Coastal Zone Management Act because we recognize the benefits
of wetlands to one of the largest industries in our State, the tourism
industry, a large and growing part of our economy, and our environment
will benefit and what wetlands yield for water quality helps tourism,
home owners, and farmers alike.
Title VIII, section 8 contains the language that is essentially the
same as that the gentleman who just spoke offered in H.R. 1330 in the
last Congress. I did not cosponsor it then. I do not cosponsor it now.
I do not support it now because I think a national classification
system as mandated in the bill is not workable. It mandates a national
system for classifying it. The Corps is instructed to classify the land
of any property owner who requests it and is required to get it done in
10 years' time. Not one single organization or person that I have heard
has explained how the Corps, already overburdened, will be able to
classify every single wetland in 10 years. Nor have I heard why all of
a sudden property owners want to welcome the Corps of Engineers onto
their land to decide whether or not it contains wetlands.
Mr. Chairman, the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute is a good piece
of work. It is reform without going too far. I wholeheartedly support
it and urge others to do likewise. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague.
Mr. Chairman, now we come to the moment of decision. The vote on our
amendment presents this House with a clear, stark question: Are we
truly for reform of the Clean Water Act, or is the word reform simply
an alias to mask the evisceration of our Nation's most successful
environmental statute?
That is the choice. If what Members want is to retreat on the Clean
Water Act, support H.R. 961 as reported. However, if what they want is
true reform of the Clean Water Act, this substitute provides it.
Let me give some of the details that highlight the difference between
reform and repeal.
Let us look at the wetlands provisions. Are there problems with the
wetlands provisions of current law? Of course there are. My district
has wetlands, including agricultural wetlands. I know there are
problems. How would H.R. 961 propose to deal with these problems? By
allowing the wholesale elimination of wetlands, wetlands that purify
our waters, and prevent flooding.
Is that a remedy?
And on what basis does H.R. 961 allow the destruction of these
wetlands? Certainly not on a scientific basis. The National Academy of
Sciences' distinguished panel on this issue has stated that the
definitions in H.R. 961 have no scientific basis, and with all due
respect to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] let me
point out that these eminent scientists are not paid by the
Environmental Protection Agency. There services are on a voluntary
basis the Environmental Protection Agency only pays the National
Academy of Sciences for printing and distribution of the report.
The wetlands provisions of H.R. 961 would not reform current law.
They would reform the surface of the Earth by allowing the destruction
of precious wetlands.
Our substitute on the other hand propose true reform. Where do our
wetlands reform provisions come from? From the National Governors'
Association, not exactly a bunch of tree-huggers. We give the States
more control over the regulation of there own wetlands, local control,
not Federal control. We take a sensible, middle-ground approach, State
control to allow more sensible regulation without threatening essential
wetland protection.
Another example of real reform in our bill, control of coastal zone
nonpoint source pollution. H.R. 961 would simply repeal the current
program of protection. On what basis? None, really. You do not have to
be a scientist to understand the problem runoff causes in coastal
areas. All you have to be is someone who has not been able to go to a
beach on a hot summer day because the beach was closed because of
pollution; 10,000 beaches in America last year. Eliminating the coastal
zone program is not reform. It would allow toxic substances to reform
our Nation's beaches.
But are there problems with current law? Of course there are. Our
substitute would take care of those problems with real reform.
[[Page H4758]] Where did our proposal come from? From the Coastal
States Organization, which represents 30 Governors of coastal States.
Again not a bunch of environmental radicals. Here again we allow more
State control to eliminate red tape while maintaining environmental
protection.
And what about stormwater runoff? Same situation. H.R. 961 would just
pretend that stormwater does not cause pollution, despite all of the
scientific evidence to the contrary. Are there problems with current
stormwater law? Of course there are. We offer real reform. We create an
exemption for cities with populations under 100,000 and for light
industry. Regulations of these entities may not be worth the cost of
compliance, and we recognize it. But we do not allow larger cities and
major industries to just return to using our Nation's lakes and rivers
as sewers.
What about point source pollution? We cannot ignore this. More than
40 percent of the Nation's waters are still impaired, so in this case
we do retain the provisions of current law.
And what about the many other areas H.R. 961 would affect? In those
areas 70 percent of the bill, our alternative, 70 percent of that bill
retains the language of H.R. 961. There are many areas of agreement.
Where H.R. 961 offers real reform, we adopt its provision. Where H.R.
961 raises the banner of reform to mask environmental degradation, we
substitute real reform for sleight of hand.
I urge all of my colleagues to support the bipartisan Saxton-Roemer-
Boehlert amendment. It would accomplish exactly what the public is
seeking. Our substitute will prevent environmental damage while
lessening the burden of regulation.
Our amendment substitutes pragmatism for ideology. Our amendment
substitutes reform of regulation for its repeal. Our amendment
substitutes hope for the future, not the abandonment of future
generations.
I urge passage of the bipartisan substitute alternative.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Wamp].
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, in both my committees, I have heard from the
EPA and specifically from EPA Administrator Carol Browner that they
need our help in using sound scientific research to make policy
decisions. Many of the complaints I have heard about the EPA over the
years is that there seems to be, to put it mildly, a poor match between
their decisionmaking and their research. Now I'm not seeking to rake
EPA over the coals one more time here, but to offer positive steps to
solve the problem. Many of my colleagues agree that it is time to put
our money where their mouth is. I offered an amendment in subcommittee,
later revised in the full committee and again in consultation with
Science Committee chairman Bob Walker's input in the Shuster en-bloc
amendment here today, to make sure that in these tight budget times we
do not lose sight of the fact that water quality research remains a
vital function of how the federal government can participate in making
our environment better.
But more importantly, my amendment has the intent not to fund the
continued ``paper-pushing research'' of Washington bureaucrats, but to
invest in cooperative efforts of localities and small municipalities,
counties, and cities to find solutions to their clean water challenges.
Specifically, asking EPA to use nonprofit and private organizations
with expertise in water quality research, combined with the technical
assistance necessary to get that information into the hands of rural
and small town water authorities, will give us an independent body of
information to make more sound decisions and achieve cleaner water.
I'd like to include in the Record a letter I have received from one
such independent organization, stating the need for funding such
research.
Water Environment
Research Foundation,
Alexandria, VA, March 29, 1995.
Mr. Bob Castro,
Legislative Assistant, Office of Congressman Zack Wamp,
Washington, DC.
Dear Bob: Thanks for the news that Congressman Wamp is
supportive of legislation supportive of water quality
research. We believe that increased funding on the national
level is critical to ensure:
1. Science base for environmental decision-making.
Wastewater utilities are concerned with ``unfounded
mandates''. They believe that improving water quality is not
a mandate, but a responsibility. Water quality professionals
seek assurance, through sound science, that public money
spent on water quality improvement programs achieve the
desired results.
2. Simply stated, the technology of today is based upon the
research of the past. The promise of the future is based upon
the research of today.
3. The research needs focus is changing. In the past water
quality concerns focused on fishable/swimmable waters and the
technical issues of volume of wastewater, suspended solids,
organics, and pathogens. The new focus is on health impacts,
risk, watersheds, conservation, and others. New technologies
are needed to focus on nutrients, toxics, residuals, air,
reuse, and prevention.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional input.
If there is any additional information required, please don't
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Glenn Reinhardt,
Executive Director.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, our friends are trying to represent that this
substitute is 70 percent of the committee bill. That simply is not
true. The substitute guts the committee bill which passed
overwhelmingly on a bipartisan basis in committee.
They are trying to portray this substitute as having widespread
support. Does the National Governors' Association support it? No. Does
the National League of Cities support it? No. Do the State water
pollution control officials support it? No. Does the Conference of
Mayors support it? No. Do the agricultural groups support it? No. Does
the NFIB support it? Not only do they not support it, they list this
vote as a key vote as they measure our performance in the Congress. In
writing, as we have demonstrated earlier here today, all of these
organizations support the committee bill.
In fact, the nonpoint source, the substitute really does damage to
what we do in the committee bill. The committee bill requires the
States to develop comprehensive nonpoint source management plans. If
the States do not develop the programs, the bill requires the EPA to do
it.
As far as coastal management is concerned, we do not eliminate
coastal management. We fold it into a unified nonpoint source program.
So we eliminate the duplicative regulation of nonpoint sources of
pollution.
The Boehlert substitute actually will continue this duplicative
regulation on behalf of the coastal zone management officials, the
bureaucrats who of course want to keep their separate offices and their
separate funding.
On stormwater, one of the most glaring omissions in the Boehlert
substitute is the failure to address the existing stormwater permitting
program.
On unfunded mandates, during the debate on unfunded mandates cited
most often were the greatest burdens on local government from the Clean
Water Act, and indeed, the Boehlert substitute does not include any
flexibility with regard to the unfunded mandates.
On risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, get this, the Boehlert
substitute incredibly completely wiped out any risk-assessment or
benefit-cost requirement for Clean Water Act regulations. And on
wetlands, this is absolutely extraordinary too. The Boehlert substitute
not only does not streamline or reform the 404 program, but it actually
adds new regulatory requirements into the existing law, so if you like
the wetlands provisions that your people are living under today, you
will love what they are going to have to live with under the Boehlert
substitute. And yes, we heard from our friends in New Jersey about the
loss of wetlands. I would say to my good friends in New Jersey or any
other State, your State can pass whatever wetlands regulations they
want to pass. If you want tougher wetlands regulations, pass them for
your State. Just do not impose your view of life on the other 49
States.
Overall, this substitute guts the bill. If the election in November
was about anything, it was about returning back to the States the
decision-making process on so many of the regulations that, indeed, we
must live under.
So I would urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan bill that
passed the committee overwhelmingly, that passed the subcommittee 19 to
5, passed the full committee 42 to 19. Overwhelming bipartisan support.
If this substitute is adopted, we will be gutting reform of clean
water, and we will have to go home and tell our
[[Page H4759]] people, tell our farmers, tell our homeowners, tell our
small business people we are sorry, we have not really reformed those
problems that you have come and told us about. You are going to have to
live with the same old EPA, Washington-knows-best mentality.
So I urge Members to defeat this substitute and support the bill,
which is true, balanced environmental reform.
Mr. HOYER. I rise today in support of the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer
substitute. This substitute is a reasonable and commonsense reform of
the Clean Water Act.
Clearly, the present Clean Water Act needs to be reformed. As the
reauthorization debate began there were several different approaches to
how to best protect our Nation's lakes, streams, estuaries, and coastal
waters.
This substitute will provide relief to farmers, industry, and
individual landowners from costly and time-consuming mandates. It will
also, however, continue many of the programs and provisions which have
made the Clean Water Act one of our Nation's most effective
environmental statutes.
The Chesapeake Bay, much of which borders my district, is the largest
and most productive estuary in North America. Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania experienced first-hand the bay's low point in the mid-
1970's.
The habitat, especially the blue crab population, water quality, and
the overall economy of the Bay were at an all time low.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Bay and its
industries made a remarkable comeback. The Chesapeake Bay Program, in
conjunction with the Clean Water Act requirements, led the Bay's
restoration.
Today, watermen in my district in southern Maryland, earn a living on
the Chesapeake Bay. Previously, we have been up to the task of
restoring the Bay and protecting their livelihood, and today their
families are relying on us to continue our efforts.
I am pleased that the substitute provides funding for this successful
partnership between State, local, and Federal Governments.
The substitute also continues the Coastal Zone Management Program
which was initiated to implement coastal nonpoint pollution and control
programs.
Nonpoint source pollution today provides us with our greatest
environmental challenge, as it is the most difficult to detect and
control.
Over 10,000 beaches were closed in the last 5 years due to pollution.
Sixteen counties, in my home State of Maryland, make up the coastal
zone, well over 65 percent of the State.
This substitute recognizes that our Nation's $400 billion a year
travel and tourism industry and $55 billion a year fishing industry are
directly reliant upon our coasts and continues our commitment to the
Coastal Zone Program.
One of the more controversial aspects of clean water reauthorization
has been wetlands reform. Clearly, the Federal Government must continue
its commitment and environmental obligations to protect our Nations
wetlands.
At the same time, however, wetlands policies have resulted in
substantial burdens on our Nations farmers, industry, and individual
landowners.
The substitute simplifies and expedites the wetlands permitting
process by implementing a plan submitted by the National Governor's
Association.
The NGA approached Congressman Boehlert in March with their proposal,
as they deemed the provisions on wetlands contained in H.R. 961 to be
inconsistent with the recommendations of the Nation's Governors.
This proposal will give more authority on wetlands management to the
States where action can be more accurate, appropriate, and prompt. It
will also make many needed administrative and regulatory changes in the
way the system is run.
Mr. Chairman, most Members of this body agree that there are
administrative and regulatory problems with the Clean Water Act.
However, the same percentage of Members would also agree about its
importance and environmental successes.
This substitute will continue to provide environmental safeguards and
promote programs to continue pollution cleanup and prevention well into
the 21st century, while also providing regulatory relief to farmers,
landowners, and industry.
I urge support for the Boehlert-Saxton-Roemer substitute and support
smart, environmentally sound, commonsense reform to the Clean Water
Act.
Mr. Chairman, I insert the following correspondence for the Record:
National Governors Association,
March 28, 1995.
Hon. Sherwood Boehlert,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We have been greatly encouraged by your
willingness, as well as that of Rep. Shuster and others in
the bipartisan group, to include states in the development of
H.R. 961. We support the intent of that bill to provide
substantially greater flexibility to states and local
governments in our efforts to protect water quality. We
support the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee in
its efforts to expeditiously move this comprehensive
legislation reforming the Clean Water Act.
We have not yet completed our review of all provisions of
the bill. However, as you know, the provisions on wetlands
are not consistent with the recommendations of the nation's
Governors. We raised concerns over this issue in our March 22
letter to Rep. Shuster (copy attached). In response to your
request, we enclose an alternative approach to wetlands
reform developed by the Association of State Wetland
Managers, based on NGA policy recommendations. This proposal
reflects the state perspective on wetlands management and we
urge your consideration of this proposal as a substitute for
the wetlands provisions of H.R. 961.
We look forward to working with you in advancing this
important legislation, and will be in touch shortly
concerning other issues.
Sincerely,
Governor Mike Lowry,
Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
Gov. Terry E. Branstad,
Vice Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
____
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 961, the
Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995, and in support of the Saxton-
Boehlert substitute to the bill.
Maintaining a strong Clean Water Act is essential for Connecticut and
the Nation. Unfortunately, H.R. 961 does not build on the success the
Clean Water Act has had over the past 23 years. Instead, it rolls back
standards, loosens regulations and weakens protections.
Under H.R. 961, 60 to 80 percent of our Nation's wetlands would be
either removed from any level of protection or destroyed. Industrial
pollution standards would be significantly weakened, allowing discharge
of industrial waste into lakes, rivers, and harbors. The entire coastal
zone nonpoint source pollution control program would be repealed, and
the Federal Government would be saddled with payments of more than $15
billion as a result of illogical and unfair takings provisions.
While it is important the Clean Water Act is reauthorized, it must
not be at the environmental cost that would result from passage of H.R.
961. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute is a sensible alternative that
makes necessary modifications without repealing or rolling back
important protections that have contributed to the Clean Water Act's
enormous success.
Specifically, the substitute makes improvements over H.R. 961 in four
important areas: wetlands protection, storm water management, coastal
water pollution, and nonpoint source pollution.
The Saxton-Boehlert substitute recognizes that there have been
problems with the wetlands permitting process. But unlike title VIII of
H.R. 961, the substitute streamlines the permitting process without
leaving millions of acres of wetlands unprotected. It utilizes
recommendations made by the National Governors Association to simplify
and expedite the wetlands permitting process without establishing a
bureaucratic classification system.
Wetlands serve as a breeding ground for fish, are critical habitat
for wildlife and are necessary for most migratory birds. They are
critical to Connecticut, where they also serve to filter out
nutrients and toxics that would otherwise end up in Long Island Sound.
The sound is already suffering from nitrogen overload that has resulted
in hypoxia--low levels of dissolved oxygen which cause significant,
adverse ecological effects in the bottom water habitats of the sound.
Local, State, and Federal Government resources are being spent to
reduce nitrogen levels in the sound, and it doesn't make sense to
counter these efforts by removing wetlands from protection.
H.R. 961 would repeal the entire stormwater program in the Clean
Water Act. This is unnecessary and harmful to health and safety.
Stormwater is one of our most significant water pollution programs, but
H.R. 961 would allow it to be freely discharged into our waters.
H.R. 961 would also repeal the coastal pollution control program.
Over the past 5 years more than 10,000 beaches in the United States
have been closed because of coastal water pollution. Over one-third of
all shellfish beds in the United States are closed or threatened by
water pollution. Connecticut is a world leader in oyster production,
and this industry is dependent on clean water for prosperity. Repealing
the coastal pollution program is harmful for Connecticut economically
and environmentally.
The majority of coastal water quality impairment is the result of
nonpoint sources of pollution, another major contributor to problems in
Long Island Sound. In fact, nonpoint source pollution impairs more
water bodies nationwide than any other pollution source, resulting in
beach closings and declining fisheries. It threatens drinking water
quality and impacts millions of coastal residents. Yet H.R. 961 loosens
regulations for nonpoint source pollution. While the legislation
authorizes funds for
[[Page H4760]] polluted runoff programs, it doesn't require
accountability for the moneys it provides.
Clean water is essential to the economy, health, and livelihood of
everyone, not only in my State of Connecticut, but in the entire
country. We have made solid progress in clean water protection since
enactment of the act in 1972. As we look for improvements to the act
and solutions to the challenges that lie ahead, we must be both
ambitious and thoughtful. We must seek rational policies that make
sense. The Saxton-Boehlert substitute, not H.R. 961, achieves that
goal.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the
substitute to H.R. 961 offered by Representatives Saxton, Boehlert, and
Roemer. This substitute will vastly improve what is now a flawed bill.
Mr. Chairman, the Clean Water Act is one of our most effective
environmental laws. It has significantly improved the quality of our
Nation's rivers, streams and lakes over the past 25 years.
While the law has been extremely successful, there are significant
problems with the Clean Water Act as well. Like many of our
environmental laws, there have been instances of regulatory overkill
under the act. That's why the Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute
incorporates 70 percent of H.R. 961's provisions. But the remainder of
H.R. 961's provisions go too far.
H.R. 961 removes over 60 percent of our Nation's remaining wetlands
from any level of protection. The destruction of these wetlands would
increase flooding, decrease the supply of fresh water and lead to a
decline in the fishing and tourism industries, all of which are
concerns to my district.
The bill also includes takings provisions which would require the
Federal Government to compensate a landowner when a portion of his or
her property is devalued by 20 percent because of wetlands regulations.
This provision could cost the Federal Government billions of dollars.
As a fiscal conservative, I cannot support H.R. 961 in its current form
because of this provision alone.
H.R. 961 would also repeal the entire coastal zone nonpoint source
pollution program. When more than 10,000 beaches in the United States
have been closed over the past 5 years because of coastal water
pollution, it simply does not make sense to weaken efforts to limit
nonpoint source pollution affecting these areas.
The Saxton-Boehlert-Roemer substitute is a reasonable approach to
reauthorizing the Clean Water Act. It includes a proposal developed and
endorsed by the National Governor's Association for protecting
wetlands. This is a middle-ground approach which gives the States a
greater say and more flexibility in protecting wetlands.
It also incorporates a proposal for addressing coastal nonpoint
pollution developed by the Coastal States Organization. At a time when
we are returning power to the States, we should respect the views of
the 30 Governors representing the Coastal States Organization with
regard to coastal zone protection.
I urge my colleagues to support the substitute. It is strong,
sensible, environmentally sound and affordable.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended, offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Saxton].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 184,
noes 242, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 312]
AYES--184
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Goss
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Kolbe
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--242
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Knollenberg
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--8
Bunning
Collins (IL)
Fattah
Harman
Lewis (KY)
Moakley
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
{time} 1948
Mr. McINTOSH and Mr. BISHOP changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. BILBRAY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment, in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 1?
The Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
In this Act, the term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2?
The Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
[[Page H4761]]
SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.
Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251-1387).
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will now designate title I.
The text of title I is as follows:
TITLE I--RESEARCH AND RELATED PROGRAMS
SEC. 101. NATIONAL GOALS AND POLICIES.
(a) Nonpoint Source Pollution; State Strategies.--Section
101(a) (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) in paragraph (7)--
(A) by inserting ``, including public and private sector
programs using economic incentives,'' after ``programs'';
(B) by inserting ``, including stormwater,'' after
``nonpoint sources of pollution'' the first place it appears;
and
(C) by striking the period at the end and inserting a
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) it is the national policy to support State efforts
undertaken in consultation with tribal and local governments
to identify, prioritize, and implement water pollution
prevention and control strategies;''.
(b) Role of State, Tribal, and Local Governments.--Section
101(a) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) it is the national policy to recognize, support, and
enhance the role of State, tribal, and local governments in
carrying out the provisions of this Act;''.
(c) Reclamation and Reuse.--
(1) Reclamation.--Section 101(a)(4) is amended by inserting
after ``works'' the following: ``and to reclaim waste water
from municipal and industrial sources''.
(2) Beneficial reuse.--Section 101(a) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(10) it is the national policy that beneficial reuse of
waste water effluent and biosolids be encouraged to the
fullest extent possible; and''.
(d) Water Use Efficiency.--Section 101(a) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(11) it is the national policy that water use efficiency
be encouraged to the fullest extent possible.''.
(e) Net Benefits.--Section 101 is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(h) Net Benefits.--It is the national policy that the
development and implementation of water quality protection
programs pursuant to this Act--
``(1) be based on scientifically objective and unbiased
information concerning the nature and magnitude of risk; and
``(2) maximize net benefits to society in order to promote
sound regulatory decisions and promote the rational and
coherent allocation of society's limited resources.''.
SEC. 102. RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND
INFORMATION.
(a) National Programs.--Section 104(a) (33 U.S.C. 1254(a))
is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) in cooperation with appropriate Federal, State, and
local agencies, conduct, promote, and encourage to the
maximum extent feasible, in watersheds that may be
significantly affected by nonpoint sources of pollution,
monitoring and measurement of water quality by means and
methods that will help to identify the relative contributions
of particular nonpoint sources.''.
(b) Grants to Local Governments.--Section 104(b)(3) (33
U.S.C. 1254(b)(3)) is amended by inserting ``local
governments,'' after ``interstate agencies,''.
(c) Technical Assistance for Rural and Small Treatment
Works.--Section 104(b) (33 U.S.C. 1254(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(8) make grants to nonprofit organizations to provide
technical assistance and training to rural and small publicly
owned treatment works to enable such treatment works to
achieve and maintain compliance with the requirements of this
Act; and
``(9) disseminate information to rural, small, and
disadvantaged communities with respect to the planning,
design, construction, and operation of treatment works.''.
(d) Wastewater Treatment in Impoverished Communities.--
Section 104(q) (33 U.S.C. 1254(q)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(5) Small impoverished communities.--
``(A) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to States
to provide assistance for planning, design, and construction
of publicly owned treatment works to provide wastewater
services to rural communities of 3,000 or less that are not
currently served by any sewage collection or water treatment
system and are severely economically disadvantaged, as
determined by the Administrator.
``(B) Authorization.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this paragraph $50,000,000 per
fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 104(u) (33
U.S.C. 1254(u)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``(6)''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``; and (7) not to exceed $50,000,000 per fiscal
year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000 for carrying
out the provisions of subsections (b)(3), (b)(8), and (b)(9),
except that not less than 20 percent of the sums appropriated
pursuant to this clause shall be available for carrying out
the provisions of subsections (b)(8) and (b)(9)''.
SEC. 103. STATE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE.
Section 106(a) (33 U.S.C. 1256(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``$75,000,000'';
(2) by inserting after ``1990'' the following: ``, such
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 1991
through 1995, and $150,000,000 per fiscal year for each of
fiscal years 1996 through 2000''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``States or
interstate agencies receiving grants under this section may
use such funds to finance, with other States or interstate
agencies, studies and projects on interstate issues relating
to such programs.''.
SEC. 104. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.
Section 107 (33 U.S.C. 1257) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 107. MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.
``(a) Acidic and Other Toxic Mine Drainage.--The
Administrator shall establish a program to demonstrate the
efficacy of measures for abatement of the causes and
treatment of the effects of acidic and other toxic mine
drainage within qualified hydrologic units affected by past
coal mining practices for the purpose of restoring the
biological integrity of waters within such units.
``(b) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Any State or Indian tribe may apply to
the Administrator for a grant for any project which provides
for abatement of the causes or treatment of the effects of
acidic or other toxic mine drainage within a qualified
hydrologic unit affected by past coal mining practices.
``(2) Application requirements.--An application submitted
to the Administrator under this section shall include each of
the following:
``(A) An identification of the qualified hydrologic unit.
``(B) A description of the extent to which acidic or other
toxic mine drainage is affecting the water quality and
biological resources within the hydrologic unit.
``(C) An identification of the sources of acidic or other
toxic mine drainage within the hydrologic unit.
``(D) An identification of the project and the measures
proposed to be undertaken to abate the causes or treat the
effects of acidic or other toxic mine drainage within the
hydrologic unit.
``(E) The cost of undertaking the proposed abatement or
treatment measures.
``(c) Federal Share.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project receiving grant assistance under this section shall
be 50 percent.
``(2) Lands, easements, and rights-of-way.--Contributions
of lands, easements, and rights-of-way shall be credited
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of a project under
this section but not in an amount exceeding 25 percent of the
total project cost.
``(3) Operation and maintenance.--The non-Federal interest
shall bear 100 percent of the cost of operation and
maintenance of a project under this section.
``(d) Prohibited Projects.--No acidic or other toxic mine
drainage abatement or treatment project may receive
assistance under this section if the project would adversely
affect the free-flowing characteristics of any river segment
within a qualified hydrologic unit.
``(e) Applications From Federal Entities.--Any Federal
entity may apply to the Administrator for a grant under this
section for the purposes of an acidic or toxic mine drainage
abatement or treatment project within a qualified hydrologic
unit located on lands and waters under the administrative
jurisdiction of such entity.
``(f) Approval.--The Administrator shall approve an
application submitted pursuant to subsection (b) or (e) after
determining that the application meets the requirements of
this section.
``(g) Qualified Hydrologic Unit Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term `qualified hydrologic unit' means a
hydrologic unit--
``(1) in which the water quality has been significantly
affected by acidic or other toxic mine drainage from past
coal mining practices in a manner which adversely impacts
biological resources; and
``(2) which contains lands and waters eligible for
assistance under title IV of the Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1977.''.
SEC. 105. WATER SANITATION IN RURAL AND NATIVE ALASKA
VILLAGES.
(a) In General.--Section 113 (33 U.S.C. 1263) is amended by
striking the section heading and designation and subsections
(a) through (f) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 113. ALASKA VILLAGE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.
``(a) Grants.--The Administrator is authorized to make
grants--
``(1) for the development and construction of facilities
which provide sanitation services for rural and Native Alaska
villages;
``(2) for training, technical assistance, and educational
programs relating to operation and maintenance for sanitation
services in rural and Native Alaska villages; and
``(3) for reasonable costs of administering and managing
grants made and programs and projects carried out under this
section; except that not to exceed 4 percent of the amount of
any grant made under this section may be made for such costs.
[[Page H4762]] ``(b) Federal Share.--A grant under this
section shall be 50 percent of the cost of the program or
project being carried out with such grant.
``(c) Special Rule.--The Administrator shall award grants
under this section for project construction following the
rules specified in subpart H of part 1942 of title 7 of the
Code of Federal Regulations.
``(d) Grants to State for Benefit of Villages.--Grants
under this section may be made to the State for the benefit
of rural Alaska villages and Alaska Native villages.
``(e) Coordination.--In carrying out activities under this
subsection, the Administrator is directed to coordinate
efforts between the State of Alaska, the Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Agriculture, and the recipients of grants.
``(f) Funding.--There is authorized to be appropriated
$25,000,000 for fiscal years beginning after September 30,
1995, to carry out this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 113(g) is amended by
inserting after ``(g)'' the following: ``Definitions.--''.
SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR CHESAPEAKE
PROGRAM.
Section 117(d) (33 U.S.C. 1267(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $3,000,000
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
after ``1990,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, and $18,000,000
per fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''
after ``1990,''.
SEC. 107. GREAT LAKES MANAGEMENT.
(a) Great Lakes Research Council.--
(1) In general.--Section 118 (33 U.S.C. 1268) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(3)--
(i) by striking subparagraph (E) and inserting the
following:
``(E) `Council' means the Great Lakes Research Council
established by subsection (d)(1);'';
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (I);
(iii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (J)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(K) `Great Lakes research' means the application of
scientific or engineering expertise to explain, understand,
and predict a physical, chemical, biological, or
socioeconomic process, or the interaction of 1 or more of the
processes, in the Great Lakes ecosystem.'';
(B) by striking subsection (d) and inserting the following:
``(d) Great Lakes Research Council.--
``(1) Establishment of council.--There is established a
Great Lakes Research Council.
``(2) Duties of council.--The Council--
``(A) shall advise and promote the coordination of Federal
Great Lakes research activities to avoid unnecessary
duplication and ensure greater effectiveness in achieving
protection of the Great Lakes ecosystem through the goals of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
``(B) not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment
of this subparagraph and biennially thereafter and after
providing opportunity for public review and comment, shall
prepare and provide to interested parties a document that
includes--
``(i) an assessment of the Great Lakes research activities
needed to fulfill the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement;
``(ii) an assessment of Federal expertise and capabilities
in the activities needed to fulfill the goals of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, including an inventory of
Federal Great Lakes research programs, projects, facilities,
and personnel; and
``(iii) recommendations for long-term and short-term
priorities for Federal Great Lakes research, based on a
comparison of the assessments conducted under clauses (i) and
(ii);
``(C) shall identify topics for and participate in
meetings, workshops, symposia, and conferences on Great Lakes
research issues;
``(D) shall make recommendations for the uniform collection
of data for enhancing Great Lakes research and management
protocols relating to the Great Lakes ecosystem;
``(E) shall advise and cooperate in--
``(i) improving the compatible integration of multimedia
data concerning the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
``(ii) any effort to establish a comprehensive multimedia
data base for the Great Lakes ecosystem; and
``(F) shall ensure that the results, findings, and
information regarding Great Lakes research programs conducted
or sponsored by the Federal Government are disseminated in a
timely manner, and in useful forms, to interested persons,
using to the maximum extent practicable mechanisms in
existence on the date of the dissemination, such as the Great
Lakes Research Inventory prepared by the International Joint
Commission.
``(3) Membership.--
``(A) In general.--The Council shall consist of 1 research
manager with extensive knowledge of, and scientific expertise
and experience in, the Great Lakes ecosystem from each of the
following agencies and instrumentalities:
``(i) The Agency.
``(ii) The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
``(iii) The National Biological Service.
``(iv) The United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
``(v) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that
expends $1,000,000 or more for a fiscal year on Great Lakes
research.
``(vi) Any other Federal agency or instrumentality that a
majority of the Council membership determines should be
represented on the Council.
``(B) Nonvoting members.--At the request of a majority of
the Council membership, any person who is a representative of
a Federal agency or instrumentality not described in
subparagraph (A) or any person who is not a Federal employee
may serve as a nonvoting member of the Council.
``(4) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the Council shall be
a member of the Council from an agency specified in clause
(i), (ii), or (iii) of paragraph (3)(A) who is elected by a
majority vote of the members of the Council. The chairperson
shall serve as chairperson for a period of 2 years. A member
of the Council may not serve as chairperson for more than 2
consecutive terms.
``(5) Expenses.--While performing official duties as a
member of the Council, a member shall be allowed travel or
transportation expenses under section 5703 of title 5, United
States Code.
``(6) Interagency cooperation.--The head of each Federal
agency or instrumentality that is represented on the
Council--
``(A) shall cooperate with the Council in implementing the
recommendations developed under paragraph (2);
``(B) on written request of the chairperson of the Council,
may make available, on a reimbursable basis or otherwise,
such personnel, services, or facilities as may be necessary
to assist the Council in carrying out the duties of the
Council under this section; and
``(C) on written request of the chairperson, shall furnish
data or information necessary to carry out the duties of the
Council under this section.
``(7) International cooperation.--The Council shall
cooperate, to the maximum extent practicable, with the
research coordination efforts of the Council of Great Lakes
Research Managers of the International Joint Commission.
``(8) Reimbursement for requested activities.--Each Federal
agency or instrumentality represented on the Council may
reimburse another Federal agency or instrumentality or a non-
Federal entity for costs associated with activities
authorized under this subsection that are carried out by the
other agency, instrumentality, or entity at the request of
the Council.
``(9) Federal advisory committee act.--The Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Council.
``(10) Effect on other law.--Nothing in this subsection
affects the authority of any Federal agency or
instrumentality, under any law, to undertake Great Lakes
research activities.'';
(C) in subsection (e)--
(i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``the Program Office and
the Research Office shall prepare a joint research plan'' and
inserting ``the Program Office, in consultation with the
Council, shall prepare a research plan''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)(A) by striking ``the Research Office,
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and
Great Lakes States'' and inserting ``the Council, the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and Great Lakes
States,''; and
(D) in subsection (h)--
(i) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1);
(ii) by striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and
inserting a period; and
(iii) by striking paragraph (3).
(2) Conforming Amendment.--The second sentence of section
403(a) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1447b(a)) is amended by striking
``Great Lakes Research Office authorized under'' and
inserting ``Great Lakes Research Council established by''.
(b) Consistency of Programs With Federal Guidance.--Section
118(c)(2)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding
at the end the following: ``For purposes of this section, a
State's standards, policies, and procedures shall be
considered consistent with such guidance if the standards,
policies, and procedures are based on scientifically
defensible judgments and policy choices made by the State
after consideration of the guidance and provide an overall
level of protection comparable to that provided by the
guidance, taking into account the specific circumstances of
the State's waters.''.
(c) Reauthorization of Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments Program.--Section 118(c)(7) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(D) Reauthorization of assessment and remediation of
contaminated sediments program.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the
Program Office, in consultation and cooperation with the
Assistant Secretary of the Army having responsibility for
civil works, shall conduct at least 3 pilot projects
involving promising technologies and practices to remedy
contaminated sediments (including at least 1 full-scale
demonstration of a remediation technology) at sites in the
Great Lakes System, as the Administrator determines
appropriate.
``(ii) Selection of sites.--In selecting sites for the
pilot projects, the Administrator shall give priority
consideration to--
``(I) the Ashtabula River in Ohio;
``(II) the Buffalo River in New York;
``(III) Duluth and Superior Harbor in Minnesota;
``(IV) the Fox River in Wisconsin;
``(V) the Grand Calumet River in Indiana; and
``(VI) Saginaw Bay in Michigan.
``(iii) Deadlines.--In carrying out this subparagraph, the
Administrator shall--
``(I) not later than 18 months after the date of the
enactment of this subparagraph, identify at
[[Page H4763]] least 3 sites and the technologies and
practices to be demonstrated at the sites (including at least
1 full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology); and
``(II) not later than 5 years after such date of enactment,
complete at least 3 pilot projects (including at least 1
full-scale demonstration of a remediation technology).
``(iv) Additional projects.--The Administrator, acting
through the Program Office, in consultation and cooperation
with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having
responsibility for civil works, may conduct additional pilot-
and full-scale pilot projects involving promising
technologies and practices at sites in the Great Lakes System
other than the sites selected under clause (i).
``(v) Execution of projects.--The Administrator may
cooperate with the Assistant Secretary of the Army having
responsibility for civil works to plan, engineer, design, and
execute pilot projects under this subparagraph.
``(vi) Non-federal contributions.--The Administrator may
accept non-Federal contributions to carry out pilot projects
under this subparagraph.
``(vii) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph
$3,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.
``(E) Technical information and assistance.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the
Program Office, may provide technical information and
assistance involving technologies and practices for
remediation of contaminated sediments to persons that request
the information or assistance.
``(ii) Technical assistance priorities.--In providing
technical assistance under this subparagraph, the
Administrator, acting through the Program Office, shall give
special priority to requests for integrated assessments of,
and recommendations regarding, remediation technologies and
practices for contaminated sediments at Great Lakes areas of
concern.
``(iii) Coordination with other demonstrations.--The
Administrator shall--
``(I) coordinate technology demonstrations conducted under
this subparagraph with other federally assisted
demonstrations of contaminated sediment remediation
technologies; and
``(II) share information from the demonstrations conducted
under this subparagraph with the other demonstrations.
``(iv) Other sediment remediation activities.--Nothing in
this subparagraph limits the authority of the Administrator
to carry out sediment remediation activities under other
laws.
``(v) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subparagraph
$1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) Research and management.--Section 118(e)(3)(B) (33
U.S.C. 1268(e)(3)(B)) is amended by inserting before the
period at the end the following: ``, such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal year 1995, and $4,000,000 per fiscal
year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998''.
(2) Great lakes programs.--Section 118(h) (33 U.S.C.
1268(h)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' before ``$25,000,000''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end of the first
sentence the following: ``, such sums as may be necessary for
fiscal years 1992 through 1995, and $17,500,000 per fiscal
year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title I?
The Clerk will designate title II.
The text of title II is as follows:
TITLE II--CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
SEC. 201. USES OF FUNDS.
(a) Nonpoint Source Program.--Section 201(g)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1281(g)(1)) is amended by striking the period at the end of
the first sentence and all that follows through the period at
the end of the last sentence and inserting the following:
``and for any purpose for which a grant may be made under
sections 319(h) and 319(i) of this Act (including any
innovative and alternative approaches for the control of
nonpoint sources of pollution).''.
(b) Retroactive Eligibility.--Section 201(g)(1) is further
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Administrator, with the concurrence of the States, shall
develop procedures to facilitate and expedite the retroactive
eligibility and provision of grant funding for facilities
already under construction.''.
SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION OF CLOSEOUT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT
PROGRAM.
Section 205(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1285(g)(1)) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator may
negotiate an annual budget with a State for the purpose of
administering the closeout of the State's construction grants
program under this title. Sums made available for
administering such closeout shall be subtracted from amounts
remaining available for obligation under the State's
construction grant program under this title.''.
SEC. 203. SEWAGE COLLECTION SYSTEMS.
Section 211(a) (33 U.S.C. 1291(a)) is amended--
(1) in clause (1) by striking ``an existing collection
system'' and inserting ``a collection system existing on the
date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of
1995''; and
(2) in clause (2)--
(A) by striking ``an existing community'' and inserting ``a
community existing on such date of enactment''; and
(B) by striking ``sufficient existing'' and inserting
``sufficient capacity existing on such date of enactment''.
SEC. 204. TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.
(a) Inclusion of Other Lands.--Section 212(2)(A) (33 U.S.C.
1292(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``any works, including site'';
(2) by striking ``is used for ultimate'' and inserting
``will be used for ultimate''; and
(3) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and acquisition of other lands, and interests in
lands, which are necessary for construction''.
(b) Policy on Cost Effectiveness.--Section 218(a) (33
U.S.C. 1298(a)) is amended by striking ``combination of
devices and systems'' and all that follows through ``from
such treatment;'' and inserting ``treatment works;''.
SEC. 205. VALUE ENGINEERING REVIEW.
Section 218(c) (33 U.S.C. 1298(c)) is amended by striking
``$10,000,000'' and inserting ``$25,000,000''.
SEC. 206. GRANTS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT.
(a) Coastal Localities.--The Administrator shall make
grants under title II of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act to appropriate instrumentalities for the purpose of
construction of treatment works (including combined sewer
overflow facilities) to serve coastal localities. No less
than $10,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be used
for water infrastructure improvements in New Orleans, no less
than $3,000,000 of the amount of such grants shall be used
for water infrastructure improvements in Bristol County,
Massachusetts, and no less than \1/3\ of the amount of such
grants shall be used to assist localities that meet both of
the following criteria:
(1) Need.--A locality that has over $2,000,000,000 in
category I treatment needs documented and accepted in the
Environmental Protection Agency's 1992 Needs Survey database
as of February 4, 1993.
(2) Hardship.--A locality that has wastewater user charges,
for residential use of 7,000 gallons per month based on Ernst
& Young National Water and Wastewater 1992 Rate Survey,
greater than 0.65 percent of 1989 median household income for
the metropolitan statistical area in which such locality is
located as measured by the Bureau of the Census.
(b) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding section 202(a)(1) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Federal share of
grants under subsection (a) shall be 80 percent of the cost
of construction, and the non-Federal share shall be 20
percent of the cost of construction.
(c) Small Communities.--The Administrator shall make grants
to States for the purpose of providing assistance for the
construction of treatment works to serve small communities as
defined by the State; except that the term ``small
communities'' may not include any locality with a population
greater than 75,000. Funds made available to carry out this
subsection shall be allotted by the Administrator to the
States in accordance with the allotment formula contained in
section 604(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for making grants under this section
$300,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain
available until expended and shall be equally divided between
subsections (a) and (c) of this section. Such authorization
of appropriation shall take effect only if the total amount
appropriated for fiscal year 1996 to carry out title VI of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is at least
$3,000,000,000.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to title II?
The Clerk will designate title III.
The text of title III is as follows:
TITLE III--STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT
SEC. 301. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS.
(a) Compliance Schedules.--Section 301(b) (33 U.S.C.
1311(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C) by striking ``not later than July
1, 1977,'';
(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``not
later than 3 years after the date such limitations are
established;''; and
(3) by striking ``, and in no case later than March 31,
1989'' each place it appears.
(b) Modifications for Nonconventional Pollutants.--
(1) General authority.--Section 301(g)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1311(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``(when determined by the
Administrator to be a pollutant covered by subsection
(b)(2)(F)) and any other pollutant which the Administrator
lists under paragraph (4) of this subsection'' and inserting
``and any other pollutant covered by subsection (b)(2)(F)''.
(2) Procedural requirements for listing and removal of
pollutants.--Section 301(g) (33 U.S.C. 1311(g)) is further
amended by striking paragraphs (4) and (5).
(c) Coal Remining.--Section 301(p)(2) (33 U.S.C.
1311(p)(2)) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``; except where monitoring demonstrates
that the receiving waters do not meet such water quality
standards prior to commencement of remining and where the
applicant submits a plan which demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator or the State, as the case
may be, that identified measures will be utilized to improve
the existing water quality of the receiving waters''.
(d) Preexisting Coal Remining Operations.--Section 301(p)
(33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Preexisting coal remining operations.--Any operator
of a coal mining operation who conducted remining at a site
on which coal mining originally was conducted before the
effective date of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act of 1977 shall be deemed to be in compliance with sections
301, 302, 306, 307, and 402 of this Act if--
[[Page H4764]]
``(A) such operator commenced remining at such operation
prior to the adoption of this subsection in a State program
approved under section 402 and performed such remining under
a permit pursuant to such Act; and
``(B) the post-mining discharges from such operation do not
add pollutants to the waters of the United States in excess
of those pollutants discharged from the remined area before
the coal remining operation began.''.
SEC. 302. POLLUTION PREVENTION OPPORTUNITIES.
(a) Innovative Production Processes.--Subsection (k) of
section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311(k)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(k) Innovative Production Processes, Technologies, and
Methods.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any point source subject
to a permit under section 402, the Administrator, with the
consent of the State in which the point source is located, or
the State in consultation with the Administrator, in the case
of a State with an approved program under section 402, may,
at the request of the permittee and after public notice and
opportunity for comment, extend the deadline for the point
source to comply with any limitation established pursuant to
subsection (b)(1)(A), (b)(2)(A), or (b)(2)(E) and make other
appropriate modifications to the conditions of the point
source permit, for the purpose of encouraging the development
and use of an innovative pollution prevention technology
(including an innovative production process change,
innovative pollution control technology, or innovative
recycling method) that has the potential to--
``(A) achieve an effluent reduction which is greater than
that required by the limitation otherwise applicable;
``(B) meet the applicable effluent limitation to water
while achieving a reduction of total emissions to other media
which is greater than that required by the otherwise
applicable emissions limitations for the other media;
``(C) meet the applicable effluent limitation to water
while achieving a reduction in energy consumption; or
``(D) achieve the required reduction with the potential for
significantly lower costs than the systems determined by the
Administrator to be economically achievable.
``(2) Duration of extensions.--The extension of the
compliance deadlines under paragraph (1) shall not extend
beyond the period necessary for the owner of the point source
to install and use the innovative process, technology, or
method in full-scale production operations, but in no case
shall the compliance extensions extend beyond 3 years from
the date for compliance with the otherwise applicable
limitations.
``(3) Consequences of failure.--In determining the amount
of any civil or administrative penalty pursuant to section
309(d) or 309(g) for any violations of a section 402 permit
during the extension period referred to in paragraph (1) that
are caused by the unexpected failure of an innovative
process, technology, or method, a court or the Administrator,
as appropriate, shall reduce or eliminate the penalty for
such violation if the permittee has made good-faith efforts
both to implement the innovation and to comply with any
interim limitations.
``(4) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall review,
analyze, and compile in a report information on innovative
and alternative technologies which are available for
preventing and reducing pollution of navigable waters, submit
such report to Congress, and publish in the Federal Register
a summary of such report and a notice of the availability of
such report. The Administrator shall annually update the
report prepared under this paragraph, submit the updated
report to Congress, and publish in the Federal Register a
summary of the updated report and a notice of its
availability.''.
(b) Pollution Prevention Programs.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C.
1311) is amended--
(1) in subsection (l) by striking ``subsection (n)'' and
inserting ``subsections (n), (q), and (r)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(q) Pollution Prevention Programs.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of the
State) or a State with an approved program under section 402,
after public notice and an opportunity for comment, may issue
a permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of
subsection (b) of this section or section 306 and makes
appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or
may modify the requirements of section 307, if the
Administrator or State determines that pollution prevention
measures or practices (including recycling, source reduction,
and other measures to reduce discharges or other releases of
pollutants to the environment beyond those otherwise required
by law)
together with such modifications will achieve an overall
reduction in emissions to the environment (including
emissions to water and air and disposal of solid wastes)
from the facility at which the permitted discharge is
located that is greater than would otherwise be achievable
if the source complied with the requirements of subsection
(b) or section 306 or 307 and will result in an overall
net benefit to the environment.
``(2) Term of modification.--A modification made pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall extend for the term of the permit or,
in the case of modifications under section 307(b), for up to
10 years, and may be extended further if the Administrator or
State determines at the expiration of the initial
modifications that such modifications will continue to enable
the source to achieve greater emissions reduction than would
otherwise be attainable.
``(3) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of a
modification that is not extended further under paragraph
(2), the source shall have a reasonable period of time, not
to exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise
applicable requirements of this Act.
``(4) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit
to Congress a report on the implementation of this subsection
and the emissions reductions achieved as a result of
modifications made pursuant to this subsection.''.
(c) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--Section 301 is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(r) Pollution Reduction Agreements.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Administrator (with the concurrence of the
State) or a State with an approved program under section 402,
after public notice and an opportunity for comment, may issue
a permit under section 402 which modifies the requirements of
subsection (b) of this section or section 306 and makes
appropriate modifications to the conditions of the permit, or
may modify the requirements of section 307, if the
Administrator or State determines that the owner or operator
of the source of the discharge has entered into a binding
contractual agreement with any other source of discharge in
the same watershed to implement pollution reduction controls
or measures beyond those otherwise required by law and that
the agreement is being implemented through modifications of a
permit issued under section 402 to the other source, by
modifications of the requirements of section 307 applicable
to the other source, or by nonpoint source control practices
and measures under section 319 applicable to the other
source. The Administrator or State may modify otherwise
applicable requirements pursuant to this section whenever the
Administrator or State determines that such pollution
reduction control or measures will result collectively in an
overall reduction in discharges to the watershed that is
greater than would otherwise be achievable if the parties to
the pollution reduction agreement each complied with
applicable requirements of subsection (b), section 306 or 307
resulting in a net benefit to the watershed.
``(2) Notification to affected states.--Before issuing or
modifying a permit under this subsection allowing discharges
into a watershed that is within the jurisdiction of 2 or more
States, the Administrator or State shall provide written
notice of the proposed permit to all States with jurisdiction
over the watershed. The Administrator or State shall not
issue or modify such permit unless all States with
jurisdiction over the watershed have approved such permit or
unless such States do not disapprove such permit within 90
days of receiving such written notice.
``(3) Term of modification.--Modifications made pursuant to
this subsection shall extend for the term of the modified
permits or, in the case of modifications under section 307,
for up to 10 years, and may be extended further if the
Administrator or State determines, at the expiration of the
initial modifications, that such modifications will continue
to enable the sources trading credits to achieve greater
reduction in discharges to the watershed collectively than
would otherwise be attainable.
``(4) Nonextension of modification.--Upon expiration of a
modification that is not extended further under paragraph
(3), the source shall have a reasonable period of time, not
to exceed 2 years, to come into compliance with otherwise
applicable requirements of this Act.
``(5) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to authorize the
Administrator or a State, as appropriate, to compel trading
among sources or to impose nonpoint source control practices
without the consent of the nonpoint source discharger.
``(6) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit
a report to Congress on the implementation of paragraph (1)
and the discharge reductions achieved as a result of
modifications made pursuant to paragraph (1).''.
(d) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o)(2) (33 U.S.C.
1342(o)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (D)--
(A) by inserting ``301(q), 301(r),'' after ``301(n),''; and
(B) by striking ``or'' the last place it appears;
(2) in subparagraph (E) by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
``(F) the permittee is taking pollution prevention or water
conservation measures that produce a net environmental
benefit, including, but not limited to, measures that result
in the substitution of one pollutant for another pollutant;
increase the concentration of a pollutant while decreasing
the discharge flow; or increase the discharge of a pollutant
or pollutants from one or more outfalls at a permittee's
facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in the
discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other outfalls at
the permittee's facility.''.
(e) Antidegradation Review.--Section 303(d) (33 U.S.C.
1313(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Antidegradation review.--The Administrator may not
require a State, in implementing the antidegradation policy
established under this section, to conduct an antidegradation
review in the case of--
``(A) increases in a discharge which are authorized under
section 301(g), 301(k), 301(q), 301(r), or 301(t);
``(B) increases in the concentration of a pollutant in a
discharge caused by a reduction in wastewater flow;
``(C) increases in the discharge of a pollutant or
pollutants from one or more outfalls at a permittee's
facility, when accompanied by offsetting decreases in the
discharge of a pollutant or pollutants from other outfalls at
the permittee's facility;
[[Page H4765]] ``(D) reissuance of a permit where there is
no increase in existing effluent limitations and, if a new
effluent limitation is being added to the permit, where the
new limitation is for a pollutant that is newly found in an
existing discharge due solely to improved monitoring methods;
or
``(E) a new or increased discharge which is temporary or
short-term or which the State determines represents an
insignificant increased pollutant loading.''.
(f) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes.--
Subsection (e) of section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317(e)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(e) Innovative Pretreatment Production Processes,
Technologies, and Methods.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any facility that
proposes to comply with the national categorical pretreatment
standards developed under subsection (b) by applying an
innovative pollution prevention technology (including an
innovative production process change, innovative pollution
control technology, or innovative recycling method) that
meets the requirements of section 301(k), the Administrator
or the State, in consultation with the Administrator, in the
case of a State which has a pretreatment program approved by
the Administrator, upon application of the facility and with
the concurrence of the treatment works into which the
facility introduces pollutants, may extend the deadlines for
compliance with the applicable national categorical
pretreatment standards established under this section and
make other appropriate modifications to the facility's
pretreatment requirements if the Administrator or the State,
in consultation with the Administrator, in the case of a
State which has a pretreatment program approved by the
Administrator determines that--
``(A) the treatment works will require the owner of the
source to conduct such tests and monitoring during the period
of the modification as are necessary to ensure that the
modification does not cause or contribute to a violation by
the treatment works under section 402 or a violation of
section 405;
``(B) the treatment works will require the owner of the
source to report on progress at prescribed milestones during
the period of modification to ensure that attainment of the
pollution reduction goals and conditions set forth in this
section is being achieved; and
``(C) the proposed extensions or modifications will not
cause or contribute to any violation of a permit granted to
the treatment works under section 402, any violation of
section 405, or a pass through of pollutants such that water
quality standards are exceeded in the body of water into
which the treatment works discharges.
``(2) Interim limitations.--A modification granted pursuant
to paragraph (1) shall include interim standards that shall
apply during the temporary period of the modification and
shall be the more stringent of--
``(A) those necessary to ensure that the discharge will not
interfere with the operation of the treatment works;
``(B) those necessary to ensure that the discharge will not
pass through pollutants at a level that will cause water
quality standards to be exceeded in the navigable waters into
which the treatment works discharges;
``(C) the limits established in the previously applicable
control mechanism, in those cases in which the limit from
which a modification is being sought is more stringent than
the limit established in a previous control mechanism
applicable to such source.
``(3) Duration of extensions and modifications.--The
extension of the compliance deadlines and the modified
pretreatment requirements established pursuant to paragraph
(1) shall not extend beyond the period necessary for the
owner to install and use the innovative process, technology,
or method in full-scale production operation, but in no case
shall the compliance extensions and modified requirements
extend beyond 3 years from the date for compliance with the
otherwise applicable standards.
``(4) Consequences of failure.--In determining the amount
of any civil or administrative penalty pursuant to section
309(d) or 309(g) for any pretreatment violations, or
violations by a publicly owned treatment works, caused by the
unexpected failure of an innovative process, technology, or
method, a court or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall
reduce, or eliminate, the penalty amount for such violations
provided the facility made good-faith efforts both to
implement the innovation and to comply with the interim
standards and, in the case of a publicly owned treatment
works, good-faith efforts were made to implement the
pretreatment program.''.
SEC. 303. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANS.
(a) No Reasonable Relationship.--Section 303(b) (33 U.S.C.
1313(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) No reasonable relationship.--No water quality
standard shall be established under this subsection where
there is no reasonable relationship between the costs and
anticipated benefits of attaining such standard.''.
(b) Revision of State Standards.--
(1) Review of revisions by the administrator.--Section
303(c)(1) is amended by striking ``three'' and all that
follows through ``1972'' and inserting the following: ``5-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the
Clean Water Amendments of 1995 and, for criteria that are
revised by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(a), on
or before the 180th day after the date of such revision by
the Administrator''.
(2) Factors.--Section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) is amended
by striking paragraph (2)(A) and inserting the following:
``(2) State adoption of water quality standards.--
``(A) In general.--
``(i) Submission to administrator.--Whenever the State
revises or adopts a new water quality standard, such standard
shall be submitted to the Administrator.
``(ii) Designated uses and water quality criteria.--The
revised or new standard shall consist of the designated uses
of the navigable waters involved and the water quality
criteria for such waters based upon such uses.
``(iii) Protection of human health.--The revised or new
standard shall protect human health and the environment and
enhance water quality.
``(iv) Development of standards.--In developing revised or
new standards, the State may consider information reasonably
available on the likely social, economic, energy use, and
environmental cost associated with attaining such standards
in relation to the benefits to be attained. The State may
provide a description of the considerations used in the
establishment of the standards.
``(v) Record of state's review.--The record of a State's
review under paragraph (1) of an existing standard or
adoption of a new standard that includes water quality
criteria issued or revised by the Administrator after the
date of the enactment of this sentence shall contain
available estimates of costs of compliance with the water
quality criteria published by the Administrator under section
304(a)(12) and any comments received by the State on such
estimate.
``(vi) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to limit or delay the use
of any guidance of the Administrator interpreting water
quality criteria to allow the use of a dissolved metals
concentration measurement or similar adjustment in
determining compliance with a water quality standard or
establishing effluent limitations.''.
(c) Revision of Designated Uses.--Section 303(c)(2) (33
U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(C) Revision of designated uses.--
``(i) Regulations.--After consultation with State officials
and not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of
this subparagraph, the Administrator shall propose, and not
later than 2 years after such date of enactment shall issue,
a revision to the Administrator's regulations regarding
designation of uses of waters by States.
``(ii) Waters not attaining designated uses.--For navigable
waters not attaining designated uses, the Administrator shall
identify conditions that make attainment of the designated
use infeasible and shall allow a State to modify the
designated use if the State determines that such condition or
conditions are present with respect to a particular receiving
water, or if the State determines that the costs of achieving
the designated use are not justified by the benefits.
``(iii) Waters attaining designated uses.--For navigable
waters attaining the designated use applicable to such waters
for all pollutants, the Administrator shall allow a State to
modify the designated use only if the State determines that
continued maintenance of the water quality necessary to
support the designated use will result in significant social
or economic dislocations substantially out of proportion to
the benefits to be achieved from maintenance of the
designated use.
``(iv) Modification of point source limits.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, water
quality based limits applicable to point sources may be
modified as appropriate to conform to any modified designated
use under this section.''.
SEC. 304. USE OF BIOLOGICAL MONITORING.
(a) Laboratory Biological Monitoring Criteria.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 303(c)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2))
is amended--
(1) by inserting ``Criteria for toxic pollutants.--'' after
``(B)'';
(2) by moving such subparagraph 4 ems to the right;
(3) by inserting after the third sentence the following:
``Criteria for whole effluent toxicity based on laboratory
biological monitoring or assessment methods shall employ an
aquatic species indigenous, or representative of indigenous,
and relevant to the type of waters covered by such criteria
and shall take into account the accepted analytical
variability associated with such methods in defining an
exceedance of such criteria.''.
(b) Permit Procedures.--Section 402 is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(q) Biological Monitoring Procedures.--
``(1) Responding to exceedances.--If a permit issued under
this section contains terms, conditions, or limitations
requiring biological monitoring or whole effluent toxicity
testing designed to meet criteria for whole effluent toxicity
based on laboratory biological monitoring or assessment
methods described in section 303(c)(2)(B), the permit shall
establish procedures for responding to an exceedance of such
criteria that includes analysis, identification, reduction,
or, where feasible, elimination of any effluent toxicity. The
failure of a biological monitoring test or whole effluent
toxicity test shall not result in a finding of a violation
under this Act, unless it is demonstrated that the permittee
has failed to comply with such procedures.
``(2) Discontinuance of use.--The permit shall allow the
permittee to discontinue such procedures--
``(A) if the permittee is an entity, other than a publicly
owned treatment works, if the permittee demonstrates through
a field bio-assessment study that a balanced and healthy
population of aquatic species indigenous, or representative
of indigenous, and relevant to the type of waters exists in
the waters that are affected by the discharge, and if the
applicable water quality standards are met for such waters;
or
[[Page H4766]] ``(B) if the permittee is a publicly owned
treatment works, the source or cause of such toxicity cannot,
after thorough investigation, be identified.''.
(c) Information on Water Quality Criteria.--Section
304(a)(8) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(8)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``, after'' and all that follows through
``1987,''; and
(2) by inserting after ``publish'' the following: ``,
consistent with section 303(c)(2)(B) of this Act,''.
SEC. 305. ARID AREAS.
(a) Constructed Water Conveyances.--Section 303(c)(2) (33
U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(D) Standards for constructed water conveyances.--
``(i) Relevant factors.--If a State exercises jurisdiction
over constructed water conveyances in establishing standards
under this section, the State may consider the following:
``(I) The existing and planned uses of water transported in
a conveyance system.
``(II) Any water quality impacts resulting from any return
flow from a constructed water conveyance to navigable waters
and the need to protect downstream users.
``(III) Management practices necessary to maintain the
conveyance system.
``(IV) State or regional water resources management and
water conservation plans.
``(V) The authorized purpose for the constructed
conveyance.
``(ii) Relevant uses.--If a State adopts or reviews water
quality standards for constructed water conveyances, it shall
not be required to establish recreation, aquatic life, or
fish consumption uses for such systems if the uses are not
existing or reasonably foreseeable or such uses impede the
authorized uses of the conveyance system.''.
(b) Criteria and Guidance for Ephemeral and Effluent-
Dependent Streams.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(9) Criteria and guidance for ephemeral and effluent-
dependent streams.--
``(A) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this paragraph, and after providing
notice and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator
shall develop and publish--
``(i) criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent
streams; and
``(ii) guidance to the States on development and adoption
of water quality standards applicable to such streams.
``(B) Factors.--The criteria and guidance developed under
subparagraph (A) shall take into account the limited ability
of ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams to support
aquatic life and certain designated uses, shall include
consideration of the role the discharge may play in
maintaining the flow or level of such waters, and shall
promote the beneficial use of reclaimed water pursuant to
section 101(a)(10).''.
(c) Factors Required To Be Considered by Administrator.--
Section 303(c)(4) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``In revising or adopting any new standard for
ephemeral or effluent-dependent streams under this paragraph,
the Administrator shall consider the factors referred to in
section 304(a)(9)(B).''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(21) The term `effluent-dependent stream' means a stream
or a segment thereof--
``(A) with respect to which the flow (based on the annual
average expected flow, determined by calculating the average
mode over a 10-year period) is primarily attributable to the
discharge of treated wastewater;
``(B) that, in the absence of a discharge of treated
wastewater and other primary anthropogenic surface or
subsurface flows, would be an ephemeral stream; or
``(C) that is an effluent-dependent stream under applicable
State water quality standards.
``(22) The term `ephemeral stream' means a stream or
segments thereof that flows periodically in response to
precipitation, snowmelt, or runoff.
``(23) The term `constructed water conveyance' means a
manmade water transport system constructed for the purpose of
transporting water in a waterway that is not and never was a
natural perennial waterway.''.
SEC. 306. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.
Section 303(d)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(C)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(C) Total maximum daily loads.--
``(i) State determination of reasonable progress.--Each
State shall establish, to the extent and according to a
schedule the State determines is necessary to achieve
reasonable progress toward the attainment or maintenance of
water quality standards, for the waters identified in
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with
the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those
pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section
304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation.
``(ii) Phased total maximum daily loads.--Total maximum
daily loads may reflect load reductions the State expects
will be realized over time resulting from anticipated
implementation of best management practices, storm water
controls, or other nonpoint or point source controls; so long
as by December 31, 2015, such loads are established at levels
necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards
with seasonal variations and a margin of safety.
``(iii) Considerations.--In establishing each load, the
State shall consider the availability of scientifically valid
data and information, the projected reductions achievable by
control measures or practices for all sources or categories
of sources, and the relative cost-effectiveness of
implementing such control measures or practices for such
sources.''.
SEC. 307. REVISION OF CRITERIA, STANDARDS, AND LIMITATIONS.
(a) Revision of Water Quality Criteria.--
(1) Factors.--Section 304(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)(1)) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and (C)'' and inserting ``(C)''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``(D) on the organisms that are likely to be
present in various ecosystems; (E) on the bioavailability of
pollutants under various natural and man induced conditions;
(F) on the magnitude, duration, and frequency of exposure
reasonably required to induce the adverse effects of concern;
and (G) on the bioaccumulation threat presented under various
natural conditions.''.
(2) Certification.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(10) Certification.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
the enactment of this paragraph, and at least once every 5
years thereafter, the Administrator shall publish a written
certification that the criteria for water quality developed
under paragraph (1) reflect the latest and best scientific
knowledge.
``(B) Updating of existing criteria.--Not later than 90
days after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the
Administrator shall publish a schedule for updating, by not
later than 5 years after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, the criteria for water quality developed under
paragraph (1) before the date of the enactment of this
subsection.
``(C) Deadline for revision of certain criteria.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, the Administrator shall revise and publish
criteria under paragraph (1) for ammonia, chronic whole
effluent toxicity, and metals as necessary to allow the
Administrator to make the certification under subparagraph
(A).''.
(b) Consideration of Certain Contaminants.--Section 304(a)
(33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(11) Consideration of certain contaminants.--In
developing and revising criteria for water quality criteria
under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall consider
addressing, at a minimum, each contaminant regulated pursuant
to section 1412 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300g-1).''.
(c) Cost Estimate.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 1314(a)) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(12) Cost estimate.--Whenever the Administrator issues or
revises a criteria for water quality under paragraph (1), the
Administrator, after consultation with Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons, shall develop and
publish an estimate of the costs that would likely be
incurred if sources were required to comply with the criteria
and an analysis to support the estimate. Such analysis shall
meet the requirements relevant to the estimation of costs
published in guidance issued under section 324(b).''.
(d) Revision of Effluent Limitations.--
(1) Elimination of requirement for annual revision.--
Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1) by striking ``and, at least annually
thereafter,'' and inserting ``and thereafter shall''.
(2) Special rule.--Section 304(b) (33 U.S.C. 1314(b)) is
amended by striking the period at the end of the first
sentence and inserting the following: ``; except that
guidelines issued under paragraph (1)(A) addressing
pollutants identified pursuant to subsection (a)(4) shall not
be revised after February 15, 1995, to be more stringent
unless such revised guidelines meet the requirements of
paragraph (4)(A).''.
(e) Schedule for Review of Guidelines.--Section 304(m)(1)
(33 U.S.C. 1314(m)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) Publication.--Not later than 3 years after the date
of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, the
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a plan
which shall--
``(A) identify categories of sources discharging pollutants
for which guidelines under subsection (b)(2) of this section
and section 306 have not been previously published;
``(B) establish a schedule for determining whether such
discharge presents a significant risk to human health and the
environment and whether such risk is sufficient, when
compared to other sources of pollutants in navigable waters,
to warrant regulation by the Administrator; and
``(C) establish a schedule for issuance of effluent
guidelines for those categories identified pursuant to
subparagraph (B).''.
(f) Revision of Pretreatment Requirements.--Section
304(g)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1314(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``and
review at least annually thereafter and, if appropriate,
revise'' and insert ``and thereafter revise, as
appropriate,''.
(g) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--Section 304 (33
U.S.C. 1314) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Central Treatment Facility Exemption.--The exemption
from effluent guidelines for the Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Point Source Category set forth in section 420.01(b) of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations, for the facilities listed in
such section shall remain in effect for any facility that met
the requirements of such section on or before July 26, 1982,
until the Administrator develops alternative effluent
guidelines for the facility.''.
SEC. 308. INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES.
Section 304(i)(2)(D) (33 U.S.C. 1314(i)(2)(D)) is amended
by striking ``any person'' and all that follows through the
period at the end and inserting the following: ``any person
(other than a
[[Page H4767]] retiree or an employee or official of a city,
county, or local governmental agency) who receives a
significant portion of his or her income during the period of
service on the board or body directly or indirectly from
permit holders or applicants for a permit).''.
SEC. 309. SECONDARY TREATMENT.
(a) Coastal Discharges.--Section 304(d) (33 U.S.C. 1314(d))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Coastal discharges.--For purposes of this subsection,
any municipal wastewater treatment facility shall be deemed
the equivalent of a secondary treatment facility if each of
the following requirements is met:
``(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced primary
treatment.
``(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, discharges through an ocean outfall into an open
marine environment greater than 4 miles offshore into a depth
greater than 300 feet.
``(C) The facility's discharge is in compliance with all
local and State water quality standards for the receiving
waters.
``(D) The facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean
monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal and State
regulatory agencies.''.
(b) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(s) Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator, with the concurrence
of the State, shall issue a 10-year permit under section 402
which modifies the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of
this section with respect to the discharge of any pollutant
from a publicly owned treatment works into marine waters
which are at least 150 feet deep through an ocean outfall
which discharges at least 1 mile offshore, if the applicant
demonstrates that--
``(A) there is an applicable ocean plan and the facility's
discharge is in compliance with all local and State water
quality standards for the receiving waters;
``(B) the facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean
monitoring program determined to be acceptable by relevant
Federal and State regulatory agencies;
``(C) the applicant has an Agency approved pretreatment
plan in place; and
``(D) the applicant, at the time such modification becomes
effective, will be discharging effluent which has received at
least chemically enhanced primary treatment and achieves a
monthly average of 75 percent removal of suspended solids.
``(2) Discharge of any pollutant into marine waters
defined.--For purposes of this subsection, the term
`discharge of any pollutant into marine waters' means a
discharge into deep waters of the territorial sea or the
waters of the contiguous zone, or into saline estuarine
waters where there is strong tidal movement.
``(3) Deadline.--On or before the 90th day after the date
of submittal of an application for a modification under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall issue to the applicant
a modified permit under section 402 or a written
determination that the application does not meet the terms
and conditions of this subsection.
``(4) Effect of failure to respond.--If the Administrator
does not respond to an application for a modification under
paragraph (1) on or before the 90th day referred to in
paragraph (3), the application shall be deemed approved and
the modification sought by the applicant shall be in effect
for the succeeding 10-year period.''.
(2) Extension of application deadline.--Section 301(j) (33
U.S.C. 1311(j)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(6) Extension of application deadline.--In the 365-day
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, municipalities may apply for a modification
pursuant to subsection (s) of the requirements of subsection
(b)(1)(B) of this section.''.
(c) Modifications for Small System Treatment
Technologies.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(t) Modifications for Small System Treatment
Technologies.--The Administrator, with the concurrence of the
State, or a State with an approved program under section 402
may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the
requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section with
respect to the discharge of any pollutant from a publicly
owned treatment works serving a community of 20,000 people or
fewer if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Administrator that--
``(1) the effluent from such facility originates primarily
from domestic users; and
``(2) such facility utilizes a properly constructed and
operated alternative treatment system (including
recirculating sand filter systems, constructed wetlands, and
oxidation lagoons) which is equivalent to secondary treatment
or will provide in the receiving waters and watershed an
adequate level of protection to human health and the
environment and contribute to the attainment of water quality
standards.''.
(d) Puerto Rico.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(u) Puerto Rico.--
``(1) Study by government of puerto rico.--Not later than 3
months after the date of the enactment of this section, the
Government of Puerto Rico may, after consultation with the
Administrator, initiate a study of the marine environment of
Anasco Bay off the coast of the Mayaguez region of Puerto
Rico to determine the feasibility of constructing a deepwater
outfall for the publicly owned treatment works located at
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. Such study shall recommend one or more
technically feasible locations for the deepwater outfall
based on the effects of such outfall on the marine
environment.
``(2) Application for modification.--Notwithstanding
subsection (j)(1)(A), not later than 18 months after the date
of the enactment of this section, an application may be
submitted for a modification pursuant to subsection (h) of
the requirements of subsection (b)(1)(B) of this section by
the owner of the publicly owned treatment works at Mayaguez,
Puerto Rico, for a deepwater outfall at a location
recommended in the study conducted pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(3) Initial determination.--On or before the 90th day
after the date of submittal of an application for
modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall
issue to the applicant a draft initial determination
regarding the modification of the existing permit.
``(4) Final determination.--On or before the 270th day
after the date of submittal of an application for
modification under paragraph (2), the Administrator shall
issue a final determination regarding such modification.
``(5) Effectiveness.--If a modification is granted pursuant
to an application submitted under this subsection, such
modification shall be effective only if the new deepwater
outfall is operational within 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this subsection. In all other aspects, such
modification shall be effective for the period applicable to
all modifications granted under subsection (h).''.
SEC. 310. TOXIC POLLUTANTS.
(a) Toxic Effluent Limitations and Standards.--Section
307(a)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1317(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(2) Each'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Toxic effluent limitations and standards.--
``(A) In general.--Each'';
(2) by moving paragraph (2) 2 ems to the right;
(3) by indenting subparagraph (A), as so designated, and
moving the remaining text of such subparagraph 2 ems further
to the right; and
(4) in subparagraph (A), as so designated, by striking the
third sentence; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Factors.--The published effluent standard (or
prohibition) shall take into account--
``(i) the pollutant's persistence, toxicity, degradability,
and bioaccumulation potential;
``(ii) the magnitude and risk of exposure to the pollutant,
including risks to affected organisms and the importance of
such organisms;
``(iii) the relative contribution of point source
discharges of the pollutant to the overall risk from the
pollutant;
``(iv) the availability of, costs associated with, and risk
posed by substitute chemicals or processes or the
availability of treatment processes or control technology;
``(v) the beneficial and adverse social and economic
effects of the effluent standard, including the impact on
energy resources;
``(vi) the extent to which effective control is being or
may be achieved in an expeditious manner under other
regulatory authorities;
``(vii) the impact on national security interests; and
``(viii) such other factors as the Administrator considers
appropriate.''.
(b) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--
(1) In general.--Section 304 is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(o) Beach Water Quality Monitoring.--After consultation
with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and after
providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the
Administrator shall develop and issue, not later than 18
months after the date of the enactment of this Act, guidance
that States may use in monitoring water quality at beaches
and issuing health advisories with respect to beaches,
including testing protocols, recommendations on frequency of
testing and monitoring, recommendations on pollutants for
which monitoring and testing should be conducted, and
recommendations on when health advisories should be issued.
Such guidance shall be based on the best available scientific
information and be sufficient to protect public health and
safety in the case of any reasonably expected exposure to
pollutants as a result of swimming or bathing.''.
(2) Reports.--Section 516(a) (33 U.S.C. 1375(a)) is amended
by striking ``and (9)'' and inserting ``(9) the monitoring
conducted by States on the water quality of beaches and the
issuance of health advisories with respect to beaches, and
(10)''.
(c) Fish Consumption Advisories.--Any fish consumption
advisories issued by the Administrator shall be based upon
the protocols, methodology, and findings of the Food and Drug
Administration.
SEC. 311. LOCAL PRETREATMENT AUTHORITY.
Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(f) Local Pretreatment Authority.--
``(1) Demonstration.--If, to carry out the purposes
identified in paragraph (2), a publicly owned treatment works
with an approved pretreatment program demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator, or a State with an
approved program under section 402, that--
``(A) such publicly owned treatment works is in compliance,
and is likely to remain in compliance, with its permit under
section 402, including applicable effluent limitations and
narrative standards;
``(B) such publicly owned treatment works is in compliance,
and is likely to remain in compliance, with applicable air
emission limitations;
``(C) biosolids produced by such publicly owned treatment
works meet beneficial use requirements under section 405; and
``(D) such publicly owned treatment works is likely to
continue to meet all applicable State requirements;
[[Page H4768]] the approved pretreatment program shall be
modified to allow the publicly owned treatment works to apply
local limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment standards
promulgated under this section.
``(2) Purposes.--The publicly owned treatment works may
make the demonstration to the Administrator or the State, as
the case may be, to apply local limits in lieu of categorical
pretreatment standards, as the treatment works deems
necessary, for the purposes of--
``(A) reducing the administrative burden associated with
the designation of an `industrial user' as a `categorical
industrial user'; or
``(B) eliminating additional redundant or unnecessary
treatment by industrial users which has little or no
environmental benefit.
``(3) Limitations.--
``(A) Significant noncompliance.--The publicly owned
treatment works may not apply local limits in lieu of
categorical pretreatment standards to any industrial user
which is in significant noncompliance (as defined by the
Administrator) with its approved pretreatment program.
``(B) Procedures.--A demonstration to the Administrator or
the State under paragraph (1) must be made under the
procedures for pretreatment program modification provided
under this section and section 402.
``(4) Annual review.--
``(A) Demonstration relating to ability to meet criteria.--
As part of the annual pretreatment report of the publicly
owned treatment works to the Administrator or State, the
treatment works shall demonstrate that application of local
limits in lieu of categorical pretreatment standards has not
resulted in the inability of the treatment works to meet the
criteria of paragraph (1).
``(B) Termination of authority.--If the Administrator or
State determines that application of local limits in lieu of
categorical pretreatment standards has resulted in the
inability of the treatment works to meet the criteria of
paragraph (1), the authority of a publicly owned treatment
works under this section shall be terminated and any affected
industrial user shall have a reasonable period of time to be
determined by the Administrator or State, but not to exceed 2
years, to come into compliance with any otherwise applicable
requirements of this Act.''.
SEC. 312. COMPLIANCE WITH MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.
Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Compliance With Management Practices.--
``(1) Special rule.--The Administrator or a State with a
permit program approved under section 402 may allow any
person that introduces silver into a publicly owned treatment
works to comply with a code of management practices with
respect to the introduction of silver into the treatment
works for a period not to exceed 5 years beginning on the
date of the enactment of this subsection in lieu of complying
with any pretreatment requirement (including any local limit)
based on an effluent limitation for the treatment works
derived from a water quality standard for silver--
``(A) if the treatment works has accepted the code of
management practices;
``(B) if the code of management practices meets the
requirements of paragraph (2); and
``(C) if the facility is--
``(i) part of a class of facilities for which the code of
management practices has been approved by the Administrator
or the State;
``(ii) in compliance with a mass limitation or
concentration level for silver attainable with the
application of the best available technology economically
achievable for such facilities, as established by the
Administrator after a review of the treatment and management
practices of such class of facilities; and
``(iii) implementing the code of management practices.
``(2) Code of management practices.--A code of management
practices meets the requirements of this paragraph if the
code of management practices--
``(A) is developed and adopted by representatives of
industry and publicly owned treatment works of major urban
areas;
``(B) is approved by the Administrator or the State, as the
case may be;
``(C) reflects acceptable industry practices to minimize
the amount of silver introduced into publicly owned treatment
works or otherwise entering the environment from the class of
facilities for which the code of management practices is
approved; and
``(D) addresses, at a minimum--
``(i) the use of the best available technology economically
achievable, based on a review of the current state of such
technology for such class of facilities and of the effluent
guidelines for such facilities;
``(ii) water conservation measures available to reduce the
total quantity of discharge from such facilities to publicly
owned treatment works;
``(iii) opportunities to recover silver (and other
pollutants) from the waste stream prior to introduction into
a publicly owned treatment works; and
``(iv) operating and maintenance practices to minimize the
amount of silver introduced into publicly owned treatment
works and to assure consistent performance of the management
practices and treatment technology specified under this
paragraph.
``(3) Interim extension for potws receiving silver.--In any
case in which the Administrator or a State with a permit
program approved under section 402 allows under paragraph (1)
a person to comply with a code of management practices for a
period of not to exceed 5 years in lieu of complying with a
pretreatment requirement (including a local limit) for
silver, the Administrator or State, as applicable, shall
modify the permit conditions and effluent limitations for any
affected publicly owned treatment works to defer for such
period compliance with any effluent limitation derived from a
water quality standard for silver beyond that required by
section 301(b)(2), notwithstanding the provisions of section
303(d)(4) and 402(o), if the Administrator or the State, as
applicable, finds that--
``(A) the quality of any affected waters and the operation
of the treatment works will be adequately protected during
such period by implementation of the code of management
practices and the use of best technology economically
achievable by persons introducing silver into the treatment
works;
``(B) the introduction of pollutants into such treatment
works is in compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2); and
``(C) a program of enforcement by such treatment works and
the State ensures such compliance.''.
SEC. 313. FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT.
(a) Adjustment of Penalties.--Section 309 (33 U.S.C. 1319)
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Adjustment of Monetary Penalties for Inflation.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
the enactment of this subsection, and at least once every 4
years thereafter, the Administrator shall adjust each
monetary penalty provided by this section in accordance with
paragraph (2) and publish such adjustment in the Federal
Register.
``(2) Method.--An adjustment to be made pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall be determined by increasing or decreasing
the maximum monetary penalty or the range of maximum monetary
penalties, as appropriate, by multiplying the cost-of-living
adjustment and the amount of such penalty.
``(3) Cost-of-living adjustment defined.--In this
subsection, the term `cost-of-living' adjustment means the
percentage (if any) for each monetary penalty by which--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index for the month of June of the
calendar year preceding the adjustment; is greater or less
than
``(B) the Consumer Price Index for--
``(i) with respect to the first adjustment under this
subsection, the month of June of the calendar year preceding
the date of the enactment of this subsection; and
``(ii) with respect to each subsequent adjustment under
this subsection, the month of June of the calendar year in
which the amount of such monetary penalty was last adjusted
under this subsection.
``(4) Rounding.--In making adjustments under this
subsection, the Administrator may round the dollar amount of
a penalty, as appropriate.
``(5) Applicability.--Any increase or decrease to a
monetary penalty resulting from this subsection shall apply
only to violations which occur after the date any such
increase takes effect.''.
(b) Joining States as Parties in Actions Involving
Municipalities.--Section 309(e) (33 U.S.C. 1319(e)) is
amended by striking ``shall be joined as a party. Such
State'' and inserting ``may be joined as a party. Any State
so joined as a party''.
SEC. 314. RESPONSE PLANS FOR DISCHARGES OF OIL OR HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCES.
(a) In General.--The requirements of section 311(j)(5) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1321(j)(5)) shall not apply with respect to--
(1) a municipal or industrial treatment works at which no
greater than a de minimis quantity of oil or hazardous
substances is stored; or
(2) a facility that stores process water mixed with a de
minimis quantity of oil.
(b) Regulations.--The President shall issue regulations
clarifying the meaning of the term ``de minimis quantity of
oil or hazardous substances'' as used in this section.
SEC. 315. MARINE SANITATION DEVICES.
Section 312(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 1322(c)(1)(A)) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``Not later than 2 years
after the date of the enactment of this sentence, and at
least once every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Department in which
the Coast Guard is operating and after providing notice and
opportunity for public comment, shall review such standards
and regulations to take into account improvements in
technology relating to marine sanitation devices and based on
such review shall make such revisions to such standards and
regulations as may be necessary.''.
SEC. 316. FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) Application of Certain Provisions.--Section 313(a) (33
U.S.C. 1323(a)) is amended by striking all preceding
subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 313. FEDERAL FACILITIES POLLUTION CONTROL.
``(a) Applicability of Federal, State, Interstate, and
Local Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Each department, agency, or
instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial
branches of the Federal Government--
``(A) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or
``(B) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may
result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants,
and each officer, agent, or employee thereof in the
performance of his official duties, shall be subject to, and
comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local
requirements, administrative authority, and process and
sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water
pollution in the same manner and to the same extent as any
nongovernmental entity, including the payment of reasonable
service charges.
[[Page H4769]] ``(2) Types of actions covered.--Paragraph
(1) shall apply--
``(A) to any requirement whether substantive or procedural
(including any recordkeeping or reporting requirement, any
requirement respecting permits, and any other requirement),
``(B) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or local
administrative authority, and
``(C) to any process and sanction, whether enforced in
Federal, State, or local courts or in any other manner.
``(3) Penalties and fines.--The Federal, State, interstate,
and local substantive and procedural requirements,
administrative authority, and process and sanctions referred
to in paragraph (1) include all administrative orders and all
civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of
whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in
nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or
continuing violations.
``(4) Sovereign immunity.--
``(A) Waiver.--The United States hereby expressly waives
any immunity otherwise applicable to the United States with
respect to any requirement, administrative authority, and
process and sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) (including
any injunctive relief, any administrative order, any civil or
administrative penalty or fine referred to in paragraph (3),
or any reasonable service charge).
``(B) Processing fees.--The reasonable service charges
referred to in this paragraph include fees or charges
assessed in connection with the processing and issuance of
permits, renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of
plans, studies, and other documents, and inspection and
monitoring of facilities, as well as any other
nondiscriminatory charges that are assessed in connection
with a Federal, State, interstate, or local water pollution
regulatory program.
``(5) Exemptions.--
``(A) General authority of president.--The President may
exempt any effluent source of any department, agency, or
instrumentality in the executive branch from compliance with
any requirement to which paragraph (1) applies if the
President determines it to be in the paramount interest of
the United States to do so; except that no exemption may be
granted from the requirements of section 306 or 307 of this
Act.
``(B) Limitation.--No exemptions shall be granted under
subparagraph (A) due to lack of appropriation unless the
President shall have specifically requested such
appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the
Congress shall have failed to make available such requested
appropriation.
``(C) Time period.--Any exemption under subparagraph (A)
shall be for a period not in excess of 1 year, but additional
exemptions may be granted for periods of not to exceed 1 year
upon the President's making a new determination.
``(D) Military property.--In addition to any exemption of a
particular effluent source, the President may, if the
President determines it to be in the paramount interest of
the United States to do so, issue regulations exempting from
compliance with the requirements of this section any
weaponry, equipment, aircraft, vessels, vehicles, or other
classes or categories of property, and access to such
property, which are owned or operated by the Armed Forces of
the United States (including the Coast Guard) or by the
National Guard of any State and which are uniquely military
in nature. The President shall reconsider the need for such
regulations at 3-year intervals.
``(E) Reports.--The President shall report each January to
the Congress all exemptions from the requirements of this
section granted during the preceding calendar year, together
with the President's reason for granting such exemption.
``(6) Venue.--Nothing in this section shall be construed to
prevent any department, agency, or instrumentality of the
Federal Government, or any officer, agent, or employee
thereof in the performance of official duties, from removing
to the appropriate Federal district court any proceeding to
which the department, agency, or instrumentality or officer,
agent, or employee thereof is subject pursuant to this
section, and any such proceeding may be removed in accordance
with chapter 89 of title 28, United States Code.
``(7) Personal liability of federal employees.--No agent,
employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally
liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State,
interstate, or local water pollution law with respect to any
act or omission within the scope of the official duties of
the agent, employee, or officer.
``(8) Criminal sanctions.--An agent, employee, or officer
of the United States shall be subject to any criminal
sanction (including any fine or imprisonment) under any
Federal or State water pollution law, but no department,
agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to
any such sanction.''.
(b) Funds Collected by a State.--Section 313 (33 U.S.C.
1323) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Limitation on State Use of Funds.--Unless a State law
in effect on the date of the enactment of this subsection or
a State constitution requires the funds to be used in a
different manner, all funds collected by a State from the
Federal Government in penalties and fines imposed for the
violation of a substantive or procedural requirement referred
to in subsection (a) shall be used by a State only for
projects designed to improve or protect the environment or to
defray the costs of environmental protection or
enforcement.''.
(c) Enforcement.--Section 313 is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(d) Federal Facility Enforcement.--
``(1) Administrative enforcement by epa.--The Administrator
may commence an administrative enforcement action against any
department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government
pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this
Act.
``(2) Procedure.--The Administrator shall initiate an
administrative enforcement action against a department,
agency, or instrumentality under this subsection in the same
manner and under the same circumstances as an action would be
initiated against any other person under this Act. The amount
of any administrative penalty imposed under this subsection
shall be determined in accordance with section 309(d) of this
Act.
``(3) Voluntary settlement.--Any voluntary resolution or
settlement of an action under this subsection shall be set
forth in an administrative consent order.
``(4) Conferral with epa.--No administrative order issued
to a department, agency, or instrumentality under this
section shall become final until such department, agency, or
instrumentality has had the opportunity to confer with the
Administrator.''.
(d) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--
Section 313 is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Limitation on Actions and Right of Intervention.--Any
violation with respect to which the Administrator has
commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action under this
subsection, or for which the Administrator has issued a final
order and the violator has either paid a penalty or fine
assessed under this subsection or is subject to an
enforceable schedule of corrective actions, shall not be the
subject of an action under section 505 of this Act. In any
action under this subsection, any citizen may intervene as a
matter of right.''.
(e) Definition of Person.--Section 502(5) (33 U.S.C.
1362(5)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end
the following: ``and includes any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States''.
(f) Definition of Radioactive Materials.--Section 502 (33
U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(24) The term `radioactive materials' includes source
materials, special nuclear materials, and byproduct materials
(as such terms are defined under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954) which are used, produced, or managed at facilities not
licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; except that
such term does not include any material which is discharged
from a vessel covered by Executive Order 12344 (42 U.S.C.
7158 note; relating to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion
Program).''.
(g) Conforming Amendments.--Section 313(b) (33 U.S.C.
1323(b)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(b)(1)'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Wastewater Facilities.--
``(1) Cooperation for use of wastewater control systems.--
'';
(2) in paragraph (2) by inserting ``Limitation on
construction.--'' before ``Construction''; and
(3) by moving paragraphs (1) and (2) 2 ems to the right.
(h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act
and shall only apply to violations occurring after such date
of enactment.
SEC. 317. CLEAN LAKES.
(a) Priority Lakes.--Section 314(d)(2) (33 U.S.C.
1324(d)(2)) is amended by inserting ``Paris Twin Lakes,
Illinois; Otsego Lake, New York; Raystown Lake,
Pennsylvania;'' after ``Minnesota;''.
(b) Funding.--Section 314 (33 U.S.C. 1324) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.
SEC. 318. COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES.
Section 316(b) (33 U.S.C. 1326(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``(b)'' the following: ``Standard
for Cooling Water Intake Structures.--'';
(2) by inserting before ``Any'' the following: ``(1) In
general.--'';
(3) by indenting paragraph (1), as designated by paragraph
(2) of this section, and moving such paragraph 2 ems to the
right; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) New point source considerations.--In establishing a
standard referred to in paragraph (1) for cooling water
intake structures located at new point sources, the
Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
``(A) The relative technological, engineering, and economic
feasibility of possible technologies or techniques for
minimizing any such adverse environmental impacts.
``(B) The relative technological, engineering, and economic
feasibility of possible site locations, intake structure
designs, and cooling water flow techniques.
``(C) The relative environmental, social, and economic
costs and benefits of possible technologies, techniques, site
locations, intake structure designs, and cooling water flow
techniques.
``(D) The projected useful life of the new point source.
``(3) Existing point sources.--For existing point sources,
the Administrator may require the use of best technology
available in the case of existing cooling water intake
structures if the Administrator determines such structures
are having or could have a significant adverse impact on the
aquatic environment. In establishing a standard referred to
in paragraph (1) for such existing point sources, the
Administrator shall consider, at a minimum, the following:
``(A) The relative technological, engineering, and economic
feasibility of reasonably available retrofit technologies or
techniques for minimizing any such adverse environmental
impacts.
[[Page H4770]]
``(B) Other mitigation measures for offsetting the
anticipated adverse environmental impacts resulting from the
withdrawal of cooling water.
``(C) Relative environmental, social, and economic costs
and benefits of possible retrofit technologies, techniques,
and mitigation measures.
``(D) The projected remaining useful life of the existing
point source.
``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) New point source.--The term `new point source' means
any point source the construction of which will commence
after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a
standard for intake structures that will be applicable to
such source if such standard is promulgated in accordance
with paragraph (2).
``(B) Existing point source.--The term `existing point
source' means any point source that is not a new point
source.''.
SEC. 319. NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) State Assessment Report.--
(1) Contents.--Section 319(a)(1)(C) (33 U.S.C.
1329(a)(1)(C)) is amended by striking ``best management
practices and''.
(2) Information used in preparation.--Section 319(a)(2) is
amended--
(A) by inserting ``, reviewing, and revising'' after
``developing''; and
(B) by striking ``section'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``subsection''.
(3) Review and revision.--Section 319(a) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after
the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of
1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State shall review,
revise, and submit to the Administrator the report required
by this subsection.''.
(b) State Management Program.--
(1) Term of program.--Section 319(b)(1) is amended by
striking ``four'' and inserting ``5''.
(2) Contents.--Section 319(b)(2) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) by striking ``best'';
(ii) by striking ``paragraph (1)(B)'' and inserting
``subsection (a)(1)(B)''; and
(iii) by inserting ``and measure'' after ``practice'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by striking ``nonregulatory or regulatory programs for
enforcement,'' and inserting ``one or more of the following:
voluntary programs, incentive-based programs, regulatory
programs, enforceable policies and mechanisms, State
management programs approved under section 306 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972,''; and
(ii) by striking ``achieve implementation'' and all that
follows before the period and inserting ``manage categories,
subcategories, or particular nonpoint sources to the degree
necessary to provide for reasonable further progress toward
the goal of attaining water quality standards within 15 years
of approval of the State program for those waters identified
under subsection (a)(1)(A)'';
(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) A schedule containing interim goals and milestones
for making reasonable progress toward the attainment of
standards, which may be demonstrated by one or any
combination of the following: improvements in water quality
(including biological indicators), documented implementation
of voluntary nonpoint source control practices and measures,
and adoption of enforceable policies and mechanisms.'';
(D) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``A certification of''
and inserting ``After the date of the enactment of the Clean
Water Amendments of 1995, a certification by''; and
(E) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) A description of the monitoring or other assessment
which will be carried out under the program for the purposes
of monitoring and assessing the effectiveness of the program,
including the attainment of interim goals and milestones.
``(H) An identification of activities on Federal lands in
the State that are inconsistent with the State management
program.
``(I) An identification of goals and milestones for
progress in attaining water quality standards, including a
projected date for attaining such standards as expeditiously
as practicable but not later than 15 years after the date of
approval of the State program for each of the waters listed
pursuant to subsection (a).''.
(3) Utilization of local and private experts.--Section
319(b)(3) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, including academic institutions,
private industry experts, and other individual experts in
water resource conservation and planning''.
(4) New technologies; use of resources; agricultural
programs.--Section 319(b) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(5) Recognition of new technologies.--In developing and
implementing a management program under this subsection, a
State may recognize and utilize new practices, technologies,
processes, products, and other alternatives.
``(6) Efficient and effective use of resources.--In
developing and implementing a management program under this
subsection, a State may recognize and provide for a
methodology which takes into account situations in which
management measures used to control one pollutant have an
adverse impact with respect to another pollutant. The
methodology should encourage the balanced combination of
measures which best address the various impairments on the
watershed or site.
``(7) Recognition of agricultural programs.--Any
agricultural producer who has voluntarily developed and is
implementing an approved whole farm or ranch natural
resources management plan shall be considered to be in
compliance with the requirements of a State program developed
under this section--
``(A) if such plan has been developed under a program
subject to a memorandum of agreement between the Chief of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Governor, or
their respective designees; and
``(B) if such memorandum of agreement specifies--
``(i) the scope and content of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service program (not an individual farm or ranch
plan) in the State or regions of the State;
``(ii) the terms of approval, implementation, and duration
of a voluntary farm or ranch plan for agricultural producers;
``(iii) the responsibilities for assessing implementation
of voluntary whole farm and ranch natural resource management
plans; and
``(iv) the duration of such memorandum of agreement.
At a minimum, such memorandum of agreement shall be reviewed
and may be revised every 5 years, as part of the State review
of its management program under this section.''.
(c) Submission of Management Programs.--Paragraph (2) of
section 319(c) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
Each management program shall be submitted to the
Administrator within 30 months of the issuance by the
Administrator of the final guidance under subsection (o) and
every 5 years thereafter. Each program submission after the
initial submission following the date of the enactment of the
Clean Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration
of reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining
water quality standards within 15 years of approval of the
State program, including documentation of the degree to which
the State has achieved the interim goals and milestones
contained in the previous program submission. Such
demonstration shall take into account the adequacy of Federal
funding under this section.''.
(d) Approval and Disapproval of Reports and Management
Programs.--
(1) Deadline.--Section 319(d)(1) is amended by inserting
``or revised report'' after ``any report''.
(2) Disapproval.--Section 319(d)(2) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B) by inserting before the semicolon
the following: ``; except that such program or portion shall
not be disapproved solely because the program or portion does
not include enforceable policies or mechanisms'';
(B) in subparagraph (D) by striking ``are not adequate''
and all that follows before the semicolon and inserting the
following: ``will not result in reasonable further progress
toward the attainment of applicable water quality standards
under section 303 as expeditiously as possible but not later
than 15 years after approval of the State program''; and
(C) in the text following subparagraph (D)--
(i) by striking ``3 months'' and inserting ``6 months'';
and
(ii) by inserting ``or portion thereof'' before ``within
three months of receipt''.
(3) Failure to submit report.--Section 319(d)(3) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``the report'' and inserting ``a report or
revised report'';
(B) by striking ``30 months'' and inserting ``18 months'';
and
(C) by striking ``of the enactment of this section'' and
inserting ``on which such report is required to be submitted
under subsection (a)''.
(4) Program management by the administrator.--Section
319(d) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(4) Failure of state to submit program.--
``(A) Program management by the administrator.--If a State
fails to submit a management program or revised management
program under subsection (b) or the Administrator disapproves
such management program, the Administrator shall prepare and
implement a management program for controlling pollution
added from nonpoint sources to the navigable waters within
the State and improving the quality of such waters in
accordance with subsection (b).
``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator intends to
disapprove a program submitted by a State, the Administrator
shall first notify the Governor of the State in writing of
the modifications necessary to meet the requirements of this
section. The Administrator shall provide adequate public
notice and an opportunity for a public hearing for all
interested parties.
``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after taking into
account the level of funding actually provided as compared
with the level authorized under subsection (j), the
Administrator determines that a State has failed to
demonstrate reasonable further progress toward the attainment
of water quality standards as required, the State shall
revise its program within 12 months of that determination in
a manner sufficient to achieve attainment of applicable water
quality standards by the deadline established by this Act. If
a State fails to make such a program revision or the
Administrator disapproves such a revision, the Administrator
shall prepare and implement a nonpoint source management
program for the State.''.
(e) Technical Assistance.--Section 319(f) is amended by
inserting ``and implementing'' after ``developing''.
(f) Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--Section 319(h)(1) is amended--
(A) by amending the paragraph heading to read as follows:
``Grants for preparation and implementation of reports and
management programs.--'';
(B) by striking ``for which a report submitted under
subsection (a) and a management program submitted under
subsection (b) is approved under this section'';
(C) by striking ``the Administrator shall make grants'' and
inserting ``the Administrator may make grants under this
subsection'';
[[Page H4771]] (D) by striking ``under this subsection to
such State'' and inserting ``to such State'';
(E) by striking ``implementing such management program''
and inserting ``preparing a report under subsection (a) and
in preparing and implementing a management program under
subsection (b)'';
(F) by inserting after the first sentence the following:
``Grants for implementation of such management program may be
made only after such report and management program are
approved under this section.''; and
(G) by adding at the end the following: ``The Administrator
is authorized to provide funds to a State if necessary to
implement an approved portion of a State program or, with the
approval of the Governor of the State, to implement a
component of a federally established program. The
Administrator may continue to make grants to any State with
an program approved on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995 until the
Administrator withdraws the approval of such program or the
State fails to submit a revision of such program in
accordance with subsection (c)(2).''.
(2) Federal share.--Section 319(h)(3) is amended--
(A) by striking ``management program implemented'' and
inserting ``report prepared and management program prepared
and implemented'';
(B) by striking ``60 percent'' and inserting ``75
percent'';
(C) by striking ``implementing such management program''
and inserting ``preparing such report and preparing and
implementing such management program''; and
(D) by inserting ``of program implementation'' after ``non-
Federal share''.
(3) Limitation on grant amounts.--Section 319(h)(4) is
amended--
(A) by inserting before the first sentence the following:
``The Administrator shall establish, after consulting with
the States, maximum and minimum grants for any fiscal year to
promote equity between States and effective nonpoint source
management.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The minimum
percentage of funds allocated to each State shall be 0.5
percent of the amount appropriated.''.
(4) Allocation of grant funds.--Paragraph (5) of section
319(h) is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Allocation of grant funds.--Grants under this section
shall be allocated to States with approved programs in a fair
and equitable manner and be based upon rules and regulations
promulgated by the Administrator which shall take into
account the extent and nature of the nonpoint sources of
pollution in each State and other relevant factors.''.
(5) Use of funds.--Paragraph (7) of section 319(h) is
amended to read as follows:
``(7) Use of funds.--A State may use grants made available
to the State pursuant to this section for activities relating
to nonpoint source water pollution control, including--
``(A) providing financial assistance with respect to those
activities whose principal purpose is protecting and
improving water quality;
``(B) assistance related to the cost of preparing or
implementing the State management program;
``(C) providing incentive grants to individuals to
implement a site-specific water quality plan in amounts not
to exceed 75 percent of the cost of the project from all
Federal sources;
``(D) land acquisition or conservation easements consistent
with a site-specific water quality plan; and
``(E) restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of urban and rural waters and watersheds
(including restoration and maintenance of water quality, a
balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and
wildlife, aquatic and riparian vegetation, and recreational
activities in and on the water) and protecting designated
uses, including fishing, swimming, and drinking water
supply.''.
(6) Compliance with state management program.--Paragraph
(8) of section 319(h) is amended to read as follows:
``(8) Compliance with state management program.--In any
fiscal year for which the Administrator determines that a
State has not made satisfactory progress in the preceding
fiscal year in meeting the schedule specified for such State
under subsection (b)(2)(C), the Administrator is authorized
to withhold grants pursuant to this section in whole or in
part to the State after adequate written notice is provided
to the Governor of the State.''.
(7) Allotment study.--Section 319(h) is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(13) Allotment study.--
``(A) Study.--The Administrator, in consultation with the
States, shall conduct a study of whether the allocation of
funds under paragraph (5) appropriately reflects the needs
and costs of nonpoint source control measures for different
nonpoint source categories and subcategories and of options
for better reflecting such needs and costs in the allotment
of funds.
``(B) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the
enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, the
Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report on the
results of the study conducted under this subsection,
together with recommendations.''.
(g) Grants for Protecting Ground Water Quality.--Section
319(i)(3) is amended by striking ``$150,000'' and inserting
``$500,000''.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 319(j) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``$130,000,000'';
(2) by inserting after ``1991'' the following: ``, such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 1992 through 1995,
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 1996, $150,000,000 for fiscal
year 1997, $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1998, $250,000,000
for fiscal year 1999, and $300,000,000 for fiscal year
2000''; and
(3) by striking ``$7,500,000'' and inserting
``$25,000,000''.
(i) Consistency of Other Programs and Projects With
Management Programs.--Section 319(k) (33 U.S.C. 1329(k)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``allow States to review'' and inserting
``require coordination with States in'';
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``and the State watershed management program'';
and
(3) by adding at the end the following: ``Federal agencies
that own or manage land, or issue licenses for activities
that cause nonpoint source pollution from such land, shall
coordinate their nonpoint source control measures with the
State nonpoint source management program and the State
watershed management program. A Federal agency and the
Governor of an affected State shall enter into a memorandum
of understanding to carry out the purposes of this paragraph.
Such a memorandum of understanding shall not relieve the
Federal agency of the agency's obligation to comply with its
own mandates.''.
(j) Reports of the Administrator.--
(1) Biennial reports.--Section 319(m)(1) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading by striking ``Annual'' and
inserting ``Biennial''; and
(B) by striking ``1988, and each January 1'' and inserting
``1995, and biennially''.
(2) Contents.--Section 319(m)(2) is amended--
(A) by striking the paragraph heading and all that follows
before ``at a minimum'' and inserting ``Contents.--Each
report submitted under paragraph (1),'';
(B) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``best management
practices'' and inserting ``measures''; and
(C) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``best management
practices'' and inserting ``the measures provided by States
under subsection (b)''.
(k) Set Aside for Administrative Personnel.--Section 319(n)
is amended by striking ``less'' and inserting ``more''.
(l) Guidance on Model Management Practices and Measures.--
Section 319 is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(o) Guidance on Model Management Practices and
Measures.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall publish guidance
to identify model management practices and measures which may
be undertaken, at the discretion of the State or appropriate
entity, under a management program established pursuant to
this section.
``(2) Consultation; public notice and comment.--The
Administrator shall develop the model management practices
and measures under paragraph (1) in consultation with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, other
appropriate Federal and State departments and agencies, and
academic institutions, private industry experts, and other
individual experts in water conservation and planning, and
after providing notice and opportunity for public comment.
``(3) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish
proposed guidance under this subsection not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and
shall publish final guidance under this subsection not later
than 18 months after such date of enactment. The
Administrator shall periodically review and revise the final
guidance at least once every 3 years after its publication.
``(4) Model management practices and measures defined.--For
the purposes of this subsection, the term `model management
practices and measures' means economically achievable
measures for the control of the addition of pollutants from
nonpoint sources of pollution which reflect the greatest
degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the
application of the best available nonpoint pollution control
practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria,
operating methods, or other alternatives. The Administrator
may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within any
category of nonpoint sources.''.
(m) Inadequate Funding.--Section 319 is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(p) Inadequate Funding.--For each fiscal year beginning
after the date of the enactment of this subsection for which
the total of amounts appropriated to carry out this section
are less than the total of amounts authorized to be
appropriated pursuant to subsection (j), the deadline for
compliance with any requirement of this section, including
any deadline relating to assessment reports or State program
implementation or monitoring efforts, shall be postponed by 1
year, unless the Administrator and the State jointly certify
that the amounts appropriated are sufficient to meet the
requirements of this section.''.
(n) Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs.--
(1) Repeal.--Section 6217 of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1455b) is repealed.
(2) Inclusion of coastal management provisions in nonpoint
program.--Section 319 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D)
and inserting ``(including State management programs approved
under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972); and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(E) identifies critical areas, giving consideration to
the variety of natural, commercial, recreational, ecological,
industrial, and aesthetic resources of immediate and
potential value to the present and future of the Nation's
waters in the Coastal Zone.'';
[[Page H4772]] (B) in subsection (a)(2) by inserting ``any
management program of the State approved under section 306 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,'' after ``314,'';
(C) in subsection (b)(2) by adding after subparagraph (I),
as added by subsection (b) of this section, the following:
``(J) For coastal areas, the identification of, and
continuing process for identifying, land uses which
individually or cumulatively may cause or contribute
significantly to degradation of--
``(i) those coastal waters where there is a failure to
attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or
protected designated uses, as determined by the State
pursuant to the State's water quality planning processes or
watershed planning efforts; and
``(ii) those coastal waters that are threatened by
reasonably foreseeable increases in pollution loadings.'';
and
(D) in subsection (c)(1) by inserting ``or coastal zone
management agencies'' after ``planning agencies''.
(o) Agricultural Inputs.--Section 319 is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(q) Agricultural Inputs.--For the purposes of this Act,
any land application of livestock manure shall not be
considered a point source and shall be subject to enforcement
only under this section.''.
(p) Purpose.--Section 319 (33 U.S.C. 1329) is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(r) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist
States in addressing nonpoint sources of pollution where
necessary to achieve the goals and requirements of this Act.
It is recognized that State nonpoint source programs need to
be built upon a foundation that voluntary initiatives
represent the approach most likely to succeed in achieving
the objectives of this Act.''.
SEC. 320. NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM.
(a) Technical Amendment.--Section 320(a)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C.
1330(a)(2)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
``(B) Priority consideration.--The Administrator shall give
priority consideration under this section to Long Island
Sound, New York and Connecticut; Narragansett Bay, Rhode
Island; Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts; Massachusetts Bay,
Massachusetts (including Cape Cod Bay and Boston Harbor);
Puget Sound, Washington; New York-New Jersey Harbor, New York
and New Jersey; Delaware Bay, Delaware and New Jersey;
Delaware Inland Bays, Delaware; Albemarle Sound, North
Carolina; Sarasota Bay, Florida; San Francisco Bay,
California; Santa Monica Bay, California; Galveston Bay,
Texas; Barataria-Terrebonne Bay estuary complex, Louisiana;
Indian River Lagoon, Florida; Charlotte Harbor, Florida;
Barnegat Bay, New Jersey; and Peconic Bay, New York.''.
(b) Grants.--Section 320(g)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1330(g)(2)) is
amended by inserting ``and implementation monitoring'' after
``development''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 320(i) (33
U.S.C. 1330(i)) is amended by striking ``1987'' and all that
follows through ``1991'' and inserting the following: ``1987
through 1991, such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years
1992 through 1995, and $19,000,000 per fiscal year for each
of fiscal years 1996 through 2000''.
SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) Establishment.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 321. STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
``(a) State Watershed Management Program.--
``(1) Submission of program to administrator.--A State, at
any time, may submit a watershed management program to the
Administrator for approval.
``(2) Approval.--If the Administrator does not disapprove a
State watershed management program within 180 days of its
submittal or 240 days of a request for a public hearing
pursuant to paragraph (3) with respect to the program,
whichever is later, such program shall be deemed approved for
the purposes of this section. The Administrator shall approve
the program if the program includes, at a minimum, the
following elements:
``(A) The identification of the State agency with primary
responsibility for overseeing and approving watershed
management plans in general.
``(B) The description of any responsible entities
(including any appropriate State agency or substate agency)
to be utilized in implementing the program and a description
of their responsibilities.
``(C) A description of the scope of the program. In
establishing the scope of the program, the State may address
one or more watersheds, or pollutants, concurrently or
sequentially. The scope of the State program may expand over
time with respect to the watersheds, pollutants, and factors
to be addressed under the program. In developing the State
program, the State shall take into account all regional and
local government watershed management programs that are
consistent with the proposed State program and shall consult
with the regional and local governments that developed such
programs. The State shall consider recommendations from units
of general purpose government, special purpose districts,
local water suppliers, and appropriate water management
agencies in the development and scope of the program.
``(D) Provisions for carrying out an analysis, consistent
with the established scope of the program, of the problems
within each watershed covered under the program.
``(E) An identification of watershed management units for
which management plans will be developed, taking into
consideration those waters where water quality is threatened
or impaired or otherwise in need of special protection. A
watershed management unit identified under the program may
include waters and associated land areas in more than 1 State
if the Governors of the States affected jointly designate the
watershed management unit and may include waters and
associated lands managed or owned by the Federal Government.
``(F) A description of the activities required of
responsible entities (as specified under subsection (e)(1))
and a description of the watershed plan approval process of
the State.
``(G) Documentation of the public participation in
development of the program and description of the procedures
that will be used for public participation in the development
and implementation of watershed plans.
``(H) The identification of goals that will be pursued in
each watershed, including attainment of State water quality
standards (including site-specific water quality standards)
and the goals and objectives of this Act.
``(I) An exclusion from the program of federally approved
activities with respect to linear utility facilities, such as
natural gas pipelines if such facilities extend to multiple
watersheds and result in temporary or de minimis impacts.
``(J) A description of the process for consideration of and
achieving consistency with the purposes of sections 319 and
322.
``(3) Disapproval process.--If the Administrator intends to
disapprove a program of a State submitted under this
subsection, the Administrator shall by a written notification
advise the State of the intent to disapprove and the reasons
for disapproval. If, within 30 days of receipt of such
notice, a State so requests, the Administrator shall conduct
a public hearing in the State on the intent to disapprove and
the reasons for such disapproval. A State may resubmit a
revised program that addresses the reasons contained in the
notification. If a State requests a public hearing, the
Administrator shall conduct the hearing in that State and
issue a final determination within 240 days of receipt of the
State watershed management program submittal.
``(4) Modification of program.--Each State with a watershed
management program that has been approved by the
Administrator under this section may, at any time, modify the
watershed management program. Any such modification shall be
submitted to the Administrator and shall remain in effect
unless and until the Administrator determines that the
modified program no longer meets the requirements of this
section. In such event, the provisions of paragraph (3) shall
apply.
``(5) Status reports.--Each State with a watershed
management program that has been approved by the
Administrator pursuant to this subsection shall, not later
than 1 year after the date of approval, and annually
thereafter, submit to the Administrator an annual watershed
program summary status report that includes descriptions of
any modifications to the program. The status report shall
include a listing of requests made for watershed plan
development and a listing of plans prepared and submitted by
local or regional entities and the actions taken by the State
on such plans including the reasons for those actions. In
consultation and coordination with the Administrator, a State
may use the report to satisfy, in full or in part, any
reporting requirements under sections 106, 303(d), 305(b),
314, 319, 320, 322, and 604(b).
``(b) Watershed Area in 2 or More States.--If a watershed
management unit is designated to include land areas in more
than 1 State, the Governors of States having jurisdiction
over any lands within the watershed management unit shall
jointly determine the responsible entity or entities.
``(c) Eligible Watershed Management and Planning
Activities.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to activities eligible to
receive assistance under other sections of this Act as of the
date of the enactment of this subsection, the following
watershed management activities conducted by or on behalf of
the States pursuant to a watershed management program that is
approved by the Administrator under this section shall be
considered to be eligible to receive assistance under
sections 106, 205(j), 319(h), 320, and 604(b):
``(A) Characterizing the waters and land uses.
``(B) Identifying and evaluating problems within the
watershed.
``(C) Selecting short-term and long-term goals for
watershed management.
``(D) Developing and implementing water quality standards,
including site-specific water quality standards.
``(E) Developing and implementing measures and practices to
meet identified goals.
``(F) Identifying and coordinating projects and activities
necessary to restore or maintain water quality or other
related environmental objectives within the watershed.
``(G) Identifying the appropriate institutional
arrangements to carry out a watershed management plan that
has been approved or adopted by the State under this section.
``(H) Updating the plan.
``(I) Conducting training and public participation
activities.
``(J) Research to study benefits of existing watershed
program plans and particular aspects of the plans.
``(K) Implementing any other activity considered
appropriate by the Administrator or the Governor of a State
with an approved program.
``(2) Factors to be considered.--In selecting watershed
management activities to receive assistance pursuant to
paragraph (1), the following factors shall be considered:
``(A) Whether or not the applicant has demonstrated success
in addressing water quality problems with broadbased regional
support, including public and private sources.
``(B) Whether the activity will promote watershed problem
prioritization.
[[Page H4773]] ``(C) Whether or not the applicant can
demonstrate an ability to use Federal resources to leverage
non-Federal public and private monetary and in-kind support
from voluntary contributions, including matching and cost
sharing incentives.
``(D) Whether or not the applicant proposes to use existing
public and private programs to facilitate water quality
improvement with the assistance to be provided pursuant to
paragraph (1).
``(E) Whether or not such assistance will be used to
promote voluntary activities, including private wetlands
restoration, mitigation banking, and pollution prevention to
achieve water quality standards.
``(F) Whether or not such assistance will be used to market
mechanisms to enhance existing programs.
``(d) Public Participation.--Each State shall establish
procedures to encourage the public to participate in its
program and in developing and implementing comprehensive
watershed management plans under this section. A State
watershed management program shall include a process for
public involvement in watershed management, to the maximum
extent practicable, including the formation and participation
of public advisory groups during State watershed program
development. States must provide adequate public notice and
an opportunity to comment on the State watershed program
prior to submittal of the program to the Administrator for
approval.
``(e) Approved or State-Adopted Plans.--
``(1) Requirements.--A State with a watershed management
program that has been approved by the Administrator under
this section may approve or adopt a watershed management plan
if the plan satisfies the following conditions:
``(A) If the watershed includes waters that are not meeting
water quality standards at the time of submission, the plan--
``(i) identifies the objectives of the plan, including, at
a minimum, State water quality standards (including site-
specific water quality standards) and goals and objectives
under this Act;
``(ii) identifies pollutants, sources, activities, and any
other factors causing the impairment of the waters;
``(iii) identifies cost effective actions that are
necessary to achieve the objectives of the plan, including
reduction of pollutants to achieve any allocated load
reductions consistent with the requirements of section
303(d), and the priority for implementing the actions;
``(iv) contains an implementation schedule with milestones
and the identification of persons responsible for
implementing the actions;
``(v) demonstrates that water quality standards and other
goals and objectives of this Act will be attained as
expeditiously as practicable but not later than any
applicable deadline under this Act;
``(vi) contains documentation of the public participation
in the development of the plan and a description of the
public participation process that will be used during the
plan implementation;
``(vii) specifies a process to monitor and evaluate
progress toward meeting of the goals of the plan; and
``(viii) specifies a process to revise the plan as
necessary.
``(B) For waters in the watershed attaining water quality
standards at the time of submission (including threatened
waters), the plan identifies the projects and activities
necessary to maintain water quality standards and attain or
maintain other goals after the date of approval or adoption
of the plan.
``(2) Terms of approved or adopted plan.--Each plan that is
approved or adopted by a State under this subsection shall be
effective for a period of not more than 10 years and include
a planning and implementation schedule with milestones within
that period. A revised and updated plan may be approved or
adopted by the State prior to the expiration of the period
specified in the plan pursuant to the same conditions and
requirements that apply to an initial plan for a watershed
approved under this subsection.
``(f) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Administrator, after
consultation with the States and other interested parties,
shall issue guidance on provisions that States may consider
for inclusion in watershed management programs and State-
approved or State-adopted watershed management plans under
this section.
``(g) Pollutant Transfer Opportunities.--
``(1) Pollutant transfer pilot projects.--Under an approved
watershed management program, any discharger or source may
apply to a State for approval to offset the impact of its
discharge or release of a pollutant by entering into
arrangements, including the payment of funds, for the
implementation of controls or measures by another discharger
or source through a pollution reduction credits trading
program established as part of the watershed management plan.
The State may approve such a request if appropriate
safeguards are included to ensure compliance with technology
based controls and to protect the quality of receiving
waters.
``(2) Incentive grants.--The Administrator shall allocate
sums made available by appropriations to carry out pollution
reduction credits trading programs in selected watersheds
throughout the country.
``(3) Report.--Not later than 36 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit
to Congress a report on the results of the program conducted
under this subsection.''.
(b) Incentives for Watershed Management.--
(1) Point source permits.--Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(r) Watershed Management.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, a permit may be issued under this section with a
limitation that does not meet applicable water quality
standards if--
``(A) the receiving water is in a watershed with a
watershed management plan that has been approved pursuant to
section 321;
``(B) the plan includes assurances that water quality
standards will be met within the watershed by a specified
date; and
``(C) the point source does not have a history of
significant noncompliance with its effluent limitations under
a permit issued under this section, as determined by the
Administrator or a State with authority to issue permits
under this section.
``(2) Synchronized permit terms.--Notwithstanding
subsection (b)(1)(B), the term of a permit issued under this
section may be extended for an additional period if the
discharge is located in a watershed management unit for which
a watershed management plan will be developed pursuant to
section 321. Permits extended under this paragraph shall be
synchronized with the approval of the watershed management
plan of a State adopted pursuant to section 321.''.
(2) Multipurpose grants.--
(A) In general.--The Administrator may provide assistance
to a State with a watershed management program that has been
approved by the Administrator under section 321 in the form
of a multipurpose grant that would provide for single
application, work plan and review, matching, oversight, and
end-of-year closeout requirements for grant funding under
sections 104(b)(3), 104(g), 106, 314(b), 319, 320, and 604(b)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(B) Terms.--The Administrator may attach terms that shall
apply for more than 1 year to grants made pursuant to this
paragraph. A State that receives a grant under this paragraph
may focus activities funded under the provisions referred to
in subparagraph (A) on a priority basis in a manner
consistent with watershed management plans approved by the
State under section 321(e) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
(3) Planning.--Section 604(b) (33 U.S.C. 1384(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``In any fiscal
year in which a State is implementing a State watershed
management program approved under section 321, the State may
reserve up to an additional 2 percent of the sums allotted to
the State for such fiscal year for development of watershed
management plans under such program or $200,000, whichever is
greater, if 50 percent of the amount reserved under this
sentence will be made available to local entities.''.
SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
(a) State Programs.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is
further amended by adding at the end the following new
section:
``SEC. 322. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist
States in the development and implementation of stormwater
control programs in an expeditious and cost effective manner
so as to enable the goals and requirements of this Act to be
met in each State no later than 15 years after the date of
approval of the stormwater management program of the State.
It is recognized that State stormwater management programs
need to be built on a foundation that voluntary pollution
prevention initiatives represent an approach most likely to
succeed in achieving the objectives of this Act.
``(b) State Assessment Reports.--
``(1) Contents.--After notice and opportunity for public
comment, the Governor of each State, consistent with or as
part of the assessment required by section 319, shall prepare
and submit to the Administrator for approval, a report
which--
``(A) identifies those navigable waters within the State
which, without additional action to control pollution from
stormwater discharges, cannot reasonably be expected to
attain or maintain applicable water quality standards or the
goals and requirements of this Act;
``(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of
stormwater discharges that add significant pollution to each
portion of the navigable waters identified under subparagraph
(A) in amounts which contribute to such portion not meeting
such water quality standards or such goals and requirements;
``(C) describes the process, including intergovernmental
coordination and public participation, for identifying
measures to control pollution from each category and
subcategory of stormwater discharges identified in
subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum extent
practicable, the level of pollution resulting from such
discharges; and
``(D) identifies and describes State, local, and as may be
appropriate, industrial programs for controlling pollution
added from stormwater discharges to, and improving the
quality of, each such portion of the navigable waters.
``(2) Information used in preparation.--In developing,
reviewing, and revising the report required by this
subsection, the State--
``(A) may rely upon information developed pursuant to
sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), 314, 319, 320, and 321
and subsection (h) of this section, information developed
from the group stormwater permit application process in
effect under section 402(p) of this Act on the day before the
date of the enactment of this Act, and such other information
as the State determines is appropriate; and
``(B) may utilize appropriate elements of the waste
treatment management plans developed pursuant to sections
208(b) and 303, to the extent such elements are consistent
with and fulfill the requirements of this section.
[[Page H4774]] ``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than
18 months after the date of the enactment of the Clean Water
Amendments of 1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State
shall review, revise, and submit to the Administrator the
report required by this subsection.
``(c) State Management Programs.--
``(1) In general.--In substantial consultation with local
governments and after notice and opportunity for public
comment, the Governor of each State for the State or in
combination with the Governors of adjacent States shall
prepare and submit to the Administrator for approval a
stormwater management program based on available information
which the State proposes to implement in the first 5 fiscal
years beginning after the date of submission of such
management program for controlling pollution added from
stormwater discharges to the navigable waters within the
boundaries of the State and improving the quality of such
waters.
``(2) Specific contents.--Each management program proposed
for implementation under this subsection shall include the
following:
``(A) Identification of model management practices and
measures.--Identification of the model management practices
and measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant
loadings resulting from each category or subcategory of
stormwater discharges designated under subsection (b)(1)(B),
taking into account the impact of the practice and measure on
ground water quality.
``(B) Identification of programs and resources.--
Identification of programs and resources necessary
(including, as appropriate, nonregulatory programs or
regulatory programs, enforceable policies and mechanisms,
technical assistance, financial assistance, education,
training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects) to
manage categories or subcategories of stormwater discharges
to the degree necessary to provide for reasonable further
progress toward the goal of attainment of water quality
standards which contain the stormwater criteria established
under subsection (i) for designated uses of receiving waters
identified under subsection (b)(1)(A) taking into
consideration specific watershed conditions, by not later
than the last day of the 15-year period beginning on the date
of approval of the State program.
``(C) Program for industrial, commercial, oil, gas, and
mining discharges.--A program for categories or subcategories
of industrial, commercial, oil, gas, and mining stormwater
discharges identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) for the
implementation of management practices, measures, and
programs identified under subparagraphs (A) and (B). The
program shall include each of the following:
``(i) Voluntary activities.--Voluntary stormwater pollution
prevention activities for categories and subcategories of
such stormwater discharges that are not contaminated by
contact with material handling equipment or activities, heavy
industrial machinery, raw materials, intermediate products,
finished products, byproducts, or waste products at the site
of the industrial, commercial, oil, gas, or mining activity.
Such discharges may have incidental contact with buildings or
motor vehicles.
``(ii) Enforceable plans.--Enforceable stormwater pollution
prevention plans meeting the requirements of subsection (d)
for those categories and subcategories of such stormwater
discharges that are not described in clause (i).
``(iii) General permits.--General permits for categories
and subcategories of such stormwater discharges if the State
finds, based on available information and after providing
notice and an opportunity for comment, that reasonable
further progress toward achieving water quality standards in
receiving waters identified by the State by the date referred
to in subparagraph (B) cannot be made despite implementation
of voluntary activities under clause (i) or prevention plans
under clause (ii) due to the presence of a pollutant or
pollutants identified by the State. A facility in a category
or subcategory identified by the State shall not be subject
to a general permit under this clause if the facility
demonstrates that stormwater discharges from the facility are
not contributing to a violation of a water quality standard
established for designated uses of the receiving waters and
are not significantly contributing the pollutant or
pollutants identified by the State with respect to the
receiving waters under this clause.
``(iv) Site-specific permits.--Site-specific permits for
categories or subcategories of such stormwater discharges or
individual facilities in such categories or subcategories if
the State finds, based on available information and after
providing notice and an opportunity for comment, that
reasonable further progress toward achieving water quality
standards in receiving waters identified by the State by the
date referred to in subparagraph (B) cannot be made despite
implementation of voluntary activities under clause (i) or
prevention plans under clause (ii) and general permits under
clause (iii) due to the presence of a pollutant or pollutants
identified by the State. A facility in a category or
subcategory identified by the State shall not be subject to a
site-specific permit under this clause if the facility
demonstrates that stormwater discharges from the facility are
not contributing to a violation of a water quality standard
established for designated uses of the receiving waters and
are not significantly contributing the pollutant or
pollutants identified by the State with respect to the
receiving waters under this clause.
``(v) Exemption of small businesses.--An exemption for
small businesses identified under subsection (b)(1)(B) from
clause (iii), relating to general permits, and clause (iv),
relating to site-specific permits, unless the State finds
that, without the imposition of such permits, such discharges
will have a significant adverse effect on water quality.
``(D) Program for municipal discharges.--A program for
municipal stormwater discharges identified under subsection
(b)(1)(B) to reduce pollutant loadings from categories and
subcategories of municipal stormwater discharges.
``(E) Program for construction activities.--A program for
categories and subcategories of stormwater discharges from
construction activities identified under subsection (b)(1)(B)
for implementation of management practices, measures, and
programs identified under subparagraphs (A) and (B). In
developing the program, the State shall consider current
State and local requirements, focus on pollution prevention
through the use of model management practices and measures,
and take into account the land area disturbed by the
construction activities. The State may require effluent
limits or other numerical standards to control pollutants in
stormwater discharges from construction activities only if
the State finds, after providing notice and an opportunity
for comment, that such standards are necessary to achieve
water quality standards by the date referred to in
subparagraph (B).
``(F) Bad actor provisions.--Provisions for taking any
actions deemed necessary by the State to meet the goals and
requirements of this section with respect to dischargers
which the State identifies, after notice and opportunity for
hearing--
``(i) as having a history of stormwater noncompliance under
this Act, State law, or the regulations issued thereunder or
the terms and conditions of permits, orders, or
administrative actions issued pursuant thereto; or
``(ii) as posing an imminent threat to human health and the
environment.
``(G) Schedule.--A schedule containing interim goals and
milestones for making reasonable progress toward the
attainment of standards as set forth in subparagraph (B)
established for the designated uses of receiving waters,
taking into account specific watershed conditions, which may
be demonstrated by one or any combination of improvements in
water quality (including biological indicators), documented
implementation of voluntary stormwater discharge control
measures, or adoption of enforceable stormwater discharge
control measures.
``(H) Certification of adequate authority.--
``(i) In general.--A certification by the Attorney General
of the State or States (or the chief attorney of any State
water pollution control agency that has authority under State
law to make such certification) that the laws of the State or
States, as the case may be, provide adequate authority to
implement such management program or, if there is not such
adequate authority, a list of such additional authorities as
will be necessary to implement such management program.
``(ii) Commitment.--A schedule for seeking, and a
commitment by the State or States to seek, such additional
authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
``(I) Identification of federal financial assistance
programs.--An identification of Federal financial assistance
programs and Federal development projects for which the State
will review individual assistance applications or development
projects for their effect on water quality pursuant to the
procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372 as in effect on
September 17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance
applications or development projects would be consistent with
the program prepared under this subsection; for the purposes
of this subparagraph, identification shall not be limited to
the assistance programs or development projects subject to
Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs listed in
the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which
may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the
State's stormwater management program.
``(J) Monitoring.--A description of the monitoring of
navigable waters or other assessment which will be carried
out under the program for the purposes of monitoring and
assessing the effectiveness of the program, including the
attainment of interim goals and milestones.
``(K) Identification of certain inconsistent federal
activities.--An identification of activities on Federal lands
in the State that are inconsistent with the State management
program.
``(L) Identification of goals and milestones.--An
identification of goals and milestones for progress in
attaining water quality standards, including a projected date
for attaining such standards as expeditiously as practicable
but not later than 15 years after the date of approval of the
State program for each of the waters listed pursuant to
subsection (b).
``(3) Utilization of local and private experts.--In
developing and implementing a management program under this
subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
involve local public and private agencies and organizations
which have expertise in stormwater management.
``(4) Development on watershed basis.--A State shall, to
the maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a
stormwater management program under this subsection on a
watershed-by-watershed basis within such State.
``(5) Regulations defining small businesses.--The
Administrator shall propose, not later than 6 months after
the date of the enactment of this section, and issue, not
later than 1 year after the date of such enactment,
regulations to define small businesses for purposes of this
section.
``(d) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans.--
``(1) Implementation deadline.--Each stormwater pollution
prevention plan required under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii) shall
be implemented not later than 180 days after the date of its
development and shall be annually updated.
[[Page H4775]] ``(2) Plan contents.--Each stormwater
pollution prevention plan required under subsection
(c)(2)(C)(ii) shall include the following components:
``(A) Establishment and appointment of a stormwater
pollution prevention team.
``(B) Description of potential pollutant sources.
``(C) An annual site inspection evaluation.
``(D) An annual visual stormwater discharge inspection.
``(E) Measures and controls for reducing stormwater
pollution, including, at a minimum, model management
practices and measures that are flexible, technologically
feasible, and economically practicable. For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `model management practices and measures'
means preventive maintenance, good housekeeping, spill
prevention and response, employee training, and sediment and
erosion control.
``(F) Prevention of illegal discharges of nonstormwater
through stormwater outfalls.
``(3) Certification.--Each facility subject to subsection
(c)(2)(C)(ii) shall certify to the State that it has
implemented a stormwater pollution prevention plan or a State
or local equivalent and that the plan is intended to reduce
possible pollutants in the facility's stormwater discharges.
The certification must be signed by a responsible officer of
the facility and must be affixed to the plan subject to
review by the appropriate State program authority. If a
facility makes such a certification, such facility shall not
be subject to permit or permit application requirements,
mandatory model management practices and measures, analytical
monitoring, effluent limitations or other numerical standards
or guidelines under subsection (c)(2)(C)(ii).
``(4) Plan adequacy.--The State stormwater management
program shall set forth the basis upon which the adequacy of
a plan prepared by a facility subject to subsection
(c)(2)(C)(ii) will be determined. In making such
determination, the State shall consider benefits to the
environment, physical requirements, technological feasibility
and economic costs, human health or safety, and nature of the
activity at the facility or site.
``(e) Administrative Provisions.--
``(1) Cooperation requirement.--Any report required by
subsection (b) and any management program and report required
by subsection (c) shall be developed in cooperation with
local, substate, regional, and interstate entities which are
responsible for implementing stormwater management programs.
``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
Each management program shall be submitted to the
Administrator within 30 months of the issuance by the
Administrator of the final guidance under subsection (l) and
every 5 years thereafter. Each program submission after the
initial submission following the date of the enactment of the
Clean Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration
of reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining
water quality standards as set forth in subsection (c)(2)
established for designated uses of receiving waters taking
into account specific watershed conditions by not later than
the date referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B), including a
documentation of the degree to which the State has achieved
the interim goals and milestones contained in the previous
program submission. Such demonstration shall take into
account the adequacy of Federal funding under this section.
``(3) Transition.--
``(A) In general.--Permits, including group and general
permits, issued pursuant to section 402(p), as in effect on
the day before the date of the enactment of this section,
shall remain in effect until the effective date of a State
stormwater management program under this section. Stormwater
dischargers shall continue to implement any stormwater
management practices and measures required under such permits
until such practices and measures are modified pursuant to
this subparagraph or pursuant to a State stormwater
management program. Prior to the effective date of a State
stormwater management program, stormwater dischargers may
submit for approval proposed revised stormwater management
practices and measures to the State, in the case of a State
with an approved program under section 402, or the
Administrator. Upon notice of approval by the State or the
Administrator, the stormwater discharger shall implement the
revised stormwater management practices and measures which,
for discharges subject to subsection (c)(2)(C)(i), (c)(2)(D),
(c)(2)(E), or (c)(2)(F), may be voluntary pollution
prevention activities. A stormwater discharger operating
under a permit continued in effect under this subparagraph
shall not be subject to citizens suits under section 505.
``(B) New facilities.--A new nonmunicipal source of
stormwater discharge subject to a group or general permit
continued in effect under subparagraph (A) shall notify the
State or the Administrator, as appropriate, of the source's
intent to be covered by and shall continue to comply with
such permit. Until the effective date of a State stormwater
management program under this section, the State may impose
enforceable stormwater management measures and practices on a
new nonmunicipal source of stormwater discharge not subject
to such a permit if the State finds that the stormwater
discharge is likely to pose an imminent threat to human
health and the environment or to pose significant impairment
of water quality standards.
``(C) Special rule.--Industrial facilities included in a
Part 1 group stormwater permit application approved by the
Administrator pursuant to section 122.26(c)(2) of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on the date of the
enactment of this section, may, in lieu of continued
operation under existing permits, certify to the State or the
Administrator, as appropriate, that such facilities are
implementing a stormwater pollution prevention plan
consistent with subsection (d). Upon such certification, the
facility will no longer be subject to such permit.
``(D) Pre-1987 permits.--Notwithstanding the repeal of
section 402(p) by the Clean Water Amendments Act of 1995 or
any other amendment made to section 402 on or before the date
of the enactment of such Act, a discharge with respect to
which a permit has been issued under section 402 before
February 4, 1987, shall not be subject to the provisions of
this section.
``(E) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o) shall not apply to
any activity carried out in accordance with this paragraph.
``(f) Approval or Disapproval of Reports or Management
Programs.--
``(1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than
180 days after the date of submission to the Administrator of
any report or revised report or management program under this
section, the Administrator shall either approve or disapprove
such report or management program, as the case may be. The
Administrator may approve a portion of a management program
under this subsection. If the Administrator does not
disapprove a report, management program, or portion of a
management program in such 180-day period, such report,
management program, or portion shall be deemed approved for
purposes of this section.
``(2) Procedure for disapproval.--If, after notice and
opportunity for public comment and consultation with
appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested
persons, the Administrator determines that--
``(A) the proposed management program or any portion
thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection (b) of
this section or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or in
part, the goals and requirements of this Act;
``(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate
resources are not available, to implement such program or
portion; or
``(C) the practices and measures proposed in such program
or portion will not result in reasonable progress toward the
goal of attainment of applicable water quality standards as
set forth in subsection (c)(2) established for designated
uses of receiving waters taking into consideration specific
watershed conditions as expeditiously as possible but not
later than 15 years after approval of a State stormwater
management program under this section;
the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the
proposed program notify the State of any revisions or
modifications necessary to obtain approval. The State shall
have an additional 6 months to submit its revised management
program, and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove
such revised program within 3 months of receipt.
``(3) Failure of state to submit report.--If a Governor of
a State does not submit a report or revised report required
by subsection (b) within the period specified by subsection
(e)(2), the Administrator shall, within 18 months after the
date on which such report is required to be submitted under
subsection (b), prepare a report for such State which makes
the identifications required by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B)
of subsection (b). Upon completion of the requirement of the
preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for a
comment, the Administrator shall report to Congress of the
actions of the Administrator under this section.
``(4) Failure of state to submit management program.--
``(A) Program management by administrator.--Subject to
paragraph (5), if a State fails to submit a management
program or revised management program under subsection (c) or
the Administrator does not approve such management program,
the Administrator shall prepare and implement a management
program for controlling pollution added from stormwater
discharges to the navigable waters within the State and
improving the quality of such waters in accordance with
subsection (c).
``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator intends to
disapprove a program submitted by a State the Administrator
shall first notify the Governor of the State, in writing, of
the modifications necessary to meet the requirements of this
section. The Administrator shall provide adequate public
notice and an opportunity for a public hearing for all
interested parties.
``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after taking into
account the level of funding actually provided as compared
with the level authorized, the Administrator determines that
a State has failed to demonstrate reasonable further progress
toward the attainment of water quality standards as required,
the State shall revise its program within 12 months of that
determination in a manner sufficient to achieve attainment of
applicable water quality standards by the deadline
established by this section. If a State fails to make such a
program revision or the Administrator does not approve such a
revision, the Administrator shall prepare and implement a
stormwater management program for the State.
``(5) Local Management Programs; Technical Assistance.--If
a State fails to submit a management program under subsection
(c) or the Administrator does not approve such a management
program, a local public agency or organization which has
expertise in, and authority to, control water pollution
resulting from nonpoint sources in any area of such State
which the Administrator determines is of sufficient
geographic size may, with approval of such State, request the
Administrator to provide, and the Administrator shall
provide, technical assistance to such agency or organization
in developing for such area a management program which is
described in subsection (c) and can be approved pursuant to
this subsection. After development of such management
program, such
[[Page H4776]] agency or organization shall submit such
management program to the Administrator for approval.
``(g) Interstate Management Conference.--
``(1) Convening of conference; notification; purpose.--
``(A) Convening of conference.--If any portion of the
navigable waters in any State which is implementing a
management program approved under this section is not meeting
applicable water quality standards or the goals and
requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of
pollution from stormwater in another State, such State may
petition the Administrator to convene, and the Administrator
shall convene, a management conference of all States which
contribute significant pollution resulting from stormwater to
such portion.
``(B) Notification.--If, on the basis of information
available, the Administrator determines that a State is not
meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and
requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of
significant pollution from stormwater in another State, the
Administrator shall notify such States.
``(C) Time limit.--The Administrator may convene a
management conference under this paragraph not later than 180
days after giving such notification under subparagraph (B),
whether or not the State which is not meeting such standards
requests such conference.
``(D) Purpose.--The purpose of the conference shall be to
develop an agreement among the States to reduce the level of
pollution resulting from stormwater in the portion of the
navigable waters and to improve the water quality of such
portion.
``(E) Protection of water rights.--Nothing in the agreement
shall supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water
which have been established by interstate water compacts,
Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws.
``(F) Limitations.--This subsection shall not apply to any
pollution which is subject to the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Act. The requirement that the Administrator
convene a management conference shall not be subject to the
provisions of section 505 of this Act.
``(2) State management program requirement.--To the extent
that the States reach agreement through such conference, the
management programs of the States which are parties to such
agreements and which contribute significant pollution to the
navigable waters or portions thereof not meeting applicable
water quality standards or goals and requirements of this Act
will be revised to reflect such agreement. Such management
programs shall be consistent with Federal and State law.
``(h) Grants for Stormwater Research.--
``(1) In general.--To determine the most cost-effective and
technologically feasible means of improving the quality of
the navigable waters and to develop the criteria required
pursuant to subsection (i) of this Act, the Administrator
shall establish an initiative through which the Administrator
shall fund State and local demonstration programs and
research to--
``(A) identify adverse impacts of stormwater discharges on
receiving waters;
``(B) identify the pollutants in stormwater which cause
impact; and
``(C) test innovative approaches to address the impacts of
source controls and model management practices and measures
for runoff from municipal storm sewers.
Persons conducting demonstration programs and research funded
under this subsection shall also take into account the
physical nature of episodic stormwater flows, the varying
pollutants in stormwater, the actual risk the flows pose to
the designated beneficial uses, and the ability of natural
ecosystems to accept temporary stormwater events.
``(2) Award of funds.--The Administrator shall award the
demonstration and research program funds taking into account
regional and population variations.
``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection
$20,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through
2000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
``(4) Inadequate funding.--For each fiscal year beginning
after the date of the enactment of this subsection for which
the total amounts appropriated to carry out this subsection
are less than the total amounts authorized to be appropriated
pursuant to this subsection, any deadlines established under
subsection (c)(2)(L) for compliance with water quality
standards shall be postponed by 1 year.
``(i) Development of Stormwater Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--To reflect the episodic character of
stormwater which results in significant variances in the
volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load associated
with stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall
establish, as an element of the water quality standards
established for the designated uses of the navigable waters,
stormwater criteria which protect the navigable waters from
impairment of the designated beneficial uses caused by
stormwater discharges. The criteria shall be technologically
and financially feasible and may include performance
standards, guidelines, guidance, and model management
practices and measures and treatment requirements, as
appropriate, and as identified in subsection (h)(1).
``(2) Information to be used in development.--The
stormwater discharge criteria to be established under this
subsection--
``(A) shall be developed from--
``(i) the findings and conclusions of the demonstration
programs and research conducted under subsection (h);
``(ii) the findings and conclusions of the research and
monitoring activities of stormwater dischargers performed in
compliance with permit requirements of this Act; and
``(iii) other relevant information, including information
submitted to the Administrator under the industrial group
permit application process in effect under section 402 of
this Act on the day before the date of the enactment of this
section;
``(B) shall be developed in consultation with persons with
expertise in the management of stormwater (including
officials of State and local government, industrial and
commercial stormwater dischargers, and public interest
groups); and
``(C) shall be established as an element of the water
quality standards that are developed and implemented under
this Act by not later than December 31, 2008.
``(j) Collection of Information.--The Administrator shall
collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, information pertaining to model management
practices and measures and implementation methods, including,
but not limited to--
``(1) information concerning the costs and relative
efficiencies of model management practices and measures for
reducing pollution from stormwater discharges; and
``(2) available data concerning the relationship between
water quality and implementation of various management
practices to control pollution from stormwater discharges.
``(k) Reports of Administrator.--
``(1) Biennial reports.--Not later than January 1, 1996,
and biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and
Public
Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal year
on the activities and programs implemented under this
section and the progress made in reducing pollution in the
navigable waters resulting from stormwater discharges and
improving the quality of such waters.
``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1),
at a minimum shall--
``(A) describe the management programs being implemented by
the States by types of affected navigable waters, categories
and subcategories of stormwater discharges, and types of
measures being implemented;
``(B) describe the experiences of the States in adhering to
schedules and implementing the measures under subsection (c);
``(C) describe the amount and purpose of grants awarded
pursuant to subsection (h);
``(D) identify, to the extent that information is
available, the progress made in reducing pollutant loads and
improving water quality in the navigable waters;
``(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken to
attain and maintain in those navigable waters (i) applicable
water quality standards, and (ii) the goals and requirements
of this Act;
``(F) include recommendations of the Administrator
concerning future programs (including enforcement programs)
for controlling pollution from stormwater; and
``(G) identify the activities and programs of departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States that are
inconsistent with the stormwater management programs
implemented by the States under this section and recommended
modifications so that such activities and programs are
consistent with and assist the States in implementation of
such management programs.
``(l) Guidance on Model Stormwater Management Practices and
Measures.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
appropriate Federal, State, and local departments and
agencies, and after providing notice and opportunity for
public comment, shall publish guidance to identify model
management practices and measures which may be undertaken, at
the discretion of the State or appropriate entity, under a
management program established pursuant to this section. In
preparing such guidance, the Administrator shall consider
integration of a stormwater management program of a State
with, and the relationship of such program to, the nonpoint
source management program of the State under section 319.
``(2) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish
proposed guidance under this subsection not later than 6
months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and
shall publish final guidance under this subsection not later
than 18 months after such date of enactment. The
Administrator shall periodically review and revise the final
guidance upon adequate notice and opportunity for public
comment at least once every 3 years after its publication.
``(3) Model management practices and measures defined.--For
the purposes of this subsection, the term ``model management
practices and measures'' means economically achievable
measures for the control of pollutants from stormwater
discharges which reflect the most cost-effective degree of
pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the
best available practices, technologies, processes, siting
criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.
``(m) Enforcement With Respect to Stormwater Dischargers
Violating State Management Programs.--Stormwater dischargers
that do not comply with State management program requirements
under subsection (c) are subject to applicable enforcement
actions under sections 309 and 505 of this Act.
``(n) Entry and Inspection.--In order to carry out the
objectives of this section, an authorized representative of a
State, upon presentation of his or her credentials, shall
have a right of entry to, upon, or through any property at
which a stormwater discharge or records required to be
maintained under the State stormwater management program are
located.
``(o) Limitation on Discharges Regulated Under Watershed
Management Program.--Stormwater discharges regulated under
section 321 in a manner consistent with this section shall
not be subject to this section.
[[Page H4777]]
``(p) Mineral Exploration and Mining Sites.--
``(1) Exploration sites.--For purposes of subsection
(c)(2)(F), stormwater discharges from construction activities
shall include stormwater discharges from mineral exploration
activities; except that, for exploration at abandoned mined
lands, the stormwater program under subsection (c)(2)(F)
shall be limited to the control of pollutants added to
stormwater by contact with areas disturbed by the exploration
activity.
``(2) Mining sites.--Stormwater discharges at ore mining
and dressing sites shall be subject to this section. If any
such discharge is commingled with mine drainage or process
wastewater from mining operations, such discharge shall be
treated as a discharge from a point source for purposes of
this Act.
``(3) Abandoned mined lands.--Stormwater discharges from
abandoned mined lands shall be subject to section 319; except
that if the State, after notice and an opportunity for
comment, finds that regulation of such stormwater discharges
under this section is necessary to make reasonable further
progress toward achieving water quality standards by the date
referred to in subsection (c)(2)(B), such discharges shall be
subject to this section.
``(4) Surface mining control and reclamation act sites.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (3), stormwater discharges from
abandoned mined lands site which are subject to the Surface
Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201-
1328) shall be subject to section 319.
``(5) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
following definitions apply:
``(A) Abandoned mined lands.--The term `abandoned mined
lands' means lands which were used for mineral activities and
abandoned or left in an inadequate reclamation status and for
which there is no continuing reclamation responsibility under
State or Federal laws.
``(B) Process waste water.--The term `process waste water'
means any water other than stormwater which comes into
contact with any raw material, intermediate product, finished
product, byproduct, or waste product as part of any mineral
beneficiation processes employed at the site.
``(C) Mine drainage.--The term `mine drainage' means any
water drained, pumped, or siphoned from underground mine
workings or mine pits, but such term shall not include
stormwater runoff from tailings dams, dikes, overburden,
waste rock piles, haul roads, access roads, and ancillary
facility areas.''.
(b) Repeal of Limitation on Permit Requirement.--Section
402(l) (33 U.S.C. 1342(l)) is repealed.
(c) Repeal of Municipal and Industrial Stormwater
Discharges Program.--Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C. 1342(p)) is
repealed.
(d) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of paragraph (14) the following:
``The term does not include a stormwater discharge.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(25) The term `stormwater' means runoff from rain, snow
melt, or any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.
``(26) The term `stormwater discharge' means a discharge
from any conveyance which is used for the collecting and
conveying of stormwater to navigable waters and which is
associated with a municipal storm sewer system or industrial,
commercial, oil, gas, or mining activities or construction
activities.''.
SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 323. RISK ASSESSMENT AND DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
``(a) General Rule.--The Administrator or the Secretary of
the Army (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
`Secretary'), as appropriate, shall develop and publish a
risk assessment before issuing--
``(1) any standard, effluent limitation, water quality
criterion, water quality based requirement, or other
regulatory requirement under this Act (other than a permit or
a purely procedural requirement); or
``(2) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a
regulatory requirement, would result in an annual increase in
cost of $25,000,000 or more.
``(b) Contents of Risk Assessments.--A risk assessment
developed under subsection (a), at a minimum, shall--
``(1) identify and use all relevant and readily obtainable
data and information of sufficient quality, including data
and information submitted to the Agency in a timely fashion;
``(2) identify and discuss significant assumptions,
inferences, or models used in the risk assessment;
``(3) measure the sensitivity of the results to the
significant assumptions, inferences, or models that the risk
assessment relies upon;
``(4) with respect to significant assumptions, inferences,
or models that the results are sensitive to, identify and
discuss--
``(A) credible alternatives and the basis for the rejection
of such alternatives;
``(B) the scientific or policy basis for the selection of
such assumptions, inferences, or models; and
``(C) the extent to which any such assumptions, inferences,
or models have been validated or conflict with empirical
data;
``(5) to the maximum extent practical, provide a
description of the risk, including, at minimum, best
estimates or other unbiased representation of the most
plausible level of risk and a description of the specific
populations or natural resources subject to the assessment;
``(6) to the maximum extent practical, provide a
quantitative estimate of the uncertainty inherent in the risk
assessment; and
``(7) compare the nature and extent of the risk identified
in the risk assessment to other risks to human health and the
environment.
``(c) Risk Assessment Guidance.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this section, and after
providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
issue, and thereafter revise, as appropriate, guidance for
conducting risk assessments under subsection (a).
``(d) Margin of Safety.--When establishing a margin of
safety for use in developing a regulatory requirement
described in subsection (a)(1) or guidance described in
subsection (a)(2), the Administrator or the Secretary, as
appropriate, shall provide, as part of the risk assessment
under subsection (a), an explicit and, to the extent
practical, quantitative description of the margin of safety
relative to an unbiased estimate of the risk being addressed.
``(e) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the
Secretary, as appropriate, may exempt from the requirements
of this section any risk assessment prepared in support of a
regulatory requirement described in subsection (a)(1) which
is likely to result in annual increase in cost of less than
$25,000,000. Such exemptions may be made for specific risk
assessments or classes of risk assessments.
``(f) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of
this section shall apply to any regulatory requirement
described in subsection (a)(1) or guidance described in
subsection (a)(2) that is issued after the last day of the 1-
year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(g) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
``(1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to the
regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in
subsection (f), the requirements of this section shall apply
to--
``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, water quality
criterion, water quality based requirement, or other
regulatory requirement issued under this Act during the
period described in paragraph (2) which is likely to result
in an annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more; and
``(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the period
described in paragraph (2) which, if issued as a regulatory
requirement, would be likely to result in annual increase in
cost of $100,000,000 or more.
``(2) Covered period.--The period described in this
paragraph is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, and
ending on the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
``(3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in
paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B)
which was issued before the date of the enactment of this
section shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such
requirement or guidance, the Administrator or the Secretary,
as appropriate, shall based on such review--
``(A) certify that the requirement or guidance meets the
requirements of this section without revision; or
``(B) reissue the requirement or guidance, after providing
notice and opportunity for public comment, with such
revisions as may be necessary for compliance with the
requirements of this section.
``(4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described in
paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B)
for which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate,
does not issue a certification or revisions under paragraph
(3) on or before the last day of the 18-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this section shall
cease to be effective after such last day until the date on
which such certification or revisions are issued.''.
SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.
Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311-1330) is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 324. BENEFIT AND COST CRITERION.
``(a) Decision Criterion.--
``(1) Certification.--The Administrator or the Secretary of
the Army (hereinafter in this section referred to as the
`Secretary'), as appropriate, shall not issue--
``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or other
regulatory requirement under this Act; or
``(B) any guidance under this Act which, if issued as a
regulatory requirement, would result in an annual increase in
cost of $25,000,000 or more,
unless the Administrator or the Secretary certifies that the
requirement or guidance maximizes net benefits to society.
Such certification shall be based on an analysis meeting the
requirements of subsection (b).
``(2) Effect of criterion.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, the decision criterion of paragraph
(1) shall supplement and, to the extent there is a conflict,
supersede the decision criteria otherwise applicable under
this Act; except that the resulting regulatory requirement or
guidance shall be economically achievable.
``(3) Substantial evidence.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Act, no regulation or guidance subject to
this subsection shall be issued by the Administrator or the
Secretary unless the requirement of paragraph (1) is met and
the certification is supported by substantial evidence.
``(b) Benefit and Cost Analysis Guidance.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this section, and after providing notice
and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator, in
concurrence with the Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, shall issue, and
thereafter revise, as appropriate, guidance for conducting
benefit and cost analyses in support of making certifications
required by subsection (a).
[[Page H4778]] ``(2) Contents.--Guidance issued under
paragraph (1), at a minimum, shall--
``(A) require the identification of available policy
alternatives, including the alternative of not regulating and
any alternatives proposed during periods for public comment;
``(B) provide methods for estimating the incremental
benefits and costs associated with plausible alternatives,
including the use of quantitative and qualitative measures;
``(C) require an estimate of the nature and extent of the
incremental risk avoided by the
standard, effluent limitation, or other regulatory
requirement, including a statement that places in context
the nature and magnitude of the estimated risk reduction;
and
``(D) require an estimate of the total social,
environmental, and economic costs of implementing the
standard, effluent limitation, or other regulatory
requirement.
``(c) Exemptions.--The following shall not be subject to
the requirements of this section:
``(1) The issuance of a permit.
``(2) The implementation of any purely procedural
requirement.
``(3) Water quality criteria established under section 304.
``(4) Water quality based standards established under
section 303.
``(d) Discretionary Exemptions.--The Administrator or the
Secretary, as appropriate, may exempt from this section any
regulatory requirement that is likely to result in an annual
increase in costs of less than $25,000,000. Such exemptions
may be made for specific regulatory requirements or classes
of regulatory requirements.
``(e) General Rule on Applicability.--The requirements of
this section shall apply to any regulatory requirement
described in subsection (a)(1)(A) or guidance described in
subsection (a)(1)(B) that is issued after the last day of the
1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
section.
``(f) Significant Regulatory Actions and Guidance.--
``(1) Applicability of requirements.--In addition to the
regulatory requirements and guidance referred to in
subsection (e), this section shall apply to--
``(A) any standard, effluent limitation, or other
regulatory requirement issued under this Act during the
period described in paragraph (2) which is likely to result
in an annual increase in cost of $100,000,000 or more; and
``(B) any guidance issued under this Act during the period
described in paragraph (2) which, if issued as a regulatory
requirement, would be likely to result in annual increase in
cost of $100,000,000 or more.
``(2) Covered period.--The period described in this
paragraph is the period beginning on February 15, 1995, and
ending on the last day of the 1-year period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act.
``(3) Review.--Any regulatory requirement described in
paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B)
which was issued before the date of the enactment of this
section shall be reviewed and, with respect to each such
requirement or guidance, the Administrator or the Secretary,
as appropriate, shall based on such review--
``(A) certify that the requirement or guidance meets the
requirements of this section without revision; or
``(B) reissue the requirement or guidance, after providing
notice and opportunity for public comment, with such
revisions as may be necessary for compliance with the
requirements of this section.
``(4) Deadline.--Any regulatory requirement described in
paragraph (1)(A) or guidance described in paragraph (1)(B)
for which the Administrator or the Secretary, as appropriate,
does not issue a certification or revisions under paragraph
(3) on or before the last day of the 18-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this section shall
cease to be effective after such last day until the date on
which such certification or revisions are issued.
``(g) Study.--Not later than 5 years after the date of the
enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation
with the Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, shall publish an analysis regarding the
precision and accuracy of benefit and cost estimates prepared
under this section. Such study, at a minimum, shall--
``(1) compare estimates of the benefits and costs prepared
under this section to actual costs and benefits achieved
after implementation of regulations or other requirements;
``(2) examine and assess alternative analytic methods for
conducting benefit and cost analysis, including health-health
analysis; and
``(3) make recommendations for the improvement of benefit
and cost analyses conducted under this section.''.
amendment offered by mr. mineta
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SHUSTER. Is this title I or III?
Mr. CHAIRMAN. We are on title III.
Mr. SHUSTER. Title III?
The CHAIRMAN. Title III, and the gentleman from California has been
recognized for an amendment to title III.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we cannot find a copy of the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this has been printed in the Record. We
will be more than happy to present one.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MINETA. I had understood that the committee had copies of the
amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MINETA:
Page 32, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 6
on page 33.
Page 33, line 7, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
Page 33, strike line 16 and all that follows through line
10 on page 34.
Pages 34 through 47, strike section 302 of the bill.
Redesignate subsequent sections of title III of the bill
accordingly. Conform the table of contents of the bill
accordingly.
Page 47, strike line 20 and all that follows through line 8
on page 48 and insert the following:
SEC. 303. REVISION OF STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
Section 303(c)(1) is amended by striking
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Page 48, strike line 16 and all that follows through line
10 on page 52.
Page 64, strike lines 4 through 14.
Pages 73 through 80, strike sections 311 and 312 of the
bill.
Redesignate subsequent sections of title III of the bill
accordingly. Conform the table of contents of the bill
accordingly.
Pages 93 through 95, strike section 318 of the bill.
Redesignate subsequent sections of title III of the bill
accordingly. Conform the table of contents of the bill
accordingly.
Page 130, line 2, after the period insert closing quotation
marks and a period.
Page 130, strike lines 3 through 25.
Page 131, strike lines 5 through 22 and insert the
following:
``(r) Synchronized Permit Terms.--Notwith-* * *
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is an effort to salvage the
heart of the Clean Water Act. It would do so by striking the provisions
in title III that roll back standards for industrial dischargers.
We have all heard repeatedly that the Clean Water Act is the most
successful Federal environmental law. The widely acknowledged successes
of the Act are attributable to its control of pollutant discharges from
so-called point sources. Point sources are industry and sewage
treatment works discharging their polluted wastewater into our Nation's
lakes, rivers and streams, and the ocean.
Ironically, it is precisely the part of the act that is responsible
for its success that H.R. 961 would dismantle. In the name of increased
flexibility, loophole by loophole the bill would eliminate fundamental
protections of the Act that have resulted in the significant gains we
have seen over the past 20 years.
Ideally, any amendments to the Clean Water Act would improve water
quality, since 40 percent of our Nation's waters still do not meet
state-designated water quality standards. Under that standard, these
waivers clearly should be stricken.
However, even under a far lower standard for judging whether the
bill's industrial waiver provisions should be stricken, the waivers
must go. That lower standard is simple: will the waiver provision
increase pollution and degrade water quality below today's level? If
so, it should be stricken. That is what my amendment would do.
If a waiver provision will allow us to hold on to the progress that
our municipalities, industries and citizens have worked so hard to
achieve, then it might be acceptable. Unfortunately, when measured
against this minimal standard, the bill's industrial waiver provisions
fail miserably.
Here are a few of the many examples of the illogical, and
environmentally and financially destructive, consequences of the bill's
many industrial waivers:
A factory could obtain a permit that allows it to significantly
increase the toxic pollutants it discharges into a river nearby a
residential area, if the owner of a factory 100 miles away agrees to
reduce its emissions into the air.
An industry that discharges its polluted wasterwater into a municipal
sewage treatment plant could reduce the level of treatment prior to
discharge, even if the municipal treatment plant regularly has combined
sewer overflows that cause untreated
[[Page H4779]] waste, including industrial waste, to flow into
resident's basements, the streets and waterbodies.
Dischargers of nearly 70,000 chemicals could flood EPA with requests
for waivers from the current baseline standard for certain toxic and
nonconventional pollutants. These include most of the pollutants
referred to as dioxins.
It has been argued that the waivers will not cause a setback in water
quality because waivers are not available unless authorized by a State
or EPA. This supposed safeguard is in most instances an illusion.
In some instances the waiver is automatic, without State or EPA
approval. In others, the bill requires EPA or a State to grant a waiver
if certain conditions are met, and those conditions frequently do not
focus upon water quality. The bill essentially creates entitlements to
waivers, and then if the State or Federal agencies deny the waivers,
the polluter can challenge the denial in court, further straining
limited State and Federal resources, and making this program more like
Superfund.
The bill's industrial waivers create new standards that are vague,
unclear, and, in come instances, patently impossible to implement.
These waivers would dramatically increase burdens on States responsible
for implementing them, cause delays in permitting, and increase the
amount and complexity of litigation.
The waivers would cause uncertainty for industry, by eliminating the
bill's uniform standards and introducing in their place multiple
ambiguous waivers. They would create competition between communities
for industry and jobs, resulting in reduced standards for water. They
would create an unlevel playing field, where the preferences given
certain industrial dischargers will result in competitive disadvantages
to those who did not obtain waivers. And, the waivers will especially
harm those who live downstream, as most of us do, from industrial
dischargers that may receive waivers from the Clean Water Act's
treatment requirements.
My amendment would not increase regulatory requirements or financial
burdens. It would simply mean that industry could not do less than it
is already doing. My amendment is about holding on to the benefits of
one of the Congress' and this Great Nation's true success stories. It
is about not losing the achievements of the past 20 years. And, it is
about improving the quality of the water that our children and our
childrens' children will inherit. A vote for increasing industrial
water pollution through waivers would be unconscionable. I urge you to
support my amendment.
{time} 1600
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply a grab bag of deletions of
both the reform and flexibility provisions in the bill. It deletes the
provisions of flexibility on the nonconventional pollution. It guts the
pollution provision opportunities. It deletes the pretreatment
flexibility. And, perhaps most importantly, it fundamentally
mischaracterizes the waiver provisions in this bill.
My good friend from California says that these waivers should be
eliminated because they give industry and others the opportunity to in
effect get entitlements to waivers. That simply is not the case. No
waiver can be granted unless the States water authority officials and
the EPA approve the waiver.
Now, are the State water quality officials going to approve a waiver
that harms the environment? Is the EPA going to approve a waiver that
harms the environment?
Of course not. These waivers, when requested, must meet water quality
standards, and they must get the written approval of the water quality
officials in the States or the EPA.
So this simply is an attempt to gut the legislation we have before
us. The very groups, and I will not take a lot of the committee's time
to go through this in detail. We covered this in the previous debate.
The very same groups from the National Governors' Association on down,
who opposed the previous amendment, oppose this legislation.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote this down so we can get on with
the consideration of this bill.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. This amendment would strike the many loopholes and
waivers that are sprinkled throughout the title of this bill. This
title replaces the strong national standards that have made the Clean
Water Act a success with national loopholes. The gentleman from
California has found nine specific provisions that roll back the Clean
Water Act.
Does anybody really know the impact of these changes? Has anyone
examined their long-range implications?
The Environmental Protection Agency called the waivers and exemptions
in the bill a wholesale repeal and replacement of the fundamental
provisions in the Clean Water Act. Strong and predictable national
standards have been at the heart of the success of the Clean Water Act
during the past 2 decades. These standards should not be chopped up by
this combination of waivers and loopholes that some secret industry
task force had on its wish list.
The Clean Water Act has meant improved water quality across the
Nation for every citizen in this country. For 20 years, we have been
working to make our bath waters cleaner, and in many cases there have
been much success. I urge my colleagues not to turn their back on the
success of the past 20 years.
A vote for this amendment is a vote to maintain the strong Clean
Water Act that we currently have. I urge Members to vote for the Mineta
amendment and vote against a weakening of the Clean Water Act.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. H.R. 961,
as drafted, represents a frontal attack on one of our country's most
successful environmental laws. We have spent two decades diligently
cleaning up our Nation's streams and rivers and lakes, and it is
inconceivable to me that anyone would now advocate back pedaling on the
great progress we have made.
In the Portland metropolitan area, which I represent, clean water
consistently ranks as the top environmental concern of area residents.
So important is clean water to Oregonians that they have agreed to
spend more than $750 million to prevent Portland's combined sewer
overflow from dumping raw sewage into nearby waterways.
Oregonians remember very well the days when the Willamette River
which flows through Portland was one of the most polluted rivers in the
country. The waters of the Willamette were so choked with pollution
that when live fish were put in a basket and lowered into the river to
check water quality, it took only a minute and a half for the fish to
die.
Obviously, at the same time it was unsafe for people to swim in the
river, along with the fish. Now, this river, Mr. Chairman, was a
disgrace. But thanks to the Clean Water Act, the Willamette River is
now safe to swim in and salmon once again are present in increasing
numbers.
Oregonians do not want to go back to the days of polluted waters, and
neither do the American people. Americans do not want to see raw sewage
floating in the surf when they visit the beaches. Americans do not want
to worry about their children getting sick from swimming in a
neighborhood stream. Americans do not want to think that the fish they
catch in their favorite fishing hole might be too toxic to eat. And
Americans do not want to turn back the clock to polluted rivers that
actually caught fire. When they would go to the sink to get a drink of
water, Americans do not want to choke on what comes out of the top.
What Americans people do want is a strong Clean Water Act, and I urge
my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Mineta amendment.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong objection to the Mineta
amendment. The pollution prevention provisions of H.R. 961 are not a
loophole. Instead, this bill would allow a facility to engage in
multimedia offsets within a facility, or to trade between facilities,
if it could
[[Page H4780]] demonstrate to EPA or the State that the result would
produce an overall net benefit to the environment.
A chemical plant in my district, Union Carbide, identified a
multimedia pollution prevention project as an alternative to a rigid
Clean Water Act technology-based numerical effluent limitation for
certain non-toxic pollutants. Instead of a costly expansion of end-of-
pipe treatment that would just shift waste from the water to a
landfill, this innovative solution would have recovered 40 thousand
pounds of product each day, reduced land disposal of sludge by 3,000
pounds a day, cut air emissions and saved energy. The only problem is
that while pilot studies showed that the rigid Clean Water Act
numerical limit could be met under most weather conditions, it could
not guarantee that it would meet the standard 100 percent of the time.
Pilot studies show that temperatures below 50 degrees F during the
months of January and February would decrease the treatment efficiency.
A conservative estimate, based on the unlikely prospect of 2 months of
Southern Louisiana temperatures below 50 degrees, would still result in
the treatment system meeting the standard a minimum of 84 percent of
the time. Variance from the standard would be between 15 and 25 parts
per million (ppm) for total suspended solids. The variance could be
made up by executing a trading agreement with another source under
section 302(c) of H.R. 961. A few cold days in Louisiana might cause
the limit to be exceeded by an environmentally insignificant amount.
The plant could not take the risk of going forward with the project
without the certainty of meeting the standard. Ironically, it would
have cost more in initial capital expense than conventional end-of-pipe
treatment, but the company was willing to do it because it made more
environmental sense, and would have paid for itself over time. The
plant was also willing to pay a farmer up-river to reduce his non-point
discharge of TSS into the river. A greater reduction could have been
achieved more cheaply. But because there was no flexibility available
in the foreseeable future, this innovative solution has been shelved.
Everybody loses. Especially the environment!
This bill, unlike the current law, will promote and reward innovation
rather than stifle it. It's about time we started writing laws that
unleashed creativity rather than shackled our industry to an outdated
system of one size fits all regulations.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by my good friend, Mr. Mineta.
In particular, I rise in opposition to that part of his amendment
which deletes the remaining provisions of the bill, which we adopted in
committee without opposition.
In 1987, all over the coal mining States of this country, we had
sites that had previously been mined. They were sitting there with
recoverable coal left at the site needing to be remined. The coal could
be extracted and the area brought up to the standards of mine
reclamation laws in this country.
The problem was that the coal industry would not go in and remine
those previously mined lands because operators did not feel certain
that preexisting discharges of poor water quality could be totally
eliminated. And they were unwilling to be held liable for a pollutional
discharge already existing on the site.
So this Congress said in 1987, OK, we know these sites exist. We know
they need to be reclaimed. And if the Government has to pay for the
reclamation it will be expensive to the taxpayers.
So in order to make it economically feasible for the coal companies
to go in, remine what remaining coal they could get from the site and
reclaim the land by bringing it up to present reclamation standards,
the Congress in the 1987 Clean Water Act provided that a reminer only
had to insure that his or her operation did not cause discharges to be
worse than what was found at the site, and in fact, under the
provisions of the 1987 act, every effort is to be made to improve the
quality of the discharged water.
So the effect of this 1987 provision in the Clean Water Act is that
we got not only the remaining coal on previously remined sites, we
reclaimed previously mined sites that would not have been reclaimed,
and in most cases improved the water quality discharges from those
sites. But in no instance did we make the water quality discharge worse
than it had previously been before the remining took place.
So what's the problem? The problem is that certain remining
operations initiated prior to the 1987 amendments were not afforded
this relief. While these pre-1987 operations may, in fact, meet the
criteria set forth in the 1987 amendments, they are not in compliance
with the Clean Water Act simply because they were initiated prior to
the amendments. This bill simply provides this class of remining
operations be accorded the same treatment as those initiated after the
1987 act.
The remaining provisions of this bill are just and appropriate and
should be adopted and this amendment should be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 166,
noes 260, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 313]
AYES--166
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--260
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
[[Page H4781]] Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--8
Baker (CA)
Bunning
Collins (IL)
Fattah
Lewis (KY)
Moakley
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
{time} 2030
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Lewis of Kentucky against.
Mr. HOLDEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would defer to our colleague, the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus], because I understand he has a
noncontroversial amendment that will be accepted by both sides.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr.
Bachus] rise?
amendment offered by mr. bachus
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer a noncontroversial
amendment. This is a revised version of amendment 1, as originally
printed in the Congressional Record.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bachus: Page 146, line 17, strike
``The'' and insert ``Working in conjunction with the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the
Small Business Ombudsman of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the''.
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I did allow that amendment to be
read because it was short, and it basically speaks for itself. The bill
refers to small businesses, without any definition that allows the
administrator of the EPA total discretion in defining small business.
What we have simply done, at the request of small business advocates,
including the NFIB, is simply ask that the administrator of the Small
Business Administration and the small business advocate at the EPA have
input in defining small businesses.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will further clarify the provisions of
the bill which are intended to reduce the paperwork and regulatory
burden placed upon small businesses.
In order to reduce the regulatory burden that strangles small
businesses in our Nation, the committee bill purports to exempt small
businesses from general and site-specific stormwater discharge permits.
While the reformed permit process contained in the committee bill is
a tremendously positive step in the right direction, the bill leaves it
to the total discretion of the EPA to promulgate a definition of
whether or not a business qualifies as a ``small business.'' Many
members, myself included, fear that EPA will attempt to circumvent the
clear intent of the bill and define ``small business'' so narrowly that
it will, as a practical matter, exempt few of the Nation's small
businesses.
My amendment requires that the EPA work with the Small Business
Administration and the EPA's Small Business Ombudsman in defining
``small business.'' We think, and the NFIB and other small business
advocacy groups agree, that with SBA and the Small Business Ombudsman's
input, it will help ensure that in drafting its definition of ``small
business'' the EPA will not frustrate the intent of the bill.
While my amendment will continue to give discretion to the EPA in
coming to a proper definition of ``small business,'' in my personal
view any EPA definition of ``small business'' which does not include as
small businesses, at the minimum, all businesses with 100 or fewer
employees, would frustrate the intent of the bill. Including all such
businesses as small businesses would be consistent with section 507 of
the Clean Air Act that defines ``small businesses'' as any business
with 100 or fewer employees.
In closing, let me stress that this amendment does not affect those
provisions in the bill that empower a State to find that stormwater
discharges from any entity would have a significant adverse effect on
water quality. In any such case, a permit would be required regardless
of whether the entity was a small business or not.
Thus, it should be made very clear that any small business can be
made subject to the permit requirement if a State finds that the entity
is conducting an activity that has a truly significant adverse effect
on water quality. What my amendment does is help protect the goal of
the committee to reduce cost and paperwork that burdens literally
thousands of small businesses that do not pose a threat to our Nation's
water quality.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. We have examined this amendment and we support it, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from Alabama yield?
Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this side has looked at the amendment. We
have no objections to it at all.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. boehlert
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Boehlert:
Page 115, strike line 5 and all that follows through line 3
on page 117 and insert the following:
(n) Coastal Zone Management.--Section 6217 of the Coastal
Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 U.S.C. 1451
note) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``Program development.--'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) A State that has not received Federal approval for
the State's core coastal management program pursuant to
section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16
U.S.C. 1455) shall have 30 months from the date of approval
of such program to submit a Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Program pursuant to this section. Any such State shall also
be eligible for any extension of time for submittal of the
State's nonpoint program that may be received by a State with
a federally approved coastal management program,'';
(2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``to protect coastal waters generally'' and
inserting ``to restore and protect coastal waters where the
State has determined that coastal waters are threatened or
significantly degraded'';
(3) in subsection (b)(3)--
(A) by striking ``The implementation'' and inserting ``A
schedule for the implementation''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and no less often than once every 5
years,'' after ``from time to time'';
(4) in subsection (b) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Identification of priority areas.--A prioritization
of the areas in the State in which management measures will
be implemented.'';
(5) in subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Conditional approval.--The Secretary and
Administrator may grant conditional approval to a State's
program where the State requests additional time to complete
the development of its program. During the period during
which the State's program is subject to conditional approval,
the penalty provisions of paragraphs (3) and (4) shall not
apply.'';
(6) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``, 1993, and 1994''
and inserting ``through 2000''; and
(7) in subsection (h)(2)(B)(iv) by striking ``fiscal year
1995'' and inserting ``each of fiscal years 1995 through
2000''.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I think the last vote, the last recorded
vote, indicates that there is strong sentiment for making some
adjustments to H.R. 961, as reported from the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. As a matter of fact, we had a 184
vote, indicating that people want some adjustment.
I have been told that if we break down the overall package and bring
some of the most important component parts before this body, we will
have a better chance of achieving our objective. Therefore, we are
doing just that. This amendment I am offering deals with the Coastal
Zone Management Program. As we all know, the committee's bill repeals
that very important program. The program cries out for reform, not
repeal.
[[Page H4782]] Nonpoint source pollution impairs more water bodies
nationwide than any other pollution source. Nearly half of all
estuarine waters are impaired or threatened, mostly from nonpoint
sources. Pollution has limited the harvest of over one-third of all
shellfish beds in the United States, and more than 10,000 beaches,
10,000 beaches, were closed to the public over the past 5 years, and 46
out of 50 States have banned or issued health advisories on fish
consumption, because of contamination from dangerous toxins.
Clearly, this is a public health-public safety issue, as well as an
environmental issue. The health costs pose even greater threats to the
public welfare, not to mention the declining fisheries, the lost
income, jobs for the tourism industry.
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act reauthorization amendments is
the only enforceable program developed by Congress to prevent nonpoint
source pollution. It was adopted in 1990 expressly to address polluted
runoff in coastal areas by creating a State-Federal partnership to
develop and implement coastal nonpoint source pollution control
programs.
Mr. Chairman, we look, and we have reached out to others beyond this
institution, beyond this Nation's Capitol, for input. We have gone to
those most directly affected by that. In this instance, we have been
dealing with the Coastal States Organization, representing 30 coastal
States, all up and down the east and west coasts of the United States
and along the Gulf of Mexico.
The Coastal States Organization has endorsed the coastal zone
provisions that I am referring to in this amendment as a substitute to
the Clean Water Act reauthorization as it remains silent on that issue.
Actually, it is more than silent. It repeals it.
Let me read from the letter of the Coastal States Organization; once
again, 30 States, 30 Governors, Republicans and Democrats alike, people
who day in and day out have to live with this issue. The letter says:
We are encouraged to hear you will offer an alternative
package to the Clean Water Act reauthorization that would
amend, rather than repeal, the coastal nonpoint pollution
control program. . . . Runoff pollution causes significant
economic harm. Commercial and recreational fisheries are
being closed. Beaches are being closed to the public.
Nonpoint pollution poses serious human health and safety
concerns, while at the same time degrades wildlife habitat.
This problem needs to be addressed now, before this country
suffers further economic losses, health hazards, and
environmental degradation. . . .
We ``strongly support,'' says the Coastal States Organization,
representing 30 States, 30 Governors, ``We strongly support your
efforts to amend, not repeal, the nonpoint pollution coastal program
established under section 6217 of'' the act.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to give this the very
careful consideration it deserves. I know this has been a long day. It
has been a good day, however, because the House has proven that we are
spirited in debate, that competing ideas are considered, pro and con,
and finally we will render a judgment in the people's behalf. I urge
support of my amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply was already included in the
substitute, which was very resoundingly defeated two votes ago. I am
sure my good friend, the gentleman from New York, would not knowingly
intentionally mislead the House. The letter the gentleman quoted from
was not from the Governors. In fact, the National Governors Association
opposes this provision. The letter he quoted from was from the Coastal
Zone Management Association, which is made up of the bureaucrats who
run it, and of course that is quite a difference. Beyond that, the
Water Quality Association also opposes this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, to say that we eliminate coastal zone management simply
is not true. Our bill does not gut those protections. What our bill
does is fold the coastal zone management provision into the section 319
program, so we bring together the two programs, so we have more
flexibility, and what we do is eliminate this one-size-fits-all
provision, which is in the law and which would be followed if my
friend's amendment is adopted.
If his amendment is adopted, we would simply continue with the States
being forced to adopt the same exact program for agriculture, ranching,
forestry, marinas, and urban areas. It lacks flexibility. It imposes
restrictive Federal mandates on States. It gives EPA the power to
determine appropriate land use practices, and requires the States to
adopt enforceable land use requirements, which would have to be
approved by EPA.
States must identify, under the provisions in our bill, States must
identify critical coastal areas. The States may focus resources on
priority coastal waters, but have the flexibility to target areas of
concern. Unlike CZARA, the bill does not allow the Federal Government
to mandate where a State coastal zones boundary should be.
If the State already has developed its coastal zone management
program, it may implement that program, but H.R. 961, the bill, does
not mandate that States develop two separate programs, one for the
State generally, and one for the coastal areas. Instead, it eliminates
this duplicative regulation. In fact, even though it is late in the
evening, with some difficulty, I can lift this 800-and-some-page tome,
which now represents all the regulations that the States must follow
under EPA guidance. This is the kind of thing we are trying to
eliminate.
Mr. Chairman, we do not eliminate coastal zone management, we
streamline it, fold it in, and tell the States they have flexibility to
achieve what is best for them. I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will my colleague yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the reason it is very difficult to lift
that very heavy document is because that is not a document that
contains regulations, it contains options for the States.
Mr. SHUSTER. I would take back my time, Mr. Chairman, and point out
that the gentleman is so right, this was supposed to be guidelines.
However, the EPA is using this and interpreting it as a basis for
forcing the States to comply. It is one more example of something that
is supposed to be an EPA guideline, but ends up really having the force
of an unfunded mandate, and that is another reason why we should defeat
this amendment.
{time} 2045
Mr. BOEHLERT. If my distinguished chairman would yield one more time,
I would point out my amendment fixes the problem you are referring to.
That is exactly why the amendment deserves to be supported.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank my friend. That is not the way we interpret it,
it is not the way the national Governors interpret it, and it is not
the way the State Water Quality Association interprets it.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, I know
there is some confusion over all the letters we have had floating
around here today, but the letter that the gentleman from New York
refers to that does endorse this provision, the provision that is the
subject of this amendment, is a letter from the Coastal States
Organization which was an organization founded in 1970 to represent the
Governors of the 35 coastal States, Territories and Commonwealths on
coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean affairs.
Mr. SHUSTER. I would take back my time and say the gentleman is
absolutely right. It is an organization. These are the bureaucrats from
the various States, and the National Governors Association opposes this
amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time. I had an identical amendment drafted myself. I commend the
gentleman from New York and his leadership on this and all other
matters today.
[[Page H4783]]
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. H.R.
961 will undo much of the progress we have made in cleaning up our
rivers, lakes, and oceans over the last 25 years. The supporters of
this bill dismiss such concerns as hysterical. But all you have to do
is read the bill. H.R. 961 throws out the baby and makes the taxpayer
drink the bathwater. It weakens protection of the aquatic environment
on nearly every major front. The amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York would restore some protection on just one of those
fronts--nonpoint pollution of our coastal waters.
Those of us that represent coastal areas--and there are many of us in
this body, know that a clean marine environment is vital to the local
economy and quality of life. This is important considering that more
than half of all Americans now live in coastal counties, and this
proportion is expected to increase in the future. Americans who do not
live on the coast also benefit from a clean coastal environment, either
in the form of abundant, healthy seafood or from recreational
opportunities at the seashore. Fisheries and tourism can only thrive
along our coasts if the water is clean. Commercial and recreational
fisheries contribute more than $30 billion to the economy annually.
Coastal tourism is worth another $10 billion each year.
While we need to continue to make progress on all fronts, it is only
fair to say that a major success of the Clean Water Act has been to
reduce pollution from point source discharges. However, the greatest
remaining cause of water pollution in the United States is nonpoint
source pollution--polluted runoff not attributable to a particular
discharge pipe or outfall.
Unfortunately, the supporters of H.R. 961 ignore the need to deal
effectively with nonpoint pollution. The bill before the House repeals
the coastal nonpoint pollution control program, which is the only
national program that holds any promise of actually abating nonpoint
pollution. Repealing the program now is especially ill-timed because
the coastal States will be submitting their plans for addressing
nonpoint pollution this year. H.R. 961 would instead rely on existing
voluntary measures under section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Hundreds
of millions have been spent under section 319 over many years with no
demonstrable progress. To make matters worse, H.R. 961 weakens section
319 by pushing back deadlines and relaxing requirements for the State
to identify meaningful ways of abating nonpoint pollution.
Under the coastal nonpoint pollution program, coastal States have
been working hard for 5 years to prepare their plans for controlling
nonpoint pollution. This has not been easy, but progress has been made.
Perhaps more importantly, the coastal States support this program. They
have, however, sought more flexibility in complying. While I believe
that some of the changes sought by the Coastal States Organization will
delay progress in reducing nonpoint pollution, that is not really the
question. The real question is: Do we want a meaningful nonpoint
pollution control program or do we not? If you support healthy
fisheries, a strong coastal economy, and beautiful coastlines, the
answer must be a resounding ``yes.''
This amendment strikes language in H.R. 961 that repeals the coastal
nonpoint pollution control program. In addition, it makes the changes
needed in the nonpoint program to give the States more flexibility in
complying. Most importantly, it allows more time for States to meet the
program's requirements and allows States to target priority areas for
implementation of management measures.
The coastal States have put 5 hard years of work into this program.
Don't throw away that progress. I urge the House to support the
amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the amendment which would
preserve the coastal zone nonpoint source pollution control program
while incorporating several important modifications to reflect the
evolution of the program.
When Congress approved the nonpoint source program targeted at
coastal areas, it did so with the recognition that nonpoint source
pollution in the coastal zone is a serious and growing problem.
Nonpoint source pollution plays a significant role in nutrient
enrichment in estuaries. This can lead to direct effects on human
health, such as shellfish poisoning, as well as a loss of recreational
uses of the coast and reduced fish mortality.
Unfortunately, the coastal zone is under tremendous stress from human
activity. Although the coastal zone accounts for only about 11 percent
of the country's area, it is home to about one-half of the Nation's
population. Additionally, about 40 percent of commercial and industrial
structures built in the United States between 1970 and 1989 were built
in the coastal zone.
All of this activity in the coastal zone creates tremendous stress on
the near-shore waters. Repealing the provisions for coastal protection
will only exacerbate the decline of our coastal resources.
The States and EPA have made great progress in preparing plans to
address nonpoint pollution in the coastal zone. States are preparing
plans for submission this summer, with implementation likely to begin
about 1 year later.
The repeal of the program will mean that the efforts of States and
EPA and NOAA will have been largely wasted. More seriously, it also
means that no real progress will be initiated on coastal nonpoint
source pollution for nearly another 5 years. And that assumes that this
bill is enacted soon. That is too long to wait when States are
otherwise ready to go.
This repeal of coastal nonpoint programs sends exactly the wrong
statement about our commitment to clean coastal waters. We hear
repeatedly that we must move this bill quickly to preserve
appropriations. One thing is near certain. If this committee approves
legislation repealing the coastal program, how can we expect the
appropriations committee to provide funding in 1996 or subsequent
years?
What we will be creating if this amendment is defeated is an unfunded
mandate on coastal States. The requirements will continue, but we
cannot count on continued funding.
Second, we will be telling the States to stop in their tracks. Why
would a State continue its efforts to establish a coastal zone program,
when we are about to repeal it?
The States have had some differences with EPA over implementation of
the program. Fortunately, the States and EPA have worked out a number
of differences in the implementation of the program. These agreements
are reflected in the amendment restoring the program. The amendment
addresses the problems which the Coastal States Organization have
identified. The coastal States do not want the program repealed--they
want it fixed. This amendment does that.
Let us preserve those areas of water pollution control where real
problems have been identified, and real solutions to those problems are
being put in place. Let us respect the wishes of the States which
implement the program, and support the Boehlert amendment.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert] for bringing this amendment back to the floor
tonight, and I would also like to commend the ranking minority member
for having the foresight to support it. I would just say two things.
Mr. Chairman, the first point I would make is that it is impossible
for the Congress of the United States to pretend that the issue of
nonpoint source pollution does not exist around the coasts of the
United States. It is simply impossible, because the problem is there.
It is a fact of life as clear as the nose on our faces. Beaches close
every year. Red tides and blue tides and green tides, they come from
algae buildup because nutrient buildup is there.
Organizations form around our coasts like the Committee to Save
Chesapeake Bay, the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association, and other
groups like that which recognize the seriousness of this problem. This
House in 1990 recognized it as well. That is why we amended the Coastal
Zone Management Act to provide for a nonpoint source pollution program
and encouraged the States to adopt these programs.
It is dumb to pretend that the problem does not exist, just plain
dumb. For us to stop in the middle of the road, amend the Coastal Zone
Management Act while pretending the problem does not exist, is equally
dumb. I do not know any other way to say it. It just does not make any
sense whatsoever.
The second point that I would make, and I know that the chairman did
not mean to misrepresent the identity of those organizations that
support this amendment, but the Coastal States Organization is an
organization made up of 35 States, Territories, and Commonwealths who
are coastal States and
[[Page H4784]] have an interest in this type of issue and in this
legislation. The Coastal States Organization was founded in 1970 to
represent the Governors of coastal States.
We have a letter here which at the appropriate time I would like to
make part of the Record, because it is as clear as a bell in support of
the Boehlert amendment. I would just read one paragraph from that
letter.
The serious problem of non-point pollution of the Nation's
coastal waters is well-documented. Runoff pollution causes
significant economic harm. Commercial and recreational
fisheries are being closed. Beaches are being closed to the
public. Non-point pollution poses serious human health and
safety concerns while at the same time degrades wildlife
habitat. This problem needs to be addressed now, before this
country suffers further economic losses, health hazards and
environmental degradation. With the proper amendments, which
we understand your bill contains, the section 6217 program
will well serve this purpose.
It goes on to explain other reasons for supporting the program to do
something about the very serious problem that remains in the coastal
areas, namely, nonpoint source pollution, and the program is well under
way with the States all around the coasts of this country.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to be passed in order to do any kind
of sane continuation to solve the problem that we all must know exists.
Mr. Chairman, I include the letter referred to for the Record.
Coastal States Organization,
Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.
Hon. Jim Saxton,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Saxton: We are encouraged to hear you will
offer an alternative package on the Clean Water Act
reauthorization that would amend, rather then repeal, the
coastal nonpoint pollution control program established by
Sec. 6217 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
(OBRA). We write to support you in this effort.
The serious problem of nonpoint pollution of the Nation's
coastal waters is well documented. Runoff pollution causes
significant economic harm. Commercial and recreational
fisheries are being closed. Beaches are being closed to the
public. Nonpoint pollution poses serious human health and
safety concerns, while at the same time degrades wildlife
habitat. This problem needs to be addressed now, before this
country suffers further economic losses, health hazards and
environmental degradation. With the proper amendments, which
we understand your bill contains, the Sec. 6217 program will
serve this purpose.
It is no secret that we have had complaints about the
Sec. 6217 program. Nonetheless, we believe that the immediacy
of the coastal nonpoint pollution problem calls for this
program to be fixed, not killed. The coastal States have over
four years worth of work invested in developing the Sec. 6217
programs; they are nearly complete, and are due for
submission in July. Why throw four years of diligent work out
the window two months before the completion date? By amending
the Sec. 6217 program as we propose, the Nation will have in
place an effective coastal nonpoint pollution control program
within 8 months from now. Repealing Sec. 6217, on the other
hand, will delay getting any program up and running for
another five or six years.
We strongly support your efforts to amend, not repeal, the
coastal nonpoint pollution control program established under
Sec. 6217 of OBRA.
Sincerely,
H. Wayne Beam,
Chairman.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment to strike the repeal
of the highly effective coastal zone nonpoint pollution program.
The amendment would substitute the language that was proposed by the
Coastal States Organization, a coalition of 30 States.
The Coastal States Organization has repeatedly expressed its strong
opposition to the repeal of the coastal nonpoint pollution program.
On March 17, the Coastal States Organization said, ``Section 6217
should not be repealed, but amended, to establish a workable and
effective state-implemented program.''
This is what the Coastal States Organization had to say on nonpoint
pollution.
The problem on non-point pollution of the nation's coastal
waters is real and serious.
Runoff pollution is causing serious economic harm.
Let me repeat that:
Runoff pollution is causing serious economic harm.
Commercial and recreational fisheries are being shut down
due to runoff pollution. Beaches are being closed.
Nonpoint source pollution poses human health and safety
concerns, while at the same time degrading wildlife habitat.
I am still quoting from the Coastal States Organization.
This problem needs to be addressed now, before this country
suffers further economic losses, health hazards and
environmental degradation.
They say the coastal States have 4 years of work invested in this
program which would be lost if we repeal czara.
The coastal States letter opposes the very approach that is being
taken in the bill before us.
The assertion is often raised that the section 6217 program
is Duplicative of the clean water act section 319 program. We
assert it is the other way around.
By amending the section 6217 program as we have suggested,
the Nation will have in place an effective coastal nonpoint
pollution control program within 10 months from now.
But, by repealing section 6217 outright and replacing it
with the clean water act section 319 program, the Nation will
not have a program in place to address this serious problem
for another five and a half years after the clean water
reauthorization is enacted.
The reauthorization effort will require at least several
more months to finally be enacted, making it about six years
before any program is in place to address the serious
nonpoint pollution programs degrading our coastal waters.
These 30 States said:
We believe the best course of action is not to throw out 4
years of State effort developing their coastal nonpoint
pollution control programs, but rather to put in place, at
the earliest possibility, a workable and effective program to
attack nonpoint pollution of the Nation's coastal waters.
Finally, they said:
We urge you to help us act against the pollution of our
coastal waters as soon as possible and not let the problem
fester for another 6 years.
Mr. Chairman, I urge that we do what the Coastal States Organization
has asked us to do.
They want the program maintained with amendments that would allow
impaired or threatened waters to be targeted and to allow additional
time for States to receive approval of their programs. This amendment
would substitute the language the States are seeking for the repeal in
the bill.
This is a case of deciding whether the States who run the programs or
Washington knows best. This amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York supports the States.
{time} 2100
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the chairman
regarding laboratory biological monitoring criteria and the field
bioassessment in section 304 of H.R. 961 as amended by the chairman's
en bloc amendment.
It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that section 304(a) of H.R. 961
as amended would revise the provisions of the Clean Water Act found in
section 303(c)(2)(B) by giving additional direction as to the criteria
for whole effluent toxicity, based on laboratory biological monitoring
or assessment methods.
The statute as amended gives three criteria. Common to all three
criteria is the concept that the test species must have some actual
relationship to the receiving water.
The test species cannot, for instance, be selected simply because it
is highly sensitive to toxicity. The test species must either be
indigenous to the type of receiving water involved or be able to live
in the type of receiving water involved.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, that is
correct.
Mrs. FOWLER. It is my understanding that section 304(b) of H.R. 961
as amended would revise section 402 of the Clean Water Act to make it
clear that exceedence of a laboratory whole effluent bioassay would not
be regarded as a permit violation, but would give rise to a procedure
for re-testing and identification of the cause of such exceedence.
However, the permittee can discontinue such procedure if the
permittee can demonstrate, through a field bio-assessment, that there
is no real world toxicity problem because a balanced and healthy
population of aquatic species, indigenous to the type of water
involved, exists in the receiving water affected by the discharge.
[[Page H4785]] To complete this demonstration, the permittee must
also show that all applicable numerical water quality standards for
specific pollutants are met. The point here is that this is a real
world demonstration. There is no reference in this provision to
laboratory whole effluent bioassays, which can be highly variable and
unrelated to real world conditions.
Mr. SHUSTER. The gentlewoman is absolutely correct.
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. FOWLER. I am happy to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. HEFLEY. First, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida
for seeking this clarification in section 304(a) of H.R. 961. This
section as amended seeks only to bring a sense of place-based science
to the development of criteria based biological monitoring to the Clean
Water Act.
Second, I would like to commend the chairman of the full committee
for including these well crafted provisions on whole effluent criteria
and use of biological monitoring in the committee bill. These
provisions faithfully address those issues and provisions of my bill,
the Publicly Owned Treatment Works Biological Monitoring Use Act,
introduced this year as H.R. 634 with our colleague form Arizona,
Congressman Pastor. As further explained in the committee report, this
section would bring common sense and due process to the use of whole
effluent toxicity tests by substituting enforceable response procedures
for locating and reducing toxicity in place of fines and penalties for
test failures. This is important to local governments particularly
because of the unreliability of these tests and because sewage
treatment plants are not designed to treat whole effluent toxicity as
they are designed to treat specific chemicals.
I thank the chairman and the committee for including section 304 and
I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Hefley for his
supportive comments and I thank the chairman for this understanding.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of misinformation in this Chamber
about the widespread support this bill has from State and local
governments. The truth is that the State's interests were ignored when
it came to the coastal nonpoint pollution program because their wishes
differed with those of polluters and special interests.
Today, coastal counties are growing three times faster than the rest
of the country. Already about half of the U.S. population lives in
coastal areas. Without adequate protection, this continuing growth will
only exacerbate coastal
pollution--resulting in more beach closings, more polluted shellfish
beds, more contaminated fish, and millions of dollars in lost tourism
revenue.
To tackle these threats, Congress enacted the Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Program (section 6217) under the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. In fact I sponsored the amendment
at that time. Section 6217 establishes sensible, State-managed
partnerships to address the threats to coastal waters--the majority of
which comes from nonpoint sources. It is the only program that will
bring about significant reductions in nonpoint source pollution. Yet,
H.R. 961 repeals this important program--even though the coastal States
themselves want it preserved.
The Coastal States Organization [CSO], which represents the 35
coastal States, territories and commonwealths, has made it clear that
the urgency of the coastal nonpoint pollution problem compels us not to
pull the plug on this program.
Let's be clear: This amendment does what the States asked us to do.
It adopts their suggestions for providing flexibility and targeting of
coastal nonpoint programs. Our amendment will put an effective Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Program in place in less than a year.
Two-thirds of coastal States have invested millions of dollars over
the past 4 years crafting innovative runoff control programs that are
nearly ready for approval. My own State of New York has invested
considerable time and effort in developing a plan that will benefit
Long Island Sound, the Hudson River, and the New York City watershed.
By making sensible investments early-on, it also promises to save
taxpayers millions of dollars down the road--or downstream as the case
may be.
Long Island Sound is a $6 billion a year resource for the region's
fishing, boating, and recreation industries. In New York and
Connecticut, business, labor, and environmental groups have set-aside
old disagreements and joined together in developing a plan to clean up
the sound. They have forged a powerful coalition. The Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Program is an integral component of those efforts, and now is
certainly not the time to pull the rug out from under their feet.
As the coastal States themselves are asking: Why throw 4 years of
diligent work out the window 2 months before the completion date? There
is no reasonable answer. I urge my colleagues to support their States
by supporting this amendment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just do not understand. Why do we think we have to
have more bureaucracy to stop pollution? That is the old approach. The
new approach is an approach of flexibility, consolidation, elimination
of unnecessary bureaucracy. All this bill does is streamline, then
consolidate. Basically the amendment that is being offered is
essentially the same provision that was in the substitute that was
rejected decisively by the Members of this House.
This bill eliminates a duplicative program of regulation and it
consolidates it into one program. Now the question is why should we do
this now, because the answer is no State has this coastal management
program up and running. That is why we should do it now. It makes
perfect sense to do it now. Because if we wait, then we will have these
programs up and running. We still allow the States all of the
flexibility they want to target these resources, to identify the
programs that they consider to be a problem and to focus resources into
that. And when we hear the argument that the States want to be told by
the EPA what to do with their land use, et cetera, I just do not buy
that, Mr. Chairman.
What we need to do is to reject this amendment just as we rejected
the substitute and move ahead, streamline and consolidate and make this
a workable program.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. Is the
Chair going to be alternating between the Republican and Democratic
side in terms of recognition?
The CHAIRMAN. That is the attempt of the Chair, yes. Was the
gentleman from California seeking recognition?
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, under that procedure, I believe the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] was standing.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has recognized the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. Gilchrest], a member of the committee. The gentleman from Maryland
will proceed. Following the gentleman from Maryland's statement the
Chair would intend to come to this side for recognition. The gentleman
from Maryland may proceed for a period of 5 minutes.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker did not extend the
courtesy of yielding at the conclusion of his time. I would like to
directly rebut a couple of comments he made.
First of all he said the States do not want it. He is wrong. The
States do want it. As matter of fact, the secretary of state for New
York was in town today lobbying for this. I will tell you who wants it:
every single coastal State up and down the east coast and west coast
and on along the Gulf of Mexico and along the Great Lakes region.
And second, and this is very important as my colleague knows, It is
no secret, say the Coastal States Organization, that we have had
complaints about this program. Nonetheless, we believe that the
immediacy of the coastal nonpoint pollution program
[[Page H4786]] calls for this program to be fixed, not killed. And
this is very important. The coastal States, 30 of them, have invested
over 4 years of work in developing the 6,217 programs; they are nearly
complete, with that program and it will be submitted in July. Why throw
out, say the coastal States, 4 years of diligent work, throw it out the
window 2 months before the completion date.
I thank my colleague for yielding.
{time} 2115
Mr. GILCHREST. I need to make a couple of quick statements. No. 1,
the previous gentleman, and a number of people, have been talking about
giving the States the flexibility, let the States do this, let the
States do that.
One comment about the Constitutional Convention, you know, over 200
years ago, the reason the Constitutional Convention came about was
because there was a dispute between Maryland and Virginia dealing with
the Potomac River because it went across State lines, so there is a
Federal role to play, especially when pollution runs downstream.
I would like to draw your attention to this map one more time, the
Chesapeake Bay region. We are talking about nonpoint source pollution,
and we are talking about the Coastal Zone Management Act which helps
protect pollution along the coastal waters. If you look at Washington,
DC, right here, here, we have a certain amount of nonpoint source
protection, but you still see this urban area putting pollution, silt,
and a number of other things into the Potomac River which gradually
gets into the coastal waters.
If you look at the coast of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, you see
no such thing during that storm, and the reason is because the Coastal
Zone Management Act was able to protect this particular area of the
coastline, and if we go with the same rule of nonpoint programs and
fold the Coastal Zone Management Act into that program, we stand the
chance of having this that you see on this map, polluting the
Chesapeake Bay and eventually the coastal waters, happening over here
along the coast.
The last thing is, there are a lot of people that have approached me
on the House floor today and said, ``Washington, DC, was built on a
wetland. What do you think about that?'' I guess there was not a sense
of the problem of population and urban sprawl and unbridled development
200 years ago, 200 years ago, let us say 1795; there were 3 million
people in the world; 100 years ago in 1895, there were 76 million
people in the world. Today, 1995, there are 265 million people in the
United States.
Now, there is a certain sense of sharing the resources and what we do
or do not do to our neighbor downstream. And so the cumulative impact
of population growth which is expanding now to the coastal areas of
this country poses a certain threat to the resources of those areas,
and it is up to us, this legislative body, to understand how we can
help the State and local communities create an environment where we can
manage resources and still have people living in areas where they do
not have to worry about their drinking water, their natural resources.
And one more comment before my time is up, I want to point to the
areas that have urban sprawl and urban development. If you will notice,
during this rain storm, all of the silt that comes down the Potomac
River, but you do not see that because of the protection of the coastal
areas along Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes.
I did want to make reference though to a previous speaker, the
gentleman from California, and his statement about the vote being very
close on the Saxton-Boehlert amendment, and also the suggestion that
somehow this amendment was not in order. I would point out that the
vote was actually fairly close on the Boehlert-Saxton amendment, and
also that this amendment is a very important part of that overall
substitute which I think should be addressed separately.
I think one of the things that needs to be pointed out tonight is
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert] basically is a reasonable compromise, if you will, based on
the recommendations of the Coastal States Organization. The amendment
does not take us back to the original language of the existing statute
but, rather, it is a carefully crafted compromise that allows States
that have not received Federal approval of their coastal zone
management program to have 30 months to submit their coastal nonpoint
source pollution program. It only applies to threatened or
significantly degraded waters as opposed to coastal waters generally.
It allows for prioritization of areas for implementation of management
measures. It allows for conditional approval when States request
additional time to complete their plans without penalty.
The bottom line is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], again,
as part of this substitute, has drafted something that seeks to change
the language, if you will, of the current law without sacrificing the
mandatory and enforceable nature of the original law, and I think that
is the key.
Nonpoint source pollution is really the problem that we face with
regard to water quality in the future. Over the next 5 or 10 years this
is likely, if it is not already, to become the major source of
pollution that would we have, and the committee bill makes this whole
program voluntary.
Basically what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is trying
to do is to put the teeth back into the program, preserving the program
while also looking at it in a way that I think is very reasonable and
manageable.
I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important
amendment, because section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act reauthorization
amendments is the only enforceable program developed by Congress to
prevent nonpoint source pollution, and H.R. 961 basically repeals this
entire section 6217 and, instead, the bill replaces the enforceable
provisions with a proviso that State programs make reasonable progress,
essentially making the program voluntary.
As my own State of New Jersey has made significant progress with
regard to this program, and is very proud of the progress we have made,
there are about 19 other coastal States, including New Jersey, that
went through a very helpful threshold review, with respect to these
plans. In our State in the summer of 1994, we did a review. We held
three public hearings this month. We will be submitting our completed
section 6217 program proposal in July.
All of the coastal States are currently making progress in
development of their coastal nonpoint programs. Thousands of dollars
and years of efforts have been expended, and proposals for new programs
have been made.
The section 6217 program has already gained a significant momentum,
and shows great promise. But to undermine it with a less substantive
program that decreases predictability of action would greatly increase
the risks to valuable coastal resources, and it would penalize those
coastal States that have made a concerted effort to comply with
existing law.
I ask the House, do not pull the rug out from under the program.
Support the Boehlert amendment. I is what the coastal States want.
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take my full 5 minutes either.
But this is a very, very important issue to coastal States. I do not
believe this amendment does any damage to the underlying bill. I think
it is, in fact, perfectly compatible with the underlying bill.
My colleague from California says we do not want more bureaucracy, we
are trying to stop bureaucracy, we are trying to create local control.
That is exactly what this amendment does.
Now, California takes up almost the entire coast of the Western
United States. They only have a couple of neighbors to worry about.
Little States in New England have lots of other States to worry
about, and so New England with its number of little States along the
coast, needs a regional plan, needs Federal conformity. And this
amendment preserves the underlying coastal zone management law, but
reverts to the States the kind of flexibility, the kind of relief from
[[Page H4787]] Federal bureaucracy and Federal control that we all
know makes for a more cost effective and solid response, that combines
the environmental interest of the State with the economic interest of a
State.
Now, the Governors have proposed, through those who have worked to
make these plans and to implement that law, three things, and let me
tell you how they affect my district. The reforms in this plan will
allow States the flexibility to delineate the scope of the management
area. That means EPA cannot come in and tell you that every little
stream that feeds into every river is part of the coastal area
management section. So it means that a lot of my farmers are no longer
going to be attacked by EPA to do things that they do not know how to
do, and that we do not know how to help them to do. That ability in
this law to let States delineate their area, let States even select the
projects that they think are important, and implement those projects,
that is exactly what the States are asking for, and that is what we are
going to get.
But why do we need the underlying law?
We need it because no matter how much money Connecticut puts into
this, if Massachusetts does not, if Maine does not, and if New York
does not, then we will lose those fisheries and those shell beds that
we have spent millions of dollars to bring back on our intracoastal
water, and if we lose those, we lose jobs in an industry that is
growing. We lose a coast that attracts tourism.
This is a big economic issue for our State, and I do not think the
interior States quite understand what a big economic issue this is for
the coastal States and how impossible it is going to be for us to
achieve the level of coastal water cleanliness that is essential to our
economies as well as to our environments if we do not have the Federal
uniformity that the underlying coastal zone management law provides,
complemented by the reforms that the Governors have asked for.
This amendment does no damage to the underlying bill. It achieves the
objectives of the underlying bill in harmony with the consistency of
principle and program that an area of old industrial States, which is
what the Northeast is, so we have got lots of old site land, that is a
problem in terms of nonpoint source pollution, gives us that uniformity
of goal that will return our shores and our shoreline waters to the
level, to the quality that will assure the economic benefits of clean
coastal waters as well as the health and environment benefits.
So I urge you to think about what is the difference between living in
the middle of the United States and what is the responsibility of the
coastal States. And, please, do not take from us the program that we
all now support and give us the flexibility we need to make it work
right economically and environmentally.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for a very
eloquent statement.
I want to point out it is not just the 23 coastal States, also all
the Great Lakes States are heavily involved and deeply interested in
this. The Coastal States Organization represents 30, 30 coastal States,
Great Lakes and coastal States, so it is very important.
I thank the gentlewoman for a fine statement.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I realize the time is late, but I think it is important
to correct the Record.
You heard tonight that all of the coastal States are in support of
this program called CZARA 6217. That is incorrect.
We are in possession of a letter from the State of Louisiana opposing
that section of the CZM law and supporting the provisions of the bill
that would, in fact, fold language back into section 319 of the current
Coastal Management Act. We are in possession also of letters from the
State of Wisconsin indicating support for the bill and for elimination
of the coastal nonpoint pollution control program contained in section
6217, and a letter from the Texas department of agriculture similarly
in support of the changes embodied in the bill.
Let me correct another point in the Record. The Boehlert amendment
that contained the same amendment we now debate was not defeated on a
close vote. If 58 votes is a close vote, I am very surprised in this
House. That is a very good margin.
Let me tell you why this amendment ought to be defeated and why the
bill, as it recommends changes in the law, should be approved. The bill
that we are talking about does, in fact, repeal a section of the
Coastal Zone Act, not the act that was passed years ago; it repeals a
section of the act that was adopted in a budget resolution in 1990, not
through the normal process. The section of the Coastal Zone Management
Act that the bill repeals was not adopted as a part of the original
act. It was adopted as a part of a budget resolution, an amendment
attached to a budget resolution, not the normal process by which we
write environmental law in this body.
It was attached in 1990, and those programs are about to go into
effect unless we change it here tonight.
Now, why should we change it here tonight? Because if we do not
change it here tonight, what will go into effect is a program that
mandates a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate program on the States
inflexible, that gives the EPA the power to determine appropriate land
use practices in coastal zones, that gives the EPA the power to
determine coastal zone boundaries, unlike the current law which allowed
the States to make those determinations.
{time} 2130
If we do not repeal that section, you will be giving in effect the
EPA that authority. What the bill does is repeal that section, fold
this section of environmental law protection for coastal zone into
Section 319 where the States have the power to focus their resources on
the critical coastal areas they want to work on and, in fact, protect
those areas as much as any of my colleagues in this House want to have
them protected.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. PETRI. I just want to reiterate what you said as far as the State
of Wisconsin is concerned. We are just a coastal State. We do oppose
the Boehlert amendment. DNR has worked on this very closely with
Chairman Shuster and others. We want a strong non-point source program.
We have to have an integrated one, not a separate one for coastal, and
for lakes, and for rivers, and to get the job done, and, to do it most
effectively, we want one program, not a proliferation of many programs.
So the gentleman is absolutely right.
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman.
Let me say to my colleagues and point out again, if you believe your
State ought to have the flexibility to adopt its coastal zone program
to the needs of your coastal zone, then you vote against the Boehlert
amendment. If you like Federal mandates and new Federal EPA authorities
to determine land use restrictions and the coastal zone of your State,
then vote for Mr. Boehlert's amendment because that's what it does. It
ought to be defeated.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to
reauthorize the coastal nonpoint source pollution control program known
as section 6217.
This program is important because our coastal States have unique and
significant problems. While there have been some complaints about the
6217 program, we should look at ways to improve not kill it.
I had representatives from my State come to me to announce that New
York will have a management program for approval in July. Approximately
18 States will be ready to go on September. We can not end the program
now.
To repeal this program would punish the States that are making good
faith efforts to work on their nonpoint pollution. To repeal this
program would reward States that have not been making strong efforts to
address the nonpoint problems specific to the coastal States.
I am worried that to repeal the program now will delay any progress
that it ready to be made.
I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
[[Page H4788]]
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224,
noes 199, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 314]
AYES--224
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Callahan
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Davis
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Hinchey
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Kolbe
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NOES--199
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Fowler
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Green
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
McCarthy
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Wicker
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--11
Baker (CA)
Boucher
Bunning
Collins (IL)
Fattah
Jefferson
Lewis (KY)
Moakley
Peterson (FL)
Rangel
Rogers
{time} 2152
Messrs. REYNOLDS, CHAPMAN, MILLER of Florida, CALLAHAN, McCOLLUM,
GRAHAM, and BISHOP changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Norwood) having assumed the chair, Mr. McInnis, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 961) to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________