[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4934-H4956]
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}  1804


                     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 Friday, May 12, 
1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la 
Garza] had been disposed of, and title VIII was open at any point.
  Are there any amendments to title VIII?


                   amendment offered by mr. boehlert

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Strike title VIII of the bill (page 239, line 3, through 
     page 322, line 22) and insert the following:
            TITLE VIII--WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 802. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds and declares the following:
       (1) Wetlands perform a number of valuable functions needed 
     to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 
     biological integrity of the Nation's waters, including--
       (A) reducing pollutants (including nutrients, sediment, and 
     toxics) from nonpoint and point sources;
       (B) storing, conveying, and purifying flood and storm 
     waters;
       (C) reducing both bank erosion and wave and storm damage to 
     adjacent lands and trapping sediment from upland sources;
       (D) providing habitat and food sources for a broad range of 
     commercial and recreational fish, shellfish, and migratory 
     wildlife species (including waterfowl and endangered 
     species); and [[Page H4935]] 
       (E) providing a broad range of recreational values for 
     canoeing, boating, birding, and nature study and observation.
       (2) Original wetlands in the contiguous United States have 
     been reduced by an estimated 50 percent and continue to 
     disappear at a rate of 200,000 to 300,000 acres a year. Many 
     of these original wetlands have also been altered or 
     partially degraded, reducing their ecological value.
       (3) Wetlands are highly sensitive to changes in water 
     regimes and are, therefore, susceptible to degradation by 
     fills, drainage, grading, water extractions, and other 
     activities within their watersheds which affect the quantity, 
     quality, and flow of surface and ground waters. Protection 
     and management of wetlands, therefore, should be integrated 
     with management of water systems on a watershed basis. A 
     watershed protection and management perspective is also 
     needed to understand and reverse the gradual, continued 
     destruction of wetlands that occurs due to cumulative 
     impacts.
       (4) Wetlands constitute an estimated 5 percent of the 
     Nation's surface area. Because much of this land is in 
     private ownership wetlands protection and management 
     strategies must take into consideration private property 
     rights and the need for economic development and growth. This 
     can be best accomplished in the context of a cooperative and 
     coordinated Federal, State, and local strategy for data 
     gathering, planning, management, and restoration with an 
     emphasis on advance planning of wetlands in watershed 
     contexts.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to help create a coordinated national wetland 
     management effort with efficient use of scarce Federal, 
     State, and local financial and manpower resources to protect 
     wetland functions and values and reduce natural hazard 
     losses;
       (2) to help reverse the trend of wetland loss in a fair, 
     efficient, and cost-effective manner;
       (3) to reduce inconsistencies and duplication in Federal, 
     State, and local wetland management efforts and encourage 
     integrated permitting at the Federal, State, and local 
     levels;
       (4) to increase technical assistance, cooperative training, 
     and educational opportunities for States, local governments, 
     and private landowners;
       (5) to help integrate wetland protection and management 
     with other water resource management programs on a watershed 
     basis such as flood control, storm water management, 
     allocation of water supply, protection of fish and wildlife, 
     and point and nonpoint source pollution control;
       (6) to increase regionalization of wetland delineation and 
     management policies within a framework of national policies 
     through advance planning of wetland areas, programmatic 
     general permits and other approaches and the tailoring of 
     policies to ecosystem and land use needs to reflect 
     significant watershed variance in wetland resources;
       (7) to address the cumulative loss of wetland resources;
       (8) to increase the certainty and predictability of 
     planning and regulatory policies for private landowners;
       (9) to help achieve no overall net loss and net gain of the 
     remaining wetland base of the United States through 
     watershed-based restoration strategies involving all levels 
     of government;
       (10) to restore and create wetlands in order to increase 
     the quality and quantity of the wetland resources and by so 
     doing to restore and maintain the quality and quantity of the 
     waters of the United States; and
       (11) to provide mechanisms for joint State, Federal, and 
     local development and testing of approaches to better protect 
     wetland resources such as mitigation banking.

     SEC. 803. STATE, LOCAL, AND LANDOWNER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
                   AND COOPERATIVE TRAINING.

       (a) State and Local Technical Assistance.--Upon request, 
     the Administrator or the Secretary of the Army, as 
     appropriate, shall provide technical assistance to State and 
     local governments in the development and implementation of 
     State and local government permitting programs under sections 
     404(e) and 404(h) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
     State wetland conservation plans under section 805, and 
     regional or local wetland management plans under section 805.
       (b) Cooperative Training.--The Administrator and the 
     Secretary, in cooperation with the Coordinating Committee 
     established pursuant to section 804, shall conduct training 
     courses for States and local governments involving wetland 
     delineation, utilization of wetlands in nonpoint pollution 
     control, wetland and stream restoration, wetland planning, 
     wetland evaluation, mitigation banking, and other subjects 
     deemed appropriate by the Administrator or Secretary.
       (c) Private Landowner Technical Assistance.--The 
     Administrator and Secretary shall, in cooperation with the 
     Coordination Committee, and appropriate Federal agencies 
     develop and provide to private landowners guidebooks, 
     pamphlets, or other materials and technical assistance to 
     help them in identifying and evaluating wetlands, developing 
     integrated wetland management plans for their lands 
     consistent with the goals of this Act and the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, and restoring wetlands.

     SEC. 804. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COORDINATING 
                   COMMITTEE.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     establish a Federal, State, and Local Government Wetlands 
     Coordinating Committee (hereinafter in this section referred 
     to as the ``Committee'').
       (b) Functions.--The Committee shall--
       (1) help coordinate Federal, State, and local wetland 
     planning, regulatory, and restoration programs on an ongoing 
     basis to reduce duplication, resolve potential conflicts, and 
     efficiently allocate manpower and resources at all levels of 
     government;
       (2) provide comments to the Secretary of the Army or 
     Administrator in adopting regulatory, policy, program, or 
     technical guidance affecting wetland systems;
       (3) help develop and field test, national policies prior to 
     implementation such as wetland, delineation, classification 
     of wetlands, methods for sequencing wetland mitigation 
     responses, the utilization of mitigation banks;
       (4) help develop and carry out joint technical assistance 
     and cooperative training programs as provided in section 803;
       (5) help develop criteria and implementation strategies for 
     facilitating State conservation plans and strategies, local 
     and regional wetland planning, wetland restoration and 
     creation, and State and local permitting programs pursuant to 
     section 404(e) or 404(g) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act; and
       (6) help develop a national strategy for the restoration of 
     wetland ecosystems pursuant to section 6 of this Act.
       (c) Membership.--The Committee shall be composed of 18 
     members as follows:
       (1) The Administrator or the designee of the Administrator.
       (2) The Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.
       (3) The Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 
     Service or the designee of the Director.
       (4) The Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
     or the designee of the Chief.
       (5) The Undersecretary for Oceans and Atmosphere or the 
     designee of the Under Secretary.
       (6) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will 
     represent the National Governor's Association.
       (7) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will 
     represent the National Association of Counties.
       (8) One individual appointed by the Administrator who will 
     represent the National League of Cities.
       (9) One State wetland expert from each of the 10 regions of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency. Each member to be 
     appointed under this paragraph shall be jointly appointed by 
     the Governors of the States within the Environmental 
     Protection Agency's region. If the Governors from a region 
     cannot agree on such a representative, they will each submit 
     a nomination to the Administrator and the Administrator will 
     select a representative from such region.
       (d) Terms.--Each member appointed pursuant to paragraph 
     (6), (7), (8), or (9) of subsection (c) shall be appointed 
     for a term of 2 years.
       (e) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Committee shall be filled, 
     on or before the 30th day after the vacancy occurs, in the 
     manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (f) Pay.--Members shall serve without pay, but may receive 
     travel expenses (including per diem in lieu of subsistence) 
     in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       (g) Cochairpersons.--The Administrator and one member 
     appointed pursuant to paragraph (6), (7), (8), or (9) of 
     subsection (c) (selected by such members) shall serve as 
     cochairpersons of the Committee.
       (h) Quorum.--Two-thirds of the members of the Committee 
     shall constitute a quorum but a lesser number may hold 
     meetings.
       (i) Meetings.--The Committee shall hold its first meeting 
     not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. The Committee shall meet at least twice each year 
     thereafter. Meetings will be opened to the public.

     SEC. 805. STATE AND LOCAL WETLAND CONSERVATION PLANS AND 
                   STRATEGIES; GRANTS TO FACILITATE THE 
                   IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 404.

       (a) State Wetland Conservation Plans and Strategies.--
     Subject to the requirements of this section, the 
     Administrator shall make grants to States and tribes to 
     assist in the development and implementation of wetland 
     conservation plans and strategies. More specific goals for 
     such conservation plans and strategies may include:
       (1) Inventorying State wetland resources, identifying 
     individual and cumulative losses, identifying State and local 
     programs applying to wetland resources, determining gaps in 
     such programs, and making recommendations for filling those 
     gaps.
       (2) Developing and coordinating existing State, local, and 
     regional programs for wetland management and protection on a 
     watershed basis.
       (3) Increasing the consistency of Federal, State, and local 
     wetland definitions, delineation, and permitting approaches.
       (4) Mapping and characterizing wetland resources on a 
     watershed basis.
       (5) Identifying sites with wetland restoration or creation 
     potential.
       (6) Establishing management strategies for reducing causes 
     of wetland degradation and restoring wetlands on a watershed 
     basis. [[Page H4936]] 
       (7) Assisting regional and local governments prepare 
     watershed plans for areas with a high percentage of lands 
     classified as wetlands or otherwise in need of special 
     management.
       (8) Establishing and implementing State or local permitting 
     programs under section 404(e) or 404(h) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act.
       (b) Regional and Local Wetland Planning, Regulation, and 
     Management Programs.--Subject to the requirements of this 
     section, the Administrator shall make grants to States which 
     will, in turn, use this funding to make grants to regional 
     and local governments to assist them in adopting and 
     implementing wetland and watershed management programs 
     consistent with goals stated in section 101 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act and section 802 of this Act. Such 
     plans shall be integrated with (where appropriate) or 
     coordinated with planning efforts pursuant to section 319 of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Such programs shall, 
     at a minimum, involve the inventory of wetland resources and 
     the adoption of plans and policies to help achieve the goal 
     of no net loss of wetland resources on a watershed basis. 
     Other goals may include, but are not limited to:
       (1) Integration of wetland planning and management with 
     broader water resource and land use planning and management, 
     including flood control, water supply, storm water 
     management, and control of point and nonpoint source 
     pollution.
       (2) Adoption of measures to increase consistency in 
     Federal, State, and local wetland definitions, delineation, 
     and permitting approaches.
       (3) Establishment of management strategies for restoring 
     wetlands on a watershed basis.
       (c) Grants To Facilitate the Implementation of Section 
     404.--Subject to the requirements of this section, the 
     Administrator may make grants to States which assist the 
     Federal Government in the implementation of the section 404 
     Federal Water Pollution Control program through State 
     assumption of permitting pursuant to sections 404(g) and 
     404(h) of such Act through State permitting through a State 
     programmatic general permit pursuant to section 404(e) of 
     such Act or through monitoring and enforcement activities. In 
     order to be eligible to receive a grant under this section a 
     State shall provide assurances satisfactory to the 
     Administrator that amounts received by the State in grants 
     under this section will be used to issue regulatory permits 
     or to enforce regulations consistent with the overall goals 
     of section 802 and the standards and procedures of section 
     404(g) or 404(e) of this Act.
       (d) Maximum Amount.--No State may receive more than 
     $500,000 in total grants under subsections (a), (b), and (c) 
     in any fiscal year and more than $300,000 in grants for 
     subsection (a), (b), or (c), individually.
       (e) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities carried out using amounts made available in grants 
     under this section shall not exceed 75 percent.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $15,000,000 per 
     fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 
     and 2000.

     SEC. 806. NATIONAL COOPERATIVE WETLAND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 
                   STRATEGY.

       (a) Development.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator, in cooperation 
     with other Federal agencies, State, and local governments, 
     and representatives of the private sector, shall initiate the 
     development of a National Cooperative Wetland Ecosystem 
     Restoration Strategy.
       (b) Goals.--The goal of the National Cooperative Wetland 
     Ecosystem Restoration Strategy shall be to restore damaged 
     and degraded wetland and riparian ecosystems consistent with 
     the goals of the Water Pollution Control Amendments and the 
     goals of section 802, and the recommendations of the National 
     Academy of Sciences with regard to the restoration of aquatic 
     ecosystems.
       (c) Functions.--The National Cooperative Wetland Ecosystem 
     Restoration Strategy shall--
       (1) be designed to help coordinate and promote restoration 
     efforts by Federal, State, regional, and local governments 
     and the private sector, including efforts authorized by the 
     Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act, 
     the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the Wetlands 
     Reserve Program, and the wetland restoration efforts on 
     Federal, State, local, and private lands;
       (2) involve the Federal, State, and local Wetlands 
     Coordination Committee established pursuant to section 804;
       (3) inventory and evaluate existing restoration efforts and 
     make suggestions for the establishment of new watershed 
     specific efforts consistent with existing Federal programs 
     and State, regional, and local wetland protection and 
     management efforts;
       (4) evaluate the role presently being played by wetland 
     restoration in both regulatory and nonregulatory contexts and 
     the relative success of wetland restoration in these 
     contexts;
       (5) develop criteria for identifying wetland restoration 
     sites on a watershed basis, procedures for wetlands 
     restoration, and ecological criteria for wetlands 
     restoration; and
       (6) identify regulatory obstacles to wetlands ecosystem 
     restoration and recommend methods to reduce such obstacles.

     SEC. 807. PERMITS FOR DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL.

       (a) Permit Monitoring and Tracking.--Section 404(a) (33 
     U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following: ``The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the 
     Administrator, establish a permit monitoring and tracking 
     programs on a watershed basis to monitor the cumulative 
     impact of individual and general permits issued under this 
     section. This program shall determine the impact of permitted 
     activities in relationship to the no net loss goal. Results 
     shall be reported biannually to Congress.''.
       (b) Issuance of General Permits.--Paragraph (1) of section 
     404(e) is amended by inserting ``local,'' before ``State, 
     regional, or nationwide basis'' in the first sentence.
       (c) Revocation or Modification of General Permits.--
     Paragraph (2) of section 404(e) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting ``or a State or local 
     government has failed to adequately monitor and control the 
     individual and cumulative adverse effects of activities 
     authorized by State or local programmatic general permits.''.
       (d) Programmatic General Permits.--Section 404(e) is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Programmatic general permits.--Consistent with the 
     following requirements, the Secretary may, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment, issue State or local 
     programmatic general permits for the purpose of avoiding 
     unnecessary duplication of regulations by State, regional, 
     and local regulatory programs:
       ``(A) The Secretary may issue a programmatic general permit 
     based on a State, regional, or local government regulatory 
     program if that general permit includes adequate safeguards 
     to ensure that the State, regional, or local program will 
     have no more than minimal cumulative impacts on the 
     environment and will provide at least the same degree of 
     protection for the environment, including all waters of the 
     United States, and for Federal interests, as is provided by 
     this section and by the Federal permitting program pursuant 
     to section 404(a). Such safeguards shall include provisions 
     whereby the Corps District Engineer and the Regional 
     Administrators or Directors of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the 
     National Marine Fisheries Service (where appropriate), shall 
     have an opportunity to review permit applications submitted 
     to the State, regional, or local regulatory agency which 
     would have more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse 
     impacts on the environment, attempt to resolve any 
     environmental concern or protect any Federal interest at 
     issue, and, if such concern is not adequately addressed by 
     the State, local, or regional agency, require the processing 
     of an individual Federal permit under this section for the 
     specific proposed activity. The Secretary shall ensure that 
     the District Engineer will utilize this authority to protect 
     all Federal interests including, but not limited to, national 
     security, navigation, flood control, Federal endangered or 
     threatened species, Federal interests under the Wild and 
     Scenic Rivers Act, special aquatic sites of national 
     importance, and other interests of overriding national 
     importance. Any programmatic general permit issued under this 
     subsection shall be consistent with the guidelines 
     promulgated to implement subsection (b)(1).
       ``(B) In addition to the requirements of subparagraph (A), 
     the Secretary shall not promulgate any local or regional 
     programmatic general permit based on a local or regional 
     government's regulatory program unless the responsible unit 
     of government has also adopted a wetland and watershed 
     management plan and is administering regulations to implement 
     this plan. The watershed management plan shall include--
       ``(i) the designation of a local or regional regulatory 
     agency which shall be responsible for issuing permits under 
     the plan and for making reports every 2 years on 
     implementation of the plan and on the losses and gains in 
     functions and acres of wetland within the watershed plan 
     area;
       ``(ii) mapping of--

       ``(I) the boundary of the plan area;
       ``(II) all wetlands and waters within the plan area as well 
     as other areas proposed for protection under the plan; and
       ``(III) proposed wetland restoration or creation sites with 
     a description of their intended functions upon completion and 
     the time required for completion;

       ``(iii) a description of the regulatory policies and 
     standards applicable to all wetlands and waters within the 
     plan areas and all activities which may affect these wetlands 
     and waters that will assure, at a minimum, no net loss of the 
     functions and acres of wetlands within the plan area; and
       ``(iv) demonstration that the regulatory agency has the 
     legal authority and scientific monitoring capability to carry 
     out the proposed plan including the issuance, monitoring, and 
     enforcement of permits in compliance with the plan.''.
       (e) Grandfather of Existing General Permits.--Section 
     404(e) is further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Grandfather of existing general permits.--General 
     permits in effect on day before the date of the enactment of 
     the Wetlands and Watershed Management Act of 1995 shall 
     remain in effect until otherwise modified by the 
     Secretary.''. [[Page H4937]] 
       (f) Discharges Not Requiring a Permit.--Section 404(f) (33 
     U.S.C. 1344(f)) is amended by striking the subsection 
     designation and paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Exemptions.--
       ``(1) Activities not requiring permit.--
       ``(A) In general.--Activities are exempt from the 
     requirements of this section and are not prohibited by or 
     otherwise subject to regulation under this section or section 
     301 or 402 of this Act (except effluent standards or 
     prohibitions under section 307 of this Act) if such 
     activities--
       ``(i) result from normal farming, silviculture, 
     aquaculture, and ranching activities and practices, including 
     but not limited to plowing, seeding, cultivating, haying, 
     grazing, normal maintenance activities, minor drainage, 
     burning of vegetation in connection with such activities, 
     harvesting for the production of food, fiber, and forest 
     products, or upland soil and water conservation practices;
       ``(ii) are for the purpose of maintenance, including 
     emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts, of 
     currently serviceable structures such as dikes, dams, levees, 
     flood control channels or other engineered flood control 
     facilities, water control structures, water supply reservoirs 
     (where such maintenance involves periodic water level 
     drawdowns) which provide water predominantly to public 
     drinking water systems, groins, riprap, breakwaters, utility 
     distribution and transmission lines, causeways, and bridge 
     abutments or approaches, and transportation structures;
       ``(iii) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance 
     of farm, stock or aquaculture ponds, wastewater retention 
     facilities (including dikes and berms) that are used by 
     concentrated animal feeding operations, or irrigation canals 
     and ditches or the maintenance or reconstruction of drainage 
     ditches and tile lines (including resloping of drainage 
     ditches to control bank erosion);
       ``(iv) are for the purpose of construction of temporary 
     sedimentation basins on a construction site, or the 
     construction of any upland dredged material disposal area, 
     which does not include placement of fill material into the 
     navigable waters;
       ``(v) are for the purpose of construction or maintenance of 
     farm roads or forest roads, in accordance with best 
     management practices, to assure that flow and circulation 
     patterns and chemical and biological characteristics of the 
     waters are not impaired, that the reach of the waters is not 
     reduced, and that any adverse effect on the aquatic 
     environment will be otherwise minimized;
       ``(vi) are undertaken on farmed wetlands, except that any 
     change in use of such land for the purpose of undertaking 
     activities that are not exempt from regulation under this 
     subsection shall be subject to the requirements of this 
     section to the extent that such farmed wetlands are 
     `wetlands' under this section;
       ``(vii) are undertaken in incidentally created wetlands, 
     unless such incidentally created wetlands have exhibited 
     wetlands functions and values for more than 5 years in which 
     case activities undertaken in such wetlands shall be subject 
     to the requirements of this section; and
       ``(viii) are for the purpose of preserving and enhancing 
     aviation safety or are undertaken in order to prevent an 
     airport hazard.''.
       (g) Areas Not Considered To Be Navigable Waters.--Section 
     404(f) is further amended by adding the following:
       ``(3) Areas not considered to be navigable waters.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this section, the 
     following shall not be considered navigable waters:
       ``(i) Irrigation ditches excavated in uplands.
       ``(ii) Artificially irrigated areas which would revert to 
     uplands if the irrigation ceased.
       ``(iii) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or 
     diking uplands to collect and retain water, and which are 
     used exclusively for stock watering, irrigation, or rice 
     growing.
       ``(iv) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other 
     small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or 
     diking uplands to retain water for primarily aesthetic 
     reasons.
       ``(v) Temporary, water filled depressions created in 
     uplands incidental to construction activity.
       ``(vi) Pits excavated in uplands for the purpose of 
     obtaining fill, sand, gravel, aggregates, or minerals, unless 
     and until the construction or excavation operation is 
     abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the 
     definition of waters of the United States.
       ``(vii) Artificial stormwater detention areas and 
     artificial sewage treatment areas which are not modified 
     natural waters.
       ``(B) Demonstration required.--Subparagraph (A) shall not 
     apply to a particular water body unless the person desiring 
     to discharge dredged or fill material in that water body is 
     able to demonstrate that the water body qualifies under 
     subparagraph (A) for exemption from regulation under this 
     section.''.

     SEC. 808. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PRIVATE LANDOWNERS, 
                   CODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS AND POLICIES.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(u)(1) The Secretary and the Administrator shall in 
     cooperation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 
     Natural Resources Conservation Service, and National Marine 
     Fisheries Service provide technical assistance to private 
     landowners in delineation of wetlands and the planning and 
     management of their wetlands. This assistance shall include--
       ``(A) the delineation of wetland boundaries within 90 days 
     (providing on the ground conditions allow) of a request for 
     such delineation for a project with a proposed individual 
     permit application under this section and a total assessed 
     value of less than $15,000; and
       ``(B) the provision of technical assistance to owners of 
     wetlands in the preparation of wetland management plans for 
     their lands to protect and restore wetlands and meet other 
     goals of this Act, including control of nonpoint and point 
     sources of pollution, prevention and reduction of erosion, 
     and protection of estuaries and lakes.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall prepare, update on a biannual 
     basis, and make available to the public for purchase at cost, 
     an indexed publication containing all Federal regulations, 
     general permits, and regulatory guidance letters relevant to 
     the permitting of activities in wetland areas pursuant to 
     section 404(a). The Secretary and the Administrator shall 
     also prepare and distribute brochures and pamphlets for the 
     public addressing--
       ``(A) the delineation of wetlands,
       ``(B) wetland permitting requirements; and
       ``(C) wetland restoration and other matters considered 
     relevant.''.

     SEC. 809. DELINEATION.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(v) Delineation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The United States Army Corps of 
     Engineers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
     and other Federal agencies shall use the 1987 Corps of 
     Engineers Manual for the Delineation of Jurisdictional 
     Wetlands pursuant to this section until a new manual has been 
     prepared and formally adopted by the Corps and the 
     Environmental Protection Agency with input from the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources, Natural 
     Resources Conservation Service, and other relevant agencies 
     and adopted after field testing, hearing, and public comment. 
     Any new manual shall take into account the conclusions of the 
     National Academy of Sciences panel concerning the delineation 
     of wetlands. The Corps, in cooperation with the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, shall 
     develop materials and conduct training courses for 
     consultants, State, and local governments, and landowners 
     explaining the use of the Corps 1987 wetland manual in the 
     delineation of wetland areas. The Corps, in cooperation with 
     the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of 
     Agriculture, may also, in cooperation with the States, 
     develop supplemental criteria and procedures for 
     identification of regional wetland types. Such criteria and 
     procedures may include supplemental plant and soil lists and 
     supplementary technical criteria pertaining to wetland 
     hydrology, soils, and vegetation.
       ``(2) Agricultural lands.--
       ``(A) Delineation by secretary of agriculture.--For 
     purposes of this section, wetlands located on agricultural 
     lands and associated nonagricultural lands shall be 
     delineated solely by the Secretary of Agriculture in 
     accordance with section 1222(j) of the Food Security Act of 
     1985 (16 U.S.C. 3822(j)).
       ``(B) Exemption of lands exempted under food security 
     act.--Any area of agricultural land or any discharge related 
     to the land determined to be exempt from the requirements of 
     subtitle C of title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
     U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall also be exempt from the 
     requirements of this section for such period of time as those 
     lands are used as agricultural lands.
       ``(C) Effect of appeal determination pursuant to food 
     security act.--Any area of agricultural land or any discharge 
     related to the land determined to be exempt pursuant to an 
     appeal taken pursuant to subtitle C of title XII of the Food 
     Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821 et seq.) shall be exempt 
     under this section for such period of time as those lands are 
     used as agricultural lands.''.

     SEC. 810. FAST TRACK FOR MINOR PERMITS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(w)(1) Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall issue 
     regulations to explore the review and practice of individual 
     permits for minor activities. Minor activities include 
     activities of 1 acre or less in size which also have minor 
     direct, secondary, or cumulative impacts.
       ``(2) Permit applications for minor permits shall 
     ordinarily be processed within 60 days of the receipt of 
     completed application.
       ``(3) The Secretary shall establish fast-track field teams 
     or other procedures in the individual offices sufficient to 
     expedite the processing of the individual permits involving 
     minor activities.''.

     SEC. 811. COMPENSATORY MITIGATION.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(x) General Requirements.--(1) Each permit issued under 
     this section that results in loss of wetland functions or 
     acreage shall require compensatory mitigation. The preferred 
     sequence of mitigation options is as set forth in 
     subparagraph (A) and (C). However, the Secretary shall have 
     sufficient flexibility to approve practical options that 
     provide the most protection to the resource--
       ``(A) measures shall first be undertaken by the permittee 
     to avoid any adverse effects on [[Page H4938]] wetlands 
     caused by activities authorized by the permit.
       ``(B) measures shall be undertaken by the permittee to 
     minimize any such adverse effects that cannot be avoided;
       ``(C) measures shall then be undertaken by the permittee to 
     compensate for adverse impacts on wetland functions, values, 
     and acreage;
       ``(D) where compensatory mitigation is used, preference 
     shall be given to in-kind restoration on the same water body 
     and within the same local watershed;
       ``(E) where on-site and in-kind compensatory mitigation are 
     impossible, impractical, would fail to work in the 
     circumstances, or would not make ecological sense, off-site 
     and/or out-of-kind compensatory mitigation may be permitted 
     within the watershed including participation in cooperative 
     mitigation ventures or mitigation banks as provided in 
     section 404(y).
       ``(2) The Secretary in consultation with the Administrator 
     shall ensure that compensable mitigation by a permitee--
       ``(A) is a specific, enforceable condition of the permit 
     for which it is required;
       ``(B) will meet defined success criteria; and
       ``(C) is monitored to ensure compliance with the conditions 
     of the permit and to determine the effectiveness of the 
     mitigation in compensating for the adverse effects for which 
     it is required.''.

     SEC. 812. COOPERATIVE MITIGATION VENTURES AND MITIGATION 
                   BANKS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(y)(1) Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the Administrator 
     shall jointly issue rules for a system of cooperative 
     mitigation ventures and wetland banks. Such rules shall, at 
     the minimum, address the following topics:
       ``(A) Mitigation banks and cooperative ventures may be used 
     on a watershed basis to compensate for unavoidable wetland 
     losses which cannot be compensated on-site due to inadequate 
     hydrologic conditions, excessive sedimentation, water 
     pollution, or other problems. Mitigation banks and 
     cooperative ventures may also be used to improve the 
     potential success of compensatory mitigation through the use 
     of larger projects, by locating projects in areas in more 
     favorable short-term and long-term hydrology and proximity to 
     other wetlands and waters, and by helping to ensure short-
     term and long-term project protection, monitoring, and 
     maintenance.
       ``(B) Parties who may establish mitigation banks and 
     cooperative mitigation ventures for use in specific context 
     and for particular types of wetlands may include government 
     agencies, nonprofits, and private individuals.
       ``(C) Surveys and inventories on a watershed basis of 
     potential mitigation sites throughout a region or State shall 
     ordinarily be required prior to the establishment of 
     mitigation banks and cooperative ventures pursuant to this 
     section.
       ``(D) Mitigation banks and cooperative mitigation ventures 
     shall be used in a manner consistent with the sequencing 
     requirements to mitigate unavoidable wetland impacts. Impacts 
     should be mitigated within the watershed and water body if 
     possible with on-site mitigation preferable as set forth in 
     section 404(x).
       ``(E) The long-term security of ownership interests of 
     wetlands and uplands on which projects are conducted shall be 
     insured to protect the wetlands values associated with those 
     wetlands and uplands;
       ``(F) Methods shall be specified to determine debits by 
     evaluating wetland functions, values, and acreages at the 
     sites of proposed permits for discharges or alternations 
     pursuant to subsections (a), (c), and (g) and methods to be 
     used to determine credits based upon functions, values, and 
     acreages at the times of mitigation banks and cooperative 
     mitigation ventures.
       ``(G) Geographic restrictions on the use of banks and 
     cooperative mitigation ventures shall be specified. In 
     general, mitigation banks or cooperative ventures shall be 
     located on the same water body as impacted wetlands. If this 
     is not possible or practical, banks or ventures shall be 
     located as near as possible to impacted projects with 
     preference given to the same watershed where the impact is 
     occurring.
       ``(H) Compensation ratios for restoration, creation, 
     enhancement, and preservation reflecting and overall goal of 
     no net loss of function and the status of scientific 
     knowledge with regard to compensation for individual 
     wetlands, risks, costs, and other relevant factors shall be 
     specified. A minimum restoration compensation ratio of 1:1 
     shall be required for restoration of lost acreage with larger 
     compensation ratios for wetland creation, enhancement and 
     preservation.
       ``(I) Fees to be charged for participation in a bank or 
     cooperative mitigation venture shall be based upon the costs 
     of replacing lost functions and acreage on-site and off-site; 
     the risks of project failure, the costs of long-term 
     maintenance, monitoring, and protection, and other relevant 
     factors.
       ``(J) Responsibilities for long-term monitoring, 
     maintenance, and protection shall be specified.
       ``(K) Public review of proposals for mitigation banks and 
     cooperative mitigation ventures through one or more public 
     hearings shall be provided.
       ``(2) The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator, is authorized to establish and implement a 
     demonstration program for creating and implementing 
     mitigation banks and cooperative ventures and for evaluating 
     alternative approaches for mitigation banks and cooperative 
     mitigation ventures as a means of contributing to the goals 
     established by section 101(a)(8) or section 10 of the Act of 
     March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 and 403). The Secretary shall 
     also monitor and evaluate existing banks and cooperative 
     ventures and establish a number of such banks and cooperative 
     ventures to test and demonstrate:
       ``(A) The technical feasibility of compensation for lost 
     on-site values through off-site cooperative mitigation 
     ventures and mitigation banks.
       ``(B) Techniques for evaluating lost wetland functions and 
     values at sites for which permits are sought pursuant to 
     section 404(a) and techniques for determining appropriate 
     credits and debits at the sites of cooperative mitigation 
     ventures and mitigation banks.
       ``(C) The adequacy of alternative institutional 
     arrangements for establishing and administering mitigation 
     banks and cooperative mitigation ventures.
       ``(D) The appropriate geographical locations of bank or 
     cooperative mitigation ventures in compensation for lost 
     functions and values.
       ``(E) Mechanisms for ensuring short-term and long-term 
     project monitoring and maintenance.
       ``(F) Techniques and incentives for involving private 
     individuals in establishing and implementing mitigation banks 
     and cooperative mitigation ventures.

     Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 
     report evaluating mitigation banks and cooperative ventures. 
     The Secretary shall also, within this time period, prepare 
     educational materials and conduct training programs with 
     regard to the use of mitigation banks and cooperative 
     ventures.''.

     SEC. 813. WETLANDS MONITORING AND RESEARCH.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(z) The Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator, 
     the Secretary of Agriculture, the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, and appropriate State and 
     local government entities, shall initiate, with opportunity 
     for public notice and comment, a research program of wetlands 
     and watershed management. The purposes of the research 
     program shall include, but not be limited--
       ``(1) to study the functions, values and management needs 
     of altered, artificial, and managed wetland systems including 
     lands that were converted to production of commodity crops 
     prior to December 23, 1985, and report to Congress within 2 
     years of the date of the enactment of this subsection;
       ``(2) to study techniques for managing and restoring 
     wetlands within a watershed context;
       ``(3) to study techniques for better coordinating and 
     integrating wetland, floodplain, stormwater, point and 
     nonpoint source pollution controls, and water supply planning 
     and plan implementation on a watershed basis at all levels of 
     government; and
       ``(4) to establish a national wetland regulatory tracking 
     program on a watershed basis.

     This program shall track the individual and cumulative impact 
     of permits issued pursuant to section 404(a), 404(e), and 
     404(h) in terms of types of permits issued, conditions, and 
     approvals. The tracking program shall also include mitigation 
     required in terms of the amount required, types required, and 
     compliance.''.

     SEC. 814. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(aa) Administrative Appeals.--
       ``(1) Regulations establishing procedures.--Not later than 
     1 year after the date of the enactment of the Wetlands and 
     Watershed Management Act of 1995, the Secretary shall, after 
     providing notice and opportunity for public comment, issue 
     regulations establishing procedures pursuant to which--
       ``(A) a landowner may appeal a determination of regulatory 
     jurisdiction under this section with respect to a parcel of 
     the landowner's property;
       ``(B) a landowner may appeal a wetlands classification 
     under this section with respect to a parcel of the 
     landowner's property;
       ``(C) any person may appeal a determination that the 
     proposed activity on the landowner's property is not exempt 
     under subsection (f);
       ``(D) a landowner may appeal a determination that an 
     activity on the landowner's property does not qualify under a 
     general permit issued under this section;
       ``(E) an applicant for a permit under this section may 
     appeal a determination made pursuant to this section to deny 
     issuance of the permit or to impose a requirement under the 
     permit; and
       ``(F) a landowner or any other person required to restore 
     or otherwise alter a parcel of property pursuant to an order 
     issued under this section may appeal such order.
       ``(2) Deadline for filing appeal.--An appeal brought 
     pursuant to this subsection shall be filed not later than 30 
     days after the date on which the decision or action on which 
     the appeal is based occurs.
       ``(3) Deadline for decision.--An appeal brought pursuant to 
     this subsection shall be decided not later than 90 days after 
     the date on which the appeal is filed.
       ``(4) Participation in appeals process.--Any person who 
     participated in the public [[Page H4939]] 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.''.

     SEC. 815. CRANBERRY PRODUCTION.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(bb) Cranberry Production.--Activities associated with 
     expansion, improvement, or modification of existing cranberry 
     production operations shall be deemed in compliance, for 
     purposes of sections 309 and 505, with section 301, if--
       ``(1) the activity does not result in the modification of 
     more than 10 acres of wetlands per operator per year and the 
     modified wetlands (other than where dikes and other necessary 
     facilities are placed) remain as wetlands or other waters of 
     the United States; or
       ``(2) the activity is required by any State or Federal 
     water quality program.''.

     SEC. 816. STATE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(cc) State Classification Systems.--
       ``(1) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Administrator, the Secretary of 
     Agriculture, and the Director of the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, shall establish guidelines to aid States 
     and Indian tribes in establishing classification systems for 
     the planning, managing, and regulating of wetlands.
       ``(2) Establishment.--In accordance with the guidelines 
     established under paragraph (1), a State or Indian tribe may 
     establish a wetlands classification system for lands of the 
     State or Indian tribe and may submit such classification 
     system to the Secretary for approval. Upon approval, the 
     Secretary shall use such classification system in making 
     permit determinations and establishing mitigation 
     requirements for lands of the State or Indian tribe under 
     this section.
       ``(3) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in 
     this subsection shall be construed to affect a State with an 
     approved program under subsection (h) or a State with a 
     wetlands classification system in effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection.''.

     SEC. 817. AGRICULTURAL LANDS.

       Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(dd) Agricultural Lands.--
       ``(1) Permit authority.--The Secretary of Agriculture is 
     authorized to issue permits under this section for any 
     activity subject to permitting under this section that is 
     carried out on agricultural land (other than agricultural 
     land subject to sections 1221-1223 of the Food Security Act 
     of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3821-3823)). Any activity allowed by the 
     Secretary of Agriculture under such sections 1221-1223 shall 
     be treated as having a permit issued under this section and 
     no individual request for or granting of a permit shall be 
     required under this section.
       ``(2) Mitigation.--Any mitigation approved by the Secretary 
     of Agriculture for agricultural lands shall be accepted by 
     the Secretary as mitigation under this section.''.

     SEC. 818. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(26) The term `wetland' means those areas that are 
     inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a 
     frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under 
     normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 
     typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions.
       ``(27) The term `discharge of dredged or fill material' 
     means the act of discharging and any related act of filling, 
     grading, draining, dredging, excavation, channelization, 
     flooding, clearing of vegetation, driving of piling or 
     placement of other obstructions, diversion of water, or other 
     activities in navigable waters which impair the flow, reach, 
     or circulation of surface water, or which result in a more 
     than minimal change in the hydrologic regime, bottom contour, 
     or configuration of such waters, or in the type, 
     distribution, or diversity of vegetation in such waters.
       ``(28) The term `mitigation bank' shall mean wetland 
     restoration, creation, or enhancement projects undertaken 
     primarily for the purpose of providing mitigation 
     compensation credits for wetland losses from future 
     activities. Often these activities will be, as yet, 
     undefined.
       ``(29) The term `cooperative mitigation ventures' shall 
     mean wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement projects 
     undertaken jointly by several parties (such as private, 
     public, and nonprofit parties) with the primary goal of 
     providing compensation for wetland losses from existing or 
     specific proposed activities. Some compensation credits may 
     also be provided for future as yet undefined activities. Most 
     cooperative mitigation ventures will involve at least one 
     private and one public cooperating party.
       ``(30) The term `normal farming, silviculture, aquaculture 
     and ranching activities' means normal practices identified as 
     such by the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with 
     the Cooperative Extension Service for each State and the land 
     grant university system and agricultural colleges of the 
     State, taking into account existing practices and such other 
     practices as may be identified in consultation with the 
     affected industry or community.
       ``(31) The term `agricultural land' means cropland, 
     pastureland, native pasture, rangeland, an orchard, a 
     vineyard, nonindustrial forest land, an area that supports a 
     water dependent crop (including cranberries, taro, 
     watercress, or rice), and any other land used to produce or 
     support the production of an annual or perennial crop 
     (including forage or hay), aquaculture product, nursery 
     product, or wetland crop or the production of livestock.''.
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  Mr. BOEHLERT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate what is now happening, 
because both cloakrooms have indicated that there will be no votes this 
evening, and consequently Members understandably have remained in their 
districts or with their families. At a time when we have scheduled 
debate on one of the most sensitive environmental issues not just of 
the day or the week or the month, of the year, but probably of this 
generation. We are talking about the Clean Water Act amendments, the 
Clean Water Act of 1972, which history demonstrates has been one of the 
most successful pieces of environmental legislation in history.
  What we should have, what the American people are entitled to, is 
spirited debate, give and take. Those who have problems with the Clean 
Water Act amendments should have the opportunity to present those 
problems on the floor. Those who have proposed solutions, and I am 
among that group, should be able to offer their proposed solution.
  But the problem is, because of the change from last Thursday, when we 
were told we would go into session today at 5 o'clock, and then we 
would have votes on the Suspension Calendar, then we would proceed with 
this very important debate, and people had every right to expect that 
the People's House would take up one of the most serious issues of this 
Congress and we would have good attendance, we would have good 
participation, and we would go about the people's business in a 
responsible manner.
  But as I say, the Cloakrooms have advised Members that no votes are 
intended this evening. So we have here a few die-hard, spirited 
individuals.
  The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] always can be there and counted 
on, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], a few Members who are here because they really 
care. The Members who are not here really care too. This is not to 
fault them. We have been working at a hectic pace since the first of 
the year, since January 4. This House has done outstanding work for the 
first 100 days of this historic 104th Congress. We have dealt with a 
balanced budget amendment, we have dealt with welfare reform and a 
line-item veto, the list goes on and on. This House has been 
responsive, has been dealing in a serious manner with serious issues.
  Now we have another serious issue that deserves that serious 
attention. But unfortunately we are going to have to carry over until 
tomorrow, so that the Members can come back from their districts, their 
meetings, and their families and participate as they should, as they 
want to participate.
  The amendment I am offering is designed to streamline current law 
while continuing to safeguard vital wetlands. It is in full the 
National Governors' Association language on wetland protection. Let me 
repeat this: My amendment is the National Governors' Association 
language on wetland protection.
  Now that deserves special emphasis, because I think one of the 
messages of November 8, 1994, is that the American people are saying to 
us, loudly and [[Page H4940]] clearly, that Washington is not the 
source of all wisdom. They want those of us who have special 
responsibility here in our Nation's Capital to reach out across 
America, to deal with State and local governments in a responsible 
manner, and to ask of them input and guidance as we develop national 
policy that will apply in like manner to all, and we have done that.
  This amendment, the Boehlert wetlands amendment, contains the 
National Governors' Association language in full. And it is identical 
to the proposal I made as parts of last Wednesday's substitute. Let me 
point that out once again. It is identical in language as it deals with 
wetlands to the proposal I made as part of last Wednesday's substitute, 
which earned 184 votes.
  There would have been more. People said to me well, you have a very 
comprehensive package, I like certain component parts, particularly as 
you deal with wetlands, but I cannot accept the entire package. One 
hundred eighty-four did, and boy did we defy the odds. People said, 
``Boehlert, you are not going to get more than 100 votes; it's a done 
deal.'' We got 184, and there are more waiting, there are more waiting, 
because they have been listening to America. They have been reading 
editorial comment across this Nation. And they recognize that we have a 
special responsibility.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Boehlert was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to emphasize that we start from the same 
premises as the drafters of H.R. 961 did. Keep in mind, I am privileged 
to serve as
 chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment. I 
have been through the entire deliberations. I have chaired seven 
hearings, six in Washington, DC, to which we brought experts from all 
over the country, and one specifically geared to nonpoint-source 
pollution in upstate New York. Seven hearings, experts from all over 
America, from all walks of life came before us. So we start as the 
drafters of H.R. 961, the committee bill, did, with the same premise. 
We want to remove redtape, to increase local control, to address the 
legitimate concerns of farmers and other property owners, but unlike 
H.R. 961, we have managed to accomplish those goals without allowing 
the wholesale elimination of more than half of our Nation's wetlands.

  During last week's debate opponents of the National Governors' 
Association wetlands proposal often mischaracterized it, so let me lay 
it out right at the outset how this amendment, the National Governors' 
Association proposal, would reform current law.
  First, our amendment recognizes the needs of farmers. Agriculture is 
vital to the American economy, and we recognize it.
  Our amendment not only includes each and every agriculture exemption 
granted by H.R. 961, the committee bill, but it also adds an additional 
exception for the repair of tiles.
  Second, our amendment increases local control, very important. Not 
everything coming from Washington, not all of the decisionmaking coming 
from Washington. We say we are partners with State and local 
governments and we want to increase local control.
  Our amendment makes it easier and faster for States to become the 
permitting authority for their wetlands.
  Third, our amendment does not create any new regulating entity. The 
coordinating committee that was referred to in last week's debate is an 
advisory body that includes State and local representatives as well as 
Federal officials. State, local, Federal, serving on an advisory panel.
  Fourth, our amendment speeds the regulatory process, and boy is this 
long overdue. We provide a fast-track permitting process that would 
require decisions involving wetlands of 1 acre or less within 60 days, 
2 months, no longer.
  Fifth, our amendment provides a reasonable appeals process. You have 
to have an appeals process. If you do not like the decision, where do 
you go for an appeal? We provide a mechanism for that. In fact we have 
exactly the same administrative appeal provisions as the committee 
bill, H.R. 961.
  These are real reforms, reforms the Nation's Governors have 
requested.
  What neither the Governors nor the public have requested is the 
wholesale elimination of wetlands; what neither the Governors nor the 
public have requested is a bill that cavalierly ignores the findings of 
science; what neither the Governors nor the public have requested is a 
wetland regime that threatens our tourism and fishing industries and 
increases the likelihood of flooding.
  A lot has been said these past few days about the last elections. To 
my knowledge, the public did not vote for dirty water, did not vote for 
environmental destruction, did not vote for the end of any sense of 
common good.

                              {time}  1815

  What the public did vote for is a reduction in the size of the 
Federal Government, an end to overreaching regulation, and a reversion 
of local control.
  We have responded to that vote in this amendment. I will not belabor 
this. We have been through it many, many times.
  But H.R. 961 poses a false choice between regulatory reform and 
environmental protection. Both are possible simultaneously. Both are 
accomplished in this moderate, sensible, bipartisan amendment that 
would codify the National Governors' Association proposal.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear for the record: There is no 
National Governors' Association support for this legislation. There has 
not been, and there is none today.
  I would like to go through what the gentleman has just stated. What 
is wrong with the amendment? In the amendment there is no reform to 
wetlands delineation criteria. That is a fact. There is no recognition 
of different wetland values in the processing of permits. That is a 
fact. There is no compensation of property owners for devaluation of 
the properties. I want to stress that again. The one thing that has 
driven this amendment process and the bill process has been this 
Government is under attack today imposing their thoughts and their 
wisdom upon the private property holders without compensation. That is 
not in the amendment. It, in fact, does not compensate the private 
property landholders at all.
  It, in fact, does not reform the wetlands program at all. It adds to 
the existing programs that exist today which become so burdensome. It 
has serious implications regarding Federal land use and planning 
regarding nonpoint sources, which reminds me, I just received a letter 
from the American Farm Bureau Federation strongly opposing this 
amendment, in fact, all amendments to the bill that is truly a clean 
water bill; H.R. 961 creates true ecological clean water policy.
  And I can also suggest that is not the only one, that says this 
amendment that is being offered today is totally wrong. We can go all 
the way through this list of about 16 other different groups that are 
not manufacturing groups that strongly oppose this, most of them 
agricultural groups.
  The amendments were written by and for wetlands by regulatory 
bureaucrats. I want to stress that. This amendment was written by 
regulatory bureaucrats. It was not written by the gentleman from New 
York. It was written by this individual bureaucratic group that insists 
that their position is the right position. And, in fact, this amendment 
guts the reforms of H.R. 961 that we tried to achieve. Now, that is 
what is wrong with the amendment.
  Now, I also, if I may say, Mr. Chairman, we were notified last 
Thursday that if anyone wishes to debate this issue should be on the 
floor tonight. We were also notified it followed that any votes would 
be taken upon suspension of the rules. There were no votes today, 
because no one asked for them. I want to clear that up for the record.
  Let us go over that H.R. 961 really does in section 404. It 
represents a long overdue reform of the troubled wetlands regulatory 
section of the 404 program. The regulatory burdens are currently 
excessive, and costs in time and money too often do not result in 
significant environmental benefits.
  Title VIII, modeled after the earlier version of H.R. 1330, and by 
the way, 6 sponsors of that bill are now Governors [[Page H4941]] of 
States, 6 sponsors of the original bill 2 years ago are now Governors 
of States, the major reforms made by H.R. 961 include wetlands must be 
clarified based on relative value and to be regulated accordingly. 
Wetlands must have a reasonable relationship to water. No longer any 
10,000-foot mountains can be considered wetlands, nor that sloping 
hills around Juneau can no longer be considered wetlands, and we cannot 
build a school.
  A property owner must be compensated for regulatory action that 
significantly devalues his property, and that is the Supreme Court 
decision and is what should be put into law. Property owners are 
allowed to appeal agency decisions. States are encouraged to share the 
responsibility in implementing the program. Permit requirements are 
routine; for routine and minor activities are eliminated.
  Mr. Chairman, this, as it is written, is a good bill. Now, the 
gentleman from New York had an opportunity in the committee to offer 
his amendment to the committee and was defeated overwhelmingly by a 
bipartisan effort because I have heard that word used here today. In 
fact, 13 of the 26 Democrats voted against his amendment, plus I 
believe, of our side, only 4 were voted on his side of the amendment.
  One of the weaknesses of this system is we have amendments after 
public hearing offered in the committee process, soundly defeated, and 
yet people are allowed to bring them to the floor, bring them to the 
floor and discuss them supposedly after they have been decided in the 
committee they do not have great worth or value. I am suggesting, very 
frankly, this is a mischievous amendment to destroy something that is 
very crucial to this bill.
  And, last, it is hard for me to keep away from it, that the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York neglects to acknowledge the 
right of private property owners and the right of States that own land 
and the rights of the individual American native that acquired the 
lands from this Congress. He now tells those people that were given 
land by this body that their land is of no value, because they, the 
bureaucrats, have decided it is a wetland.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Young of Alaska was allowed to proceed for 
1 additional minute.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, their land has no longer any value 
because the Government has decided it is wetland. If anything I have 
heard enough about the Government today, in the last 3 or 4 weeks, if 
you wonder why there is an unrest out there, and it does exist today, 
regardless of what our President says or what I hear from certain 
Members on this floor of the House, is because of the heavy-handedness 
and the lack of recognition of this Congress that the individual rights 
of a person or a select group of individuals who were given property by 
this Congress has to be protected, yet we do not recognize that.
  I am going to suggest to the gentleman from New York you have got to 
go out and walk in their moccasins; he ought to be able to look at 
their land, and say, ``We gave it to you, but we are going to take it 
back because I think it is wetland. For the good of the environment, we 
are going to protect it.'' I say to the gentleman from New York that is 
absolutely immoral and wrong. We have an opportunity in the original 
bill, as passed out of this committee as a good bill, to protect those 
wetlands, and those are the good wetlands that will be protected, but 
if, in fact, in the national interest they are that valuable, that 
individual shall be compensated.
  This amendment should be voted down, turned down overwhelmingly.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member. 
I would like to respond to my distinguished colleague from Alaska 
because he made several points that need to be addressed.
  First of all, he said this is not the National Governors' Association 
language; it is written by some bureaucrat someplace.
  Let me point out here that I will submit at the proper time for the 
Record a letter from the National Governors' Association. Let me read a 
couple of excerpts.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If the gentleman will yield, what is the date of 
the letter?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. The letter is March 28. The gentleman from California 
has the time. He has yielded some time to me, and I am going to respond 
to that.
  The letter is addressed to me:

       We have been greatly encouraged by your willingness, as 
     well as that of Representative Shuster and others in the 
     bipartisan group, to include States in the development of 
     H.R. 961.

  Very important that we be inclusive.

       We support the intent of this bill to provide substantially 
     greater flexibility for States and local governments in our 
     efforts to protect water. We support the water resources and 
     environmental subcommittee in its efforts to expeditiously 
     move this comprehensive legislation reforming the Clean Water 
     Act. We have not yet completed our review of all provisions 
     of the bill. However, as you know, the provisions on wetlands 
     are not consistent with the recommendation of the National 
     Governors. We raised concerns over this issue in our March 22 
     letter to Representative Shuster. In response to your 
     request, we enclose an alternative approach to wetlands 
     reform,
      developed by the Association of State Wetlands Managers 
     based on National Governors' Association policy 
     recommendations.

  Now, this is very important. The Boehlert amendment, the pending 
amendment, word for word contains every singe word and phrase of the 
National governors' Association recommendations, plus we had some 
exemptions that we feel are very important for agriculture.
  The second point the gentleman from Alaska made, that there were 
votes last Thursday and it was announced to all that we would be 
considering this matter Monday evening. He is absolutely right. he is 
right more often than he is wrong. But he fails to tell what Paul 
Harvey wants us all to know, the rest of the story, and the rest of the 
story is simply this: Last Thursday we had every expectation we would 
return to Washington on Monday and we would have a spirited debate and 
votes, which is an incentive for people to come back, when suddenly we 
announced there are not going to be any votes.
  What does the typical Member of Congress do? Continues with the 
responsibilities at home in the district, meeting with business people 
and schoolchildren and going to hospitals and spending a little time 
with their families. I understand that. This is a family-friendly 
Congress. No votes scheduled tonight. So we do not have widespread 
attendance here. I understand that. So does my distinguished colleague 
from Alaska.
  Next, I would like to point out that he says that there was a vote in 
the committee. And why are we revisiting this subject here when we have 
already spoken to the subject in the committee? Well, I read the 
Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution about committees, 
although they are very important, but there is a lot in the 
Constitution about the House of Representatives, which serves as the 
representative body for all 250 million Americans and all 50 States. 
The committees work their will, and I was very much a part of that 
process, as was my distinguished colleague from Alaska. We acted on 
that bill in committee.
  Now we bring it to the full House for open consideration, and that is 
what we are doing right now.
  I thank my distinguished ranking minority member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], for yielding to me.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I thank our fine colleague from New York 
for his clarifying statement and for his clarity on this amendment as 
it relates to the wetlands.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Boehlert amendment. While I do 
not believe that the amendment will solve all of the issues which 
confront the section 404 program, I believe that it is infinitely 
preferable to the existing provisions in H.R. 961, and it will assist 
in the goal of greatly encouraging State participation in the wetlands 
program.
  Throughout this debate, I have been told consistently that this is 
not a bill written by polluters or for polluters. No, I have been told 
that this bill represents a wide range of interests, and 
[[Page H4942]] that it is designed to be consistent with the wishes of 
State and local governments, and not just the regulated business 
community. I have been told that this is not a bill written by special 
interests because so much of the bill represents the wishes of the 
States. I have been told that we have to listen to the people in the 
States who are actually running the program to know what the new Clean 
Water Act should look like.
  The Boehlert amendment listens to the States. The Boehlert amendment 
reflects the preferred position of the National Governors Association. 
The Boehlert amendment is the position of the people in the States who 
actually administer wetlands programs. If reflects the product of the 
Association of State Wetlands Managers.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Mineta was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, the States want a workable program with 
increased State participation. The States have testified in favor of a 
wetlands program based upon science. The National Academy of Sciences 
study says that hydrology, vegetation, and soils must all be considered 
in order to accurately assess what is or is not a wetland. H.R. 961, in 
contrast, imposes a very simplistic test which considers only one 
aspect of hydrology, namely surface inundation, and ignores not only 
vegetation and soils, but also other aspects of hydrology such as soil 
saturation.
  Mr. Chairman, the States are not interested in creating huge new 
loopholes in the wetlands program, they are interested in preserving 
wetlands resources, and the Boehlert amendment reflects that.
  The States are not interested in convoluted interpretations of the 
fifth amendment and similar amendments in State constitutions, and 
States remain opposed to the takings provisions in the wetlands program 
in H.R. 961. And the Boehlert amendment reflects that.
  The States are not interested in expensive and arbitrary wetlands 
classification schemes, and they have not proposed one. In fact, the 
State wetlands managers have opposed the classification system of H.R. 
961. The States recognize that there are infinitely better ways to 
evaluate wetlands and use scarce government resources.
  The recent report of the National Academy of Sciences concludes that 
it simply is not within the state of the art to do a nationwide prior 
classification study establishing relative values of wetlands in very 
different regions. The underlying bill requires exactly what the NAS 
says is not feasible.
  The committee has continually been told that this provision or that 
provision should be supported because it has wide, bipartisan support. 
Well, the Boehlert amendment has wide, bipartisan support among the 
Governors and the environmental leaders of our State governments.
  In fact, the States have indicated that States would not take a 
greater role in assuming wetlands permitting responsibilities should 
H.R. 961 become law. And, the two States which have assumed the 
wetlands program would likely return it.
  If you are supportive of the wishes of the States, support the 
Boehlert amendment. If you are supportive of special interests over the 
needs of the States do not support the amendment. But if this amendment 
fails, you will have defined your allegiance as not to the States, but 
to those who would weaken wetlands protection and shamelessly raid the 
Treasury.
  Support the Boehlert amendment.
                              {time}  1830

  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. Chairman, I very reluctantly rise in opposition to my 
distinguished chairman's amendment. He was gracious enough to ask me to 
serve as the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
through which this legislation moved. But today this is a litmus test 
issue, I believe, on whether or not we are going to stand for any more 
Government regulation.
  The people spoke clearly last year. They believe they are 
overregulated, overtaxed, overlitigated, and I rise in grave concern 
tonight.
  Just last week our friends in the Senate said to the American people 
they were going to retreat from litigation reform. The folks back home 
tell me, ``Do not retreat from regulatory reform, do not retreat from 
litigation reform,'' and today I bring my colleagues an elaborate chart 
on the wetland process. I mean this is unbelievable.
  We are here to try to bring the pendulum and the balance of 
regulations back to the middle, and I am showing my colleagues a chart 
of exactly how complicated it is to actually get a permit for a wetland 
in our country. This is a chart which actually shows how mischievous it 
can be for our Federal bureaucrats to slow the progress and actually 
take away, over time, the constitutional rights of our citizens.
  I say to my colleagues, Let's say that you inherited a piece of 
property, and then you determine that maybe one-tenth of one acre of 
this multiacre site may happen to be lower than the threshold of the 
water table, and it's determined to be a wetland. So, first you have to 
go and demonstrate, through this elaborate process, that, yes, in fact 
it's a wetland, and that's not easy to do, to determine whether or not 
you even have a wetland. Then you have to make a decision through these 
regulatory processes exactly what kind of a wetland it is, and that's a 
whole other process, takes weeks, costs a lot of money. Now you're 
ready to apply for a permit for your wetland, and then they say, ``Wait 
a second, wait a second here now. Have you been to the Corps of 
Engineers? How about the Environmental Protection Agency? How about the 
Fish and Wildlife folks? And what about all those State and local 
agencies?'' In my home State you also have to go to the Tennessee 
Valley Authority.
  I say to my colleagues, By this time you're about to give up. It's 
taken weeks and months, and you spent countless moneys trying to 
determine whether or not in fact this property is yours or whether this 
property belongs to the Federal Government. I mean after all don't we 
live in the United States of America where we have a clear definition 
in the Constitution of what belongs to us and what belongs to the 
Government? This is a complex maze, and you have to get through it.
  The Boehlert amendment was conceived by good folks with good 
intentions, but let me tell my colleagues this. It costs more money 
than what we have today, and it adds to the bureaucracy over and above 
the level of bureaucracy that we have today. Wetlands, unlike point-
source and nonpoint-source pollution, which I understand whey we need a 
balance of regulation with respect to point-source and nonpoint-source 
pollution. We need some regulations.
  Wetlands in many parts of this country are nonsensical. Our 
legislative initiatives in the past have led to a system of 
frustration. The American
 people are not achieving justice through the regulation of wetlands. 
Many people's constitutionally guaranteed private property rights have 
been usurped by a Federal Government gone amuck. All we are asking by 
reforming the Clean Water Act here in 1995 is that we return to common 
sense.

  The chairman's mark with respect to wetlands, which we are here to 
pass, H.R. 961, addresses wetlands in a sensible, reasonable, rational 
approach. The Boehlert amendment gives us more Federal Government. Our 
party, I am grateful to say, the Republican Party, is big enough for 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and his vice chairman, 
myself, to debate this issue and very much disagree, and I am glad that 
we have a party big enough to have these differing opinions.
  But I take the side of the constitutionalists, the Framers, those 
that guaranteed private property rights, those who said, ``Beware of 
the Federal Government becoming too big and too powerful. Over time it 
can creep up on you. You don't even know it's happening,'' and here we 
are in 1995 saying wetlands is a constitutional question.
  I am going to side with those who framed this Constitution, those who 
own the private property across this country. Let us clean this mess 
up. Let us give the power back to the citizenry. Let us take this 
bureaucratic system [[Page H4943]] and reduce it to something that is 
reasonable.
  I urge our colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VENTO. I want to commend the gentleman from New York for offering 
this amendment, for demonstrating the type of courage in his party, I 
say a party that many adhere to and take on the label of conservative, 
but I have yet to find some conservationists or as many 
conservationists that call themselves conservatives as I would like to. 
I would be happy to yield to one that I think can and probably does 
wear that label.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the pages if they would 
return to the easel with that very dramatic permit process chart 
because I would like to use it for a moment. All the work that went 
into the preparation of this chart, I do not want it to go to waste.
  Let me tell my distinguished vice chairman from Tennessee I could not 
agree more with him. The American people are overtaxed and 
overregulated, and this is exactly, this convoluted maze is exactly, 
why we need the Boehlert amendment, because we want to change the 
permitting process. We want to give more control, more authority, to 
State governments. We want to bring them into the process, and he talks 
about the problem people in Tennessee have, people around the country, 
with, as my colleagues know, pieces of land one-eighth acre. I could 
not agree more with him; he is absolutely right.
  That is why the Boehlert amendment provides the fast-track provisions 
for all property across this country of 1 acre or less. The permitting 
process would take no longer than 60 days, the clock would start 
running, and, boy, the American public is entitled to a swift and 
complete answer from the Government, and it would be provided under the 
Boehlert amendment.
  I would also like to point out one last thing, and then I will sit 
down. Over 90 percent of the permits applied for are approved, over 90 
percent. There is only a small fraction that causes some problems and 
causes some delays.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] for his advocacy of this position. I just suggest to my 
colleagues:
  Can we have a strong national environmental policy with a weak role 
for the Federal Government?
  The fact of the matter is that the types of confrontation that my 
colleagues and the type of conflicts that they have repeatedly tried to 
demonstrate in terms of the Federal and State governments and local 
governments is, I think, more based on myth, and anecdotes, and what I 
call cockamamie stories, than it is based on, in fact, on fact. To most 
of the people that we represent, the distinction between the Federal 
Government and its role in the State governments and our local 
governments is almost one that is seamless. In fact, it is based more 
on cooperation than collaboration and very much an interdependency in 
order to accomplish this.
  Can, in fact, the Mississippi River be protected only in Minnesota? I 
think not. I think that when we are talking about the environment, we 
are talking about natural resources, we are almost inherently talking 
about issues that do not respect the boundaries.
  The legislation before us frankly reneges, it
   retreats, in terms of clean water. We stand up here and talk about 
the progresses that have been made in 25 years, and in the next breath, 
then there is an effort to try and destroy that.

  I see the evidence right in my own State. I suggest most of my 
colleagues see it in their own States, but all of a sudden the de facto 
policies in terms with regards to wetlands are no longer satisfactory. 
Those de facto policies, because of development, because of pressure, 
because of what is going on in regard to progress and because of what 
we are learning, we have the obligation not just to do what was good 
enough in 1960 or 1970. We have an obligation to bring to the front the 
best and the finest and the information, the knowledge, the new 
knowledge, that has been acquired and to put that into policy and law.
  Is it uncomfortable? Is it difficult? Is it tough? I say to my 
colleagues, ``You bet,'' and we have compounded that problem by cutting 
back during the 1980's and the 1990's on the number of land use 
planners and managers that we have that are trying to accomplish that 
task. There is a breakdown of communication, and there are those that 
are obviously promoting their own interests, and their interests are to 
walk away from the Federal Government's commitment to renege on this 
important issue of wetland preservation.
  These wetlands are absolutely essential in terms of our communities. 
I say to my colleagues, ``If you care about a clean water supply, if 
you care about the aquifers, if you care about the groundwater supply, 
if you care about erosion of the land and flooding, if you care about 
the natural resources and the type of biosphere or the type of 
biodiversity that occurs in that environment, then you have to care 
about these wetlands.''
  Mr. Chairman, how we solve these problems will set the benchmark, not 
just for today, but for many decades to come in terms of if we are 
going to take and march forward with progress with regards to wetlands 
or if we are going to renege and abandon this particular fight.
  This legislation that comes before us takes 60 to 80 percent of the 
lands that have wetland protection, sets up a three-tier scheme, and 
then turns around and says, ``If a county has more than 20 percent of 
the wetlands in it, then you deny that. Then you pull the rug out from 
under it, and you don't do it.''
  This is not a scientific approach. This might be a good political 
solution, but this represents political expediency, not a good solution 
to the problem, and I hope that the chairman and those that have the 
votes, maybe, on these issues will begin to pay attention to some of 
the facts. We have an obligation to stand on the shoulders of those 
that came before us and did the tough work, that did the sweat, blood 
and tears, to make these laws work, not to abandon them, and that is 
what this legislation does, and that is why my colleagues should 
support, at the very least, the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Boehlert amendment to H.R. 961, 
to strike the bill's wetlands provisions and replace them with language 
based on a proposal by the National Governors' Association. The 
amendment is far from perfect, but a great improvement on the basic 
measure being advanced by the majority party in Congress today. I 
credit the gentleman Mr. Boehlert for standing up to others in this 
body for this amendment.
  The bill H.R. 961, as proposed, eliminates 60 to 80 percent of the 
Nation's remaining wetlands from protection using scientifically 
indefensible definitions, H.R. 961 arbitrarily divides the surviving 
wetlands into three categories, intended to correspond to high, medium, 
and low value wetlands. This policy flies in the face of sound science 
and defies even common sense. Worse still, the measure then withdraws 
protection from even the high value wetlands when such land is 
concentrated above a certain amount in a county.
  The Boehlert amendment recognizes that there have been problems with 
the wetlands permitting process, but unlike the current wetland 
provisions in H.R. 961 which greatly weaken wetland protection, the 
Boehlert amendment streamlines the permitting process without leaving 
millions of acres of wetlands unprotected. The proposed amendment 
utilizes recommendations made by the National Governor's Association to 
simplify and expedite the wetlands permitting process without 
establishing an overburdened paperwork classification system. This 
amendment gives States the flexibility they need to manage their 
wetlands and offers technical assistance to private landowners at the 
same time affording sound management and conservation of our Nation's 
wetlands.
  I think most of us realize how important wetlands are for water 
quality, flood control, and wildlife. Dismantling wetland protection 
will have serious long-term ramifications--as we all should understand, 
every action has a consequence, what we do on one parcel of land, 
indeed affects another. What has been missing from this wetlands debate 
is an acknowledgment that regulations are motivated by a desire for a 
healthier and safer society. They are promulgated to empower people and 
policy in protection of private lands and citizens. Congress should 
continually strive to make these work better, not tear them down for 
special interest concerns and short-term goals. [[Page H4944]] 
  On May 9, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report which 
confirmed that there is absolutely no scientific justification for the 
wetland provision currently in H.R. 961. This should not have come as a 
surprise. The authors of this measure, H.R. 961, were and are 
responding as a purely political gesture to developers, industry, and a 
small but vocal number of property owners who feel that their property 
rights have been violated. This is shortsighted, arrogant, and 
irresponsible. We should use sound science to make environmental policy 
and not fall prey to the politics of the moment and legislation by 
anecdote.
  John Chaconas, now the celebrated citizen from St. Amant, LA pretty 
well sums the situation up in his statement:

       I believe wetland regulations can and do work well * * * 
     Property rights are essential. Like most Americans I believe 
     my property rights do not extend to harming the property of 
     my neighbors. What is wrong here is not wetland policy gone 
     awry, but the arrogant belief that some can do whatever they 
     want with their property and all others be damned.

  Even opponents of wetland protection might agree that the National 
Academy of Sciences [NAS] study is not just any study. In 1992, 
Congress commissioned the NAS to complete a study which would resolve 
the confusion surrounding wetlands science. This project was intended 
to be the definitive study of wetlands functions and values, ultimately 
answering the question, What is a wetland?
  While it is true that this study only defines functional wetlands and 
it is up to Congress to decide what a jurisdictional wetlands should 
be, it is beneficial to take what this study tells us to heart. The NAS 
study verifies that the wetlands regulations dictated under H.R. 961 
are without merit. Furthermore, the committee leadership chose to move 
forward without the benefit of this study. Today, they only have 
themselves to blame for the careless and haphazard policy measure, H.R. 
961, that they bring to the House floor.
  Sound wetland policy; hydrology, must consider the nature of re-
charge areas for ground water and aquifer replenishment. Often the 
affects of such modification does not become apparent
 for decades. Furthermore, these wetlands provide areas and regions for 
water purification, filtering out and slowing down runoff, holding back 
harmful erosion, breaking down the pollutants and nutrients, providing 
aerobic and anaerobic action. To naturally clean the surface waters 
before they concentrate in rivers, lakes, and our oceans.

  Today we can no longer depend upon de facto protection, rather we 
must establish a State-Federal partnership, a cooperative effort not 
one of confrontation--the relationship is seamless but can we have a 
sound, natural national environmental policy.
  Certainly sound science and sound judgment based on a reasonable 
approach to the role of the Federal and State government is the basis 
of good policy. Set the politics aside and support the Boehlert 
amendment to H.R. 961.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in very strong 
opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert]. I truly believe the gentleman from New York has offered his 
amendment in very good faith. But I do not know about the terrain of 
upstate New York. I have not been there. But I have certainly been in 
the terrain of southern Missouri, in that area bordering the 
Mississippi River, and I think I do know a true, pristine wetland from 
a mud puddle.
                              {time}  1645

  Now, the problem is most mud puddles are being classified these days 
as wetlands.
  Now, the Boehlert amendment has been cited as being the 
recommendation of the National Governors Association, and it may well 
have the blessing of the National Governors Association. But everyone 
in reality knows that this amendment was written or consulted by the 
Association of State Wetlands Managers in consultation with 
environmental groups. A lot of people report to Governors, but that 
does not mean that the Governors all know the intimate details of what 
they are signing off on here.
  The fact of the matter is, and it is a fact, and the gentleman from 
New York and the gentleman from Maryland probably know this, that the 
word ``wetlands'' does not appear in the main provisions of the 1972 
Clean Water Act, and that the word appears only once in a parenthetical 
phrase in 9 U.S. Code annotated pages of the current section 404 text.
  I can tell you that over the last 15 years, as I have traveled around 
my district hearing the problems of farmers and small landowners 
related to wetlands, I have been challenged, ``How can you hold us 
accountable to these wetlands definitions, when in fact there really 
isn't such a thing in the basic law? It is all a matter of regulation 
that has come to us through the rulings of four different agencies of 
the Government, all of which are in conflict one with the other?''
  There was a point in time through the delineation manual that they 
got more together than apart, but the fact of the matter is, most 
people who are being regulated about wetlands are being regulated 
essentially at the whim of four different agencies who do not in fact 
have their common purpose always in focus before them.
  This amendment does not streamline or reform the 404 program, but it 
adds new regulatory requirements to the existing law. The emphasis is 
on restoring wetlands and watershed management, and not on reform. The 
claims of reform mask the real intent of this amendment.
  I am afraid this amendment also aggravates the existing multi-agency 
mismanagement by creating yet another bureaucracy, a new bureaucracy, 
to oversee the program. This new committee headed by the EPA would 
include four other Federal agency heads, representatives from three 
additional organizations, and 10 State wetlands experts, hand picked by 
the EPA.
  This is adding gross insult to injury, to exacerbate an already 
indefensible and ill-advised policy of our Government. We have got to 
reform the current process and the current regulations, and we have got 
to do that by law, which the basic bill here does. This amendment would 
create new roles for regulators and land use planners at every level, 
but virtually no role for the regulated public or the private property 
owner.
  I have a letter here that is signed by a number of different 
organizations, but when I give you the names of some of them, you will 
recognize them as organizations representing people who would be 
confronted on a daily basis with wetland law and regulation.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Shuster, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Emerson was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman for his 
statement. If there is anything that we need to do in this clean water 
bill, it is reform wetlands and eliminate, at least reduce, the horror 
stories which the American people have told us up to the thousands. I 
compliment the gentleman for pointing out that indeed rather than 
reforming wetlands, this actually incredibly creates a new bureaucracy, 
a new committee headed by the EPA, which includes four other Federal 
agencies, representatives from three additional organizations, and 10 
so-called State wetland experts, picked by whom? Picked by the EPA.
  I compliment the gentleman for focusing on this. If there is anything 
that needs reforming and real reform, it is the wetlands provision. The 
gentleman has been a leader in this area, and through your knowledge 
and your persuasiveness, I think we have a good opportunity of making 
some real reform, and I would emphasize that the amendment we have 
before us now completely guts any chance of reform of this troubled 
wetlands regulatory program.
  So I join with the gentleman in attempting to defeat this amendment 
so that we can have real wetlands reform.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. 
If I still have some time, I will not read the entire letter, but it is 
a letter in strong opposition to the Boehlert amendment urging that we 
keep the language of the bill. Among those organizations registering in 
strong opposition, and that is their word, ``strong,'' are the American 
Farm Bureau Federation, the American Soybean Association, the National 
Association of Wheat Growers. [[Page H4945]] 
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Emerson was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, the Wheat Growers, the Cattlemen's 
Association, the Corn Growers, the Cotton Council, National Council of 
Farmer Cooperatives, National Water Resources Association, United Fresh 
Fruit and Vegetable Association, and on and on and on. Those are just 
some representative groups. I might also say, the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Vento] made a little talk about conservationists and 
saying the fact of the matter is on the Republican side there are not 
many conservationists.
  Most of the Members on the Republican side are conservationists, and 
the conservationist point of view is represented by the text of H.R. 
961. I might say with due deference and respect to everyone, that it is 
the elitist preservationist point of view that is represented by the 
Boehlert amendment. It is by the Government regulators. They are the 
ones who are supporting the Boehlert amendment, and not the people who 
have to live with these onerous laws everyday.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] 
has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Boehlert, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Emerson 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for yielding and for the very fine work he has contributed to 
the work of the full Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  A couple of things I want to point out: First, the Boehlert amendment 
includes the same exemptions for agriculture as the committee bill. One 
of the reasons why it does is that the gentleman from Missouri has been 
so persuasive, so we have included those same exemptions as the 
committee bill. Plus we have added an exemption in response to a 
concern expressed by our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Latham] to deal with repair and construction of tiles on agriculture 
land.
  I would also point out this convoluted committee that creates so much 
concern is an advisory committee. What we do is reach out to the 
States, to the Governors, and to local governments and say we are going 
to work with you, Federal, State, and local government, but we are 
shifting the decisionmaking authority from Washington to the States.
  Two States right now have performed in an exemplary manner: One is 
New Jersey and the other is Michigan. I think more States should follow 
their lead. I could not agree more with the gentleman from Missouri. 
Washington is not the source of all wisdom, and agriculture is 
important, and both of those facts are recognized in the Boehlert 
amendment.
  I thank the gentleman for his generosity.
  Mr. EMERSON. I thank the gentleman for asking for the additional 
time. I would only reply to the gentleman that the signers of this 
letter, and I refer to them, I do not agree with your amendment for the 
reasons that I have stated, but these are the people who live with the 
current regulations and would live with your law, were your substitute, 
your amendment, to prevail.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Emerson was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, these people are not just a bunch of dumb 
farmers, a term I hear thrown around. These are people who have 
obviously looked at your amendment and, because of their vast 
experience going back over a number of years, have some means, 
intellectually, of gauging the effect of your amendment.
  They say there has been a lot of misinformation circulated regarding 
the Boehlert wetlands amendment. It is being portrayed as being 70 
percent of the text of H.R. 961 and as being friendly to agriculture. 
It is in fact neither. The Boehlert substitute, and it goes on to say 
other things, will have serious negative impact on agriculture and 
small landowners. It substitutes the use of, and I know you are going 
to say this is to the substitute and not to the amendment, however, let 
me say to the gentleman, substitutes, perpetuates, perpetuates the use 
of the 1987 manual and greatly expands the reach and the complexity of 
wetlands regulation. The 1987 manual is in fact a very large part of 
the current regulatory mess.
  I will be delighted to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman read the 
substitute. What you are referring to is an amendment, a broad-based 
amendment considered last week by the House. We earned 184 votes. We 
did not get the majority, but we earned 184. I would assume all of 
those would stay with us as we go on with the wetlands. But when you 
more narrowly look at the wetlands issue, as we have done in this 
specific amendment, and when you specifically address the needs of 
agriculture, and I am proud to serve as chairman of the northeast 
agriculture caucus, I am very mindful that our farmers are among our 
best stewards of our land, and I wanted to work with them and not 
against them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Emerson was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman has just 
said. However, I want to point out, there are references to the 
Boehlert substitute and the Boehlert amendment. In the interest of time 
I was not reading the entire letter in its context. But inasmuch as the 
letter is dated today, May 15, there is no question that they are 
referring to your amendment, and not to the substitute that we acted 
upon last week. For everyone who may be concerned about the interests 
of agriculture and small land owners and other people who are subject 
to onerous land use regulation, without reference to law, it is mostly 
a matter of regulation and not law. I urge your most serious 
consideration and opposition to, and a vote against the Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words in support of the Boehlert amendment.
   Mr. Chairman, I rise also in support of the Boehlert amendment, and 
would like to point out that one of the major reasons why I do support 
it and why I think it should pass is because of the support by the 
National Governors Association. Their support is there primarily 
because of concerns that States have about the impact of the committee 
mark, of the bill itself, on the various State wetlands programs.
  One of the main points that I would like to get across today is the 
fact that the Boehlert amendment helps the States. The Boehlert 
amendment is the one that the States generally prefer because of their 
concern they have about their existing programs.
  As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] mentioned, my own State 
of New Jersey is particularly concerned because we do have an excellent 
program approved by the Federal Government. Many States have developed 
wetlands protection programs that mimic the framework of the Federal 
program developed under the Clean Water Act. Each of the States 
committed large amounts of time and resources working with Federal 
officials and the public to develop and win approval for their 
programs.
  All that could be wasted if the Federal wetlands program is scrapped 
by H.R. 961. Every State law and regulation will have to be revisited 
and revised for a lower standard of protection. I know some will say 
what is to stop the States from doing something on their own under the 
committee mark? The pressure will build, I believe, for States to 
change their programs.
  With regard to the definition of the wetlands, the new definition 
contained in this bill contributes to elimination of protection for up 
to 80 percent of wetlands currently protected. In my home State of New 
Jersey, the definition contained in this bill would eliminate virtually 
all of New Jersey's wetlands from regulatory protection. The 
[[Page H4946]] proposed definition is the same unanimously ejected 
across the Nation when proposed by the EPA in 1991 because it has no 
scientific basis and would be administratively burdensome to implement.
                              {time}  1900

  Now, with regard to preclassification, preparing wetland maps 
suitable for the proposed classification system, not including 
functional assessment, would cost an estimated $500 million in the 
lower 48 States. In New Jersey, our current mapping effort would be 
rendered worthless under H.R. 961, a waste of $3.4 million that has 
already been spent.
  If you look at the takings issue, and again the Boehlert amendment 
basically changes that considerably, the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that the cost of buying all high value wetlands in the lower 
48 States would cost between $10 and $45 billion. Although I do not 
have specifies for the State of New Jersey, price estimates on six 
properties for which the New Jersey DEP has information range from 
$590,000 for a 9.4-acre parcel in Morris County to $2.6 million for a 
67-acre property in Ocean County.
  Beyond that, the takings provisions in the bill imply that any public 
benefit that may result from wetlands regulation is secondary to the 
onerous restraints it places on the private property owner. As was 
mentioned before, in my home State, 94 percent of permit applications 
are approved. So if you think about it, if there are so many approved, 
why is it such a negative impact on property owners?
  Mitigation. I am very concerned that the committee mark relies too 
greatly on mitigation to replace wetlands protection. A number of State 
studies have shown that there are limits to the effectiveness of 
mitigation because of the limited knowledge of the inherent values of 
wetlands. It is an ecological mistake to rely on mitigation to replace 
wetlands protections, in my opinion.
  I would really like to stress more than anything else the effect of 
this bill on State programs. This bill, I believe, would ultimately 
destroy New Jersey's wetland program and all the important gains that 
have been made since the program was implemented in 1988. The bill 
eliminates incentives for States to take their own initiatives to 
implement a wetlands program. As I mentioned, pressure will exist on 
States to change their laws to reflect the weak provisions of the bill.
  Ultimately, I think that is going to cause conflict, uncertainty and 
a lot of delay at the State level.
  By contrast with the bill, the Boehlert amendment would essentially, 
which has been developed by the National Governors Association, would 
provide incentives for States to assume authority over wetlands 
regulation through increased delegation from the EPA. This is exactly 
what happened in New Jersey. This is what we want to see if we want the 
States to take a larger role.
  It also sets up this coordinating committee of Federal, State and 
local officials to help develop and field test national wetlands 
policies and strategies. Again, recognizing that there need to be some 
changes in the program.
  But the amendment does not include any provisions like those in the 
bill establishing the new requirements to compensate landowners for 
losses in property value resulting from the Federal regulation. Again, 
the substitute or, I should say, the amendment in this case would 
actually eliminate those provisions and the costs that would be 
incurred because of it.
  So I would urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert amendment.
  I would also like to enter into the record an editorial that was in 
the Sunday New York Times, this Sunday, May 14, that basically talks 
about the bill and why the bill, the wetlands provisions of the bill 
essentially do not make sense.
  They cite, of course, the report from the National Academy of 
Sciences. And essentially, Mr. Chairman, the reason why the New York 
Times takes the position that it does is because they feel that the 
existing bill, existing statute, I should say, the current law strikes 
a sensible balance between conservation and the need for economic 
growth. I do not think we should change that.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the article to which I just 
referred.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                [From the New York Times, May 14, 1995]

                   Politics and Science in the House

       Unless its members have an attack of good sense, the House 
     of Representatives will shortly reverse two decades of 
     struggle to preserve the nation's valuable but diminishing 
     wetlands. If it does so, it will be sacrificing sound science 
     to political expediency and corporate lobbying. It will also 
     be committing an act of supreme mischief against America's 
     environment.
       Early this week the House will vote on a bill concocted by 
     a group of anti-regulatory Republicans and their conservative 
     Democratic allies. The bill would cripple many of the basic 
     protections provided by the Clean Water Act of 1972. This act 
     has been regarded by experts in both parties as a major 
     environmental success story, not least because it has rescued 
     one-third of America's lakes and streams from terminal 
     decline.
       There is much in this retrograde bill to dislike, but the 
     most controversial of its ``reforms'' would establish a new 
     and far narrower definition of what constitutes a wetland. 
     Scientists now estimate that there are just over 100 million 
     acres of wetlands remaining in the 48 contiguous states, 
     doing what wetlands do so well: filtering pollutants, 
     providing habitat for wildlife and nourishing organisms 
     essential to the food chain. The bill's narrower definition 
     would make at least half of this irreplaceable acreage 
     available to developers, farmers and industry, mainly the oil 
     and gas companies.
       This is a fool's tradeoff. We would lose natural areas the 
     country desperately needs in exchange for development areas 
     the economy can do without. Yet the tradeoff is hardly 
     surprising since the bill was drafted in tandem with special 
     interests that would love to get their hands on land that is 
     properly off limits under existing Federal regulations.
       Equally unsurprising, though terribly disappointing, is 
     that the bill's sponsors did not have the courage or wisdom 
     to wait for and acknowledge the results of a National Academy 
     of Sciences report on what is admittedly a combustible issue. 
     The report was ordered by Congress itself two years ago to 
     provide a credible scientific basis for regulating wetlands, 
     thus removing the issue from politics. But in matters of the 
     environment, the hallmark of this new Congress is to place 
     servility to special interests ahead of science.
       The report, released last week, does not directly address 
     the House bill. Even so, it is a convincing indictment, 
     making clear that the bill's assumptions have no basis in 
     research or theory.
       To take only one example, the bill says a wetland would not 
     be eligible for Federal protection unless it is saturated by 
     water at the surface for 21 consecutive days during the 
     growing season--the warmer and drier months of the year. The 
     academy says a far more accurate definition would involve 
     saturation over shorter periods, saturation in the root zone 
     of plants rather than at the surface, and saturation that 
     occurs during the fall and winter.
       The 21-day test is the same definition that Dan Quayle's 
     Competitiveness Council tried unsuccessfully to foist on the 
     Environmental Protection Agency in the waning days of the 
     Bush Administration. At the time, Federal scientists warned 
     that Mr. Quayle's definition would leave half the nation's 
     wetlands unprotected, including a big chunk of the 
     Everglades, the bottomland hardwood forests in the South, the 
     wetlands along most Western trout streams and nearly every 
     ``prairie pothole'' used by migratory birds. This disastrous 
     scenario is almost certain to play out if the House bill is 
     approved. Taken together, its provisions are even more 
     threatening than anything Mr. Quayle had in mind.
       The academy describes the existing regulatory system as 
     ``scientifically sound and effective in most respects.'' What 
     it is really saying is that the nation has already struck a 
     sensible balance between the imperatives of conservation and 
     the need for economic growth. That balance has taken years to 
     achieve, and the House would be reckless to disturb it.

  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert 
amendment, because it deletes section 803 of H.R. 961.
  This deletion will have a tremendous impact on California. Section 
803 exempts maintenance of flood control channels and drinking water 
reservoirs from the wetlands permit requirement.
  During the committee markup I pushed for the flood control exemption 
and I offered the drinking water reservoir exemption. Our committee had 
a full debate on these issues. My amendment was unanimously approved 
and the bill passed 42 to 16.
  Now the Boehlert amendment strikes these out and that's why I can't 
support this amendment.
  Let me tell you why the flood control and drinking water reservoir 
issues are so important not only to California, but also the entire 
Nation. [[Page H4947]] 
  First, flood control channels require periodic maintenance. They have 
to be clear and free of obstructions and debris otherwise water will 
back up and flood all over the place during storms.
  Under current law, flood control agencies must obtain wetland permits 
to clear vegetation out of a channel with mechanized equipment. It's OK 
if you clear it by hand, but you can't use power equipment or a 
bulldozer without a permit.
  The problem is that it takes months to get a wetlands permit out of 
the Federal Government. And if you've ever lived in California, you 
know that when it rains, it pours. There is simply no time to get a 
Federal permit.
  Let me give you one example of a major problem we had in Ventura 
County, CA, during the 1992 floods.
  Ventura County tried for months--unsuccessfully--to obtain a wetlands 
permit to clear vegetation from a flood control channel. When 
torrential rains finally came, it took two Congressmen and Governor 
Wilson to secure an emergency wetlands permit.
  The county sent bulldozers into the channel during the storm just a 
few hours before the flood hit. While that area was saved, other 
communities were devastated.
  Because of problems like these, I made sure H.R. 961 specifically 
exempted flood control channels.
  The second point I made in committee was to amend the bill to exempt 
maintenance activities in drinking water reservoirs. The problem is 
that when water levels are low, vegetation grows on the edges and 
inside the reservoir. Then the water rises again, the vegetation is 
obviously submerged and the Government calls it a wetland and requires 
a permit.
  Come on, that's not a wetland.
  Without my amendment, each time you lower the water level of a 
drinking water reservoir to clear the vegetation from the sides--or 
make structural repairs--you must obtain a wetlands permit.
  Once again, under current law it's OK to do it by hand, but not with 
a machine.
  In California, water districts have to hire small armies of manual 
laborers to clean out reservoirs. That's ridiculous.
  Again, these two concerns, the timely maintenance of flood control 
facilities and drinking water reservoirs, are particularly important to 
California.
  These concerns were well addressed during the full committee markup 
session, and our committee approved them unanimously.
  It's sad this amendment strikes out these two important, already 
approved provisions.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California raised some 
legitimate concerns. We are sort of feverishly checking through these.
  Mr. KIM. Check section 803, which was deleted by this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
I want to read from the exemption section of my substitute: 
``exemptions 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 
drawdowns which provide water predominantly to public drinking water 
systems, groins, riprap, breakwaters.''
  The point is, you have a legitimate concern and we have addressed it 
in the Boehlert amendment. I wanted to share that language with you so 
I think that perhaps you might be supportive of the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. KIM. I would like to see that.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in strong support of the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert amendment to 
protect the wetlands that are vital both to our environment and to our 
economy.
  Wetlands are life-sustaining filters of our natural world--they 
remove pollutants from our water and provide critical habitats for 
fish, plants, and other wildlife.
  I believe we must maintain strong protections for our wetlands. Like 
many of my colleagues, I also believe we need to expedite the wetlands 
permitting process and provide more consistency. This amendment does 
that.
  But the bill before us is much too extreme. Rather than fix wetlands 
regulations it guts them entirely. This bill puts at risk as much as 80 
percent of all wetlands in this country. In my home State of 
Connecticut, more than half the wetlands would be endangered under this 
bill. More than 97,000 acres of Connecticut's wetlands could be lost.
  This is bad environmental policy and it is bad economic policy. I 
know this firsthand from the experience with Long Island Sound in my 
district and State.
  Wetlands serve to filter out nutrients and toxics that otherwise 
would end up in Long Island Sound. Our current policies have allowed us 
to successfully restore more than 1,500 acres of critical tidal 
wetlands along Long Island Sound. The result is cleaner water in the 
sound and a substantial reduction in beach closings along the sound in 
Connecticut, from 292 in 1991 to 174 in 1993.
  Wetlands are also vital to the fisheries industry that is so 
important to my home State of Connecticut. Connecticut is second only 
to Louisiana in oyster farming. This industry depends on wetlands to 
provide necessary food and habitat for spawning. In Connecticut, oyster 
farming is responsible for more than 400 jobs and contributes $200 
million to the economy annually. The destruction or degradation of our 
wetlands would have a devastating impact on this industry.
  Wetlands are a precious commodity. I urge my colleagues to protect 
this valuable resource and support the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
   Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is show a few illustrations to 
my colleagues in the Chamber this evening that show some contradictions 
to the, I guess, to some of the testimony we have heard here.
  First, I want to offer a perspective to the Clean Water Act to the 
Members of the House and the American people. That is, this is an act 
to clean America's water. Usually when we look at lakes, rivers, 
streams, we have no sense of the small amount of water that we actually 
have for the purposes of human consumption. If you took all the water 
on the planet and put it into a 1-gallon jug, you would see that you 
would have less than a teaspoon of that gallon of water for use and 
purposes that we as human beings need it.
  So water, regardless of what the planet looks like, is a very scarce 
resource.
  I would like to refer to this chart here showing the complexity of 
the permitting process under the existing Clean Water Act regulations.
  The complexity of the process that someone has to go through to get 
an individual permit is rather complex. I have to admit to my 
colleagues that a general permit is extremely, or actually well over 95 
percent of all people who apply for general permits get them with no 
problem at all. They do not have to go through this lengthy process.
  What I would like to tell you that is in the Boehlert amendment, and 
I would encourage everybody to do this, is to pick up the Boehlert 
amendment and turn to pages 22 to 24 and see how pages 22 to 24 just 
about completely eliminate much of the complexity in the permitting 
process by a whole series of exemptions.
  What I would like to do is go back to the reason we have a Clean 
Water Act. I want everybody to look at this picture. This was not an 
untypical picture of pollution coming out of a pipe like this 20 years 
ago. I know we are debating wetlands. We are not debating nonpoint or 
we are not debating point pollution, which is what this was.

                              {time}  1915

  What the Clean Water Act did over the many years was to eliminate 
problems like this. Problems of point source pollution, which the Clean 
Water Act has eliminated over the last 20 years, the point source 
pollution caused problems such as this. We are trying to get rid of 
this. We do not [[Page H4948]] want to bring this back. We are dealing 
with wetlands, we are dealing with a much more complicated situation 
than point source pollution, we are dealing with nonpoint source 
pollution, and we do not want our rivers to look like this. The Clean 
Water Act, to show you its success, and to show you that same picture, 
has cleaned up that river.
  We all recognize there are problems with the complexity of getting a 
permit, or there are too many agencies involved in getting the permit. 
These kinds of things can be eliminated and they can be solved.
   Mr. Chairman, what I would like to explain, and one of my problems 
with the existing bill, is if we want our rivers to look like this, the 
Clean Water Act up to this point has adhered to a large extent to 
science. We do not want to get rid of the science. I will hold this 
picture up.
  Mr. Chairman, if we abide by the regulations that are in the act or 
in the bill before us now, this particular picture, which everyone in 
here would agree is wet, this particular picture would not be 
considered a wetland. It would not be protected. The reason for that 
is, it is a little complex, it deals with science.
  The existing bill calls for 21 consecutive days' saturation at the 
surface, which this meets. It calls for hydric soil, which this meets. 
Also, it calls for an obligate wetland species which is not present 
here, because in a few weeks after this picture was taken this begins 
to dry out. It begins to dry out because the forest here, it is a 
forested wetland, begins to take up the moisture.
  Rather than getting into, like I said, some of the science here which 
is a little too complex, one of the major problems with the bill before 
us is that it excuses, it eliminates, it has nothing to do with science 
and the criteria on which we base what a wetland is. If we want clean 
water, we have to get, I admit, rid of some of the regulations, which 
this amendment does, but we have to hold onto the science.
  I want to give one other example, and I will do this for the farmers 
and people that live in urban areas. If Members will bear with me just 
for a moment, I am going to draw another picture.
  This is the land. On the left side of the picture, we are going to 
see corn. When farmers put fertilizer and a bunch of other things on 
their fields, there is a certain amount of nitrogen that goes through 
the soil that is not taken up by the corn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gilchrest was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, when the nitrogen goes through the soil, 
some of it is taken up by the corn, but much stays in the soil and will 
go down into the groundwater.
  On the other side we might have an urban area, on the other side of 
that cornfield. The urban area has a problem with stormwater runoff. 
Let us say in the middle of these two places you have a forested 
wetland. That forested wetland could have been the picture that I 
showed you that does not meet the criteria, but what a forested wetland 
does, what all wetlands do, as the groundwater moves underneath it, it 
takes up that nitrogen, purifies the water, adds to the quality of it, 
so people do not have to worry about drinking water that is polluted. 
Wetlands filter out well over 90 percent of the pollution. Forested 
wetlands are some of the most important. Wetlands have different 
characteristics from one part of the country to the other.
  My time is up, Mr. Chairman. I strongly urge my colleagues to support 
the Boehlert substitute.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert amendment. The 
Boehlert amendment will protect our Nation's wetlands by replacing H.R. 
961's faulty wetlands provisions with reasonable reforms.
  Mr. Chairman, I represent the Santa Rosa Plain, in Sonoma County, CA, 
which is covered by more than 5,000 acres of seasonable wetlands. These 
wetlands are a valuable part of the area's ecosystem and provide 
habitat for endangered plant and animal species.
  Unfortunately, the wetlands of the Santa Rosa Plain were being 
destroyed, often due to inappropriate development. Therefore, in Santa 
Rosa, local, State, and Federal agencies under the guidance of the Corp 
of Engineers began working with the Sonoma County environmental and 
business communities to help craft a preservation plan for the Santa 
Rosa Plain. This plan is close to completion.
  When it is complete, it will determine what parts of the plain can be 
developed and what parts must be preserved. Once the plan is completed, 
wetlands on the plain will no longer be destroyed, and developers will 
know which areas are safe to develop, thereby eliminating costly 
delays.
  Mr. Chairman, the Santa Rosa preservation plan is an example of how 
Federal agencies, in cooperation with local entities, can implement the 
Clean Water Act to successfully protect precious wetlands while 
permitting appropriate development. Mr. Chairman, I believe Congress 
should continue to support cooperation like this. The bill we are 
considering today, however, H.R. 961, will do just the opposite.
  H.R. 961 guts wetlands protections. It ensures that the Santa Rosa 
Plain preservation plan will be useless, and thousands of acres of 
precious wetlands in my district and around the Nation will be lost 
forever.
  Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment is a sensible alternative which 
streamlines regulations without destroying our Nation's wetlands. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert amendment and preserve the 
wetlands of the Santa Rose Plain and the wetlands of the Nation.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The 
regulations and policies which have been promulgated under section 404 
of the Clean Water Act have evolved into an impenetrable maze of 
conflicting and confusing rules, restrictions, and enforcement measures 
that are wreaking havoc throughout the country, and particularly in my 
northern California district.
  These sprawling and invasive regulations come not from one but three 
different government agencies, each pushing a different agenda, and 
each operating according to its own prescribed set of rules.
  Mr. Chairman, this morass of regulations has moved far beyond the 
simple protection of our Nation's wetlands. What once were reasonable 
and necessary laws and regulations have been taken to ridiculous 
extremes. The promotion of wise stewardship has changed into an all-out 
effort to further preservationists' agendas. Regulations based on 
cooperation between policymakers and property owners has been replaced 
with intimidating and heavy-handed enforcement measures which devalue 
property and disregard rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
  Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how this amendment, which creates more 
bureaucracy, rather than removing it, can help the situation. The 
family farms, small family owned businesses, and rural communities in 
our country do not need more committees and studies. What they do need 
is relief from the oppressive and extremist-driven bureaucracies and 
regulations which are driving them into the ground.
  They need a reasonable definition of wetland that does not require 
the same degree of protection and mitigation for seasonal puddles that 
is given to legitimate habitat. They need policies that require the 
Federal Government to compensate them when it devalues their property. 
They need to be assured that preserving the livelihoods of families is 
at least as important as preserving habitat.
  Mr. Chairman, title VIII of H.R. 961 will unscramble the regulatory 
maze under section 404, and begin to bring common sense back to our 
wetlands laws. It will consolidate confusing and conflicting 
jurisdictions into one regulatory body. It will begin to reverse the 
preservationists' extremism that is relentlessly chipping away at 
private property rights. It will remove the confusion and fear that is 
intimidating property owners who are unable to understand, much less 
adhere to the law. It will require the Government to pay property 
owners when it devalues their land.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, title VIII requires Federal bureaucrats to 
protect [[Page H4949]] people as well as habitat, and bring our current 
law back within the parameters of the Constitution. Mr. Chairman, we do 
not need more regulation, we just need more common sense. I strongly 
urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, because I could 
not agree more with the gentleman about the excess of bureaucracy and 
regulations in Washington. That is precisely why we crafted the 
Boehlert amendment in the manner in which we did. We do not create a 
huge new bureaucracy. What we do do is create an advisory committee, 
composed of a representative from the National Governors Association, 
the National League of Cities, and the National Association of 
Counties. What we want to do is bring these people in in an advisory 
capacity.
  Second, we agree with you that there have been loose definitions of 
what a wetland really is. That is why we tried very hard to delay 
action until we had the benefit of the National Academy of Sciences 
report, which was just released last week. The National Academy of 
Sciences report really says in the committee bill the basis for 
defining wetlands has no scientific basis whatsoever. It is by the seat 
of their pants.
  What we are trying to do is have good science define wetlands. I am 
not mad at the scientists of America. I want to use them to the best 
advantage, and have common sense prevail, as the gentleman wishes, too. 
I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment to the gentleman 
from New York, who is the author of the amendment. I have 10 counties 
in my rural 36,000 square mile district, with unemployment as high as 
20 percent in some of them.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] 
has expired.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Frist, Mr. Chairman, let me set the record straight. The scientific 
report that was just issued to define wetlands did not say to this 
Congress ``You should necessarily protect every wetland as we 
scientifically define it.'' It did not. What it said is: ``What we are 
going to give you is a reference definition. Then you make the policy 
decisions as to which of these so-called wetlands, by scientific 
definitions, to protect.''
  The point is the Academy said: ``This is our reference definition of 
what a wetland is. That means that is what you use as a reference, what 
you are going to use as a reference, to see which of these you want to 
protect, which you want to protect more strongly, which deserve more or 
less protection.''
  Let me also put the thing in perspective. What we are debating right 
now is an amendment that was contained in the substitute which this 
House already turned down last week, an amendment that deals with the 
part of that substitute that would, in fact, delete, almost, the 
wetland reforms that are in the bill, and substitute, instead, a 
package of language that the House would have to adopt if they adopted 
this amendment, authored by those who have opposed property rights in 
this body, and who want every wetland, as defined by those scientists, 
to be subjected to the kinds of protection current law does under the 
1987 manual.
  Let me tell the Members what is wrong with that. First, what is wrong 
with that is if we do not in this bill, as the bill currently does, 
begin to define wetlands on the basis of which wetlands are truly 
functional, which really makes sense protecting with this heavy hand of 
Federal regulation, and define instead those that have some limited 
functional value, and those which have no real functional value 
whatsoever, such as an isolated wetland inside an urban area, if we do 
not do that in this bill, we are left with the status quo. We are left 
with laws and regulations built around what some scientists declare to 
be a wetland, which may not even resemble a wetland in your home State 
and in your home county.
  Second, Mr. Chairman, if we adopt this amendment, we completely undo, 
we completely reverse, what this House has done with 72 Democrats and 
almost, the great majority, I guess 90 percent, of the Republicans 
earlier this year in the 100 days in defining the right of private 
property owners to compensation when the Government regulates their 
lands values away.
                              {time}  1930

  I want to take a brief minute to reacquaint Members with that issue.
  In the case of Florida Rock, a case that started in 1978 when the 
Corps issued a cease and desist order upon the plaintiff not to use his 
property, a case that is still in court, that was again decided in the 
court of appeals, I think, for the second or third time, and has now 
been remanded to the Court of Claims for the second or third time, the 
court said in that case, in answer to the defendant's complaint, the 
U.S. Government, the defendant argued that, well, using this property, 
this activity, would eliminate wetlands protection within the valuable 
habitat and food chain resources.
  The court said,

       Defendant's argument stands our traditional concepts of 
     private property rights on their head. It is impossible to 
     use one's property in society without having some impact, 
     positive or adverse, on others. Courts do not view the 
     public's interest in environmental and aesthetic values as a 
     servitude upon all private property, but as a public benefit 
     that is widely shared and therefore must be paid for by all.

  In short, the Government in protecting wetlands in America, which is 
indeed a good and worthy goal, cannot create a servitude on your or my 
property for the public good without compensating us. That is what the 
court said, that is what the bill does, that is what gets eliminated by 
this amendment.
  The court cited a list of other laws that protect the environment 
where Congress has already specified that some sort of compensation 
must be given: the Wilderness Act, the National Trail Systems Act, the 
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Water Bank Act.
  Here is a quote from the court of appeals in the Florida Rock case:
  ``What these regulatory schemes have in common is that in each case 
the property owner's interest has been considered and accommodated, not 
sacrificed on the alter of public interest. By contrast, the regulatory 
scheme pursuant to which plaintiff's land was rendered economically 
useless''--the wetlands laws--``provides for no accommodation 
whatsoever of plaintiff's right to use and enjoy its property.''
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. I want to take you quickly through a real case, too, the 
Bowles decision.
  Here is a fellow who bought a lot in a subdivision, specifically lot 
29 of Treasure Island Subdivision, Brazoria County, TX. None of his 
neighbors applied for nor did they require a Corps of Engineers permit 
to build their House.
  This fellow had that property, I think, for about 10 years, and 
litigated 10 years in court for the right to build on the property 
ought to be compensated.
  The Corps of Engineers in his case, because he checked to see whether 
he needed a Corps of Engineers permit, said, ``No, you can't build on 
that property.''
  This was a $70,000 lot, pretty expensive waterfront lot. All of his 
neighbors are building on that property all this while. The Corps says, 
``You can't build on it. We think it's a wetland.'' Not you and I, not 
the people of the United States defining what a wetland is and what is 
going to be regulated in Congress. What the Corps of Engineers said a 
wetland was.
  The Corps said, ``You can't use the property.''
   Then they said, ``If you sue us for compensation we're willing to 
pay you what it's now worth, $4,500.''

  Our Justice Department litigated that case for 10 years. Mr. Bowles, 
I should add, was one of the good guys. He was on the conservation 
committee. He was in the nature conservancy in Texas. But he was denied 
the right to build on his property, specifically the right to get a 
permit to put a septic tank in so he could build his 
house. [[Page H4950]] 
  Ten years later, the court of appeals finally said he was due in the 
Court of Claims compensation equal to the value of his lot before the 
Government took away the use of that property, the $70,000 he was 
taken, that was stolen from him when the Corps of Engineers said you 
can no longer build on this property.
  The court rendered in his favor and said, ``This case presents in 
sharp relief the difficulty that current takings law forces upon both 
the Federal Government and the private citizen. The Government here had 
little guidance from the law. The citizen likewise had little more 
precedential guidance than faith in the justice of his cause,'' and I 
might add a 10-year trip in the court of appeals and the Court of 
Claims.
  What this amendment does that we are debating today is to tell Mr. 
Bowles, and everyone like him, ``If you don't like the way the Federal 
Government treats your property, if you don't like the way the Corps of 
Engineers defines a wetland, if you don't like the way they regulate 
the use of your property away, well, you go to court and settle it over 
the next 10 years if you can afford it. If you can't afford it, I'm 
sorry, you don't get justice in America.''
  That is what this amendment does, because it takes away the private 
property rights compensation provisions of this wetlands reform.
  Let me say it again. The bill does two things critical that the 
amendment destroys. The one thing it does, it gives some guidance in 
law as to what wetlands are truly going to be protected all the way and 
which ones are going to be protected somewhat and which ones are truly 
not worthy of the kind of functional protection that Mr. Bowles was 
subjected to when he could not build on his residential lot.
  Second, it provides compensation. This amendment destroys both of 
those reforms. It ought to be rejected just as the substitute was 
earlier rejected.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Boehlert, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was 
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my distinguished colleague for yielding. I 
always enjoy listening to him. He is very eloquent. But I would remind 
my colleague that if you refer to a peach as a banana and keep 
referring to a peach as a banana, it does not make a peach a banana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I am certainly glad we had that conversation today.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. The fact of the matter is this House has spoken on the 
issue of takings and on the issue of private property rights. That 
matter is now before the Senate. What is resolved between the House and 
the Senate will apply to this matter, and you know it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, you cannot say that.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I just did.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Well, you said it but you cannot really mean it. The 
President of the United States stood up on Earth Day and in effect 
said, ``I don't care what's in the private property rights bill that's 
over in the Senate right now, how it's completed, what ti says, what's 
in it, I'm going to vote ``no'' on it by vetoing it.''
  That bill has already been vetoed by the President in a speech he 
made on Earth Day. If we are going to protect private property rights, 
we now have to do it in the bills where it pertains, in the wetlands 
reform bill and in the endangered species reform bill. That is our only 
chance of giving compensation to landowners.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will further yield, my puzzlement is, 
what do the opponents have against good science? We have finally 
received a long-awaited report, 2 years in the making, over $1 million 
in expenditure to develop this report. Incidentally, the prominent 
scientists that participated were not paid. They produced a report that 
was released to the American people last week, ``Wetlands, 
Characteristics and Boundaries.''
  Among other things, they point out something that you have done 
repeatedly, that there are different wetlands in different areas of the 
country. If I may read for just a moment from an excerpt on a report,

       The United States contains many different kinds of 
     wetlands, from the cypress swamps of Florida to the peatlands 
     of northern Minnesota and from mountainous headwaters to 
     tidal salt marshes. The differences among wetlands in various 
     parts of the country account for much of the difficulty in 
     wetlands delineation.
       Wetlands regulation--a source of considerable friction 
     between private landowners and the Federal Government--is 
     needlessly complicated by multiple definitions, field manuals 
     and agency responsibilities. The use of a single regulatory 
     definition, a single manual to identify wetlands--

  Keeping in mind the geographic differences--

       And, even more ambitiously, the consolidation of regulatory 
     authority within a single Federal agency would improve the 
     regulation of wetlands substantially.

  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has made his point. Let 
me counter that point.
  First of all, it is a single definition of wetlands that cause the 
problem. It is the definition designed by the agencies with the 
scientists telling them what they think scientifically a wetland is 
which has caused these problems in America. It is 5 or 6 agencies 
meeting behind closed doors that produced the last manual that sent 
this country into a tizzy.
  It is time for policymakers now to make a decision in this Congress 
as to which wetlands deserve how much protection. That has long been 
overdue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Let me make a point. If you will look at the very last 
conclusion in that manual, in the scientific report, you will see that 
the scientists very carefully said,

       We're not telling you what kind of policy to make on 
     wetlands. We're not telling you whether to protect all 
     wetlands the same way because they are different. We're not 
     telling you that our definition of wetlands should be a legal 
     policy definition. What we've written for you is a reference 
     definition. You take our definition and you define from it 
     which wetlands you need full protection for, which wetlands 
     are you going to treat differently in what region of the 
     country.

  That is what the bill does, I should say to my friend. My friend 
destroys that class A, class B, class C determination as we have in the 
bill, substitutes a single definition again, which has caused us so 
much problems, and then destroys the compensation provision by saying 
in effect that that is out of the bill.
  I can say to my friend again, if you truly oppose property rights, I 
understand that, that is a fair debate, we have had it a couple of 
times, but that is what your amendment does. It takes property rights 
out of the bill. If you truly like the system where Federal bureaucrats 
and their scientists are making policy for America, they will love your 
amendment and I know you support it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Gilchrest, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. I have one quick question for the gentleman from 
Louisiana, one question about the Florida Rock case.
  It is a situation where the gentleman bought a parcel of land for 
about $3,000 an acre. It was going to be a type of gravel pit. If he 
could have sold it for this type of gravel pit, he could have gotten 
$10,000 an acre for it, but since it was delineated as a wetland, the 
value was reduced so he could only get $6,000 an acre for it.
  My question is, since it is delineated as a wetland and protected as 
a wetland, if it was not preserved as a wetland and he did use it and 
it diminished the value of someone else's property downstream, who 
would have paid for the devaluation of the property owner downstream?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I will be happy to answer the question. There is law in 
all of our jurisdictions, I know in my State, I assume in Maryland, 
that provides if I use my property and damage my neighbor, I am 
answerable to him, I am answerable to him in the State court for my 
damages. That is current law. [[Page H4951]] 
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Tauzin was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the current law says that if you do 
something to your property to damage your neighbor, you have got to pay 
for that. The bill on property takings that we wrote makes it clear 
that the only time you get compensated is when the use that has been 
denied you is not a zoning use prohibited, is not a nuisance use 
prohibited but only a use that is designed to protect environmental 
wetlands.
  Second, let me say to my friend, I am not saying the law should not 
protect the wetlands in the Florida Rock case. Maybe they should have 
been protected. All I am saying is that if they are protected and the 
use of that property is denied the owner as in Florida Rock, that he 
ought not to have to spend from 1968 to 1995 trying to get an answer as 
to what he should be compensated for.
  Mr. GILCHREST. If the gentleman will yield further, I think if you 
destroy those kinds of wetlands, a number of people whose property 
would be devalued because their ground water would be contaminated, the 
vast number of people who would have their property devalued, there is 
not enough money in America to pay for all that property.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Reclaiming my time, if the use is one that damages your 
neighbor, you don't get compensated under the bill, and you know it.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee regarding the definition of 
concentrated animal feeding operations [CAFO's].
  A recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision, C.A.R.E. v. 
Southview Farm, broadly interpreted and--in my view--misconstrued the 
definition of CAFO's. In particular, the court confused the difference 
between feedlots and areas that do not involve growing operations and 
misinterpreted the terms ``lot,'' ``facility,'' and ``area of 
confinement.''
  The result is that certain agricultural operations, such as dairy 
operations, could be improperly considered as CAFO's and therefore 
point sources.
  Is my understanding correct that the chairman intends that the term 
``CAFO's'' and the term ``concentrated animal feedlot'' do not include 
farming operations where crops, vegetation forage growth or post 
harvest residues are sustained in the normal growing season over any 
portion of the farming operation?

                              {time}  1945

  Mr. SHUSTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PAXON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely correct. 
Several of the H.R. 961 provisions, particularly section 503, refer 
precisely to concentrated animal feed operations. As the primary 
sponsor of this legislation, I can assure the gentleman that at no time 
did we intend that the terms of the act and the accompanying 
regulations be construed as broadly.
  Mr. PAXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this 
clarification, for his overall efforts to ensure a proper balance 
between environmental regulation and agricultural operations.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. PAXON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
bringing up that issue which does not directly affect the wetlands 
debates on the Boehlert amendment, but I want the gentleman to know 
that I strongly support the position taken by the gentleman from New 
York, and I strongly support the language in the committee report 
referred to by the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  We have addressed the special concerns of agriculture in America and 
the committee bill does that. The wetlands provision that I am 
introducing and we are debating right now contains the same exemptions 
as does the committee bill, plus we add a new exemption for repair and 
construction of tiles which are so very important to agriculture.
  So I thank the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. PAXON. I thank the gentleman for his support and again the 
chairman of the committee for his very helpful efforts in clarifying 
this matter.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, listening to the debate one would draw the conclusion 
not only by inference but by express statement by the opposition that 
this really is a battle about those who care about clean water versus 
those who do not.
  I am here to reject that characterization, Mr. Chairman. In fact, 
wetlands and the environment are very important to me, and I know of no 
Member in this House to whom they are not important. So let us all 
stipulate that we are for the environment, as well as for the American 
flag, motherhood, and apple pie. Those are all good things; we are all 
for them.
  What this battle is really about, and I cannot think of a better 
crystallization of the difference between the old Congress, the belief 
in bigger, more powerful Federal agencies and, in essence, a bigger, 
better, more powerful Federal Government, versus a smaller, more 
accountable Federal Government. That is what the debate is really about 
with this Clean Water Act, Mr. Chairman.
  You know, we ought to stop and ask ourselves: Where does the U.S. 
Congress derive the authority to regulate wetlands, for example? It 
comes from the U.S. Constitution, from the so-called commerce clause, 
which happily is finally starting to be properly interpreted after 60 
years of abuse by the Congress and the Supreme Court, and in the Perez 
decision decided recently we finally got a reasonable definition of the 
limits of the power of Congress under the commerce clause. Those things 
which Congress seeks to regulate under the commerce clause have to bear 
some reasonable relation to the clause.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a battle between those who support a bigger 
Federal Government versus those who support a smaller and more 
accountable Federal Government. It is really a battle between those who 
want to empower bureaucrats with vast discretionary authority versus 
those who believe elected officials ought to be making our policy in 
the U.S. Congress. It is really a battle between arbitrary 
administrative rulings versus good science. Ironically enough, I say to 
the gentleman from New York, we believe in good science. That is why 
H.R. 961, as reported by the committee to the floor, is here. It 
embodies good science, and we believe very deeply in good science.
  Let me just mention why the Boehlert amendment is flawed, in my 
opinion. No. 1, it strikes all the property rights provisions out of 
the bill, including the right to compensation for property owners whose 
land is devalued by more than 20 percent due to the Federal wetlands 
regulations. No. 2, it eliminates the three-tier classification system 
created by the bill which is designed to give greatest priority to 
those wetlands that are in most need of protection. No. 3, it retains 
the current expansive definition of wetlands. Indeed, under the 
Boehlert amendment, and this is true under present law, this is deemed 
to be a water of the United States. Is that not ludicrous? This picture 
is north of Stockton, CA; yes, this is a wetland according to existing 
law and according to what it will be if the gentleman's amendment 
should be enacted.
  H.R. 961 was produced with an aim to ending this kind of 
administrative abuse.
  Also, this Boehlert amendment removes the provisions that streamline 
the current highly bureaucratic system for wetlands permitting, giving 
four agencies the power to veto wetlands permit applications. The 
committee bill makes the Corps of Engineers the sole agency with the 
power to grant or to refuse a permit.
  So, those are the reasons why I think this is an undesirable 
amendment. If you believe in Big Government, if you believe in 
bureaucrats, if you believe in arbitrariness, keep the status quo, 
because it works great. The only ones who are disadvantaged by it are 
those [[Page H4952]] who happen to own property by the sweat of their 
brow and cannot get through the permit process. And we heard from the 
gentleman from Minnesota, I think who said this, maybe the gentleman 
from New York: 90 percent of all of these Corps of Engineers permits 
are granted. What that figure fails to mention is the number of people 
that dropped out.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Gilchrest, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Ninety percent, the figure was 90 percent of the 
permits are granted by the Corps of Engineers. It ignores the fact that 
a huge number of people fell out of that statistic, those who tried and 
just gave up. They did not have the 2 years or 4 years or 5 years or as 
in the case of Chico, I will tell you about the 16 years to get through 
the process. They gave up and they were not counted, because it did not 
count in that statistic. So it is a very misleading statistic. I just 
throw that out; it is very misleading.
  I chaired the wetlands task force for the Resources Committee. We 
went around the country and held various hearings. Let me just tell you 
briefly what we found out. We heard from Bob Wilson, a man who owns 
property in Idaho. He went through with his permit, the corps came out, 
they had extensive negotiations. The corps finally granted his permit 
to build a house. He built a very expensive, about a half-million-
dollar house, and then, incredibly, a corps field official came along 
and discovered quote unquote that the hydrology had changed on this 
particular land and what was once an upland when the house was built 
was now a wetland, and demands were being made for him to do something 
about it.
  Well, he went through the process again and that managed to get it 
straightened out, probably because the corps was too embarrassed to 
actually be willing to take that case forward and expose it to the 
harsh light of public review.
  Pastor Enns, pastor of a church in Chico, CA, known as the Pleasant 
Valley Assembly of God, this is a 500-member congregation, all of its 
contributions are received voluntarily.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. This gentleman began the process of building his 
church. Sixteen years later, $300,000 of his congregation's money down 
the drain and there is no church, and 25 percent of it has been roped 
off as a wetland.
  These people are not in the business of development. They are trying 
to build a church.
  The Sares Regis Corp., they are in the business of development, and 
they are in Mr. Pombo's district, in the northern end of it. They have 
about a 1,200-acre parcel of land. In 1988 the first application was 
made for a permit. We are in 1995 today. Seven years later they have 
still not done anything with it because the different agencies keep 
upping the ante. First they wanted 15 percent of the land set aside 
because it contained features like this right here, and then it went up 
to 25 percent, and they finally agreed to 25 percent. A demand was made 
for more, and they agreed to 30 percent, and that is not enough. Thirty 
percent, in fact it was more than 30 percent, it was nearly one-third 
of their land, 356 acres with a development value of $30 million, and 
that was not enough to satisfy the Federal bureaucrat. That is an 
abuse, Mr. Chairman. And that is what this bill is designed to correct 
amongst other things.
  I want to tell you about Mrs. Cline. Nancy Cline, Sonoma, CA, bought 
land, 350 acres of land, been in farming continuously since 1930. One 
year the owner of the land, in fact the next to the last year the 
former owners of the land grazed cattle. These folks tried to farm 
their land and the bureaucrats showed up and they said, ``You can't do 
that, you need a permit, you are filling a wetland.'' They said, ``What 
do you mean. It has been farmed since 1930. I am sorry.'' They 
threatened them with $25,000-a-day civil fines and actually at one 
point threatened if they did not give in to criminally indict them. 
They had to hire an attorney to defend themselves. They went around, 
and I would love to read you this but my time is running out, I will 
tell you the FBI and EPA went door to door to the neighbors and 
interviewed the neighbors. What is these people's religion? Do they 
have a temper? What are they like?
  George Washington said power is not reason, it is not eloquence, it 
is force, and like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. 
And I would submit to you that we uncovered many examples of the heavy 
hand of government, naked force.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland to ask his 
question.
  Mr. GILCHREST. One comment and one quick question. The comment is we 
want to get rid of the bureaucracy that creates the kind of horror 
stories.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California has again 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Gilchrest and by unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. The other thing is I really wish some of the Corps and 
EPA people from California could come to Maryland and see how we work 
out our problems, and we really do work the problems out in apparently 
a much simpler manner than it is done in some of the Western States, 
but looking at the picture I would like to ask, it really looks like 
there is some farming activity being done there. It looks like tractor 
tires and the field has just been plowed up. I would like to ask the 
gentleman if that is a farming area. Then it is now without either one 
of the bills exempt from regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps as far as 
wetlands is concerned because of the prior converted cropland; also the 
Corps allows people to farm wetlands if they have been farming 
wetlands.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. I can explain what is going on in this picture. It is 
grazing land, which the Corps does not consider agriculture. So they 
cannot.
  In California under current law what is happening right now, grazing 
is not agriculture. Therefore they cannot plow that up. That is what 
they are doing right now.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Shuster, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I just cannot let pass the statement by my good friend 
from Maryland about how wonderful everything is in Maryland. My 
congressional district borders Maryland, and I can tell you in western 
Maryland there are hundreds of people who are furious about the 
environmental Gestapo which is there and which is attempting to tell 
them how to live their lives and what to do with their land beyond all 
reason. So things might be well on the Eastern Shore, my good friend, 
but in the neck of the woods I come from which borders on western 
Maryland there is outrage at what this environmental Gestapo is doing.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I want to allay the gentleman's concerns, because the 
Boehlert amendment provides a specific exemption for grazing land, so I 
say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Doolittle], I want you to know we addressed your 
concern.
  Let me tell you who is outraged. The American people are outraged by 
the prospect of eliminating 60 percent to 80 percent of our Nation's 
wetlands.
[[Page H4953]]

                              {time}  2000

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an additional minute to reply 
because this is not the whole story. I need to reply.
  Let me just say here that in our part of the State there is a lot of 
land like this and there are a lot of people like this that would like 
to grow houses, not farms, on it or not grazing, and they owned the 
property, and under your amendment you are not going to let them do 
that because this is going to be classified as a wetland for which a 
permit must be granted, must be required, in order to do anything, and 
your amendment does not let good science prevail, because you do not 
see the framework for the classification, A, B, or C.
  I heard you read from the report. Let me just say we make the policy 
that the Secretary is to promulgate, a classification system, A, B, or 
C, according to the most ecologically significant land in that order. 
That is where the good science is going to come, helping us determine 
whether it is A, B, or C.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield further, there is nothing, 
nothing, absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing in the committee 
bill that refers to science.
  What are we afraid of? We spent $1 million in 2 years to hear a 
report from the National Academy of Sciences, and we are ignoring it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hayes, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HAYES. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. HAYES. I have a letter addressed to me today where numerous 
agricultural groups, including the Farm Bureau, American Feed 
Industries, American Meat Institute, Sheep Industry Association, 
Soybean Association, and others, are all in opposition by name to the 
Boehlert amendment.
  My question to the gentleman would be: If the agricultural provisions 
are supposedly taken care of, then do I have 50 or so incompetent 
agricultural organizations, or do I have a continued inability of some 
to recognize that they are not helping farmers but hurting them under 
either the current situation or the proposed amendment?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield, let me stress, on page 21 
of the Boehlert amendment, there is a whole list of exemptions for 
agriculture. Given the choice, we understand human nature, given the 
choice of no regulation or some regulation, what are people going to 
choose? Obviously, no regulation. But the fact of the matter is there 
are 250 million Americans from coast to coast who are concerned about 
drinking water, who are concerned about flooding, who are concerned 
about tourism and fishing, who are concerned about so many things that 
are ignored.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Shuster, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. I ask for the time for me to respond to my good friend.
  I cannot let pass, and I am sure my good friend does not mean, really 
mean, no regulation. To suggest our bill provides no regulation is 
obviously false. Our bill provides substantial regulation.
  What it does do, it sets up three categories of wetlands, A, B, and 
C. So, for my good friend, I know in the hyperbole of the moment, to 
talk about no regulation, I am sure he does not mean that, and our bill 
does provide regulation. It simply does not, and I plead guilty, it 
does not provide the onerous, heavy-handed regulation that the 
gentleman's amendment provides.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. If the gentleman will yield further, because it is the 
gentleman's time, the fact of the matter is this is not my opinion. It 
is prominent scientists. The 17 scientists who developed the Academy of 
Sciences report on wetlands estimate 60 percent of our Nation's 
wetlands will be lost if we adopt the committee bill.
  I agree with the chairman; I have the highest regard for the 
chairman.
  That is why we are trying to incorporate in our amendment special 
exemptions for agriculture, and we are trying to address the needs of 
Governors and State and local governments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Shuster, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. I wish to respond to the last statement.
  I believe what the report says is not that 60 percent of wetlands 
will be lost, but rather that 60 percent of the wetlands will be 
unregulated by the Federal Government. There is a vast difference, and 
indeed I am informed by several people that even the 60 percent figure 
is something that is not substantiated. So there is a vast difference 
between wetlands being lost and wetlands not being regulated by the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. HAYES. Under no instance in the report is there a reference to 
this loss. It has been thrown around on this House floor as if it is 
somewhere scientifically written. It is specifically never covered in 
that report. It does a disservice to the chairman to make that 
reference. But if so, would the gentleman give us a page number in 
which such a percentage or reference is made?
  Mr. SHUSTER. And I would say further, under our bill, if the 
gentleman's State wishes to impose more stringent wetlands regulations, 
the gentleman's State may do so.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Boehlert, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate that.
  The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], I would like to point out 
that the estimate of 60 percent loss of the Nation's wetlands comes 
from William M. Lewis, Jr., Chair, who is professor and Chair of the 
department of environmental population at the University of Colorado. 
That statement was made at the public briefing provided for Members of 
Congress, their staff, and the news media. I was there. A limited 
number of Members of Congress, a lot more staff, and a lot of media, 
and that is why the media has picked up on this 60 percent loss of 
wetlands, because it comes from the Chair of the committee, a very 
distinguished scientist. I have no idea if he is a Republican or a 
Democrat or a green or a brown or whatever he is, but I know he is 
concerned about our environment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Shuster, and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Doolittle was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. I ask for the additional minute to quote what Dr. Lewis 
actually said. I have in front of me, during the question and answer 
session of the briefing, Dr. Lewis, previously referred to, was asked, 
``What percentage of wetlands currently under the jurisdiction of the 
404 program would be deregulated?'' Deregulated, not eliminated, 
deregulated, after the 21 consecutive day requirements were enacted. 
His first response was, and I quote, ``I don't know.'' When prompted 
further, he said, ``I guess the amount would be in the tens of percent, 
20, 30, maybe 40 percent.'' End of story.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Doolittle] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hayes, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Doolittle 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HAYES. If the gentleman would yield further and give me a moment 
to [[Page H4954]] ask a question of the chairman, who was it who made 
that inquiry?
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentleman will yield, I understand it was the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] that made the inquiry.
  Mr. HAYES. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] made the 
inquiry; it is not secondhand. I hope he would recall it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. That makes this story even better. Thank you.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me make my statement.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. We are up to 40 percent. We are getting closer.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would just like to point out here: What in the world 
are we afraid of? We are not talking about plowing over all the 
Nation's wetlands by this bill. We are saying the Federal Government 
has gone too far in trying to assert its jurisdiction. We are going to, 
as the new Congress, make a correction in the course. The State of 
Maryland or any other State, if they feel that the policy should be 
different, is free to take that policy. But under the U.S. 
Constitution, in our view, our jurisdiction needs to be cut back. This 
bill provides a policy that assures protection to wetlands that uses a 
classification system, A, B, or C. It assures reason, balance, and 
flexibility, which we have none of under the present system, where all 
we have is the naked hand of Government, $25,000-a-day civil fines, 
being threatened by Federal agencies, and if they fail at that, they 
will threaten to indict you, as they did Mrs. Cline.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. GILCHREST. The gentleman from California said, ``What are we 
afraid of?'' Why do we not use the classification or the delineation 
criteria from the National Academy of Sciences, which I think we all, 
after looking at it, would have some sense that is a good 
classification, and then we can use their criteria in this bill, and 
then we can regulate or not regulate, whatever we want to.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Reclaiming my time, we are going to do that. We have 
got A, B, and C. We, the elected officials, set that up. Then we are 
going to use the science that is in that report because the Secretary 
is the one that makes those determinations, and he is going to specify 
in the regulations what are the criteria for A, B, and C.
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I find this debate very interesting tonight and believe 
that maybe it is time that a voice from the Midwest is heard on this 
problem.
  We have heard a lot from the South and from the West about the 
problems with the wetlands, but I want to say that I strongly oppose 
the amendment to H.R. 961 on wetlands. This amendment would strip out 
the provisions of this bill in title VIII, reject sensible wetlands 
policy reforms which have been crafted in this bill, and replace the 
language with a much more workable form of regulation for our wetlands. 
In fact, the House rejected the bureaucratic language of the sponsor of 
this amendment as part of the Saxton substitute.
  For many years, farmers and businessmen and landowners have struggled 
and wasted millions of dollars on lawyers' fees, trying to make sense 
out of the current wetlands permitting process. Critics of the wetlands 
provision in H.R. 961 make it sound as though the current section 404 
of wetlands delineation process is an orderly, scientifically sound 
process. Anybody outside of Washington, DC, who has tried to obtain a 
section 404 permit knows the present system is a bureaucratic morass, 
subject to the whims of EPA, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and the bureaucrats of the Federal Government.
  In fact, when I was visiting in what is now the consolidated Farm 
Service agency in my home county, I asked them how they established 
wetlands in my home county. ``Oh,'' they said, ``We got out some maps, 
and we sat there, and that is the way we decided what was wetlands,'' 
in this highly developed agricultural county, and, of course, if 
anybody came in, they probably made some adjustments. But most people 
did not even know about the delineation.
  So, when we talk about the loss of wetlands, what we really have to 
do is establish what were and are and is truly wetlands because it was 
not done in a very scientific way.
  And if the present system is not bad enough, this amendment directs 
the EPA to establish a wetlands coordinating committee. The committee 
is to develop a national wetlands strategy and recommend new, new 
regulations to the EPA and the Army Corps, among other things.
  My colleagues, issuing additional wetlands regulations and creating 
new bureaucracy is absolutely ludicrous. Have the proponents of this 
amendment not learned anything from the November election? I would also 
hope that Members will not be fooled by the rhetoric of the supporters 
of this amendment.
  The Boehlert amendment does not embrace sound science. Its primary 
purpose is to keep the current, unworkable Federal wetlands policy in 
place, the net effect of which is to keep property off limits to 
acceptable alternative uses.
  Simply stated, if you want to preserve and expand the present section 
404 permitting bureaucracy, then you should support the Boehlert 
amendment. But if you want to replace the current wetlands permitting 
with clear, sound public policy, then you would reject this amendment.
  It is no accident that American agriculture supports title VIII of 
H.R. 961 as is. Farmers are sick and tired of the Federal bureaucrats 
determining that mandate drainage ditches are navigable waters of the 
United States, are sick and tired of Federal bureaucrats walking onto 
their farms and determining that ag areas are wetlands. If agriculture 
is to receive major reductions in programs, there must be corresponding 
relief from meaningless, useless, and inappropriate Government 
regulations, such as the current wetlands situation.
  Anybody who listened to voters last November knows that the citizens 
are absolutely fed up with big Government and bureaucratic arrogance. 
The voters are demanding smaller and more sensible government.
  Agricultural people know what true wetlands are. Agricultural people 
are certainly interested in preserving true wetlands because they know 
the benefits. We do not want to destroy wetlands, but we do not want to 
be encumbered by wetlands designations for property that is not 
wetlands.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Ewing was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Chairman, I believe, as do most, that the provisions 
of H.R. 961, as is, will do what is a reasonable job of defining our 
wetlands.
  I do not question the proponents of this amendment are well intended, 
but you have provisions under this bill through different State 
legislatures to enact if additional regulations are needed.
  Finally, Members of this body who support the restoration of personal 
property rights contained in this amendment, in this bill, should 
support the wetlands language of 961 and vote against the Boehlert 
amendment.
  In closing, I would urge Members to join the chairman and vote for 
fair, clear wetlands delineation as currently in this bill.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. BOEHLERT. I do not want to point out a misstatement. I think it 
was inadvertent. The Federal, State and local government coordinating 
committee, contrary to what was alleged, does not have any regulatory 
authority. It serves in an advisory capacity only. Why did we create 
it? To reduce duplication, to resolve potential conflicts and to 
efficiently allocate manpower and resources at all levels of 
government.
  Mr. EWING. To whom will they be reporting?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. We include representatives from the National Governors' 
Association, the National League of Cities, the National Association of 
Counties, in an advisory capacity. In effect, what we say is, ``Come 
let us reason together.''
[[Page H4955]]

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. HAYES. Would the gentleman accept an amendment to his amendment 
stating that it has no regulatory power whatsoever?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I would be more than happy to.
  Mr. HAYES. Then I will be delighted to make that tomorrow.
  Mr. EWING. Reclaiming my time, the purpose of the committee is then--
will have no influence on regulations?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. It is there to serve in an advisory capacity.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Shuster and by unanimous consent, Mr. Ewing was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. This so-called advisory committee was made up of 18 
people. Ten of the 18, a majority, will be handpicked by the EPA, so 
the people the EPA picks will recommend to the EPA what kind of 
regulations to impose upon the American people.
  Does the gentleman begin to get the drift of who is going to be 
calling the shots here? It is the same old regulatory crowd, the same 
old environmental gestapos, that is who, and that is why we should 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. EWING. Reclaiming my time, the chairman has adequately and very 
accurately stated just the reason that we cannot stand any more 
committees. We cannot stand any more of this regulatory overkill that 
we have had in America, and an 18-member committee, with 10 of them 
appointed by the EPA, bodes very, very bad for regulatory relief.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EWING. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, this committee will serve without 
compensation. This committee will serve----
  Mr. EWING. Reclaiming the balance of my time, I think that is totally 
irrelevant to whether this committee is going to be another 
bureaucratic agency.
  Mr. SHUSTER. That means they will be committed fanatics.
  Mr. EWING. Absolutely.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that this debate has been very interesting for 
a number of reasons, and I think that, if we look at what the debate 
has centered upon, I know earlier in testimony they talked about clean 
water, and one of the things that they brought up was a picture of a 
polluted stream.
  As my colleagues know, we are all against water pollution, we are all 
in favor of clean water. And that is not what the debate is about. What 
the debate centers upon is whether or not the U.S. Congress will make 
the tough decisions.
  For a number of years, actually since the Clean Water Act was passed 
and they somehow found wetlands within it, Congress has refused to make 
the tough decisions, the policy decisions. Therefore, all of the 
decisions governing wetlands have been made by regulators, bureaucrats, 
and by the courts.
  And I say to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert, you talked 
about using good science. Well, I strongly believe that we need to use 
good science and that that should be the basis for our environmental 
decisions. But I also believe that it is our obligation and 
responsibility to make tough policy decisions.
  One of the problems in this picture was brought up earlier. One of 
the problems that we have out west is wetlands that look like this, 
that have nothing to do with--we cannot tell from this picture, but 
there is no inlet or outlet from this wetland. It is a mud puddle. It 
is a hole in the ground. It is a low place.
  Now I say to my colleague, ``You have said that you know in your 
amendment that grazing is agriculture and would be exempted from the 
regulations of the permitting process.'' I will tell my colleague one 
thing that happened in my district in an area that looked exactly like 
this. It was grazing land, and had been for many, many generations, and 
for those of my colleagues that do not know, cattle business has not 
been so great lately, and the gentleman decided that he would be better 
off trying to farm the land in order to try to make a profit off of it, 
and he wanted to plant vineyards on it. And they told him he could not 
plant vineyards on it because of wetlands like this that were on the 
property, and he said, ``But agriculture is exempt from it. Under 
current law, agriculture is exempt.''
  And they said, ``Well, no, because you are converting from one 
agricultural use to another. Therefore, you are changing the use of the 
land from grazing to vineyards.''
  So I say to my colleague, ``Even under your language that you bring 
out, I don't believe that the bureaucrats would take that as an answer 
for it.''
  So, what he told him was,

       Okay; I'll stay out of the wetlands. I won't plant any 
     vineyards in the wetlands. I'll just plant them on the sides 
     of the hills, and I'll contour the hills and just stay 
     completely away from them. I'm putting in a drip irrigation 
     system so there won't be any runoff.

  The answer came back, ``No, you can't do that because you will change 
the drainage on the land from what is currently there, and you can't do 
that.''
  So he was struck with an unprofitable piece of property because the 
cattle business is not real good right now. He was stuck with an 
unprofitable piece of property that he could not make any money off of, 
that he could pay the mortgage on and pay the property taxes on, but he 
could not make any money off it
 because they were restricting what agricultural use.

  Now, notice I have not talked about development of any kind, not 
about building a single home on any of this. It is one agricultural use 
to another, and, under the current definition, they are saying, ``You 
can't do that. You can't change from one agricultural use to another, 
and they are restricting his ability.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is why I believe that the property rights 
provisions in the chairman's bill are so important, because right now 
we have the regulators and bureaucrats running out there who, at no 
cost to them, at no downside to them whatsoever, and actually an upside 
because they just expanded greatly their jurisdiction by taking a 
wetlands that looked like this, they expanded greatly their 
jurisdiction by taking a wetlands that looked like this, they expanded 
greatly their jurisdiction. Therefore, they need more employees, a 
bigger budget, more pickups, more helicopters so they can go out and 
search their land and look for these valuable wetlands that look like 
this. They expanded their agencies because they expanded their 
jurisdiction, and because of that property rights and the takings 
part----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was allowed to proceed for 4 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. POMBO. If there is a cost to the agency, if there is a cost 
associated with taking this person's livelihood away from them, taking 
their property away from them, all of a sudden wetlands like this, they 
will no longer put those kinds of restrictions on them.
  Now, we all know, as my colleagues know, I went around the country as 
part of the wetlands task force and had the opportunity to see wetlands 
that I have never seen before. My entire district, except for the tops 
of the hills that my colleagues see here, is considered a wetland, my 
entire district, because of the idea that, if the water rises to within 
18 inches of the surface, that that makes it a wetland, and that was, 
in mind's eye, what a wetland was all about, and this was land that 
people farmed, that they had been farming for 4 or 5, 6 generations, 
and they only time it ever got wet was when it rained or when they 
irrigated.
  Now, when I went to Louisiana, I saw wetlands; I mean they had water 
on the ground, 18 inches of water, 2 feet of water, standing on the 
ground. Now, I can understand, OK that is wetlands, but why is this a
 wetlands?

  I say to my colleague, now, if you don't have property rights 
protection [[Page H4956]] in there, there is no book to stop the agency 
from getting out of control. In your amendment you talk about going 
back to the 1987 delineation manual and sticking to that until we get 
something better. You define wetlands in your definitions of your 
amendment as land that supports aquatic vegetation or wetlands-type 
vegetation. That is your definition of a wetland.
  I say to my colleague, now, on your way home tonight, or when you 
come in in the morning, because it's going to be dark here, go by just 
395, make a right, go down about a mile, and you'll see a sign that 
says the future site of the Fairmount Hotel, and it's an acre or two of 
land that has toolies, that has sitting water on it, that looks, by 
every definition, as a wetland, but this is land that's been developed 
for a long time that we tore down an old building. They're putting up a 
new one.
  I say to my colleagues, I mean you have got to have something more to 
it than that. You've got to define the difference between the wetlands 
I saw in Louisiana and this. You've got to define the difference 
between what the value of these wetlands are to the environment. You 
don't do that; that's what we're trying to fix.
  Mr. Chairman, we are trying to stop the agencies from going out, and 
running amok, and trying to do this type of thing. That is what has to 
stop. I say to my colleague, your amendment to this bill doesn't do 
that, and I understand the importance of wetlands in different parts of 
the country. I heard the people in North Carolina talk about the 
importance of wetlands to their area. I heard the people in Louisiana 
talk about the fishermen, talk about the importance of wetlands to 
their livelihood. I heard the people in Vancouver talk about the 
importance of wetlands to their livelihood, but there is a big 
difference between the wetlands that they talk about and the wetlands 
that look like this. They are not the same thing.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOELERT. I would like to read one section, section 818, 
definitions. The term ``wetland'' means those areas that are inundated 
or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and 
duration sufficient to support and that, under normal circumstances, do 
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in 
saturated soil conditions.
  Mr. POMBO. OK. Now, does the gentleman understand his definition 
because I am going to ask the gentleman a question about that?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Pombo was allowed to proceed for 3 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. POMBO. I say to the gentleman, If you understand your definition 
of what is in your amendment, if I had a broken water pipe, and the 
land was sufficiently saturated so that it would support the kind of 
vegetation that is in a wetland, would that not fit your definition?
  Mr. BEOHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. No, it would not, because that was manmade, and it is 
frequency that the gentleman is ignoring. That was a one-time 
occurrence.
  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, I have read the gentleman's amendment. 
Reclaiming my time, the gentleman's definition states that it is land 
that is saturated enough so that it will sustain aquatic vegetation.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. But the gentleman is forgetting the frequency part of 
the definition. That is important.
  Mr. POMBO. Yes, if the land is wet long enough, it will support that 
kind of vegetation.
  In my house in California, across the street they have a cattle 
trough, and it runs over all the time because it comes out of a spring 
and it supports aquatic vegetation. It has got toolies down the cattle 
pasture. It is saturated long enough to fit the gentleman's definition, 
and it is not a wetland, and that is the kind of stuff we are trying to 
stop. I say to the gentleman, You don't allow us to do that. You're 
getting back into the original reason that the Clean Water Act was 
passed. We wanted to stop polluted rivers. We wanted to stop polluted 
rivers.
  Now, somewhere along the line they decided that we were going to 
regulate wetlands under the Clean Water Act, and there is a reason to 
protect wetlands. We all understand that. Any of us that have done our 
homework understands the reason to protect wetlands, real wetlands. But 
there is a big difference between differing types of wetlands. I say to 
the gentleman, What you have in your home State is not the same as what 
I have in my district.

                              {time}  2030

  What Mr. Hayes has in Louisiana is not the same as what is in my 
district. You are not giving us the ability to differentiate between 
those. You are throwing it back to the bureaucrats, throwing it back to 
the regulators and telling them you are going to make the decision. You 
are avoiding making the tough policy decisions that have to be made. 
Let us give it to the bureaucrats.
  One of the things that has frustrated me the most about serving in 
this body is that we intentionally draft legislation to be as vague as 
possible so that we can always blame it on the regulators. We can 
always blame it on the bureaucrats. It is always their fault. It is 
never our fault.
  Unless we start making changes like this bill has in it, we will 
never correct these problems. Make the tough decisions.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hayworth) 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.

                          ____________________