[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4802-H4868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 140
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 961.
{time} 1040
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
with Mr. Hobson (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May
10, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert] had been disposed of, and
[[Page H4803]] title III was open to amendment at any point.
Are there further amendments to title III?
amendments offered by mr. traficant
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer 2 amendments, and I ask
unanimous consent that the amendments, one in title III and one in
title V, be considered en bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 35, after line
23, insert the following:
``(2) Limitation and Notice.--If the Administrator or a
State extends the deadline for point source compliance and
encourages the development and use of an innovative pollution
prevention technology under paragraph (1), the Administrator
or State shall encourage, to the maximum extend practicable,
the use of technology produced in the United States. In
providing an extension under this subsection, the
Administrator or State shall provide to the recipient of such
extension a notice describing the sense of Congress expressed
by this paragraph.
Page 35, line 24, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
Page 35, line 7, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
Page 35, line 18, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
Page 216, line 12, strike ``521'' and insert ``522''.
Page 217, line 7, strike ``521'' and insert ``522''.
Page 219, after line 18, insert the following:
SEC. 512. AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.
Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is further amended by
inserting before section 522, as redesignated by section 510
of this Act, the following:
``SEC. 521. AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.
``(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It
is the sense of Congress that, to the greatest extent
practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds
made available under this Act should be American-made.
``(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing
financial assistance under this Act, the Administrator, to
the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to each
recipient of the assistance a notice describing the sense of
Congress expressed by subsection (a).''
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, these are basically Buy American
amendments. This one, though, deals with the fact that if the
administrator or State extends the deadline for point source
compliance, and encourages development and use of an innovative
pollution prevention technology, under paragraph 1, the administrator
or State shall encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of
technology produced in the United States. That would encourage more
technology development in our country to deal with these issues.
It has been worked out. The second amendment is a standard ``Buy
American'' amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
We have reviewed these, and we think these are good amendments. We
support them.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I have no reason to object to the
amendments offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote in favor of the
amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
The amendments were agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III of the bill?
amendment offered by mr. pallone
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows'.
Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone: Strike title IX of the
bill (pages 323 through 326).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike provisions of
the bill which authorize waivers of secondary treatment requirements
for sewage treatment plants in certain coastal communities which
discharge into ocean water.
There are two major steps to wastewater treatment which I think many
of us know. One is the physical primary treatment, which is the removal
of suspended solids. The second is the biological or secondary
treatment, which is the removal of dissolved waste by bacteria.
Secondary treatment, in my opinion, is very important, because it is
critical to the removal of organic material from sewage. It is the
material linked to hepatitis and gastroenteritis for swimmers. It is
also the common denominator. Secondary treatment sets a base level of
treatment that all must achieve, putting all facilities on equal
ground.
Today almost 15,000 publicly owned treatment works around the country
apply secondary treatment. It makes no sense to exempt many of these
facilities. Under existing law, a national standard of secondary
treatment for public owned treatment works was established by Congress
in the original 1972 Clean Water Act.
There was a window of time during which facilities could apply for
ocean discharge as an alternative to secondary treatment. However, this
window has closed. A bill was passed last year, October 31, that allows
the city of San Diego to apply for a waiver, even though that window
has closed.
The EPA has a year pursuant to that legislation to make a decision on
their application, and at present it looks likely that San Diego would
be granted such a waiver. However, despite these concessions that have
been made, a provision has been included in H.R. 961 that would grant
such a waiver to San Diego without the necessary EPA review.
I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we are going toward what I would
call a slippery slope on the issue of secondary treatment.
{time} 1045
The San Diego waiver was for ocean outfalls at least 4 miles out and
300 feet deep. This was the only provision in the original H.R. 961.
But in committee this section was expanded. Other towns can now apply
for 10-year permits that would allow for ocean discharge only 1 mile
out and at 150 feet of depth.
This new expansion of the section applies to at least six facilities
in California, two in Hawaii, and there may be two dozen other
facilities that it could apply. Also, communities under 10,000 are now
eligible for permits, and there are about 6,500 facilities of 63
percent of all facilities that could be eligible under this under
10,000 provision. Soon Puerto Rico may also be able to apply for a
waiver of secondary treatment because of the legislation the committee
marked.
I think that this is a terrible development. I would like to know
what is next. What other waivers and weakening amendments are going to
exist to the Clean Water Act?
Ultimately, if we proceed down this slippery slope, secondary
treatment may in fact disappear in many parts of the country. Secondary
treatment may be costly, but it will cost more to clean up the mess
after the fact, if we can clean it up at all.
The ultimate problem I have, and I am trying to correct with this
amendment, is this idea that somehow the ocean is out of sight, out of
mind, that is, a sort of endless sink that we can continue to dump
material in. It is not true. The material comes back and ocean water
quality continues to deteriorate.
Please do not gut the Clean Water Act. Let us not start down the
slippery slope of allowing ocean discharge without secondary treatment,
and please support this amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes all of the secondary treatment
[[Page H4804]] provisions in the bill. During the debate on the
unfunded mandates, secondary treatment was cited as one of the most
costly unfunded mandates to States and localities.
Our bill provides relief from this mandate, but it provides relief
only where it is also an unfunded mandate. Our bill allows a waiver of
secondary treatment for deep ocean discharges, but only where secondary
treatment provides no environmental benefit.
Let me emphasize that. We allow for a waiver of secondary treatment
for deep ocean benefits but only when secondary treatment provides no
environmental benefit.
This waiver must be approved by either the State water quality
authority people or by the EPA, so this is not some willy-nilly waiver
that a locality can give itself. It must go through the rigorous
procedure of first showing that by getting the waiver, they are
providing no environmental benefit, and, second, getting the approval
of the EPA or the State.
The bill also allows certain alternative wastewater treatment
technologies for small cities to be deemed secondary treatment if, and
this is a big if, if they will contribute to the attainment of water
quality standards.
This flexibility, Mr. Chairman, is badly needed because traditional
centralized municipal wastewater treatment systems do not always make
economic sense to small communities. We need to provide the flexibility
to the States and to EPA to allow the use of alternatives, for example,
like constructed wetlands or lagoons, where they make both economic and
environmental sense.
Perhaps the most egregious example of the problems we would face if
we were to adopt this amendment is the situation in San Diego to spend
$3 billion on secondary treatment facilities when indeed the California
EPA and the National Academy of Sciences says it is unnecessary. So
this flexibility is needed not only for San Diego but for many of the
cities across America.
I strongly urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, the idea of waiving secondary treatment
standards sounds alarms because the successes of the Clean Water Act
over the past 23 years are attributable in large part to the act's
requirements for a baseline level of treatment--secondary treatment, in
the case of municipal dischargers.
There are several reasons that these waivers should be stricken from
the bill: First, they are not based on sound science; second, they
threaten to degrade water quality and devastate the shoreline; third,
they are unfair; and, fourth, they are unnecessary.
Not Based on Sound Science
Several of the bill's secondary waiver provisions abandon the basic
requirement that the applicant demonstrate that a waiver will not harm
the marine environment. The bill abandons this requirement, even though
it makes sense, and has been met by more than 40 communities that have
obtained waivers.
This congressional waiver of scientific standards is at direct odds
with the themes of sound science and risk analysis that were embraced
in the Contract With America. The consequences could be devastating to
the environment.
Harmful To Water Quality and the Marine Environment
For example, the secondary waiver provision intended for Los Angeles
provides for waivers if the discharge is a mere 1 mile offshore, and
150 feet deep. Unfortunately, history has taught us
that sewage discharges at about 1 mile offshore can wreak havoc.
In 1992, San Diego's sewage pipe ruptured two-thirds of a mile
offshore, spewing partially treated sewage containing coliform and
other bacterias and viruses, and closing more than 4 miles of beaches.
This environmental disaster happened just one-third of a mile closer to
shore than the 1-mile-offshore standard for municipal discharges under
one of the waivers in this bill.
In addition, it appears that this waiver provision, although intended
for Los Angeles, picks up at least 19 other cities as well. And, the
waiver for small communities makes thousands more communities eligible
for waivers, even though many of them are already meeting secondary
requirements and could seek to reduce current treatment under this
provision.
Since the number of waivers authorized under this bill is potentially
quite large, the environmental impact also can be expected to be
substantial, particularly for waste discharged just 1 mile from shore.
The San Diego and Los Angeles provisions both provide for enhanced
primary treatment in place of secondary. We would think for a minute
about what primary treatment is. It is not really treatment at all--you
just get the biggest solids out by screening or settling, and the rest
goes through raw, untreated. Chemically enhanced primary means you add
a little chlorine to the raw sewage before discharging it.
This means that even when the system is operating properly--without
any breaks in the pipe spewing sewage onto our beaches--the bill could
result in essentially raw human waste being dumped a mile out from our
beaches. Most Californians do not want essentially raw sewage dumped 1
mile from their beaches.
unfair
The waiver provisions are unfair because they grant preferential
treatment to select communities. This favoritism has direct
consequences for the thousands of communities that most of us
represent: those that have expended, or are in the process of spending,
substantial resources to comply with secondary requirements. Some
communities, such as the city of San Jose which I represent, have gone
well beyond secondary.
The waiver provisions say to all of these communities that they were
fools for having complied with the law, because if they had just
dragged their feet, they, too, could have escaped these requirements.
unnecessary
In the case of San Diego, the inequity of allowing a third bite at
the apple is heightened by the fact that San Diego will obtain a
secondary waiver treatment without the bill. Yes, the bill's waiver
provision is completely unnecessary for San Diego because San Diego was
singled out for preferential treatment just last year.
In October 1994 President Clinton signed into law a bill that was
passed in the closing days of the 103d Congress. Of the thousands of
communities required to achieve secondary treatment, only San Diego was
authorized to apply for a waiver last year. San Diego submitted its
application last month, an EPA has publicly announced its commitment to
act quickly and both EPA and the city expect that a waiver will be
granted.
Why, then, is San Diego now receiving another waiver? Because this
year's waiver would provide even a better deal than last year's--it
would be permanent, and would excuse Dan Diego from baseline
requirements that last year San Diego agreed that it could and would
meet.
Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I
would have to say, as someone who has spent 18 years fighting to clean
up the pollution in San Diego County, it concerns me when my colleague
from California speaks of the pollution problems in San Diego, when in
fact we can recognize that one of the major problems we have had is
that the regulation has taken precedence over the science and the need
to protect the public health.
This bill as presented by the chairman reflects the scientific data
that shows that not only does having chemically enhanced primary not
hurt the environment, but it also shows that the studies that have been
done by many, many scientific groups, in fact every major scientific
study in the San Diego region has shown that if we go to secondary, as
my colleague from California would suggest, that the secondary mandate
would create more environmental damage than not going to secondary.
[[Page H4805]] This is a big reason why a gentleman from Scripps
Institute, a Dr. Revell, came to me and personally asked me to
intervene. My colleagues may not think that I have any credentials in
the environmental field, but I would point out that Dr. Revell is one
of the most noted oceanographers that has ever lived in this century.
He just passed away. He was saying strongly that the secondary mandate
on the city of San Diego was going to be a travesty, a travesty to the
people of San Diego but, more important, a damage to the environment of
our oceans and our land.
My colleague from San Jose has pointed out that there may be a
problem giving waivers. I think we all agree that there are appropriate
procedures, but those procedures should follow science.
The city of San Jose has gone to extensive treatment, Mr. Chairman,
but when the science said that you could dispose of that in the estuary
of southern San Francisco Bay, my colleague's city of San Jose was
given a waiver to be able to do that, and will continue to do it
because the science says that it is okay. Our concern with this is the
fact that the process should follow the path toward good environment.
What we have today now is a process that diverts the attention of
those of us in San Diego and the EPA away from real environmental
problems and puts it toward a product that is 26 pounds of reports, 1.5
million dollars' worth of expenses. It is something that I think that
we really have to test those of us here: Do we care about the
environment of America or do we care about the regulations of Congress?
When the science and the scientists who have worked strongly on this
stand up and say, ``Don't require secondary sewage in San Diego,'' we
really are put to the test. Are we more wedded to our regulation than
we are to our environment?
{time} 1100
Now if you do not believe me, though I have fought hard at trying to
clean up Mexican sewage and trying to get the sewage to stay in pipes,
while the EPA has ignored that, they have concentrated on this process.
I would ask my colleague to consider his own colleague, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Filner], who has worked with me on this and lives
in the community and has talked to the scientists, and Mr. Filner can
tell you quite clearly that this is not an issue of the regulations
with the environment, this is one of those situations where the well-
intentioned but misguided mandate of the 1970's has been interpreted to
mean we are going to damage the environment of San Diego, and I would
strongly urge that the environment takes precedence here.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague from San Diego, Mr. Filner, to
respond to the fact that is it not true that the major marine
biologists, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, one of the most noted
institutes in the entire country on the ocean impacts, supports our
actions on this item?
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being here with the
Congressman from my adjacent district, San Diego. Before I answer the
question, I do want to point out that for many years we had adjacent
districts in local government, Mr. Bilbray being a county supervisor
and myself being a San Diego city councilman. We have worked together
for many, many years on this very issue. We have fought about it, we
have argued about it, we have come to an agreement about how we should
handle this, and I think it is very appropriate that we are both now in
the Congress to try to finally give San Diego some assurance to try to
deal satisfactorily with the environment, and yet do it in a cost-
effective manner.
The gentleman from California asked me about good science. The
gentleman from San Jose talked about good science. The most respected
scientists who deal with oceanography in the world at the Scripps
Institute of Oceanography have agreed with our conclusions.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Bilbray] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Filner and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bilbray
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. FILNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the scientists
from the Scripps Institute have lobbied this Congress for this change.
The Federal judge in charge of the case has lobbied us for the change.
The local environmental groups have lobbied us for the change. The
local environmental groups have lobbied us for the change. And I would
ask my colleague to continue that thought.
Mr. BILBRAY. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, my experience
with Mr. Filner was as the director of the public health department for
San Diego, and as he knows, this is not something I am not involved
with. I happened to be personally involved with the water quality
there. I surf, my 9- and 8-year-old children surf. We have water
contact; we care about the environment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, what I do not understand though, since the
existing bill that was passed last year actually allows for you to have
a waiver, assuming certain conditions are met, and EPA I understand has
already gone through that application process, why do you find it
necessary in this bill to grant an absolute waiver?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Bilbray] has again expired.
(At the request of the Mr. Mineta and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Bilbray was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Why would I ask?
Mr. PALLONE. In other words, my understanding, you tell me if I am
wrong, is that pursuant to this legislation, I will call it special
legislation if you will that passed last year, San Diego can now apply
for a waiver. It may be the only municipality that can. And EPA is now
in the process of looking at that application for a waiver, and if in
fact what Mr. Filner and you say is the case that the waiver then is
likely to be granted, why do we need to take that one exception that is
already in the law for San Diego and now expand it to many others,
thousands possibly of other municipalities around the country?
Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is that it is costing $1.5 million. The fact
is, it is only a 4- to 5-year waiver, and the fact that under our bill
all monitoring, the EPA will monitor it, the Environmental Protection
Agency of California will monitor it. We have developed a system that
scientists say will be the most cost-effective way of approaching this.
All of the monitoring, all of the public health protections are there.
As long as the environment continues not to be injured, we will
continue to move forward.
And you have to understand, too, one thing you do not understand that
Mr. Filner and I do understand, we have had at the time of this
process, this bureaucratic process has been going on, we have had our
beaches closed and polluted from other sources that the EPA has
ignored.
Mr. PALLONE. I understand, and you have gone through that with me and
I appreciate that. My only point is I do not want to go down the
slippery slope of the possibility of getting applications and waivers
granted.
Mr. BILBRAY. There is no slippery slope. What it says is those that
have proven scientifically there is no reasonable reason to think there
is environmental damage that is going to occur should not have to go
through a process of having to go through EPA and the Federal
bureaucracy. I think you would agree if we in the 1970's were told by
scientists there is no foreseeable damage or foreseeable problem with
water quality, this law would never have been passed. In San Diego the
scientists have said that, and I think you need to reflect it.
Mr. PALLONE. My point is the exemption for San Diego applies to 3
miles out, certain feet.
Mr. BILBRAY. Four miles, 300 feet.
Mr. PALLONE. Now you have another exemption for certain towns.
Mr. BILBRAY. Totally different.
[[Page H4806]] Mr. PALLONE. Though you have another exemption, towns
under 10,000, no scientific basis for that. All these things are thrown
into the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Bilbray] has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Mineta and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bilbray
was allowed to proceed for an additional 2 minutes).
Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is here it is outcome-based. In fact the water
quality is not violated as long as scientists at EPA say there is not
damage. My concern to you is if the monitoring is done, if the
environment is protected, if EPA and all of the scientists say it is
fine, why, then why is the process with a million and a half dollars
and 26 pounds of paper so important to you to make sure those reports
have been filed?
Mr. PALLONE. The difference is you are going through that process and
you may actually achieve it in convincing the EPA pursuant to the
existing law that that is the case. But what this bill has done is go
beyond that, it has said that there is an absolute waiver for San
Diego, they do not really have to do anything else at this point.
Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, with all the monitoring that would have to be done
under existing law, the same review process and public testimony the
same way.
Mr. PALLONE. Then it goes on to take another category, 1 mile and 150
is OK, and for a third category if you are under 10,000 it is OK. For
another category for Puerto Rico we are going to do the study. You know
you may make the case, we will
have to see, that your exception makes sense. You may be able to do
that to the EPA, but why do we have to gut the entire bill and make all
those other exceptions? It makes no sense to carry one San Diego case
that is now going through proper channels. This says they get the
waiver; they do not need to go through the process in the previous
bill, and now we have all these other exemptions.
Mr. BILBRAY. You have to read the bill and all the conditions of
being able to meet the triggers of the EPA.
Mr. PALLONE. I have the bill in front of me. It has four different
categories. The San Diego category, then it goes for the ones who go 1
mile and 150, then the ones that are 10,000 or fewer, and then it goes
to Puerto Rico. All of these categories.
Mr. BILBRAY. And you have monitoring that basically says that you
have to prove, bring monitoring that you do not, that you are not
degrading the environment. That is what we are talking about; we are
talking about an outcome basis. Does it hurt the environment? Not the
regulations. Is the environment hurt here.
Mr. PALLONE. I do not see any scientific basis.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Bilbray] has again expired.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from California [Mr. Bilbray] be allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not
do so now, but if we are going to move this along, I think we should
all try to stay within the rules of the House and the time allotment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I was just
asking for unanimous consent for the gentleman from San Diego, Mr.
Bilbray, to be given an additional 2 minutes, and I would like to be
able to ask a question of him since he also referred to the city of San
Jose, and I happen to be the former mayor of San Jose.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will inquire once again, is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, my objection is this: that last year we
worked to grant the city of San Diego the opportunity to apply under
previously expired provisions to apply for a waiver. I thought we did
that in good faith, with the city of San Diego also agreeing to certain
conditions. Things like the need for alternative uses for their water
and say that this would be a waiver that would only be good for a
certain period of time. It is my understanding that the waiver is
indefinite, except that there is a requirement for a report to be done
every 5 years. And that to me is a reasonable kind of an approach.
Also in terms of any waiver for the city of San Jose, I am not
familiar with what the gentleman is referring to, because we are at
tertiary treatment in terms of our discharge into San Francisco Bay.
Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is that San Jose opens into an open trench into
20 feet of water in an estuary; it does not place it 350 feet deep and
4\1/2\ miles out in an area where scientists say not only does it not
hurt the environment, it helps it. And so you do have a waiver to be
able to do that rather than being required to have to use other outfall
systems but it is because you were able to show that.
But the trouble here with this process is that all reasonable
scientific data shows that there is no reason to have to spend the 26
pounds of reports, the $1\1/2\ million, and when you get into it, EPA
will be the trigger to decide if that process needs to go. What EPA
told me as a public health director when I say this is a waste of
money, the Government did not mean to do this, they said Congress makes
us do it. They do not give us the latitude to be able to make a
judgment call based on reasonable environmental regulations they have
mandated to us. So I am taking the mandate away from them.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support for this amendment
to strike the waivers of secondary treatment requirements.
This is an issue of protecting our Nation's beaches and coastal
waters.
It is a matter of protecting the tourist economies of many States and
of protecting the health of the American people.
Do we want our ocean waters to be a disposal area for sewage that has
received only the barest minimum of treatment?
For 20 years, we have done better than that as the secondary
treatment requirement has stood as one of the pillars of the Clean
Water Act.
This bill started with a waiver for one city--San Diego. Then it
moved to two dozen more in California and another possible six in
Florida. Then we added Puerto Rico.
Where will this race to lower standards end?
H.R. 961 tells those who complied with the Clean Water Act that they
should have waited. Maybe, they could have gotten a waiver.
It tells those who waited that they were smart. They could keep
putting their untreated sewage in the ocean.
The beaches of New Jersey had frequent water problems several years
ago before New York City finished its secondary treatment plant.
The problems in New Jersey should be a warning that we should stick
to the secondary treatment requirements and not put poorly treated
sewage in the ocean.
This provision of H.R. 961 sends us back more than 20 years. Since
1972, secondary treatment has been the standard that all communities
have been required to meet.
That basic standard of the Clean Water Act should not be changed. We
should keep moving forward on the effort to clean up our waters.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to hold the line on secondary
treatment and vote for this amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that I have seen some alternatives
around the world that do intrigue me. If we are going to go to this
broad of an exemption from secondary treatment, for instance in Hong
Kong, I was there and on the ferry early one morning, and I noticed how
they deal with it, they do not require secondary; in many cases they do
not require primary treatment. They are a little oversubscribed to
their sewer system. They have nifty boats that go around the harbor
with nets in the front and they scoop up everything that floats, and if
it does not float, it is not a problem. So I guess
[[Page H4807]] you know if we cannot support the Pallone amendment, we
can say we are headed in that direction. We can buy some of the nifty
little boats from Hong Kong with the nets on the front and drive them
around the beachfront areas in the morning before people go in for that
swim, and you know if you cannot see it, it is not a problem.
{time} 1115
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon knows that on
almost every environmental issue, we are in total agreement.
Are you familiar with the percentage of solid removal in the system
that San Diego now uses?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, my understanding is you attempt to
achieve 84 percent.
Mr. FILNER. It is not an attempt. We achieve 84 percent.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I will tell you, reclaiming my time, in my metropolitan
wastewater facility, of which I was on the board of directors as a
county commissioner, we built it for $110 million. We get 100 percent
out. We do secondary and we do tertiary treatment. Theoretically, if
one wanted to, one could drink the outfall. I do not want to drink the
outfall. I do not know that we have to drive everything to that
standard. But to think of the ocean as an endless dump close in
proximity, I realize you have a big problem with Mexico, basically you
are saying Mexico can dump all their stuff in there, why cannot we not
just dump in a small amount of our stuff. I do not think that is the
solution. I think we should be forcing Mexico to clean up so the people
in California can go to the beach every day in the future.
Mr. FILNER. If the gentleman will yield, that is exactly our policy.
As a matter of fact, those of us who live in San Diego and who
completely depend on the beaches not only for our own enjoyment but for
tourism and economic help, we could never possibly see the ocean as
merely a dumping ground. We believe it, as you do, we believe that
money to get that infinitesimal increase in solid removal required by
the EPA to put into water reclamation, to put into tertiary, to deal
with the Mexican sewage is the way we ought to spend our money, not be
required to spend billions of dollars on something which gives us very
little marine environment protection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, do you think 16 percent is
infinitesimal?
Mr. FILNER. No, it is not 16 percent. You know what secondary
requirements are?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I am talking about the difference between the 84 percent
and the 100 percent.
Mr. FILNER. The law requires us to do 85 percent. We are doing 84
percent. Should we spend $5 billion to get an infinitesimal increase in
that solid removal with enormous damage to the land environment,
because we would have to put in extra energy to do that for sludge.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. FILNER. It is not environmentally sound.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Does this exemption go narrowly to that 1 percent for
San Diego, or does exemption go beyond that?
Mr. FILNER. I am certainly supporting it as the section in the bill
that applies to San Diego.
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday generally about this bill
and my objections to it.
I am rising today to support the Pallone amendment, and also to make
some more specific comments about that portion of the bill providing a
waiver for full secondary treatment. That portion of the bill was
drafted by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Horn], and his district is just south of mine, and we agree on
most everything, except for this.
I want to explain why we disagree and also to say that we worked
together. His office was extremely helpful to me in providing
information in support of his amendment, and I hope he understands that
my demur has to do specifically with what I believe are the unintended
consequences of his amendment on Santa Monica Bay.
Santa Monica Bay is the largest bay in southern California, and most
of it is in my congressional district. I wrote to EPA so that I could
understand better whether good science was involved in his amendment
and how it would affect Santa Monica Bay. The letter that I received
the other day from the assistant administrator of EPA says, in part:
This amendment does not appear to be based upon sound
science. We are not aware of any scientific documentation
which suggests that discharges through outfalls that are 1
mile and 150 feet deep are always environmentally benign. To
the contrary, a 1993 study by the National Research Council
recommended that, ``Coastal wastewater management strategy
should be tailored to the characteristics, values, and uses
of the particular receiving environment.'' Thus, we believe
this blanket exemption is 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.
And the letter goes on to say specifically that with respect to the
Santa Monica Bay Restoration project, a project worked on by all sorts
of agencies and individuals in California and supported by California's
Governor, Pete Wilson, this blanket exemption could derail the key
element of the restoration plan.
For those careful and specific reasons, I oppose the Horn language,
and I support the Pallone amendment.
And let me add just one thing, Mr. Chairman. Somewhere here is a
chart that was provided to me by EPA, and it shows the consequences of
not going to full secondary treatment. The suspended solids that can be
discharged are the biggest problem, and the chart has this broken out
by area of Los Angeles. In the L.A. County sanitation district, which
would be directly affected by this exemption, the suspended solids are
the highest portion of this chart, and it is a big problem specifically
for Los Angeles.
Let me finally say one more thing. The gentleman from California [Mr.
Horn] has sent, I think today, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, and he
makes a point with which I agree, and I want to apologize to him. He
says that in a different ``Dear Colleague'' letter circulated by some
of us, we said that his amendment could result in raw sewage dumped
into Santa Monica Bay. That was an error. I apologize for that. The
amendment would result in partially treated sewage dumped into Santa
Monica Bay.
I urge my colleagues to support the Pallone amendment.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding.
The San Diego situation is a classic example of regulatory overkill.
But regardless of how you feel about San Diego, you should vote ``no''
on this amendment, because it guts all of the provisions that allow
flexibility on secondary treatment, including the flexibility for small
communities across America.
We have worked on all of these provisions with State officials,
wastewater and environmental engineers, and we should resoundingly
defeat this amendment not only because of San Diego but because of what
it does across America.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment
to strike the provisions of the bill which authorize waivers of
secondary treatment requirements for certain coastal communities which
discharge into deep waters.
I successfully offered this provision in the committee markup of H.R.
961. My reasons for doing so were based on sound scientific reasons,
and they are environmentally responsible.
I was delighted, and I am delighted to take the apology of my
distinguished colleague from southern California.
That letter she quotes from the assistant administrator of EPA talks
in broad generalities. It does not talk about the specifics of the Los
Angeles
[[Page H4808]] area situation, and I want to go into that.
There is no permanent waiver in this provision. It would be good for
10 years. It would be subject to renewal after that period. The driving
force behind this amendment is simply good science.
This Congress is moving forward to implement cost/benefit analysis
and risk assessment across all environmental statutes.
Deep ocean outfalls that meet all water quality standards are an
obvious place to apply these principles.
Now, to obtain this waiver, publicly owned treatment works must meet
a stringent high-hurdles test, and I have not heard one word about that
today. Outfalls must be at least 1 mile long, 150 feet deep. The
discharge must meet all applicable State and local water quality
standards, and I do not think anyone is going to tell us that
California has low water quality standards. We have high standards,
just as we do in air pollution.
Now, the publicly owned treatment works must have an ongoing ocean
monitoring plan in place, and we do in Los Angeles City and County. The
application must have an EPA-approved pretreatment plan, and we do in
Los Angeles City and County. Effluent must have received at least a
chemically enhanced primary treatment level, and at least 75 percent of
suspended solids must have been removed. That is exactly what we have.
This provision is not any broad loophole. Indications also are that
only five publicly owned treatment works in the country would meet this
high-hurdles test. They are Honolulu, Anchorage, Orange County, and
Los Angeles Country, and the city of Los Angeles. The first three
cities already have waivers.
As I said in committee, the program under which the original waivers
were given to the city and country, that has expired. The country of
Los Angeles is being forced to spend $400 million to go to full
secondary treatment.
Now, if that money went to improving the environment or cleaning up
real environmental problems, and we have hundreds of them where usually
the lawyers are getting the fees and we are not cleaning up the
problems, that would all be understandable. But it is not.
This provision simply assures that we are spending local and Federal
dollars wisely, not forcing communities to take steps that simply make
no sense, which begs the question: Why should we force communities to
spend hundreds of millions of dollars to meet a standard where that
standard is already being met?
The city of Los Angeles treatment already meets the requirements of
secondary treatment. So why spend millions of the taxpayers' hard-
earned dollars to require Los Angeles to build facilities that already
meet that required standard? The effluent from the county of Los
Angeles far exceeds the rigorous State ocean plan developed by the
State of California for every single measured area, including suspended
solids, toxics, and heavy metals.
I have some attached graphs here some of you might want to wander up
and look at. The current requirements to force the publicly owned
treatment works to full secondary treatment is not justified when
meeting that standard will bring no environmental improvement to the
ocean but will cost local ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman, the science behind this provision is irrefutable. No
one is advocating pumping untreated wastewater into deep oceans off of
Santa Monica Bay or in Santa Monica Bay or elsewhere.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Hobson). The time of the gentleman
from California [Mr. Horn] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Horn was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, going to full secondary treatment will not
have any positive environmental benefit. Instead, we will be spending,
as I have said earlier, hundreds of millions of dollars of the citizens
of the county and city of Los Angeles, local taxpayer money, for no
good reason. We simply cannot afford to be wasting money on problems
that do not exist.
If municipal wastewater treatment facilities are meeting the high-
hurdles test, including in H.R. 961, it serves the public interest, it
serves the interests of the local taxpayers, and it serves the
interests of the Nation to keep this waiver intact, and all else is
really nonsense.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Horn] has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. Pallone and by unanimous consent, Mr. Horn was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to ask is: We had the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] read from some sections of
this letter from the EPA from a Mr. Perciasepe. I do not know if the
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] has seen this or not.
Mr. HORN. I have not.
Mr. PALLONE. And also from the EPA I received a list of another, I do
not know, another 10 to 20 municipalities beyond 6 in California and
the extra 2 in Hawaii you mentioned. My concern is this; this is the
crux of it. Clearly, San Diego is one situation. They already have a
waiver pursuant to existing law. But the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] which now goes to the 150-foot
depth and the 1 mile.
Mr. HORN. And 5 miles, I might add, is the other one. One is 1 mile
out, one is 150; the other is 5 miles out, 150.
Mr. PALLONE. This begins to open the door, if you will, to a whole
different group of municipal sewage treatment plants beyond the San
Diego waiver and is, of course, of greater concern to me than even that
one.
You mentioned scientific evidence. Clearly, this letter from the EPA
assistant administrator indicates that they are very concerned that
this exemption that you have now put in is not based on sound science,
plus the EPA has given us a strong indication that beyond the 6 or so
California and the 2 Hawaii ones, we are talking now possibly about
another 20 or 30. We do not know how many. It is a major concern. I
just have not heard anything from the gentleman to verify scientific
basis for this new exemption that goes beyond San Diego.
Mr. HORN. I know of no one that disagrees that the city and county of
Los Angeles have met the scientific standards. EPA has never said it.
If they are suddenly coming in at the last minute with a little
sideswiping and saying all of these cities will be eligible for it,
that is nonsense.
{time} 1130
My language is very specific. It applies to one situation: The city
and county of Los Angeles, that already have the waste treatment, that
goes out to sea. There has not been any complaints that they are
violating any standard of science. They test regularly.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The time of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn] has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Horn was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. chairman, my point is, again, I heard the San Diego
argument, I heard the Los Angeles argument. I do not agree with it, but
I am hearing it. You are opening the door, and you have opened it to
the six California and two Hawaii ones, to eliminating secondary
treatment requirements for a whole slew of other municipalities. That
is a problem.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, may I say to the
gentleman from New Jersey, we are not opening the door. The language is
very specific. The hurdles are quite specific as to the outfalls 1 mile
long, 150 feet deep, that must meet all applicable State and local
water quality standards and must have an ongoing ocean monitoring plan
in place. That is exactly what we have. These charts show that we are
way below the level of concern.
The question if very simple, folks. For the sake of the ego of EPA,
do we have the taxpayers of Los Angeles spend $400 million when it will
not improve the situation one iota, because
[[Page H4809]] they already meet it? So the full secondary bit has been
met in the pre-secondary, and that is why we should not be spending
$400 million more.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me
say I support him in his efforts to inject some common sense into this
arbitrary application of law that defies science. The best scientists
in the world have supported our situation in San Diego, where they say
nature takes care of this; you do not have to spend $2 billion, EPA, we
can spend it somewhere else where we desperately need it. Science also
supports the gentleman from Long Beach.
The point is, the gentleman says this opens the door. Let me say to
my friend from New Jersey, the door should always be open to reason,
common sense, and science. That is precisely what we are injecting in
this argument today. With all the programs, good programs, that must
take reductions because of the deficit problem, the idea that you do
not use common sense to reduce spending where it does not have to be
done makes no sense. So I support the gentleman.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, not to beat a dead horse or a dead sewage system, as
the case may be, I do rise in strong opposition to the amendment
offered by my friend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
This amendment raises the possibility that San Diego will be forced
to waste, yes, waste, billions of dollars to change a sewage system
that this Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, a Federal
District Court judge, the San Diego chapter of the Sierra Club, the
world renowned scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography,
have all agreed does no harm and in fact may benefit the marine
environment.
Mr. Chairman, the one-size-fits-all requirement of the Clean Water
Act just does not make sense for San Diego. It does not make scientific
sense, it does not make economic sense, nor does it make environmental
sense. It is simply a bureaucratic requirement to provide a level of
treatment that is unnecessary, costly, and provides no beneficial
impact to the marine environment.
This is not simply my personal opinion. The option, as we stated over
and over again, is stated by scientists from the Scripps Institute of
Oceanography and from the National Academy of Sciences. It is supported
by reams of scientific data collected over the years. These studies
have shown there is no degradation of water quality or the ecology of
the ocean due to the discharge of the plant's chemically enhanced
treated waste water.
Let me point out, this is not merely a chlorine treated primary
situation. This is an alternative to secondary treatment that includes
a much higher level of technology that my friend, if I can yield to my
friend from California [Mr. Bilbray], might explain.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think the
problem is understanding the technical issues here. The fact that what
was interpreted as being chlorination, San Diego is not using the
chlorination.
Chemically enhanced primary treatment was actually brought to San
Diego by members of the Sierra Club as a much more cost effective and
environmentally safe way of getting to secondary treatment. It is where
you use chemicals to remove the solids to fulfill the standard.
What it does is say look, back in the seventies we thought there was
only one way to able to clean up the water. Now scientists have come up
with new technologies. If we look at a 1970 car and a 1990 car, we will
agree there is a difference.
The other issue, the chemical, what is called chemical enhanced
primary, the fact is primary really is talking about a secondary
treatment that does not use injected air and bubbling sewage around,
biological activity. In a salt water environment scientists say there
is no problem with this, it does the job. The only difference is the
BOD, the biochemical oxygen demand, which in a deep salt water
environment does not create any problem according to the scientists.
I would like to point out, too, as my colleague has, we are talking
about this can only be done if the facility's discharges are consistent
with the ocean plan for the State of California, one of the most strict
water quality programs in the entire Nation, if not the most. So we are
saying how you do it we do not mind, as long as the finished product
does not hurt the environment and gets the job done.
I appreciate my colleagues who are going through a transition here.
We are getting away from command and control, Washington knows the
answer to everything. What we are trying to get down to is saying,
local people, if you can find a better answer to get the job done that
we want done, you not only have a right to do that, you have a
responsibility, and we will not stand in the way of you doing that.
I would like to point out that the monitoring continues. If there is
a pollution problem, if the EPA sees there is a hassle, if the
monitoring problem shows there is an environmental problem, this waiver
immediately ceases and we go back to the same process. That should
assure everyone who cares about the environment.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to thank the
chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for
understanding the issues for San Diego, for helping us last year get
our waiver, and for guaranteeing a success this year.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues in the Congress
to recognize that this has been an issue that has been before the
Congress for as long as I have served in Congress, for 12 years and
more. We have been working on this issue of trying to resolve the
problems that San Diego has had. If we are to follow the general policy
that is now taking place in the Congress, where we evaluate every
requirement and every mandate and every regulation on the basis of
cost-benefit analysis, there is absolutely no question that we would
never impose a multibillion-dollar process on San Diego.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Filner] has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Filner was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, there is no way that this project, as it
would be required to go to secondary treatment, could possibly pass a
cost-benefit analysis, and thus we ought to really allow the
flexibility that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has put
in the bill that would allow the City of San Diego to meet their
requirements in an environmentally sound way.
I strongly urge that the Congress approve the bill as it is written
and reject this amendment. There is a bipartisan issue for this. The
entire delegation from San Diego, of whom I am one, has recommended we
disapprove this amendment. It is certainly important to us that we do
not impose a $12 billion cost on the people of San Diego.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Pallone's amendment to the
clean water reauthorization bill. This amendment plays right into the
environmentalists' chicken little cries that our environmental
protection system is falling. On the contrary, chairman Shuster's
amendments to the clean water bill provide communities the flexibility
they need to better protect our natural resources.
Specifically, Mr. Pallone claims that allowing San Diego a permanent
waiver to the EPA's burdensome secondary sewage requirements
jeopardizes southern California's water resources. The facts just do
not support this assertion.
San Diego's location on southern California's beautiful coastline
allows the city to take advantage of deep ocean outfall capabilities.
Scientific studies conclude that San Diego's sewage treatment efforts
are both effective and environmentally sound. In fact, the surrounding
ecosystem flourishes partly as a result of the outfall effluence.
Yet, the EPA continues to shove their Federal mandates from
Washington down the throats of San Diego taxpayers. They continue
[[Page H4810]] to require San Diego to spend up to $12 billion on an
unnecessary and potentially environmentally damaging secondary sewage
treatment plant.
Year after year, San Diego officials battle Federal bureaucrats who
require the city to submit a costly, time consuming waiver application.
The last one cost $1 million and was more than 3,000 pages long. The
American people are tired of this kind of bureaucratic bullying
Far from the Chicken Little cries of the environmentalists, the
American people cry out for a little commonsense. Chairman Shuster's
bill and the San Diego waiver provision bring a level of rationality to
the environmental protection process. Since I began my service in
Congress, I have worked as a former member of Chairman Shuster's
committee to do just that. Now as part of a Republican majority, I am
pleased to see my efforts come to fruition.
Republicans love the environment as much as anyone. My district in
southern California contains some of the most beautiful natural
resources in the country. I would never vote for a bill which would
damage those resources in any way. I just think the people who live on
the coast, or in the forests, or canyons or grasslands have a better
sense of how to protect their resources than some bureaucrat sitting in
an office in Washington. The situation in San Diego demonstrates this
most clearly. For that reason, I oppose Mr. Pallone's amendment.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, there is an issue on which I would like to engage in a
colloquy and get the support of the chairman of the committee. I
understand that section 319(h)(7)(F) identifies the scope for which a
State may use clean water grants.
Mr. Chairman, in my State of Florida, the excessive growth of
nonindigenous, noxious aquatic weeds, like hydrilla, is an extremely
serious impairment of our waters. Funds available for control of these
weeds are presently very limited.
This provision authorizes States like Florida to utilize a portion of
their nonpoint source funds, should they choose to do so, for the
control of excessive growth of these nonindigenous aquatic weeds.
Although this is an important use, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding
that the utilization of funds for aquatic weed control should not
deplete the funds available for other nonpoint source programs. Is that
the understanding of the chairman of the committee?
Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentlewoman will yield, Mr. Chairman, that is
correct.
Mrs. FOWLER. I thank the chairman of the committee for his support
and clarification of this section.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. H.R. 961 is
a dangerous piece of legislation for my district, which includes the
beautiful Santa Monica Bay. For years the people of Los Angeles have
worked to clean the bay and make it safe for swimmers, divers, and the
thousands of people who eat local seafood.
The city of Los Angeles, however, deserves very little credit for
this. City bureaucrats have dragged their feet and done everything they
could to avoid tougher controls. But our community was so committed
that it overruled the bureaucrats and twice voted by overwhelming
margins to stop the Los Angeles sewage system from dumping poorly
treated sewage into the bay.
As a result, we have spent over $2 billion to bring full secondary
treatment to the Hyperion treatment plant. Let me repeat that, because
it is important to understand our situation. We have already spent $2
billion to stop dangerous pollution. To complete the project, we need
to spend $85 million more.
Well, under this bill, we will never spend that $85 million, and we
will never be able to clean up the bay. H.R. 961 would overturn our
local decision and relieve the sewage system from meeting its
obligation under the Clean Water Act to treat sewage.
This is a bizarre situation. This Congress is going to overturn a
local decision made by Los Angeles voters, and in the process throw $2
billion down the drain and condemn the Santa Monica Bay to a constant
flow of sewage. Let us avoid this lunacy and vote for the Pallone
amendment.
Let me point out the anomaly here. Unless we have EPA insisting that
the decisions be made to protect the Santa Monica Bay, the publicly
owned sewage system will not be upgraded to accomplish that result.
They have dragged their feet. The local decisionmakers, the people,
will be frustrated.
We need the strength of the Environmental Protection Agency to be
sure that the people's will is carried out.
The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] has indicated in her
statements the points made by the assistant administrator of the EPA,
where he has said in the letter to her that the bill would alter
fundamentally the current processes and standards by which EPA assures
that communities achieve cost-effective commonsense sewage treatment
solutions.
The decision that will be made in fact if this bill is not amended by
the Pallone amendment would be to undermine decisions based upon sound
science. It would undermine the process of the Santa Monica Bay
restoration project, which has involved so many people over many years
in developing comprehensive approaches to water pollution control and
infrastructure investments.
The key point is not to let government bureaucrats in Los Angeles
decide to ignore what the people in the area want, which is secondary
treatment so that we can protect Santa Monica Bay.
I urge that we adopt the Pallone amendment, so that it would permit
the existing law that has been pursued in making that work to succeed,
and that we not let the present bill, which is being proposed today,
undermine what is so important for the Santa Monica Bay and all around
this country, to protect the public and to overturn the last 20 years
of effort to clean up polluted waters.
{time} 1145
I urge support for the Pallone amendment.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me just take issue with the theme that was offered
by my friend and colleague from the Los Angeles area and apply it to
our situation in San Diego.
In San Diego, we have the Scripps Institute, as has been said a
number of times by the gentlemen from California, Mr. Filner and Mr.
Bilbray and Mr. Packard, the best scientists in the world with respect
to oceanography. Those scientists over many years have affirmed and
reaffirmed that you do not need to do this $2 billion treatment program
for the cleaning of San Diego sewage.
We have literally thousands of projects throughout the country where
you do have pollution problems, where you are begging for dollars.
In the defense nuclear weapons complex, we have a $6 billion budget
that has been submitted to us by the Clinton administration to clean up
the nuclear waste that has been reposited through the years at our
defense weapons installations.
You have a lot of places where we can use this money. Here we have
our own scientists, the best scientists in the world, who are not
rebutted scientifically by anybody, saying, you do not have to spend $2
billion doing this.
I have been in these meetings with EPA over the years, as Mr. Bilbray
has. The basic theme that has come from them time and again in the
meetings has been, we do not care what the scientists say. You have got
to do it because it is the law.
Here we are affording our colleagues and the taxpayers to do what is
right, to do what is consistent with science, to do what is consistent
with public safety and to save $2 billion. If we cannot understand that
this blind adherence to this rigid philosophy that has made EPA frankly
an enemy of many communities in this country, if we cannot understand
that this philosophy needs to be changed, then we are going to be
spending billions in the future that we do not need to spend.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
[[Page H4811]] I do want to make a clear distinction between the San
Diego situation and the Los Angeles-Santa Monica Bay situation. Under
existing law, San Diego can get a waiver, and I think you are making an
excellent case for that waiver. But if this bill becomes law, places
like Santa Monica Bay, which should not be excused from secondary
treatment, would be disadvantaged. You are taken care of, but the bill,
without the Pallone amendment, disadvantages Los Angeles and other
communities around this country where good science would indicate that
we ought to have the secondary treatment.
Mr. HUNTER. As I understand it, this permanentizes our waiver. If we
do not achieve it, we will be back in the same boat perhaps in a year
or two begging the Federal Government not to force us to spend in San
Diego several billions of dollars.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that in each section,
the facility discharge is subject to the ocean monitoring program
acceptable to Federal and State regulators, and it must be in
compliance with the ocean plan for the State of California.
If my colleague from California feels that California's water quality
board is somehow not enforcing, we have one of the most efficient water
quality controls here. In fact, they pointed out in the San Diego
instance that--the water quality control board has pointed out that we
do fulfill their discharge requirements and that EPA would have the
lead role in assessing these permits. This happens at both locations. I
think the problem is we are talking about chemically enhanced primary,
does it fulfill the intention of Congress of cleaning up the pollution?
The BOD, which is what it does not address, does not apply, is not
needed in a saltwater deep outfall. It does in an estuary like the
shallow waters of San Francisco and in the lakes and rivers. But here
what we get down to is, is Congress worried about the environment or is
it a command and control thing; we made a decision that there was a
certain way you treated sewage and if somebody has a different way that
does the job cheaper, we do not care. We will not allow them to do it
because we figure there is only one way to get the job done.
All of the regulatory agencies, the EPA, let me point out, the EPA
not only is impressed with San Diego's jump on monitoring. The Federal
Government, EPA has hired the city of San Diego's monitoring system to
monitor the entire northern Baja.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The time of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Hunter] has expired.
(On request of Mr. Pallone, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my point again is that with regard to the
San Diego situation, we understand that under current law you can apply
for this waiver, and we have every reason to believe that you will get
the waiver.
I would disagree with the gentleman from San Diego in his statement
that the language of the bill in just granting the waiver outright
allows at some future time for this waiver to be taken back. I do not
see the ocean monitoring program as providing for that.
Leaving that aside, the point of the matter is that this legislation
opens up a lot of other waivers, for LA, for a lot of other different
towns. The letter that we have--and the gentlewoman from California
[Ms. Harman] presented today from the EPA--actually says that that is
not scientifically based.
I understand the arguments that are being made by the San Diego
people, but I think it is distinct and they have opportunities for a
waiver. There has been no evidence presented that there is any
scientific basis for any of these other waivers.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. BILBRAY. The scientific data, what is called chemically enhanced
primary, is equivalent to secondary treatment.
I would like to make several points about my legislation to recognize
San Diego's primary advanced treatment as the equivalent of secondary
sewage treatment.
Comprehensive ocean monitoring studies conducted by the city of San
Diego demonstrates that the present combination of industrial waste
source controls, chemically enhanced primary treatment facilities and
ocean discharge facilities are highly effective at protecting the ocean
environment.
Under the legislation I have introduced, the city will still be
required to demonstrate that it meets the State and Federal clean water
standards through the continued monitoring and testing procedures
witnessed today.
As many of my California colleagues know, Mayor Golding has submitted
the city's application for a waive from the secondary sewage
requirement of the Clean Water Act.
The city had worked for years to get straightforward, unconditional
legislation to acknowledge the scientific basis for the adequacy of our
existing level of treatment. During the closing days of the 103d
Congress, a compromise was ultimately accepted in the form of a free
standing bill which limits the capacity of the point Loma plant and
requires significant water reclamation capacity.
Failure to obtain this legislation would have meant a costly time-
consuming trial on the requirement of the secondary treatment.
I would like to point out to you today what the difference between
the waiver application, and my legislation, which provides permanent
relief from the mandate.
Point Loma must operate under a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination [NPDES] permit, issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency every 5 years.
Regardless of whether the city is operating under a waiver, or an
exemption as I have proposed, Point Loma must still renew its permit.
Likewise, the permit can only be reissued after a public review and
hearing process is completed.
Eithr way, if the city is not in compliance with State or Federal
standards, it would not receive its operating permit from the EPA.
The bottom line: It is more cost effective to provide the city with
permanent relief from the secondary sewage requirement. The waiver
application that Mayor Golding submitted to the EPA was 15 volumes long
and cost $1 million dollars to assemble.
This is money which could be spent improving the existing system, or
expanding it to meet future needs.
Finally, I'd like to point out that the State of California, which
was a plaintiff in the Federal lawsuit against San Diego for 6 years
switched sides, and became a defendant in the case, supporting the
city's contention that the sewage treatment standard is needlessly
stringent for San Diego. California switched sides after the city began
operating the extended sewage disposal pipe, an action designed to
bring the city into compliance with the State's ocean plan.
The city has currently been in compliance with the State standards
for 17 months.
My legislation in no way exempts the city from the requirements and
standards of the clean Water Act.
Continued monitoring and testing is explicitly provided for in order
to ensure that the ocean environment is protected.
And if the State of California can be convinced that the city was
acting in good faith to protect the ocean, the EPA must surely be able
to recognize that the city's resources can be spent on more
environmentally friendly pursuits that $1 million dollar waiver
applications.
My legislation will accomplish the parallel goals of protecting our
ocean environment and the taxpayer's wallet.
California Environmental
Protection Agency,
Sacramento, CA, March 8, 1995.
Hon. Susan Golding,
Mayor, City of San Diego,
San Diego, CA.
Dear Mayor Golding: The purpose of this letter is to convey
the California Environmental Protection Agency's support for
your efforts to obtain a legislative exemption from the
federal secondary treatment requirements for San Diego's Pt.
Loma wastewater treatment plant.
This support is in recognition of the demonstrated ability
of the Pt. Loma plant to comply with state Ocean Plan
standards. The recently extended ocean outfall has been shown
to be performing very well. This, in conjunction with the
successful implementation of chemically enhanced treatment at
Pt. Loma has given the city of San Diego a sewage treatment
and disposal system fully capable of protecting the marine
environment without the need for expensive secondary
treatment.
The consensus statements by the scientists of the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography fully support the concept of
advance primary
[[Page H4812]] treatment for discharge in swiftly moving
marine waters such as those that exist off Pt. Loma.
Additionally, scientists of the National Academy of Science,
after three years of study, have published conclusions that
support San Diego's efforts to amend the Clean Water Act. The
Academy's April 1993 study ``Waste Management for Coastal
Urban Areas'' includes many findings applicable to San
Diego's situation. The Academy concluded that the secondary
treatment requirement can lead to overcontrol and
overprotection along open ocean coasts. Further, the Academy
stressed that the Clean Water Act does not allow regulators
to adequately address regional variations in environmental
systems. In the case of a deep ocean discharge, such as San
Diego, they concluded that biochemical oxygen demand,
pathogens, nitrogen and other nutrients were of little
concern. In summary, the Academy scientists concluded that
chemically enhanced primary treatment is an effective
technology for removing suspended solids and associated
contaminants.
The State of California concurs with the Scripps scientists
as well as the National Academy of Science. Our review of
your system and the extensive Ocean Monitoring Program
reports further support the fact that San Diego will continue
to meet all State Ocean Plan Standards for your discharge.
Based on this scientific evidence, the State of California
fully supports the City's request for legislation to grant an
exemption from secondary treatment.
Sincerely,
James M. Strock.
____
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego Region,
San Diego, CA, March 27, 1995.
David Schlesinger,
Director, Metropolitan Wastewater Department,
San Diego, CA.
Dear Mr. Schlesinger: Recently there have been some
questions raised about regulation of the City of San Diego's
discharge through the Point Loma Ocean Outfall. Because of
the length of the extended outfall, the terminus is now
beyond the 3 mile offshore boundary for State waters.
Nevertheless, a NPDES permit would still be required for the
City's ocean discharge. However, U.S. EPA would have the lead
role in the issuance of this permit.
I anticipate that the Regional Board will participate in
formulating the regulations that will apply to the City's
ocean discharge. This participation will most likely be
either furnishing comments on the NPDES permit to be issued
by U.S. EPA or the issuing of a NPDES permit for the
discharge by the Regional Board. In either event, it would be
my recommendation that the NPDES permit for the City's ocean
discharge contain requirements consistent with the State's
Ocean Plan for the effluent, receiving waters and monitoring.
Further, with regard to the State's Ocean Plan, I would
recommend that the receiving water limits therein apply at
the boundary of the zone of initial dilution (ZID) even
though the ZID is beyond the 3 mile limit.
If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this
matter further, please call me at the number on the
letterhead.
Very truly yours,
Arthur L. Coe,
Executive Officer.
____
[From the Union-Tribune, Mar. 23, 1995]
End the Nightmare--Boxer Should Support Bilbray's Sewage Bill
San Diego's multibillion-dollar sewage nightmare is on the
verge of being solved. A solution has been devised in the
House of Representatives in the form of a bill that would
permanently exempt San Diego's sewage system from the
secondary treatment mandates contained in the Clean Water
Act.
It looks like this legislation, sponsored by Rep. Brian
Bilbray, R-Imperial Beach, will pass the House easily. It is
supported by our country's entire congressional delegation
and by the House Republican leadership, including Speaker
Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
That means the crucial hurdle for the Bilbray bill will be
the Senate.
On a measure that affects only one state, tradition in the
Senate holds that both senators from that state must approve
of the bill before it can reach the floor for a vote. So, San
Diego ratepayers' hopes of avoiding what could be an
extremely costly and totally unnecessary sewage upgrade rest
with California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne
Feinstein.
Boxer in the past has shown a good grasp of this issue. She
sponsored an amendment in the Senate last year that allowed
San Digeo to apply for a waiver from the secondary treatment
mandates in the Clean Water Act. The waiver, which the city
is applying for, would have to be renewed every five years.
Boxer lobbied hard for the waiver, explaining to her
colleagues that secondary treatment is unnecessary for San
Diego's sewage system because of our deep ocean outfall. With
San Diego city officials at here side she pointed out at
public hearings that the scientific community overwhelmingly
supports that contention.
The exemption now proposed by Bilbray would simply codify
in perpetuity the waiver that Boxer sponsored for San Diego
last year.
Local environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have
opposed the exemption because they have said it wouldn't
mandate the extensive ocean monitoring that the waiver
requires. Upon hearing that complaint, Bilbray toughened the
language on environmental monitoring in his bill.
The Sierra Club's other objection to the exemption has been
that it would undermine provisions for producing reclaimed
water that are contained in the waiver legislation. The
exemption actually divorces the issue of water reclamation
from sewage treatment, which is proper. The two are separate
issues.
If scientists say San Diego doesn't need to treat its
sewage to secondary standards, there's no reason it should be
forced to treat some of it to an even higher standard for
reclaimed water. If San Diegans want reclaimed water, that
should be a local policy decision wholly separate from the
issue of secondary sewage treatment.
The Bilbray measure could move to the Senate in one of two
ways, either as a separate bill or as an amendment to a
broader bill reauthorizing the Clean Water Act, Either way,
Boxer and Feinstein should support it.
Boxer understands San Diego's sewage problems, so she
should see that the exemption is even better than the waiver.
And so should Feinstein, who voted for the waiver amendment
last year. With their support, San Diego's sewage nightmare
could vanish.
____
[From the Union-Tribune, Apr. 10, 1995]
Pass the Sewage Bill--Filner, Boxer Should Not Bow to Pressure
San Diego has reached a crucial turn in its long battle to
escape a multibillion-dollar federal sewage mandate that
scientists agree is environmentally unnecessary.
At stake is more than $3 billion in potential outlays by
San Diego ratepayers to build a mammoth secondary-sewage
treatment plant, as required by the federal Clean Water Act.
A measure by Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Imperial Beach, to
exempt San Diego from this exorbitant--and scientifically
specious--mandate is advancing on Capitol Hill. It deserves
the support of San Diego County's five representatives in the
House and California's two Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer
and Dianne Feinstein.
Regrettably, however, the legislation does not have the
unanimous backing of our delegation in Congress.
Last week, Sen. Boxer announced her opposition to the
Bilbray measure. A day later, Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego,
said he was undecided whether to support reauthorization of
the Clean Water Act, a broad bill which includes Bilbray's
sewage exemption.
Filner says he backs the exemption, which he long has
championed. But he has very serious reservations about other
provisions in the bill. ``There are significant problems with
the bill overall,'' he says.
Consequently, Filner may vote against it when it reaches
the House floor--despite the billions of dollars at stake for
San Diego households.
The Democratic lawmaker was conspicuously absent last week
when the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
approved the Clean Water Act by a 42-16 vote. Filner, the
only San Diego-area lawmaker on the panel, said he missed the
critical vote because he had a doctor's appointment.
But political reality is that both Boxer and Filner, along
with other Democratic lawmakers, are under intense lobbying
pressure from environmentalists to vote against the Clean
Water Act. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club
vigorously oppose San Diego's sewage exemption and other
provisions of the bill which they claim would harm the
environment.
But, unlike opponents of the exemption, San Diego has
science on its side.
An authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences
concluded in 1993 that San Diego's current method of
``enhanced primary treatment'' of its sewage poses no harm to
the environment. That's because San Diego discharges its
sewage 4.5 miles out to sea, where the water is over 300 feet
deep. A ``consensus statement'' signed by 33 eminent
scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La
Jolla reached the same conclusion.
In the face of such evidence, Rep. Filner and Sen. Boxer
should recognize that Bilbray's exemption serves the
interests of not only San Diego sewage users but the
environment as well. The real question is whether these two
lawmakers will sacrifice good science and billions of dollars
out of the pockets of San Diegans to satisfy the demands of
Democratic pressure groups.
____
Historical Review of San Diego's Efforts To Meet the Requirements of
the Clean Water Act, April 1995
the metropolitan sewerage system
The Metropolitan Sewerage System serves approximately 1.8
million persons living in San Diego and in 14 other cities
and sewer districts in San Diego County. Each day, 180 to 190
million gallons of sewage collected from these entities is
treated at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant which is
owned and operated by the City of San Diego.
The Point Loma Plant uses a settling method known as
advanced primary treatment to remove approximately 80 percent
of the solids from sewage. The liquid waste, or effluent, is
then discharged into the Pacific
[[Page H4813]] Ocean through an ocean outfall pipe which
originally stretched about two and a half miles into the
ocean to a discharge depth of more than 200 feet. This
outfall was extended to a total length of 4.5 miles with a
discharge depth of 320 feet in November 1993.
Solids, or sludge, are settled out of the sewage and are
discharged into ``digester'' tanks. Heating of the sludge
within the digesters produces methane gas which is burned to
generate electricity to run the Point Loma plant and to
produce revenue to offset a portion of the operating costs of
the plant.
The heating also reduces the volume of the sludge by half,
and the remaining solids are then pumped to open-air drying
beds and mechanical presses on Fiesta Island. After the
sludge is dried, it is beneficially used in soil
conditioners, or landfilled when necessary.
Improvements currently under way at the Point Loma Plant
will increase its treatment capacity to 240 million gallons
per day (mgd). An additional 100 mgd will be needed in the
system by the year 2050.
the clean water act
In 1972, the federal Clean Water Act became law, and
directed the EPA to adopt standards of secondary sewage
treatment for all municipal wastewater dischargers. Cities
and sewerage districts were originally given five years to
construct facilities to meet the secondary standards, and
costs were to be shared by local, state and federal
governments under the Clean Water Grant Program. The deadline
for compliance with the secondary treatment standards was
extended several times, and eventually was set at July 1,
1988.
Under the Clean Water Act, all U.S. dischargers were
required to obtain from EPA a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit which established effluent
standards for both the sewage discharge and for receiving
waters. A single set of standards was adopted for all
municipal dischargers whether their effluent entered a lake,
stream, river, bay or ocean. This approach differed
dramatically from California's existing system for setting
discharge standards. Prior to the Clean Water Act, California
had been operating under the Dickey Act, which allowed the
Regional Water Quality Control Board to adopt the
requirements for individual dischargers within their
jurisdiction. The Regional Board studied the discharge and
receiving water at each individual point of discharge and set
the requirements for each discharger based on the specific
technical data from that site. This resulted in different
standards for communities which discharged into smaller
bodies of water or into waters which served as drinking water
supplies than for communities which discharged into the
ocean.
EPA regulations under the Clean Water Act defined secondary
treatment in terms of three wastewater constituents;
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), suspended solids, and pH: 1)
BOD is a measure of how much the organic material in the
wastewater can be broken down by microorganisms. Thirty-day
average concentrations of BOD were not to exceed limits of 30
milligrams per liter (mg/l) or 85% removal, whichever was
more restrictive. In San Diego's case, because the influent
concentration can be as high as 300 mg/l, the 85% removal
rate yields a 45 mg/l effluent concentration. Therefore, the
30 mg/l requirement is the more stringent, and a 90% removal
rate is required. 2) Suspended solids were also not to exceed
thirty-day average concentration limits of 30 mg/l or 85%
removal. As with BOD, the more stringent criterion is the 30
mg/l, which corresponds to approximately 90 percent removal
of solids from the incoming wastewater. 3) pH is a measure of
the acidity of the wastewater. A range from 6.0 to 9.0 was
established for pH.
With the exception of the BOD, suspended solids and pH, the
EPA relied on the water quality standards contained in the
State Ocean Plan to control the numerous other constituents
found in normal municipal discharge, such as microorganisms,
heavy metals and organic toxic substances. In addition to the
secondary requirements set by EPA, California dischargers had
to meet 200 other technical requirements set by federal and
state water standards.
the metropolitan facilities plan
At the time the federal secondary treatment standards were
adopted, the Point Loma discharge was operating under a State
of California permit which contained no limitation for BOD
pH, and a limitation of 125 mg/l for suspended solids.
San Diego received its first NPDES permit for Point Loma in
1974. The initial permit allowed the facility to continue to
treat sewage at the primary level as had been practiced for
more than a dozen years under the State waste discharge
requirements, but directed the City to complete plans and
specifications to convert to secondary treatment by January
1, 1977.
The City was awarded a federal/state Clean Water Grant in
1975 to finance the preparation of a facilities plan to
convert the metropolitan sewerage system to secondary
treatment. Preparation
of the plan included review of comprehensive ocean
monitoring data, extensive analysis of numerous primary
and secondary treatment alternatives, study of various
layouts of the Metropolitan Sewerage System and multiple
cost estimates.
The report, referred to as the ``Metropolitan Facilities
Plan'' was completed in January of 1977. It concluded that
San Diego's primary effluent was creating virtually no
adverse impacts on the ocean and that secondary treatment was
not necessary at Point Loma. The consultant recommended that
San Diego request a waiver from EPA's secondary treatment
standards.
At the time the facilities plan was written, however, there
was no provision in the Clean Water Act which authorized EPA
to grant waivers from secondary treatment. Because the waiver
process did not exist and there was no guarantee that San
Diego could obtain one, the facilities plan also included a
plan to convert Point Loma to secondary treatment.
the section 301(h) waiver process
While the NPDES permit for Point Loma was being renewed in
1977, San Diego began action in Congress to enable EPA to
grant waivers from secondary treatment. The City was soon
joined by an association of all the major municipal
wastewater dischargers in the United States. In late 1977,
Congress added to the Clean Water Act Section 301(h) which
established the waiver process.
Section 301(h) allowed municipalities discharging
wastewater to marine waters to apply for modified standards
of secondary treatment. Modifications were to be granted on a
case-by-case basis and were to allow the dischargers to meet
comparable state standards in place of the federal secondary
standards for BOD, suspended solids and pH. The
municipalities had to demonstrate that sewage discharged
under the modified standards protected the environment at a
level comparable to sewage treated under federal secondary
standards. The dischargers also had to meet all state and
federal ocean water quality standards and had to protect the
beneficial uses of the ocean.
the waiver application and dual facility planning efforts
San Diego filed its waiver application in September of
1979. The application asked that San Diego be allowed to meet
State Ocean Plan standards which are based on advanced
primary treatment of sewage as an alternative to federal
standards for secondary treatment.
Concurrent to filing an application for a waiver, the City
continued facility planning efforts. The Metro II facilities
plan which included engineering studies for both advanced
primary treatment and secondary treatment recommended a new
system that would consist of a 45 mgd secondary sewage
treatment plant at Point Loma and a 140 mgd secondary sewage
treatment plant in the Tijuana River Valley. A major new
interceptor system would convey sewage south to the border
area and a new land outfall would be constructed along the
Tijuana River connecting the new treatment plant with a new
ocean outfall.
state water resources control board's reaction to the waiver
After San Diego submitted its Section 301(h) waiver
application to EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board
assigned a very low priority to the award of federal grant
money for construction of secondary treatment facilities. On
May 15, 1980, the State Board resolved through Resolution No.
80-37 not to award Clean Water Grants for any ocean discharge
project in excess of that needed to meet the provisions of
the Ocean Plan until the Board determined that sufficient
grant funds were available to justify funding of such
projects.
After the resolution was adopted, numerous coastal
communities throughout the state, including San Diego,
modified their wastewater treatment planning to eliminate or
postpone secondary treatment. Plans already completed or
partially completed were shelved as the dischargers awaited
the outcome of the Section 301(h) applications.
Resolution No. 80-37 is still in effect and has not been
amended.
epa's tentative approval of the waiver
On September 23, 1981, EPA tentatively approved San Diego's
waiver application, conditioned upon the issuance of a
revised NPDES permit for the Point Loma discharge. The 301(h)
permit was to be issued following a joint public hearing
before EPA staff and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The public hearing was held in November 1982, however,
the issuance of the permit was held in abeyance to allow the
EPA and Regional Board to consider the public testimony.
mexican/united states border issues
In April 1982, San Diego continued its facilities planning
efforts by initiating a study directed toward determining a
long-term solution for the Tijuana sewage discharge problem
that had resulted in millions of gallons of raw sewage
entering the United States from Mexico. The City Council
conceptually approved in 1983, a plan for the construction of
a $730 million joint international wastewater treatment and
disposal system with capacity for both Tijuana and a portion
of San Diego.
revised waiver application
During the three years in which the EPA was reviewing the
original waiver application, the City updated population
projections. The new projections were substantially higher
than those used in determining the projected sewage flows in
the waiver application. When, in 1983, the EPA opened up the
waiver process for a second time, the
[[Page H4814]] City used the opportunity to revise and
resubmit its initial waiver application to include
projections for sewage discharge through the year 1993,
and to account for treatment of Tijuana sewage. The 1983
application reaffirmed the 1979 conclusions that secondary
treatment of the Point Loma sewage discharge was not
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
revision of the state ocean plan
While the City was filing its revised waiver application
with EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board was making
changes in the State Ocean Plan which would eventually have a
direct impact upon the application.
In 1983, the board adopted two significant revisions to the
plan:
1. Body contact bacteriological standards, the same ones
formerly applied only to public bathing beaches, were adopted
for all kelp beds off the California coast. This action was
taken to protect those persons who SCUBA dive in the beds,
and was to take effect on July 1, 1988. The law also allowed
the Regional Board to examine kelp beds near sewer outfalls
on a case-by-case basis and exclude them from the standards
(``dedesignation'') where warranted.
2. Cities were given the opportunity to apply for an
exemption from the suspended solids standards under the Ocean
Plan and to request to remove 60 percent rather than 75
percent of suspended solids.
Prior to the 1983 revision of the Ocean Plan, neither the
City nor any public health or water quality regulatory agency
had received complaints of illness among SCUBA divers in or
near the Point Loma kelp beds. In 1985, the City asked the
State to exclude or ``dedesignate'' the Point Loma kelp beds
from the body-contact bacteriological standards. By excluding
the Point Loma kelp beds from the new state standards, the
Point Loma discharge would be subject to the original Ocean
Plan bacteriological standards, as addressed in the City's
1979 and 1983 waiver applications.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board conducted public
hearings on the City's request for dedesignation of the kelp
beds in September and November of 1985. The Regional Board
postponed a decision on the matters, however, until after the
City completed further studies.
dedesignation and waiver requests
A. Dedesignation.--After the City filed its original
dedesignation request in September 1985, with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, it conducted extensive field
studies of the Point Loma kelp beds and of the health of
those who dive in the kelp beds. The study showed that the
proposed bacteriological standards were being met in the
inner portions but were frequently exceeded along the outer
edges of the beds.
The accompanying health effects study showed, however, that
few cases of gastrointestinal illness were reported among
divers after using the Point Loma beds, and that the number
of reported cases was well below the level accepted by the
EPA. (The study indicated eight reported cases of illness
following 1,000 dives, and the proposed EPA bacterial
standards permit up to 19 cases per 1,000).
In September of 1986, the Executive Officer of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board indicated at a public meeting
that he would recommend against San Diego's dedesignation
request because no alternate ocean standards had been
developed to protect divers in the kelp beds. He also said he
would recommend against the City's proposed reduction in
suspended solids removal because San Diego could not
demonstrate an economic necessity for it and was already
removing 75 percent of sewage solids at Point Loma with
existing rate revenues.
Following discussions at a Council meeting on December 9,
1986, (discussed further in following paragraphs), the City
of San Diego discontinued its dedesignation request for a
revision to the water quality standards on December 16, 1986.
B. Waiver.--On September 30, 1986, EPA announced its
decision to reverse its tentative approval of San Diego's
1979 waiver application and to tentatively deny both the
City's 1979 and 1983 applications. EPA cited two reasons for
denying the applications: First, it cited the City's
inability to comply with the new State Ocean Plan
bacteriological standards scheduled to take effect in 1988.
Those standards apply body-bacteriological standards, like
those formerly applied only to public bathing beaches, to all
kelp beds off the California coast. The EPA stated that
compliance with the standards is necessary to protect the
health of recreational users of the kelp beds, and concluded
that the Point Loma sewage discharge ``has degraded the
recreational beneficial use in the kelp bed vicinity''.
Second, the EPA concluded that the Point Loma discharge
``interferes with the protection and propagation of a
balanced indigenous population'' of bottom dwelling ocean
organisms in the vicinity of the Point Loma outfall. In
support of this conclusion, EPA noted that species of clam is
found in greater abundance near the outfall discharge than
away from the outfall, and a species of starfish, a brittle
star, is less common near the outfall discharge point than
away from the outfall. The brittle star found in reduced
numbers near the outfall is one of the most common and
abundant species on the Southern California shelf.
The City had until March 30, 1987 to submit a revised
waiver application to EPA if it intended to continue to
pursue the waiver. On November 3, the San Diego City Council
authorized the City Manager to send EPA a letter of intent to
file a revised application. That letter had to be submitted
to EPA by November 15, 1986, or the EPA tentative denial
would have become final, and a revised waiver application
would not be allowed. In authoring the filing of the letter,
several members of the Council cautioned that their action
did not indicate support for the filing of a revised
waiver application, and that such a decision would be made
following a public hearing on the waiver scheduled on
December 9.
san diego's decision
San Diego's City Council devoted two public hearings, one
on December 9, 1986, and one on February 17, 1987, to the
issue of the 301(h) waiver application versus secondary
treatment. Public response at both meetings favored
abandoning waiver efforts and pursuing the federally mandated
secondary treatment requirements. Additionally, there was
much emphasis and support placed on the potential for water
reclamation and reuse if the City were to modify its sewage
treatment system.
Public testimony combined with consistent negative response
by the regulatory agencies placed the City of San Diego in a
position requiring immediate forward action. While all the
efforts of the past (waiver and facilities planning) had
provided beneficial avenues to San Diego, laws as well as
public opinion changed over time and it was clear that either
option that the City chose would require long range planning
and provisions for water reclamation.
On February 17, 1987, the decision was made to discontinue
waiver efforts and comply with federal sewage treatment
standards. The City immediately proceeded at full speed to
implement secondary treatment and water reclamation.
Immediate actions by the City included establishing an
advisory committee, the Metropolitan Sewer Task Force (MSTF),
to lend expertise and guidance to Council on the many issues
surrounding the sewage modifications; and creating the Clean
Water Program to oversee the upgrade and expansion of the
sewerage system.
consent decree discussions with epa
Although the City was swiftly and judiciously pursuing
facilities planning efforts, it was clear that the July 1,
1988 compliance deadline would not be met. Beginning in
January, 1988, the City embarked on discussions with the
Department of Justice, EPA, SWRCB and RWQCB to establish a
realistic time schedule for compliance with the federal
discharge standards. Despite the City's commitment to comply,
the federal government sued the City on July 27, 1988. The
State of California joined as a co-plaintiff.
From 1987 to 1989 the City carried out intensive facilities
planning with a team of engineers, planners, and
environmental specialists working with the community. After
consolidating twenty-two alternatives into seven, the City
adopted a plan that included the upgrade of the Point Loma
treatment plant, the construction of a new secondary
treatment plant in the South Bay, and seven new water
reclamation plants located throughout the service area. This
plan, called Alternative IVa, was the basis for an agreement
between the City and the State and Federal governments. This
agreement, called a Consent Decree, was signed by the parties
in January 1990 and was lodged in federal court. The cost to
implement the facilities in the Consent Decree was estimated
to be $2.5 billion in 1992 dollars.
federal court findings, june 1991
When presented with the proposed plan, Judge Rudi Brewster
noted that in order to finalize the Decree, he would need to
find that the plan was in the best interest of the public. He
held a hearing on whether or not the present discharge at
Point Loma has adverse impacts on the marine environment and
found that, while there is a potential impact to divers using
the kelp beds due to bacteriological contamination, there is
no significant impact to the sea life surrounding the
discharge. He also recognized in his findings that extension
of the outfall (which has now been completed) would eliminate
the contamination of the kelp beds.
Judge Brewster ruled on June 18, 1991 that the proposed
Consent Decree should be deferred to January 1993. He
directed that the City conduct pilot tests at the Point Loma
facility to determine whether or not chemically-enhanced
primary treatment could meet the secondary treatment
requirements and suggested that the City pursue its best
efforts to amend the Clean Water Act. He also suggested that
the National Academy of Science study entitled ``Wastewater
Management for Coastal Urban Areas,'' which was due to be
completed soon, be used as further guidance on the level of
treatment necessary to protect the environment.
consumers' alternative
In May 1992 the City Council directed a reevaluation of
Alternative IVa based on retaining Point Loma as an advanced
primary treatment plant operating at an ultimate capacity of
240 mgd. With this change, 90 mgd of additional capacity
could be provided at the Point Loma plant that would not be
available if a conversion to secondary treatment had occurred
as envisioned by Alternative IVa. The new plan, dubbed the
Consumers' Alternative, has an estimated capital cost of $1.2
billion in 1992 dollars. At a July 10, 1992 hearing in
Federal Court, Judge
[[Page H4815]] Brewster directed the City to proceed with the
Consumers' Alternative and await the results of the pilot
testing at Point Loma and the report from the National
Academy of Science.
pilot study results
The City completed the 18-month pilot testing in August
1993. Its purpose was to determine whether or not chemically
enhanced primary treatment could be used to bring the Point
Loma Plant into compliance with the 30 mg/l effluent
requirement for total suspended solids and BOD currently
embodied in the Clean Water Act. The results are clear for
both constituents: the 30 mg/l law to achieve secondary
treatment cannot be met. As a result, the City has redoubled
its efforts to amend the Clean Water Act to provide modified
standards where it is demonstrated that there will be no
adverse impact to the environment.
national academy of science report conclusions
After three years of study the Academy released
``Wastewater Management for Coastal Urban Areas'' in April
1993. No specific recommendations were made regarding San
Diego's wastewater treatment system, but a number of
conclusions reported by the Academy support San Diego's
efforts to amend the Act: (1) The secondary treatment
requirement can lead to over-control and over-protection
along open ocean coasts; the 1972 Clean Water Act does not
allow regulators to adequately address regional variations in
environmental systems. (2) In the case of deep ocean
discharge where BOD, pathogens, nitrogen, and other nutrients
are of little concern, and contributions of toxics and metals
associated with solids are low, treatment for removal of
these constituents is unnecessary. (3) Chemically enhanced
primary treatment is an effective technology for removing
suspended solids and associated contaminants.
federal court findings and interim order
On March 31, 1994 Judge Rudi Brewster rejected the Consent
Decree proposed in 1990 as ``not in the public interest.''
His memorandum decision stated that the Consent Decree
presents no environmental benefit, requires wasteful over-
treatment, requires unnecessary sludge production, and
mandates unnecessary reclamation facilities. Key testimony in
the courtroom included the legislative efforts of San Diego's
Councilmembers, Senators, and Members of Congress to allow
the Point Loma Treatment Plant to continue its advanced
primary level of treatment.
An Interim Order issued August 26, 1994 requires San Diego
to continue implementation of the Consumers' Alternative.
ocean pollution reduction act
After the bill received the unanimous support of the House
and Senate, President Clinton signed the Ocean Pollution
Reduction Act on October 31, 1994. This Act allows the City
of San Diego to apply for a waiver from secondary treatment
within six months and requires the EPA to complete its review
of the application within one year of its receipt. It
requires that San Diego commit to 45 MGD of water reclamation
capacity by 2010 and that certain effluent parameters (80%
suspended solids removal and 58% biological oxygen demand
removal) be met. It also requires that there be fewer
suspended solids discharged to the ocean at the end of the
waiver period than are discharged at the beginning of the
waiver period.
San Diego submitted the waiver application on April 24,
1995. EPA Administrator Carol Browner has notified San Diego
that an initial assessment will be completed by about June 8,
1995 and a Tentative Decision Document will be issued by
about August 7, 1995.
____
May 9, 1995.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the
House, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. David M. McIntosh,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman: I write to respond to a letter written by
the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, dated May 1, 1995 (the ``May
1 letter'') and delivered to your Subcommittees for
consideration in connection with your hearing on the
procedures to be used for the Speaker's ``Corrections Day.''
In that letter, Congressman Mineta voices his concerns with
H.R. 794, a bill introduced by Congressman Bilbray, that has
been widely touted as a prime candidate for the Corrections
Day process.
The purpose of this response is to set the record straight
about San Diego's motivations, justifications and evidentiary
support for H.R. 794, and further to assuage the concerns of
those who mistakenly believe that H.R. 794 is ill-conceived
or ill-motivated. Contrary to the message of the May 1
letter, H.R. 794 is critical to the long-term resolution of
San Diego's wastewater treatment plans, and specifically the
City's dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency (the
``EPA'') over the level of treatment necessary to protect the
environment. By responding to the assertions made in the May
1 letter, I hope to educate and assure the members of
Congress that by enacting H.R. 794 they are promoting fiscal
and environmental responsibility.
San Diego has been pursuing environmentally sound and
fiscally responsible compliance with the Clean Water Act (the
``CWA'') for more than two decades. Over the past four years
our Congressional representatives have worked with the
appropriate Congressional committees to pass legislation that
would provide an opportunity to establish, once and for all,
that the current level of sewage treatment at the Point Loma
Treatment Plant fully protects the marine environment, and
that the secondary level of treatment prescribed by the CWA
does not make sense for our ocean or our ratepayers. Last
year we consistently requested straightforward, unconditional
legislation that would acknowledge the scientific basis for
the adequacy of our existing level of treatment, but
ultimately accepted compromise language that limits the
capacity of the Point Loma plant and requires significant
water reclamation capacity to be built. We worked hard to get
this language into the CWA reauthorization; when it became
clear that the CWA was not going to be reauthorized, we
agreed in the closing days of Congress to the Ocean Pollution
Reduction Act of 1994, a stand-alone bill that mirrored the
compromise provision in the CWA. Failure to obtain this
legislation by either vehicle would have meant a costly,
time-consuming trial on the requirement for secondary
treatment.
H.R. 794 embodies precisely the legislation we originally
sought. In recent months, the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee approved H.R. 961, which contains a
coastal discharge provision for San Diego that substantially
mirrors H.R. 794. We are encouraged by the bi-partisan
support we received from the committee, but with the
experience of last year's CWA re-authorization process still
fresh in our minds, we urge you to consider H.R. 794 as
equally vital to ensure that the necessary, long-awaited
legislative relief is assured.
The May 1 letter authored by Congressman Mineta argues that
H.R. 794 is inappropriate for consideration under Corrections
Day procedures, raising in support of that argument several
concerns as to San Diego's motivation, justification and
evidentiary support for H.R. 794. Although I understand these
arguments were addressed in the course of including the
coastal discharge provision in H.R. 961, I offer the
following detailed response to aid you in fully understanding
San Diego's position on each of these matters.
the need for secondary treatment
There is no dispute that the nationwide requirement for
secondary treatment, imposed in 1972, has improved the
overall quality of the nation's water. This is because most
treatment plants in the country discharge into inland lakes,
rivers and
streams where there is limited capacity to assimilate
suspended solids or biochemical oxygen demand (``BOD'').
The May 1 letter notes that the city of San Jose,
California, requires an even higher level of treatment
than secondary to protect the environment; this, however,
is because San Jose discharges into a tidal estuary in
South San Francisco Bay via an open channel (not a
submerged outfall pipe) into waters approximately 20 feet
deep--a far different circumstance from San Diego's
outfall pipe discharge into swiftly moving currents off
our open coast at over 300 feet of depth and over four
miles offshore. In fact, San Jose also has to have a
``conditional exception'' to the requirements of the Bays
and Estuaries Act, which would otherwise prohibit
discharges of this nature to the Bay in that area.
There is also little dispute that San Diego's current use
of advanced primary treatment protects the marine
environment. Among the numerous favorable findings of various
scientists and agencies, I offer the following for your
consideration:
The Environmental Protection Agency, in its 1981 Tentative
Decision Document on San Diego's original waiver application,
states that ``the applicant's proposed discharge will comply
with the California State water quality standards'' and that
``the applicant's proposed discharge will not adversely
impact public water supplies or interfere with the protection
and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of marine
life, and will allow for recreational activities.''
Judge Brewster stated, in his findings in his March, 1994
Memorandum Decisions and Order Rejecting the Proposed Consent
Decree, that ``the scientific evidence without dispute
establishes that the marine environment is not harmed by
present sewage treatment, and in fact appears to be
enhanced.''
The National Research Council committee on ``Wastewater
Management for Coastal Urban Areas'' stated in its April 1993
report that ``chemically enhanced primary treatment is an
effective technology for removing suspended solids and
associated contaminants.''
Scientists from all over the country have testified in
various forums, including under oath in the federal district
court in San Diego, that San Diego's current level of
treatment fully protects the offshore environment.
industrial pretreatment
The May 1 letter credits secondary treatment and ``the
corresponding basic level of treatment for industrial
discharges'' with the success of the CWA. In fact, wastewater
plant treatment and industrial pretreatment are two entirely
separate requirements, not at all reliant on one another
although they can work in concert, as they do in San Diego.
San Diego's strong industrial
[[Page H4816]] pretreatment program is exactly what makes our
sewage treatment system a model for the rest of the country.
Instead of spending billion of dollars on ever higher levels
of treatment, San Diego works with its industries to ensure
that toxic constituents never even get into the system. As a
result, San Diego has a higher quality of wastewater coming
into its Point Loma plant than is required for the effluent
discharged after treatment.
Part of this confusion in the May 1 letter may be
attributable to a misunderstanding of what ``secondary
equivalency'' means. San Diego's application for modified
standards of secondary treatment is exactly that, and no
more: a redefinition of ``secondary'' under certain
circumstances. It is not a waiver of or an exemption from the
protections of the CWA, and it is certainly not a ``license
to pollute.'' San Diego's permit under the Ocean Pollution
Reduction Act--and any modified definition applied under H.R.
794--seeks modification of only two of the secondary
treatment requirements: total suspended solids and BOD. All
of the 200-plus other constituents that are typically
measured and monitored at treatment plants across the nation
will still have to conform to the secondary treatment
requirements of the CWA. Because of the comprehensive and
effective industrial pretreatment program currently in place,
San Diego meets those standards now and would continue to
meet those standards under the new law. ``Secondary
treatment,'' as currently defined in the CWA, would add
nothing significantly beneficial to the process.
reasons for rejection of the 1983 waiver application
The May 1 letter is incorrect insofar as it implies that
the State of California denied San Diego's waiver application
in 1986. The state's Regional Water Quality Control Board
(``RWQCB''), in a March 1985 letter, informed the City that
the State had responded to the EPA with a tentative finding
that ``the discharge will comply with applicable state laws,
including applicable water quality standards, and will not
result in additional treatment, pollution control, or other
requirements on any other point or non-point source.'' The
denial was the work of the EPA, not the State. Moreover, the
Tentative Decision Document issued in 1986 by the EPA clearly
states that EPA's tentative denial was due to the 1983
amendment of the California State Ocean Plan that applied
the same water quality standards to the offshore kelp beds
as had previously been applied only to bathing beaches.
This change came after the Point Loma plant had been
operating for over twenty years, and led to the extension
of the outfall that is currently in place. It was a change
in the Ocean Plan, and not a failure of San Diego's
treatment system, that led to the denial.
san diego's withdrawal of the waiver application
The circumstances under which San Diego withdrew its waiver
application in 1987, as referenced in the May 1 letter, must
be corrected for the record. In federal court the issue was
fully reviewed and the testimony demonstrated that key
officials from the EPA and Regional Board convinced San
Diego's mayor at that time that not only would a revised
application not receive favorable review, but that the EPA
would ensure that federal funds would be forthcoming to help
San Diego pay for upgrade of the system to secondary
treatment. In addition, those who opposed anything less than
secondary treatment used sewage spills from a major pump
station as a tool to convince some San Diegans to press for
withdrawal of the waiver application. Unfortunately, it was
never explained to the public that the two issues are in no
way related, and that spending billions on secondary
treatment would do nothing to prevent sewer spills or pump
station break-downs (and would, in fact, take away dollars
sorely needed to address those problems).\1\ Based on the
promises of the EPA and the concerns of a few citizens, the
City Council voted 8-1 to withdraw the application, thus
closing the door on San Diego's waiver unless reopened by new
law.
\1\The further implication in the May 1 letter that the 1992
break in the outfall was somehow forecast by the EPA in
1983--or that spending billions of dollars on secondary
treatment would have prevented the break--is equally
unfounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
san diego's ``history''
The May 1 letter characterizes San Diego's ``reversals''
during the last 23 years, regarding whether or not to
implement secondary treatment, as a failure of municipal
leadership. The true history of the situation does not
support that contention.
When Congress passed the law requiring secondary treatment
in 1972, San Diego, along with most other municipalities in
the country, began the facilities planning necessary to
implement the higher level of treatment. After the
appropriate environmental impact documents had been
completed, the findings were that the No Project Alternative
(not implementing secondary treatment) had the least
environmental impact. Other municipalities discharging
through long deep ocean outfalls had similar findings, and
based on that, in 1977 Congress amended the Clean Water Act,
adding Section 301(h), allowing for waivers from secondary
treatment.
San Diego applied for a waiver in 1979 and in 1981 received
a tentative approval from EPA. We were encouraged that we
were on the right track. Then in 1986 the EPA reversed
itself, issued a tentative denial, convinced San Diego to
withdraw the waiver application, and sued the City.
San Diego pursued not just secondary treatment, but an
aggressive water reclamation program, from 1988 until 1992,
when it became apparent that the cost far outweighed both the
need and the benefits of seven new water reclamation plants
by 1999. We revised our plans, advised the court, and the
court agreed, rejecting the Proposed Consent Decree that
would have required these overreaching efforts. The judge
cautioned, however, that the City had to obtain a change in
the law, or he would be forced by existing law to put us on a
schedule to implement secondary treatment. Because time was
literally running out, and because Congress at the time was
not receptive to the legislative relief now proposed by H.R.
794 (or its counterpart provision in H.R. 961), San Diego
agreed to the conditions included in the Ocean Pollution
Reduction Act. Importantly, it was never represented that
with the passage of the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act, the
city would abandon its efforts to obtain permanent
legislative relief for its ratepayers.
Recognizing that the cost of the conditions in the Ocean
Pollution Reduction Act was high, and that the compromise was
not necessarily in the best long-term interests of San
Diego's ratepayers, I began discussions with our
Congressional delegation to enact a better bill--one that
would be based on science, would give San Diego the same
opportunity given to other coastal dischargers, and would
continue to protect the marine environment.
San Diego's actions over the past 23 years have always been
in response to changes that were made by Congress, the EPA,
or both. One of the reasons for H.R. 794 is to provide some
certainty to San Diego that as long as the ocean is
protected, as verified by scientific testing, secondary
treatment will not be required due purely to changing
bureaucracies and the individuals that make them up.
Secondary equivalency
The May 1 letter states that H.R. 794 would give San Diego
``a permanent exemption from secondary treatment--no
conditions, no review, no questions asked,'' and further
asserts that the City would merely screen out the larger
solids and add chlorine to the rest, ``basically untreated
sewage except for the chlorine.'' This contention is likewise
in error. First, chemically enhanced primary treatment is,
according to the National Research Council, ``an effective
technology for removing suspended solids and associated
contaminant.'' San Diego does not chlorinate its effluent, as
is stated in the May 1 letter, because the length and depth
of its outfall precludes the need for doing so. The
wastefield is completely isolated from both the kelp beds and
the bathing beaches, fully protecting the health and safety
of our citizens.
Moreover, H.R. 794 merely allows the regulators responsible
for enforcing the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the RWQCB, to
deem certain discharge to be the equivalent of secondary
treatment. An operating permit will still be required, and to
obtain that permit the City will have to continually meet
some very strict standards. Even San Jose, with its tertiary
treatment level must have an operating permit issued by the
EPA and RWQCB, must monitor the treatment plant and receiving
waters, must have an industrial pretreatment program in
place, and must renew its permit every five years.
Implementing secondary treatment--or a higher level of
treatment--does not exempt a plan from oversight by the
regulatory agencies, nor does it exempt a plant from any of
the other requirements of the CWA.
support of scientists for current level of treatment
The assertion in the May 1 letter, that Scripps Institution
of Oceanography has taken no position on H.R. 794, is true.
However, every credible scientist who has taken a position on
whether or not secondary treatment is needed at the Point
Loma facility has supported the current level of treatment.
Further, Scripps Institution of Oceanography does not, as an
institution, take positions on policy issues such as this.
Even so, a consensus statement signed by 33 professors and
researchers employed by Scripps supports the current level of
treatment, and many other scientists around the country at
other prestigious academic and research institutions also
support the current level of treatment. Finally, the 1933
report issued by the National Research Council, the operating
arm of the National Academy of Science, solidly supports the
appropriateness of less than secondary treatment for
municipalities like San Diego and more than secondary
treatment for municipalities like San Jose. There is ample,
uncontroverted scientific support for San Diego's position.
judge brewster's comments on san diego
The May 1 letter includes just one comment by Judge
Brewster, made in 1991 when he made his Findings regarding
the several changes brought by the Department of Justice on
behalf of EPA. The quote refers to spills and sewer backups,
for which San Diego was fined $500,000. That problem is
irrelevant to the question addressed by the consideration of
H.R. 794: whether or not San Diego should be required to
implement secondary treatment.
[[Page H4817]] In that regard, Judge Brewster in his 1994
decision rejecting the Proposed Consent Decree, said that ``.
. . with the new outfall, the scientific evidence without
dispute establishes that the marine environment is not harmed
by present sewage treatment, and in fact it appears to be
enhanced . . .'' He goes on to note that the National
Research Council report states ``that on a scientific basis,
it would be wise to consider environmental differences
regulating sewage treatment standards under the CWA'' and
that ``BOD is irrelevant in deep ocean discharges because of
the massive abundance of oxygen in the ocean.'' He reminds us
that in his 1991 Findings, the same ones that Mr. Mineta
references, ``this Court held that the City's Point Loma
discharge was not causing significant harm to the balanced
indigenous population surrounding the outfall pipe.'' And
most recently, at a May 1, 1995 hearing in his courtroom,
Judge Brewster stated that ``the City has aggressively moved
forward to complete all of the Court-ordered projects--many
ahead of schedule.''
The fact is that San Diego has a well-run sewage treatment
system. There have been, and will continue to be, spills
occurring, as there are with every municipality in the
country. However, it is noteworthy that the California Water
Pollution Control Association in March 1995 awarded the City
of San Diego its ``Best of the Best'' award for the
Collection System of the Year. San Diego is making progress
and will continue to do so. The money that would be spent on
secondary treatment can unquestionably be better spent on
pipelines and pump stations to continue our improvement of
the system.
Finally, San Diego has made substantial commitments to
supplementing our water supply in ways which include water
reclamation. We began construction on the North City Water
Reclamation Plant, a facility with a capacity of 30 million
gallons per day (``MGD''), in 1993, and expect to begin
operation in 1997. It is a $150 million state-of-the-art
plant that will provide reclaimed water for customers in the
northern part of our service area. We are also designing a 7
MGD water reclamation plant in the South Bay. As we go
forward with our system-wide planning we will continually
evaluate the market demand and economics that are an integral
part of the viability of water reclamation.
We recognize in San Diego that the ocean is one of our most
valuable assets, and we are committed to protecting it now
and in the future. The existing waiver process provides
temporary relief from expensive overtreatment, but will only
be valid for five years. Thus, in another four years, the
City will once again have to expend over $1 million to
prepare another waiver application, to show once again what
is already a matter of scientific fact--that secondary
treatment is unnecessary and cost-ineffective for San Diego.
Given the City's history of dispute with the EPA, the city is
wary of having to fight further battles over this issue.
The House Transportation and I infrastructure Committee
believes H.R. 794 makes sense, as evidenced by its ready
willingness to include it as well in H.R. 961. This provision
protects the environment, provides continuing monitoring and
oversight, and welcomes public review of the permit
application. The relief provided by H.R. 794 does not give
San Diego a license to pollute; on the contrary, it
acknowledges a continuing duty to meet strict California
State Ocean Plan standards for coastal discharge. What it
does provide is relief from regulators who disregard
scientific fact and common sense, in favor of a strict, blind
and costly adherence to ill-fitting regulations.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the facts
underlying this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Susan Golding,
Mayor,
City of San Diego.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]
has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Waxman] who has agreed that the San Diego case is a valid one.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the gentleman makes a very
good case for San Diego and he ought to get his waiver under existing
law. But the point I want to make to the gentleman, it is not in any
way denigrating your case, but in our situation, the local people want
the secondary treatment and the bureaucrats that are dragging their
feet are local bureaucrats. So let us understand, bureaucrats are not
only at the Federal level that frustrates actions that the people want.
Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the tie goes to the
runner. We would rather have the local bureaucrats making decisions
than those in Washington, DC.
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
as somebody who was operating a health department, the elected
officials locally that have to surf in those waters, the ones who are
elected and go face to face with the citizens every day, they are the
ones who know what really is happening in the ocean and they are the
ones who are the most concerned and the most appropriate to be able to
enforce this.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
they are the ones who have dragged their feet contrary to the will of
the people who have had to vote twice to say they wanted this.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154,
noes 267, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 315]
AYES--154
Ackerman
Andrews
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Torres
Torricelli
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--267
Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
[[Page H4818]] Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--13
Barrett (NE)
Bono
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
McDade
McInnis
Moakley
Murtha
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
Sanford
Towns
Whitfield
{time} 1212
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. McInnis against.
Mr. MARTINI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. LAZIO of New York changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there additional amendments to title
III of the bill?
Amendment offered by Mr. MINETA
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 30, as printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mineta:
Page 133, strike line 15, and all that follows through line
9 on page 170 and insert the following:
SEC. 322. MUNICIPAL 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. MUNICIPAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.
``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist
States in the development and implementation of municipal
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 municipal stormwater
management program of the State. It is recognized that State
municipal 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
municipal 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
municipal 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 municipal 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 and local programs for
controlling pollution added from municipal 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 any group stormwater permit application process in
effect under section 402(p) 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.
``(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
municipal 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 municipal 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 municipal 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 municipal 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
(h) 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 reducing pollutant loadings.--A program
for municipal stormwater discharges identified under
subsection (b)(1)(B) to reduce pollutant loadings from
categories and subcategories of municipal stormwater
discharges.
``(D) 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.
``(E) 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.
``(F) 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 municipal stormwater management program.
``(G) 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,
[[Page H4819]] including the attainment of interim goals and
milestones.
``(H) Identification of certain inconsistent federal
activities.--An identification of activities on Federal lands
in the State that are inconsistent with the State management
program.
``(I) 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.
``(d) 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 municipal 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 issued pursuant to section
402(p) for discharges from municipal storm sewers, 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 municipal 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
municipal stormwater management program. Prior to the
effective date of a State municipal stormwater management
program, municipal 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 municipal stormwater discharger shall implement the
revised stormwater management practices and measures which
may be voluntary pollution prevention activities. A municipal
stormwater discharger operating under a permit continued in
effect under this subparagraph shall not be subject to
citizens suits under section 505.
``(B) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o) shall not apply to
any activity carried out in accordance with this paragraph.
``(e) 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 municipal
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
(d)(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 municipal
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
municipal 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 municipal stormwater 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 agency or organization shall submit
such management program to the Administrator for approval.
``(f) 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
[[Page H4820]] 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.
``(g) 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 (g), 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.
``(h) 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 (g)(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 (g);
``(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;
``(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.
``(i) 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.
``(j) 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 (g);
``(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 municipal 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.
``(k) 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 municipal 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.
``(l) Enforcement With Respect to Municipal Stormwater
Dischargers Violating State Management Programs.--Municipal
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.
``(m) 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 municipal stormwater management
program are located.
``(n) Limitation on Discharges Regulated Under Watershed
Management Program.--Municipal stormwater discharges
regulated under section 321 in a manner consistent with this
section shall not be subject to this section.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Industrial Stormwater
Discharge Program.--Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C 1342(p)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Municipal
and'';
(2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``1994'' and inserting
``2001'';
(3) by adding at the end of the paragraph (1) the
following: ``This subsection does not apply to municipal
stormwater discharges which are covered by section 322.'';
(4) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D)
and by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (C);
(5) in paragraph (3)--
(A) by striking the heading for subparagraph (A);
(B) by moving the text of subparagraph (A) after the
paragraph heading; and
(C) by striking subparagraph (B);
(6) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking the heading for subparagraph (A);
(B) by moving the text of subparagraph (A) after the
paragraph heading;
(C) by striking ``and (2)(C)''; and
(D) by striking subparagraph (B);
(7) by striking paragraph (5);
(8) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5); and
(9) in paragraph (5) as so redesignated--
[[Page H4821]] (A) by striking ``1993'' and inserting
``2000''; and
(B) by inserting after ``paragraph (2)'' the following:
``and other than municipal stormwater discharges''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended
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.''.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the provision in
the bill related to control of stormwater discharges, and replace it
with a revised version which addresses all of the cities' concerns.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would amend the bill to address the
stormwater horror stories which have been raised by the cities and the
other side, and it would continue the expectations of our constituents
that industrial dischargers will continue to do their share.
Stormwater pollution from municipalities and industry has been
identified as a major contributor of water quality violations by the
states. In 1987, Congress enacted a comprehensive mechanism to address
stormwater discharges from municipalities and industries. We approved a
phased approach, allowing for flexibility in the program's
implementation.
The current provision has not been without its difficulties,
particularly for municipalities, and is in need of amendment. But we
should not throw out the current program in its entirety for a new
untested program--a program which will create huge loopholes for
industry, with questionable environmental benefits.
The stormwater program has been criticized for being overly
burdensome. But the question is, do we fix the burdens while
maintaining environmental protection, or do we do away with the
environmental protection?
I have heard my colleagues and the witnesses at our hearings talk
about the need to reduce burdens, but always with the commitment to
continue environmental protection. My amendment does that.
My amendment adopts the provisions of H.R. 961 related to stormwater
discharges from municipalities. There would no longer be permits for
municipal stormwater discharge, just like in the bill.
For nonmunicipal dischargers, my amendment continues the status quo.
No new requirements are added. The amendment continues the exemption
for commercial or other discharges, leaving those discharges to be
regulated by States as they see fit, or to be controlled under the
nonpoint source program.
Finally, like the bill reported by the committee, I would create a
new $100 million program to conduct stormwater research to test
innovative approaches to stormwater control.
Mr Chairman, we have heard a number of objections to the current
stormwater program from the mayors and city councils. We should address
them.
While I am not convinced that the municipal permitting program should
be scrapped, I am willing to try something other than the current
program.
But, we should not throw out the entire program and force the States
to begin anew for industrial discharge. Too much valuable time and too
many resources have been devoted to the effort to date.
If the amendment is adopted in its current form, States will have to
begin the development of entirely new programs for the control of
industrial stormwater discharges. This requirement for completely new
programs will apply even in States which do not currently implement a
stormwater permitting program.
While it may be appropriate to impose this burden upon the States to
provide relief for a few hundred cities, I find no compelling reason to
mandate that States create entirely new programs to address thousands
of industrial discharges when a mechanism currently exists. It appears
that water quality suffers, the States have a new mandate, but
industrial polluters benefit.
Mr. Chairman, one of the recurring arguments in favor of repealing
the stormwater permitting program is that the permitted entities cannot
control what is put into their stormwater. If, for example, a homeowner
decides to put excessive amounts of pesticide on his lawn right before
it rains, that will show up in stormwater pollution. That is very
difficult for a community to control. However, for industry, the
industry can control what pollutants are present at their site, the
industry can control the activities of its employees, and the industry
can control the exposure of pollutants to precipitation.
The arguments which are used to justify relief for municipalities
just do not hold up for industrial stormwater. Let us make the program
work, ease the burdens upon cities, and address our Nation's water
pollution problems in a responsible manner.
Support my amendment to give relief to the cities, but assure that
industry does its share.
{time} 1215
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be soundly defeated, because it
really destroys our effort to reform the stormwater provisions in the
bill.
We have provided for State-developed stormwater management programs.
Under this amendment, private firms would continue to be regulated or
unregulated, depending on the standard industrial classification code
of the industry, not on whether or not it contributed pollution to
stormwater discharges. This is another example of regulatory overkill,
of one-shoe-fits-all.
As a result, if a company falls within a particular industry code,
under this amendment it would have to get a stormwater permit even, and
get this, even if the company happens to be located in an office suite
and has no outside facilities. It makes no sense.
This amendment leaves this broken program in place for over 7 million
commercial and smaller industrial facilities that are covered by the
stormwater permitting program today, merely extending the permit
deadline until the year 2001. This amendment also would fragment the
Stormwater Program into two parts, increasing rather than decreasing
the bureaucracy.
In contrast, our bill provides the needed regulatory relief and will
protect the environment from stormwater discharges. Our bill repeals
section 402(p) and regulates stormwater in a manner similar to other
nonpoint sources and discharges. However, unlike the section 319
nonpoint program, our Stormwater Program will require enforceable
pollution prevention plans. If necessary, the program also provides for
the general and site specific permits.
I would emphasize that we have a letter from the association of State
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators strongly
supporting our provision in the bill and opposing this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote
A recorded vote was ordered.
The votes was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159,
noes 258, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 316]
AYES--159
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
[[Page H4822]] Gilman
Green
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rahall
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Ros-Lehtinen
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--258
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
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
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--17
Baldacci
Bono
Brown (FL)
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Hall (OH)
McNulty
Metcalf
Moakley
Murtha
Peterson (FL)
Rangel
Rogers
Smith (MI)
Torkildsen
Towns
Whitfield
{time} 1243
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bono against.
Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. pallone
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman I offer and amendment, amendment No. 44.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone:
Page 72, strike line 20 and all that follows through line
18 on page 73 and insert the following:
(b) Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and
Health.--
(1) Water quality criteria and standards.--
(A) Issuance of criteria.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C.
1314(a)) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(13) Coastal recreation waters.--(A) The Administrator,
after consultation with appropriate Federal and State
agencies and other interested persons, shall issue within 18
months after the effective date of this paragraph (and review
and revise from time to time thereafter) water quality
criteria for pathogens in coastal recreation waters. Such
criteria shall--
``(i) be based on the best available scientific
information;
``(ii) be sufficient to protect public health and safety in
case of any reasonably anticipated exposure to pollutants as
a result of swimming, bathing, or other body contact
activities; and
``(iii) include specific numeric criteria calculated to
reflect public health risks from short-term increases in
pathogens in coastal recreation waters resulting from
rainfall, malfunctions of wastewater treatment works, and
other causes.
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `coastal
recreation waters' means Great Lakes and marine coastal
waters commonly used by the public for swimming, bathing, or
other similar primary contact purposes.''.
(B) Standards.--
(i) Adoption by states.--A State shall adopt water quality
standards for coastal recreation waters which, at a minimum,
are consistent with the criteria published by the
Administrator under section 304(a)(13) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act not later than 3 years following the
date of such publication. Such water quality standards shall
be developed in accordance with the requirements of section
303(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. A State
shall incorporate such standards into all appropriate
programs into which such State would incorporate water
quality standards adopted under section 303(c) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.
(ii) Failure of states to adopt.--If a State has not
complied with subparagraph (A) by the last day of the 3-year
period beginning on the date of publication of criteria under
section 304(a)(13) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, the Administrator shall promulgate water quality
standards for coastal recreation waters for the State under
applicable provisions of section 303 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. The water quality standards for
coastal recreation waters shall be consistent with the
criteria published by the Administrator under such section
304(a)(13). The State shall use the standards issued by the
Administrator in implementing all programs for which water
quality standards for coastal recreation waters are used.
(2) Coastal beach water quality monitoring.--Title IV (33
U.S.C. 1341-1345) is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
``SEC. 406. COASTAL BEACH WATER QUALITY MONITORING.
``(a) Monitoring.--Not later than 9 months after the date
on which the Administrator publishes revised water quality
criteria for coastal recreation waters under section
304(a)(13), the Administrator shall publish regulations
specifying methods to be used by States to monitor coastal
recreation waters, during periods of use by the public, for
compliance with applicable water quality standards for those
waters and protection of the public safety. Monitoring
requirements established pursuant to this subsection shall,
at a minimum--
``(1) specify the frequency of monitoring based on the
periods of recreational use of such waters;
``(2) specify the frequency of monitoring based on the
extent and degree of use during such periods;
``(3) specify the frequency of monitoring based on the
proximity of coastal recreation waters to pollution sources;
``(4) specify methods for detecting short-term increases in
pathogens in coastal recreation waters;
`'(5) specify the conditions and procedures under which
discrete areas of coastal recreation waters may be exempted
by the Administrator from the monitoring requirements of this
subsection, if the Administrator determines that an exemption
will not impair--
``(A) compliance with the applicable water quality
standards for those waters; and
``(B) protection of the public safety; and
``(6) require, if the State has an approved coastal zone
management program under section 306 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455), that each coastal
zone management agency of the State provide technical
assistance to local governments within the State for ensuring
that coastal recreation waters and beaches are as free as
possible from floatable materials.
[[Page H4823]] ``(b) Notification Requirements.--
Regulations published pursuant to subsection (a) shall
require States to notify local governments and the public of
violations of applicable water quality standards for State
coastal recreation waters. Notification pursuant to this
subsection shall include, at a minimum--
``(1) prompt communication of the occurrence, nature, and
extent of such a violation, to a designated official of a
local government having jurisdiction over land adjoining the
coastal recreation waters for which a violation is
identified; and
``(2) posting of signs, for the period during which the
violation continues, sufficient to give notice to the public
of a violation of an applicable water quality standard for
such waters and the potential risks associated with body
contact recreation in such waters.
``(c) Floatable Materials Monitoring Procedures.--The
Administrator shall--
``(1) issue guidance on uniform assessment and monitoring
procedures for floatable materials in coastal recreation
waters; and
``(2) specify the conditions under which the presence of
floatable material shall constitute a threat to public health
and safety.
``(d) Delegation of Responsibility.--A State may delegate
responsibility for monitoring and posting of coastal
recreation waters pursuant to this section to local
government authorities.
``(e) Review and Revision of Regulations.--The
Administrator shall review and revise regulations published
pursuant to this section periodically.
``(f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
``(1) the term `coastal recreation waters' means Great
Lakes and marine coastal waters commonly used by the public
for swimming, bathing, or other similar body contact
purposes; and
``(2) the term `floatable materials' means any matter that
may float or remain suspended in the water column and
includes plastic, aluminum cans, wood, bottles, and paper
products.''.
(3) Study to identify indicators of human-specific pathoens
in coastal recreation waters.--
(A) Study.--The Administrator, in co-operation with the
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, shall
conduct an ongoing study to provide additional information to
the current base of knowledge for use for developing better
indicators for directly detecting in coastal recreation
waters the presence of bacteria and viruses which are harmful
to human health.
(B) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and periodically thereafter, the
Administrator shall submit to the Congress a report
describing the findings of the study under this paragraph,
including--
(i) recommendations concerning the need for additional
numerical limits or conditions and other actions needed to
improve the quality of coastal recreation waters;
(ii) a description of the amounts and types of floatable
materials in coastal waters and on coastal beaches and of
recent trends in the amounts and types of such floatable
materials; and
(iii) an evaluation of State efforts to implement this
section, including the amendments made by this section.
(4) Grants to states.--
(1) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to States
for use in fulfilling requirements established pursuant to
paragraphs (1) and (2) (including any amendments made by such
paragraphs).
(B) Cost sharing.--The total amount of grants to a State
under this paragraph for a fiscal year shall not exceed 50
percent of the cost to the State of implementing requirements
established pursuant to such paragraphs.
(5) Definitions.--In this subsection--
(A) the term ``coastal recreation waters'' means Great
Lakes and marine coastal waters commonly used by the public
for swimming, bathing, or other similar body contact
purposes; and
(B) the term ``floatable materials'' means any matter that
may float or remain suspended in the water column and
includes plastic, aluminum cans, wood, bottles, and paper
products.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator--
(A) for use in making grants to States under paragraph (4)
not more than $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1996
and 1997; and
(B) for carrying out the other provisions of this
subsection not more than $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1996 and 1997.
Page 204, line 14, strike ``406'' and insert ``407''.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides for a national
uniform beach water quality testing and monitoring program that
provides adequate protection for swimmers and flexibility for the
States. It is basically oriented toward providing, if I could call it,
a right-to-know for bathers and swimmers in the Nation's waters that
they should know when the beach water quality is such that they should
not be bathing in those particular waters or at that particular beach.
{time} 1245
Again, the amendment provides for a nationally uniform beach water
quality testing and monitoring program for bathers and swimmers,
essentially to assure that bathers and swimmers on the Nation's beaches
have a right to know and should know when the beaches are of such
quality that they should not be swimming there.
The reason we need this amendment is because coastal areas are the
most populated areas of the country and also the areas most rapidly
being developed. The growth in population demands on sewer systems are
extreme and have resulted in overflows contaminating coastal waters
with human waste. This human waste is the leading cause of human health
problems in coastal waters.
The coastal economy and the economy of our Nation in general is
inextricably linked to the quality of our coastal waters. Coastal
tourism, recreation, commercial fishing are all mutibillion-dollar
industries and create thousands of jobs. The health and safety of
coastal residents and visitors to coastal waters depend on it.
States have highly inconsistent water quality standards for sewage
contamination, beach water quality testing, and beach closing standards
and criteria. Monitoring in some States is completely absent. Most
States have not even adopted EPA's recommended testing methods.
Essentially, this amendment is based on the Beaches, Environmental
Assessment, Closure and Health Act of 1993, long championed by our
former colleague, Mr. Hughes from New Jersey.
This language which we have in the amendment today enjoyed broad-
based support and passed overwhelmingly, I stress overwhelmingly, in
the House in the 101st and 102d Congresses. The amendment provides for
a national uniform beach quality testing program. It requires the EPA
to issue regulations on procedures to monitor coastal recreational
waters, but it provides the States with flexibility in the way that
they go about the monitoring program. It also establishes minimum
standards to protect the public from pathogen contaminated waters and
requires States to post signs at beaches alerting beachgoers whenever
standards are violated.
It also requires the EPA and NOAA to conduct a study to develop
better indicators for detection pathogenic risk to human health and
guidance of marine debris, the floatables that many of us know occur,
continue to occur, but really were a major cause for our beach closings
in New Jersey back in 1987 and 1988.
Mr. Chairman, the focus of the bill basically is to ensure States
have in place adequate beach testing programs. We provide authorization
of $1 million to the EPA to carry out its responsibility and $3 million
for States to have matching grants so that they can also follow up on
this beach water quality and monitoring program.
Again, I would stress the lack of uniformity around the country with
regard to beach closings is a major problem. In my own State of New
Jersey, we do have a very good program that has moved forward in terms
of monitoring beaches and making sure that they are closed when the
water quality level if unacceptable for swimmers and bathers.
However, this is not the case nationally, and I would urge this
amendment be passed so that, as I said, again, our bathers and swimmers
and tourists that use the coastal waters of this Nation will know when
it is safe to swim.
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment, which is a mandate on States to monitor beaches and
incorporates criteria for pathogens on the State water quality
standards, and this would appear to me to be maybe one of the first
examples we would have of a potentially unfunded mandate.
I wanted to address the author of the amendment with regard to the
funding of this, whether any consideration has been given, or CBO has
been asked to give, any sort of estimate as to what the cost of this
might be applied nationwide.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. I would say, first of all, again, I would point out that
this amendment is exactly the same as legislation that passed in the
last two
[[Page H4824]] Congresses and that there were estimates made. The
funding provided in the bill for the grant programs is basically in
there to provide adequate funding for the States on a matching grant
basis to do this kind of monitoring.
Now, again, I am not saying a lot of States do not already do this.
Some do, some do not. What we are trying to do is provide uniform
criteria and provide the States with some funding so that they can
administer the program.
Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, I understand that while the
amendment did pass in the previous two Congresses, it was given very
minimal debate. We really have had not a full-scale discussion of this
issue.
I would also point out that in the last two Congresses we did not
have on the books, albeit not applicable, we did not have on the books
an unfunded mandates statute.
Mr. PALLONE. I would point out to the gentleman that, you know,
again, from a procedural point of view, that unfunded mandate
legislation, of course, does not go into effect until next year. But I
would maintain there is adequate funding in this bill, at least the
authorization for it, to provide adequate funding to the States to do
this type of monitoring.
Mr. CLINGER. It strikes me there are analogies here to the Great
Lakes initiative where we have had some indication what the cost might
be, but the costs became wildly beyond anybody's wildest dreams what it
might actually involve.
At any rate, Mr. chairman, I must oppose the amendment, as the
gentleman from New Jersey has indicated, that that State, New Jersey,
has adopted pathogen criteria on their water quality standards. That is
certainly something every State can and perhaps should consider, but
what this amendment would do would be to force that, would make other
States do precisely the same thing.
As I say, New Jersey may, and obviously does, consider it useful to
have pathogen criteria, but other States may disagree or may have
different criteria that they would prefer to pursue.
Point sources do not discharge pathogens. It is a very difficult
task, sometimes almost impossible, to determine the source, so it is
really unclear how a State may meet a pathogen standard if forced to
adopt one, which this amendment would ultimately require, a forced
adoption of pathogen standards.
So New Jersey may, indeed, think it is useful to monitor beaches.
Other States may agree, and certainly that would be, in my personal
idea, would be a good idea, but to force them under this, in this
mechanism, I think is wrong.
H.R. 961 does, I would point out, acknowledge the importance, extreme
importance, of monitoring by requiring EPA to develop monitoring
guidance, to give guidance to the States on how to go about monitoring,
but it is not a mandate. It is not something that is going to be
forced, assuming again into Washington total wisdom, total knowledge
how to do this. We have enough mandates already.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, there have been some Government programs we have seen
throughout the years that have worked. We have seen some that have
failed.
But few, from the perspective of my State of New Jersey, have been as
successful as our ocean testing and monitoring program.
Since 1974, the State of New Jersey has developed a program to ensure
to those who visit our beaches, those in our $18 billion tourist
industry, if you swim in the waters off our shore, it is safe, it is
clean, it is a place you would want to take your family. Today, 180
different locations and 143 bays and rivers are monitored continuously
to assure that level of safety, and to anyone who in any summer visits
those ocean locations, there is a perceptible and an overwhelming
difference in the quality of the water and the enjoyment of your
vacation time at a New Jersey resort.
We did it, Mr. Chairman, because we had no choice. There were
allegations of sickness, implications of health, and, indeed, the
economic losses were mounting. Restoring confidence to families and to
business became critical.
In the last Congress, the Members of this institution recognized the
success of this program and overwhelmingly, Democrats and Republicans,
320 strong, voted to have just such a program across the country. They
were right then. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is right
now.
This is a program we should have on a national basis. It makes about
as much sense, Mr. Chairman, for one State to have ocean monitoring and
another not to have it as if the States would have individual air
quality standards. It is only a few miles from the beaches of Coney
Island, NY, to the beaches of Sandy Hook, NJ. If one State will have
high standards and monitor and attempt to assure a quality of water and
another State will not, it is no more than a swift breeze, an ocean
current away from one State violating the standard of another.
Indeed, it goes to the very issue of federalism. These are the kinds
of standards that were contemplated in forming a union to assure
uniformity, safety for all of the States and their interests.
I trust, Mr. Chairman, that in each of our States we recognize the
potential loss economically and in quality of life if people lose
confidence in the basic American right on a weekend or a summer
afternoon to take your child and your family to a beach. That is what
life is all about, and if the Federal Government can mean anything to
our families, for all of the excesses of other things it has done, all
the programs that did not work, all the things we should eliminate, do
we really want to go so far that as a Federal Government we cannot say
to an individual American family, ``We will assure you you will know
when your child walks into an ocean resort, that water will be safe and
it will be to the highest standards, whether it is the Oregon,
California, New York, New Jersey or Florida''? That is what the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] asks, and almost to the person,
Democrats and Republicans, have voted for exactly that in the past.
Today, we ask you to do so again.
I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for
offering this amendment. I am very proud to have joined with him in his
sponsorship, and I am very proud that my State uniquely has taken the
lead in setting these high standards.
Mr. Chairman, the alternative situation is this: Some States will
offer their citizens no assurance at all. Twenty-two other States will
have 11 different standards, conflicting, lower but without any minimum
Federal guarantee. As we offer this for the air we breathe and the
water we drink, the ocean that would receive our families should have
no less.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I will not take the 5 minutes.
I simply rise in strong opposition to this.
New Jersey certainly can impose whatever regulatory requirements they
have, but to mandate what New Jersey says is good for New Jersey on the
other 49 States, I think, is wrong.
We have required EPA to develop monitoring guidance, but not a
mandate. This is just one mandate, and it should be defeated.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.
Water pollution at beaches poses a special health problem because
these are the places where people, including numerous children, come
into direct contact with dirty water. With little protection, and
sometimes without warning, people are exposed to serious water-borne
diseases.
Coastal waters are also particularly susceptible to pollution because
virtually all of the water eventually drains to the sea. As water flows
toward the coast, pollutants are picked up and become increasingly
concentrated. The result is a very serious health problem and a very
serious environmental problem.
This amendment provides very necessary protection to the public who
visits our coastal recreation areas. It would require EPA to issue
water quality criteria for pathogens, and States to establish water
quality standards, in
[[Page H4825]] these areas. It would also require a State program to
monitor beach water quality, and to notify local governments and the
public of violation of applicable water quality standards.
This is the approach that has brought us most of the improvement in
water quality under the Clean Water Act to date. We should expect it to
be equally effective in addressing beach water pollution problems.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Pallone amendment.
{time} 1300
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will
be brief. My only point is essentially I believe that this amendment,
more than anything else, is what I call a right-to-know amendment. In
other words, when people are swimming or bathing, they should know
whether the water quality is clean enough. I do not think it matters
whether you are in New Jersey or any other State. The problem is,
without some sort of national standard and program for testing, with
flexibility for the individual States about how they go about it, there
is no way for a bather or swimmer to know when they are swimming
whether the water quality is adequate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175,
noes 251, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 317]
AYES--175
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mineta
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--251
Abercrombie
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
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
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--8
Bono
Collins (IL)
Laughlin
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Norwood
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
{time} 1320
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bono against.
Mr. BAESLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts and Mrs. KENNELLY changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Are there further amendments
to title III of the bill?
amendment offered by mr. mineta
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 36.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mineta: Page 170, line 19, strike
``issuing''.
Page 170, line 20, before ``any'' insert ``issuing''.
Page 170, line 24, strike ``or''.
Page 171, line 1, before ``any'' insert ``issuing''.
Page 171, line 3 strike the period and insert a semicolon.
Page 171, after line 3, insert the following:
``(3) granting under section 301(g) a modification of the
requirements of section 301(b)(2)(A);
``(4) issuing a permit under section 402 which under
section 301(p)(5) modifies the requirements of section 301,
302, 306, or 307;
``(5) extending under section 301(k) a deadline for a point
source to comply with any limitation under section
301(b)(1)(A), 301(b)(2)(A), or 301(b)(2)(E) or otherwise
modifying under section 301(k) the conditions of a permit
under section 402;
``(6) issuing a permit under section 402 which modifies
under section 301(q) the requirements of section 301(b), 306,
or 307;
``(7) issuing a permit under section 402 which modifies
under section 301(r) the requirements of section 301(b), 306,
or 307;
``(8) renewing, reissuing, or modifying a permit to which
section 401(o)(1) applies if the permittee has received a
permit modification under section 301(q) or 301(r) or the
exception under section 402(o)(2)(F) applies;
``(9) extending under section 307(e) the deadline for
compliance with applicable national categorical pretreatment
standards or otherwise modifying under section 307(e)
pretreatment requirements of section 307(b);
``(10) waiving or modifying under section 307(f)
pretreatment requirements of section 307(b);
``(11) allowing under section 307(g) any person that
introduces silver into a publicly owned treatment works to
comply with a
[[Page H4826]] code of management practices in lieu of
complying with any pretreatment requirement for silver;
``(12) establishing under section 316(b)(3) a standard
other than best technology available for existing point
sources;
``(13) approving a pollutant transfer pilot project under
section 321(g)(1); or
``(14) issuing a permit pursuant to section 402(r)(1) with
a limitation that does not meet applicable water quality
standards.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman for his
diligence in chairing the Committee of the Whole House.
Mr. Chairman, this bill would allow new waivers for as many as 70,000
chemical pollutants, waivers which would allow some to trade air
pollution credits in one area for the right to dump extra pollution
into the river in another area, waivers to industrial polluters
discharging into municipal sewer systems, waivers for innovative
technologies, waivers for mining, pulp and paper, iron and steel, photo
processing, food processing, electric power, cattle, oil and gas, and
waivers from water quality standards if you say you are in a watershed.
And this is not an exhaustive list.
As a result, an enormous number of decisions are going to have to be
made about waivers, and those decisions taken together will have an
enormous effect on the environment and on the costs of compliance. In
fact, taken all together, these decisions on all these waiver requests
will be very important regulatory decisions.
There has been a lot of talk in recent months about cost-benefit
analysis and risk assessment, and how important these tools are when
making regulatory decisions involving tradeoffs between costs and
benefits. Many have defended the new cost-benefit and risk assessment
proposals as better ways to make regulatory decisions, and they have
denied that they were merely trying to hamstring the issuance of new
regulations.
Here's our chance to show what it is that we really mean. The waiver
decisions in H.R. 961 would constitute important regulatory decisions
and they should be subject to an assessment of the risks they pose. My
amendment would apply risk assessment to those aspects of the bill
where it is most desperately needed.
Opponents of this amendment will say that there is no need to apply
the risk assessment provisions to these waivers since the risk
assessment will have been done in establishing the original standard
from which the waiver is granted. But that argument just further
justifies my amendment.
When the basic requirements from which waivers are requested are put
in place, a risk assessment determined that the required measures were
justified by the risks which would be avoided. Now, under the bill,
industry will have the opportunity to do less than the basic standard--
the standard which the risk to be addressed justified. If undertaking
the basic requirement is justified by the reduction of risk, shouldn't
we know what the risks are of doing something less than what has been
determined to be justified? Sound risk assessment demands no less.
My amendment expands the use of risk assessment under the bill. This
amendment would simply say that in making the decision to grant these
waivers, EPA should do the same risk assessment that this bill would
require of many other regulatory decisions. If it's a good way to make
regulatory decisions, then let's use it. We owe it to our constituents
to be able to say that when industry receives a waiver from the basic,
minimum requirements of the Clean Water Act, we required that there be
an assessment of the risks posed by such a waiver.
Support my amendment to achieve consistency in and expand the use of
risk assessment.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman from California and his
leadership on many issues in the transportation and public works arena,
but I rise this afternoon in strong opposition to the amendment he has
proposed.
Let me say first of all that this amendment was very soundly rejected
in the committee by a very large and wide bipartisan majority of 38 to
18. Earlier in the debate, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], referred in his comments on the floor
to the liberals big lie strategy to try and defeat this bill.
This amendment is predicated on one of the small fibs that makes up
the big lie strategy, I am afraid to say.
This amendment is based on the fiction that risk assessments only
apply when standards are being made stronger and do not apply if they
are being made weaker. It masquerades as what is good for the goose is
good for the gander in the form of an amendment.
This is simply not true, and I will demonstrate that fact in just a
minute.
First, let me tell you why the bill distinguishes between generally
applicable regulations and site-specific decisions. The reason for this
distinction is already clear to the sponsor of this amendment.
I might note that the dissenting views in the committee report
support national affluent limitations over site-specific standards
because they allow the regulator to implement the Clean Water Act
without exhausting resources on complex resource-intensive scientific
adjustments, such as those required under many of the waiver provisions
of H.R. 961.
{time} 1330
I agree that the amount of risk assessment analysis necessary to make
up a site-specific permit modification should be left up to the EPA or
the State. Some site-specific modification will undoubtedly be needed,
but others will not. As the report language warns, a mandatory risk
assessment would unnecessarily exhaust precious resources in these
cases. Let me tell the Members why this amendment is based on a fib.
The fact is the bill already allows a what-is-good-for-the-goose-is-
good-for-the-gander philosophy. There are simply two separate flocks of
geese here. The first flock are local site-specific decisions. Site-
specific permit modification, regardless of whether a limitation is
being made more or less stringent, will not automatically trigger a
risk assessment.
For instance, under section 402, EPA can tighten the limitations in a
facilities permit based on new site-specific information showing
greater ecological harm than was previously expected. H.R. 961 does not
require EPA to perform a risk assessment to make the permit more
stringent.
The second flock, using that analogy, are significant regulations,
such as effluent limitation guidelines for a class of industry. They
must be supported by sound risk assessment, regardless of whether they
are raising or lowering regulatory requirements, because they can have
potentially broad and important effects on a large number of people.
For instance, any deregulation that may be necessary to refocus EPA's
priorities will be subject to a risk assessment. What is particularly
ironic about this amendment is that it actually does the opposite of
its stated purpose. Far from treating all requirements equally, the
list of waivers and permit modification it would subject to risk
assessment do not include any modification that would tighten permit
requirements.
The Mineta amendment before us would not apply risk assessment when
EPA wants to tighten requirements for a permittee, but magically, risk
assessment would be necessary before a permittee would be granted any
kind of variance, no matter how minor. This approach is a microcosm of
a well-worn extreme environmentalist strategy: scream long, scream loud
about any alleged advantage so-called polluters are getting, while you
slip in your own fix that gives you the very advantage you were just
condemning.
The American people have really been turned off by this mixture of
arrogance and hypocrisy that has been displayed in the past, and this
is no place for this today. That is why Congress has overwhelmingly
passed risk assessment in every consistent vote before this body by
wider and wider margins. That is why we must defeat this amendment. It
is an ill-conceived amendment. It does just the opposite of what we
need to do.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues
to defeat this amendment, and let us pass a good revision to our clean
water legislation.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
[[Page H4827]] Mr. Chairman, I support this commonsense amendment
offered by the gentleman from California.
If we are serious about apply risk assessment to the Clean Water Act
then we should apply it to proposals to grant waivers of the Clean
Water Act.
What could have more risk associated with it than relaxing pollution
control standards?
These waivers raise the possibility of adding serious and harmful
pollutants into our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams.
If we are going to allow these waivers, we should at least subject
them to the same risk analysis as other parts of the clean water
program.
If these waivers can withstand the scrutiny of risk analysis, then
there is even more reason for granting them.
If they cannot measure up, they should not be allowed.
This bill allows waivers of the Clean Water Act's requirements to
limit discharges into the waters.
I do not believe there is a full understanding of the meaning of
those waivers.
The waiver proposal has not been subjected to any kind of scientific
evaluation.
The Mineta amendment would apply science--good science--and risk
analysis to these waivers.
If we want to limit these waivers to areas where they won't harm the
environment, this is the right amendment.
I urge passage of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore 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 CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152,
noes 271, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 318]
AYES--152
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--271
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
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
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--11
Bono
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Davis
Martinez
Moakley
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
Torres
{time} 1354
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bono against.
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. COSTELLO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I was back in Kentucky on
personal business yesterday attending the funeral of Shirley Rogers,
the late wife of my Kentucky colleague, Hal Rogers. I was not present
for rollcall votes Nos. 311 through 314.
I would like for the Record to show that if I had been present I
would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 311, ``no'' on rollcall
vote No. 312, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 313, and ``no'' on rollcall
vote No. 314.
amendments offered by miss collins of michigan
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of amendments
at the desk, amendments 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. I ask unanimous consent
that they be considered en bloc. It is my understanding that the
majority has no objection to this.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The Clerk will first designate
the amendments.
The text of the amendments is as follows:
Amendments offered by Miss Collins of Michigan:
Page 62, after line 14, insert the following:
(d) Consideration of Consumption Patterns.--Section 304(a)
if further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(13) Consideration of consumption patterns.--In
developing human health and aquatic life criteria under this
subsection, the Administrator shall take into account, where
practicable, the consumption patterns of diverse segments of
the population, including segments at disproportionately high
risk, such as minority populations, children, and women of
child-bearing age.''.
Page 62, line 15, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
[[Page H4828]] Page 63, line 4, strike ``(e)'' and insert
``(f)''.
Page 63, line 24, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
Page 64, line 4, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
Page 73, strike lines 19 through 22 and insert the
following:
(c) Fish Consumption Advisories.--Section 304 (33 U.S.C.
1314) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(o) Fish Consumptions Advisories.--
``(1) Posting.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall propose
and issue regulations establishing minimum, uniform
requirements and procedures requiring States, either directly
or through local authorities, to post signs, at reasonable
and appropriate points of public access, on navigable waters
or portions of navigable waters that significantly violate
applicable water quality standards under this Act or that are
subject to a fishing or shell-fishing ban, advisory, or
consumption restriction (issued by a Federal, State, or local
authority) due to fish or shellfish contamination.
``(2) Signs.--The regulations shall require the signs to be
posted under this subsection--
``(A) to indicate clearly the water quality standard that
is being violated or the nature and extent of the restriction
on fish or shellfish consumption;
``(B) to be in English, and when appropriate, any language
used by a large segment of the population in the immediate
vicinity of the navigable waters;
``(C) to include a clear warning symbol; and
``(D) to be maintained until the body of water is
consistently in compliance with the water quality standard or
until all fish and shellfish consumption restrictions are
terminated for the body of water or portion thereof.''.
Page 73, after line 18, insert the following:
(c) Fish and Shellfish Samplings.--Section 304 (33 U.S.C.
1314) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) Fish and Shellfish Samplings; Monitoring.--Not later
than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Administrator shall propose and issue regulations to
establish uniform and scientifically sound requirements and
procedures for fish and shellfish sampling and analysis and
uniform requirements for monitoring of navigable waters that
do not meet applicable water quality standards under this Act
or that are subject to a fishing or shell-fishing ban,
advisory, or consumption restriction (issued by a Federal,
State, or local authority) due to fish or shellfish
contamination.''
Page 73, line 19, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
Page 203, after line 8, insert the following:
SEC. 410. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE REVIEW.
Section 402 (32 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(u) Environmental Justice Review.--No permit may be
issued under this section unless the Administrator or the
State, as the case may be, first reviews the proposed permit
to identify and reduce disproportionately high and adverse
impacts to the health of, or environmental exposures of,
minority and low-income populations.''.
Redesignate subsequent sections of the bill accordingly.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Page 213, after line 14, insert the following:
SEC. 508. DATA COLLECTION.
Section 516 (33 U.S.C. 1375) is amended by inserting after
subsection (e) the following:
``(f) Data Collection.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall, on an ongoing
basis--
``(A) collect, maintain, and analyze data necessary to
assess and compare the levels and sources of water pollution
to which minority and low-income populations are
disproportionately exposed; and
``(B) for waters receiving discharges in violation of
permits issued under section 402 or waters with levels of
pollutants exceeding applicable water quality standards under
this Act, collect data on the frequency and volume of
discharges of each pollutant for which a violation occurs
into waters adjacent to or used by minority and low-income
communities.
``(2) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish
summaries of the data collected under this section
annually.''.
Redesignate subsequent sections of the bill accordingly.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Page 236, strike lines 13 and 14.
Page 236, line 15, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(j)''.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
(Miss COLLINS of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr Chairman, my amendment in part directs
the Administrator to take into account the differing consumption
patterns of different segments of the population when developing water
quality criteria.
There is compelling evidence to show that different segments of our
population consume greater quantities of fish per capita than do
others. Consequently, if the fish are tainted with toxic compounds,
these segments of the population would be at far greater risk of health
problems than others.
One specific example is in my home State of Michigan. There,
different native American ethnic groups such as the Ottawa and Chippewa
have a long and well-documented fishing culture. Studies have shown
their fish consumption rate to be as high as four times the rate of the
average Michigan resident. These higher consumption rates coincide with
higher average level of PCB's in the blood of these people.
The Michigan native Americans provide only one example of this
problem. So, consequently, I ask that in developing human health and
aquatic life criteria under this subsection, the administrator shall
take into account, where practicable, the consumption patterns of
diverse segments of the population, including segments with
disproportionately high risk such as minority population, children, and
women of child-bearing age.
The next amendment asks that not later than 18 months after the
enactment of this act the Administrator shall propose and issue
regulations to establish uniform and scientifically sound requirements
and procedures for fish and shellfish sampling and uniform requirements
for monitoring of navigable waters that do not meet applicable water
standards under this act or that are subject to a fishing ban,
advisory, or consumption restriction. The amendment asks that the
States have uniform requirements to either directly or through local
authorities post signs at reasonable and appropriate points of public
access.
These amendments are designed for those who rely on lakes and rivers
and other navigable waters as a recreation or sustenance. They work
together, so there I am presenting them together. The problems
addressed by these amendments are quite serious. One-third of the
Nation's shellfish beds are closed or restricted to harvest due to
pollution. In 1992, over 2,600 beaches were closed or placed under
swimming advisories because of dangers to public health. However, there
are no uniform requirements for fish and shellfish bans or advisory and
consumer restrictions.
Moreover, there are no Federal requirements for public notification
when water quality standards are violated. Unfortunately, there is a
great disparity in the manner in which States monitor water safety for
fishing and swimming. There is also much disparity in their means for
notifying the public.
The problems are especially significant for people who depend
on local fishing as a regular food source because they may be
subjected to higher doses of contaminants.
The public has a right to know if their waters are safe for swimming
or fishing, and these amendments will justify that need.
Mr. Chairman, my next amendment seeks to include impact evaluations
on minority and low-income populations in their review of pollution
discharge permit applications.
Studies by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Law
Journal, the University of Michigan, the United Church of Christ, and
the Council on Environmental Quality have demonstrated beyond any
reasonable doubt that minority and low-income neighborhoods are more
likely to be situated near major sources of pollution than other
neighborhoods. Consequently, these neighborhoods suffer greater
exposure to health risk. In fact, the President issued Executive Order
12-898 in February 1994 to address issues related to environmental
justice in minority and low-income populations.
This amendment would ensure that all permit applications under
section 402 of the Clean Water Act be reviewed for their effect on
minority and low-income populations. This amendment sends a message
that minority neighborhoods and water tables will not be dumping
grounds for irresponsible toxic waste dumpers. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment seeks to collect and publish data on water pollution
affecting minority and low-income populations. The need for such a
function is clear. Many different studies have shown a strong
correlation between race and income and exposure to unsafe
environmental factors.
[[Page H4829]] Studies by the EPA, the National Law Journal, the
University of Michigan, the United Church of Christ, and the Council on
Environmental Quality have demonstrated that minority and low-income
neighborhoods are more likely to be situated near major sources of
pollution than are other neighborhoods. For example, three out of the
Nation's five largest waste disposal facilities are located in minority
areas, including Emil, AL, site of the biggest toxic landfill in the
United States. Also, the Nation's biggest concentration of hazardous
waste sites is on Chicago's South Side, where the residents are
predominantly African-American.
A personal example concerns my hometown of Detroit where the
University of Michigan researchers assessed the relative influence of
income and race on the distribution of waste management facilities.
Their study found that minority residents were four times more likely
than white residents to live within a mile of commercial hazardous
waste facility, and that race was a better predicator of proximity to
the site than was income. In the name of equality and decency, I ask
all my colleagues to support this en block amendment.
In the name of equality and decency, I ask all my colleagues to
support this enbloc amendment.
{time} 1400
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
I must reluctantly oppose these amendments from my good friend. These
amendments simply represent the mandating of more regulations so that
specific groups will get special protection.
The goal of all environmental legislation is to protect all people
from unreasonable risks. The EPA already has sufficient authority to
consider the effects on sensitive subject populations in the design of
their standards. EPA already is factoring environmental justice
considerations into all of its programs. And nothing in this
legislation would prohibit those considerations.
We simply believe that we should not be creating new regulations. We
should not be forcing EPA, we should not be micromanaging EPA to do
what they already have the authority to do if they decide it is in the
best interests of the environment in our country.
Further, section 323(b) of our bill requires risk assessment used to
develop water quality criteria to provide a description of the specific
populations subject to the assessment.
So for all of those reasons, while these are very well-intentioned en
bloc amendments, I must urge their defeat.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendment
offered by our fine colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan.
These amendments attempt to provide protection against disease caused
by consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish caught from polluted
waters.
Waterborne diseases are hazardous to your health. We may recall that
more than 100 people died in Milwaukee when they drank contaminated
water. Eating contaminated seafood is no less deadly.
This amendment would require scientifically sound sampling and
monitoring of fish and shellfish, as well as posting of signs on
navigable waters that significantly violate applicable water quality
standards. Doing so will let us know if the catch is safe to eat, and
if it is not, warn people against eating it.
Low-income and minority communities often are exposed to a higher
level of water pollution than society as a whole. To adequately protect
residents of these at-risk communities, we need good information and
special recognition of their disproportionate exposure.
That is what this amendment will do. It would require EPA to take
steps to minimize the health and environmental impacts on poor and
minority populations when issuing discharge permits. It would also
require EPA to take into account consumption patterns of poor and
minority when developing water quality criteria.
These efforts will help address the higher risks facing these
communities. I urge support of the Collins enbloc amendment.
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Collins en bloc
amendments, and I want to tell this group much progress has been made
since the Clean Water Act has been enacted. It is one of our Nation's
success stories, but much still remains to be done. One-third of the
Nation's shellfish beds are still closed or restricted to harvest; one-
half of the Nation's rivers are polluted; and there are still great
disparities as to how States monitor pollution and warn citizens of
polluted waters. Florida was once called the polluted paradise. Many
other States still have that distinction, they still can be called
polluted areas.
This, Mr. Chairman, puts many Americans at risk. Studies show that
many minorities and particularly the poor search for fish and use fish
for subsistence. They live from their daily fishing catch.
The clean water bill before us today is really a misnomer, Mr.
Speaker. It will not provide clean water. It does nothing to address
environmental inequities faced by millions of minority and low-income
Americans. Their communities are exposed to disproportionately high
levels of pollutants that end up in the water supply.
This environmental injustice is real, Mr. Chairman, and it must be
stopped. But the bill before us today is virtually silent on
environmental injustice. It ignores the years of environmental abuse
suffered by minority and low-income communities across this great
country of ours, whether they are farm workers, inner-city teenagers,
native Americans on reservations, or minorities in small towns.
The Collins amendments will begin to bring some justice to those
Americans who face daily environmental threats to their health.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in support of environmental
justice to support the Collins amendments.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support of this en
bloc amendment offered by my esteemed colleague from Michigan. It is
true that at times we try to do our utmost to protect our societies and
our communities from pollution, from hazards, from the environment when
we create those hazards. But oftentimes we do not succeed.
It is unfortunate that current law has not done the job of protecting
certain communities, mostly low-income communities, minority
communities, when it comes to things like environmental hazards. Let me
give some very concrete examples.
I represent a portion of the city of Los Angeles. I happen to
represent, in portions of my district, some of the wealthiest
individuals in Los Angeles, and at the same time in another portion of
my district I represent individuals of very low income.
On one end of my district I have no freeways crossing through the
district. I have no problems with waste dumps. I have no problems with
projects for incineration plants or for pipelines for oil to be passed
through. But on the other side of my district, I do. I have a district
that has within its 5-mile radius around seven prison facilities that
have been housed there over the last 10 years as a result of a supposed
need by the county to have a place to house prisoners. We have a toxic
waste dump that is on the EPA site for cleanup, and it must be taken
care of because it is emitting pollutants and hazardous emissions. I
had, at one point nearby, a proposal to build a toxic waste
incineration plant in the district or close to the district. It has not
gone through, but clearly present law was not enough to protect this.
Current legislation is not enough to protect, and we need the en bloc
amendments by the gentlewoman from Michigan to make sure we do so,
because there is a danger, it is clearly the case, the facts show it,
that disproportionately minority communities, low-income communities
share the exposure, the highest exposure and the burden of that
exposure of those environmental hazards.
[[Page H4830]] We should and we must do what we can to ensure that
there is equal treatment of all communities when it comes to hazardous
wastes to make sure that they are all protected, but oftentimes we do
not go far enough. This gives us an opportunity to ensure that the past
wrongs can be righted and that we will never make those mistakes again,
so that every community, whether they are very empowered, very
enfranchised, or not, have the opportunity to say that they will
benefit from the protections of our environment that we are trying to
do here today.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear that all of us do not represent districts
that are exactly alike. My district is very similar to Congressman
Becerra's. We have right now a Superfund site.
I do not think we can address water in this country without
addressing health status in this country. And unfortunately, this bill
which is before us fails to address this issue from the standpoint of
public health. This poses a very serious problem. In families with
annual incomes at or below poverty, almost 70 percent of black children
suffer from high lead blood levels, while only 36 percent, which is
much too high, of the nonblack children. Blood poisoning is the most
preventable disease that we can address. It is identifiable. We just
need the protections to do it. We know what levels; our scientific
levels and science has taught us that.
What we need now are standards that ensure that all of our citizens
are protected. Women living less than 1 mile from a hazardous waste
site have a 12-percent higher risk of having a child with a birth
defect than other mothers. Three million homes or 74 percent of all
private housing built before 1980 contains some lead paint.
{time} 1415
Minority and low-income people are more likely to live in these older
homes. The lead which they are exposed to is stored in the bone, and
later calcium and lead are released into the bloodstream, placing these
people, particularly women, at risk for continuing lead poisoning many
years later.
We are considering now the costs of health care. We cannot do that in
a vacuum. We must consider all of the things that lead to a large price
tag when we talk about the cost of health care. We cannot afford to
ignore a very preventable illness that is so common among the poor.
We cannot stand here and say that we are upholding our oath without
remembering that we have a large percentage of poor people and poor
children in this country, and they live in the areas that many of us
might not see, but that does not mean they do not exist.
The clean water bill now before us is notably silent about these and
other important issues relating to the health of minorities and low-
income Americans.
These amendments offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from
Michigan [Miss Collins] take an important step toward addressing these
concerns, and I urge this body, I urge my colleagues who might not know
of these kinds of areas, to please give serious consideration in
supporting these amendments.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Collins amendment.
It is time to do right by our Nation's poor and minority communities.
Too often, we throw garbage, place incinerators and dump dirty water in
these communities.
This amendment is an important step in making a bad bill better.
People have a right to know what is in their water, the water they
drink. The poor and minorities have the same right to clean water as
the rest of us.
Mr. Chairman, our right to clean water is threatened.
In 1972, Democrats and Republicans came together to end pollution of
our water. They recognized that no industry, no person--no matter how
rich or how powerful--has the right to poison our streams, our lakes,
or our people.
The Clean Water Act is a proud, bipartisan law that stands up for the
common person. It says ``no'' to those who would poison our
environment. We must not allow it to be weakened.
I plead, with all my colleagues to make this bad bill a little bit
better. Support the Collins en bloc amendment.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Collins
amendments.
Mr. Chairman, although pollution affects all people, no matter where
they live, direct exposure to water pollutants and other environmental
hazards are disproportionately distributed. Data now indicate that low-
income, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in areas
where they face environmental risk.
However, a stronger data base is needed to better understand the
problems, to identify solutions to those problems and evaluate the
efficacy of programs that address the problems. This is why it is
imperative that the Environmental Protection Agency collect and analyze
data on sources of water pollution to which minorities and low-income
populations are disproportionately exposed. For example there are clear
situations where certain populations are exposed to higher levels of
pollutants in waters. Thus it is essential that prior to the granting
of discharge permits, the Environmental Protection Agency review the
permit application and related elements to ensure that minority and
low-income communities will not be adversely impacted.
Recognizing that a number of factors might increase susceptibility to
the effects of water pollutants, the environmental justice amendment
calls for the development of water quality standards that take into
consideration the variations in water usage among diverse segments of
the population, including the high risk individuals such as pregnant
women and children. These individuals may be more or less sensitive
then others to the toxic effects of water pollutants.
Mr. Speaker, these and other provisions of the environmental justice
amendment will help ensure that water improvement approaches are
applied equitably across racial and socioeconomic groups, minority and
low-income communities faced with a higher level of environmental risk.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153,
noes 271, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 319]
AYES--153
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--271
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
[[Page H4831]] Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--10
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Fields (TX)
McDade
Moakley
Oxley
Peterson (FL)
Richardson
Rogers
{time} 1437
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bono against.
Mr. RIGGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. ORTIZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendments were rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. mineta
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Mineta: Page 172, line 14, insert
``similar'' before ``risks''.
Page 172, line 15, before the period insert the following:
``regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency resulting
from comparable activities and exposure pathways''.
Page 172, after line 15, insert the following:
Comparisons under paragraph (7) should consider relevant
distinctions among risks such as the voluntary or involuntary
nature of risks and the preventability and nonpreventability
of risks.
Page 173, line 18, after the period insert closing
quotation marks and a period.
Page 173, strike line 19 and all that follows through page
172, line 17.
Page 176, lines 10 and 11, strike ``the requirement or
guidance maximizes net benefits to society'' and insert ``the
incremental benefits to human health, public welfare, and the
environment of the requirement or guidance will likely
justify, and be reasonably related to, the incremental costs
incurred by State, local, and tribal governments, the Federal
Government, and other public and private entities''.
Page 178, line 14, insert ``and benefits'' after ``costs''.
Page 179, strike line 3, and all that follows through page
180, line 22.
Page 180, line 23, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(f)''.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make this bill's
provisions on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis consistent with
those in H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995
already passed by the House earlier this year.
This bill requires elaborate risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis to be performed before regulations to protect clean water can
be issued.
The argument in favor of these requirements is that the House has
already spoken on the issue of risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis, and we should be consistent with it in the Clean Water Act.
But the provisions in this bill are not consistent with H.R. 1022--
they are more extreme and more onerous in three key respects.
First, regarding comparative risk analysis, H.R. 961 would have EPA
and the Corps of Engineers compare the risks which are the subject of
their rulemaking to not only risks that they know something about, such
as the health effects of toxics in water or flooding due to filling of
wetlands, but also risks about which they know nothing, such as auto
accidents on highways or building collapse due to earthquakes. H.R.
1022 specifically rejected having agencies make risk comparisons
outside their areas of expertise, because of a valid concern that
agencies wouldn't know what they were doing.
Second, this bill contains a look-back provision which would require
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to be applied to existing, as
well as proposed, regulations. This was the Barton amendment to H.R.
1022, but without safeguards to protect the risk assessment process.
This issue was specifically rejected on the House floor during debate
on H.R. 1022. The House rejected Mr. Barton's look-back idea because of
concerns that it would overwhelm not only the regulatory process but
also the risk assessment procedures, and subject them to endless legal
challenges. We should not adopt in this bill what the House has earlier
specifically rejected for the risk assessment bill.
And third, this bill goes well beyond the standard established in
H.R. 1022, that regulatory benefits would likely justify, and be
reasonably related to, costs. Instead, it requires a clean water
regulation to maximize net benefits. H.R. 1022 did not adopt that
standard because our ability to quantify all costs and all benefits is
not that precise. Requiring an agency to select the one regulatory
option with the highest net benefits, out of all possible options,
assumes a level of measurement precision which does not exist in our
agencies, nor can be achieved by cost-benefit analysis. H.R. 1022 did
not adopt this standard for the simple reason that it was bound to
fail.
Many have argued that on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis we
should be consistent with what the House did on H.R. 1022. That is
exactly what my amendment does. I assume this amendment, therefore,
will be noncontroversial, and urge its adoption.
{time} 1445
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, again I rise in opposition to another amendment by the
distinguished gentleman from California which, unfortunately, would
also gut some of the provisions we have worked so hard to establish in
this legislation dealing with risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis.
I would like to also share with my colleagues the fact that this
amendment, just like the other amendment offered, again by the
distinguished gentleman, was soundly rejected by our committee. This
amendment has really a grab bag of provisions in it and changes, some
of which there is good news for and some bad news for. Unfortunately,
most of the news presented in this amendment is bad news.
Let me say, for instance, that the one good thing in this proposed
amendment is that it would clarify that risk comparisons should include
a discussion of differences between the nature of risks being compared.
However, this is already addressed in section 324(b)(2)(C) on page 177,
but it does not
[[Page H4832]] really hurt to misstate as the champion of this
particular amendment has offered.
Now, that is the good news. Now, my colleagues, let us look at the
bad news, and there are a number of areas that fall into that category.
Unfortunately, the majority of the changes proposed in the rest of this
amendment are all undesirable, and I want to highlight a couple of
these.
First, the amendment would change the cost-benefit criterion for
maximizing net benefits to a weaker standard. The benefits must be
``reasonably related to the cost.''
This is a standard that already exists under certain sections of the
Clean Water Act, such as section 302(b)(2)(A), and would be less than
vigorous at weeding out unnecessary and really inept rules.
Further, this standard, since it does not address cost effectiveness,
conflicts with the regulatory review criteria adopted by the House in
H.R. 1022 this year that passed earlier by a wide margin.
Second, the amendment would greatly restrict the risks that EPA could
use for comparison purposes. Under the amendment, EPA could only
compare risks if they have already been regulated by EPA and result
from comparable activities and exposure pathways. This would greatly
diminish the benefit of risk comparisons.
For instance, part of the value of performing these comparisons is to
see whether there may be other unregulated risks that deserve more
immediate attention. This would not be possible under the amendment
proposed by my good colleague.
Finally, and unfortunately, this amendment would wipe out the modest
retroactive provisions of this bill. Let me say, I would like to see
much more retroactive attention to all of these regulatory matters,
even in this legislation.
For instance, the retroactive coverage has been described and
misquoted, and let me give you one example here, by the National
Wildlife Federation, as repealing ``23 years of existing major Clean
Water Act standards by requiring extensive cost-benefit and risk
assessment reviews for all major existing standards within an
impossible deadline of 18 months.''
This is simply untrue and misleading. In fact, H.R. 961, our
legislation, requires EPA to review only those regulatory requirements
and guidelines issued after February 15, 1995, that would result in
costs of $100 million or more per year. Such reviews must be completed
within 18 months of enactment of this section.
Thus far, only one requirement, the Great Lakes Initiative, issued in
March 1995, would need to be reviewed under this subsection. Further,
since rules costing $100 million or more already are required to be
evaluated by EPA and the Office of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866, the committee expects that the retroactive
review required by sections 323 and 324 will place little or no
additional burden on EPA, assuming EPA has complied with the Executive
order.
These are only three of the serious problems with the grab bag of
changes proposed under this amendment, and any one of them is in fact
enough for my colleagues to come forth and vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, on the basis of just these three points, I urge my
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Volkmer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Mica was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, let me say I appreciate the extension of
time, and also the opportunity to talk about risk assessment, because
this is probably the last frontal attack on risk assessment before the
House of Representatives.
As my colleagues know, this issue came before the House in the last
Congress and we were denied an opportunity to bring this forth in the
form of a complete piece of legislation. It was never voted on as far
as affecting all regulatory items before the Congress.
Now we have the first individual bill, a regulatory bill, a
regulatory reform bill, and we have an opportunity to pass good cost-
benefit risk assessment language. This is in fact going to be the last
assault, I believe, on risk assessment.
So many of the colleagues who have come here on many occasions to
vote for risk assessment will have that opportunity today. Many of the
people who have come here and asked for cost-benefit analysis in the
way we pass regulations in this Congress and through the agencies, the
Federal Government, will have an opportunity to vote today. And once
and for all we can bring common sense to a process, a regulatory
process, that has been out of control, out of hand, put people out of
work, out of business, out of jobs.
So I urge my colleagues to come to the floor this afternoon, defeat
this final amendment that proposes a frontal assault on good risk
assessment language and also on cost-benefit language that is so
essential to have in this clean water bill. This is what this is all
about, bringing common sense, bringing some light into an area of
darkness in the regulatory processes of this country.
I thank the gentleman for the additional time.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mineta amendment. I
have to tell the House that the Democratic members of the House
Committee on the Budget were put to a very difficult choice yesterday:
Should we stay across the street in the Cannon Building and fight the
surprise attack disclosed in its details for the first time yesterday
morning of the Republican members of the Committee on the Budget to
wreck havoc with Medicare, to break their promises with reference to
Medicare, and to affect senior citizens across this country by reaching
in their pocket and insisting they come up with more money to fund
their health care, the same group that wants to challenge the middle
class families of this country who want to send a child to college, to
thwart their efforts by adding $5,000 to the cost of a Stafford loan,
do we stay over there and fight that kind of surprise attack concocted
in the shadows of this Capitol by secret Republican task forces, or do
we come across the street and help the gentleman from California here
on the floor of the Congress stave off the polluters who want to wreck
one of the most
effective pieces of environmental protection legislation that this
country has ever known?
Well, it was a tough choice. But staying there from 10 in the morning
until after 1 o'clock this morning did not stop a mean-spirited budget
resolution from passing. But I hope it has helped inform the American
people about what lies ahead, because with Mother's Day coming up, if
there is any American citizen that has not yet bought a present for
Mom, they better send her some money if she is on Social Security,
because these Republicans are coming after Social Security and coming
after Medicare.
Now, what about this issue of water? Not having had a chance to fight
the battle yesterday, I do not quite understand why some of our
Republican colleagues are so insensitive to the idea of clean water.
Maybe it is because they drink Perrier all the time. I do not know what
it is. But for whatever the reason, in my part of the country, Colorado
on the rocks is still not a bad drink. You take Colorado River water
that is pure, and you pour it over some good ice, and on a hot summer
day in Texas it tastes might good. This battle is about protecting
Colorado on the rocks, protecting the drinking water in the Colorado
River, in the critical tributary of that river called Barton Creek,
with a natural spring called Barton Springs, which is a source of
entertainment and, I might say, a little coolness on a hot summer day
in Texas.
Citizens all over central Texas are struggling to protect that
natural resource. They recognize we have something very unique in the
beauty and the quality of the water of the Colorado River and of Barton
Springs, a place to swim, to fish, and, most importantly, a source of
drinking water. And what is occurring today affects Austin, TX, very
much, because we value our water. We have developed a balance between
the necessary part of our economy, the need to expand and
[[Page H4833]] develop and have jobs, and the recognition that does not
have to be in conflict with clean water and the environment. Rather,
the two can interface and work together.
Our children will benefit because we would not let those two very
legitimate concerns get in conflict. What is occurring here today is an
effort to thwart the attempt of the people of central Texas to protect
their water supply.
Mr. Chairman, the bottomline is that this so-called Clean Water Act
is really a dirty water act. And of the many horrible provisions of
this bill, and goodness knows there are a lot of them, the one that the
distinguished gentleman from California is now trying to fix concerning
the standards for risk assessment is one of the worse.
What this measure does is to take an amendment that was rejected by
the House Committee on Science, chaired by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and rejected here on the floor of the House.
Let me tell you, an amendment that is so bad that it gets rejected in
that committee is so bad you cannot scrub it down with a brush,
Members.
Let me assure you that that committee on risk assessment--and let me
remind you how it handled the risk assessment bill. This is a committee
where when you ask the committee counsel about the risk assessment
bill, he cannot give you an answer without turning over his shoulder
and getting the answer from the lobbyists that helped draft the bill.
That risk assessment bill is the one this House passed. It will be in
this piece of legislation even if the amendment of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Mineta] is adopted today. The question is, do we go
even further than that?
Well, the amendment that is already in the bill has received
bipartisan opposition. It was Senator Chafee, the Republican Member of
the Senate, who indicated that this is not about good science, it is
about gumming up the regulatory process or, to use his words, it is a
recipe for gridlock. And that is all that people want who oppose this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Volkmer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, risk assessment is a good concept if, and
only if, risk assessment means good science. If risk assessment is only
good politics, if risk assessment is only gumming up the regulatory
process so that you cannot regulate and assure clean water, then it is
a pretty worthless concept.
{time} 1500
We get a good dose of that in this bill, because it was not 30
minutes ago that the distinguished gentleman from California said,
well, let us have it both ways. If they are going to come along and
weaken the process, if they are going to come along and have waivers so
that polluters can pollute a little here on the side and a little there
and a little here, then let us apply risk assessment to that. Was that
amendment accepted? Absolutely not, because this is a one way street
for polluters.
It is OK to pollute; do not get in the way of anyone trying to
regulate the polluter. But if it is someone who wants to do something
about regulating pollution, then let us erect as many barriers as
possible.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that H.R. 1022 applies to
all regulations that may be forthcoming under this legislation? The old
risk assessment regulatory reform bill that we passed, the House passed
back during the 100 days.
Mr. DOGGETT. It does that. This is a question of whether you go even
further than that bad old amendment that we passed back then.
Mr. VOLKMER. Let us say that that bill goes on and eventually becomes
law and then we have this bill go on with these provisions that the
gentleman from Florida thinks so much about and this House does not
think so much, if you follow the regulatory reform process in the House
when we voted on these things, but, anyway, this passes. Now we have
got two different, EPA, Corps of Engineers for everybody else to
follow; is that correct?
Mr. DOGGETT. That is absolutely right.
Mr. VOLKMER. It is absolutely crazy. I do not generally disagree with
the thrust of much of this legislation. As far as the agriculture
sections of it, I love it. But when it comes to things like this, these
are the kinds of things that make me question whether I want to vote
for this bill.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
With respect to the Mineta amendment, I would argue against this and
in favor of the bill. President Clinton and Mrs. Browner and many in
the press have stated over and over again that big business is
responsible for the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. This
legislation does have the support of over 1,000 industry trade
associations, the NFIB, and the National Farm Bureau, but the truth is
that the risk and cost-benefit agenda is long overdue and represents
principles with broad-ranging support among State and local
governments.
The claim that this is just an agenda of big business is nonsense.
President Clinton and Mrs. Browner and the press know it. The National
Governors Association states:
Environmental requirements should be based upon sound
science and risk-reduction principles, including the
appropriate use of cost-benefit analysis that considers both
quantifiable and qualitative measures. Such analyses will
ensure that funds expended on environmental protection and
conservation address the greatest risks first and provide the
greatest possible return on investment.
The National Association of Counties in hearings before the Committee
on Commerce stated:
Congress should adopt legislation which requires federal
agencies to provide fair, scientifically sound and consistent
assessments of purported health, safety or environmental
risks prior to the imposition of new regulations. It is just
plain wrong to regulate without at least an attempt to make a
scientifically based assessment of the risk that is sought to
be abated, its relationship to other risks, and the costs
involved.
The American public, by a margin of three to one, supports cost-
benefit analysis. This amendment would significantly weaken that. That
is why I would urge Members to vote against this amendment and in
support of the bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GANSKE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a couple of responses
in response to some comments that were made by a previous speaker who
came to the floor and said that he was only given the opportunity to be
at budget hearings or to run to the floor and talk about this clean
water legislation. Indeed, those are some of the choices that we have
to face.
We have to face the fact that literally for the last 40 years that we
have, that this Congress has robbed every cookie jar in the country and
that the cookie jars are all empty and we have busted the budget, and
the country is in serious shape, financial shape, and facing a
disaster. Those are the choices before us.
The choice is not a question of just balancing the budget or going on
in the means that we have done in the past. The choice is that we, in
fact, address these serious financial problems and that the cookie jar
has been raided for the last time, and we have to make those choices.
The choice on the floor today that we run back and forth on relates
to regulation and the regulatory process. We have so overregulated. We
have had the experience of this law on the books and we know what it is
doing. We know how it is driving people out of business, out of jobs,
out of the open world competition market.
We know, in fact, that he talked about bottled water and Perrier.
Well, there are probably no Federal regulations except for possibly
some fancy labeling regulations. That is a situation we find ourselves
in, we are swatting at the flies and missing the elephants. So we have
to make those choices and we have to decide.
We have to bring into the regulatory process cost-benefit analysis
and risk assessment, which is only a commonsense approach. This is not
anything
[[Page H4834]] that is intended to destroy the environment and have a
lesser environment, have less pure water or air. It is to bring some
reasonableness, some common sense to the process.
So whether it is the physical condition of the United States or the
regulatory conditions imposed by this Congress in years and years of
overregulation, those are the questions before us.
Now we have a chance with this amendment to defeat the progress we
want to make in regulatory reform. I urge my colleagues to defeat the
Mineta amendment.
Let us go forward. Let us bring common sense to the process. Let us
make this Congress work for the people and for business and for jobs
and for competition rather than against folks and make some commonsense
improvements in the process.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Mineta].
Very simply, the House spent a week debating the issues of risk
assessment and cost-benefit determinations.
I did not agree with all of the outcomes but the House has made a
determination.
Unfortunately, many of the provisions of this bill go far beyond the
House-passed provisions.
In one case, this bill contains a look back provision that was
specifically rejected on the House floor by a vote of 206 to 220.
The bill also contains language on maximum net benefits that goes
well beyond the cost-benefit language approved by the House by a vote
of 415 to 15.
Mr. Chairman, we should not go beyond what the House has already
done.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I do so because the
gentleman from Florida gave a very compelling speech here. It just did
not happen to be accurate. Because the reason we have the Clean Water
Act, the reason we have the Clean Water Act was not because of 40 years
of overregulation. It was because of 100 years of people abusing the
waterways of this Nation, abusing the airways of this Nation, abusing
the natural resources and lands of this Nation that the taxpayers
unfortunately now have had to come back and clean up much of that mess.
Without the Clean Water Act, without the Clean Air Act, there was no
industry that walked into the Congress and said, I am going to
voluntarily clean up the air in the San Francisco Bay area or in Los
Angeles or in Cincinnati or in Philadelphia. There was no industry that
walked in here and said, I will voluntarily take our sewage, our toxic
materials from the steel mills, from the chemical mills, from the
refineries out of the bays, out of the rivers, nobody did that. They
fought this measure tooth and nail. They have been fighting it for 30
years.
But what has been the net result? The net result is we have the
cleanest industry and the most efficient industries in almost every
segment of manufacturing, of doing business in the entire world.
The auto industry is now more efficient and it is cleaner. And when
you read the business journals, you will understand that much of that
innovation, much of that technology, much of that efficiency came about
as a result of having to comply with RCRA, with clean air, with clean
water.
Why does Dow Chemical now recycle what used to be toxics that were
taken off their site, or duPont? Because of the efficiencies that were
built in and the cost that was built in when they could no longer dump
it in the river, when they could no longer dump it in the land, when
they could no longer dump it in people's backyards, when they had to
think about how to do it.
What happens now? We refine more oil out of every barrel. We refine
more materials and refine more products that are used in exports, that
are used in products in this country than ever before. Why? Because it
was subsidized before. It was subsidized by throwing it into the river,
by sending it up a smokestack and not caring what happened.
If Members want to see what happens to those nations that chose
another route, that chose not to have clean water in the 1960's and
1970's, 1980's and 1990's, go to Eastern Europe, go to Asia. You cannot
breathe. You cannot go outside of your hotel. Citizens cannot live.
They cannot grow vegetables. Lands are taken out of circulation.
No, this is a monument to success.
Wonderful speech by the gentleman from Florida. It simply was not
accurate. It simply was not accurate. It was a bunch of anecdotal crap
that cannot be supported on the record.
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. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157,
noes 262, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 320]
AYES--157
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
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)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--262
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
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
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
[[Page H4835]] McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Barton
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Lazio
Linder
Moakley
Parker
Peterson (FL)
Richardson
Rogers
Walsh
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1530
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Barton against.
amendment offered by mr. defazio
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: Page 92, line 2, strike
``or other facility'', as inserted on page 14 of the
committee amendment offered by Mr. Shuster.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the committee would
restore three words that were in the act as it passed out of committee.
Those three simple words, which were struck yesterday by the so-called
technical amendments and an unamendable amendment at the beginning of
consideration, are very important because they would subject the
Federal Government of the United States and Federal facilities to the
same laws that apply to every State, to every private entity in America
and every municipal entity in America.
Should we grant a broad exemption to Federal facilities in this bill
from the Clean Water Act when private contractors, industry, municipal
governments, county governments, sewer districts and others cannot get
such broad exemptions? I think that for the sake of consistency, most
Members of the House would argue no.
We are going to hear further that this exemption is warranted for
national security purposes, because most of these facilities, these are
nuclear Navy facilities, are essential to the defense of the United
States. There is another section in the bill, and that section allows
the President of the United States, by simple Executive order, to
exempt any Federal facility or operation from all the requirements of
this bill, but that would require a separate action.
I would argue that that would be the more consistent way to deal with
these facilities. If some of them truly need an exemption from the
Clean Water Act, I do not know what they are doing or what they are
putting in the water that they need exemptions. But if they need
exemptions so that they can put things in the water that industries and
local governments are not allowed to put in the water, then they should
ask the Commander in Chief for individual exemptions so there is at
least some level of accountability and scrutiny applied.
There are 10 States directly affected by this amendment, and a total
of 12 States when you consider downstream entities. Again, the question
is what is it that is objected to by the Federal Government? What can
the Federal Government not do? What are they putting in the water?
I think the people who live in or represent those 12 States should
ask that question. I think their constituents are going to ask them
that question in the future. What are they putting in the water that we
will not allow industry to put in the water, that we will not allow
local governments to put in the water? What is the Federal Government
putting in my water it needs a blanket exemption under the act?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, am I hearing what the gentleman said
correctly, that all of the Navy nuclear facilities have been taken out
and you did not know about this? Did I hear what he said?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The committee saw fit to
include them under the bill and then the technical amendments removed
them from the jurisdiction of this bill.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman would yield again, I have always
really respected him. He is one of the few who really reads the bill. I
assume he did not get any notice, he just found this out?
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that neither the staff nor I
caught this before the technical amendments had gone through the
Committee on Rules.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, how many
facilities are there like this? I really find it amazing that the
Federal Government does not want to be under the same law as everyone
else is.
Mr. DeFAZIO. This would exempt 12 Federal facilities, Mr. Chairman,
from the laws that every other local government, State government and
industry would be subjected to. Furthermore, we will hear, I am
certain, and the gentlewoman is familiar with this from her work on the
committee, the claim that they need an exemption for national security
purposes.
The bill allows the President with the stroke of a pen to exempt
anything, any Federal facility, if that is necessary. Beyond that, two
are closed and one is being decommissioned. Why would we remove a
closed or a decommissioned facility from jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act for national security purposes?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard what he said and I
appreciate very much the gentleman clarifying that. That is really
shocking. I hope people support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman.
Again, just back to the basic point here. If indeed there is a threat
to national security, particularly at those closed bases or the base
that is being decommissioned----
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has
expired.
(On request of Mrs. Schroeder, and by unanimous consent, Mr. DeFazio
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, again the question is, Why should we grant
a blanket exemption under this bill when the President has the
authority as Commander in Chief to exempt any individual military
facility? In particular, why is it in the States of California, Idaho,
and South Carolina that we would exempt facilities that are closed or
being decommissioned? It is particularly puzzling.
Even beyond that, I think the residents of the other States, and the
list is long, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Idaho,
Washington, Hawaii, Connecticut, I think the residents of those States
should ask, what is it that the Federal Government is putting into the
water that no industry in America is allowed to put into the water,
that no local government in America is allowed to put into their water,
whether it is recreational water or drinking water or just something
that happens to flow through their community; what is it that the Feds
are putting in that they need this blanket exemption? I think that is a
question that should be answered.
All I am saying is put back in the words, subject the Federal
Government to the same requirements as everyone else in this country,
the same way we subjected the Congress of the United
[[Page H4836]] States to the same laws as everyone else in this
country, for the sake of consistency make the Federal Government follow
its own laws, and if it needs an exemption for national security
purposes, the bill allows it with a simple signature by the President
of the United States.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment creates a new and duplicative regulatory
authority for the EPA.
The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program currently exercises regulatory
authority over the activities affected by this amendment. This is a
system that has worked well and has been found by the GAO to contain
``no significant deficiencies.'' The system is already regulated and
has no need for additional or duplicative regulations by the EPA.
Contrary to our efforts to reinvent government, do more with less,
and reduce unnecessary regulation, the gentleman's amendment would do
just the opposite.
I am particularly concerned with the costs this would impose on the
Navy. As with most other branches of the Government, the Navy is facing
significant budget cuts. Adding another layer of unnecessary regulation
will have the effect of imposing additional tax on the Navy and require
the Navy to devote scarce resources from defense programs and missions
and instead use them for yet another layer of unnecessary and
duplicative regulations.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and protect
scarce naval resources.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I would make the point that this simply returns us to current law. In
fact, in the Mineta clean water bill of last year, this provision was
included. We are simply doing what was in last year's clean water bill.
Perhaps most importantly, I was the author of the provision to change
it, and I was wrong. After I studied the issue, I came to the
conclusion that the points that the gentlewoman makes are very valid
points. We do not need a duplicative process. This is already regulated
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It works. ``If it ain't broke,
don't fix it.''
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased that my colleague, the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], has brought this to my attention because I
am just shocked that my constituents are not going to be told that
there are nuclear materials being put into the rivers, into the waters,
if that polluter is a Federal facility.
We do not allow anyone else in this country to self-regulate. It does
not seem fair that private businesses are held to stricter rules, to
stricter costs, much greater costs than government facilities. If
private businesses are not allowed to self-regulate, why should the
Federal Government be?
I represent the First Congressional District of Oregon. That is on
the Columbia River. The Idaho National Engineering Lab is upstream from
me. That means that my constituents of the First Congressional District
of Oregon may be having nuclear materials put into the river and they
are not going to be told about it. I just think that is plain wrong.
Mr. Chairman, we are sent here to speak for our constituents, to
defend their health. I would like to urge my colleagues who represent
districts that are downstream from these Federal facilities to make
sure that we do not allow our constituents' health to be damaged.
I am going to vote yes to protect the health of my citizens on the
DeFazio amendment, and I would like to urge every other Member who
represents someone who is maybe downstream from a Federal facility to
do the same.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the previous speech, I
was a bit puzzled to hear that the nuclear Navy is subject to the EPA
and NRC. If that were true, then there would be and there would never
have been any need to include them in this bill.
They are exempt from the Clean Water Act, they are exempt from the
authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, and they self-
regulate. Unlike any other polluter in America, the nuclear Navy tells
us they have adopted standards, they are meeting their standards and we
should not worry about it.
Well, if that is good enough for the nuclear Navy, perhaps we should
look at that approach for private interests or municipal interests. I
resent the fact that my municipal government has to be monitored by the
EPA for its sewer system. It costs money.
But at some point we do not allow self-regulation. I realize that of
course the Navy is certainly holding itself to higher standards and
certainly meeting its own conditions, and if that is true, then it will
cost them nothing to comply.
Ms. FURSE. I say to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], the
point you make I think is really important. The city of Portland has
invested $750 million in cleaning up any pollution site and they are
happy to live by the rules of the EPA.
I am just shocked to find the nuclear Navy, this Federal facility, is
not held to the same standards. I think it is really great that the
gentleman brought it to our attention. I certainly support the
amendment and hope my colleagues will do so, too.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have much more than 5 minutes because we have
to get a budget resolution out here on the floor for next week.
Somebody posed a question a few minutes ago, what is the nuclear Navy
putting in the waters that others don't? Well, they put in nuclear
submarines, for one thing, torpedoes. They even put this marine in the
water once.
This amendment would strike much of what was accomplished yesterday
in the chairman's en bloc amendment. Let me emphasize, Mr. Chairman,
and I think members ought to listen to this on both sides of the aisle.
The Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, and the Joint
Chiefs under President Clinton all strongly oppose this DeFazio
amendment. Keep that in mind.
{time} 1545
You know only a few years ago there was a Congressman here by the
name of Synar who, like Congressman DeFazio, is a remnant of the
nuclear freeze movement. You know they led all of that fight a few
years ago.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal privilege.
Mr. SOLOMON. Can I yield to my good friend, because the gentleman was
part of the movement on this floor. You and I have debated it many
times.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I said that with all due respect, as you know.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman perhaps is
overreaching with his rhetoric. I am not aware of a movement which
people signed up for. We certainly differ over the need for additional
nuclear capability when we have 12,000 hydrogen bombs, that is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. That is exactly what I was referring to, and I thank the
gentleman for repeating what I just said.
But let me just say Mr. Synar and I think Mr. DeFazio probably, I do
not know, requested that the General Accounting Office determine if
there was a safety or a health or an environmental problem with the
nuclear Navy. And you know what the GAO report came back with? They
found no deficiencies in the area of the environmental protection, they
found no deficiencies in nuclear safety, and they even found no
deficiencies in occupational safety and health.
Just last month, and I think the minority side of the aisle ought to
listen to this too, our President, President Clinton, praised the
nuclear Navy. I would like to quote him. He said, ``Our Navy has
steamed over 100 million miles on nuclear power * * * in a way that has
protected the public and the environment, both here and abroad.'' And
that, ladies and gentlemen, that is a fact, 100 million miles.
[[Page H4837]] We all know my colleague and friend from Oregon
opposes all things nuclear, but this amendment does not make sense. It
is an attempt to fix something that is not only not broken, but is
actually working very, very well.
In fact, I would again quote President Clinton, who just recently
described the nuclear propulsion program as ``exemplifying the level of
excellence we are working toward throughout our government.''
Mr. Chairman, no environmental problem exists with this program. I
think we can safely assume this amendment is little more than a
backdoor attempt to once again undermine an essential national security
program in this country. And again I would request that Members support
the position taken by the Navy and our Joint Chiefs of Staff and
President Clinton and myself and vote ``no'' on this DeFazio amendment.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, one of the most
distinguished members of the National Security Committee.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want
to join in the comments just made by my colleague from New York, the
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. I would only offer in
addition to that if you take the record of the Navy's nuclear
propulsion system, the standards of safety and their performance, the
military discipline and integrity that has underlain their program for
all of these years, and you wanted to make an amendment to make EPA and
others subject to them and give them the money to discharge it, it
might make sense, but which certainly do not add any additional cost to
the taxpayers for duplicating, replicating that which is already being
done in a very distinguished way.
The idea that people are putting things in your water and you do not
know about it I think is basically pretty darn frivolous.
Mr. SOLOMON. Let me thank the gentleman for his comments.
Let me remind my colleagues of what is going to happen here next
week. There is going to be on this floor a budget resolution which is
going to lead to a balanced budget sometime at least by the year 2002.
There are going to be drastic cuts in the programs in the Environmental
Protection Agency, in all of these programs, and to pile yet another
obligation on our Navy which is already so under-funded today is just
outrageous. This amendment had better be defeated for the good of
America.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words and I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
I must admit I was very, very surprised, Mr. Chairman, when I came on
the floor and heard what the gentleman was saying, because I know those
of us in the Colorado delegation have insisted that Federal
installations be under the same laws that the private sector is. I
think that has been very important and we have wanted that in our own
State, and I was really shocked to find out that even though we are
lessening some of these standards, we still do want these installations
to be at the same standard that the private sector is. And even when if
the President thought there was some reason, he could with the stroke
of a pen pull them out.
So I think the gentleman's amendment is the right way to go and that
is the way the bill was originally, if I remember.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Yes,
the bill as passed out of committee by a large margin included these
Federal facilities. They would have been subjected to the same laws as
all other businesses or Federal facilities in America.
The situation that would be created here, first off, vessels were
never a consideration, vessels were not part of this bill. So to bring
out the red herring of the nuclear submarines or nuclear-powered
carriers is a red herring. They were never included.
This is shore-based fixed facilities in the United States of America
which have the potential to harm American citizens. That is what we are
trying to regulate here, and in fact the situation would be created if
this amendment is not adopted, in Idaho we would have two different
Federal agencies regulating two different standards at Idaho nuclear
propulsion laboratories, because part of the property is nuclear Navy,
which will be exempt from all Federal laws, and part of the property is
DOE and will be subject to Federal laws. So the situation we are going
to create is bizarre, and to say it is a burden or it is going to
create a national security risk when we are dealing with two bases that
have already been closed, two that are closed and one that is being
decommissioned, that is an absurdity to say somehow by subjecting two
closed bases, which perhaps, you know, pose a daily threat to nearby
citizens from the Clean Water Act is a threat to our national security.
The gentlewoman is on the committee of jurisdiction.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I do not really understand it, because one of the
things I found when we were going through this base-closure process was
many of the citizens are very upset. They are so afraid we are going to
declare these areas sacrifice zones and not clean them up, and I
certainly hope that is not what we are doing in this bill, because if
you are saying closed bases do not have to comply, and we are doing it
to save money, well, if people who happen to live around it want it to
be cleaned up, I guess what we are saying is they have to do it with
their own money at the local level and the Federal Government is not
going to help. I really think this is surprising, and I am particularly
startled that the gentleman was not notified then that the bill was
changed before it came to the House floor.
I think the gentleman's point too that he is
making is he is talking about the shore installations. He is not
talking about tracking ships and doing all of that, you are talking
about the shore installations that should be good neighbors, and if
there is some reason that cannot be that is highly classified, the
gentleman is assuring me there is something in the bill that would
allow the President to deal with that, am I correct?
Mr. DeFAZIO. That is correct. On page 86 beginning with line 17,
``The President may exempt any effluent source of any department,
agency or instrumentality,'' et cetera, and goes on to explain there is
no limitation on that authority.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. I really thank the gentleman from Oregon again for
his vigilance.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am shocked, I am absolutely penetratively shocked. I
do not think the gentlewoman from Colorado has even been shocked about
anything in her life, especially this.
Second, I look at the individuals that are offering this. Is there
any shocking doubt, the same people that would vote to cut defense $177
billion, the same ones that would put homos in the military, the same
ones that would not fund BRAC, the same ones that would not clean up.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman----
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, I will not. Sit down, you socialist.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The ludicrousness of this, even to appeal this. It is
the lunacy of this, the EPA and other organizations have continually
stated you take the shore-based and the surface-based, have less
problems than any of your public bases, less than all of them put
together.
I have operated off these carriers. I have operated out of these. You
want to take a Geiger counter, go ahead. I have scuba dived underneath
the docks. I am not going to do that if it is polluting. And the same
people that would control with big Government the rules and the
regulations and try and diminish national security, look at them, just
look at them right here. And the same people. The team never changes,
and you want to put these burdens, and the problems is that you fail to
see the solutions to very simple problems. You state your own opinion
as fact when it is not.
[[Page H4838]] There are studies and studies and studies that show
that there is no discharge, that it is not regulated, but yet you would
cost the American taxpayers and lay on rules and regulations and have
bigger Government, more facilities, more control over the regulatory
factors, and that is wrong.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, do we have to call the gentleman ``the
gentleman'' if he is not one?
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. I thank
the chairman very much and would like the opportunity, if the gentleman
from California would respond, just to ask him a brief question, if I
might.
My ears may have been playing a trick on me, but I thought I heard
the gentleman a moment ago say something quote unquote about homos in
the military. Was I right in hearing that expression?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Absolutely, putting homosexuals in the military.
Mr. SANDERS. You said something about homos in the military. Was the
gentleman referring to the thousands and thousands of gay people who
have put their lives on the line in countless wars defending this
country? Was that the groups of people that the gentleman was referring
to?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am talking about the military. People in the
military do not support this.
Mr. SANDERS. That is not what we were talking about. You used the
word homos in the military. You have insulted thousands of men and
women who have put their lives on the line. I think they are owed----
Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would also say that if my friend
in support of this amendment, if my friend from Oregon was involved in
the nuclear freeze movement, I want to congratulate him. There are
millions of Americans who wonder about the wisdom of spending millions
and millions more dollars building more and more nuclear weapons at the
same time as the Republicans are cutting back on Medicare, Medicaid,
and student loans.
Furthermore, I find it incomprehensible that at a time when the vast
majority of the people in this country are terribly concerned about
what is going on in the environment, terribly concerned about the
environmental implications of nuclear energy, that the American people
do not know what is in their waterways, and that various military
installations might be exempted from Federal regulatory practices.
So I very much applaud this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126,
noes 294, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No 321]
AYES--126
Abercrombie
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clyburn
Coleman
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Kleczka
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--294
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--14
Barton
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Dunn
Frisa
Hancock
Martinez
Moakley
Peterson (FL)
Richardson
Rogers
Schumer
{time} 1619
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On the vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for with Mr. Bono against.
Mr. Moakley for, with Ms. Dunn against.
Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Frisa against.
Messrs. BERMAN, MORAN, and JEFFERSON, and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. LINCOLN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I was not on the floor during the last debate, but I
was informed of some of the remarks that I want to address. I am here,
Mr. Chairman, referring to the comment of the
[[Page H4839]] Member from California in opposition to the last
amendment in which he said that this was to be expected from those who
supported homos in the military.
Mr. Chairman, I very much regret taking the time away from Members on
this serious subject, but the time is over when I will let that kind of
gratuitous bigotry go unchallenged, and I take the floor simply to
express my contempt for the effort to introduce such unwarranted and
gratuitous slurs on decent human beings on the floor of this House.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the distinguished
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] in expressing my shock,
outrage, and contempt for what was said on the floor of this House a
little while ago. To express gratuitous bigotry when the subject of
gays and lesbians in the military was not on the agenda--we are
debating an environmental bill--for someone to get up and make an ad
hominem attack on an environmental bill by saying, ``What do you expect
from someone who would support homos in the military,'' is beneath the
dignity of what should be uttered on the floor of this House and
deserves condemnation by every decent individual in this House.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all it was not the only item
mentioned. It is a series of things in which the liberals in this House
have supported their social agenda.
Second, do I support homosexuals in the military? The answer is no. I
personally believe that it affects readiness; yes, I do.
Does the majority of the military, men and women in the military,
want homosexuals in the military? The answer is no, and, as long as the
military leaders and those people feel that way, and if the gentleman
could ever prove to me that that does not have an effect, then I will
change that position, but that is the position currently, that it
affects the national security and readiness of this country, and that
is what I support.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I come to Congress prepared
to do a number of things that are difficult. I like the job, and I will
undertake them, but trying to prove anything to the gentleman from
California goes beyond the pale of my oath, and I will not try.
I will say again that we are not here talking about the merits of
that issue. We are talking about the gratuitously bigoted formulation
of it by which it was injected into this debate, and I find that to be
beneath the dignity of the House.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as I understood the statement which was
directed at me, it was not to say that I wanted to put them in the
military. Well, I have news for the gentleman from California. There
are quite a number of gays and lesbians serving proudly in the U.S.
military, unfortunately not serving proudly and openly because of the
fact that people like him exist and have pressured, as my colleagues
know, the President and others to deny that opportunity to those
people.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say to the gentleman I do not want
to get diverted. I am not here debating the substance of the policy; we
have done that, and we will do it again. I am particularly calling
attention to the formulation, the gratuitously, I believe, bigoted and
insulating formulation, and I am very disappointed to see that language
on the floor of the House.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think the gentleman would be correct if that is the
only issue. I meant it. I said it as a policy of the people in general
that support the issues that degrade national security of this country,
and that is one of those many issues which the gentleman supports, and
in a case of amendment that is absolutely ridiculous, it was meant to
formulate those same people that do not support defense are trying to
tie the hands of defense even in the future.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The defense of a bigoted remark, and it
was one of several remarks, makes even less sense than I had expected.
I am talking about the formulation. It was bigoted, and I would hope it
would not be repeated.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
First of all, it is not a bigoted statement. Many times the gentleman
from California [Mr. Dellums] has told me that people have differences
of opinion. It is this Member's opinion that homosexuals in the
military do not do service to the national security of this country,
and in that vein making a statement that those that support that are
supporting the nonreadiness of defense is--and I will be happy to yield
in just a second.
The second thing is that there is a tendency by the Members that
support that kind of activity, support all the rest of it, and it is
meant that we need to support national security in this country.
I say to my colleagues, ``A bigoted statement, if I was directing it
to you or anybody else in this thing, in other contexts, yes, would be
bigoted, but a personal opinion, that it degrades the national
readiness of this country, is not a bigoted statement.''
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I was referring in part to the
formulation of homos in the military. The gentleman has been very
careful since that time to say homosexuals, but he was not very careful
when he got up on the floor, and I took specific offense to the
deliberately bigoted and belittling form of words that he chose to use.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I
used the shorthand term, and it should have been homosexuals instead of
homos. We do misspeak sometimes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the gentleman from California,
attempted to make a correction in the utilization of the word homo or
homosexuals. I just want to reemphasize the point that I think my
colleagues are making on this side of the aisle. It is the point that
we were discussing an environmental issue, and it is the point that for
some reason it was thought appropriate to intrude a discussion on
another nonmeritorious issue that gave some suggestion that the
gentleman was throwing stones, if my colleagues will, at a person for
having supported a group of people on another issue on another point.
That to me seems to suggest bigotry, and maybe the gentleman did not
mean that, and we would accept, certainly, his clarification and even
an apology, but it is certainly my understanding that, if my colleagues
were discussing one issue, and someone throws another issue in and
castigates a group of people, then he has clearly made it an issue of
discrimination and bigotry. Inappropriate behavior and words, and this
certainly calls for an apology to both the colleague that was speaking
and, as well, the whole group that he has maligned.
amendment offered by mr. nadler
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: Page 50, strike line 19
and all that follows through line 10 on page 52.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today so that we will not have to
see signs like the one to my left in the future. It is the right of
citizens of this country to have clean water. If this bill is passed in
its current form, the signs will never come down.
During the committee markup of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I
introduced an amendment that would have deleted a section of the bill
that allowed pollution controls to be lowered or eliminated for
waterways that had already
[[Page H4840]] been cleaned up if the cost of maintaining those
controls outweighed the benefit of maintaining the level of water
quality in the opinion of the State. I would like to commend the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for taking this section of
the bill out of the bill in his en bloc amendments we adopted
yesterday. While I am pleased this was done, I believe we must go
further.
The bill still permits States to abandon all efforts to attain the
previously set water quality goals, or even any water quality goals at
all, if the State determines that in its opinion the cost of reaching
the designated water quality standard outweighs the benefit.
{time} 1630
My amendment would delete this section of the bill and maintain the
current process in which the designated use, the designated quality,
fishable, swimmable, navigable, can be reviewed by the State every 3
years.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment for the following
reasons: First, this bill waives Clean Water Act quality standards if
the cost outweighs the benefit of keeping the water clean.
I ask, how do you measure the benefit of parents being able to take
their children fishing, or of children using their favorite watering
hole, or a fisherman making their livelihoods, and how do you determine
whether that outweighs the cost of attaining that level of water
quality?
The bill does not define what constitutes a benefit that would
outweigh the cost, and vice versa. The bill does not define how to
measure the cost versus the benefit and what standards to apply to
measure which exceeds the other.
Second, proponents of this bill never referred to any problems with
the current guidelines for determining how clean the waterway must be,
what standards must be attained, nor does this bill try to modify
existing guidelines. They do not identify why we should change it.
Instead, the bill reflects the notion that if a State believes it is
too expensive to reach the water quality levels set pursuant to the
standards that it already determined, and that it can change every 3
years, then you can just stop, or not try quite as hard to clean up the
water.
The bill essentially says in this section that we do not really care
about the health and well-being of the people using this water. If it
is expensive for a polluter to clean up the water, do not bother. In
other words, the cost to the polluter is more important than the health
of our children under this text.
Third, the current law gives the States ample flexibility to adjust
the designated uses of a waterway and the level of water quality they
must attain. Current law reflects that every 3 years this must be
reviewed in the practicality of keeping the designation of each
waterway, whether it be fishable, swimmable, navigable, must be
reviewed every 3 years. They must take into account health, safety,
agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses of the waterway. The
States can then, after EPA approval, increase the amount of pollution
that is allowed into those waters.
Some of my colleagues argue we should trust the States to make these
determinations without EPA approval and allow them greater flexibility.
But this is not just a matter of trusting the States. It has to do with
preventing polluters, big businesses, from in essence blackmailing the
States by saying to a State if you do not lower the water quality
standards, we will move to the other States and we will take our taxes
and our jobs with us.
The only way to protect the States against this form of blackmail by
big polluters is to have the EPA still have a role to set minimal
standards, so that the State can say well, while you may be able to
move because you do not want to attain the quality standards here, but
you will not be able to do the same kind of pollution in the next State
either.
It also has to do with preventing interstate pollution. If one State
lowers its water quality standards in their section of a river, that
pollution then flows down the river to other States that need the same
water for fishing or recreational, agricultural, fishing or drinking
purposes. As I mentioned earlier, the States already have the ability
to lower water quality standards if they need to do so. But by
including this cost-benefit analysis without any guidelines, it gives
too much leverage to large polluters.
Finally it says that the State may eliminate the water quality
standard if the State determines that the costs of achieving the
designated use are not justified by the benefits. It can go to no
standard at all.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we must adopt this amendment and get rid
of this language if we are going to attain a safe and healthy
environment for people to fish, swim, and drink the water.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the gentleman from New York has
presented an amendment in search of a problem. States actually have
asked for this flexibility, and States currently set these standards
now. What we are looking at proposing in our legislation is to allow a
reasonable change and a reasonable opportunity to make changes under
reasonable circumstances.
The amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] strikes the
provisions of H.R. 961 that allow States to take costs and benefits
into account in revising designated uses of water bodies.
Let me point out that in 1975, the administrator required States to
designate all navigable waters for which a use had not been designated
as follows: They are either fishable, swimmable, and that is to use the
quote, the designation by the administrator. They are designated as
fishable-swimmable.
As a result, many of the waters have received a designated fishable-
swimmable category and an unrealistic designated use. For example,
streams in the arid West that are dry most of the year have been
designated as fishable and swimmable.
The bill that we have proposed changes current regulations, the
revision of designated uses, in two ways. Let me explain those two
ways. First, current regulations allow a State to revise designated
uses if it demonstrates to EPA that achieving the designated use is
infeasible. The bill allows the State to make the determination of
feasibility, but feasibility is still defined by EPA.
Second, and let us look at the second point, under current law
designated uses may be revised only if attaining the use will result in
substantial economic dislocations.
Certainly the author of this amendment is very familiar with economic
dislocations. I had the opportunity to visit his district some time
ago, and I saw the skyline of his district and the vacated factories,
and I think he told how many hundreds of thousands of manufacturing
jobs have been gone, how the piers are abandoned and how the housing
tenements are abandoned. So we know about this question of substantial
economic dislocation. I am sure the gentleman is familiar with that.
Let me say that H.R. 961 allows States to revise a designated use
that is not being attained if the cost of attainment is outweighed by
the benefits. So what we are trying to do is something reasonable. This
is a reasonable approach, and this is an approach that we think makes a
lot of sense. So we are using costs and benefits here in a manner that
will give flexibility to the States, and the States have requested this
flexibility.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida is quite correct when he
says that we are granting this flexibility to the States. The key
difference, of course, is that under current law the administrator of
EPA has to agree with the State that is changing the designated use
that it meets the requirements of the law. That in effect is being
removed here. Here the final authority is the States. That is exactly
the kind of flexibility which would mean that there would be no uniform
standard across the country to make sure that States are in fact making
proper progress toward Clean Water Act standards, and that is a key
difference.
[[Page H4841]]
Mr. MICA. Reclaiming my time, if I may, again, I think feasibility is
still defined under our legislation by the Environmental Protection
Agency. They will be a participant in this process. Indeed, the
gentleman from New York is offering an amendment that is in search of a
problem that does not exist, that we have a broad base of support for
this from the States, from governors, from counties and cities and
local officials. What we are trying to do is take some of the
unreasonable approaches, and I gave an example, swimmable-fishable in
the desert, in an area that may have water in it a few days a year.
This does not make sense.
So we are just trying to take a common sense approach, look at this,
and move forward.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Adoption of the amendment will preserve the current, cooperative
system of States and EPA combining in the protection of State water
quality consistent with the States' goals and desires.
Designated uses are set by the States. They reflect the use of the
waterbody which the State determines is appropriate--not what the
Federal Government determines is appropriate.
Currently, States may change a designated use if attaining the use is
not feasible because the more stringent controls would result in
substantial and widespread economic and social impact. The bill would
expand the ability to downgrade water quality standards if a State
determines that the costs of achieving the designated use are not
justified by the benefits.
This gives much too great an emphasis on cost at the expense of
environmental and human health impacts. Cost is and always should be of
concern in the Clean Water Act. However, cost should be used when
determining the method of achieving water quality goals--it should not
operate as a limit upon those goals.
If this amendment is rejected, the bill would allow cost to become
the overriding concern in establishing water quality standards. That is
not the way to achieve expected water quality.
The American people want and expect clean, healthy water in their
rivers, lakes and coastal areas. The Nadler amendment will help assure
that the wishes of the people are fulfilled. Support the amendment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I came to the
well yesterday and talked about the pendulum of regulation being pulled
back to the middle, not going back to where we were, but to where we
should be based on a reasonable balance of regulation.
One of the other defining issues, I believe, in this new Congress is
this notion of do we trust those that we elect to office in our
respective States with a lot of the decisions that come before the
people in those States. We do not have to federally micro-manage every
specific element of every program.
We need to Clean Water Act. We do agree with the concept of clean
water. But overregulation, I believe, is what brings us to this debate
in 1995 to amend the Clean Water Act with some reasonable amendments. I
believe the States will do the right thing. I believe the elected
leadership of our States are closer to the people, they are more
responsible to the people. And I believe that sometimes costs can shut
down a free market and there needs to be a reasonable balance of
regulation.
That is what we are here today, yesterday, and even tomorrow to
debate with these revisions to the Clean Water Act.
I clearly believe that this amendment goes too far again with Federal
micro-management of many decisions that can be best made by our States.
The 10th amendment clearly articulates the difference here between the
Federal micro-management and the rights we should have in our States.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage our friends from both sides of the aisle to
oppose this amendment.
{time} 1645
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2
additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the
gentleman has already spoken; has he not?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. That is the purpose of the Chair
asking if there was objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Did the gentleman ask for 2 additional minutes?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2
additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Nadler] is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental question in this amendment
is twofold. One, do we not believe, do we recognize that the water
quality standards are not, first of all, an issue only with respect to
one State? Rivers flow through several States. It is not simply the
case that a decision on the quality of water only affects necessarily
that one State. When one State decides to permit pollution to continue
because it thinks it is too expensive, the costs outweigh the benefits,
that will affect the next State the river runs through. This is not
simply something that we can keep within one State.
Second, it is not simply a question of do we trust the States? We
know that the States are subject to pressures that exceed what the
Federal Government is exposed to. We know that the polluting businesses
have a major way, a major leverage over the State to tell the State,
You had better give us this ability to keep polluting. Do not make us
spend this money or move to the other State.
That does not mean the State officials necessarily agree that it is
better to let the pollution continue. But they might agree that they
have no choice but to submit to this ultimatum and say, We will let you
continue polluting. We will lower the water quality standards because
we do not want to lose the jobs and the taxes.
The Federal Government is not subject to that pressure and therefore
can better represent, therefore has to be in a partnership with the
State to represent the interests of the people to fishable, navigable,
swimmable, drinkable, safe, clean water.
Therefore, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121,
noes 294, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 322]
AYES--121
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mineta
Mink
Nadler
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--294
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
[[Page H4842]] Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Wyden
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--19
Barton
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Dunn
Frisa
Hancock
Leach
McCollum
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Ortiz
Peterson (FL)
Richardson
Rogers
Schumer
Skelton
Torres
{time} 1708
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Watts against.
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Barton against.
Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Ms. Dunn of Washington
against.
Mr. MASCARA and Ms. FURSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr oberstar
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
Page 100, strike line 5 and all that follows through the
first period on line 10 on page 101.
Page 102, line 1, strike ``Such demonstration'' and all
that follows through the first period on line 3.
Page 114, strike line 17 and all that follows through line
4 on page 115.
Page 115, line 5, strike ``(n)'' and insert ``(m)''.
Page 117, line 4, strike ``(o)'' and insert ``(n)''.
Page 117, line 6, strike ``(q)'' and insert ``(p)''.
Page 117, line 10, strike ``(p)'' and insert ``(o)''.
Page 117, line 12, strike ``(r)'' and insert ``(p)''.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, nonpoint source pollution
is the next frontier of our clean water program. The Nation has done
very well in cleaning up pollution from point sources. Over the past
20-plus years since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, industry
and municipalities both have spent on the order of $230 billion
cleaning up point sources.
Yet, although a measure of progress has been made in our lakes and
streams, we still have unacceptably high levels of pollution,
principally coming from runoff from open land sources: agricultural
lands, lands under development for housing or other purposes, forestry
lands that have not been properly protected.
The most egregious effect of such runoff from nonpoint source was the
already-referred-to attack of Cryptosporidium in the city of Milwaukee
a couple of years ago, where runoff from agricultural land carried with
it a deadly disease; it got into the drinking water of the city of
Milwaukee, and affected some 400,000 citizens, of whom 120-plus died.
Those illnesses and those deaths could have been prevented with
effective nonpoint source protection programs. I spent some 10 years
attempting to develop such language, which was included in the
committee bill introduced by our chairman in the last Congress, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and which I have very strongly
advocated.
That bill died with the 103d Congress, and in the current
legislation, the bill before us does attempt to deal with the issue of
nonpoint source. I commend our current chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, for attempting to address this issue.
However, there are two fatal shortcomings in this bill that make the
nonpoint source program utterly ineffective. The first is one that
introduces into this debate a totally new concept. On section 319 (B)7,
subsection 7, there is language providing for an exemption for whole
farm or ranch natural resources management plans, but nowhere in the
bill are those two items defined. Nowhere in legislative language do we
have those items clarified.
Yes, there is some reference to it in committee report language, but
as we all know, when an issue of this kind is challenged in court, the
court does not look to committee report language. It scarcely looks at
the debate that we conduct here on the floor. It looks to the
legislative language, and there is no definition of what is a whole
farm or a ranch natural resources management plan.
The bill, therefore, in that section, where it should be addressing
runoff from open sources, pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides,
fertilizers, herbicides, makes no such reference, has no control
mechanism. Then in a further section, the bill provides some funding,
for which I do commend our chairman.
It starts off at $100,000 and goes up to $300,000 a year. Then it
says ``However, if the appropriation level does not meet the
authorization level, the enforcement does not follow.'' The State is
not required to enforce the program. EPA has no enforcement authority.
This scenario, and in these tight budget times, that language becomes
a self-fulfiling prophecy. If we get close, say $95 million in
appropriation, but not $100 million, there is no requirement for
enforcement. There is some sort of language that suggests that if the
administrator of EPA and the State together certify that the amounts
appropriated are sufficient to meet the requirements of the section,
that the deadline then will be enforced.
I do not think that will ever happen. I do not think we are ever
going to have a Governor saying less will do more.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
[[Page H4843]] {time} 1715
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, although we know the pressures and
constraints and we know very well what enormous pressures there will be
on Governors not to move to the stage of compliance, I want to see
compliance. I want to see our open spaces, runoff of pollution from
open lands, cleaned up.
That is the next frontier. That is the challenge that we must meet.
This bill gives 19 years to get to that point, but the deadline will
always be a mirage. It will always be out there just beyond our grasp
because the funding will never be there.
I wish the Chair would agree to a means in which we could accomplish
that the objective without having it slip from our grasp and not be so
elusive as this bill provides.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which strikes those
provisions and puts some teeth into the non-point source provisions of
this bill, which otherwise are reasonably good.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that my good friend from the great
agricultural State of Minnesota would come forward with a provision
that really guts, eliminates whole farm planning in the State's non-
point source management program. Essentially what this amendment says
is, once again, we do not trust the States. Once again, we in
Washington know best.
In fact, we have a letter from the National Governors Association
dated just yesterday in which they urge strong support for the language
that we have in the bill. They say, ``We support this approach to non-
point source pollution.''
So the Governors are strongly in support of what we are attempting to
do here, and I think it is time that we trust our States and do not
come to the conclusion that Washington always know best.
The whole farm plan is a voluntary initiative that makes
environmental sense. What is very significant is that there must be
approval from the water quality people in the State, through a written
memorandum of agreement, that the whole farm plan is consistent with a
non-point source management program before such a whole farm plan can
be adopted in the State.
That is fair. That says that we do put emphasis on the environment.
That says there has got to be a non-point source management program in
a State.
Further, I may not agree with too much of what the Clinton
administration is attempting to do, Mr. Chairman, but the Clinton
administration, and I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle,
the Clinton administration has proposed the whole farm plan in the 1995
farm bill. It is a Clinton farm initiative and it is a good one, and we
should support it.
In fact, as to the issue of the definition of what this plan should
be, first of all, it is indeed defined in the report; but much more
importantly than being defined in the report, we looked to the
Committee on Agriculture of this House to define it in the farm bill.
That is where the definition should take place. It is a farm issue.
The farm bill should be the place where the definition is provided. We
have confidence in the Committee on Agriculture to do that. Further,
the gentleman's amendment also strikes the safeguards against unfunded
mandates. This is an extremely important point.
The last thing I think we want to do around here is eliminate
safeguards against unfunded mandates. Indeed, if the appropriation is
enough in any given year to allow the States to implement the program,
there is no slippage of deadlines.
For all of those reasons, I think we should support our farmers, we
should support our Governors, we should support our States, and we
should reject this amendment.
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have here in my hand a letter from the Governor of
Oregon. He says in this letter, ``The State of Oregon is opposed to
H.R. 961. This bill includes several unacceptable provisions that would
undermine the careful balance of the Clean Water Act.''
He goes on to say, ``Proposals raise significant concerns that the
progress made in improving water quality over the last 20 years will be
traded in for short-term economic gains without sufficient
consideration of the long-run costs.''
``The proposals,'' he says, ``which raise the greatest concern in
Oregon include failure to add clear deadlines, goals, and consequences
to the non-point source program.''
For 95 percent of Oregon's 100,000 miles of streams, non-point
pollution is the only source of pollution. Yet H.R. 961, as the
Governor has said, does not provide clear guidance or goals to address
non-point source pollution. Even worse, the bill would repeal the
State's existing coastal zone non-point pollution programs.
In other words, for 95 percent of the State's streams, the Oregon
streams, H.R. 961 would not only fail to make any progress in combating
water pollution problems, it would actually undermine existing
programs.
Mr. Chairman, I find it a little ironic that the 104th Congress,
which has repeatedly said it is a protector of States' rights, is now
advocating to pull the rug from under States like Oregon which are
diligently trying to improve the quality of life inside their borders.
There is absolutely no point to H.R. 961's non-point provisions. I
urge my colleagues to oppose them by supporting the amendment of the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] which would put teeth into non-
point source pollution protections.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlemen's
amendment to strike the provisions of the bill supporting the concept
of whole farm and ranch management programs. The provisions as included
in the bill have the support of many major commodity groups (including
the U.S. Wheat Growers, National Cotton Council, National Corn Growers,
American Soybean Association), several farm and agribusinesses
organizations (American Farm Bureau, National Council of Farm
Cooperatives), along with that of the National Governor's Association
and the National Association of the State Departments of Agriculture.
These provisions direct the EPA Administrator, in coordination with the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, to consult with individual States in
order to reduce or eliminate conflicting requirements and guidelines
relating to nonpoint source pollution--this amendment removes those
incentives.
As I have stated in this body many times over the years, American
farmers and ranchers are the original stewards of the land. No one has
a greater interest in maintaining and improving the quality of their
soil and water than the domestic farm and ranch producer. I have also
noted that the hard-working men and women of today's farming and
ranching communities are willing to further commit themselves to
continued responsible soil and water practices. These provisions direct
farmers and ranchers to work with their individual State in developing
and implementing a voluntary plan to address nonpoint source pollution.
For too long, agricultural producers have been subject to onerous
rules and regulations from both the federal and state level. In many
cases, this confusion has deterred efforts to exercise common-sense,
nonpoint source pollution reduction efforts. By rejection of this
amendment, farmers and ranchers will be able to utilize sound
conservation practices, such as Best Management Practices, low-tillage,
no-tillage, buffer strips, and a variety of other USDA approved
management practices in their crop production efforts.
Individual farmers and ranchers finally deserve the opportunity to
prove their commitment to nonpoint source pollution reduction without
the heavy-handed, inflexible mandatory demands of Washington's federal
bureaucracy. I ask the Members of this body to reject this attempt to
take away incentives to provide some much-needed flexibility to our
nation's farmers and ranchers to adopt proven plans to improve water
quality on agricultural lands.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. It would eliminate
two of the most egregious loopholes in the nonpoint source section of
the bill.
[[Page H4844]] First, the amendment would strike a provision that
exempts agricultural producers from the nonpoint provisions of the
Clean Water Act, if a producer has in place a plan referred to as a
``whole farm or ranch natural resources management plan.''
I want to be clear at the outset. I have no objection to the concept
of whole farm plans. It makes a lot of sense for farms that are subject
to numerous planning requirements to consolidate them into a
comprehensive management plan. But that is not what H.R. 961 does.
H.R. 961 creates a mechanism for escape from Clean Water Act coverage
without any assurance whatsoever that a farm plan will even address
nonpoint source pollution.
Any farmer who prepares a document and calls it a whole farm plan can
be out of the nonpoint program entirely.
The bill contains no specifications or standards as to what the farm
plan should address, or what it should attempt to accomplish.
There is no requirement that the State or Federal environmental
agencies with expertise in protecting water quality play any role in
ensuring that these plans address water quality concerns.
In fact, there is no requirement that the plans include measures to
address water quality concerns.
H.R. 961 removes from the reach of the Clean Water Act the single
greatest source of water quality impairment. By allowing whole farm
plans to serve as compliance, the bill takes away from States the
ability to require nonpoint control by these producers, even if the
State program is not making progress in controlling nonpoint pollution.
This will unnecessarily hamper the efforts of States in achieving
environmental results.
The Oberstar amendment also would strike provisions that improperly
make environmental protection contingent on receipt of Federal funding.
Requirements on States for assessments, nonpoint program implementation
and monitoring would all be delayed one year for each year that the
Federal appropriation for nonpoint programs falls even one dollar short
of the amount authorized. And, the amount of federal assistance
provided will be taken into consideration in determining whether a
State's program is making reasonable progress toward attainment of
water quality standards.
These concepts of linking Clean Water Act goals with Federal funding
are bad policy and are certain to thwart any progress in addressing the
largest remaining source of pollution. The Clean Water Act has never
been a fully federally funded program. Individuals and corporations
have responsibilities not to contaminate their neighbors' water
regardless of whether they receive any payments from the Federal
Government.
As with all of the loopholes in the bill, someone will pay the price.
Nonpoint sources of pollution need to do more, not less, to reduce
water pollution. That is the only way to avoid disproportionate burdens
on industrial and municipal dischargers, and enormous losses to the
tourism industry, recreation and others. And, it is the only way we can
achieve the quality of water that our citizens expect and deserve.
I urge my colleagues to support the Oberstar amendment.
{time} 1730
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible opposition to the Oberstar
amendment. This is an amendment that every single member of the House
should oppose.
First of all, as a fourth generation family farmer, I cannot stress
strongly enough how offensive the Oberstar amendment is. We, in
agriculture, are sick and tired of Washington, DC, bureaucrats treating
us with contempt.
There is general agreement among people who understand agriculture
that Best Management Practices are the most cost effective programs for
reducing agricultural run-off. That is the responsible principle that
this bill seeks to put into affect.
And, who are the experts on agricultural run-off? I assure you that
the answer is not the bureaucrats at EPA.
H.R. 961 puts the responsibility of developing Best Management
Practices in the hands of the USDA.
The Oberstar amendment demonstrates contempt for farmers and contempt
for the USDA.
As far as the unfunded mandates portion of the Oberstar amendment,
President Clinton has already signed into law the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act to prevent exactly this type of legislation from being
passed by Congress.
The provisions of H.R. 961 are simple, but fair. The bill makes an
estimate of annual needs toward attaining the goals of the Clean Water
Act. If Congress does not appropriate these funds, compliance deadlines
for the States are delayed.
This is the type of unfunded mandate relief that both Houses of
Congress have already approved overwhelmingly and is already Federal
law.
The Oberstar amendment says ``forget all that, let's pretend that the
unfunded mandate bill never passed. Let's go back to business as usual,
passing the buck as we've done before.''
Even if you didn't support unfunded mandate reform, you should
respect that this is now the law of the land. No Member, no matter how
you feel about the rest of the bill, should support this amendment.
Vote ``no'' on the Oberstar amendment. It's an insult to farmers. It
deserves to be defeated resoundingly. In fact, it deserves to be
defeated unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122,
noes 290, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 323]
AYES--122
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Clay
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Mfume
Mineta
Mink
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--290
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
[[Page H4845]] Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--22
Barton
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Dunn
Frisa
Hancock
Meek
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Ortiz
Pastor
Peterson (FL)
Richardson
Rogers
Schumer
Tanner
Torres
Waldholtz
Watts (OK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1751
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Texas for, with Mr. Bono against.
Mr. Markley for with Ms. Dunn against.
Mrs. Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Watts against.
Messrs. FRANKS, of New Jersey, WISE, CLYBURN, and BRYANT of Texas
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. DeLAURO and Mr. DOGGETT changed their 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?
amendment offered by mr. pallone
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, Amendment No. 41.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. PALLONE:
H.R. 961
Offered By: Mr. Pallone
Amendment No. 41: Page 81, after line 1, insert the
following:
(a) Finding With Respect to Harm Caused by Violations.--
Section 101 (33 U.S.C. 1251) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(i) Finding With Respect to Harm Caused by Violations.--
Congress finds that a discharge which results in a violation
of this Act or a regulation, standard, limitation,
requirement, or order issued pursuant to this Act interferes
with the restoration and maintenance of the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of any waters into which
the discharge flows (either directly or through a publicly
owned treatment works), including any waters into which the
receiving waters flow, and, therefore, harms those who use or
enjoy such waters and those who use or enjoy nearby lands or
aquatic resources associated with those waters.
``(j) Finding With Respect to Citizen Suits.--Congress
finds that citizen suits are a valuable means of enforcement
of this Act and urges the Administrator to take actions to
encourage such suits, including providing information
concerning violators to citizen groups to assist them in
bringing suits, providing expert witnesses and other evidence
with respect to such suits, and filing amicus curiae briefs
on important issues related to such suits.''.
(b) Violations of Requirements of Local Control
Authorities.--Section 307(d) (33 U.S.C. 1317(d)) is amended
by striking the first sentence and inserting the following:
``After the date on which (1) any effluent standard or
prohibition or pretreatment standard or requirement takes
effect under this section or any requirement imposed in a
pretreatment program under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of
this Act takes effect, it shall be unlawful for any owner or
operator of any source to operate such source in violation of
the effluent standard, prohibition, pretreatment standard, or
requirement.''.
(c) Inspections, Monitoring, and Providing Information.--
(1) Applicability of requirements.--Section 308(a) (33
U.S.C. 1318(a)) is amended by striking ``the owner or
operator of any point source'' and inserting ``a person
subject to a requirement of this Act''.
(2) Public access to information.--The first sentence of
section 308(b) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(including information contained in the
Permit Compliance System of the Environmental Protection
Agency)'' after ``obtained under this section'';
(B) by inserting ``made'' after ``shall be''; and
(C) by inserting ``by computer telecommunication and other
means'' after ``public'' the first place it appears.
(3) Public information.--Section 308 is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(e) Public Information.--
``(1) Posting of notice of polluted waters.--At each major
point of public access (including, at a minimum, beaches,
parks, recreation areas, marinas, and boat launching areas)
to a body of navigable water that does not meet an applicable
water quality standard or that is subject to a fishing and
shell fishing ban, advisory, or consumption restriction
(issued by a Federal, State, or local authority) due to fish
or shellfish contamination, the State within which boundaries
all or any part of such body of water lies shall, either
directly or through local authorities, post and maintain a
clearly visible sign which--
``(A) indicates the water quality standard that is being
violated or the nature and extent of the restriction on fish
or shellfish consumption, as the case may be;
``(B) includes (i) information on the environmental and
health effects associated with the failure to meet such
standard or with the consumption of fish or shellfish subject
to the restriction, and (ii) a phone number for obtaining
additional information relating to the violation and
restriction; and
``(C) will be maintained until the body of water is in
compliance with the water quality standard or until all fish
and shellfish consumption restrictions are terminated with
respect to the body of water, as the case may be.
``(2) Notice of discharges to navigable waters.--Except for
permits issued to municipalities for discharges composed
entirely of stormwater under section 402 of this Act, each
permit issued under section 402 by the Administrator or by a
State shall ensure compliance with the following
requirements:
``(A) Every permittee shall conspicuously maintain at all
public entrances to the facility a clearly visible sign which
indicates that the facility discharges pollutants into
navigable waters and the location of such discharges; the
name, business address, and phone number of the permittee;
the permit number; and a location at which a copy of the
permit and public information required by this paragraph is
maintained and made available for inspection or a phone
number for obtaining such information.
``(B) Each permittee which is a publicly owned treatment
works shall include in each quarterly mailing of a bill to
each customer of the treatment works information which
indicates that the treatment works discharges pollutants into
the navigable waters and the location of each of such
discharges; the name, business address and phone number of
the permittee; the permit number; a location at which a copy
of the permit and public information required by this
paragraph is maintained and made available for inspection or
a phone number for obtaining such information; and a list of
all violations of the requirements of the permit by the
treatment works over the preceding 12-month period.
``(3) Regulations.--
``(A) Issuance.--The Administrator--
``(i) not later than 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this subsection, shall propose regulations to
carry out this subsection; and
``(ii) not later than 18 months after such date of
enactment, shall issue such regulations.
``(B) Content.--The regulations issued to carry out this
subsection shall establish--
``(i) uniform requirements and procedures for identifying
and posting bodies of water under paragraph (1);
``(ii) minimum information to be included in signs posted
and notices issued pursuant to this subsection;
``(iii) uniform requirements and procedures for fish and
shellfish sampling and analysis;
``(iv) uniform requirements for determining the nature and
extent of fish and shellfish bans, advisories, and
consumption restrictions which--
``(I) address cancer and noncancer human health risks;
[[Page H4846]] ``(II) take into account the effects of all
fish and shellfish contaminants, including the cumulative and
synergistic effects;
``(III) assure the protection of subpopulations who consume
higher than average amounts of fish and shellfish or are
particularly susceptible to the effects of such
contamination;
``(IV) address race, gender, ethnic composition, or social
and economic factors, based on the latest available studies
of national or regional consumption by and impacts on such
subpopulations unless more reliable site-specific data is
available;
``(V) are based on a margin of safety that takes into
account the uncertainties in human health impacts from such
contamination; and
``(VI) evaluate assessments of health risks of contaminated
fish and shellfish that are used in pollution control
programs developed by the Administrator under this Act.''.
(4) State reports.--Section 305(b)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1315(b)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) a list identifying bodies of water for which signs
were posted under section 308(e)(1) in the preceding year.''.
(d) Civil Penalties.--
(1) Enforcement of local pretreatment requirements.--
(A) Compliance orders.--
(i) Initial action.--Section 309(a)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1319(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after ``of this Act,''
the following: ``or is in violation of any requirement
imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section
402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this Act,''.
(ii) Issuance of orders.--Section 309(a)(3) is amended by
inserting before ``he shall'' the following: ``or is in
violation of any requirement imposed in a pretreatment
program approved under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this
Act,''.
(B) Criminal penalties.--Section 309(c)(3)(A) is
amended by inserting before ``and who knows'' the following:
``or knowingly violates any requirement imposed in a
pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of this Act,''.
(C) Administrative penalties.--Section 309(g)(1) is amended
by inserting after ``or by a State,'' the following: ``or has
violated any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program
approved under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this Act or
an order issued by the Administrator under subsection (a) of
this section,''.
(2) Treatment of single operational upsets.--
(A) Criminal penalties.--Section 309(c) is amended by
striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraphs (6) and
(7) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively.
(B) Civil penalties.--Section 309(d) is amended by striking
the last sentence.
(C) Administrative penalties.--Section 309(g)(3) is amended
by striking the last sentence.
(3) Use of civil penalties for mitigation projects.--
(A) In general.--Section 309(d) is amended by inserting
after the second sentence the following: ``The court may, in
the court's discretion, order that a civil penalty be used
for carrying out mitigation projects which are consistent
with the purposes of this Act and which enhance the public
health or environment.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 505(a) (33 U.S.C.
1365(a)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end
of the last sentence the following: ``, including ordering
the use of a civil penalty for carrying out mitigation
projects''.
(4) Determination of amount of penalties.--
(A) Civil penalties.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is
amended by inserting ``the amount of any penalty previously
imposed on the violator by a court or administrative agency
for the same violation or violations,'' after ``economic
impact of the penalty on the violator,''.
(B) Administrative penalties.--Section 309(g)(3) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``or savings''; or
(ii) by inserting ``the amount of any penalty previously
imposed on the violator by a court or administrative agency
for the same violation or violations,'' after ``resulting
from the violation,''.
(5) Limitation on defenses.--Section 309(g)(1) is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``In a proceeding to
assess or review a penalty under this subsection, the
adequacy of consultation between the Administrator or the
Secretary, as the case may be, and the State shall not be a
defense to assessment or enforcement of such penalty.''.
(6) Amounts of administrative civil penalties.--
(A) General rule.--Section 309(g)(2) is amended to read as
follows:
``(2) Amount of penalties; notice; hearing.--
``(A) Maximum amount of penalties.--The amount of a civil
penalty under paragraph (1) may not exceed $25,000 per
violation per day for each day during which the violation
continues.
``(B) Written notice.--Before issuing an order assessing a
civil penalty under this subsection, the Administrator shall
give to the person to be assessed the penalty written notice
of the Administrator's proposal to issue the order and the
opportunity to request, within 30 days of the date the notice
is received by such person, a hearing on the proposed order.
``(C) Hearings not on the record.--If the proposed penalty
does not exceed $25,000, the hearing shall not be subject to
section 554 or 556 of title 5, United States Code, but shall
provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present
evidence.
``(D) Hearings on the record.--If the proposed penalty
exceeds $25,000, the hearing shall be on the record in
accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code.
The Administrator may issue rules for discovery procedures
for hearings under this subparagraph.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--Section 309(g) is amended--
(i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``class I civil penalty or
a class II'';
(ii) in the second sentence of paragraph (4)(C) by striking
``(2)(A) in the case of a class I civil penalty and paragraph
(2)(B) in the case of a class II civil penalty'' and
inserting ``(2)''; and
(iii) in the first sentence of paragraph (8) by striking
``assessment--'' and all that follows through ``by filing''
and inserting ``assessment in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia or in the district in
which the violation is alleged to have occurred by filing''.
(7) State enforcement actions as bar to federal enforcement
actions.--Section 309(g)(6)(A) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or'' after the comma at the end of
clause (i);
(B) by striking clause (ii); and
(C) in clause (iii)--
(i) by striking ``or the State''; and
(ii) by striking ``or such comparable State law, as the
case may be,''.
(8) Recovery of economic benefit.--Section 309 is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Recovery of Economic Benefit.--
``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, any civil penalty assessed and collected under
this section must be in an amount which is not less than the
amount of the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the
violation for which the penalty is assessed.
``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall
issue regulations establishing a methodology for calculating
the economic benefits or savings resulting from violations of
this Act. Pending issuance of such regulations, this
subsection shall be in effect and economic benefits shall be
calculated for purposes of paragraph (1) on a case-by-case
basis.''.
(9) Limitation on compromises.--Section 309 is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Limitation on Compromises of Civil Penalties.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the
amount of a civil penalty assessed under this section may not
be compromised below the amount determined by adding--
``(1) the minimum amount required for recovery of economic
benefit under subsection (h), to
``(2) 50 percent of the difference between the amount of
the civil penalty assessed and such minimum amount.''.
(10) Minimum amount for serious violations.--Section 309 is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Minimum Civil Penalties for Serious Violations and
Significant Noncompliers.--
``(1) Serious violations.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section (other than paragraph (2)), the
minimum civil penalty which shall be assessed and collected
under this section from a person--
``(A) for a discharge from a point source of a hazardous
pollutant which exceeds or otherwise violates any applicable
effluent limitation established by or under this Act by 20
percent or more, or
``(B) for a discharge from a point source of a pollutant
(other than a hazardous pollutant) which exceeds or otherwise
violates any applicable effluent limitation established by or
under this Act by 40 percent or more,
shall be $1,000 for the first such violation in a 180-day
period.
``(2) Significant noncompliers.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of this section, the minimum civil penalty which
shall be assessed and collected under this section from a
person--
``(A) for the second or more discharge in a 180-day period
from a point source of a hazardous pollutant which exceeds or
otherwise violates any applicable effluent limitation
established by or under this Act by 20 percent or more,
``(B) for the second or more discharge in a 180-day period
from a point source of a pollutant (other than a hazardous
pollutant) which exceeds or otherwise violates any applicable
effluent limitation established by or under this Act by 40
percent or more,
``(C) for the fourth or more discharge in a 180-day period
from a point source of any pollutant which exceeds or
otherwise violates the same effluent limitation, or
``(D) for not filing in a 180-day period 2 or more reports
in accordance with section 402(r)(1),
shall be $5,000 for each of such violations.
``(3) Mandatory inspections for significant noncompliers.--
The Administrator
[[Page H4847]] shall identify any person described in
paragraph (2) as a significant noncomplier and shall conduct
an inspection described in section 402(q) of this Act of the
facility at which the violations were committed. Such
inspections shall be conducted at least once in the 180-day
period following the date of the most recent violation which
resulted in such person being identified as a significant
noncomplier.
``(4) Annual reporting.--The Administrator shall transmit
to Congress and to the Governors of the States, and shall
publish in the Federal Register, on an annual basis a list of
all persons identified as significant noncompliers under
paragraph (3) in the preceding calendar year and the
violations which resulted in such classifications.
``(5) Hazardous pollutant defined.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `hazardous pollutant' has the meaning
the term `hazardous substance' has under subsection (c)(7) of
this section.''.
(11) State program.--Section 402(b)(7) (33 U.S.C.
1342(b)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) To abate violations of the permit or the permit
program which shall include, beginning on the last day of the
2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the
Clean Water Compliance and Enforcement Improvement Amendments
Act of 1995, a penalty program comparable to the Federal
penalty program under section 309 of this Act and which shall
include at a minimum criminal, civil, and civil
administrative penalties, and may include other ways and
means of enforcement, which the State demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator are equally effective as
the Federal penalty program;''.
(12) Federal procurement compliance incentive.--Section
508(a) (33 U.S.C. 1368(a)) is amended by inserting after the
second comma ``or who is identified under section 309(j)(3)
of this Act,''.
(e) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits.--
(1) Withdrawal of state program approval.--Section 402(b)
(33 U.S.C. 1342(b)) is amended by striking ``unless he
determines that adequate authority does not exist:'' and
inserting the following: ``only when he determines that
adequate authority exists and shall withdraw program approval
whenever he determines that adequate authority no longer
exists:''.
(2) Judicial review of rulings on applications for state
permits.--Section 402(b)(3) is amended by inserting ``and to
ensure that any interested person who participated in the
public comment process and any other person who could obtain
judicial review of that action under any other applicable law
has the right to judicial review of such ruling'' before the
semicolon at the end.
(3) Inspections for major industrial and municipal
dischargers.--Section 402(b) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) To ensure that any permit for a discharge from a
major industrial or municipal facility, as defined by the
Administrator by regulation, includes conditions under which
such facility will be subject to at least annual inspections
by the State in accordance with subsection (q) of this
section;''.
(4) Monthly reports for significant industrial users of
potws.--Section 402(b) is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(11) To ensure that any permit for a discharge from a
publicly owned treatment works in the State includes
conditions under which the treatment works will require any
significant industrial user of the treatment works, as
defined by the Administrator by regulation, to prepare and
submit to the Administrator, the State, and the treatment
works a monthly discharge monitoring report as a condition to
using the treatment works;''.
(5) Permits required for introduction of pollutants into
potws.--Section 402(b) is further amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(12) To ensure that, after the last day of the 2-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this
paragraph, any significant industrial user, or other source
designated by the Administrator, introducing a pollutant into
a publicly owned treatment works has, and operates in
accordance with, a permit issued by the treatment works or
the State for introduction of such pollutant; and''.
(6) Granting of authority to potws for inspections and
penalties.--Section 402(b) is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(13) To ensure that the State will grant to publicly
owned treatment works in the State, not later than 3 years
after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, authority,
power, and responsibility to conduct inspections under
subsection (q) of this section and to assess and collect
civil penalties and civil administrative penalties under
paragraph (7) of this subsection.''.
(7) Inspection.--Section 402 is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(r) Inspection.--
``(1) General rule.--Each permit for a discharge into the
navigable waters or introduction of pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works issued under this section
shall include conditions under which the effluent being
discharged will be subject to random inspections in
accordance with this subsection by the Administrator or the
State, in the case of a State permit program under this
section.
``(2) Minimum standards.--The Administrator shall establish
minimum standards for inspections under this subsection. Such
standards shall require, at a minimum, the following:
``(A) An annual representative sampling by the
Administrator or the State, in the case of a State permit
program under this section, of the effluent being discharged;
except that if the discharge is not from a major industrial
or municipal facility such sampling shall be conducted at
least once every 3 years.
``(B) An analysis of all samples collected under
subparagraph (A) by a Federal or State owned and operated
laboratory or a State approved laboratory, other than one
that is being used by the permittee or that is directly or
indirectly owned, operated, or managed by the permittee.
``(C) An evaluation of the maintenance record of any
treatment equipment of the permittee.
``(D) An evaluation of the sampling techniques used by the
permittee.
``(E) A random check of discharge monitoring reports of the
permittee for each 12-month period for the purpose of
determining whether or not such reports are consistent with
the applicable analyses conducted under subparagraph (B).
``(F) An inspection of the sample storage facilities and
techniques of the permittee.''.
(8) Reporting.--Section 402 is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(s) Reporting.--
``(1) General rule.--Each person holding a permit issued
under this section which is determined by the Administrator
to be a major industrial or municipal discharger of
pollutants into the navigable waters shall prepare and submit
to the Administrator a monthly discharge monitoring report.
Any other person holding a permit issued under this section
shall prepare and submit to the Administrator quarterly
discharge monitoring reports or more frequent discharge
monitoring reports if the Administrator requires. Such
reports shall contain, at a minimum, such information as the
Administrator shall require by regulation.
``(2) Reporting of hazardous discharges.--
``(A) General rule.--If a discharge from a point source for
which a permit is issued under this section exceeds an
effluent limitation contained in such permit which is based
on an acute water quality standard or any other discharge
which may cause an exceedance of an acute water quality
standard or otherwise is likely to cause injury to persons or
damage to the environment or to pose a threat to human health
and the environment, the person holding such permit shall
notify the Administrator, in writing, of such discharge not
later than 2 hours after the later of the time at which such
discharge commenced or the time at which the permittee knew
or had reason to know of such discharge.
``(B) Special rule for hazardous pollutants.--If a
discharge described in subparagraph (A) is of a hazardous
pollutant (as defined in section 309(j) of this Act), the
person holding such permit shall provide the Administrator
with such additional information on the discharge as may be
required by the Administrator. Such additional information
shall be provided to the Administrator within 24 hours after
the later of the time at which such discharge commenced or
the time at which the permittee became aware of such
discharge. Such additional information shall include, at a
minimum, an estimate of the danger posed by the discharge to
the environment, whether the discharge is continuing, and the
measures taken or being taken (i) to remediate the problem
caused by the discharge and any damage to the environment,
and (ii) to avoid a repetition of the discharge.
``(3) Signature.--All reports filed under paragraph (1)
must be signed by the highest ranking official having day-to-
day managerial and operational responsibility for the
facility at which the discharge occurs or, in the absence of
such person, by another responsible high ranking official at
such facility. Such highest ranking official shall be
responsible for the accuracy of all information contained in
such reports; except that such highest ranking official may
file with the Administrator amendments to any such report if
the report was signed in the absence of the highest ranking
official by another high ranking official and if such
amendments are filed within 7 days of the return of the
highest ranking official.''.
(9) Limitation on issuance of permits to significant
noncompliers.--Section 402 is further amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(t) Significant Noncompliers.--No permit may be issued
under this section to any person (other than a publicly owned
treatment works) identified under section 309(j)(3) of this
Act or to any other person owned or controlled by the
identified person, owning or controlling the identified
person, or under common control with the identified person,
until the Administrator or the State or States in which the
violation or violations
[[Page H4848]] occur determines that the condition or
conditions giving rise to such violation or violations have
been corrected. No permit application submitted after the
date of the enactment of this subsection may be approved
unless the application includes a list of all violations of
this Act by a person identified under section 309(j) of this
Act during the 3-year period preceding the date of submission
of the application and evidence indicating whether the
underlying cause of each such violation has been
corrected.''.
(10) Applicability.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to permits issued before, on, or after the date
of the enactment of this Act; except that--
(A) with respect to permits issued before such date of
enactment to a major industrial or municipal discharger, such
amendments shall take effect on the last day of the 1-year
period beginning on such date of enactment; and
(B) with respect to all other permits issued before such
date of enactment, such amendments shall take effect on the
last day of the 2-year period beginning on such date of
enactment.
(f) Expired State Permits.--Section 402(d) (33 U.S.C.
1342(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Expired state permits.--In any case in which--
``(A) a permit issued by a State for a discharge has
expired,
``(B) the permittee has submitted an application to the
State for a new permit for the discharge, and
``(C) the State has not acted on the application before the
last day of the 18-month period beginning on the date the
permit expired,
the Administrator may issue a permit for the discharge under
subsection (a).''.
(g) Compliance Schedule.--Section 302(b)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C.
1312(b)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``The Administrator may only issue a permit pursuant to this
subparagraph for a period exceeding 2 years if the
Administrator makes the findings described in clauses (i) and
(ii) of this subparagraph on the basis of a public
hearing.''.
(h) Emergency Powers.--Section 504 (33 U.S.C. 1364) is
amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 504. COMMUNITY PROTECTION.
``(a) Issuance of Orders; Court Action.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of this Act, whenever the Administrator
finds that, because of an actual or threatened direct or
indirect discharge of a pollutant, there may be an imminent
and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare
(including the livelihood of persons) or the environment, the
Administrator may issue such orders or take such action as
may be necessary to protect public health or welfare or the
environment and commence a suit (or cause it to be commenced)
in the United States district court for the district where
the discharge or threat occurs. Such court may grant such
relief to abate the threat and to protect against the
endangerment as the public interest and the equities require,
enforce, and adjudge penalties for disobedience to orders of
the Administrator issued under this section, and grant other
relief according to the public interest and the equities of
the case.
``(b) Enforcement of Orders.--Any person who, without
sufficient cause, violates or fails to comply with an order
of the Administrator issued under this section, shall be
liable for civil penalties to the United States in an amount
not to exceed $25,000 per day for each day on which such
violation or failure occurs or continues.''.
(i) Citizen Suits.--
(1) Suits for past violations.--Section 505 (33 U.S.C.
1365) is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``to have violated
or'' after ``who is alleged'';
(B) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) by striking ``occurs'' and
inserting ``has occurred or is occurring''; and
(C) in subsection (f)(6) by inserting ``has been or'' after
``which''.
(2) Time limit.--Section 505(b)(1)(A) is amended by
striking ``60 days'' and inserting ``30 days''.
(3) Effect of judgments on citizen suits.--Section 505(b)
is further amended--
(A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
(i) by striking ``, or a State''; and
(ii) by striking ``right.'' and inserting ``right and may
obtain costs of litigation under subsection (d), or''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following: ``The notice under
paragraph (1)(A) need set forth only violations which have
been specifically identified in the discharge monitoring
reports of the alleged violator. An action by a State under
subsection (a)(1) may be brought at any time. No judicial
action by the Administrator or a State shall bar an action
for the same violation under subsection (a)(1) unless the
action is by the Administrator and meets the requirements of
this paragrah. No administrative action by the Administrator
or a State shall bar a pending action commenced after
February 4, 1987, for the same violation under subsection
(a)(1) unless the action by the Administrator or a State
meets the requirements of section 309(g)(6) of this Act.''.
(4) Consent judgments.--Section 505(c)(3) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``Consent judgments entered
under this section may provide that the civil penalties
included in the consent judgment be used for carrying out
mitigation projects in accordance with section 309(d).''.
(5) Pretreatment requirements.--Section 505(f)(4) is
amended by striking ``or pretreatment standards'' and
inserting ``or pretreatment standard or requirement described
in section 307(d)''.
(6) Effluent standard definition.--Section 505(f)(6) is
amended by inserting ``narrative or mathematical'' before
``condition''.
(7) Definition of citizen.--Section 505(g) is amended to
read as follows:
``(g) Citizen Defined.--For purposes of this section, the
term `citizen' means a person or persons having an interest
(including a recreational, aesthetic, environmental, health,
or economic interest) which is, has been, or may be adversely
affected and includes a person who uses or enjoys the waters
into which the discharge flows (either directly or through a
publicly owned treatment works), who uses or enjoys aquatic
resources or nearby lands associated with the waters, or who
would use or enjoy the waters, aquatic resources, or nearby
lands if they were less polluted.''.
(8) Offers of judgment.--Section 505 is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(i) Applicability of Offers of Judgment.--Offers of
judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure shall not be applicable to actions brought under
subsection (a)(1) of this section.''.
(j) Issuance of Subpoenas.--Section 509(a)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1369(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``obtaining information
under section 305 of this Act, or carrying out section 507(e)
of this Act,'' and inserting ``carrying out this Act,''.
(k) Judicial Review of EPA Actions.--Section 509(b)(1) (33
U.S.C. 1369(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after the comma at the end of clause (D)
``including a decision to deny a petition by interested
person to veto an individual permit issued by a State,'';
(2) by inserting after the comma at the end of clause (E)
``including a decision not to include any pollutant in such
effluent limitation or other limitation if the Administrator
has or is made aware of information indicating that such
pollutant is present in any discharge subject to such
limitation,''; and
(3) by striking ``and (G)'' and inserting the following:
``(G) in issuing or approving any water quality standard
under section 303(c) or 303(d), (H) in issuing any water
quality criterion under section 304(a), including a decision
not to address any effect of the pollutant subject to such
criterion if the Administrator has or is made aware of
information indicating that such effect may occur, and (J)''.
(l) National Clean Water Trust Fund.--
(1) In general.--Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is amended
by redesignating section 519 as section 522 and by inserting
after section 518 the following new section:
``SEC. 519. NATIONAL CLEAN WATER TRUST FUND.
``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
`Clean Water Trust Fund'.
``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--There are hereby
appropriated to the Clean Water Trust Fund amounts equivalent
to the penalties collected under section 309 of this Act and
the penalties collected under section 505(a) of this Act
(excluding any amounts ordered to be used to carry out
mitigation projects under section 309 or 505(a), as the case
may be).
``(c) Administration of Trust Fund.--The Administrator
shall administer the Clean Water Trust Fund. The
Administrator may use moneys in the Fund to carry out
inspections and enforcement activities pursuant to this Act.
In addition, the Administrator may make such amounts of money
in the Fund as the Administrator determines appropriate
available to carry out title VI of this Act.''.
(2) Conforming amendment to state revolving fund program.--
Section 607 (33 U.S.C. 1387) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``There is'';
and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(b) Treatment of Transfers From Clean Water Trust Fund.--
For purposes of this title, amounts made available from the
Clean Water Trust Fund under section 519 of this Act to carry
out this title shall be treated as funds authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this title and as funds made
available under this title.''.
(m) Applicability.--Sections 101(h), 309(g)(6)(A),
505(a)(1), 505(b), 505(g), and 505(i) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as inserted or amended by this
section, shall be applicable to all cases pending under such
Act on the date of the enactment of this Act and all cases
brought on or after such date of enactment relating to
violations which occurred before such date of amendment.
Redesignate subsequent subsections of section 313 of the
bill accordingly.
Page 81, line 4, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(k)''.
Page 131, line 5, strike ``(r)'' and insert ``(u)''.
Page 188, line 21 strike ``(s)'' and insert ``(v)''.
Page 192, line 6, strike ``(t)'' and insert ``(w)''.
Page 216, line 11, strike ``by'' and all that follows
through ``518'' on line 13 and insert ``by inserting after
section 519''.
Page 216, line 14, strike ``519'' and insert ``520''.
[[Page H4849]] Page 217, line 7, strike ``before'' and all
that follows through the comma on line 8 and insert ``after
section 520''.
Page 217, line 9, strike ``520'' and insert ``521''.
Page 321, line 3, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to improve enforcement
of the Clean Water Act. Based on EPA data, almost 20 percent of U.S.
major industrial, municipal and Federal facilities were in significant
noncompliance with their Clean Water Act permits.
The EPA inspector general has found that penalty assessments are not
sufficient to recover the economic benefits gained by noncompliance
with the Clean Water Act. Small fines and lengthy time limits to
achieve compliance promote an it-pays-to-pollute mentality, and failure
to recover economic benefits places those who comply with the law at an
economic disadvantage relative to those who are in violation of the
law.
The Clean Water enforcement program should be strengthened to promote
greater incentives to comply with the law.
Mr. Chairman, in New Jersey we have on the books as a State law Clean
Water enforcement amendments, which became law in May of 1990, that
increase enforcement. In March of 1995, the New Jersey department of
environmental protection released their 4th annual report of the Clean
Water Enforcement Act in New Jersey. Their findings reflect a
significant decrease in penalty assessments as a result of increased
compliance. The number of significant noncompliers declined from 70 to
44 in a given year.
Basically, the enforcement provisions in this amendment require State
programs to establish mandatory minimum penalties for serious
violations of and significant noncompliance with the Clean Water Act.
They require penalties recover at least economic benefits, and they
improve and increase the frequency of discharge reporting.
In addition to the enforcement provisions, this amendment would
remove obstacles to citizen suits. The 1972 Clean Water Act included
authority for citizens to sue polluters, thereby recognizing the U.S.
EPA and the States might be unable or unwilling to aggressively pursue
all violators, and citizen suits are a proven enforcement tool.
According to a U.S. Department of Justice statistical report, private
citizen actions over 5 fiscal years have recovered approximately $11
million in penalties and interest. Basically, what we do in this
amendment is allow citizens to sue for past violations, overturning a
1987 Supreme Court case which made those kinds of actions more
difficult.
The amendment also increases citizens' rights to know, through
posting notice requirements and fish consumption advisories. There are
currently no Federal requirements the public be notified when water
quality standards are violated. There are no uniform requirements for
determining the nature and extent of fish and shellfish bans.
Essentially, we have posting of notice requirements for areas where you
should not swim or fish, and also fish consumption advisories.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would point out the amendment establishes a
national Clean Water trust fund to carry out inspections and
enforcement pursuant to the act. The idea is the penalties we would get
for increased enforcement would go into this fund, and they would be
used to carry out the purposes of the act.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be considered. I think that
one of the most important things we can do is increase enforcement of
the Clean Water Act, and that is the primary purpose of this amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This
amendment is 5 congressional pages of mandatory enforcement provisions
inserted into the Clean Water Act. This amendment not only is
unnecessary but could be, and is, counterproductive to effective
enforcement of the act.
This amendment, and get this, this amendment would deny due process
to alleged violators in connection with the imposition of
administrative penalties. Penalties could be imposed without the
alleged violators having the right to due process.
Further, this amendment specifies minimum penalties, mandatory
minimum penalties, that must be imposed, and so severely limits the
abilities of the enforcement authorities, the EPA and the States, to
sit down and compromise proposed penalties, to negotiate proposed
penalties. In some instances, it would bar such compromises altogether.
Now, this certainly is not flexibility.
The National Governors' Association is strongly opposed to this
amendment. The State water quality officials are strongly opposed to
this amendment, and, indeed, this amendment also would allow
duplicative enforcement by citizens' groups of violations that have
been the subject of State enforcement actions. Not only could the State
bring an enforcement action, but citizens' groups could come along and
also bring an enforcement action, and even worse, citizens' groups
could bring an enforcement action against something that already has
been corrected. Let me emphasize that.
Even though something has been corrected, citizens' groups would be
able to reach back and bring an enforcement action against somebody
even though they corrected the problem.
In sum, this amendment imposes greater rigidity on the Clean Water
Act. It would encourage, rather than discourage, protracted litigation.
This is a lawyers' paradise, and this should be defeated.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is very important that citizens be notified when a
beach or lake where they take their children to swim or fish is subject
to a fishing ban due to fish contamination, or is not meeting water
quality standards. This amendment would give the public the information
it deserves, so that people can protect themselves from illness caused
by eating contaminated fish or swimming in polluted water.
It makes sense that where a court finds that a discharger has
violated the Act, the penalty should, at a minimum, recoup the economic
benefit that the violator realized as a result of its violations.
Otherwise, the polluter would gain an advantage over its competitors
who complied with the law. This amendment would prevent windfalls that
reward polluters.
These are just a few of examples of how the amendment would
strengthen enforcement and other provisions of the Act, and ultimately
improve the quality of our Nation's waters and the protection provided
to our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.
{time} 1800
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment is to bring about
mandatory enforcement, and I do not find that as a shocking thing, or
something that is undesirable or should not be part of this bill.
I do not believe anybody who is more than 25 or 30 years old in this
country has any problem remembering the bad old days, the days when the
Cuyahoga River was so polluted that it actually caught fire, the days
when the Willamette River in Oregon, a State highly regarded for its
environmental laws, was not fishable, swimmable, or drinkable, and,
thanks to the Clean Water Act, and actual mandatory enforcement, those
rivers have been substantially cleaned up.
But work remains to be done, and I do not see how those on the other
side of the aisle who are diluting the standards which would be
enforceable under this bill, and minimizing them, and moving
significant areas of concern to voluntary compliance, would object for
those few things that they leave to be mandatorily regulated, that to
be the prospect of fines against polluters and higher fines against
repeat polluters. There is due process for every violation. I am
puzzled that the esteemed chairman would say there is not due process.
It is there.
On the issue of fines, Mr. Chairman, what we would do here is level
the playing field among competitors in an industry. For example, in my
State, in my district, one of my paper mills has just spent $50
million, and that is a lot of money, to clean up its discharge into the
Willamette River because downstream that same river is used for
drinking water in addition to the fishing and other benefits, and they
are
[[Page H4850]] state-of-the-art, fully in compliance. Now should
another mill, which has drug its feet thus far and is not in compliance
with existing law, be allowed to continue in that vein and economically
benefit? This amendment says no, that the fine would be commensurate at
least to the economic benefits. So what we would do is level the
playing field among members of an industry, between those who have
acted in good faith as good citizens, good corporate citizens and good
citizens of their community, and those who have not.
So I do not find it a radical proposal at all that we should have
mandatory enforcement of those standards which do remain the bill which
is before us today, and I rise in strong support.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that what
we are basically talking about here are bad actors, repeat offenders,
and in the case of the bad actors or the repeat offenders of their
discharge permits, we are imposing mandatory minimum penalties, and
then they, for the more serious violations, those penalties increase on
a daily basis to a maximum penalty which is much higher than what is
currently in the law. The idea is basically very similar to what is
done in a lot of statutes where we want to make sure that bad actors
have to pay a fine that is commensurate with the economic benefit that
they have received. Otherwise, what is the point of having the Clean
Water Act?
In regard to the State administrative actions, I know the gentleman
on the other side mentioned that he did not like the idea of State
administrative actions, that they should be able to preclude citizens'
suits, but I would point out that in many cases courts have construed
the preclusion provision so broadly that almost any State
administrative action, no matter how inadequate, has had a preclusive
effect on citizens' suits. So we want citizens to be able to bring
actions where necessary to enforce the act, and again, in the past
those citizen action suits have really done a lot to enforce the Clean
Water Act and should be encouraged.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Pallone] for his good work on this amendment and urge my colleagues to
support the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106,
noes 299, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 324]
[Roll No 324]
AYES--106
Ackerman
Andrews
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Green
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Markey
Martinez
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Menendez
Mineta
Moran
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Rahall
Reynolds
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Saxton
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Thornton
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--299
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
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
Dingell
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manton
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--29
Abercrombie
Barton
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Dicks
Dunn
Fattah
Frisa
Hancock
Kleczka
Martini
Meek
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Nussle
Ortiz
Pastor
Peterson (FL)
Rangel
Richardson
Rogers
Schumer
Tanner
Torres
Watts (OK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1825
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr Nussle against.
Mr. Moakley for, Mr. Barton against.
Miss Collins of Michigan for, Ms. Dunn against.
Mr. Rangel for, Mr. Bono against.
Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts and Mr. TORKILDSEN changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. young of alaska
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Page 70, after
line 25, insert the following:
(e) Anchorage, Alaska.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is
further amended by adding at the end the following:
``(v) Anchorage, Alaska.--The Administrator may grant an
application for a modification pursuant to subsection (h)
with respect to the discharge into marine waters of
[[Page H4851]] any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment
works serving Anchorage, Alaska, notwithstanding subsection
(j)(1)(A) and notwithstanding whether or not the treatment
provided by such treatment works is adequate to remove at
least 30 percent of the biological oxygen demanding
material.''.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (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
Alaska?
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman. My amendment will revise section
301(h) of the Clean Water Act to allow the city of Anchorage which has
a waiver of secondary treatment to be relieved of the 30-percent BOD
removal requirement. This requirement puts a tremendous burden on the
city.
EPA requires the Anchorage Wastewater Utility to remove 30 percent of
organic material from sewage before it can be discharged. Meeting this
requirement for Anchorage has been extremely difficult because sewage
inflow is very clean.
In 1991, the utility was approached by 2 fish processors who wanted
to discharge 5,000 pounds of fish guts into the system daily. Anchorage
approved the request and it made it easier to meet the 30 percent
requirement. The discharge was less clean, but the EPA requirement was
satisfied. This is a perfect example of why we need cost benefit
analysis in our laws.
The cost for Anchorage is $180,000 per year in increased operating
expenses. They will be required to spend more than $4 million within
the next 2 years. All this while spending $1 million over 6 years to
monitor outflows to ensure there is no negative impact from the
discharge.
Had their been some flexibility in the law, Anchorage could have
avoided millions of unnecessary expenditures.
I urge support of the amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this is limited to
Anchorage, AK.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SHUSTER. It makes a lot of sense, and I support the gentleman.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a short comment
that I oppose this amendment. This is just another waiver of standards,
another rollback of existing requirements, and it is specifically for
Anchorage, AK. If this amendment is adopted, the law will allow for
less than primary treatment. I am concerned that the next amendment
will be to allow totally untreated sewage to be discharged into coastal
waters, whether it is offered by the gentleman from Alaska or other
amendments that will come forward.
{time} 1830
I urge rejection of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
The amendment was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. visclosky
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk,
amendment No. 54.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Visclosky: Page 82, after line 21,
insert the following:
(c) National Clean Water Trust Fund.--Section 309 (33
U.S.C. 1319) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(i) National Clean Water Trust Fund.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury
a National Clean Water Trust Fund (hereinafter in this
subsection referred to as the `Fund') consisting of amounts
transferred to the Fund under paragraph (2) and amounts
credited to the Fund under paragraph (3).
``(2) Transfer of amounts.--For fiscal year 1996, and each
fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer, to the extent provided in advance in appropriations
Acts, to the fund an amount determined by the Secretary to be
equal to the total amount deposited in the general fund of
the Treasury in the preceding fiscal year from fines,
penalties, and other moneys obtained through enforcement
actions conducted pursuant to this section and section
505(a)(1), including moneys obtained under consent decrees
and excluding any amounts ordered to be used to carry out
mitigation projects under this section or section 505(a), as
the case may be.
``(3) Investment of amounts.--The Secretary of the Treasury
shall invest in interest-bearing obligations of the United
States such portion of the Fund as is not, in the Secretary's
judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such
obligations shall be acquired and sold and interest on, and
the proceeds from the dale or redemption of, such obligations
shall be credited to the Fund in accordance with the
requirements of section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
``(4) Use of amounts for remedial projects.--Amounts in the
Fund shall be available, as provided in appropriations Acts,
to the Administrator to carry out projects to restore and
recover waters of the United States from damages resulting
from violations of this Act which are subject to enforcement
actions under this section and similar damages resulting from
the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United
States.
``(5) Selection of projects.--
``(A) Priority.--In selecting projects to carry out under
this subsection, the Administrator shall give priority to a
project to restore and recover waters of the United States
from damages described in paragraph (4), if an enforcement
action conducted pursuant to this section or section
505(a)(1) against such violation, or another violation in the
same administrative region of the Environmental Protection
Agency as such violation, resulted in amounts being deposited
in the general fund of the Treasury.
``(B) Consultation with states.--In selecting projects to
carry out under this section, the Administrator shall consult
with States in which the Administrator is considering
carrying out a project.
``(C) Allocation of amounts.--In determining an amount to
allocate to carry out a project to restore and recover waters
of the United States from damages described in paragraph (4),
the Administrator shall, in the case of a priority project
under subparagraph (A), take into account the total amount
deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as a result of
enforcement actions conducted with respect to such violation
pursuant to this section or section 505(a)(1).
``(6) Implementation.--The Administrator may carry out a
project under this subsection either directly or by making
grants to, or entering into contracts with, the Secretary of
the Army or any other public or private entity.
``(7) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this subsection, and every 2 years
thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a
report on implementation of this subsection.''.
``(d) Use of Civil Penalties for Mitigation Projects.--
``(1) In general.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is
amended by inserting after the second sentence the following:
``The court may, in the court's discretion, order that a
civil penalty be used for carrying out mitigation projects
which are consistent with the purposes of this Act and which
enhance the public health or environment.''.
``(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 505(a) (33 U.S.C.
1365(a)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end
of the last sentence the following: ``, including ordering
the use of a civil penalty for carrying out mitigation
projects in accordance with section 309(d)''.
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
H.R. 961, which would help expedite the cleanup of our Nation's waters.
My amendment would create a national clean water trust fund, establishe
fines, penalties and other moneys collected through enforcement of the
Clean Water Act to help alleviate the problems for which the
enforcement actions were taken.
This amendment would not in any way change the way in which
enforcement actions were taken, the nature of the penalties or the
manner in which the penalties were levied. I would want to make that
very clear. A similar provision was included in last year's Clean Water
Act reauthorization, H.R. 3948.
Currently, there is no guarantee that fines or other moneys that
result from violations of the Clean Water Act be used to correct water
quality problems. Instead, some of the money goes into the general fund
of the U.S. Treasury without any provision that it be used to improve
the quality of our nation's water.
The congressional district I represent is in northwest Indiana. It is
home to abundant rivers and wetlands. It is also home to the Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore and five major steel facilities. A century of
industrial development has created many toxic hot spots,
[[Page H4852]] including the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, which pose a
constant threat to the health and safety of northwest Indiana
residents. I am keenly aware of the need to balance between protecting
the environment and encouraging economic growth. It would certainly be
a step in the right direction to ensure that penalty moneys paid to the
U.S. Treasury for violations of the act were used to clean up polluted
water.
Today I am concerned that EPA enforcement activities under which
fines and other penalties are levied ignore the fundamental issue of
how to pay for the cleanup of the water pollution problems for which
the enforcement occurred. If we are really serious about ensuring the
successful implementation of the act, we should put enforcement funds
to work and actually clean up our nation's waters.
It does not make sense for scarce resources to go into the bottomless
pit of the Treasury's general fund especially if we fail to solve our
serious water quality problems.
Specifically my amendment would establish a National Clean Water
Trust Fund within the U.S.
Treasury for fines, penalties, and moneys including consent decrees
obtained through enforcement of the act that would otherwise be placed
into the Treasury's general fund. Under my proposal, the EPA
Administrator would be authorized to prioritize and carry out projects
to restore and recover waters of the United States using the funds
collected from violations of the Clean Water Act.
However, this amendment would not in any way preclude EPA's authority
to undertake and complete supplemental environmental projects as part
of settlements related to violations of the act and other legislation.
I strongly support the use of SEPs to facilitate the cleanup of serious
environmental problems which are particularly prevalent in districts
such as mine.
However, my bill would dedicate the cash payment to the Treasury, to
the Clean Water Trust Fund. The amendment further specifies that
remedial projects be within the same EPA region where enforcement
action was taken. Northwest Indiana is in EPA Region 5, and there are
10 EPA regions throughout the United States. Under the proposal, any
funds collected from enforcement of the Clean Water Act in Region 5
would remain in the trust fund for that region.
The establishment of the trust fund is an innovative way in which to
help improve the quality of our nation's waters by targeting funds
accrued from enforcement of the act that would otherwise go into the
Treasury. We can put scarce resources to work to facilitate the cleanup
of the problem areas throughout not only the Great Lakes but this great
country.
I urge support of my amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It is with
great reluctance that I must oppose the amendment of my good friend.
This amendment has appeal. I would be very happy to work with the
gentleman and other interested committees on this to see if indeed we
could work something out. The concerns we have here tonight, however,
are multifold.
First of all, this could end up creating a slush fund for the EPA.
That, I think, we do not want to see happen. This, in effect, could
become a superfund for water, if you will, an aquatic superfund. We
certainly do not want to see a replay of all the superfund problems we
have had.
One of the things that concerns me greatly is that this provision, I
am told, could encourage citizen lawsuits for even minor infractions
and, indeed, it could possibly create a situation where EPA might
exercise prosecutorial discretion. That is something I do not think we
want to see happen.
Indeed, it also, as I understand the way it is crafted, could create
a situation where hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens groups would
be going into the court to seek funds out of this program or, indeed,
going into court using, even worse, using the funds from this program
to pay for citizen lawsuits.
Finally, the Committee on Ways and Means certainly has a clear
interest in this because it does take money out of the general fund
Treasury, and so I think anything that we do here would have to be done
in concert with the Committee on Ways and Means.
For all of the reasons, I think we should reject this amendment
tonight. But I would be happy to work with the gentleman to see if we
could craft something that might be acceptable not only to our
committee but to the other committees of jurisdiction.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.
In today's tight economic times, it is important that we attempt to
maximize the resources available for environmental protection. This
amendment would assure that the fines and penalties which are assessed
and collected for violations of the Clean Water Act are used to benefit
the environment in the area where the violation occurred.
This amendment will put these fines and penalties to use to create
remedial projects to restore and recover from damages resulting from
the violation. While consent orders often include environmental
remediation, when cases go to trial, fines and penalties often end up
as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury. This may assist the general
fund, but it doesn't help the local environment which has suffered the
harm.
Funding at all levels of government is under increasing pressure. If
we can increase funding for environmental cleanup, without using tax
receipts, I believe that we should pursue such an option.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just also want to indicate support for the amendment
of the gentleman. As those of you who listened to the debate on my
amendment previously know, I had advocated establishing a trust fund
with fines and penalties that are received from violations for
enforcement purposes. But I think that the purpose of the gentleman
from Indiana, [Mr. Visclosky], in setting up this trust fund is
certainly just as valid.
There is no question that we need more funding for cleanup, and I
would like to see nothing better than to have the money that comes from
violations of the Clean Water Act placed into a fund that would be used
for more cleanup rather than go to the general Treasury. I think that
is the way to go in order to provide additional funding for cleanup.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman asking for unanimous
consent to be recognized for 1 minute?
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for
an additional 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the arguments
made by the chairman.
First of all, the idea that a slush fund would be traded is simply
not true. If you look at the total national fines that have been
imposed by EPA and the courts, you are talking about $12 million in a
year like 1989. You are talking about $28 million in a year like 1993.
Second, that the moneys would be used to pay for citizens' suits is
absolutely not true. I point out in the text of the amendment it
states, ``Amounts in the fund shall be available, as provided in
appropriations acts,'' that is your ultimate break on this system, ``to
the administrator to carry out projects to restore and recover waters
of the United States from damages resulting from violations of this act
which are subject to enforcement actions under this section and similar
damages resulting from the discharge of pollutants into the waters of
the United States.''
Again, the control of this system is the appropriations process. They
are subject to it, and they are only available to clean up polluted
waterways in the United States.
The final point the gentleman made, that this would encourage
bureaucrats to run amok, again, the break on the
[[Page H4853]] system is the subject of the annual appropriations
process, just as the highway trust funds, the aviation trust funds and
other funds are. So I do not think we have that encouragement. We are
not changing the penalties.
I would recommend the amendment to the Members' attention.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a very interesting amendment. I think
it should be very carefully considered.
The purpose of my rising today is to address an undercurrent that is
going on in the House right now. That undercurrent pertains to the vote
last night on the coastal zone management program. There are a number
of Members who are wondering what really is going to happen now that
the House has spoken its will by a vote of 224 to 199.
There are a lot of Members wondering what people outside this Chamber
who have a vested interest in the success of this program are saying.
So I thought it would be timely to share with my colleagues in the
House a letter I have received just today from the Coastal States
Organization which says:
``We are writing in great appreciation for the vote on the floor of
the House yesterday in restoring and fixing the coastal nonpoint
pollution control program during the debate on the reauthorization of
the Clean Water Act. Finally, through your amendment''--the letter is
addressed to me--``we can address the critical problem of coastal
nonpoint pollution in a manner that grants the coastal states, rather
than the federal agencies, the flexibility and authority to determine
which coastal waters are threatened or degraded, target the coastal
nonpoint pollution program as well as prioritize which waters to
address first, utilize voluntary measures first to address coastal
nonpoint pollution rather than being required to implement mandatory
requirements and start working to address this serious problem now, not
five years from now.''
The letter from the Coastal States Organization goes on to say:
``Through your amendment, this program has been redesigned to be a
state-implemented program. Thank you for taking this `states rights'
approach and granting us the authority and flexibility to address this
serious problem as the states deem appropriate as well as for saving
over four years worth of work. Please convey our gratitude to all the
Members of Congress who supported your efforts to restore and protect
this nation's companies.''
{time} 1845
Less than 24 hours ago, the House, by a decisive vote, voted to
protect the coastal management program. Now the undercurrent in this
Chamber indicates that there is a secretive plan to undo what we did. I
want Members to know the Coastal States Organization does not want any
secret plan to be implemented. The Coastal States Organization does not
want any sleight of hand. The Coastal States Organization, with 30
States involved, representing tens of millions of people, are watching
us, and they are saying ``Don't back down.'' I thought it was very
important, so timely, to present this letter to this Chamber, so that
we could all have the benefit of the wisdom of the Governors in the
States and the people we are trying to effectively serve.
What we are about today is addressing a most sensitive environmental
and public health piece of legislation. Let no undercurrents undermine
what we have already done.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156,
noes 247, not voting 31, as follows:
[Roll No. 325]
AYES--156
Abercrombie
Andrews
Barcia
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Burr
Castle
Clay
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Heineman
Hinchey
Horn
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Mineta
Mink
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sawyer
Saxton
Schroeder
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Zimmer
NOES--247
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--31
Ackerman
Ballenger
Barton
Bono
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Dunn
Fattah
Frisa
Hancock
Harman
Istook
Johnston
McNulty
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Ortiz
Pastor
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
Roukema
Sanders
Schumer
Tanner
Torres
Watts (OK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1904
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
[[Page H4854]] On this vote:
Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Watts against.
Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against.
Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Ms. Dunn of Washington
against.
Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, today I returned to Arizona to attend the
graduation of my daughter from Arizona State University. Consequently,
I missed a number of rollcall votes on H.R. 961. Had I been present, I
would have voted in the following manner: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No.
323; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 324; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No.
325.
legislative program
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of inquiring from the chairman
of the committee or the distinguished majority leader if we could know
what the schedule is for the remainder of today and tomorrow.
I rise because we were told during the period when the contract was
on that when the contract was finished, that the schedule would be a
little more family friendly and that we could get people home at a
reasonable hour. This is the second night that we are going to be here
late.
I realize this is important legislation but as I look at the schedule
for next week, there are days when there is not a lot of business that
we could perhaps finish this bill. I inquire of the distinguished
majority leader if we could perhaps leave fairly soon so that Members
could see their families and come back tomorrow and try to finish.
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, let me thank the gentleman
for his inquiry. We have been talking to a variety of Members on both
the majority and minority side.
There are for a great many of our Members very serious matters before
the House that have very serious consequences to their particular
national and local interests. It has been our hope and intention to
move this bill to the point that we could complete the work on the bill
by 1 p.m. tomorrow because many Members have some departure times that
are very strategically important to them there as well.
It is our hope to finish the bill by 1 p.m. tomorrow and to do that
in such a way as to not abridge the rights of any Member that chooses
to offer the amendment that they in so many cases have so often
carefully prepared and so patiently waited their turn to offer, and
also to hold without any bias against that Member their right to call
their vote. Many times a Member offers an amendment and wants to have a
vote, a recorded vote, and it is fundamentally that Member's right.
In the meantime we have been in discussions, and I had hoped that by
7 p.m. we would have some greater clarity of understanding to where I
could make an announcement. As it is now, I think discussions are still
ongoing.
We are still optimistic that we could either continue tonight to a
later hour and finish the bill, so that we could all be done with our
week this evening, or to see clearly that it is possible for us to rise
at an earlier hour and then complete the bill tomorrow in such a time
as to convenience those people who are trying to get their departure by
1 p.m. or thereabouts.
The other option that is out there that we are cognizant of is to
hold the bill over into next week. That is something that a great many
Members also would like to avoid.
Let me just say that we are continuing that information. Perhaps
during the course of the next amendment, between now and the next vote
that is called, we can have some definitive final understanding of
where we can go, and we will be able to make an announcement that
defines which of the three alternatives has sort of presented itself
through the will of the Members who are participating in the bill.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
I realize it is difficult to make everything come out on time, but I
really believe that there was a great amount of anticipation and
excitement among all Members when we talked about making the schedule
more family friendly. I admit it is hard to do. I have been in your
position, and I know how difficult it is. But in that this bill is not
essential, we are not on a strict time line, I really believe it would
be helpful if Members could go home at a decent hour, come back
tomorrow, get out at 1 p.m., come back on Tuesday and get our work
done.
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield further, let me just say, I
understand that, and again as the gentleman from Missouri knows, we
always try to juggle as fairly as possible the heartfelt interests of a
large group of different Members with different interests, and we are
continuing to work with that.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished leader from Texas and I
have engaged many times over the course of the last 125 days about the
schedule, and about getting a more predictable schedule and a more
effective schedule and a more family-friendly schedule.
I would just like to ask the leader a couple of questions.
How many amendments do we have left on this bill?
Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, there are a fairly
significant number of amendments, about 15. Then there are questions
related at who among the 15 choose to offer their amendment? Do they
choose to call recorded votes? Are there agreements that might be made?
We have also looked at the option of a time limitation. We have some
Members that feel very strongly they do not want that and would object
to it.
As I have said, I suppose I have sort of kept the gates of bargaining
and negotiation open a little longer perhaps than one normally does.
But we like to keep options open for fair consideration for all
interested parties as long as we can before we come to some sort of
``This is it, we've got to pick option A, B, or C and close the gate on
the other options.''
Mr. ROEMER. If the leader would answer some other questions, we have
about 3 or 4 amendments left on this side, so you have 10 or 11
amendments left on your side. Is that correct?
You are working on your side now to try to get some unanimous-consent
agreements to bracket the wetlands section or to limit time on this
open rule?
Mr. ARMEY. I think the gentleman is almost wholly correct. We are
really working with our side rather than on our side. Given that little
subtlety, we are working together, and I understand we all would like
to get out early. If we are going to come back tomorrow, we would
rather get out earlier than later.
I think if we can get back to the bill and maybe again talk to some
of these final Members, maybe we can get a final answer.
Mr. ROEMER. Can the leader give us some time as to when he is going
to make an announcement tonight to let us know if we will be in until
midnight tonight and until 1 p.m. tomorrow? Can we begin to let our
staffs know when we can make reservations to fly back home tomorrow?
Can the leader be a little bit more specific, since the 11 or 12
amendments are on his side?
Mr. ARMEY. Again, if I may remind you, the schedule has been, as a
matter of fact, the schedule you had before you left for your April
recess that scheduled your departure time for tomorrow at 3 p.m. We are
working for 1 p.m.
In all due respect to all the other Members, I have more or less felt
that anything between now and your printed schedule that you had prior
to your April recess that says 3 p.m. is fair game. Again, I am trying
to work with everybody.
I would not hold anybody late tonight unless there was some chance we
could compensate for that lateness by getting the bill done.
Mr. ROEMER. That is my question to the leader, is if we go late
tonight, we could be out earlier than 1 p.m. tomorrow and we could make
reservations to fly back home at 10 or 11 a.m. tomorrow.
When would we know that?
Mr. ARMEY. That is a level of fine-tuning that goes even beyond the
great expectations of Keynesian fiscal policy in the early 1960's.
Certainly we should
[[Page H4855]] be able to get a look at whether or not we can finish
the bill tonight or must come back tomorrow. When we get to that
definitive point, then we can see the option.
I would not ask Members to stay until midnight tonight, stay late
tomorrow, and then come back next week and work on this bill.
Mr. ROEMER. Would the leader be willing to roll votes until tomorrow
and have debate on these serious questions?
I agree with the leader that many of these questions and many of
these amendments are very serious. We offered a serious substitute
yesterday. Many of these amendments need to be seriously debated, but
to then limit this serious debate between now and 1 p.m. tomorrow does
not do the service that the leader has talked about.
What about on Tuesday, where you have scheduled the New London
National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act? I think that is the only order
of business all day Tuesday.
Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman again for that recommendation.
Mr. ROEMER. But he is not going to listen to my recommendation.
Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman, I think, does me a bit of a disservice to
presume that I have not taken that into consideration up to this point.
Mr. ROEMER. You are the leader, and I am sure you are way ahead of
this minority Member.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Perhaps if I could reclaim my time and bring this to a
conclusion, because we are now wasting time.
Mr. ARMEY. As Randy Quaid says, ``I'll get back to you later with the
details as quickly as I can.''
Mr. GEPHARDT. I know the gentleman is doing everything that he can to
bring this to a successful and swift conclusion. Just please know that
there is a lot of, unhappiness maybe is too strong of a word, but deep
concern and unhappiness, I am sure, on both sides of the aisle about
the failure to get out.
The contract is over. It is time for family friendly.
{time} 1915
Let us do everything we can to make that happen.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to point
out there have been nine recorded votes on your side today, none on
ours.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I understand.
Mr. ARMEY. If I may respond to the gentleman?
Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. I do understand the concern the Members have. And let me
just say to a large extent it is out of our concern for the full rights
of each individual Member that we have come to this point, and we will
get back to that business and try to resolve this as quickly as we can.
Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title III.
The Clerk will designate title IV.
The text of title IV is as follows:
TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES
SEC. 401. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL
FEEDING OPERATIONS.
Section 402(a) is amended by adding the following new
paragraph:
``(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. PERMIT REFORM.
(a) Duration and Reopeners.--Section 402(b)(1) (33 U.S.C.
1342(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``five'' and inserting
``10'' and by striking ``and'';
(2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of
subparagraph (D); and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) can be modified as necessary to address a significant
threat to human health and the environment;''.
(b) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Section 301(d) (33
U.S.C. 1311(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Any effluent
limitation required by subsection (b)(2) that is established
in a permit under section 402 shall be reviewed at least
every 10 years when the permit is reissued, and, if
appropriate, revised.''.
(c) Discharge Limit.--Section 402(b)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C.
1342(b)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting after the semicolon at
the end the following: ``except that in no event shall a
discharge limit in a permit under this section be set at a
level below the lowest level that the pollutant can be
reliably quantified on an interlaboratory basis for a
particular test method, as determined by the Administrator
using approved analytical methods under section 304(h);''.
SEC. 403. REVIEW OF STATE PROGRAMS AND PERMITS.
(a) Review of State Programs.--Section 402(c) (33 U.S.C.
1342(c)) is amended by inserting before the first sentence
the following: ``Upon approval of a State program under this
section, the Administrator shall review administration of the
program by the State once every 3 years.''.
(b) Review of State Permits.--Section 402(d)(2) (33 U.S.C.
1342(d)(2)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence by striking ``as being outside
the guidelines and requirements of this Act'' and inserting
``as presenting a substantial risk to human health and the
environment''; and
(2) in the second sentence by striking ``and the effluent
limitations'' and all that follows before the period.
(c) Court Proceedings to Prohibit Introduction of
Pollutants into Treatment Works.--Section 402(h) (33 U.S.C.
1342(h)) is amended by inserting after ``approved or where''
the following: ``the discharge involves a significant source
of pollutants to the waters of the United States and''.
SEC. 404. STATISTICAL NONCOMPLIANCE.
(a) Number of Excursions.--Section 402(k) (33 U.S.C.
1342(k)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the
following: ``In any enforcement action or citizen suit under
section 309 or 505 of this Act or applicable State law
alleging noncompliance with a technology-based effluent
limitation established pursuant to section 301, a permittee
shall be deemed in compliance with the technology-based
effluent limitation if the permittee demonstrates through
reference to information contained in the applicable
rulemaking record that the number of excursions from the
technology-based effluent limitation are no greater, on an
annual basis, than the number of excursions expected from the
technology on which the limit is based and that the
discharges do not violate an applicable water-quality based
limitation or standard.''.
(b) Pretreatment Standards.--Section 307(d) (33 U.S.C.
1317(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In
any enforcement action or citizen suit under section 309 or
505 of this Act or applicable State law alleging
noncompliance with a categorical pretreatment standard or
local pretreatment limit established pursuant to this
section, a person who demonstrates through reference to
information contained in the applicable rulemaking record--
``(1) that the number of excursions from the categorical
pretreatment standard or local pretreatment limit are no
greater, on an annual basis, than the number of excursions
expected from the technology on which the pretreatment
standard or local pretreatment limit is based, and
``(2) that the introduction of pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works does not cause interference with such
works or cause a violation by such works of an applicable
water-quality based limitation or standard,
shall be deemed in compliance with the standard under the
Act.''.
SEC. 405. ANTI-BACKSLIDING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 402(o) (33 U.S.C. 1343(o)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(4) Nonapplicability to publicly owned treatment works.--
The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to
permitted discharges from a publicly owned treatment works if
the treatment works demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that--
``(A) the increase in pollutants is a result of conditions
beyond the control of the treatment works (such as
fluctuations in normal source water availabilities due to
sustained drought conditions); and
``(B) effluent quality does not result in impairment of
water quality standards established for the receiving
waters.''.
SEC. 406. INTAKE CREDITS.
Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by
inserting after subsection (k) the following:
``(l) 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
[[Page H4856]] 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. 407. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.
Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(s) 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).''.
SEC. 408. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS.
Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(t) Sanitary Sewer Overflows.--
``(1) Development of policy.--Not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this subsection, the
Administrator, in consultation with State and local
governments and water authorities, shall develop and publish
a national control policy for municipal separate sanitary
sewer overflows. The national policy shall recognize and
address regional and economic factors.
``(2) Issuance of permits.--Each permit issued pursuant to
this section for a discharge from a municipal separate
sanitary sewer shall conform with the policy developed under
paragraph (1).
``(3) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any compliance
schedule under section 301(b), or any permit limitation under
subsection (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 municipal
separate sanitary sewer due to stormwater inflows or
infiltration. The permit shall include at a minimum a
schedule for compliance with a long-term control plan under
the policy developed under paragraph (1), for a term not to
exceed 15 years.
``(4) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance deadline
specified in paragraph (3), the Administrator or a State with
a program approved under subsection (b) shall extend, on
request of an owner or operator of a municipal separate
sanitary sewer, the period of compliance beyond the last day
of such 15-year period if the Administrator or the State
determines that compliance by such last day is not within the
economic capability of the owner or operator, unless the
Administrator or the State determines that the extension is
not appropriate.
``(5) Effect on other actions.--Before the date of
publication of the policy under paragraph (1), the
Administrator or Attorney General shall not initiate any
administrative or judicial civil penalty action in response
to a municipal separate sanitary sewer overflow due to
stormwater inflows or infiltration.
``(6) 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 separate sanitary sewer 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 developed
under paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the objectives of
this subsection.''.
SEC. 409. 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
[[Page H4857]] 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. 410. 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,''.
SEC. 411. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.
Title IV (33 U.S.C. 1341-1345) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``SEC. 406. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.
``(a) Issuance of Regulations.--Not later than 1 year of
the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator,
after consultation with State officials, shall issue a
regulation defining `waste treatment systems'.
``(b) Inclusion of Areas.--
``(1) Areas which may be included.--In defining the term
`waste treatment systems' under subsection (a), the
Administrator may include areas used for the treatment of
wastes if the Administrator determines that such inclusion
will not interfere with the goals of this Act.
``(2) Areas which shall be included.--In defining the term
`waste treatment systems' under subsection (a), the
Administrator shall include, at a minimum, areas used for
detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, or
evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water
unless--
``(A) the area was created in or resulted from the
impoundment or other modification of navigable waters and
construction of the area commenced after the date of the
enactment of this section;
``(B) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or operator
allows the area to be used by interstate or foreign travelers
for recreational purposes; or
``(C) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or operator
allows the taking of fish or shellfish from the area for sale
in interstate or foreign commerce.
``(c) Interim Period.--Before the date of issuance of
regulations under subsection (a), the Administrator or the
State (in the case of a State with an approved permit program
under section 402) shall not require a new permit under
section 402 or section 404 for any discharge into any area
used for detention, retention, treatment, settling,
conveyance, or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or
cooling water unless the area is an area described in
subsection (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), or (b)(2)(C).
``(d) Savings Clause.--Any area which the Administrator or
the State (in the case of a State with an approved permit
program under section 402) determined, before February 15,
1995, is a water of the United States and for which, pursuant
to such determination, the Administrator or State issued,
before February 15, 1995, a permit under section 402 for
discharges into such area shall remain a water of the United
States.
``(e) Regulation of Other Areas.--With respect to areas
constructed for detention, retention, treatment, settling,
conveyance, or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or
cooling water that are not waste treatment systems as defined
by the Administrator pursuant to this section and that the
Administrator determines are navigable waters under this Act,
the Administrator or the States, in establishing standards
pursuant to section 303(c) of this Act or implementing other
requirements of this Act, shall give due consideration to the
uses for which such areas were designed and constructed, and
need not establish standards or other requirements that will
impede such uses.''.
SEC. 412. THERMAL DISCHARGES.
A municipal utility that before the date of the enactment
of this section has been issued a permit under section 402 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for discharges into
the Upper Greater Miami River, Ohio, shall not be required
under such Act to construct a cooling tower or operate under
a thermal management plan unless--
(1) the Administrator or the State of Ohio determines based
on scientific evidence that such discharges result in harm to
aquatic life; or
(2) the municipal utility has applied for and been denied a
thermal discharge variance under section 316(a) of such Act.
amendment offered by mr. riggs
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment numbered 47 offered by Mr. Riggs: Insert at the
appropriate place in title IV the following new section:
``Discharge Volume.--Section 402(o)(2) (33 U.S.C.
1342(o)(2)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting
``the concentration or loading of'' after the words
``applicable to''.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his
excellent work on the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I hope and believe that my amendment should not be
controversial. It reaffirms what the EPA
[[Page H4858]] should already know. Clean water is not itself a
pollutant, and should not be regulated as such.
Specifically, Mr. Chairman, my amendment clarifies the anti-
backsliding exception in the Clean Water Act under section 402(o). The
act now allows a discharge permit to be ``renewed, reissued or modified
to contain a less stringent effluent limitation applicable to a
pollutant'' in certain circumstances.
The amendment would make clear that as long as other clean water
precautions are followed, a discharge permit could be renewed, reissued
or modified to contain a less stringent effluent limitation applicable
to the concentration or loading of a pollutant.
The effect of the language is that increased volumes of treated
wastewater could be discharged into a river or other body of water as
long as water quality is not degraded.
The amendment is consistent with the spirit of H.R. 961 in that it
gives flexibility while preserving requirements that water quality
standards be met.
This amendment is particularly important to a jurisdiction, a portion
of which I represent, the city of Santa Rosa in Sonoma County, CA.
Mr. Chairman, the anti-backsliding exception criteria explicitly
addresses only the concentration of effluent quality constituents, not
the pollutant quantity or wastewater flow. It appears that my amendment
would enable the city of Santa Rosa to discharge into a nearby river at
a greater than 1 percent rate only with modification of the anti-
backsliding provision.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow funds to be spent where the
environment will benefit the most. Without this proposed language
publicly owned wastewater treatment works across the country could be
forced by existing regulations to forgo implementation of wastewater
reuse projects that would restore wetlands and supply reclaimed water
to support local agriculture, the wastewater that would be made
available by this amendment and in the case of the city of Santa Rosa,
avoid agricultural pumping of water from streams used by salmon and
flathead.
For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues'
approval of this amendment, and again I would hope that my amendment
would be accepted by the minority and I believe that my amendment is
noncontroversial in nature.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise
in support to the Riggs amendment. It provides a needed clarification
of the 402(o) exemptions, and I would urge a yes vote.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title IV?
The Clerk will designate title V.
The text of title V is as follows:
TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. CONSULTATION WITH STATES.
Section 501 (33 U.S.C. 1361) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(g) Consultation With States.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall consult with and
substantially involve State governments and their
representative organizations and, to the extent that they
participate in the administration of this Act, tribal and
local governments, in the Environmental Protection Agency's
decisionmaking, priority setting, policy and guidance
development, and implementation under this Act.
``(2) Inapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to meetings held to carry out paragraph (1)--
``(A) if such meetings are held exclusively between Federal
officials and elected officers of State, local, and tribal
governments (or their designated employees with authority to
act on their behalf) acting in their official capacities; and
``(B) if such meetings are solely for the purposes of
exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the
management or implementation of this Act.
``(3) Implementing guidelines.--No later than 6 months
after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the
Administrator shall issue guidelines for appropriate
implementation of this subsection consistent with applicable
laws and regulations.''.
SEC. 502. NAVIGABLE WATERS DEFINED.
Section 502(7) (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``Such term does not include `waste
treatment systems', as defined under section 406.''.
SEC. 503. CAFO DEFINITION CLARIFICATION.
Section 502(14) (33 U.S.C. 1362(14)) is further amended--
(1) by inserting ``(other than an intermittent nonproducing
livestock operation such as a stockyard or a holding and
sorting facility)'' after ``feeding operation''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``The term does
include an intermittent nonproducing livestock operation if
the average number of animal units that are fed or maintained
in any 90-day period exceeds the number of animal units
determined by the Administrator or the State (in the case of
a State with an approved permit program under section 402) to
constitute a concentrated animal feeding operation or if the
operation is designated by the Administrator or State as a
significant contributor of pollution.''.
SEC. 504. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.
Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(27) 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 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. 505. STATE WATER QUANTITY RIGHTS.
(a) Policy.--Section 101(g) (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)) is amended
by inserting before the period at the end of the last
sentence ``and in accordance with section 510(b) of this
Act''.
(b) State Authority.--Section 510 (33 U.S.C. 1370) is
amended--
(1) by striking the section heading and ``Sec. 510.
Except'' and inserting the following:
``SEC. 510. STATE AUTHORITY.
``(a) In General.--Except''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
to supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair any right or
authority of a State to allocate quantities of water
(including boundary waters). Nothing in this Act shall be
implemented, enforced, or construed to allow any officer or
agency of the United States to utilize directly or indirectly
the authorities established under this Act to impose any
requirement not imposed by the State which would supersede,
abrogate, or otherwise impair rights to the use of water
resources allocated under State law, interstate water
compact, or Supreme Court decree, or held by the United
States for use by a State, its political subdivisions, or its
citizens. No water rights arise in the United States or any
other person under the provisions of this Act. This
subsection shall not be construed as limiting any State's
authority under section 401 of this Act, as excusing any
person from obtaining a permit under section 402 or 404 of
this Act, or as excusing any obligation to comply with
requirements established by a State to implement section
319.''.
SEC. 506. 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. 507. 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. 508. GENERAL PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.
Section 517 (33 U.S.C. 1376) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' before ``$135,000,000''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 1991 through 2000''.
[[Page H4859]] SEC. 509. INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 518(d) (33 U.S.C.
1377(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In
exercising the review and approval provided in this
paragraph, the Administrator shall respect the terms of any
cooperative agreement that addresses the authority or
responsibility of a State or Indian tribe to administer the
requirements of this Act within the exterior boundaries of a
Federal Indian reservation, so long as that agreement
otherwise provides for the adequate administration of this
Act.''.
(b) Dispute Resolution.--Section 518 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (j); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new
subsection:
``(h) Dispute Resolution.--The Administrator shall
promulgate, in consultation with States and Indian tribes,
regulations which provide for the resolution of any
unreasonable consequences that may arise as a result of
differing water quality standards that may be set by States
and Indian tribes located on common bodies of water. Such
mechanism shall provide, in a manner consistent with the
objectives of this Act, that persons who are affected by
differing tribal or State water quality permit requirements
have standing to utilize the dispute resolution process, and
for the explicit consideration of relevant factors, including
the effects of differing water quality permit requirements on
upstream and downstream dischargers, economic impacts, and
present and historical uses and quality of the waters subject
to such standards.''.
(c) Petitions for Review.--Section 518 (33 U.S.C. 1377) is
amended by inserting after subsection (h) (as added by
subsection (b) of this section) the following:
``(i) District Courts; Petition for Review; Standard of
Review.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 509, the
United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over
actions brought to review any determination of the
Administrator under section 518. Such an action may be
brought by a State or an Indian tribe and shall be filed with
the court within the 90-day period beginning on the date of
the determination of the Administrator is made. In any such
action, the district court shall review the Administrator's
determination de novo.''.
(d) Definitions.--Section 518(j)(1), as redesignated by
subsection (b) of this section, is amended by inserting
before the semicolon at the end the following: ``, and, in
the State of Oklahoma, such term includes lands held in trust
by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an
individual member of an Indian tribe, lands which are subject
to Federal restrictions against alienation, and lands which
are located within a dependent Indian community, as defined
in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code''.
(e) Reservation of Funds.--Section 518(c) (33 U.S.C.
1377(c)) is amended in the first sentence--
(1) by striking ``beginning after September 30, 1986,'';
(2) by striking ``section 205(e)'' and inserting ``section
604(a)'';
(3) by striking ``one-half of''; and
(4) by striking ``section 207'' and inserting ``sections
607 and 608''.
SEC. 510. 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. 511. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is further amended by
inserting before section 521, as redesignated by section 510
of 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.''.
amendment offered by mr. Emerson
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Emerson: Insert the following new
section into H.R. 961:
SEC. . FEDERAL POWER ACT PART I PROJECTS.
Section 511(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. Sec. 1371) is amended by adding after ``subject to
section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899,'' the following, and
by renumbering the remaining paragraph accordingly:
``(3) applying to hydropower projects within the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or
its successors under the authority of Part I of the Federal
Power Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 791 et seq.);''.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to
resolve the friction and conflict that the Clean Water Act, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in its 1994 Tacoma decision, is
creating with the Federal Power Act. The Supreme Court has interpreted
the Clean Water Act, in particular section 401 of the Act, so broadly
as to effectively supersede the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
licensing authority over hydropower projects under the Federal Power
Act. This amendment would rectify that situation by exempting
hydropower projects from regulation under the Clean Water Act.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission already conducts a
comprehensive review of proposed new hydropower projects when first
deciding whether to issue a license and again upon relicensing. That
review takes into account the inputs of State and Federal agencies,
Indian tribes, and the public. The review also carefully evaluates and
addresses the potential environmental impacts of each proposed and
existing project. Therefore, in the context of hydropower projects
under the Commission's jurisdiction, there is no need for the
additional, duplicative layer of regulation that the Clean Water Act
now creates. This amendment eliminates the duplicative layer of Federal
regulation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EMERSON. I am happy to yield to the chairman of the committee of
jurisdiction.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
understand what he is attempting to accomplish here. My judgment is
that it does go a little too far, and I am hopeful that we might be
able to work out a compromise. I believe either Congressman Tate or
myself or Congressman Laughlin will have a compromise, and I would be
constrained to vigorously support the compromise and hope the gentleman
might be able to see his way clear to do that.
Mr. EMERSON. I am glad to be amended, if that is the intent of the
chairman.
[[Page H4860]] Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for his
cooperation.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of talk this
year about unfunded mandates, about the rights of the States, about
regulatory burdens on local units of government. Well, I would say to
my colleagues, this amendment represents the granddaddy of all burdens
on the States, of all unfunded mandates on the States and of all
violations of the rights of the States.
What this amendment says is that we will let the Federal Government,
in the form of FERC, run roughshod over State water quality
determinations during the licensing of hydroelectric power projects.
It is an amendment of convenience. At times, it is convenient to
support State primacy. This time, to some, apparently it is not
convenient.
And so, what this amendment basically says is that we will allow FERC
to shove hydro projects down the throats of the States, and while we're
at it, overturn a Supreme Court decision and disregard the views of 40
State attorneys general.
The simple fact of the matter is that water quality, where the States
have primacy under section 401 of the act, and water quantity
considerations cannot be separated.
For this reason, the States currently have the right to condition
hydroelectric power licenses issued by FERC to protect their bona fide
interest in maintaining the water quality of their rivers and streams.
This amendment would do away with that fundamental right of the
States.
As 40 State attorneys general wrote to the committee leadership
recently: ``This Congress is actively pursuing a new federalism,
seeking to delegate to states authority previously held by the federal
government.''
They concluded: ``How ironic it would be for this Congress to reverse
this policy and strip away longstanding state authority over water
quality.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
amendment offered by mr. laughlin as a substitute for the amendment
offered by mr. emerson
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Laughlin as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Emerson: Page 213, after line 5,
insert the following:
SEC. 507. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
(a) In General.--Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act does not apply with respect to the licensing of a
hydroelectric project under Part I of the Federal Power Act
if the relevant federal agency makes the determination
referred to in subsection (b) in accordance with the
mechanism described in subsection (c).
(b) Determination.--The determination referred to in
subsection (a) is a specific determination that a denial,
condition, or requirement of a certification under section
401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for such a
project is inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of
Part I of the Federal Power Act.
(c) Mechanism.--The dispute resolution mechanism for
purposes of subsection (a) shall be a mechanism established
by the relevant federal agency in consultation with the
Administrator and the States, for resolving any conflicts or
unreasonable consequences resulting from actions taken under
section 401 by a State, an interstate water pollution control
agency or the Administrator relating to the issuance of a
license (or to activities under such license) for a
hydroelectric project under Part I of the Federal Power Act.
Such mechanism shall include, at a minimum, a process
whereby: (1) the relevant federal agency, in coordination
with the State, the interstate agency or the Administrator
(as the case may be) may determine whether any denial,
condition or requirement under section 401 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act relating to the issuance of such
license or to activities under such license is inconsistent
with the purposes and requirements of Part I of the Federal
Power Act; (2) such denial, condition, or requirement shall
be presumed to be consistent with the purposes and
requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act if based on
temperature, turbidity or other objective water quality
criteria regulating discharges of pollutants; and (3) any
denial, condition, or requirement not based on such criteria
shall be presumed to be consistent with the purposes and
requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act unless the
relevant federal agency, after attempting to resolve any
inconsistency, makes a specific determination under
subsection (b) and publishes such determination together with
the basis for such determination in the license or other
appropriate order.
Mr. LAUGHLIN (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
Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, the Laughlin-Tate-Brewster-Bachus-
Parker amendment to the Emerson amendment is a balanced,
reasonable amendment to address the ongoing problem involving section
401 of the Clean Water Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission.
This sets up a balanced, fair dispute resolution process. It responds
to the conflicts--or at least potential conflicts--between Clean Water
Act water quality certifications and FERC hydropower licensing
decisions.
A recent Supreme Court case has expanded the interpretation and use
of section 401.
This amendment does not overturn that case. It does not weaken States
rights to protect water quality.
Instead, it sets up a fair mechanism to resolve potential conflicts
or unreasonable consequences. It also retains States rights to protect
water quality--the original intent of the Clean Water Act.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute
amendment.
(Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with hydroelectric
power. Hydroelectric power is our largest renewable energy source.
Ninety-five percent of our renewable energy in the United States is
hydroelectric power. That source of renewable energy is threatened by
the 1994 Supreme Court ruling which the gentleman from Texas mentioned,
and it has placed this energy resource in jeopardy. The Supreme Court
ruling known as the Tacoma decision expands the role of the State water
quality agency beyond traditional water quality issues by permitting
these agencies to regulate operations of a hydro project, a power
previously under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and Federal natural resource agencies.
{time} 1930
Hydropower today provides 12 percent of our Nation's electricity, and
I call your attention to the fact that hydropower emits no greenhouse
gases or pollutants. It does not produce any toxic waste. It is
completely renewable through annual rainfall and snow melt, and it is
domestically produced, which is critical to national security. In the
next decade a large portion of the Nation's hydroelectric projects will
come up for relicensing before FERC.
In my home State of Alabama, 70 percent of the hydroelectric projects
must be relicensed in the next 10 years. Unfortunately, as these vital
projects come up for relicensing, they are threatened by the Tacoma
decision.
If left unaddressed in this present legislation, the Supreme Court's
interpretation of section 401 of the existing Clean Water Act threatens
the continuing operation of hydroelectric projects throughout this
country, and in doing so, it threatens the viability of our most
significant renewable resource and millions of business and customers
who depend on hydroelectric power. To allow this situation to threaten
the hundreds of existing projects that will undergo relicensing in the
coming year is simply not good environmental or public policy.
As the largest provider of renewable energy, hydropower must not be
strangled by the dual regulatory process that has been inadvertently
created by the Tacoma decision.
The substitute being offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Laughlin], the gentlemen from Washington, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and
myself, gives this Congress the chance to pull hydroelectric projects
out of the regulatory quicksand that has been created and get our
energy and environmental policies working together for a secure, clean
energy future.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
If I could enter into a discussion with my friend from Missouri, we
just received a copy of this, and what I am trying to understand in
reading through it is: Are we preempting the States? I know that that
was the objective of the original amendment, to preempt the State's
authority to control its own water. In this case, we seem to
[[Page H4861]] have some kind of a dispute mechanism being set up, but
it seems to me ultimately the decisions will all be made within the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. EMERSON. The object here is to establish a dispute resolution
process. That is the intent of the amendment, to avoid duplicative
efforts.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, who would have the final say in a
dispute where a State has determined that a hydro project is
inconsistent with that State's regulation of its own waters; that is,
of whether they have a concern regarding drinking water quality,
turbidity, fisheries, whatever?
Mr. EMERSON. In an issue involving the jurisdiction of FERC, it would
be FERC.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time then, so the gentleman is preempting
States' rights, and in the western States a number of States have opted
to oppose projects by FERC, and now in this case, should a State oppose
a project approved by FERC, FERC could overrule the State? Is that
correct? I guess it is.
Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, no, the States still have
their right to protect their water quality. It is when we get into the
issues of water quantity that you need an arbiter above an individual
State
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I do not know how in the West, where
it does not rain in the summertime and some years we do not have a lot
of runoff, we can separate the issues of water quantity and quality.
They kind of go together. If we do not have enough water, a lot of
times there may be something, a problem with resident fish, and there
may be a problem with other naturally occurring pollutants. We have
some mercury contamination that is natural. If we do not have enough
water, it reaches dangerous levels.
Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, I think the best way to
put it is that when a State acts under the Clean Water Act and there is
a dispute, you need a higher authority to go to resolve the dispute. So
this is a dispute resolution mechanism more than anything else.
Certainly, it would not be my object to preempt States' rights, but
there certainly are issue areas where States, where a higher authority
needs to be invoked.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman familiar with the
position of the Western Governors, and have the Western Governors
signed off on this? Because they were opposed to the previous
amendment.
Mr. EMERSON. We have worked with the Western Governors. No, they have
not signed off on it. We have given them every opportunity to be
involved, and that is one of the reasons, quite frankly, for which
there needs to be a dispute resolution.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, there is a dispute resolution now.
It has been determined, you know, through the Supreme Court that, in
fact, States ultimately control the waters within their States and they
cannot be preempted by a bunch of faceless Federal bureaucrats. I guess
I would ask, could the gentleman name the members of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission? I cannot. I do not know who they are.
Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, the Supreme Court
specifically did not address the issue that the gentleman is raising,
which is why we need a dispute resolution process.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I mean, so we would determine that
if a State disagrees with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would essentially have the
ultimate say. As a western Member, I have a real concern giving
authority over State water in the Western States to a bunch of
nameless, faceless bureaucrats in Washington, DC, even if they are
appointed by an ostensibly Democrat President and Administration.
Really, it is not something I am particularly interested in granting
to this agency, and this amendment seems to do so, and I am not
interested in doing that. I am trying to understand this. The staff is
furiously reading through it. If we could ask for an additional
extension of time, I would appreciate the Chair doing so.
Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to respond to
your concerns for the Western States by pointing out to you some
testimony from David Conrad, who is the water resource specialist for
the National Wildlife Federation, and he, in fact, in testimony given
in connection with H.R. 649.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] has
expired.
legislative program
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Shuster was allowed to speak out of
order.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this time in order to make
an announcement.
In consultation with several Members, including the majority leader,
what we have decided is to rise tonight at 8:30, to come in tomorrow at
10 o'clock, work until 1 o'clock, rise tomorrow afternoon, take this
bill up Monday evening, probably around 6 o'clock, as soon as we can
Monday. I understand there is other legislation before us Monday, and
take the bill up again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday and attempt to complete it
on Tuesday.
The majority leader tells me that we would consider setting time
limits next week, if necessary, but this is my understanding of where
we are. So I would expect that we will rise around 8:30 tonight, and I
thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional
5 minutes for the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] so the gentleman
and I may continue our colloquy.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Oregon?
There was no objection.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I defer to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Bachus].
Mr. BACHUS. What I was saying was Mr. Conrad gave testimony in 1991,
in which he argued against FERC giving up being the final arbitrator of
these hydroelectric projects, and he said at that time that he would
like FERC preserved as the final arbitrator by saying that if the right
was withdrawn, it would eliminate, and he gave three reasons, it would
eliminate the critical floor of environmental protection that now
exists in the Federal Power Act and in related Federal environmental
laws; second, it would make hydroelectric licensing and the protection
of the environment much more difficult and unpredictable than it is
currently; and third, and to address your specific concerns, it would
vastly reduce, especially in the Western States, the opportunities for
the public to be involved in the environmental conditions associated
with hydropower development.
As I am sure the gentleman is aware, FERC goes through exhaustive
hearings in which local citizens are allowed to give testimony. Local
agencies are allowed to give testimony, and under the amendment which
has been proposed, the States would still have every right to establish
and to enforce water quality standards, including adopting water
quality standards to rightfully establish the amount of chemicals or
pollutants, percentages, in the water, and establish numeric water
quality criteria standards.
Mr. DeFAZIO. If I could ask the gentleman, the point I was making,
for instance, and I can go to a specific instance but I will not, but
it involved quantity, not quality, because without the quantity we do
not get to that point because of naturally occurring pollutants. So you
are saying if there is a naturally occurring problem or pollutant, the
State could control the quantity sufficient to dilute it, because that
is essentially what we are doing in this instance, in order to keep up
temperatures and in order to offset other problems in the water; we
could, the State would still have the right to control quantity if it
could make a case based on water quality grounds. Is that the
gentleman's understanding of the amendment?
Mr. BACHUS. As the gentleman knows, you have to have adequate inflow
for these projects, and FERC would continue to be the final arbiter of
that. But the States would, and local governments and citizen groups,
would all participate through a mediation or arbitration process that
is set up in this amendment.
[[Page H4862]] Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time then, I guess
ultimately, I mean I would then conclude, in opposition to the
amendment, because I do not want the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission to be the final arbiter of something that concerns the
waters of a sovereign western State. You know, we had a dispute in my
State between FERC and the State, and the State prevailed because the
State demonstrated that the project approved by FERC would have caused
the decimation of a fishery. The State had wildlife concerns, and also
would have very detrimental effects on a very, very heavily used river
in terms of whitewater rafting.
So I am not assured by the idea that these faceless, nameless
bureaucrats at FERC are going to be the protectors of the 50 States'
sovereign water rights. So I would reluctantly rise in objection to the
amendment, as I understand it. I have hardly been given the opportunity
to review it.
Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, we do recognize that
quality and quantity are mixed. But let me say to the gentleman that
when a State makes a quantity decision that may be in conflict with
FERC, there needs to be a dispute resolution process.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, my understanding now, in those
cases, either it has been decided by the courts, I am not certain, or
certainly people have had recourse to the courts, given the conflict
between a State agency and a Federal agency. But to have a dispute
resolution wherein FERC has the final say, if this were a neutral
dispute resolution process with an arbitrator or a mediator or
something, someone not part of FERC, I would be more interested and
enthusiastic, but to say there will be a dispute resolution and FERC,
who disagrees with the State, will get to determine the resolution is
going back to the fox guarding the chickenhouse.
Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, if it is strictly a FERC
issue, FERC will decide. The problem comes when there is a conflict
between FERC and the States.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Again, that is my concern. I would like to see the
States have at least equal footing, if not preeminence, when it comes
to this.
Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman of the
Transportation Committee for his efforts on this particular issue,
trying to forge a compromise, as well as the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Laughlin] and others who have been working on this particular issue.
Since January 4, we have been trying to make Government more
efficient, less bureaucracy, trying to streamline all processes of
Government.
The Tacoma case complicates this entire issue. What we are trying to
do is bring some common sense back to this, and there are some
questions left unanswered by the Supreme Court.
Now, this amendment recognizes the expanded role granted to the
States by the Supreme Court, but we need a balance. We need a reasoned
approach.
The current process under FERC looks at environmental concerns, looks
at power production, looks at fish and wildlife, looks at native
American treaties, looks at irrigation, looks at management of Federal
lands, looks at interstate flow issues, and FERC does not always rule
on the side of hydro.
{time} 1945
I mean, if we do not have these kind of changes, this is going to be
a lawyers' dream. We are going to fight over between who and which is
right. The current process is complicated. The current process is
lengthy. Otherwise, if we do not make these changes, we are going to
have the Noah's Ark approach. We are going to have two of everything.
We have got to have some kind of process to solve this problem.
This amendment, I think and I believe, will promote what is our
renewable resource right here in America, and that is our water
resources. We need to protect it. To me this is a commonsense solution.
It has been worked out in a bipartisan way, and I think that it
deserves the support of the Members of this body.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TATE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, again just returning to--as my colleague knows, I
think we all strive for consistency. I mean the issue of preempting the
State on waters solely within, as my colleague knows, its jurisdiction
disturbs me, and I would assume it disturbs the gentleman to give that
power to a bunch of---- Could the gentleman name the members of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for me?
Mr. TATE. Once again, I cannot name the names of the FERC, but the
point to keep in mind, the gentleman from Oregon, is, if we do not make
these differences and changes, we are going to have two processes. I
mean we have to decide. Eventually, there has to be an answer.
Otherwise this becomes a lawyers' dream. We are going to argue between
which is right. I am someone who respects States' rights, but
ultimately there needs to be a decision. This provides that ultimate
decision. Otherwise we are just hanging out there in space waiting for
someone to answer. This gives a final answer, and that is what we need.
Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman will yield, in my State we got to a
final answer. FERC approved the project, the State disapproved it, and
the project did not go forward, and I would hope that would be the
result, but under this amendment FERC would approve it, the State would
disapprove it, and FERC would then preempt the State, and I am puzzled
that a Western Member would support----
Mr. TATE. Reclaiming my time, that could still occur under this
current provision. We are just trying to have some finality to this,
some certainty to this, and to move forward with this. The gentleman's
scenario would still exist under this particular bill, or actually
substitute to the Emerson amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TATE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in support of this substitute amendment. This case
occurred in--Tacoma case is in my district and it affected a dam up on
the Olympic Peninsula in the State of Washington, and I have thought
about this at some great length, and in my judgment we have to have
some way to resolve this. I say to my colleagues, You can't have the
States being able to completely block. I mean that the FERC should
consider the States' objections, they should give them very thorough
consideration and that there should be--as I understand the bill, there
is basically you're saying that, unless the FERC can show that it's
inconsistent with the Federal Power Act, basically it has to go along
with the State objection. It seems to me that is fine, but to have
this--to have these two processes where both of them are kind of State
FERC's and a national FERC I think is a big mistake, and I think this
is a good compromise. I think it's well-thought-out and very balanced,
and I would hope that it would be adopted.
Mr. TATE. Reclaiming my time to agree with the gentleman from the
Sixth District of Washington, I say, You are exactly right. The burden
of proof is on FERC to prove that it is the problem, and so that's--we
are solving the problem with this. We are getting rid of the
duplication, and I commend the gentleman for his support.
Mr. DICKS. I would point out this does mean this is kind of a strong
Federal system, but I think in this case it is warranted.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
As my colleagues know, it is very interesting that in the Northwest
we rely about 40 percent on hydropower production. Unfortunately,
hydropower production is dependent upon water for its fuel source, and
unless there is a reliable quantity of water which could be taken away
from a project because of quality concerns, and unless there is a
stability in that in the long term over the period of the license, a
project can be threatened, and ratepayers ultimately have to pay that
cost.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield on that point?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Maybe I misheard the gentlewoman, but I understood her
to
[[Page H4863]] say that a project might be deprived of a quantity of
water because of quality, water quality, concerns. Well, I would hope
that would be the case, and I would imagine that most people in Idaho
would hope that would be the case.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, reclaiming my time, if a project is required
because of water quality problems to have to spill in order to raise
the level of the water downstream because of water quality problems,
and they are required by a State agency to spill above and beyond the
capacity of the plan to take the water, and they are not only able to
produce the electricity that they should be producing over a period of
time, that causes a great deal of uncertainty, not only to the power
producers, the ratepayers, but also to the bankers and the bond
company. The water is the fuel source, and before a license is granted,
the license applicant certainly has to go though all of the hoops set
forth in the Environmental Comprehensive Protection Act which requires
that the State once and for all set the criteria as far as quality and
quantity of water and how that would mix. Our concern is that the goal
posts do not get moved down the pike so that it can break projects
because we are so reliant on hydropower.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield again?
Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. I just like to point out, and I do not know the
gentlewoman's relationship with the gentleman, but Allen G. Lance,
attorney general of Idaho, was opposed to the last iteration of this
that he saw, and I do not believe he has had an opportunity to review
this one.
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, I do not think our attorney general has had the
opportunity to review this amendment, and I have not had the
opportunity to speak to him. I am a very strong proponent of States'
water rights; that is one of the reasons I ran for Congress, but I
think that we have to offer to our ratepayers and to the license
holders a certain degree of certainty, and I think that this amendment
would do that.
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Laughlin amendment. Mr.
Chairman, this amendment resolves very simply a potential problem
resulting from the so-called Tacoma decision by the Supreme Court. That
decision actually puts the Clean Water Act in direct conflict with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act. It
erodes FERC's ability to balance broad national interests when making
decisions about hundreds of hydro projects around the country.
Without this amendment, hydroelectricity's clean and
affordable contribution to our Nation is threatened. I urge my
colleagues to support the Laughlin amendment.
Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STOCKMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think one unfair thing about this debate
is there has been some suggestion that under this amendment that the
States and their water quality agencies do not have significant
authority under this amendment. I would remind the gentleman from
Oregon and anyone that is concerned about this that FERC will still be
required to include the State's position on the need for power for the
project, the value of the project to the local and regional economy, as
well as the effects on recreation, fish and wildlife, and water quality
in deciding whether or not to issue a license, and over the past
history of FERC's regulation, even prior to this amendment which
expands the rights of the water quality agencies of the States, FERC
has accepted the recommendations of the States in over 90 percent of
the cases, and we strengthen that. We strengthen under this amendment
the right of the States to mandatory input and to mandatory
participation.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. The qualification I see in here is for such a project,
is inconsistent with the purposes and requirement of part 1 of the
Federal Power Act. Again, not having been given the time to go back and
review the statutes, what protections are in part 1 of the Federal
Power Act. Are all the things that the gentleman just mentioned
included in part 1 of the Federal Power Act.
Mr. BACHUS. All the present protections of the Federal Power Act are
included and preserved under this amendment.
Mr. DeFAZIO. So part 1 of the Federal Power Act includes all of those
concerns and additions the gentleman just listed.
Mr. BACHUS. Either those or the Clean Water Act, which is now in
effect, or other statutes and FERC regulations, rules and regulations.
Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman would yield further, the point is we
are exempting them unless it is inconsistent here, and I guess, as the
gentleman knows, I think that this is an amendment of such import to
the West, to unveil it with no opportunity to have it reviewed by the
rather lengthy list of attorney generals--four pages from the West; I
am not sure how many are on here, and other States other than the West:
Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine. Well, looks like we
went to the East: Pennsylvania, New Mexico, et cetera. It looks like
most of the State attorney generals signed this, and to not have an
opportunity to run it by all the attorney generals that objected to the
original iteration, it seems again, as my colleagues know, that
this is something that would perhaps be better left until Tuesday to
at least give some of us an opportunity to review it with attorney
generals.
Mr. BACHUS. In conclusion I would like to say to the gentleman from
Oregon and to the Members, ``Remember the days when hydroelectric power
was the most popular of energy resources. It was cheap, it was friendly
to the environment. Fishermen and boaters loved the reservoirs that
were created. The big dams were called the Eight Wonders of the World.
The National Geographic had article after article about the popularity
and the attractiveness of hydroelectric power.''
I say that is not changed today. It is 95 percent of our renewable
energy comes from hydroelectric power. It is as important today, if not
more important, than it was then, and 70 percent of those projects,
hundreds of projects throughout this country, are going to be coming up
for relicensing in the next 10 years. We have to establish an
arbitration and a licensing agreement and not keep these tied up in
court, as the gentleman alluded to, for years and years. It is a matter
of national security. It makes us less dependent on foreign oil.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] as a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DeFAZIO. This vote is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] as amended; is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not correct.
Mr. DeFAZIO. All right; go ahead. I was just trying to get straight
for Members what we are voting on. We are voting on the amendment
offered as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
The vote as taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 309,
noes 100, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 326]
AYES--309
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
[[Page H4864]] Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Borski
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--100
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bonior
Brown (OH)
Clay
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dixon
Durbin
Engel
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Furse
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnston
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Markey
McCarthy
McDermott
McInnis
McKinney
Meehan
Menendez
Meyers
Mineta
Mink
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--25
Barton
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Dunn
Frisa
Hancock
Harman
Istook
Livingston
Meek
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Ortiz
Pastor
Peterson (FL)
Rogers
Schumer
Stark
Tanner
Torres
Watts (OK)
Young (FL)
{time} 2020
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Bono for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
Mr. Watts for, with Mr. Moakley against.
Mr. Barton for, with Miss Collins of Michigan against.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. PELOSI, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms. McKINNEY,
and Messrs. SKAGGS, BARRETT of Wisconsin, and MEEHAN changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi, BROWNBACK, WISE, BARCIA, POMEROY, and
HOUGHTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed
to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation
Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I was, unfortunately, required to attend to
business in my congressional district in Baltimore this evening and
thus forced to miss two record votes. Specifically, I was not present
to record my vote on rollcall vote No. 325, the amendment offered by
Mr. Visclosky of Indiana and rollcall vote No. 326, the amendment
offered by Mr. Laughlin of Texas to the Emerson of Missouri amendment.
Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 325
and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 326.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], as amended.
The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the
amendment is rejected.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SHUSTER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet and did not hear the
Chair announce the vote. What was the announcement of the 5-minute
vote?
The CHAIRMAN. The announcement of the 5-minute vote was that the noes
prevailed. The Chair stands corrected. It was not a 5-minute vote.
There was a voice vote.
On the voice vote, the noes prevailed and the amendment was not
agreed to.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Those in favor of a recorded vote will indicate by
standing.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. MINETA. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me Members have left. To now
call for a vote----
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will be in order.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman----
The CHAIRMAN. The House will be in order. Members will suspend.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has been recognized by the
Chair. The gentleman from California shall proceed.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of what we have now heard, I
ask unanimous consent that the last vote be reconsidered, that the
voice vote be reconsidered; that there be a reconsideration of the
voice vote.
The CHAIRMAN. A motion to reconsider is not in order.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman----
The CHAIRMAN. The Members will suspend.
By unanimous consent, the Committee may vacate a voice vote, and do
it over.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the voice vote
be vacated.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], as amended.
The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, after title VI is read, I will then move that the
Committee do rise. We will come in tomorrow at 10 o'clock to resume
debate on this legislation. We will proceed until 1 o'clock
[[Page H4865]] tomorrow afternoon. We will take up this legislation
Tuesday morning. However, I am informed by the majority leader that
there will be other votes on Monday, as has been previously announced.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?
If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
The text of title VI is as follows:
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.
``(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
[[Page H4866]] 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.
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.''.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 961. This
bill has many, many flaws. It allows industry to discharge more toxics
than they do today--forcing cities and towns to be responsible for
cleaning up industry's discharges, or allowing those pollutants to flow
into our waterways. The bill does nothing to address the problems of
non-point source pollution, which is now an even bigger problem than
point source pollution. The bill establishes wholesale new categories
of waivers and exemptions which will roll back protections for our
citizens and set us back in our efforts to clean up our rivers and
streams.
There is a lot wrong with this bill. However, as a scientist, I want
to address in detail one particular set of appalling provisions--those
concerning wetlands.
We have heard repeatedly since the start of the 104th Congress and in
the debate on this very bill over the last two days that Republicans
want to rely on sound science in reforming our environmental laws.
Speaker Gingrich himself endorsed this principle in describing his
vision of what 21st Century America should look like.
In fact, Mr. Shuster's Committee report emphasizes the importance of
using sound science, and says quite plainly ``The Committee also heard
repeatedly of the need to ensure that Clean Water Act standards and
requirements are based on sound scientific evidence and principles.''
I agree. In fact, I think wetlands regulation is one area crying out
for greater reliance on scientific knowledge.
But unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern emerge in this House that
sound science is only to be used when it agrees with the preconceived
notions of Republicans.
The National Academy of Sciences assembled a very broad and diverse
panel to examine how we can identify a wetland. The results of two
years of study by the best people working in the field--wetlands
professionals and academics alike--are now in.
The study makes it absolutely clear that there is no scientific
justification for the wetlands provisions in H.R. 961.
For example, the NAS Committee concluded that the best scientific
description of a wetland would use 14 days of water saturation in the
root zone. H.R. 961 mandates a definition of 21 days of saturation on
the surface. The difference could result in 30 to 50 percent less
wetlands across the country.
In addition, H.R. 961 restricts protections of wetlands on the basis
of the functions they perform. This might be a fine idea--if we had the
knowledge to back it up. I strongly support increased cost-
effectiveness and prioritization in our environmental protection.
However, the NAS study found that we simply do not know enough about
wetlands at this point to reliably classify them on the basis of
function. The NAS Committee found that any shorthand
[[Page H4867]] attempt to prioritize wetlands on the basis of size, or
proximity to developed areas, is wholly inadequate from a scientific
point of view.
We should classify wetlands, but only based on our scientific
knowledge. We know that wetlands perform important functions--in flood
prevention, water quality, wildlife habitat and other areas. However,
the plain fact is that no one has the scientific knowledge to pick and
choose which wetlands to regulate on the basis of function.
Each Member of this House faces a straightforward test of whether or
not one agrees with the principle of basing our regulatory decisions on
sound science.
Any suggestion that the content or timing of the NAS report is
politically motivated is outrageous and represents a wholesale
rejection of the principle that Congress should utilize professional
expertise in making difficult scientific decisions.
The fact is, Members who make such insinuations are simply
disappointed that their ostrich-like efforts to schedule floor
consideration of H.R. 961 in advance of the release of this report were
unsuccessful.
Make no mistake, if you support using sound science in regulatory
decisions, you must oppose the provisions of H.R. 961. Anything less is
sheer hypocrisy.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, there they go again.
The pattern the Republicans set for the first 200 days was to cut
spending and repeal programs intended to help children, the poor, the
elderly, legal immigrants, and working families, so they can give tax
cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the same time they are balancing
the federal budget by 2002.
The first significant piece of legislation for the second hundred
days is the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, H.R. 961, known in some
circles as the ``Dirty Water Act'' because the Republicans have chosen
to protect polluters rather than the health and well-being of ordinary
people.
This bill would roll back two decades of progress in reducing
pollution in our lakes, rivers, and coastal areas, and halt further
progress. It would let corporate polluters increase pollution, and make
downstream water users pay to remove pollution that shouldn't get into
the water in the first place.
There are problems throughout the bill. Perhaps the most widely
debated provisions would redefine 80 percent of the nation's wetlands
out from under federal protection.
Now, we don't have a lot of wetlands in the South Bronx, but we do
drink water, and wetlands recharge water supplies and filter harmful
substances from our water. We eat fish and seafood, and wetlands
provide critical habitat, assuring adequate stocks now and in the
future. We enjoy fishing, swimming, and other recreation on and around
the water, and wetlands help keep our waters clean. But H.R. 961's
wetlands provisions would cost us more while reducing the quality of
our water and the safety and quantity of our seafood. We have plenty of
reasons to care about wetlands.
Another major problem for me, Mr. Chairman, is the burden this bill
would place on urban consumers downstream from runoff sources--the
agribusinesses, miners, foresters, and developers that would not be
required to take even minimal actions to prevent pollution for decades,
if every. In many areas, overall water quality continues to be poor
because sources of polluted runoff are not doing their share. Under
H.R. 961, low-income urban ratepayers would have to pay more to get
clean water, while upstream businesses that could afford to limit
pollution would not be required to do so.
In addition, I am deeply distressed by the bill's lack of
environmental justice protections for poor people and people of color.
Amendments to require water quality testing and reporting in areas
where the most vulnerable populations live, work, fish, and swim, and
posting of fish advisories to warn subsistence fishers that fish in
certain waters are too poisoned to eat--low-cost and cost-effective
measures--have been rejected.
And, Mr. Chairman, these are only a few of the problems I see in this
bill. The Clean Water Act is widely regarded as one of our most
effective and successful environmental laws. It has produced marked
improvements in the health of our people, the quality of life along our
waterways and coasts, and the availability of clean water for household
use and recreation. But the Republicans, in H.R. 961 reverse these
successes and deny us further progress.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, as do many thoughtful New Yorkers,
who have written letters opposing H.R. 961.
Marcia Fowle of the New York City Audubon Society wrote:
Over 23 years, the water quality of New York Harbor, the
Hudson River, the East River, Long Island Sound and Jamaica
Bay--making up 578 miles of New York City waterfront--has
markedly improved due primarily to the Clean Water Act. This
progress should not be broken nor weakened.
Judith Enck and Linda Babiarz of NYPIRG wrote:
There are few things as important to sustaining life as
water. We must not return to the days when swimming and
fishing threatened our health.
Bruce Carpenter of New York Rivers United wrote:
Regardless of amendments, please vote NO on H.R. 961. The
quality of our country's waters must not be undermined by
polluters and special interests.
Rav Freidel of Concerned Citizens of Montauk wrote:
We have tried to find alternative amendments that would
make the Clean Water Act clean again. There is no way to fix
it. It is simply a dirty water bill.
Marcy Benstock of the Aquatic Habitat Project, Clean Air Campaign in
New York City wrote:
H.R. 961 includes so many harmful changes that it cannot be
fixed.
They are right. No amendments adopted in the House will fix this bill
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against passage of H.R.
961.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, the Federal regulation of stormwater in my
congressional district has become known simply as the ``rain tax.''
The city has imposed a new utility tax on all property owners in
order to raise $5.5 million annually to offset some of the costs of
this unfunded Federal mandate. As my constituents in Greensboro, NC,
have become aware of the direct tax resulting from the current Clean
Water Act, they have called and written my office to express their
outrage over this, a perfect example of Federal overreach. ``What will
be taxed next?'' they ask.
I have a letter from Greensboro's city manager, Bill Carstarphen, in
which he supports the stormwater management provisions in H.R. 961.
Further, city officials urge the defeat of amendments that could
subvert the improved flexibility in H.R. 961 for State and local
governments to address stormwater pollution. Our city's environmental
services director, Elizabeth Treadway, praises the recognition in H.R.
961 that stormwater cannot be considered a point-source pollution
problem. These are our community experts speaking to the need for
developing this program to the States, with an emphasis on voluntary
compliance.
Greensboro was issued its permit in late 1994. The city spent almost
$1 million over a 2-year period just to secure the permit. The city was
forced to spend this money even though a solution to stormwater
pollution under current law is unenforceable. It is multi-source.
The stormwater provisions in H.R. 961 have been criticized as rolling
back existing protections and allowing currently treated stormwater to
be discharged without treatment. In fact, H.R. 961 does not eliminate
the permit under which Greensboro currently manages its stormwater
program. Greensboro and 341 other large cities--and 134,000 industrial
facilities--already have stormwater permits. Greensboro would be
required to comply with the existing permit until it became subject to
voluntary activities, enforceable plans, general permits, and site-
specific permits under approved State stormwater management programs
described in H.R. 961.
The stormwater provisions of the current Clean Water Act are
unworkable. H.R. 961 would replace the current, broken Federal
requirements with a new program worked out between local governments
and their State. H.R. 961 would recognize city officials' concerns that
stormwater varies dramatically by season, by climate, and by each
storm. This issue cries out for the application of balance.
I urge my colleagues to reject stormwater amendments designed to
perpetuate the status quo.
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the clean water bill, H.R. 961.
Among its many good provisions, which have already been described and
extolled, is a commonsense solution to an issue that has unnecessarily
burdened cities in my district, as well as many others, regarding
separate ``Sanitary Systems Overflows'' [SSO's].
H.R. 961 instructs the EPA to develop a reasonable, flexible,
consistent, and economically feasible approach for controlling
discharges from SSO's. It also instructs them to stop, review, and
modify enforcement actions for projects required under the old policy.
While overinterpreting the Clean Water Act, the EPA has required
cities with SSO systems, like Dallas and Fort Worth in my district, to
eliminate all overflows. The overflows in question do not present a
public health or water quality concern. Yet, to date, the EPA has
forced cities in Texas alone to begin hundreds of millions of dollars
of work to eliminate all overflows. This bill will correct this
situation.
We have come a long way since I asked EPA officials to meet in my
office with representatives of Dallas and Forth Worth on this
[[Page H4868]] issue, when few others were raising this concern.
I thank the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee for his help on this issue and would like to work with him to
make some technical and refining changes that are currently being
discussed. I strongly support the solution included in this bill and
look forward to it becoming law.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Weller) 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.
____________________