[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      THOUGHTFUL WORDS ON WETLANDS

                                 ______


                            HON. BUD SHUSTER

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                         Wednesday, June 7, 1995
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the absolute chaos unleashed by the current 
section 404 wetlands program in the 1972 Clean Water Act is excellently 
documented in the following editorial, which appeared in the Lewistown 
Sentinel, a newspaper in my Ninth Congressional District of 
Pennsylvania. Indeed, the word ``wetlands'' is not even mentioned in 
the main provisions of the original 1972 act. Instead, abuses and 
distortions that exist currently in the wetlands regulatory program 
stem from just 10 words in original 1972 legislation: ``The discharge 
of dredged or fill material into navigable waters.''
  It is from this simple phrase that bureaucrats and judges have 
created what is so eloquently written described in the editorial's 
concluding paragraph. This editorial provides a good overview of the 
issue and I commend it to my colleagues and all people interested in 
the wetlands debate.
              [From the Lewistown Sentinel, May 31, 1995]

                 Clean Water Bill Is Solid Legislation

       Two years ago last week, conservationist Bill Ellen was 
     released from the federal prison at Petersburg, Va., after 
     serving a six-month sentence for allegedly violating wetland 
     regulations.
       Ellen ran afoul of the Environmental Protection Agency in 
     the course of building a wildlife preserve, where he was the 
     project supervisor.
       A couple of loads of clean fill were placed on land so dry 
     that his crews were spraying water on the ground to reduce 
     dust for safety reasons. But overly broad regulations--upon 
     which even assorted federal and state agencies did not agree 
     at the time--called the spot wet, at least by the EPA's 
     lights.
       If revisions to the Clean Water Act adopted by the House of 
     Representatives this week become law, there won't be any more 
     Bill Ellen cases. The legislation requires the Army Corps of 
     Engineers--the primary wetlands agency--and the Department of 
     Agriculture to write new regulations, this time with real 
     definitions that would put wetlands into three categories 
     according to their ecological importance. Land in the least 
     significant category could be used for other purposes, 
     whereas land in the most significant category would be 
     tightly restricted. Property owners might be entitled to just 
     compensation in such instances.
       Rep. Bud Shuster is a sponsor of the bill, which passed the 
     House in a 240-185 bipartisan vote. Shuster, whose district 
     includes Mifflin and Juniata counties, is chairman of the 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
       Central Pennsylvania's congressman has spent a good bit of 
     time lately defending the bill against broadsides from the 
     Clinton administration. The White House is threatening a 
     veto. In a public relations campaign against the bill, 
     they're calling it ``The Polluters' Protection Act,'' which 
     is utter nonsense.
       Among other points, Shuster has correctly pointed out that 
     the bill contains many points that align with Clinton's own 
     blueprint for federal reform. He also noted that the bill 
     received support from the bipartisan National Governors' 
     Association, which Clinton once headed.
       ``The president read from a script handed him by the 
     environmental extremists,'' Shuster said. ``This is a common-
     sense bill written and supported by an overwhelming 
     bipartisan majority of House members.''
       Shuster is right on the money. Like him, we can't see the 
     logic in Clinton's attack. He's missing the real question at 
     hand, which is whether environmental regulation in this 
     country is going to be governed by rule of law or by 
     arbitrary bureaucrats.
       Americans are entitled, through their elected 
     representatives, to define what is important and what's not 
     and to set down some clear definitions.
     

                          ____________________