Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4875-H4900]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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} 1003

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. McInnis in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, May
11, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
Emerson], as amended, had been disposed of, and title VI was open at
any point.
Are there any amendments to title VI?
amendment offered by mr. lipinski

Mr. LIPINSKI. 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. Lipinski: Pages 231 and 232,
strike the table and insert the following:

Percent of sums
``States: authorized:
Alabama........................................................0.7736
Alaska.........................................................0.2500
Arizona........................................................1.1526
Arkansas.......................................................0.3853
California.....................................................9.3957
Colorado.......................................................0.6964
Connecticut....................................................1.3875
Delaware.......................................................0.2500
District of Columbia...........................................0.3203
Florida........................................................3.4696
Georgia........................................................2.0334
Hawaii.........................................................0.2629
Idaho..........................................................0.2531
Illinois.......................................................5.6615
Indiana........................................................3.1304
Iowa...........................................................0.6116
Kansas.........................................................0.8749
Kentucky.......................................................1.3662
Louisiana......................................................1.0128
Maine..........................................................0.6742
Maryland.......................................................1.6701
Massachusetts..................................................4.3755
Michigan.......................................................3.8495
Minnesota......................................................1.3275
Mississippi....................................................0.6406
Missouri.......................................................1.7167
Montana........................................................0.2500
Nebraska.......................................................0.4008
Nevada.........................................................0.2500
New Hampshire..................................................0.4791
New Jersey.....................................................4.7219
New Mexico.....................................................0.2500
New York......................................................14.7435
North Carolina.................................................2.5920
North Dakota...................................................0.2500
Ohio...........................................................4.9828
Oklahoma.......................................................0.6273
Oregon.........................................................1.2483
Pennsylvania...................................................4.2431
Rhode Island...................................................0.4454
South Carolina.................................................0.7480
[[Page H4876]] South Dakota....................................0.2500
Tennessee......................................................1.4767
Texas..........................................................4.6773
Utah...........................................................0.2937
Vermont........................................................0.2722
Virginia.......................................................2.4794
Washington.....................................................2.2096
West Virginia..................................................1.4346
Wisconsin......................................................1.4261
Wyoming........................................................0.2500
Puerto Rico....................................................1.0866
Northern Marianas..............................................0.0308
American Samoa.................................................0.0908
Guam...........................................................0.0657
Palau..........................................................0.1295
Virgin Islands..............................................0.0527''.

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very straightforward.
During the subcommittee markup of H.R. 961, an amendment was adopted
which revised the allotment formula for the State revolving fund grants
for wastewater treatment facilities. Although putting a 10 percent cap
in a hold harmless provision in the bill may seem like a good idea, the
change in the formula has a dramatic impact on allotments for 21
States, including Illinois.
Let us look a history. Right now allocation is based on needs and
population data from the 1970's. Nobody thinks we should keep using
this allocation, and until the amendment was adopted in subcommittee,
everyone agreed on the allocation that is in my amendment which was
based on the most current data, which means the 1990 population
figures, the 1990 needs. But it was changed by the subcommittee, and I
want to change it back. The reason should be clear.
Mr. Chairman, if my amendment does not pass, Illinois, represented by
me and 19 other Members of this body, will lose almost $83 million over
5 years. Also, Arizona will lose $50 million; California, $186 million;
Connecticut, $4 million; Florida, $3 million; Georgia, $20 million;
Indiana, $58 million; Kansas, $737,000; Kentucky, $1\1/2\ million;
Louisiana, $850,000; Massachusetts, $78,000; New Jersey, $25,000; New
York, $381 million; North Carolina, $74 million; Oregon, $1 million;
Pennsylvania, $3.575 million; Tennessee, $1 million; Texas, $4 million;
Virginia, $27 million; Washington, $35 million; West Virginia, $1.2
million; American Samoa, $1.2 million; Guam, $875,000. For the 21
affected States we are talking about a total of almost $1 trillion; to
be exact, $955 million.
But obviously some States benefit from the provision. Alaska gains
$37 million; Hawaii, $55 million; Iowa, $77 million; Missouri, $99
million, and Wisconsin is the biggest winner with an increase of more
than $127 million.
I would not be so bold as to suggest that the 16 Members from
Wisconsin vote for this amendment. If they did, they would be voting
against $127 million for their own State. The same goes for the
Representatives of the 29 States that benefit from this allocation that
is presently in the bill. Although I would be more than happy to have
their votes, I certainly will not seek them, expect them to vote
against the best interests of their State, but, if I and every other
Member from a State that losses money under the new allocation votes
against this amendment, we will be voting against our State. That does
not make any sense to me, Mr. Chairman.
This amendment is not complicated. There are winners and losers on
the issue. But if every Member votes in the best interest of his or her
State, my amendment will pass 299 to 136. I hope that will happen.
amendment offered by mr. bateman as a substitute for the amendment
offered by mr. lipinski

Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for
the amendment.
The clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bateman as a substitute for the
amendment offered by Mr. Lipinski: Pages 231 and 232, strike
the table and insert the following:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of sums authorized for fiscal
year
State ------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 & 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... 1,0693 1.0110 0.9504 0.8896
Alaska....................... 0.5723 0.5411 0.5087 0.4761
Arizona...................... 0.7139 0.7464 0.7767 0.8060
Arkansas..................... 0.6255 0.5914 0.5560 0.5204
California................... 7.5590 7.9031 8.2244 8.5345
Colorado..................... 0.7649 0.7232 0.6885 0.6847
Connecticut.................. 1.2948 1.3537 1.3718 1.3643
Delaware..................... 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
District of Columbia......... 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
Florida...................... 3.4532 3.4462 3.4304 3.4115
Georgia...................... 1.7870 1.8683 1.9443 1.9993
Hawaii....................... 0.7406 0.7002 0.6583 0.6161
Idaho........................ 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
Illinois..................... 4.7801 4.9976 5.2008 5.3970
Indiana...................... 2.5472 2.6631 2.7714 2.8759
Iowa......................... 1.2942 1.2236 1.1503 1.0767
Kansas....................... 0.8708 0.8690 0.8650 0.8602
Kentucky..................... 1.3452 1.3570 1.3508 1.3433
Louisiana.................... 1.0512 1.0060 1.0014 0.9958
Maine........................ 0.7402 0.6999 0.6666 0.6629
Maryland..................... 2.3128 2.1867 2.0557 1.9241
Massachusetts................ 3.5884 3.7518 3.9043 4.0515
Michigan..................... 4.1117 3.8875 3.8061 3.7850
Minnesota.................... 1.7576 1.6618 1.5622 1.4622
Mississippi.................. 0.8615 0.8146 0.7658 0.7167
Missouri..................... 2.6509 2.5063 2.3562 2.2054
Montana...................... 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
Nebraska..................... 0.4891 0.4624 0.4347 0.4069
Nevada....................... 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
New Hampshire................ 0.9556 0.9035 0.8494 0.7950
New Jersey................... 4.3190 4.5156 4.6686 4.6428
New Mexico................... 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
New York..................... 11.6659 12.1969 12.6928 13.1714
North Carolina............... 1.9075 1.9943 2.0754 2.1537
North Dakota................. 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
Ohio......................... 5.3833 5.0898 4.9266 4.8993
Oklahoma..................... 0.7726 0.7304 0.6867 0.6427
Oregon....................... 1.1939 1.2399 1.2342 1.2274
Pennsylvania................. 4.1866 4.2145 4.1952 4.1720
Rhode Island................. 0.6421 0.6071 0.5707 0.5342
South Carolina............... 0.9796 0.9262 0.8707 0.8150
South Dakota................. 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
Tennessee.................... 1.4697 1.4668 1.4600 1.4520
Texas........................ 4.6552 4.6458 4.6245 4.5989
Utah......................... 0.5039 0.4764 0.4479 0.4192
Vermont...................... 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
Virginia..................... 2.1630 2.2615 2.3534 2.4379
Washington................... 1.8380 1.9217 1.9998 2.0752
West Virginia................ 1.4907 1.4249 1.4184 1.4106
Wisconsin.................... 2.5852 2.4442 2.2978 2.1507
Wyoming...................... 0.4694 0.4438 0.4173 0.3905
Puerto Rico.................. 1.2472 1.1792 1.1185 1.1123
Northern Marianas............ 0.0399 0.0377 0.0355 0.0332
American Samoa............... 0.0859 0.0812 0.0763 0.0714
Guam......................... 0.0621 0.0587 0.0552 0.0517
Palau........................ 0.1224 0.1158 0.1088 0.1019
Virgin Islands............... 0.0551 0.0576 0.0599 0.0599.''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I rise
reluctantly to offer an alternative by way of a substitute for the
amendment just discussed and presented by the distinguished gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski]. Our relationship has been a very close
and cordial one, and I would hold it up as an example of the bipartisan
spirit in which all of us should conduct our affairs for all Members of
the House.
Let me say that I find myself somewhat in the position of the
interloper who sought to separate two young sisters involved in a fist
fight in the schoolyard, where the interloper, the peacemaker, became
the subject of attack by both parties. There are indeed winners and
losers any time we change any formula by which funding is allocated, as
the gentleman from Illinois has pointed out.
One of the things that we must bear in mind, however, as we go
through this debate about how to accomplish this reallocation based
upon a new formula is some notion of equity, especially as it bears
upon the default of the Congress over so many years to have upgraded
the formula that has been in the law since the 1970's. We did not do
that which we should have done over that long period of time, and so
finally, when we have a new need for assessment and a proposed formula
for allocation, it creates incredible peaks and valleys for so many
States. There are States that lose as much as 59 percent of the funding
they have historically been receiving. There are States which have
enormous gains as a result in the new formula. The committee bill has
capped the gains and losses at 5 percent. The amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] implements the new formula
without any caps, without any effort to deal with the incredible losses
which some States will sustain while giving all of the gain to every
State----
Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BATEMAN. Not at this point; I will try to save some time so that
I might at the end.
The alternative provision that I offer to both the committee bill and
to the gentleman from Illinois' amendment is to allow those States that
gain to gain more than is available to them under the committee bill
while at the same time putting some floor under the losses of the
losing States. Under my substitute amendment, Mr. Chairman, the gainers
would gain 5 percent each year until they had gained 20 percent above
their present allocations. The losers would lose 5 percent each year
until they had lost 20 percent of their allocation. Obviously this is
an effort to do some equity, to prevent the enormous peaks and valleys
that would occur if we just implement the new assessment formula
without any change, but certainly would be dealing more equitably with
the gaining States than allowing them significantly more of the gains
they are entitled to under the new formula than would the committee
bill as it comes to the floor.
I strongly recommend to my colleagues that, not only from a sense of
equity, but in terms of looking at this bill more analytically, that
they support my substitute amendment. There are States which would gain
more under the gentleman from Illinois' amendment, but suppose the
gentleman from Illinois' amendment at
[[Page H4877]] the end of the day is not the version which carries.
They would then be stuck with the allocation formula in the bill as it
comes to the floor or some modification which ultimately may arise in
committee of conference, and under the worst possible case, if the bill
is not enacted into law, we would have no reauthorization other than
revolving funds and no funds in the future.
I say to my colleagues, ``When you contemplate all of the
alternatives, I think the responsible, the fair, the equitable
alternative would be found to be the one which I offer this morning.''
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Could the gentleman answer the following questions? The
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] gave us a list of States, of how
much they would lose under the committee's formula compared to his
formula. It names some of the larger losers, and can the gentleman tell
me the corresponding figures for his substitute, please?
Mr. BATEMAN. I do not have them in front of me. I will get them and
bring them to the gentleman. There is a list, and it will be available
on the floor. I do not have it in my remarks. I do not have it in front
of me.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield to me, I have
those figures, and I will give them to him.
Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Illinois
so we can get those figures?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]
has expired.
(At the request of Mr. Nadler and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bateman
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

{time} 1015

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BATEMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I have the list. The gentleman wants to
know what the losses are going to be. He does not know what you are
going to ask.
Mr. BATEMAN. Might I suggest if the time has been yielded back to me,
the more orderly way to proceed might be for me to yield back the time
and then you all can raise such questions as you want, and then I will
try and have the information to respond. At this point let me yield
back the time. I am not trying to avoid getting you the information.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me first make a couple of comments here.
Allocations of highway funding should be based on need and population.
That is the tradition in the House and the fairest way. The amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois bases the allocations on the
latest needs figures from 1990 and on the latest population figures
from the 1990 census. Of course, they differ from the needs and
population figured in 1970, 20 years ago, based on a 20-year-old
formula. Of course, some States have greater needs now relative to
others and greater population now relative to others, and others have
less.
They should gain and lose accordingly. If some States have much less
needs, then they should have much less funds. If some States have much
more needs, they should get a much greater proportion. That is the
fairest way to do it, and that is what the gentleman from Illinois
does, and that is the tradition we have followed over the years.
The committee formula bases it on current needs and population,
modified by a hold-harmless formula to say that those States which no
longer have the need relative to others should continue getting more
than they need relative to others.
The substitute of the gentleman from Virginia says well, we are not
going to continue that indefinitely, but we are going to continue to
give an unfair proportion to some States, to 6 States, and an unfairly
low proportion to 26 States, for 5 years. In fact, for any that are off
balance by more than 20 percent, indeterminately. It is not fair and
not right.
Therefore I urge the defeat of the substitute amendment and the
adoption of the amendment.
With that, I will ask if the gentleman from Illinois would answer a
couple of questions.
I would ask the gentleman, under the committee formula, Washington
loses $35 million. How much would it lose under the gentleman from
Virginia's amendment?
Mr. LIPINSKI. $28,452,500.
Mr. NADLER. Virginia loses $27 million. How much would it lose under
the amendment?
Mr. LIPINSKI. $18,588,500.
Mr. NADLER. New York loses $318 million. Under the gentleman's
substitute, how much would it lose?
Mr. LIPINSKI. The great State of New York would lose $270,720,500.
Mr. NADLER. Illinois would lose $83 million. How much would it lose
under the substitute?
Mr. LIPINSKI. $63,375,000.
Mr. NADLER. Arizona would lose $50 million. How much would it lose
under the substitute?
Mr. LIPINSKI. $47,850,000.
Mr. NADLER. California would lose $186 million under the gentleman's
substitute.
Mr. LIPINSKI. $155,570,000.
Mr. NADLER. And Florida would lose $3 million. Under the gentleman's
substitute, how much would it lose?
Mr. LIPINSKI. $4,888,000.
Mr. NADLER. Indiana would lose $58 million under the gentleman's
substitute.
Mr. LIPINSKI. $47,962,000.
Mr. NADLER. Georgia would lose $20 million under the gentleman's
substitute.
Mr. LIPINSKI. $14,220,000.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe the gentleman's substitute does
very little, as you heard from those figures, to undo the inequity of
the committee formula. The gentleman's substitute should not be
adopted. The amendment of the gentleman from Illinois, which bases the
allocation formula strictly on needs and on population based on the
1990 census, should be adopted as continuing the tradition of the House
to base these allocations fairly on population and on needs. And if
some States have much less needs currently, so be it. If others have
greater, they should get proportionately what they need.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I would not question the arithmetic of the gentleman
from Illinois or the gentleman from New York. I would question,
however, the ultimate analysis and where the bottom line falls. It is
true that States you enumerated would not do as well under my
substitute as under the Lipinski amendment. I think, however, you need
to assess it in the context of what is the difference between the
version of the formula in the committee bill and the Bateman
substitute, and all of those States would be substantially improved or
enhanced under my substitute, more than they would under the bill as it
comes to the floor.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Nadler was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, here are the differences. The States that
have greater needs and greater populations would not be substantially
benefited and treated substantially more fairly under the substitute
offered by the gentleman from Virginia. Compare: Washington would only
lose $28 million instead of $35 million. Is $7 million substantial? It
would still lose $28 million from what it should get. Virginia would
lose $18 million instead of $27 million. New York would lose $270
million. It is better than $318 million, but still $270 million.
Unfair. Illinois would lose $63 million. Better than $83 million.
California would lose $155 million. A little better than $186 million,
but still $155 million less than it should get. Georgia, $14 million;
Florida, $3 million.
The sum and substance, Mr. Chairman, is that most States, the
majority of States, 26 States, would be treated
[[Page H4878]] unfairly under this amendment and under the substitute.
Six States would gain. There is no reason for that other than a desire
to protect the States which have relatively less need, and in this era
of fiscal stringency, where we are going to be cutting down the funds
appropriated pursuant to this appropriations bill, we should not treat
the States unfairly.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, if this passes, will the gentleman from
New York vote for the bill? If the Lipinski amendment passes, will the
gentleman vote for the bill?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, if many of the other changes that I and
others on this side have suggested are adopted, I would certainly
consider it.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for his obfuscation.
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, it is never a valid argument against
an amendment that the people supporting the amendment may or may not
support the bill. The question is, What does the bill look like at the
end? I cannot tell you right now what the bill is going to look like at
the end. I reserve judgment on whether I will vote.
Mr. SCHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words and rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
Mr. Chairman, in the committee bill we rewrote the formula. The
formula was developed in the 1970's based on population and based on
needs. As a result of the changing needs and the changing population,
we rewrote that formula. However, in doing so, we recognized that it
would have an extreme impact on 23 States, which under the raw formula
change would see one-third or more of their grants wiped out between
1995 and 1996. Three States, Alaska, Hawaii, and Iowa, would have their
programs cut by 55 to 70 percent. So we said to ease the pain and the
transition, we would put a plus or minus 10 percent cap, which seems to
be fair.
Now, Pennsylvania would gain under Mr. Lipinski's wiping out of this
10 percent cap. But, nevertheless, in the interest of balance and
fairness, I think that it is appropriate to have some form of
transition.
Along comes the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bateman], which actually goes a lot further toward Mr. Lipinski than
the 10-percent cap which we imposed in the committee. Under this
formula, it would go from a 55-percent cap to 10 percent in the second
year, to 15 percent, to 20 percent, and 20 percent in the fifth year,
the final year of this bill. Presumably there would be no caps as we
move beyond the fifth year.
I think that is more balanced and more fair. It phases out the caps
and, ultimately over a 5-year period, we get to the raw formula that
Mr. Lipinski is proposing, and the formula which is in the bill,
without the caps.
So, for all of those reasons, I believe in the interest of fairness
and balance, we should support the Bateman amendment as a compromise to
this issue, and urge adoption of the Bateman amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bateman substitute
amendment and am in support of the Lipinski amendment. The formula used
to allocate wastewater State evolving loan fund money under existing
law is based on data from the mid-1970's, with most of the weight on
needs and relatively little weight on population. No one can defend
using out-of-date data as the best way to allocate scarce resources, or
to effectively address needs into the 21st century, which is what the
formula we put in this bill will have to do.
All the clean water bills introduced in the last Congress and in this
Congress, including H.R. 961 as originally introduced, have used the
same new formula, one that retains the weights in existing law but is
based on the latest needs and population data available.
The formula was changed during subcommittee markup. This latest
formula--the one that is in the reported bill--basically keeps the
formula that is in existing law, but adjusts a State's allocation up or
down by 10 percent. That is hardly bringing the formula up to date.
We have heard a great deal in this Congress, and by proponents of
this bill, about making decisions based on sound science. But one is
hard put to explain how relying on data that are 20 years out of date
and an arbitrary plus or minus 10 percent adjustment can be sound
science.
Because of tight Federal budget, wastewater treatment program suffers
from severely limited funding. It is, therefore, imperative that we use
the money available in the most effective way possible. Allocating it
in the way best reflective of current needs is part of assuring that it
is used as effectively as possible. The formula in existing law, of
course, does not meet that test. Neither does the formula in H.R. 961.
It has been argued that while a change in the existing formula is
clearly overdue, we should only marginally adjust the formula because
otherwise a few States would have their allotments changed
substantially. That may be true. But it is only because we have waited
so long to update the formula. For instance, if you allow no Social
Security cost-of-living adjustment for 20-year catch-up cost-of-living
adjustment will produce a big jump, too. But that does not make it any
less justified.
The gentleman from Illinois has circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' so
that Members can see exactly how the formula in this bill would treat
all States and how the formula in his amendment would treat all States.
Given the importance of this vote, I would urge all Members to be
familiar with that information before they cast their votes. If anyone
does not have that information, I am sure that Mr. Lipinski can make
that available to our colleagues.
Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time in support of the Lipinski
amendment.
{time} 1030

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the Bateman amendment and in opposition
to the Lipinski amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment which would reinstate
a previously rejected and inequitable formula for the allocation of
Federal capitalization grants for State revolving loan funds.
First of all, it is my understanding that there is a certain amount
of controversy regarding the validity of the 1992 needs survey on which
the formula in the amendment is based. In addition, the formula results
in such wild fluctuations that most States experience either tremendous
losses or tremendous gains in their allotment.
My own State of Wisconsin would experience a 48-percent drop from the
formula in existing law. And that is not the most severe decrease--
several States would be cut even more dramatically. How can we be
expected to support that?
A decrease of that amount would be particularly frustrating and
discouraging to States which are leaders in water quality programs and
devote State resources to wastewater treatment programs beyond the
required 20-percent match under the Clean Water Act. Many of these
leaders would be cut severely under this amendment. A 10-percent
decrease still causes some concern, but a 48-percent drop would be
devastating and would send the wrong message to our State partners in
clean water.
I can assure you that many of us would be happy to receive a 10-
percent increase. Some States will receive less of an increase under
the formula in H.R. 961, but they are still receiving a 10-percent
increase.
Finally, I believe that we really should take another look at what
elements are included in this needs based formula. H.R. 961 opens up
the State revolving loan funds so that States can use the Federal funds
for wastewater treatment, clean lakes programs, nonpoint source
pollution control programs, watershed and stormwater programs, and a
host of other activities. But this formula reportedly is based
primarily on wastewater treatment capital infrastructure requirements.
But if you consider Wisconsin's nearly 15,000 lakes, 57,000 stream
and river miles, 1,100 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, 1,700 square
miles of estuaries and harbors, and the agricultural pollution
[[Page H4879]] challenges that we face from 70,000 farms--which is four
times what New York State has--and if all of these factors were
included in the formula, I can assure you the overwhelming water needs
we have in Wisconsin would become quite apparent.
I want to commend the chairman of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee for his action and leadership on this issue.
And I urge that the Lipinski amendment be defeated by the House as it
already has been in the committee.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I take it the gentleman agrees with me and
shares my concern that if you just implemented the raw data from the
new formula, 29 States would lose, some of them as much as of 9 percent
of their funding.
Mr. PETRI. That is absolutely right. What this would do, too, is,
frankly, based on needs and not looking at what States have done tends
to reward States that have been ineffective in using funds they got
under the last program rather than States that have done a good job.
It seems to me that is a little bit funny, plus removing the nonpoint
source approaches here and the needs assessment survey does not reflect
the broadening of the State and Federal pollution fighting effort. The
needs is based on wastewater needs, not on total needs in each State.
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I guess the bottom line here is that we often get
embroiled in these formula debates here in the House. And I have heard
some seemingly convincing arguments on the other side enumerating the
number of States that would benefit under one formula or the other.
But, of course, part of what is neglected in that argument is the
population base on those States.
Actually, under the Lipinski amendment, the math is pretty simple for
299 Members of this House and for the constituents of 299 Members of
this House. There is not enough money to do everything we need to do in
wastewater treatment. I think there should be more money in the budget.
I think the Republican budget proposed yesterday by slashing funds for
infrastructure and wastewater treatment is going the wrong way. I would
be willing to support a higher emphasis on these needs in our Nation.
But given the fact we are fighting over a shrinking pie here, there is
a pretty basic equation.
That is, if you lose under the committee bill, which 299 Members of
this body do, far more than a simple majority, those same 299 Members
still lose under the Bateman substitute to the Lipinski amendment.
So I would suggest, despite all the Rube Goldberging and everything
else that is going on around here, that we get back to the basic facts.
And that is, the needs are not met in those States represented by 299
Members any better than they are in the other States represented by a
minority of Members in this House who would benefit under this
amendment. So I would strongly suggest that any of those 299 who vote
to gut the Lipinski amendment will perhaps have some explaining to do
when they go home to their constituents.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in strong support of the Lipinski amendment and in
opposition to the Bateman substitute.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his very
thoughtful substitute. And he is my friend and I reluctantly oppose his
substitute here. I would say that under its current form, title VI of
the Clean Water Act amendment authorizes an annual allocation of $2.5
billion over the next 5 years for State water pollution controlling
revolving funds or SRF's. These SRF's provide critical assistance to
States for the operation loan programs, for the construction and
maintenance of municipal wastewater treatment plants. These loans
represent the frontline for localities in their struggle to improve our
drinking water quality.
However, as it is written now, title VI unfairly distributes these
funds under a bizarre and outdated formula that is based on estimated
needs and population statistics from the 1970's. Instead, the Lipinski
allocation reflects real needs and uses real current census data, the
result being a better return for each dollar spent.
The Bateman substitute, on the other hand, attempts to address
inequity through a level of caps and also trying to move in this same
direction. But to offer or foster the argument that we have a past
inequity that is 20 years old, that is based on data that is that old,
that will only move toward correcting it rather than correcting it now
seems to be perpetuating the same wrong of the past just to a lesser
degree.
I think in pure fairness, we should adopt the Lipinski amendment and
reject the Bateman substitute, painful though it may be for those
States who have, under the current calculation, received more than they
should have for many years and will continue to receive more under this
substitute.
If the Lipinski amendment is not adopted, then States like
California, New York, and my home State of Illinois will lose millions.
The Lipinski amendment is a question of fairness. With the adoption of
this amendment, States like Illinois will receive their equitable share
of SRF assistance as opposed to something closer to their equitable
share.
So I urge my colleagues to support the Lipinski amendment and to
defeat the Bateman substitute.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Bateman
substitute amendment, and I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my very good friend, and I mean this
sincerely, my very good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bateman], putting forth this amendment. He and I came to Congress
together. We were friends then.
In the last few years, we worked very closely together on the
Merchant Marine Subcommittee. In fact, I doubt seriously there has ever
been a majority or minority that worked any closer together. So I am
happy that he has brought forth this amendment. I know that he frames
it as a compromise, but in all honesty I do not see it as a compromise.
It is a minute step in the right direction but only a minute step in
the right direction.
Let us remember that my amendment simply restores what was in the
bill last year, what was in the bill at the beginning of this year, and
what was not removed from the bill until the subcommittee markup.
At the full committee markup, I attempted to return to the original
formula in the bill based upon 1990 population and needs. We lost. We
lost on a
vote of 30 to 30. Unfortunately the 31st vote in our favor wandered in
the door a few minutes after the gavel fell. The next day we attempted
to revive it for another vote, but we failed. It was tabled.

Mr. Chairman, I have heard people talk about here today that it was
defeated in committee. There have been letters sent out saying it was
defeated in committee, my amendment. It is true, but I thought I would
put it in the proper perspective.
Once again I would like to reiterate, there are winners and there are
losers. I oppose and I ask you to oppose the Bateman substitute, and I
ask you to support the Lipinski amendment, particularly the following
States: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Washington, and West Virginia.
If you do not defeat the Bateman amendment and support the Lipinski
amendment, those States will lose close to $800 million.
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Lipinski amendment. I have
great deal of respect for the gentleman from Illinois but I think this
approach is flawed. I will be supporting the Bateman amendment and vote
against the Lipinski amendment because, quite frankly, the Lipinski
provides an inequitable allotment formula for the
[[Page H4880]] distribution of State revolving loan funds.
Sure, I would love to think solely about my State and how much more
money we could get out of the Lipinski formula. But we are talking
about clean water as a national policy here. Every State deserves a
fair allotment. The fact of the matter is the SRF is a national
program. We in Congress have a duty and responsibility to ensure that
national programs are run fairly and equitably. The chairman and the
committee did that in the committee, and the Bateman substitute goes
even further toward that end.
It provides safeguards to prevent huge disparities in funding
allotments and ensures that no State benefits at the expense of another
State. Under Lipinski, however, only a few States would benefit at the
expense of 23 other States, 14 of which stand to see their SFR funds
cut by more than 50 percent. This is not fair, and it simply is not
good public policy especially at a time when we are encouraging States
to play a more active role in managing their pollution control
programs.
Mr. Bateman's amendment is more evenhanded and does not contain this
egregious treatment that some States receive under the Lipinski
amendment. The allotment formula is far more objective.
For this reason, I ask my colleagues to do the fair thing and vote
against the Lipinski amendment and vote for the Bateman substitute.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words, and I rise in support of the Bateman substitute and in
opposition to the Lipinski amendment.
The gentleman is entirely correct in his formula approach; by that I
mean the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], as was the committee.
However, the committee balanced the extraordinary impact that would
occur on the handful of States, somewhere 14 to 20, that would be so
disproportionate to their present funding that it simply was not fair.
{time} 1045

I would have no quarrel with accepting the formula of the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], if it did not so disservice that handful
of States. The gentleman from Illinois was also correct when he read
his list a moment ago and included my home State of Louisiana as one
that would lose under both the committee and the substitute amendment
by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. But I believe a State
like Louisiana, that I represent, would lose something bigger if we did
not understand that we should not gain at the tremendous expense of
those who would be so unfairly impacted by the rigid change in
allocation of formula.
Therefore, the phase-in by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]
is a much fairer approach, balances between the two, and I hope is
supported by a majority of the House. We come here never forgetting
where we are from, but we also recognize that ``U.S.'' stands in front
of ``Congressman,'' and on the occasions when our States would be so
severely negatively impacted we hope to remember and remind those that
we helped at these times in asking their help in the future.
For that reason, I, on one of the rare occasions, disagree with the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski]. I am going to oppose his
amendment.
Mr. ZELIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Lipinski amendment.
H.R. 961, as passed by the Transportation Committee, authorizes general
State revolving fund capitalization grants at $3 billion each year for
fiscal years 1996 through 2000. These SRF capitalizing grants provide
essential assistance to States and local governments which will be
faced with over $120 billion in capital needs related to Clean Water
Act water quality requirements over the next 20 years.
In addition to increasing the total amount of SRF grants available to
States and localities, title VI, as passed by the committee, is based
on the population and the recently estimated needs of a State, and
includes a hold harmless cap to prevent any State from losing or
gaining more than 20 percent of its prior allotment.
The current SRF allotment formula is based on an outdated 1977 State
population and needs data. The Lipinski amendment would force States to
absorb the effects of updating a nearly 20-year-old SRF formula in 1
year. Without the Bateman amendment and the 20-percent floor and cap,
there would be many very big losers and a couple of very big gainers.
The elimination of the 20-percent loss limitation, as proposed by Mr.
Lipinski, would
result in 30 States and the District of Columbia being faced with a
drastic reduction in their share of SRF grants.

New Hampshire would be the fourth largest loser under the Lipinski
allotment formula. It would suffer a 53-percent reduction in its
current allotment of SRF grants, which translates as a loss of over $10
million per year. Based on the 1992 Needs Survey Report to Congress,
New Hampshire's total sewage infrastructure needs a total over $1
billion. This cut of $53 million between fiscal years 1996 and 2000
would be devastating to the communities of New Hampshire. New
Hampshire's $536 million in new sewer construction needs would still be
unmet. Its $164 million in wastewater treatment needs would be unmet.
Its $37 million in rehabilitation of existing sewer needs would be
unmet. And its $330 million in combined sewer overflow needs would be
unmet. The amendment would financially cripple communities throughout
the State and hinder efforts to improve the quality of their water
resources.
New Hampshire is by no means the only State faced with enormous water
infrastructure costs, nor is it the only State that would be faced with
severe reductions in its SRF allotment under the Lipinski amendment.
There would be far more big losers than big gainers under this
amendment. The biggest losers would be Hawaii at a 66-percent loss,
Alaska at 59 percent, Iowa at 55 percent, Delaware at 50 percent,
Montana at 50 percent, Nevada at 50 percent, New Mexico at 50 percent,
North Dakota at 50 percent, South Dakota at 50 percent, Wyoming at 50
percent, and Idaho at 49 percent. The big winners under the Lipinski
amendment would be Arizona at a 68-percent increase, North Carolina, at
42 percent, and New York at 32 percent. Mr. Lipinski's State of
Illinois would gain 24 percent. Mr. Chairman, is it fair for 10 States
to lose 50 percent or more of their SRF funding to 1 State's gain of 68
percent; or for 22 States and the District of Columbia to lose 30
percent or more of their funding to 5 States' gain of 30 percent or
more? With the 10 percent hold harmless in place, the 30 States and the
District of Columbia which would have otherwise suffered significant
cuts in their share of the SRF grants will be able to continue their
needed wastewater treatment projects.
This is an issue of fairness and of sound national public policy. Let
us not return the Clean Water Act to be an unfunded mandate for a
majority of the States. It is our obligation to ensure equity in the
SRF allotment distribution so that all States, counties, and localities
across this Nation have the ability to meet their wastewater
infrastructure needs and to do their part in improving the quality of
America's water resources. I strongly urge my colleagues join with me,
support the Bateman amendment, and vote ``no'' on the Lipinski
amendment.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment of my
good friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski], and in support
of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman].
In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, the allocation formula of the gentleman
from Illinois would virtually wipe out in less than a year almost half
of the State clean water programs in this program. Maryland would lose
money under this formula, but as many of us here have discussed in the
last few minutes, it is not the focus of one State versus another
State. We are not in competition. If we are in a mode to understand the
necessity for watershed management for clean water, where a number of
States in a particular watershed have to work together to clean their
water, to reduce the problem of nonpoint source pollution, to do all
those things that are necessary for States to improve the quality of
life for
[[Page H4881]] those people, and to have a State revolving loan fund to
impact that, the formula of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski]
does not do that.
In my judgment, under the allocation of the gentleman from Illinois,
over 20 States or a third or more of the States with SRF grants would
largely be eliminated. The States that gain under the amendment of the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] would still gain under the
committee bill and under the gentleman's amendment, they just would not
gain as much.
To be fair to the many States that may potentially lose large
portions of their programs, this amendment should be defeated. I
encourage Members to vote for the Bateman amendment.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lipinski amendment and
in opposition to the Bateman amendment.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BORSKI. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania for yielding
to me.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have failed to mention the fact that I
think that during the course of the subcommittee markup, full committee
markup, and here on the House floor, with a bill that is very
controversial, because people have very strong opinions, that the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the Committee on
Public Works and Transportation, has done an outstanding job. I have
said this on other occasions, and I want to say it once again.
I would also like to jump back just for a moment to my friend, the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], because it pains me to be up
here opposing him when, as I say, in the last 2 years we worked so
diligently on attempting to save the U.S. merchant marine.
However, I have to say that the Bateman substitute suffers from the
same defects as the ones in the bill. It uses the same outdated
population and needs data to apportion SRF money to finance
construction of wastewater facilities. The result is a formula that
bears no resemblance to the clean water needs we face today. Thus, it
will not help us prepare for the environmental challenges we will be
facing in the near future.
The phase-in period is also problemmatical. It simply means that we
have to wait another 4 years to get 20 percent of the adjustment we
need to reflect current and future needs. We have waited a long time to
update the wastewater SRF formula. We should not have to wait another 4
years to get another 20 percent of the changes in the current data
showing that we need it now. For the sake of getting the most efficient
allocation of resources, of getting the most bang for our buck, we
should defeat the substitute, and we should support the Lipinski
amendment.
One last time, I simply want to say that if Members are from the
following States, and there are 299 Members from the following States,
if you are from these States, defeat the Bateman amendment, support the
Lipinski amendment, and these States will gain close to $1 trillion:
Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington,
and West Virginia.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and congratulate him
on his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] as a substitute for the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(c) of rule
XXIII, the Chair announces that he may reduce to not less than 5
minutes the period of time within which a rollcall vote may be taken
without intervening business on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160,
noes 246, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 327]

AYES--160

Abercrombie
Allard
Armey
Bachus
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clinger
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins (MI)
Combest
Cramer
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Dickey
Dingell
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Fields (TX)
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hayes
Hefley
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inglis
Johnson (SD)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Longley
Lucas
Luther
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
Mfume
Minge
Mink
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Obey
Orton
Oxley
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Petri
Pickett
Portman
Pryce
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roth
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stupak
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornton
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NOES--246

Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Boehner
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Canady
Chapman
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Crane
Cunningham
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McHale
McHugh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Norwood
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schumer
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
Wise
[[Page H4882]] Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--28

Baker (LA)
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Cox
Dornan
Dunn
Fattah
Gejdenson
Hancock
Hefner
Hoyer
Istook
Kasich
McDermott
Meek
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Mollohan
Ortiz
Pastor
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Rogers
Tanner
Torres
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1122

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On the vote:

Mr. Watts of Oklahoma for, with Mr. Bono against.

Mr. SOLOMON, Ms. PELOSI, and Messrs. STOCKMAN, PACKARD, NEAL of
Massachusetts, ROYCE, CUNNINGHAM, DICKS, GALLEGLY, BUYER,
FRELINGHUYSEN, LAZIO of New York, SMITH of Texas, TIAHRT, TORKILDSEN,
KIM, and QUINN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ARMEY, GEKAS, LIGHTFOOT, DEAL of Georgia, NEY, CREMEANS,
SABO, BALDACCI, and HOBSON, Mrs. SCHROEDER, Messrs. GEPHARDT, HEFLEY,
EHLERS, and GANSKE, Mrs. MINK of Hawaii, Messrs. MFUME, BARCIA, and
CLAY, Ms. KAPTUR, Messrs. EHRLICH, STUPAK, TAUZIN, BONIOR, GUTKNECHT,
and RICHARDSON, and Miss COLLINS of Michigan changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was
rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I was in conference with Senators on the
Senate side on the rescission bill and did not hear the bells nor
realize a vote was being taken on rollcall No. 327. Had I been present
and voting, I would have voted ``aye.''

personal explanation

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent on rollcall 327.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
I was unavoidably absent on rollcall 328. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``no.''
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 154, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 328]

AYES--247

Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Baesler
Ballenger
Barr
Barton
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehlert
Borski
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Canady
Chambliss
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Coyne
Crane
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Green
Gutierrez
Hamilton
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Norwood
Olver
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pickett
Pombo
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Rangel
Reynolds
Riggs
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Ward
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Yates
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOES--154

Abercrombie
Allard
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bereuter
Bevill
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Brewster
Browder
Brown (OH)
Callahan
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins (MI)
Combest
Cramer
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Danner
DeLay
Dingell
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Fields (TX)
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodling
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hayes
Hefley
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hutchinson
Inglis
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Levin
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Longley
Lucas
Luther
McCarthy
McCrery
McInnis
Minge
Mink
Montgomery
Morella
Neumann
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Orton
Oxley
Parker
Petri
Pomeroy
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Roth
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Shuster
Skaggs
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Stokes
Stupak
Talent
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Wicker
Williams
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff

NOT VOTING--33

Baker (LA)
Bono
Boucher
Collins (IL)
Cox
Dickey
Dornan
Dunn
Fattah
Gejdenson
Hancock
Hefner
Hoyer
Istook
Kasich
Livingston
Meek
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Mollohan
Obey
Ortiz
Pastor
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Porter
Rogers
Skeen
Tanner
Torres
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (PA)

{time} 1130

Mr. HILLEARY and Mr. McDERMOTT changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VI?
amendment offered by mr. largent

Mr. LARGENT. 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. Largent: Page 232, strike lines 13
through 17 and insert the following:
``(7) $2,250,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
``(8) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
``(9) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
``(10) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
``(11) $2,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
Page 232, strike line 18 and all that follows through line
20 on page 234.
Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
Page 32, line 6, strike ``$3,000,000,000'' and insert
``2,250,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair notes the gentleman from Oklahoma has an
amendment which, in part, references title II. It will be necessary for
the gentleman to ask for unanimous consent in order to have
consideration of the
[[Page H4883]] part of his amendment which affects title II.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, can we get a
further explanation of that portion of it in terms of its relationship
to title II?
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINETA. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, does the Chair wish me to address the
concern of our colleague, the gentleman from California, or address the
amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair believes the gentleman from California has
yielded to the gentleman from Oklahoma in pursuit of a question for
further explanation of that part of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma that affects or impacts title II. The Chair
would reference the gentleman to the last two lines of the amendment.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I would note that it is a conforming
change, and we would ask that the last line be stricken.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I was just wanting to hear the
explanation. I have no objection to what the gentleman is doing. I just
wanted an explanation on the title II portion of it, and I appreciate
that very, very much.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the original amendment will be
considered.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Largent] for 5 minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to conform the water
infrastructure authorizations in H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments
of 1995, to the House budget resolution passed earlier yesterday
morning.
H.R. 961 currently authorizes roughly $3 billion annually for water
infrastructure programs and capitalization of water quality State
revolving funds. While these are laudable programs and the States do
have an important unmet clean water need, the bill's authorization
total is too high. The bills' fiscal year 1996 total of $3.05 billion
is just over $750 million more than the $2.3 billion included in the
House budget resolution passed by the Committee on the Budget.
While my amendment represents a 25-percent reduction in H.R. 961,
water infrastructure authorization, it still maintains the bill's
authorization levels above the President's request of $1.87 billion for
fiscal year 1996.
Specifically, my amendment will eliminate the new nonpoint source
State revolving fund capitalization program. This new program was not
requested by the President and could cost up to $500 million a year.
The program is redundant, since H.R. 961 allows moneys from the current
State revolving fund program to be used for nonpoint source projects.
My amendment further reduces the State revolving authorization from
$2.5 billion annually to $2.25 billion in fiscal year 1996. That total
is increased to $2.3 billion in fiscal years 1997 through 2000.
My amendment will make a good bill better. The amendment is fiscally
sound, while allowing the States to receive funding they need for water
infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to include a letter that was written
to the chairman, Chairman Shuster. This is from the Association of
State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, the folks
responsible with the State revolving fund. It is their strong
recommendation, in fact, I will quote:

It is the strong position of the Association that the
existing State revolving fund should be the mechanism for
infrastructure financing in the future, and that single-
purpose grants like the nonpoint source revolving fund should
not be created, that the new nonpoint source State revolving
fund duplicates existing authority and is unnecessary, that
it would require duplication of administrative effort and
financial resources, it limits gubernatorial flexibility,
that it does not currently provide for the level of
flexibility provided under the existing SRF,

And, again, finally, it is their basic position the Clean Water Act
project-level technical and financial assistance should be consolidated
rather then fragmented under the existing State revolving fund, and,
therefore, they conclude, ``We are not in a position to be supportive
of this provision that is included in the Clean Water authorization.''

Association of State and Interstate, Water Pollution
Control Administrators,
Washington, DC, May 9, 1995.
Hon. Bud Shuster,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Shuster: As was requested by the Committee,
the Association has reviewed the provision to create a State
Revolving Fund for non-point sources and provides the
following comments. Please be aware that, for the most part,
these comments have been shared personally with Chairman
Boehlert (in advance of the full committee mark-up) and some
items were addressed at that time.
1. It is the strong position of the Association that the
existing SRF should be the mechanism for infrastructure
financing in the future. Subsidies/single purpose grants or
SRF's should not be created.
2. This NPS/SRF duplicates existing authority and is
unnecessary inasmuch as non-point sources are already
eligible under the current program and non-point source
projects are currently being funded by states.
3. The NPS/SRF would require some duplication of
administrative effort and financial resources to establish
and maintain. Again, this is an unnecessary expenditure,
because currently, authority allows for non-point source
loans.
4. The NPS/SRF limits gubernatorial flexibility by
targeting State funds to a particular problem rather than the
overall goals of the Act--as determined by a State.
5. The NPS/SRF does not currently provide for the level of
flexibility provided by the existing SRF, (i.e., the negative
interest options). Therefore, it is our understanding that
NPS loan recipients cannot benefit from reduced paybacks.
6. It is our understanding that the Tax Act places a
restriction on the percentage (e.g. 10%) of an SRF that can
be provided to an individual or private sector entity when
tax exempt bonds are used to leverage or secure the State
match. As the NPS/SRF is specifically targeted to
individuals/farmers, this Tax Act restriction applies. Hence,
it is likely that only 10% of the total fund could be
utilized in some States.
The ASIWPCA appreciates Chairman Boehlert's interest in
placing higher priority on non-point source pollution. Also,
ASIWPCA supports efforts, (within the context of the existing
SRF), to address these diffuse sources. However, our basic
position is that all Clean Water Act project-level technical
and financial assistance should be consolidated--rather than
fragmented--under the existing SRF. Therefore, we are not in
a position to be supportive of this provision.
We hope that these comments are useful to the committee.
Sincerely,
Bruce Baker,
President.

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I must strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.
We are all concerned about the budget and the Federal deficit.
However, we cannot ignore the needs of our cities and States, and the
bill before us is already inadequate to fully meet such needs.
Current estimates of the needs of cities and States to meet water
quality goals under the Clean Water Act are placed at $137 billion over
the next 20 years. Even at $3 billion per year as provided in the bill,
we will not be able to provide as much assistance to cities and States
as I would prefer. Further reducing the amount will only delay
achieving desired water quality.
One of the recurring themes of the debate on this legislation has
been the need to reduce unfunded mandates upon cities and States.
Further reducing the authorized funding will not help in reducing
unfunded mandates, it will only make matters worse.
The $137 billion in needs which the cities and States have identified
are real needs, and those needs will continue even if this bill were to
become law.
I would also like to point out to my colleagues, that the cuts in
assistance to states and cities are even greater than they might
appear. These Federal grants are for capitalization of State revolving
loan funds--the money is used over and over in providing assistance to
localities.
Over 20 years, these funds will be used three times. Therefore, a
$3.5 billion reduction over the life of this bill will actually be a
reduction of over $10
[[Page H4884]] billion in assistance to States and cities.
Few of our Federal investments yield such a high return. We receive
improved water quality, and the funds will be available in perpetuity.
The final point I will make in opposition to the Largent amendment is
that while I appreciate the efforts of the budget committee in
developing spending assumptions, it is a function of the authorizing
and appropriating committees to determine final funding levels for
individual programs. This amendment presupposes the results of that
process. And, it presupposes the results of that process even before
the budget resolution has been considered by the House.
Should the final budget resolution require reconciliation legislation
or reduced levels of appropriations, then the House and appropriate
committees can consider those options at that time. However, I believe
that we would be doing a great disservice to the interests of the
cities and States if we should choose to reduce the authorization
levels in the bill at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the rejection of this amendment. We should allow
the budget and appropriations process to work their course, and we
should do our best to aid cities and States.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to support our full
authorization that we brought to the floor. I would like to be able to
support it because the needs for clean water far exceed the
authorization which is in this bill.
However, I am extremely cognizant of the extraordinary budget
pressures this Congress faces. The general fund budget must be brought
under control.
So, for that reason, with some reluctance, I nevertheless must
support the amendment which we have before us today, and perhaps most
importantly, I think we should focus on the reality that in the last
Congress the actual appropriation for this program was $2.3 billion.
The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] brings to the floor today a
reduction which will nevertheless this coming year leave that
authorization at $2.6 billion, or $300 million more than the reality of
the actual appropriation which we saw last year. So considering the
pressures we have on the budget, considering the reality of what the
actual appropriations have been, and also recognizing the extraordinary
needs that we have for clean water, I would urge support of the Largent
amendment.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my opposition to this amendment that
will continue the trend of reducing the investment in our Nation's
infrastructure.
The authorization levels in the committee bill show a commitment to
continuing the program of investment that has existed for 20 years.
This investment has been crucial to the success of our efforts to clean
up the Nation's waters.
Last year, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, I chaired a series of hearings that examined the need for
more capital investment in this Nation.
We found that the Nation's needs for investment in wastewater
treatment are continuing to increase.
The Environmental Protection Agency estimates the Nation's total
investment needs in wastewater treatment to be almost $140 billion.
It is estimated that an additional $6 billion a year is needed to
meet our needs.
One report by a respected infrastructure consulting firm estimated
that we will have a $62 billion shortfall in our investment in
wastewater treatment by the end of the decade.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe reducing the authorization levels in
H.R. 961 is the way to meet our Nation's pressing water pollution
problems.
The State Revolving Loan Fund Program has been a shining success in
the area of innovative financing on a cooperative Federal and State
basis.
The States contribute their share and then control the funds as they
are recycled.
Many other infrastructure initiatives have been looking to the Clean
Water Act as a model for their own areas.
We should not be attempting to curtail these programs but enhancing
them as a way of solving our urgent water pollution problems.
Adoption of this amendment would be another setback in our attempt to
clean up our Nation's waters. I urge its defeat.
{time} 1145

The States contribute their share and then control the funds as they
are recycled. Many other infrastructure initiatives have been looking
to the Clean Water Act as a model for their own areas. We should not be
attempting to curtail these programs, but enhancing them as a way of
solving our urgent water pollution problems. Adoption of this amendment
would be another setback in our attempt to clean up our Nation's
waters.
Mr. Chairman, I would also make a note for those who are concerned
most about unfunded mandates. If this amendment were to pass, we would
give our States, and cities and localities more of an unfunded mandate
to meet their needs. I urge defeat of the amendment.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to the heart of the ability of
cities to meet their obligations to clean up the Nation's waterways. At
the very start of the Clean Water Act in 1956, my predecessor, John
Plotnik, took on the daunting task, and then formidable and incredible
task, of crafting legislation to clean up the Nation's waterways which
are in a despicable state. He recognized that at the end of all the
laws and all the discussions we have to have funds to cities and States
to build sewage treatment plants to clean up their effluent, an
incentive. A partnership was struck between the Federal Government, and
municipalities and the States, and that partnership has grown, and it
has worked extraordinarily well.
Over the years of construction, of the construction grant program for
the Federal water pollution control program, municipalities have used,
in combination with Federal funds, some $75 billion to clean up point
sources of discharge. And industry has spent in the range of $130
billion to clean up their responsibility. Together over $205 billion
spent in the last 25 years on cleaning up point source discharges to
help clean up America's waterways. Most municipalities of large size
meet secondary treatment standards, but the unmet needs and the most
recent EPA surveys show $137 billion in needs by municipalities to
build sewage treatment facilities to clean up those discharges. Talk
will not clean them up. Talk will not take sewage out of the Nation's
waterways. Treatment facilities do, and that costs money.
Now several years ago we eliminated the construction grant program
and replaced it with a revolving loan fund that shifted significantly
greater costs to municipalities for their responsibility in what is
essentially a Federal problem: Rivers run between States; that is a
Federal responsibility. We have a partnership to carry out with them.
We said no more grants, loans, that it is going to cost more, and now
what the gentleman's amendment would do is for each State cut roughly
one-quarter of the funding available to them to help municipalities to
do the job of cleaning, continue the job of cleaning up, discharges
into lakes and streams.
Shifting of burden on to State and local governments is not the
direction that we ought to go in the clean water program. It will take
longer to achieve the Clean Water Act goals. It will take longer to
address the incredibly complex problem of separating combined storm and
sanitary sewers in this country. The CSO, the combined sewer overflow,
problem continues to grow as we urbanize America, and less water is
soaked up by wetlands, and goes directly into sewers, and causes more
sewage to go into the Nation's waterways. We need to stay on track with
the construction of sewage treatment facilities.
I wish we did have a construction grant program. We now have this
revolving loan program. I say to my colleagues, ``Don't make it more
burdensome for local governments to meet their responsibilities to
continue with the task of cleaning up their discharges
[[Page H4885]] into the Nation's waterways. Make it a real
partnership.''
The funding in the bill that the committee has reported is in my
judgment modest. It is less than what we need to achieve our goals. But
it is a responsible figure. We should not cut below that number.
Defeat the Largent amendment.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield the gentleman from California.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just mention for the
benefit of all the Members so that they understand where we are. We
have just voted overwhelmingly to accept the Lipinski amendment so that
our cities and States would be able to get the needed funds in order to
meet the clean water needs of the cities and States across the country.
It appears now this amendment would take away some $700 million in
fiscal year 1996 for our cities and States and some $3.5 billion over
the 5-year period, and so it seems to me, if our colleagues voted yes
on the Lipinski amendment, then they should be voting no in very strong
numbers again on the Largent amendment.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar]
has expired.
(On request of Mr. Shuster and by unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I simply point out to my friends that
under the Largent amendment, even with the cuts, the State revolving
fund under the Largent amendment would still be very substantially
higher than the appropriation requested by the Clinton administration.
Under the Largent amendment the State revolving fund would be $2.3
billion. The administration has only requested $1.6 billion, and so we
still would be above the administration.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I make no apologies for the administration proposal. I
think it is grossly inadequate. But I think the committee bill, which
the chairman has reported out, is on target, it is responsible, it is
less than, I think, what we need, but I think in today's budget climate
it is an appropriate number, and we ought not to undercut the good work
the committee has done.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, most of the Members know that the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] is not only an NFL Hall of Famer, but he is a
very caring Hall of Famer here in this body. But I would like the
people that are thinking about supporting the amendment, and I
reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I have
a couple of concerns, but, first of all, yesterday we had a bill that
would have placed on DOD an unfunded mandate that would have cost
billions of dollars when it was proven that those DOD facilities, both
the surface and the shore based, complied better, all put together,
than individual ones, and that was an unfunded mandate, and I did not
support that as well.
I also believe in the authorization level in the committee mark that
is thoughtful in the process. And I know that the mention of the
Clinton budget. I do not imagine the President realized at the time of
that budget that we were going to take a look and reauthorize the Clean
Water Act as much as we are today.
I also made a statement earlier that Members on both sides of the
aisle have reacted in ways that, because of extremes on both sides,
those that want to concrete the world and pollute, and yet those on the
other side from the environmental groups that have used it as a weapon,
and somewhere in between we have got to lie, but if we give this to the
States, we have got to give them the right and the power to do what we
are asking them to do, and I think the committee mark is adequate.
I look in San Diego. If we treat secondary water in our sewage
problem, it would cost us between $8 to $12 billion just for the city
of San Diego in a waiver process. If we look at the Tijuana River that
comes out of Mexico, that is why our beaches are fouled, and we need
support in that, and the State cannot do it by itself.
So reluctantly I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment, and I
ask my colleagues to think twice before they degrade the amount in the
level.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat perplexed as I face this issue, and it
probably is the plight of a moderate. I can appreciate what the
chairman is trying to do to get to a lower figure to reflect the
everyday realities, the fiscal realities, we have now, and I can
support that. But I cannot support eliminating section 606, the State
nonpoint-source water pollution control revolving funds, for a very
basis reason.
We have constantly preached to American agriculture that we want them
to identify with the problem and be part of the solution, and quite
frankly American agriculture is justified when they come back to us and
say, ``Quit giving us the sanctimonious sermon. How about a little
financial assistance? You want us to do things that are going to cost
money. We don't have the money. How about helping us out?''
I think that is a legitimate request.
So during the committee deliberations we debated long and hard on
establishing a separate State nonpoint-source pollution revolving fund
to the tune of $500 million. Give to the States the flexibility to use
those funds to address the problem of nonpoint-source pollution,
however, if there is a much higher priority and they want to use those
funds for wastewater treatment plants, they can do so. So what we have
said to the States and to agriculture is simply this:
``We have heard your pleas. On the one hand the States want
flexibility. On the other hand agriculture wants some financial
assistance.'' So we say we will accommodate both of those requests by
setting up section 606, the nonpoint-source pollution revolving loan
fund.
Now with this amendment cutting back, and I understand the need to
cut back; I am very sympathetic to what the ranking member has said and
the chairman of the full committee has said. We know full well the
legitimate needs that are out there all across America. It would take
$130 billion if we are going to pass the funding right now as the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] has no eloquently stated, but
we do not have that money.
So we have to deal with the situation, not as we would like it, but
as we are faced with it. So what I want to do is ask the author of the
amendment if he is sympathetic to my basic request that we retain the
section 606, State nonpoint-source pollution revolving fund, and if he
would accept a perfecting amendment which would allow us to do so. Then
when that is incorporated into his amendment, we can then go on to vote
on the amendment as perfected, and everyone can vote as they best see
fit.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, regretfully I would not be wiling to
accept that friendly amendment, and let me just say a couple of things,
reasons why.
Currently the present funding for the State revolving fund is $1.2
billion. Under this amendment we increase that funding over a billion
dollars, where it would be $2.25 billion. Currently the State revolving
fund has the flexibility to address nonpoint-source problems, and on
top of that I have a letter to the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure from the Cattlemen's Association, the
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the sheep industry and pork producers,
the very people that are concerned about nonpoint-source problems, and
they say in this letter that the increased funding that we are
authorizing under this amendment, that we believe that this provides
adequate authority for States to reorient appropriate portions of the
existing, the existing, State revolving fund creatively and
aggressively and assisting those who must address nonpoint-source
runoff, including provisions that allow modifications to reflect
economic need.
[[Page H4886]] And so the reason that I would object to this is that
it is running 180 degrees opposite of what I feel like that we are
trying to do in the 104th Congress, and that is try to reduce the
amount of bureaucracy and creating any structures within the Clean
Water Act.

{time} 1200

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is unfortunate,
because the fact of the matter is what I am suggesting will not add $1,
not $1, to the bottom line amount. But what it will add is flexibility
for the Governors, and what it will do is guarantee for the first time
that America's farmers have a source to apply to receive some
assistance to follow through with instilling best management practices,
doing the type of things that they want to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have found repeatedly that America's
farmers are among the best stewards of our land. They drink the water
that we drink, they breathe the air that we breathe. They want to be
responsible, but they lack the resources. And, very honestly, and I
think everyone here will admit that under the present State revolving
fund program, not one dime goes to American farmers to give them a
helping hand.
I want to guarantee that they know that there is a source of money
that is fenced off for them. They can apply for it, they can use it.
They can help be part of the solution. That is what they want to do.
But, as I said earlier, the farmers of America are tired of our
sanctimonious sermons coming from Washington, on this great hill, the
citadel of freedom, telling them very pompously, ``We want you to be
part of the solution. But, incidently, we are not going to give you any
money to solve the problem.'' That is not responsible.
So I fail to see why my distinguished colleague from Oklahoma would
not accept the perfecting amendment that does not add one penny to the
total bottom line amount. Not one penny. It just says for the first
time, after this great deliberation in our Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, after I worked hand in glove with the chairman to
develop something that was going to be meaningful. And it passed with
not one dissenting vote. Nobody voted against it. Every single member
of that committee, Democrat, Republican; liberal, conservative;
supported the Boehlert amendment, because they said you are right, we
have got to do something to recognize the problem, and we have got to
do it with more than just words and good intentions.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]
has again expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want my colleagues to know one of the
reasons I am proceeding is we are trying to draft the language for the
perfecting amendment, so we can all appreciate that sometimes takes a
little time. We have got great scholars and wizards in the back room
doing that.
But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Latham was here on
the floor, my good and distinguished colleague and great friend from
Iowa telling us of the problems of American agriculture. I serve as the
chair of the Subcommittee on Water, Resources, and the Environment. We
had a hearing in upstate Utica, NY, on this very subject, exclusively
devoted to that subject of nonpoint-source pollution.
We have talked to agriculture. Agriculture likes this initiative.
They want us to get it in part of the final language, and so do I. So I
know nobody, that, really sincerely, when they evaluate all the facts
of this, would argue that we should turn our backs on American farmers.
I am not going to do so.
I am privileged to serve as chair of the Northeast Agriculture
Caucus. In that capacity I work with my colleagues from both sides of
the aisle to listen to America's farmers, to work with them. I want to
help them, and the perfecting amendment I am suggesting would be very
much in order and would help them.
amendment offered by mr. boehlert to the amendment offered by mr.
largent

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert to the amendment offered
by Mr. Largent: Strike that portion of the amendment which
strikes line 18 on page 232 and all that follows, through
line 20 on page 234.

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from Oklahoma
[Mr. Largent] once again, now that he has had a chance to reflect upon
this, if he might see a different perspective to it; and, as the
gentleman approaches the podium, I want to remind him, we are not
adding one penny to the bottom line.
What we are adding is something the gentleman has fought vigorously
for, as you have campaigned, and I welcome you here to be part of the
new majority, you said during that campaign you want to return more
authority to local government. Boy, I agree with the gentleman 100
percent. The gentleman said during his campaign he wants to cut down as
much as possible the Federal spending.
I could not agree more with the gentleman. I, too, want to cut down
as much as possible Federal spending. The gentleman has said, and I
have said, we want to march together, to go forward, to help American
agriculture, and I want to do that.
So I would ask the gentleman if, upon sober reflection, if he has any
new insights he would like to share with this distinguished body.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that I have not seen the
amendment yet. I look forward to reading it here in just a second. But
I would just say that in my mind what I see this doing is what the
gentleman is saying, is that we are not asking for one additional
penny. But what the gentleman would do with his amendment is simply add
another drawer in the already full kitchen of the Federal Government.
We will not put any money in there right now, but that drawer will
still be there.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, not so; not adding
another drawer. It goes to the States. That is what the State revolving
fund does. We send the money from Washington to the States. The States
administer the State revolving fund. We are saying the same people
administer it. Do not hire any more bureaucrats; we have enough of
them.
We are saying take that money and sort of put it over to the side,
just like when you sit down and work out the monthly budget at home.
You have so much for your mortgage, so much for your car payments, so
much for your groceries. If you decide to earmark a specific amount for
groceries, you do not go out and add new members to your family. You
just sort of move that account over a little bit.
What I am saying is let us demonstrate, colleagues, here on the floor
of the House of Representatives, let us demonstrate in very tangible
form that we want to work with American agriculture. We want to help
America's farmers. Once again, let me repeat, they are the best
stewards of the land that I know.
I am privileged to represent a district where agriculture is very
important, and I talk to farmers. I can go and talk to a farmer. A
typical farmer in upstate New York might be milking 60 or 70 cows, a
farmer, wife, maybe a couple of kids. Along comes somebody and says,
Mr. Farmer, we are concerned about the quality of water. Guess what the
farmer says? So am I.
Then along comes this expert and says we know how to solve part of
the problem. We would like you to maybe have a little buffer strip
between your land where you are growing crops and where your pasture
land is, and the river or stream, or put up a fence, or, maybe even
more costly, a little manure management system. It is only going to
cost you $10,000. The farmer looks you in the eye and says where in the
hell am I going to get $10,000?
[[Page H4887]] Money does not come down from Heaven.
We say we have set up a special fund. You can apply to your State
government, not Washington, not those bureaucrats down there, but your
State government. You can go to them and say here is the best
management plan that I have worked out. I accept. I think it makes good
sense. It is going to protect my land and your land; it is going to
protect our water. Now, I would like to have a low-interest, long-term
loan from the State revolving fund to help me do it. I think that makes
an awful lot of sense.
Mr. LARGENT. If the gentleman will yield further, I would just say
once again that the current State revolving fund is accessible to that
farmer in your district as it currently exists right now.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell you the
everyday practical politics of it. Not one penny has gone to farmers.
There are all the pressures on the State capitals and the people
administering those fund dollars for funds for wastewater treatment
plants. If you have this fund fenced off and they say this is what we
collectively have agreed on, the Federal Government, the State
government, we think this makes sense, I think it would help a great
deal.
Mr. LARGENT. If the gentleman will yield further, I would argue just
the opposite, that by creating a special fund that in fact you could
eventually limit the amount of money that would be available to those
farmers if you depleted that fund and they said you have already used
up everything you have got in your special nonpoint source revolving
fund, so we are not going to give you any more, as opposed to being
able to tap the entire fund.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, you cannot take
anything away from nothing. That is what they are now getting, zero,
zip, zilch, nothing. I want to say here is some hope. You might have an
opportunity to get something. I think that serves our best interests.
It serves the best interests of American agriculture, and I will urge
support of my perfecting amendment.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I believe I am in support of the gentleman from New
York's perfecting amendment, but I really want to go at the overall
amendment because I think that is what is crucial here.
The gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment I believe is sincere. He is
concerned about deficit reduction and other things. I just think it is
the wrong way to go at this time.
I have the opportunity from time to time to be involved in, as we all
in this hall do, the dedication and ground breaking ceremonies for
sewage treatment facilities, and there is a map that we have in the
West Virginia facilities when we preside over these.
There is a map that is provided; there are actually two maps. One
hand is all that has been built, the partnership between the State
government, the Federal Government, the local government, and the
ratepayers, as well as taxpayers all. That partnership has built $1
billion worth of sewage treatment facilities, wastewater construction
projects, in our State. And that is impressive in a small State. That
is the map on one side, what has been done.
There is a map on the other side, too, and that shows the many
locations that still need to be constructed if it is to meet the goals
set by this Congress and to meet common sense goals of health. What
that map shows is that there is at least a $2 billion need.
So that map on one side says $1 billion has been constructed. The map
on the other side says there is still $2 billion worth of construction
to do. So we look at what the national figures are. Nationally, I hear
statistics ranging everywhere from the most conservative of somewhere
around 100 to 130 to 150 billion dollars' worth of projects still
needing to be done simply to meet existing requirements.
So I ask how are we going to do this? I think it is important to look
at the evolution of the State revolving fund. Remember, it was just a
few years ago, a dozen years ago, that it was a grant program, and it
was authorized for as much as $5 billion. That was imply for point
source pollution. Then it was ratcheted down over the years to $2.5
billion. Then it changed from a grant fund gradually to a revolving
loan fund that people have to pay back.
So what we have gone from is an outright grant to a revolving loan
fund. Incidentally, it is funded at a far lesser rate than $5 billion,
roughly $2 billion last year.
Now look at what is in this bill as far as additional demands upon
municipal treatment facilities. I supported some of the measures in
this bill for additionally flexibility, but I also know that when you
per deal with pretreatment of industrial waste, you are going to put
additional demands on existing facilities as well as those to be built.
Are we now to step back from that commitment as well? Are we to step
back from some of the requirements and demands that will be placed upon
state and local governments?
I also look at unfunded mandates. A lot of talk around here about
that. This legislation does maintain certain mandates in place. Yet
would we cut back further on the money that is to go to the State and
local governments and the ratepayers themselves to assist in meeting
those mandates?
Mr. Chairman, this is really I think prefacing for what will be a
much greater discussion that must be conducted in this Congress, but in
some ways it is going to be started on some of these seemingly smaller
issues.
What role does growth have in our budget process? The effort to
balance the budget in 7 years, we all agree on the need for a balanced
budget. But the effort to balance that, is it going to restrict the
kind of growth that is going to be needed to take place in order to
accomplish that?
My feeling is you cannot cut your way out of this mess. You are going
to have to growth as a solid component. We have legitimate
disagreements in here as to what will lead to that growth, but I do not
think we ought to be cutting back those very programs that are indeed
so necessary.
I had the chance to attend a ground breaking the other day for an
industrial part which is guaranteed to create at least 350 jobs and
probably as high as 800 jobs. So important to that park was the money
necessary for the sewage treatment facilities. They could not have that
park without it.

{time} 1215

The Federal Government's return on its investment is going to be
gotten back entirely within 4 years, based upon taxes that will be paid
by the newly working people and so on, 4 years. I had a real estate
developer, major developer come up to me afterward and say, If I could
get my return back in 4 years on every investment, I would be in hog
heaven.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise]
has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Wise was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, I ask this body to recognize the important
need of investment. Behind every major industrial development project
is a need for waste treatment disposal. We are asking the Government,
governmental sector, local and State governments and public service
districts to take on an increased responsibility along with increased
flexibility. This is not the time to be cutting back the authorization
for them to do that. It is the time actually to be increasing.
I will not make that argument on the floor today, but I would urge
that we not support the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma and
urge my colleagues to permit the language to continue that is in the
bill.

Modification of Amendment Offered by Mr. Boehlert to the Amendment
offered by Mr. Largent

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment to the amendment be modified, in the interest of clarity, so
that my colleagues will understand, to strike $2.3 billion each place
it appears in the bill and insert $1.8 billion. So what we do, in
effect, is retain the section 606 that sets up this nonpoint source
pollution revolving fund at $500 million, when added to the $1.8
billion totals the $2.3
[[Page H4888]] billion that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent]
has set as his ceiling. So that is the perfecting amendment.
I would hope on a bipartisan basis the perfecting amendment can be
accepted. Then we could have the vote on the Largent amendment as
perfected and everyone can work as they wish.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert to the
amendment offered by Mr. Largent: Strike ``$2,300,000,000''
each place it appears and insert ``$1,800,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, my
understanding of what would occur in that reduction is that all of that
would come from the State revolving fund. I vigorously oppose that. I
most certainly believe the gentleman has a right to a vote on that, but
I certainly could not consent to it under unanimous consent.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, what I want my distinguished colleague,
the gentleman from Louisiana, to note is that the funds are
interchangeable. This gives the flexibility to the State government,
the State government agency administering the fund.
As you well know, because you are a student of this, as you well
know, presently farmers get zip from the State revolving fund, nothing.
We are setting up something that says, We are responsive to your need
for financial assistance. We will give the money in a State revolving
fund. We will fence off $500 million for nonpoint source pollution.
However, in recognition of your legitimate concern, we will give the
flexibility to the State. The State can use all of that money for other
than nonpoint source pollution, if that is its highest priority.
But I would respectfully submit to the gentleman, and that has been
pointed out to me by a number of my colleagues from agriculture States,
that in many States they have done very will in terms of addressing the
problem of waste water treatment plants. They have got what they need.
But they need more assistance for nonpoint source pollution and they
have not had the source.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I
ask the gentleman, in what manner would that be distributed? Under the
formula?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
that would be the same formula as we had for the SRF.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, as I say, I do not think that is the
appropriate time or moment. I will object to the unanimous consent. I
most certainly will not object to furthering our discussion at a
different time.
Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I remind the gentleman that under the
current State revolving funds the States already have the flexibility
to address nonpoint source matters. So what we are doing is really
redundant and provides less flexibility for States, potentially
supplies less flexibility.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabor the point at this
time. As I say, it is certainly an appropriate discussion but I feel
that I will have to object to the unanimous consent request.
Mr. Chairman, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, before the gentleman maintains his
objection, you, as a senior member of the committee of jurisdiction,
know full well, because we have examined this very thoroughly in long,
long hearings, American farmers are not getting one penny out of the
State revolving fund to do some of the things that we are suggesting
from on high here in Washington they should do to be part of the
solution rather than just standing idly by and being perpetuators of
the problem. We want to give them a source of money so that they can
apply to their State government. We want to give their State government
the flexibility that I think you and I would agree they should have to
make the decisions at that level.
Louisiana knows what is best for Louisiana, what is good for
Louisiana, as does New York know best what is good for New York.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, it would be my understanding, I do not want
to belabor the point now, but I believe that the agricultural community
is opposed to the gentleman's position, as are the cities and States.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield,
no.
Mr. HAYES. As I say, I think that would be more appropriate perhaps
for another moment.
Mr. Chairman, I am simply going to have to object to the unanimous-
consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of my colleague from New York. What I would like to
do for the Members, especially for Members who might be from a suburban
area or an urban area, is to give them some idea what nonpoint source
pollution is.
Nonpoint source pollution happens in suburbs. It happens in urban
areas. It happens in rural areas on agricultural farms.
You have all kinds of farms. You have dairy farms. You have chicken
farms. You have grain farms, et cetera. There is a variety of farms. I
want to show you what the problems are with nonpoint source pollution
on farms in any one of these areas.
Most farms, especially if there are cows, chickens, grain farmers,
cattle farmers, they have a barn. Somebody said pig, OK. Now we have a
barn. Somewhere around a farm generally you are going to have a river
or some waterway.
This is the Clean Water Act that we are talking about. We are trying
to prevent pollution from a source to get into the water. So what we
see here, whether you have pigs, cows, chickens, grain, or whatever,
they have manure. So it very often costs money, if you are going to put
a manure shed for composting purposes next to the farm. That composting
shed could cost $5,000.
If you have dairy farms and cows, you will have to put a holding area
for the cows sometime before you take them in for them to milk. That
holding area is concentrating manure which gradually will get into the
ground water unless you build a holding area which prevents the manure
from leaving that area. That is about $10,000 on this side.
The other things you need for a farm is fertilizer, pesticides,
herbicides. All of these things, if they leach or flow into the
waterway, are going to cause a problem with the quality of the water.
So what do you need to do to hold those things? You need certain things
called waterways, if you have any contour on the land.
A waterway is a grassy area that helps absorb the runoff to prevent
the silt or the fertilizer from getting into the ground water into the
waterway. You need other things called buffer zones. A buffer zone is a
grassy area around the waterway and that, again, prevents the pollution
or the silt or a variety of other things from getting into the ground
water.
There is something else you need. If you plant corn or wheat or rye
or soybean, very often you do not put anything on the ground during the
winter months and the nitrogen that you put on the ground in the spring
and the summer, unless it is taken up into these plants during the
winter months, gets into the ground water so that costs more money.
In essence, for one farm, if this is a dairy farm or a pig farm or a
chicken farm or a grain farm, every single farmer, whether they own
10,000 acres or 100 acres, has a certain amount of cost if he is going
to prevent nonpoint source pollution. And all of this costs money.
Generally speaking, farmers have not gotten enough aid in this area.
So I strongly, I am a big football fan and all
[[Page H4889]] the rest of that, but I have to rise in strong
opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. HAYES. Would the gentleman mind drawing in the five different
Federal regulators that are going to be on the farm right after that
river was drawn in?
Mr. GILCHREST. First of all, the Federal regulators should be on the
farm and talk about possom hunting, then have a cup of coffee and a
piece of pie, and the Federal regulators ought to be good neighbors and
talk about how we can solve some of these problems, but unless the
allocation is there, unless the funding is there, unless the awareness
is there that this kind of thing exists, we are not going to stop the
greater problem that we have today of nonpoint source pollution and
help those people who need to be a part of the solution.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out to the gentleman from
Maryland and also the gentleman from New York that we actually have
already in Ohio a nonpoint source program that has been specifically
developed inside the existing law. And it is particularly targeted for
ag interests so that farmers can get funding through the revolving loan
fund in order to be able to do exactly the kinds of things that you are
talking about.
What I am saying is, we do not need to fence off this money inside
this bill in order to achieve what you want to do. I cannot see any
reason to support the Boehlert amendment when, A, it is possible to do
what the gentleman from New York wants to do already; B, it is being
done in places like Ohio; and C----
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOKE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, it may be done in places like Ohio, but
it is not being done across the Nation. If we are looking at watershed
ideas and keeping water going from one State to another State and
raising the awareness of nonpoint source problems, especially in
agriculture, I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] has the
right idea.
Mr. HOKE. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman does think
that, but clearly the whole argument here and the reason that we are
making these changes in this act have to do with giving greater
flexibility to the States to be able to do these things.
What I am suggesting to the gentleman is that already in many States,
Ohio is not the only one, that flexibility has been utilized in a
responsible way.
Last, the other thing I wanted to say about the bill generally, the
Largent amendment, is that I sit on the Committee on the Budget. And it
strikes me that if we do not undertake the kind of amendment that the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] has brought today, then we are
just back in the same old routine that we have been in year after year
after year.
I frankly do not want to support going through this charade where we
have these authorizing bills that have 20, 30, 40, 50 percent more
money in them than what the Committee on the Budget has said there will
be available to spend and what we know that the appropriators are going
to come up with ultimately.
Let us have some honesty, some truth in budgeting. Let us have some
truth in legislation in this. This is supported by the chairman. This
is the right direction. This is the right way to go.
We ought to have the mark in the authorizing bill match the mark in
the Committee on the Budget bill, match the mark that we are finally
going to come up with in the Committee on Appropriations. That is
crystal clear.
If we do not take this opportunity now to start on that road, then we
will play the same old games in the 104th Congress that we have placed
in all previous Congresses.

{time} 1230

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the distinguished gentleman from New York
[Mr. Boehlert] if he will engage me in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the Largent amendment would reduce
the total funding to $2.3 billion.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. That is my understanding.
Mr. BORSKI. And I would ask the gentleman, what would the Boehlert
amendment do? Would that add $500 million to that $2.3 billion?
Mr. BOEHLERT. No, Mr. Chairman, it would not. My perfecting amendment
would reduce it to $1.8 billion, and retain the section 606, which is
$500 million. Here is what I would suggest we do for the good of the
cause.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw
the amendment, so we can continue the discussions between the chairman
and the ranking minority member and the subcommittee chair and the
ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and try to work this out.
I do not think that there is any argument here, that we are trying to
do something that demonstrates to American agriculture that we want to
set up something that is earmarked specifically for their needs in
addressing the problem of nonpoint source pollution, but we want to do
it in such a way as to permit flexibility for the State Governors and
the administrators of the State revolving fund.
I would like to think that we are creative enough to accomplish both
worthy objectives.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]
requesting that his amendment be withdrawn?
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BORSKI. I am happy to yield to the distinguished chairman, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert] then, so we can move forward on other provisions here, that
one of the suggestions is that he put this in title X, so we may
proceed with the amendment before us.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] yield
for that purpose?
Mr. BORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from New York for that purpose.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The request has been granted, and the amendment is
withdrawn.
Mr. MINETA. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, just as a
parliamentary inquiry, would this require, then, that the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Boehlert] go back to title VI if we are to have him
withdraw this, and we proceed forward on the bill? Would he have to get
unanimous consent to go back to title VI in order to be able to amend,
if he is to do this in title X?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if I may amend my unanimous consent
request, the unanimous consent request is to withdraw this amendment at
this point, with authority to revisit title VI for the purpose of this
amendment only at a later date.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will first state that the amendment has been
withdrawn.
Mr. BOEHLERT. With this proviso.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Boehlert] that the gentleman be able to offer an
amendment to title VI after it is passed in the reading?
Mr. BOEHLERT. For this specific amendment only.
The CHAIRMAN. For this specific purpose only.
Without objection, it shall be in order for the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert] to offer a form of his amendment to title VI at a
later time during consideration.
There was no objection.
[[Page H4890]] parliamentary inquiry

Mr. MINETA. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, at this point is the only issue pending
before us the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Largent]?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate my opposition to
the Largent amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 209,
noes 192, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 329]

AYES--209

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--192

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Camp
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Costello
Coyne
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gephardt
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Gordon
Goss
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Heineman
Hinchey
Holden
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mfume
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Rivers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--33

Andrews
Baker (LA)
Barrett (NE)
Bono
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Cramer
Dornan
Dunn
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Hancock
Hefner
Lincoln
Longley
McCrery
Meek
Miller (CA)
Moakley
Murtha
Ortiz
Pastor
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Richardson
Rogers
Tanner
Torres
Watts (OK)
Williams

{time} 1252

The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:

Ms. Dunn of Washington for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois
against.
Mr. Bono for, with Mrs. Meek of Florida against.
Mr. Watts of Oklahoma for, with Mr. Moakley against.

Messrs. HOUGHTON, COBLE, WELLER, HASTERT, and EWING changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GRAHAM and Mr. HORN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation

Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that on the last
vote, rollcall 329, I voted incorrectly. I had intended to vote ``no''
and I was registered as ``yes.''
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title VI?
If not, the Clerk will designate title VII.
The text of title VII is as follows:
TITLE VII--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 701. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Section 118.--Section 118(c)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C.
1268(c)(1)(A)) is amended by striking the last comma.
(b) Section 120.--Section 120(d) (33 U.S.C. 1270(d)) is
amended by striking ``(1)''.
(c) Section 204.--Section 204(a)(3) (33 U.S.C. 1284(a)(3))
is amended by striking the final period and inserting a
semicolon.
(d) Section 205.--Section 205 (33 U.S.C. 1285) is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``and 1985'' and
inserting ``1985, and 1986'';
(2) in subsection (c)(2) by striking ``through 1985'' and
inserting ``through 1986'';
(3) in subsection (g)(1) by striking the period following
``4 per centum''; and
(4) in subsection (m)(1)(B) by striking ``this'' the last
place it appears and inserting ``such''.
(e) Section 208.--Section 208 (33 U.S.C. 1288) is amended--
(1) in subsection (h)(1) by striking ``designed'' and
inserting ``designated''; and
(2) in subsection (j)(1) by striking ``September 31, 1988''
and inserting ``September 30, 1988''.
(f) Section 301.--Section 301(j)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C.
1311(j)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``that'' the first
place it appears and inserting ``than''.
(g) Section 309.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is
amended by striking the second comma following ``Act by a
State''.
(h) Section 311.--Section 311 (33 U.S.C. 1321) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b) by moving paragraph (12) (including
subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C)) 2 ems to the right; and
(2) in subsection (h)(2) by striking ``The'' and inserting
``the''.
(i) Section 505.--Section 505(f) (33 U.S.C. 1365(f)) is
amended by striking the last comma.
(j) Section 516.--Section 516 (33 U.S.C. 1375) is amended
by redesignating subsection (g) as subsection (f).
(k) Section 518.--Section 518(f) (33 U.S.C. 1377(f)) is
amended by striking ``(d)'' and inserting ``(e)''.

SEC. 702. JOHN A. BLATNIK NATIONAL FRESH WATER QUALITY
RESEARCH LABORATORY.

(a) Designation.--The laboratory and research facility
established pursuant to section 104(e) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1254(e)) that is located in
Duluth, Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the
``John A. Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research
Laboratory''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
laboratory and research facility referred to in subsection
(a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``John A.
Blatnik National Fresh Water Quality Research Laboratory''.
[[Page H4891]] SEC. 703. WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR COLONIAS.

(a) Grant Assistance.--The Administrator may make grants to
States along the United States-Mexico border to provide
assistance for planning, design, and construction of
treatment works to provide wastewater service to the
communities along such border commonly known as ``colonias''.
(b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out using funds made available under
subsection (a) shall be 50 percent. The non-Federal share of
such cost shall be provided by the State receiving the grant.
(c) Treatment Works Defined.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``treatment works'' has the meaning such term has
under section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for making grants under subsection (a)
$50,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. Such sums shall remain
available until expended.

SEC. 704. SAVINGS IN MUNICIPAL DRINKING WATER COSTS.

(a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget, shall review, analyze, and
compile information on the annual savings that municipalities
realize in the construction, operation, and maintenance of
drinking water facilities as a result of actions taken under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(b) Contents.--The study conducted under subsection (a), at
a minimum, shall contain an examination of the following
elements:
(1) Savings to municipalities in the construction of
drinking water filtration facilities resulting from actions
taken under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
(2) Savings to municipalities in the operation and
maintenance of drinking water facilities resulting from
actions taken under such Act.
(3) Savings to municipalities in health expenditures
resulting from actions taken under such Act.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to
Congress a report containing the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a).
amendment offered by mr. de la garza

Mr. de la GARZA. 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. de la Garza: On page 237, in line
11 after ``treatment works'' insert ``and appropriate
connections''.
On page 237, strike line 14, and all that follows through
``(c)'' on line 19 and insert ``(b)''.
On page 237, on line 23 redesignate ``(d)'' as ``(c)''.

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the chairman of the
committee and the ranking member for agreeing to this amendment. It is
an amendment that will give more flexibility to the Administrator of
EPA to negotiate with areas on wastewater treatment that are
underserved and underprivileged.
I want to thank Chairman Shuster and the ranking member of the
committee, Mr. Mineta, for supporting my amendment to section 703, the
wastewater service for colonias of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments
of 1995. Section 703 is similar to a bill I introduced last Congress
and which I reintroduced this Congress as H.R. 908.
As some of you know, colonias are unincorporated areas along our
southwestern border that lack basic services, such as water and
wastewater. There are some 250,000 Americans living in colonias.
This amendment will amend section 703 of the bill to authorize the
Administrator to make grants to States to provide assistance for
planning, design, and construction of treatment works to provide
wastewater service and for appropriate connections. My amendment would
allow recipient States to use the financial assistance for appropriate
connections for colonia residences to connect them to sewer collection
systems which will allow them to make any improvements necessary to
meet existing county or city requirements. This is an important problem
that we need to address in order to bring wastewater connections into
the homes of these communities.
In addition, this amendment will delete the requirements that the
Federal share of the cost of a project for a wastewater service be 50
percent. This deletion will allow maximum flexibility for the
Administrator in determining the appropriate funding of these projects
in allowing EPA to negotiate the match requirement with the recipient
State.
Again, thank you Chairman Shuster and Mr. Mineta for your assistance
regarding this important problem to our southwestern communities. I
look forward to working with you and your committee on this important
issue.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, we have examined this. We think it is a
good amendment, and we support it.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, we have looked at the amendment. We have no objections
to the amendment on this side. We do appreciate the gentleman from
Kansas [Mr. Roberts] being on our side as well.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas, the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member
for his leadership on this particular bill. We on this side of the
aisle have looked at it very carefully and we agree. We are certainly
happy to have the gentleman, on our side of the aisle.
Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title VII?
If not, the Clerk will designate title VIII.
The text of title VIII is as follows:
TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Wetlands
Conservation and Management Act of 1995''.

SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) wetlands play an integral role in maintaining the
quality of life through material contributions to our
national economy, food supply, water supply and quality,
flood control, and fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and
thus to the health, safety, recreation and economic well-
being of citizens throughout the Nation;
(2) wetlands serve important ecological and natural
resource functions, such as providing essential nesting and
feeding habitat for waterfowl, other wildlife, and many rare
and endangered species, fisheries habitat, the enhancement of
water quality, and natural flood control;
(3) much of the Nation's resource has sustained significant
degradation, resulting in the need for effective programs to
limit the loss of ecologically significant wetlands and to
provide for long-term restoration and enhancement of the
wetlands resource base;
(4) most of the loss of wetlands in coastal Louisiana is
not attributable to human activity;
(5) because 75 percent of the Nation's wetlands in the
lower 48 States are privately owned and because the majority
of the Nation's population lives in or near wetlands areas,
an effective wetlands conservation and management program
must reflect a balanced approach that conserves and enhances
important wetlands values and functions while observing
private property rights, recognizing the need for essential
public infrastructure, such as highways, ports, airports,
pipelines, sewer systems, and public water supply systems,
and providing the opportunity for sustained economic growth;
(6) while wetlands provide many varied economic and
environmental benefits, they also present health risks in
some instances where they act as breeding grounds for insects
that are carriers of human and animal diseases;
(7) the Federal permit program established under section
404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was not
originally conceived as a wetlands regulatory program and is
insufficient to ensure that the Nation's wetlands resource
base will be conserved and managed in a fair and
environmentally sound manner; and
(8) navigational dredging plays a vital role in the
Nation's economy and, while adequate safeguards for aquatic
resources must be maintained, it is essential that the
regulatory process be streamlined.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this title is to establish a
new Federal regulatory program for certain wetlands and
waters of the United States--
(1) to assert Federal regulatory jurisdiction over a broad
category of specifically identified activities that result in
the degradation or loss of wetlands;
(2) to provide that each Federal agency, officer, and
employee exercise Federal authority under section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to ensure that agency
action under such section will not limit the use of privately
owned property so as to diminish its value;
(3) to account for variations in wetlands functions in
determining the character and extent of regulation of
activities occurring in wetlands areas;
(4) to provide sufficient regulatory incentives for
conservation, restoration, or enhancement activities;
(5) to encourage conservation of resources on a watershed
basis to the fullest extent practicable;
(6) to protect public safety and balance public and private
interests in determining the conditions under which activity
in wetlands areas may occur; and

[[Page H4892]]

(7) to streamline the regulatory mechanisms relating to
navigational dredging in the Nation's waters.

SEC. 803. WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT.

Title IV (33 U.S.C. 1341 et seq.) is further amended by
striking section 404 and inserting the following new section:

``SEC. 404. PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES IN WETLANDS OR WATERS OF
THE UNITED STATES.

``(a) Prohibited Activities.--No person shall undertake an
activity in wetlands or waters of the United States unless
such activity is undertaken pursuant to a permit issued by
the Secretary or is otherwise authorized under this section.
``(b) Authorized Activities.--
``(1) Permits.--The Secretary is authorized to issue
permits authorizing an activity in wetlands or waters of the
United States in accordance with the requirements of this
section.
``(2) Nonpermit activities.--An activity in wetlands or
waters of the United States may be undertaken without a
permit from the Secretary if that activity is authorized
under subsection (e)(6) or (e)(8) or is exempt from the
requirements of this section under subsection (f) or other
provisions of this section.
``(c) Wetlands Classification.--
``(1) Regulations; applications.--
``(A) Deadline for issuance of regulations.--Not later than
1 year after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive
Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the
Secretary shall issue regulations to classify wetlands as
type A, type B, or type C wetlands depending on the relative
ecological significance of the wetlands.
``(B) Application requirement.--Any person seeking to
undertake activities in wetlands or waters of the United
States for which a permit is required under this section
shall make application to the Secretary identifying the site
of such activity and requesting that the Secretary determine,
in accordance with paragraph (3) of this subsection, the
classification of the wetlands in which such activity is
proposed to occur. The applicant may also provide such
additional information regarding such proposed activity as
may be necessary or appropriate for purposes of determining
the classification of such wetlands or whether and under what
conditions the proposed activity may be permitted to occur.
``(2) Deadlines for classifications.--
``(A) General rule.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B)
of this paragraph, within 90 days following the receipt of an
application under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall provide
notice to the applicant of the classification of the wetlands
that are the subject of such application and shall state in
writing the basis for such classification. The classification
of the wetlands that are the subject of the application shall
be determined by the Secretary in accordance with the
requirements for classification of wetlands under paragraph
(3) and subsection (i).
``(B) Rule for advance classifications.--In the case of an
application proposing activities located in wetlands that are
the subject of an advance classification under subsection
(h), the Secretary shall provide notice to the applicant of
such classification within thirty days following the receipt
of such application, and shall provide an opportunity for
review of such classification under paragraph (5) and
subsection (i).
``(3) Classification system.--Upon application under this
subsection, the Secretary shall--
``(A) classify as type A wetlands those wetlands that are
of critical significance to the long-term conservation of the
aquatic environment of which such wetlands are a part and
which meet the following requirements:
``(i) such wetlands serve critical wetlands functions,
including the provision of critical habitat for a
concentration of avian, aquatic, or wetland dependent
wildlife;
``(ii) such wetlands consist of or may be a portion of ten
or more contiguous acres and have an inlet or outlet for
relief of water flow; except that this requirement shall not
operate to preclude the classification as type A wetlands
lands containing prairie pothole features, playa lakes, or
vernal pools if such lands otherwise meet the requirements
for type A classification under this paragraph;
``(iii) there exists a scarcity within the watershed or
aquatic environment of identified functions served by such
wetlands such that the use of such wetlands for an activity
in wetlands or waters of the United States would seriously
jeopardize the availability of these identified wetlands
functions; and
``(iv) there is unlikely to be an overriding public
interest in the use of such wetlands for purposes other than
conservation;
``(B) classify as type B wetlands those wetlands that
provide habitat for a significant population of wetland
dependent wildlife or provide other significant wetlands
functions, including significant enhancement or protection of
water quality or significant natural flood control; and
``(C) classify as type C wetlands all wetlands that--
``(i) serve limited wetlands functions;
``(ii) serve marginal wetlands functions but which exist in
such abundance that regulation of activities in such wetlands
is not necessary for conserving important wetlands functions;
``(iii) are prior converted cropland;
``(iv) are fastlands; or
``(v) are wetlands within industrial, commercial, or
residential complexes or other intensely developed areas that
do not serve significant wetlands functions as a result of
such location.
``(4) Request for determination of jurisdiction.--
``(A) In general.--A person who holds an ownership interest
in property, or who has written authorization from such a
person, may submit a request to the Secretary identifying the
property and requesting the Secretary to make one or more of
the following determinations with respect to the property:
``(i) Whether the property contains waters of the United
States.
``(ii) If the determination under clause (i) is made,
whether any portion of the waters meets the requirements for
delineation as wetland under subsection (g).
``(iii) If the determination under clause (ii) is made, the
classification of each wetland on the property under this
subsection.
``(B) Provision of information.--The person shall provide
such additional information as may be necessary to make each
determination requested under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Determination and notification by the secretary.--Not
later than 90 days after receipt of a request under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
``(i) notify the person submitting the request of each
determination made by the Secretary pursuant to the request;
and
``(ii) provide written documentation of each determination
and the basis for each determination.
``(D) Authority to seek immediate review.--Any person
authorized under this paragraph to request a jurisdictional
determination may seek immediate judicial review of any such
jurisdictional determination or may proceed under subsection
(i).
``(5) De novo determination after advance classification.--
Within 30 days of receipt of notice of an advance
classification by the Secretary under paragraph (2)(B) of
this subsection, an applicant may request the Secretary to
make a de novo determination of the classification of
wetlands that are the subject of such notice.
``(d) Right to Compensation.--
``(1) In general.--The Federal Government shall compensate
an owner of property whose use of any portion of that
property has been limited by an agency action under this
section that diminishes the fair market value of that portion
by 20 percent or more. The amount of the compensation shall
equal the diminution in value that resulted from the agency
action. If the diminution in value of a portion of that
property is greater than 50 percent, at the option of the
owner, the Federal Government shall buy that portion of the
property for its fair market value.
``(2) Duration of limitation on use.--Property with respect
to which compensation has been paid under this section shall
not thereafter be used contrary to the limitation imposed by
the agency action, even if that action is later rescinded or
otherwise vitiated. However, if that action is later
rescinded or otherwise vitiated, and the owner elects to
refund the amount of the compensation, adjusted for
inflation, to the Treasury of the United States, the property
may be so used.
``(3) Effect of state law.--If a use is a nuisance as
defined by the law of a State or is already prohibited under
a local zoning ordinance, no compensation shall be made under
this section with respect to a limitation on that use.
``(4) Exceptions.--
``(A) Prevention of hazard to health or safety or damage to
specific property.--No compensation shall be made under this
section with respect to an agency action the primary purpose
of which is to prevent an identifiable--
``(i) hazard to public health or safety; or
``(ii) damage to specific property other than the property
whose use is limited.
``(B) Navigation servitude.--No compensation shall be made
under this section with respect to an agency action pursuant
to the Federal navigation servitude, as defined by the courts
of the United States, except to the extent such servitude is
interpreted to apply to wetlands.
``(5) Procedure.--
``(A) Request of owner.--An owner seeking compensation
under this section shall make a written request for
compensation to the agency whose agency action resulted in
the limitation. No such request may be made later than 180
days after the owner receives actual notice of that agency
action.
``(B) Negotiations.--The agency may bargain with that owner
to establish the amount of the compensation. If the agency
and the owner agree to such an amount, the agency shall
promptly pay the owner the amount agreed upon.
``(C) Choice of remedies.--If, not later than 180 days
after the written request is made, the parties do not come to
an agreement as to the right to and amount of compensation,
the owner may choose to take the matter to binding
arbitration or seek compensation in a civil action.
``(D) Arbitration.--The procedures that govern the
arbitration shall, as nearly as practicable, be those
established under title 9, United States Code, for
arbitration proceedings to which that title applies. An award
made in such arbitration shall include a reasonable
attorney's fee and other arbitration costs (including
appraisal fees). The agency shall promptly pay any award made
to the owner.
``(E) Civil action.--An owner who does not choose
arbitration, or who does not receive prompt payment when
required by this section, may obtain appropriate relief in a
civil action against the agency. An owner who prevails in a
civil action under this section shall be entitled to, and the
agency shall be liable for, a reasonable attorney's fee and
other litigation costs (including appraisal fees). The court
shall award interest on the amount of any compensation from
the time of the limitation.
``(F) Source of payments.--Any payment made under this
section to an owner and any judgment obtained by an owner in
a civil action under this section shall, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, be made from the annual
[[Page H4893]] appropriation of the agency whose action
occasioned the payment or judgment. If the agency action
resulted from a requirement imposed by
another agency, then the agency making the payment or
satisfying the judgment may seek partial or complete
reimbursement from the appropriated funds of the other
agency. For this purpose the head of the agency concerned
may transfer or reprogram any appropriated funds available
to the agency. If insufficient funds exist for the payment
or to satisfy the judgment, it shall be the duty of the
head of the agency to seek the appropriation of such funds
for the next fiscal year.
``(6) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, any obligation of the United States to make any payment
under this section shall be subject to the availability of
appropriations.
``(7) Duty of notice to owners.--Whenever an agency takes
an agency action limiting the use of private property, the
agency shall give appropriate notice to the owners of that
property directly affected explaining their rights under this
section and the procedures for obtaining any compensation
that may be due to them under this section.
``(8) Rules of construction.--
``(A) Effect on constitutional right to compensation.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any right
to compensation that exists under the Constitution, laws of
the United States, or laws of any State.
``(B) Effect of payment.--Payment of compensation under
this section (other than when the property is bought by the
Federal Government at the option of the owner) shall not
confer any rights on the Federal Government other than the
limitation on use resulting from the agency action.
``(9) Treatment of certain actions.--A diminution in value
under this subsection shall apply to surface interests in
lands only or water rights allocated under State law; except
that--
``(A) if the Secretary determines that the exploration for
or development of oil and gas or mineral interests is not
compatible with limitations on use related to the surface
interests in lands that have been classified as type A or
type B wetlands located above such oil and gas or mineral
interests (or located adjacent to such oil and gas or mineral
interests where such adjacent lands are necessary to provide
reasonable access to such interests), the Secretary shall
notify the owner of such interests that the owner may elect
to receive compensation for such interests under paragraph
(1); and
``(B) the failure to provide reasonable access to oil and
gas or mineral interests located beneath or adjacent to
surface interests of type A or type B wetlands shall be
deemed a diminution in value of such oil and gas or mineral
interests.
``(10) Jurisdiction.--The arbitrator or court under
paragraph (5)(D) or (5)(E) of this subsection, as the case
may be, shall have jurisdiction, in the case of oil and gas
or mineral interests, to require the United States to provide
reasonable access in, across, or through lands that may be
the subject of a diminution in value under this subsection
solely for the purpose of undertaking activity necessary to
determine the value of the interests diminished and to
provide other equitable remedies deemed appropriate.
``(11) Limitations on statutory construction.--No action
under this subsection shall be construed--
``(A) to impose any obligation on any State or political
subdivision thereof to compensate any person, even in the
event that the Secretary has approved a land management plan
under subsection (f)(2) or an individual and general permit
program under subsection (l); or
``(B) to alter or supersede requirements governing use of
water applicable under State law.
``(e) Requirements Applicable to Permitted Activity.--
``(1) Issuance or denial of permits.--Following the
determination of wetlands classification pursuant to
subsection (c) if applicable, and after compliance with the
requirements of subsection (d) if applicable, the Secretary
may issue or deny permits for authorization to undertake
activities in wetlands or waters of the United States in
accordance with the requirements of this subsection.
``(2) Type a wetlands.--
``(A) Sequential analysis.--The Secretary shall determine
whether to issue a permit for an activity in waters of the
United States classified under subsection (c) as type A
wetlands based on a sequential analysis that seeks, to the
maximum extent practicable, to--
``(i) avoid adverse impact on the wetlands;
``(ii) minimize such adverse impact on wetlands functions
that cannot be avoided; and
``(iii) compensate for any loss of wetland functions that
cannot be avoided or minimized.
``(B) Mitigation terms and conditions.--Any permit issued
authorizing activities in type A wetlands may contain such
terms and conditions concerning mitigation (including those
applicable under paragraph (3) for type B wetlands) that the
Secretary deems appropriate to prevent the unacceptable loss
or degradation of type A wetlands. The Secretary shall deem
the mitigation requirement of this section to be met with
respect to activities in type A wetlands if such activities
(i) are carried out in accordance with a State-approved
reclamation plan or permit which requires recontouring and
revegetation following mining, and (ii) will result in
overall environmental benefits being achieved.
``(3) Type b wetlands.--
``(A) General rule.--The Secretary may issue a permit
authorizing activities in type B wetlands if the Secretary
finds that issuance of the permit is in the public interest,
balancing the reasonably foreseeable benefits and detriments
resulting from the issuance of the permit. The permit shall
be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary
finds are necessary to carry out the purposes of the
Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of
1995. In determining whether or not to issue the permit and
whether or not specific terms and conditions are necessary to
avoid a significant loss of wetlands functions, the Secretary
shall consider the following factors:
``(i) The quality and quantity of significant functions
served by the areas to be affected.
``(ii) The opportunities to reduce impacts through cost
effective design to minimize use of wetlands areas.
``(iii) The costs of mitigation requirements and the
social, recreational, and economic benefits associated with
the proposed activity, including local, regional, or national
needs for improved or expanded infrastructure, minerals,
energy, food production, or recreation.
``(iv) The ability of the permittee to mitigate wetlands
loss or degradation as measured by wetlands functions.
``(v) The environmental benefit, measured by wetlands
functions, that may occur through mitigation efforts,
including restoring, preserving, enhancing, or creating
wetlands values and functions.
``(vi) The marginal impact of the proposed activity on the
watershed of which such wetlands are a part.
``(vii) Whether the impact on the wetlands is temporary or
permanent.
``(B) Determination of project purpose.--In considering an
application for activities on type B wetlands, there shall be
a rebuttable presumption that the project purpose as defined
by the applicant shall be binding upon the Secretary. The
definition of project purpose for projects sponsored by
public agencies shall be binding upon the Secretary, subject
to the authority of the Secretary to impose mitigation
requirements to minimize impacts on wetlands values and
functions, including cost effective redesign of projects on
the proposed project site.
``(C) Mitigation requirements.--Except as otherwise
provided in this section, requirements for mitigation shall
be imposed when the Secretary finds that activities
undertaken under this section will result in the loss or
degradation of type B wetlands functions where such loss or
degradation is not a temporary or incidental impact. When
determining mitigation requirements in any specific case, the
Secretary shall take into consideration the type of wetlands
affected, the character of the impact on wetland functions,
whether any adverse effects on wetlands are of a permanent or
temporary nature, and the cost effectiveness of such
mitigation and shall seek to minimize the costs of such
mitigation. Such mitigation requirement shall be calculated
based upon the specific impact of a particular project. The
Secretary shall deem the mitigation requirement of this
section to be met with respect to activities in type B
wetlands if such activities (i) are carried out in accordance
with a State-approved reclamation plan or permit which
requires recontouring and revegetation following mining, and
(ii) will result in overall environmental benefits being
achieved.
``(D) Rules governing mitigation.--In accordance with
subsection (j), the Secretary shall issue rules governing
requirements for mitigation for activities occurring in
wetlands that allow for--
``(i) minimization of impacts through project design in the
proposed project site consistent with the project's purpose,
provisions for compensatory mitigation, if any, and other
terms and conditions necessary and appropriate in the public
interest;
``(ii) preservation or donation of type A wetlands or type
B wetlands (where title has not been acquired by the United
States and no compensation under subsection (d) for such
wetlands has been provided) as mitigation for activities that
alter or degrade wetlands;
``(iii) enhancement or restoration of degraded wetlands as
compensation for wetlands lost or degraded through permitted
activity;
``(iv) creation of wetlands as compensation for wetlands
lost or degraded through permitted activity if conditions are
imposed that have a reasonable likelihood of being
successful;
``(v) compensation through contribution to a mitigation
bank program established pursuant to paragraph (4);
``(vi) offsite compensatory mitigation if such mitigation
contributes to the restoration, enhancement or creation of
significant wetlands functions on a watershed basis and is
balanced with the effects that the proposed activity will
have on the specific site; except that offsite compensatory
mitigation, if any, shall be required only within the State
within which the proposed activity is to occur, and shall, to
the extent practicable, be within the watershed within which
the proposed activity is to occur, unless otherwise
consistent with a State wetlands management plan;
``(vii) contribution of in-kind value acceptable to the
Secretary and otherwise authorized by law;
``(viii) in areas subject to wetlands loss, the
construction of coastal protection and enhancement projects;
``(ix) contribution of resources of more than one permittee
toward a single mitigation project; and
``(x) other mitigation measures, including contributions of
other than in-kind value referred to in clause (vii),
determined by the Secretary to be appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the requirements and purposes of
this Act.
``(E) Limitations on requiring mitigation.--Notwithstanding
the provisions of subparagraph (C), the Secretary may
determine not to impose requirements for compensatory
mitigation if the Secretary finds that--
``(i) the adverse impacts of a permitted activity are
limited;
``(ii) the failure to impose compensatory mitigation
requirements is compatible with maintaining wetlands
functions;
[[Page H4894]] ``(iii) no practicable and reasonable means
of mitigation are available;
``(iv) there is an abundance of similar significant
wetlands functions and values in or near the area in which
the proposed activity is to occur that will continue to serve
the functions lost or degraded as a result of such activity,
taking into account the impacts of such proposed activity and
the cumulative impacts of similar activity in the area;
``(v) the temporary character of the impacts and the use of
minimization techniques make compensatory mitigation
unnecessary to protect significant wetlands values; or
``(vi) a waiver from requirements for compensatory
mitigation is necessary to prevent special hardship.
``(4) Mitigation banks.--
``(A) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the
date of the enactment of this subparagraph, after providing
notice and opportunity for public review and comment, the
Secretary shall issue regulations for the establishment, use,
maintenance, and oversight of mitigation banks. The
regulations shall be developed in consultation with the heads
of other appropriate Federal agencies.
``(B) Provisions and requirements.--The regulations issued
pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall ensure that each
mitigation bank--
``(i) provides for the chemical, physical, and biological
functions of wetlands or waters of the United States which
are lost as a result of authorized adverse impacts to
wetlands or other waters of the United States;
``(ii) to the extent practicable and environmentally
desirable, provides in-kind replacement of lost wetlands
functions and be located in, or in proximity to, the same
watershed or designated geographic area as the affected
wetlands or waters of the United States;
``(iii) be operated by a public or private entity which has
the financial capability to meet the requirements of this
paragraph, including the deposit of a performance bond or
other appropriate demonstration of financial responsibility
to support the long-term maintenance of the bank, fulfill
responsibilities for long-term monitoring, maintenance, and
protection, and provide for the long-term security of
ownership interests of wetlands and uplands on which projects
are conducted to protect the wetlands functions associated
with the mitigation bank;
``(iv) employ consistent and scientifically sound methods
to determine debits by evaluating wetlands functions, project
impacts, and duration of the impact at the sites of proposed
permits for authorized activities pursuant to this section
and to determine credits based on wetlands functions at the
site of the mitigation bank;
``(v) provide for the transfer of credits for mitigation
that has been performed and for mitigation that shall be
performed within a designated time in the future, provided
that financial bonds shall be posted in sufficient amount to
ensure that the mitigation will be performed in the case of
default; and
``(vi) provide opportunity for public notice of and comment
on proposals for the mitigation banks; except that any
process utilized by a mitigation bank to obtain a permit
authorizing operations under this section before the date of
the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and
Management Act of 1995 satisfies the requirement for such
public notice and comment.
``(5) Procedures and deadlines for final action.--
``(A) Opportunity for public comment.--Not later than 15
days after receipt of a complete application for a permit
under this section, together with information necessary to
consider such application, the Secretary shall publish notice
that the application has been received and shall provide
opportunity for public comment and, to the extent
appropriate, opportunity for a public hearing on the issuance
of the permit.
``(B) General procedures.--In the case of any application
for authorization to undertake activities in wetlands or
waters of the United States that are not eligible for
treatment on an expedited basis pursuant to paragraph (8),
final action by the Secretary shall occur within 90 days
following the date such application is filed, unless--
``(i) the Secretary and the applicant agree that such final
action shall occur within a longer period of time;
``(ii) the Secretary determines that an additional,
specified period of time is necessary to permit the Secretary
to comply with other applicable Federal law; except that if
the Secretary is required under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) to prepare an
environmental impact statement, with respect to the
application, the final action shall occur not later than 45
days following the date such statement is filed; or
``(iii) the Secretary, within 15 days from the date such
application is received, notifies the applicant that such
application does not contain all information necessary to
allow the Secretary to consider such application and
identifies any necessary additional information, in which
case, the provisions of subparagraph (C) shall apply.
``(C) Special rule when additional information is
required.--Upon the receipt of a request for additional
information under subparagraph (B)(iii), the applicant shall
supply such additional information and shall advise the
Secretary that the application contains all requested
information and is therefore complete. The Secretary may--
``(i) within 30 days of the receipt of notice of the
applicant that the application is complete, determine that
the application does not contain all requested additional
information and, on that basis, deny the application without
prejudice to resubmission; or
``(ii) within 90 days from the date that the applicant
provides notification to the Secretary that the application
is complete, review the application and take final action.
``(D) Effect of not meeting deadline.--If the Secretary
fails to take final action on an application under this
paragraph within 90 days from the date that the applicant
provides notification to the Secretary that such application
is complete, a permit shall be presumed to be granted
authorizing the activities proposed in such application under
such terms and conditions as are stated in such completed
application.
``(6) Type c wetlands.--Activities in wetlands that have
been classified as type C wetlands by the Secretary may be
undertaken without authorization required under subsection
(a) of this section.
``(7) States with substantial conserved wetlands.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to type A and type B
wetlands in States with substantial conserved wetlands areas,
at the option of the permit applicant, the Secretary shall
issue permits authorizing activities in such wetlands
pursuant to this paragraph. Final action on issuance of such
permits shall be in accordance with the procedures and
deadlines of paragraph (5). The Secretary may include
conditions or requirements for minimization of adverse
impacts to wetlands functions when minimization is
economically practicable. No permit to which this paragraph
applies shall include conditions, requirements, or standards
for mitigation to compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands
or waters of the United States or conditions, requirements,
or standards for avoidance of adverse impacts to wetlands or
waters of the United States.
``(B) Economic base lands.--Upon application by the owner
of economic base lands in a State with substantial conserved
wetlands areas, the Secretary shall issue individual and
general permits to owners of such lands for activities in
wetlands or waters of the United States. The Secretary shall
reduce the requirements of subparagraph (A)--
``(i) to allow economic base lands to be beneficially used
to create and sustain economic activity; and
``(ii) in the case of lands owned by Alaska Native
entities, to reflect the social and economic needs of Alaska
Natives to utilize economic base lands.
The Secretary shall consult with and provide assistance to
the Alaska Natives (including Alaska Native Corporations) in
promulgation and administration of policies and regulations
under this section.
``(8) General permits.--
``(A) General authority.--The Secretary may issue, by rule
in accordance with subsection
(j), general permits on a programmatic, State, regional, or
nationwide basis for any category of activities involving
an activity in wetlands or waters of the United States if
the Secretary determines that such activities are similar
in nature and that such activities, when performed
separately and cumulatively, will not result in the
significant loss of ecologically significant wetlands
values and functions.
``(B) Procedures.--Permits issued under this paragraph
shall include procedures for expedited review of eligibility
for such permits (if such review is required) and may include
requirements for reporting and mitigation. To the extent that
a proposed activity requires a determination by the Secretary
as to the eligibility to qualify for a general permit under
this subsection, such determination shall be made within 30
days of the date of submission of the application for such
qualification, or the application shall be treated as being
approved.
``(C) Compensatory mitigation.--Requirements for
compensatory mitigation for general permits may be imposed
where necessary to offset the significant loss or degradation
of significant wetlands functions where such loss or
degradation is not a temporary or incidental impact. Such
compensatory mitigation shall be calculated based upon the
specific impact of a particular project.
``(D) Grandfather of existing general permits.--General
permits in effect on day before the date of the enactment of
the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of
1995 shall remain in effect until otherwise modified by the
Secretary.
``(E) States with substantial conserved lands.--Upon
application by a State or local authority in a State with
substantial conserved wetlands areas, the Secretary shall
issue a general permit applicable to such authority for
activities in wetlands or waters of the United States. No
permit issued pursuant to this subparagraph shall include
conditions, requirements, or standards for mitigation to
compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands or waters of the
United States or shall include conditions, requirements, or
standards for avoidance of adverse impacts of wetlands or
waters of the United States.
``(9) Other waters of the united states.--The Secretary may
issue a permit authorizing activities in waters of the United
States (other than those classified as type A, B, or C
wetlands under this section) if the Secretary finds that
issuance of the permit is in the public interest, balancing
the reasonably foreseeable benefits and detriments resulting
from the issuance of the permit. The permit shall be subject
to such terms and conditions as the Secretary finds are
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Comprehensive
Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995. In
determining whether or not to issue the permit and whether or
not specific terms and conditions are necessary to carry out
such purposes, the Secretary shall consider the factors set
forth in paragraph (3)(A) as they apply to nonwetlands areas
and such other provisions of paragraph (3) as the Secretary
determines are appropriate to apply to nonwetlands areas.
[[Page H4895]] ``(f) Activities not Requiring Permit.--
``(1) In general.--Activities undertaken in any wetlands or
waters of the United States are exempt from the requirements
of this section and are not prohibited by or otherwise
subject to regulation under this section or section 301 or
402 of this Act (except effluent standards or prohibitions
under section 307 of this Act) if such activities--
``(A) result from normal farming, silviculture,
aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices, including
but not limited to plowing, seeding, cultivating, haying,
grazing, normal maintenance activities, minor drainage,
burning of vegetation in connection with such activities,
harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest
products, or upland soil and water conservation practices;
``(B) are for the purpose of maintenance, including
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of
currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees,
flood control channels or other engineered flood control
facilities, water control structures, water supply reservoirs
(where such maintenance involves periodic water level
drawdowns) which provide water predominantly to public
drinking water systems, groins, riprap, breakwaters, utility
distribution and transmission lines, causeways, and bridge
abutments or approaches, and transportation structures;
``(C) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance of
farm, stock or aquaculture ponds, wastewater retention
facilities (including dikes and berms) that are used by
concentrated animal feeding operations, or irrigation canals
and ditches or the maintenance of drainage ditches;
``(D) are for the purpose of construction of temporary
sedimentation basins on a construction site, or the
construction of any upland dredged material disposal area,
which does not include placement of fill material into the
navigable waters;
``(E) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance of
farm roads or forest roads, railroad lines of up to 10 miles
in length, or temporary roads for moving mining equipment,
access roads for utility distribution and transmission lines
if such roads or railroad lines are constructed and
maintained, in accordance with best management practices, to
assure that flow and circulation patterns and chemical and
biological characteristics of the waters are not impaired,
that the reach of the waters is not reduced, and that any
adverse effect on the aquatic environment will be otherwise
minimized;
``(F) are undertaken on farmed wetlands, except that any
change in use of such land for the purpose of undertaking
activities that are not exempt from regulation under this
subsection shall be subject to the requirements of this
section to the extent that such farmed wetlands are
`wetlands' under this section;
``(G) result from any activity with respect to which a
State has an approved program under section 208(b)(4) of this
Act which meets the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C)
of such section;
``(H) are consistent with a State or local land management
plan submitted to the Secretary and approved pursuant to
paragraph (2);
``(I) are undertaken in connection with a marsh management
and conservation program in a coastal parish in the State of
Louisiana where such program has been approved by the
Governor of such State or the designee of the Governor;
``(J) are undertaken on lands or involve activities within
a State's coastal zone which are excluded from regulation
under a State coastal zone management program approved under
the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451, et
seq.);
``(K) are undertaken in incidentally created wetlands,
unless such incidentally created wetlands have exhibited
wetlands functions and values for more than 5 years in which
case activities undertaken in such wetlands shall be subject
to the requirements of this section;
``(L) are for the purpose of preserving and enhancing
aviation safety or are undertaken in order to prevent an
airport hazard;
``(M) result from aggregate or clay mining activities in
wetlands conducted pursuant to a State or Federal permit that
requires the reclamation of such affected wetlands if such
reclamation will be completed within 5 years of the
commencement of activities at the site and, upon completion
of such reclamation, the wetlands will support wetlands
functions equivalent to the functions supported by the
wetlands at the time of commencement of such activities;
``(N) are for the placement of a structural member for a
pile-supported structure, such as a pier or dock, or for a
linear project such as a bridge, transmission or distribution
line footing, powerline structure, or elevated or other
walkway;
``(O) are for the placement of a piling in waters of the
United States in a circumstance that involves--
``(i) a linear project described in subparagraph (N); or
``(ii) a structure such as a pier, boathouse, wharf,
marina, lighthouse, or individual house built on stilts
solely to reduce the potential of flooding;
``(P) are for the clearing (including mechanized clearing)
of vegetation within a right-of-way associated with the
development and maintenance of a transmission or distribution
line or other powerline structure or for the maintenance of
water supply reservoirs which provide water predominantly to
public drinking water systems;
``(Q) are undertaken in or affecting waterfilled
depressions created in uplands incidental to construction
activity, or are undertaken in or affecting pits excavated in
uplands for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, gravel,
aggregates, or minerals, unless and until the construction or
excavation operation is abandoned; or
``(R) are undertaken in a State with substantial conserved
wetlands areas and--
``(i) are for purposes of providing critical
infrastructure, including water and sewer systems, airports,
roads, communication sites, fuel storage sites, landfills,
housing, hospitals, medical clinics, schools, and other
community infrastructure;
``(ii) are for construction and maintenance of log transfer
facilities associated with log transportation activities;
``(iii) are for construction of tailings impoundments
utilized for treatment facilities (as determined by the
development document) for the mining subcategory for which
the tailings impoundment is constructed; or
``(iv) are for construction of ice pads and ice roads and
for purposes of snow storage and removal.
``(2) State or local management plan.--Any State or
political subdivision thereof acting pursuant to State
authorization may develop a land management plan with respect
to lands that include identified wetlands. The State or local
government agency may submit any such plan to the Secretary
for review and approval. The Secretary shall, within 60 days,
notify in writing the designated State or local official of
approval or disapproval of any such plan. The Secretary shall
approve any plan that is consistent with the purposes of this
section. No person shall be entitled to judicial review of
the decision of the Secretary to approve or disapprove a land
management plan under this paragraph. Nothing in this
paragraph shall be construed to alter, limit, or supersede
the authority of a State or political subdivision thereof to
establish land management plans for purposes other than the
provisions of this subsection.
``(g) Rules for Delineating Wetlands.--
``(1) Standards.--
``(A) Issuance of rule.--The Secretary is authorized and
directed to establish standards, by rule in accordance with
subsection (j), that shall govern the delineation of lands as
`wetlands' for purposes of this section. Such rules shall be
established after consultation with the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies and shall be binding on all
Federal agencies in connection with the administration or
implementation of any provision of this section. The
standards for delineation of wetlands and any decision of the
Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture (in the case of
agricultural lands and associated nonagricultural lands), or
any other Federal officer or agency made in connection with
the administration of this section shall comply with the
requirements for delineation of wetlands set forth in
subparagraphs (B) and (C).
``(B) Exceptions.--The standards established by rule or
applied in any case for purposes of this section shall ensure
that lands are delineated as wetlands only if such lands are
found to be `wetlands' under section 502 of this Act; except
that such standards may not--
``(i) result in the delineation of lands as wetlands unless
clear evidence of wetlands hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation,
and hydric soil are found to be present during the period in
which such delineation is made, which delineation shall be
conducted during the growing season unless otherwise
requested by the applicant;
``(ii) result in the classification of vegetation as
hydrophytic if such vegetation is equally adapted to dry or
wet soil conditions or is more typically adapted to dry soil
conditions than to wet soil conditions;
``(iii) result in the classification of lands as wetlands
unless some obligate wetlands vegetation is found to be
present during the period of delineation; except that if such
vegetation has been removed for the purpose of evading
jurisdiction under this section, this clause shall not apply;
``(iv) result in the conclusion that wetlands hydrology is
present unless water is found to be present at the surface of
such lands for 21 consecutive days in the growing seasons in
a majority of the years for which records are available; and
``(v) result in the classification of lands as wetlands
that are temporarily or incidentally created as a result of
adjacent development activity.
``(C) Normal circumstances.--In addition to the
requirements of subparagraph (B), any standards established
by rule or applied to delineate wetlands for purposes of this
section shall provide that `normal circumstances' shall be
determined on the basis of the factual circumstances in
existence at the time a classification is made under
subsection (h) or at the time of application under subsection
(e), whichever is applicable, if such circumstances have not
been altered by an activity prohibited under this section.
``(2) Land area cap for type a wetlands.--No more than 20
percent of any county, parish, or borough shall be classified
as type A wetlands. Type A wetlands in Federal or State
ownership (including type A wetlands in units of the National
Wildlife Refuge System, the National Park System, and lands
held in conservation easements) shall be included in
calculating the percent of type A wetlands in a county,
parish, or borough.
``(3) Agricultural lands.--
``(A) Delineation by secretary of agriculture.--For
purposes of this section, wetlands located on agricultural
lands and associated nonagricultural lands shall be
delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture in
accordance with section 1222(j) of the Food Security Act of
1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(j)).
``(B) Exemption of lands exempted under food security
act.--Any area of agricultural land or any activities related
to the land determined to be exempt from the requirements of
[[Page H4896]] subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security
Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall also be exempt
from the requirements of this section for such period of time
as those lands are used as agricultural lands.
``(C) Effect of appeal determination pursuant to food
security act.--Any area of agricultural land or any
activities related to the land determined to be exempt
pursuant to an appeal taken pursuant to subtitle C of title
XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.)
shall be exempt under this section for such period of time as
those lands are used as agricultural lands.
``(h) Mapping and Public Notice Requirements.--
``(1) Provision of public notice.--Not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands
Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the Secretary shall
provide the court of each county, parish, or borough in which
the wetland subject to classification under subsection (c) is
located, a notice for posting near the property records of
the county, parish, or borough. The notice shall--
``(A) state that wetlands regulated under this section may
be located in the county, parish, or borough;
``(B) provide an explanation understandable to the general
public of how wetlands are delineated and classified;
``(C) describe the requirements and restrictions of the
regulatory program under this section; and
``(D) provide instructions on how to obtain a delineation
and classification of wetlands under this section.
``(2) Provision of delineation determinations.--On
completion under this section of a delineation and
classification of property that contains wetlands or a
delineation of property that contains waters of the United
States that are not wetlands, the Secretary of Agriculture,
in the case of wetlands located on agricultural lands and
associated nonagricultural lands, and the Secretary, in the
case of other lands, shall--
``(A) file a copy of the delineation, including the
classification of any wetland located on the property, with
the records of the property in the local courthouse; and
``(B) serve a copy of the delineation determination on
every owner of the property on record and any person with a
recorded mortgage or lien on the property.
``(3) Notice of enforcement actions.--The Secretary shall
file notice of each enforcement action under this section
taken with respect to private property with the records of
the property in the local courthouse.
``(4) Wetlands identification and classification project.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of
Agriculture shall undertake a project to identify and
classify wetlands in the United States that are regulated
under this section. The Secretaries shall complete such
project not later than 10 years after the date of the
enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and
Management Act of 1995.
``(B) Applicability of delineation standards.--In
conducting the project under this section, the Secretaries
shall identify and classify wetlands in accordance with
standards for delineation of wetlands established by the
Secretaries under subsection (g).
``(C) Public hearings.--In conducting the project under
this section, the Secretaries shall provide notice and an
opportunity for a public hearing in each county, parish or
borough of a State before completion of identification and
classification of wetlands in such county, parish, or
borough.
``(D) Publication.--Promptly after completion of
identification and classification of wetlands in a county,
parish, or borough under this section, the Secretaries shall
have published information on such identification and
classification in the Federal Register and in publications of
wide circulation and take other steps reasonably necessary to
ensure that such information is available to the public.
``(E) Reports.--The Secretaries shall report to Congress on
implementation of the project to be conducted under this
section not later than 2 years after the date of the
enactment of the Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and
Management Act of 1995 and annually thereafter.
``(F) Recordation.--Any classification of lands as wetlands
under this section shall, to the maximum extent practicable,
be recorded on the property records in the county, parish, or
borough in which such wetlands are located.
``(i) Administrative Appeals.--
``(1) Regulations establishing procedures.--Not later than
1 year after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive
Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, the
Secretary shall, after providing notice and opportunity for
public comment, issue regulations establishing procedures
pursuant to which--
``(A) a landowner may appeal a determination of regulatory
jurisdiction under this section with respect to a parcel of
the landowner's property;
``(B) a landowner may appeal a wetlands classification
under this section with respect to a parcel of the
landowner's property;
``(C) any person may appeal a determination that the
proposed activity on the landowner's property is not exempt
under subsection (f);
``(D) a landowner may appeal a determination that an
activity on the landowner's property does not qualify under a
general permit issued under this section;
``(E) an applicant for a permit under this section may
appeal a determination made pursuant to this section to deny
issuance of the permit or to impose a requirement under the
permit; and
``(F) a landowner or any other person required to restore
or otherwise alter a parcel of property pursuant to an order
issued under this section may appeal such order.
``(2) Deadline for filing appeal.--An appeal brought
pursuant to this subsection shall be filed not later than 30
days after the date on which the decision or action on which
the appeal is based occurs.
``(3) Deadline for decision.--An appeal brought pursuant to
this subsection shall be decided not later than 90 days after
the date on which the appeal is filed.
``(4) Participation in appeals process.--Any person who
participated in the public comment process concerning a
decision or action that is the subject of an appeal brought
pursuant to this subsection may participate in such appeal
with respect to those issues raised in the person's written
public comments.
``(5) Decisionmaker.--An appeal brought pursuant to this
subsection shall be heard and decided by an appropriate and
impartial official of the Federal Government, other than the
official who made the determination or carried out the action
that is the subject of the appeal.
``(6) Stay of penalties and mitigation.--A landowner or any
other person who has filed an appeal under this subsection
shall not be required to pay a penalty or perform mitigation
or restoration assessed under this section or section 309
until after the appeal has been decided.
``(j) Administrative Provisions.--
``(1) Final regulations for issuance of permits.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of the enactment of the
Comprehensive Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of
1995, the Secretary shall, after notice and opportunity for
comment, issue (in accordance with section 553 of title 5 of
the United States Code and this section) final regulations
for implementation of this section. Such regulations shall,
in accordance with this section, provide--
``(A) standards and procedures for the classification and
delineation of wetlands and procedures for administrative
review of any such classification or delineation;
``(B) standards and procedures for the review of State or
local land management plans and State programs for the
regulation of wetlands;
``(C) for the issuance of general permits, including
programmatic, State, regional, and nationwide permits;
``(D) standards and procedures for the individual permit
applications under this section;
``(E) for enforcement of this section;
``(F) guidelines for the specification of sites for the
disposal of dredged or fill material for navigational
dredging; and
``(G) any other rules and regulations that the Secretary
deems necessary or appropriate to implement the requirements
of this section.
``(2) Navigational dredging guidelines.--Guidelines
developed under paragraph (1)(F) shall--
``(A) be based upon criteria comparable to the criteria
applicable to the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and
the oceans under section 403(c); and
``(B) ensure that with respect to the issuance of permits
under this section--
``(i) the least costly, environmentally acceptable disposal
alternative will be selected, taking into consideration cost,
existing technology, short term and long term dredging
requirements, and logistics;
``(ii) a disposal site will be specified after comparing
reasonably available upland, confined aquatic, beneficial
use, and open water disposal alternatives on the basis of
relative risk, environmental acceptability, economics,
practicability, and current technological feasibility;
``(iii) a disposal site will be specified after comparing
the reasonably anticipated environmental and economic
benefits of undertaking the underlying project to the status
quo; and
``(iv) in comparing alternatives and selection of a
disposal site, management measures may be considered and
utilized to limit, to the extent practicable, adverse
environmental effects by employing suitable chemical,
biological, or physical techniques to prevent unacceptable
adverse impacts on the environment.
``(3) Judicial review of final regulations.--Any judicial
review of final regulations issued pursuant to this section
and the Secretary's denial of any petition for the issuance,
amendment, or repeal of any regulation under this section
shall be in accordance with sections 701 through 706 of title
5 of the United States Code; except that a petition for
review of action of the Secretary in issuing any regulation
or requirement under this section or denying any petition for
the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under
this section may be filed only in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia, and such petition shall
be filed within 90 days from the date of such issuance or
denial or after such date if such petition for review is
based solely on grounds arising after such ninetieth day.
Action of the Secretary with respect to which review could
have been obtained under this subsection shall not be subject
to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for
enforcement.
``(4) Interim regulations.--The Secretary shall, within 90
days after the date of the enactment of the Comprehensive
Wetlands Conservation and Management Act of 1995, issue
interim regulations consistent with this section to take
effect immediately. Notice of the interim regulations shall
be published in the Federal Register, and such regulations
shall be binding until the issuance of final regulations
pursuant to paragraph (1); except that the Secretary shall
provide adequate procedures for waiver of any provisions of
such interim regulations to avoid special hardship, inequity,
or unfair distribution of burdens or to advance the purposes
of this section.
``(5) Administration by secretary.--Except where otherwise
expressly provided in this section, the Secretary shall
administer this section. The Secretary or any other Federal
officer or agency in which any function under this section
[[Page H4897]] is vested or delegated is authorized to
perform any and all acts (including appropriate enforcement
activity), and to prescribe, issue, amend, or rescind such
rules or orders as such officer or agency may find necessary
or appropriate with this subsection, subject to the
requirements of this subsection.
``(k) Enforcement.--
``(1) Compliance order.--Whenever, on the basis of reliable
and substantial information and after reasonable inquiry, the
Secretary finds that any person is or may be in violation of
this section or of any condition or limitation set forth in a
permit issued by the Secretary under this section, the
Secretary shall issue an order requiring such persons to
comply with this section or with such condition or
limitation.
``(2) Notice and other procedural requirements relating to
orders.--A copy of any order issued under this subsection
shall be sent immediately by the Secretary to the Governor of
the State in which the violation occurs and the Governors of
other affected States. The person committing the asserted
violation that results in issuance of the order shall be
notified of the issuance of the order by personal service
made to the appropriate person or corporate officer. The
notice shall state with reasonable specificity the nature of
the asserted violation and specify a time for compliance, not
to exceed 30 days, which the Secretary determines is
reasonable taking into account the seriousness of the
asserted violation and any good faith efforts to comply with
applicable requirements. If the person receiving the notice
disputes the Secretary's determination, the person may file
an appeal as provided in subsection (i). Within 60 days of a
decision which denies an appeal, or within 150 days from the
date of notification of violation by the Secretary if no
appeal is filed, the Secretary shall prosecute a civil action
in accordance with paragraph (3) or rescind such order and be
estopped from any further enforcement proceedings for the
same asserted violation.
``(3) Civil action enforcement.--The Secretary is
authorized to commence a civil action for appropriate relief,
including a permanent or temporary injunction, for any
violation for which the Secretary is authorized to issue a
compliance order under paragraph (1). Any action under this
paragraph may be brought in the district court of the United
States for the district in which the defendant is located or
resides or is doing business, and such court shall have
jurisdiction to restrain such violation and to require
compliance. Notice of the commencement of such action shall
be given immediately to the appropriate State.
``(4) Civil penalties.--Any person who violates any
condition or limitation in a permit issued by the Secretary
under this section and any person who violates any order
issued by the Secretary under paragraph (1) shall be subject
to a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each
violation commencing on expiration of the compliance period
if no appeal is filed or on the 30th day following the date
of the denial of an appeal of such violation. The amount of
the penalty imposed per day shall be in proportion to the
scale or scope of the project. In determining the amount of a
civil penalty, the court shall consider the seriousness of
the violation or violations, the economic benefit (if any)
resulting from the violation, any history of such violations,
any good-faith efforts to comply with the applicable
requirements, the economic impact of the penalty on the
violator, and such other matters as justice may require.
``(5) Criminal penalties.--If any person knowingly and
willfully violates any condition or limitation in a permit
issued by the Secretary under this section or knowingly and
willfully violates an order issued by the Secretary under
paragraph (1) and has been notified of the issuance of such
order under paragraph (2) and if such violation has resulted
in actual degradation of the environment, such person shall
be punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than
$50,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more
than 3 years, or by both. If a conviction of a person is for
a violation committed after a first conviction of such person
under this paragraph, punishment shall be by a fine of not
more than $100,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of
not more than 6 years, or by both. An action for imposition
of a criminal penalty under this paragraph may only be
brought by the Attorney General.
``(l) State Regulation.--
``(1) Submission of proposed state program.--The Governor
of any State desiring to administer its own individual or
general permit program for some or all of the activities
covered by this section within any geographical region within
its jurisdiction may submit to the Secretary a description of
the program it proposes to establish and administer under
State law or under an interstate compact. In addition, such
State shall submit a statement from the chief legal officer
in the case of the State or interstate agency, that the laws
of such State, or the interstate compact, as the case may be,
provide adequate authority to carry out the described
program.
``(2) State authorities required for approval.--Not later
than 1 year after the date of the receipt by the Secretary of
a program and statement submitted by any State under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine whether such
State has the following authority with respect to the
issuance of permits pursuant to such program--
``(A) to issue permits which--
``(i) apply, and assure compliance with, any applicable
requirements of this section; and
``(ii) can be terminated or modified for cause, including--

``(I) violation of any condition of the permit;
``(II) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation, or failure
to disclose fully all relevant facts; or
``(III) change in any condition that requires either a
temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the
permitted activity;
``(B) to issue permits which apply, and ensure compliance
with, all applicable requirements of section 308 of this Act
or to inspect, monitor, enter, and require reports to at
least the same extent as required in section 308 of this Act;
``(C) to ensure that the public, and any other State the
waters of which may be affected, receive notice of each
application for a permit and to provide an opportunity for
public hearing before a ruling on each such application;
``(D) to ensure that the Secretary receives notice of each
application for a permit and that, prior to any action by the
State, both the applicant for the permit and the State have
received from the Secretary information with respect to any
advance classification applicable to wetlands that are the
subject of such application;
``(E) to ensure that any State (other than the permitting
State) whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a
permit may submit written recommendation to the permitting
State with respect to any permit application and, if any part
of such written recommendations are not accepted by the
permitting State, that the permitting State will notify such
affected State (and the Secretary) in writing of its failure
to so accept such recommendations together with its reasons
for doing so; and
``(F) to abate violations of the permit or the permit
program, including civil and criminal penalties and other
ways and means of enforcement.
``(3) Approval; resubmission.--If, with respect to a State
program submitted under paragraph (1) of this section, the
Secretary determines that the State--
``(A) has the authority set forth in paragraph (2), the
Secretary shall approve the program and so notify such State
and suspend the issuance of permits under subsection (b) for
activities with respect to which a permit may be issued
pursuant to the State program; or
``(B) does not have the authority set forth in paragraph
(2) of this subsection, the Secretary shall so notify such
State and provide a description of the revisions or
modifications necessary so that the State may resubmit the
program for a determination by the Secretary under this
subsection.
``(4) Effect of failure of secretary to make timely
decision.--If the Secretary fails to make a determination
with respect to any program submitted by a State under this
subsection within 1 year after the date of receipt of the
program, the program shall be treated as being approved
pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) and the Secretary shall so
notify the State and suspend the issuance of permits under
subsection (b) for activities with respect to which a permit
may be issued by the State.
``(5) Transfer of pending applications for permits.--If the
Secretary approves a State permit program under paragraph
(3)(A) or (4), the Secretary shall transfer any applications
for permits pending before the Secretary for activities with
respect to which a permit may be issued pursuant to the State
program to the State for appropriate action.
``(6) General permits.--Upon notification from a State with
a permit program approved under this subsection that such
State intends to administer and enforce the terms and
conditions of a general permit issued by the Secretary under
subsection (e) with respect to activities in the State to
which such general permit applies, the Secretary shall
suspend the administration and enforcement of such general
permit with respect to such activities.
``(7) Review by secretary.--Every 5 years after approval of
a State administered program under paragraph (3)(A), the
Secretary shall review the program to determine whether it is
being administered in accordance with this section. If, on
the basis of such review, the Secretary finds that a State is
not administering its program in accordance with this section
or if the Secretary determines based on clear and convincing
evidence after a public hearing that a State is not
administering its program in accordance with this section and
that substantial adverse impacts to wetlands or waters of the
United States are imminent, the Secretary shall notify the
State and, if appropriate corrective action is not taken
within a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days after the
date of the receipt of such notification, the Secretary
shall--
``(A) withdraw approval of the program until the Secretary
determines such corrective action has been taken; and
``(B) resume the program for the issuance of permits under
subsections (b) and (e) for all activities with respect to
which the State was issuing permits until such time as the
Secretary makes the determination described in paragraph (2)
and the State again has an approved program.
``(m) Miscellaneous Provisions.--
``(1) State authority to control discharges.--Nothing in
this section shall preclude or deny the right of any State or
interstate agency to control activities in waters within the
jurisdiction of such State, including any activity of any
Federal agency, and each such agency shall comply with such
State or interstate requirements both substantive and
procedural to control such activities to the same extent that
any person is subject to such requirements. This section
shall not be construed as affecting or impairing the
authority of the Secretary to maintain navigation.
``(2) Availability to public.--A copy of each permit
application and each permit issued under this section shall
be available to the public. Such permit application or
portion thereof shall further be available on request for the
purpose of reproduction.
``(3) Publication in federal register.--The Secretary shall
have published in the Federal
[[Page H4898]] Register all memoranda of agreement,
regulatory guidance letters, and other guidance documents of
general applicability to implementation of this section at
the time they are distributed to agency regional or field
offices. In addition, the Secretary shall prepare, update on
a biennial basis and make available to the public for
purchase at cost--
``(A) an indexed publication containing all Federal
regulations, general permits, memoranda of agreement,
regulatory guidance letters, and other guidance documents
relevant to the permitting of activities pursuant to this
section; and
``(B) information to enable the general public to
understand the delineation of wetlands, the permitting
requirements referred to in subsection (e), wetlands
restoration and enhancement, wetlands functions, available
nonregulatory programs to conserve and restore wetlands, and
other matters that the Secretary considers relevant.
``(4) Compliance.--
``(A) Compliance with permit.--Compliance with a permit
issued pursuant to this section, including any activity
carried out pursuant to a general permit issued under this
section, shall be deemed in compliance, for purposes of
sections 309 and 505, with sections 301, 307, and 403.
``(B) Cranberry production.--Activities associated with
expansion, improvement, or modification of existing cranberry
production operations shall be deemed in compliance, for
purposes of sections 309 and 505, with section 301, if--
``(i) the activity does not result in the modification of
more than 10 acres of wetlands per operator per year and the
modified wetlands (other than where dikes and other necessary
facilities are placed) remain as wetlands or other waters of
the United States; or
``(ii) the activity is required by any State or Federal
water quality program.
``(5) Limitation on fees.--Any fee charged in connection
with the delineation or classification of wetlands, the
submission or processing of an application for a permit
authorizing an activity in wetlands or waters of the United
States, or any other action taken in compliance with the
requirements of this section (other than fines for violations
under subsection (k)) shall not exceed the amount in effect
for such fee on February 15, 1995.
``(6) Balanced implementation.--
``(A) In general.--In implementing his or her
responsibilities under the regulatory program under this
section, the Secretary shall balance the objective of
conserving functioning wetlands with the objective of
ensuring continued economic growth, providing essential
infrastructure, maintaining strong State and local tax bases,
and protecting against the diminishment of the use and value
of privately owned property.
``(B) Minimization of adverse effects on private
property.--In carrying out this section, the Secretary and
the heads of all other Federal agencies shall seek in all
actions to minimize the adverse effects of the regulatory
program under this section on the use and value of privately
owned property.
``(7) Procedures for emergencies.--The Secretary shall
develop procedures for facilitating actions under this
section that are necessary to respond to emergency conditions
(including flood events and other emergency situations) which
may involve loss of life and property damage. Such procedures
shall address circumstances requiring expedited approvals as
well as circumstances requiring no formal approval under this
section.
``(8) Use of property.--For purposes of this section, a use
of property is limited by an agency action if a particular
legal right to use that property no longer exists because of
the action.
``(9) Limitation on classification of certain waters.--For
purposes of this section, no water of the United States or
wetland shall be subject to this section based solely on the
fact that migratory birds use or could use such water or
wetland.
``(10) Transition rules.--
``(A) Permit required.--After the effective date of this
section under section 806 of the Comprehensive Wetlands
Conservation and Management Act of 1995, no permit for any
activity in wetlands or waters of the United States may be
issued except in accordance with this section. Any
application for a permit for such an activity pending under
this section on such effective date shall be deemed to be an
application for a permit under this section.
``(B) Prior permits.--Any permit for an activity in
wetlands or waters of the United
States issued under this section prior to the effective date
referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be deemed to be a
permit under this section and shall continue in force and
effect for the term of the permit unless revoked,
modified, suspended, or canceled in accordance with this
section.
``(C) Reevaluation.--
``(i) Petition.--Any person holding a permit for an
activity in wetlands or water of the United States on the
effective date referred to in subparagraph (A) may petition,
after such effective date, the Secretary for reevaluation of
any decision made before such effective date concerning (I) a
determination of regulatory jurisdiction under this section,
or (II) any condition imposed under the permit. Upon receipt
of a petition for reevaluation, the Secretary shall conduct
the reevaluation in accordance with the provisions of this
section.
``(ii) Modification of permit.--If the Secretary finds that
the provisions of this section apply with respect to
activities and lands which are subject to the permit, the
Secretary shall modify, revoke, suspend, cancel, or continue
the permit as appropriate in accordance with the provisions
of this section; except that no compensation shall be awarded
under this section to any person as a result of reevaluation
pursuant to this subparagraph and, if the permit covers
activities in type A wetlands, the permit shall continue in
effect without modification.
``(iii) Procedure.--The reevaluation shall be carried out
in accordance with time limits set forth in subsection (e)(5)
and shall be subject to administrative appeal under
subsection (i).
``(D) Previously denied permits.--No permit shall be issued
under this section, no exemption shall be available under
subsection (f), and no exception shall be available under
subsection (g)(1)(B), for any activity for which a permit has
previously been denied by the Secretary on more than one
occasion unless such activity--
``(i) has been approved by the affected State, county, and
local government within the boundaries of which the activity
is proposed;
``(ii) in the case of unincorporated land, has been
approved by all local governments within 1 mile of the
proposed activity; and
``(iii) would result in a net improvement to water quality
at the site of such activity.
``(11) Definitions.--In this section the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Activity in wetlands or waters of the united
states.--The term `activity in wetlands or waters of the
United States' means--
``(i) the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States, including wetlands at a specific
disposal site; or
``(ii) the draining, channelization, or excavation of
wetlands.
``(B) Agency.--The term `agency' has the meaning given that
term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
``(C) Agency action.--The term `agency action' has the
meaning given that term in section 551 of title 5, United
States Code, but also includes the making of a grant to a
public authority conditioned upon an action by the recipient
that would constitute a limitation if done directly by the
agency.
``(D) Agricultural land.--The term `agricultural land'
means cropland, pastureland, native pasture, rangeland, an
orchard, a vineyard, nonindustrial forest land, an area that
supports a water dependent crop (including cranberries, taro,
watercress, or rice), and any other land used to produce or
support the production of an annual or perennial crop
(including forage or hay), aquaculture product, nursery
product, or wetland crop or the production of livestock.
``(E) Conserved wetlands.--The term `conserved wetlands'
means wetlands that are located in the National Park System,
National Wildlife Refuge System, National Wilderness System,
the Wild and Scenic River System, and other similar Federal
conservation systems, combined with wetlands located in
comparable types of conservation systems established under
State and local authority within State and local land use
systems.
``(F) Economic base lands.--The term `economic base lands'
means lands conveyed to, selected by, or owned by Alaska
Native entities pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, Public Law 92-203 or the Alaska Native
Allotment Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 197), and lands conveyed to,
selected by, or owned by the State of Alaska pursuant to the
Alaska Statehood Act, Public Law 85-508.
``(G) Fair market value.--The term `fair market value'
means the most probable price at which property would change
hands, in a competitive and open market under all conditions
requisite to a fair sale, between a willing buyer and a
willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or
sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts,
at the time the agency action occurs.
``(H) Law of a state.--The term `law of a State' includes
the law of a political subdivision of a State.
``(I) Mitigation bank.--The term `mitigation bank' means a
wetlands restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation
project undertaken by one or more parties, including private
and public entities, expressly for the purpose of providing
mitigation compensation credits to offset adverse impacts to
wetlands or other waters of the United States authorized by
the terms of permits allowing activities in such wetlands or
waters.
``(J) Navigational dredging.--The term `navigational
dredging' means the dredging of ports, waterways, and inland
harbors, including berthing areas and local access channels
appurtenant to a Federal navigation channel.
``(K) Property.--The term `property' means land and
includes the right to use or receive water.
``(L) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of the Army.
``(M) State with substantial conserved wetlands areas.--The
term `State with substantial conserved wetlands areas' means
any State which--
``(i) contains at least 10 areas of wetlands for each acre
of wetlands filled, drained, or otherwise converted within
such State (based upon wetlands loss statistics reported in
the 1990 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands
Trends report to Congress entitled `Wetlands Losses in the
United States 1780's to 1980's'); or
``(ii) the Secretary of the Army determines has sufficient
conserved wetlands areas to provided adequate wetlands
conservation in such State, based on the policies set forth
in this Act.
``(N) Wetlands.--The term `wetlands' means those lands that
meet the criteria for delineation of lands as wetlands set
forth in subsection (g).''.

SEC. 804. DEFINITIONS.

Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended--
(1) in paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``dredged spoil,'';
(B) by striking ``or (B)'' and inserting ``(B)''; and
(C) by inserting before the period at the end ``; and (C)
dredged or fill material''; and

[[Page H4899]]

(2) by adding at the end thereof the following new
paragraphs:
``(28) The term `wetlands' means lands which have a
predominance of hydric soils and which are inundated by
surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to
support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
``(29) The term `creation of wetlands' means an activity
that brings a wetland into existence at a site where it did
not formerly occur for the purpose of compensatory
mitigation.
``(30) The term `enhancement of wetlands' means any
activity that increases the value of one or more functions in
existing wetlands.
``(31) The term `fastlands' means lands located behind
legally constituted man-made structures or natural
formations, such as levees constructed and maintained to
permit the utilization of such lands for commercial,
industrial, or residential purposes consistent with local
land use planning requirements.
``(32) The term `wetlands functions' means the roles
wetlands serve, including flood water storage, flood water
conveyance, ground water recharge, erosion control, wave
attenuation, water quality protection, scenic and aesthetic
use, food chain support, fisheries, wetlands plant habitat,
aquatic habitat, and habitat for wetland dependent wildlife.
``(33) The term `growing season' means, for each plant
hardiness zone, the period between the average date of last
frost in spring and the average date of first frost in
autumn.
``(34) The term `incidentally created wetlands' means lands
that exhibit wetlands characteristics sufficient to meet the
criteria for delineation of wetlands, where one or more of
such characteristics is the unintended result of human
induced alterations of hydrology.
``(35) The term `maintenance' when used in reference to
wetlands means activities undertaken to assure continuation
of a wetland or the accomplishment of project goals after a
restoration or creation project has been technically
completed, including water level manipulations and control of
nonnative plant species.
``(36) The term `mitigation banking' means wetlands
restoration, enhancement, preservation or creation for the
purpose of providing compensation for wetland degradation or
loss.
``(37) The term `normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture
and ranching activities' means normal practices identified as
such by the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with
the Cooperative Extension Service for each State and the land
grant university system and agricultural colleges of the
State, taking into account existing practices and such other
practices as may be identified in consultation with the
affected industry or community.
``(38) The term `prior converted cropland' means any
agricultural land that was manipulated (by drainage or other
physical alteration to remove excess water from the land) or
used for the production of any annual or perennial
agricultural crop (including forage or hay), aquacultural
product, nursery product or wetlands crop, or the production
of livestock before December 23, 1985.
``(39) The term `restoration' in reference to wetlands
means an activity undertaken to return a wetland from a
disturbed or altered condition with lesser acreage or fewer
functions to a previous condition with greater wetlands
acreage or functions.
``(40) The term `temporary impact' means the disturbance or
alteration of wetlands caused by activities under
circumstances in which, within 3 years following the
commencement of such activities, such wetlands--
``(A) are returned to the conditions in existence prior to
the commencement of such activity; or
``(B) display conditions sufficient to ensure, that without
further human action, such wetlands will return to the
conditions in existence prior to the commencement of such
activity.
``(41) The term `airport hazard' has the meaning such term
has under section 47102 of title 49, United States Code.''.

SEC. 805. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Violation.--Section 301(a) (33 U.S.C. 1311(a)) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``402, and 404'' and inserting ``and 402'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``Except as in
compliance with this section and section 404, the undertaking
of any activity in wetlands or waters of the United States
shall be unlawful.''.
(b) Federal Enforcement.--Section 309 (33 U.S.C. 1319) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1) by striking ``or 404'';
(2) in subsection (a)(3) by striking ``or in a permit
issued under section 404 of this Act by a State'';
(3) in each of subsections (c)(1)(A) and (c)(2)(A) by
striking ``or in a permit'' and all that follows through
``State;'' and inserting a semicolon;
(4) in subsection (c)(3)(A) by striking ``or in a permit''
and all that follows through ``State, and'' and inserting
``and'';
(5) by adding at the end of subsection (c) the following:
``(8) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who
violates section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands
or waters of the United States for which a permit is required
under section 404 shall not be subject to punishment under
this subsection but shall be subject to punishment under
section 404(k)(5).'';
(6) in subsection (d) by striking ``, or in a permit issued
under section 404 of this Act by a State,'';
(7) by adding at the end of subsection (d) the following:
``Any person who violates section 301 with respect to an
activity in wetlands or waters of the United States for which
a permit is required under section 404 shall not be subject
to a civil penalty under this subsection but shall be subject
to a civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).'';
(8) in subsection (g)(1)--
(A) by striking ``--'' and all that follows through
``(A)'';
(B) by striking ``or in a permit issued under section 404
by a State, or''; and
(C) by striking ``(B)'' and all that follows through ``as
the case may be,'' and inserting ``the Administrator'';
(9) by adding at the end of subsection (g) the following:
``(12) Treatment of certain violations.--Any person who
violates section 301 with respect to an activity in wetlands
or waters of the United States for which a permit is required
under section 404 shall not be subject to assessment of a
civil penalty under this subsection but shall be subject to
assessment of a civil penalty under section 404(k)(4).'';
(10) by striking ``or Secretary'', ``or the Secretary'',
``or the Secretary, as the case may be,'', ``or
Secretary's'', and ``and the Secretary'' each place they
appear; and
(11) in subsection (g)(9)(B) by inserting a comma after
``Administrator''.

SEC. 806. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This title, including the amendments made by this title,
shall take effect on the 90th day following the date of the
enactment of this Act.

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 961 the Clean
Water Act amendments, a measure which represents a retreat from over 20
years of progress and commitment and since presented on the floor this
week has become increasingly weakened by further amendments being
added.
The first 3 months of this 104th Congress has with the Republican
``Contract'' represented an assault on the sound, fair and needed
environmental laws enacted on a bi-partisan basis the past four
decades.
The Clean Water Act [CWA] has been a good success with extraordinary
achievements and effort within the Federal framework. State and local
governments have been spurred to positive action with an effective
national framework of law and funding to help achieve the objectives
and standards. Each instance when the law was rewritten resulted in
pragmatic adjustments and amendments reinforcing and empowering safety,
health and environmental considerations. As new information and
pressures impact the range of law and issues inherent regarding the
CWA, efforts have been made to respond.
That is changed in the measure H.R. 961 that is being promoted in the
Congress today.
This legislation is a denial of the problem and trades short-term
gain for a narrow group of special interests against the long term
problems of despoiling the safety, health and environment of the
people.
This negative initiative discards the lessons of the past, abandons
the investments made by the Federal and State Governments as it
sacrifices sound standards to political expediency; it is wrong for the
economy and the environment.
The measure H.R. 961 includes provisions waiving secondary treatment
facilities, replaces the wetland delineation with loose State process
and creates a new payment entitlement system to reward polluters for
not polluting, the measure H.R. 961 repeals existing law for special
runoff control provisions for coastal areas, repeals the existing storm
water management program. An effort to restore these provisions was
rejected save the amendment addressing some coastal provisions--which
no doubt will be revoted before we complete this measure in the House.
Candidly, the fingerprints of special interests are all over this bill
as it left committee, in fact it's an open secret that portions of the
bill, the CWA 1995, have been written by the lobbyists. It isn't just
the environment that is being despoiled; it is the Congress and the
House in such a mode of behavior and activity that is being despoiled.
The bottom line is that this measure represents a retreat, a reneging
on the commitment to clean water and sound environmental policy.
Dismantling the Federal role and the Federal Government and the
coordination, collaboration that is inherent to the Federal Government
role is absolutely essential to sound environmental policy, to clean
water, to clean air, to the protection of biodiversity. In fact, today
we, the Congress, should be pursuing global agreements not turning back
and away from science and sound policy.
Congress can't achieve sound environmental policy in the absence of a
weakened or undercut Federal policy and as nature abhors a vacuum, the
power of the people, the Federal Government, is being filled by the big
corporations and special interests who put private profit and interest
first and the American people second. We must reject this measure and
flawed policy and philosophy.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I do that simply to announce that it is my understanding we will take
up the wetlands debate Monday evening
[[Page H4900]] after the votes occur on suspensions, but there will be
no votes on the wetlands debate Monday evening and we will move to the
continuation of this bill Tuesday morning, with an objective of
finishing this legislation by Tuesday night.
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. Fox
of Pennsylvania) 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.

____________________