[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7562-H7569]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               SAN DIEGO COASTAL CORRECTIONS ACT OF 1995

  The Clerk called the bill (H.R. 1943) to amend the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act to deem certain municipal wastewater treatment 
facilities discharging into ocean waters as the equivalent of secondary 
treatment facilities.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 1943

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``San Diego Coastal 
     Corrections Act of 1995''.

     SEC. 2. COASTAL DISCHARGES.

       Section 304(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1314(d)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Coastal discharges.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     any municipal wastewater treatment facility shall be deemed 
     the equivalent of a secondary treatment facility if each of 
     the following requirements is met:
       ``(A) The facility employs chemically enhanced primary 
     treatment.
       ``(B) The facility, on the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, discharges through an ocean outfall into an open 
     marine environment greater than 4 miles offshore into a depth 
     greater than 300 feet.
       ``(C) The facility's discharge is in compliance with all 
     local and State water quality standards for the receiving 
     waters.

[[Page H 7563]]

       ``(D) The facility's discharge will be subject to an ocean 
     monitoring program acceptable to relevant Federal and State 
     regulatory agencies.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Mineta] will each be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster].
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of H.R. 1943, the San Diego 
Coastal Corrections Act of 1995.
  This bill amends the Clean Water Act to allow San Diego a qualified 
waiver from the so-called ``secondary treatment'' requirement.
  Secondary treatment is a uniform, technology-based requirement 
involving removal of solids and biochemical oxygen demand that all 
sewage treatment plants must meet under the Clean Water Act, whether or 
not solids or biochemical oxygen demand would cause an environmental 
problem in the receiving water.
  For San Diego, this mandate makes absolutely no sense.
  Scientists agree that the city's discharge is not harming the ocean 
environment. San Diego's outfall extends 4\1/2\ miles into the ocean 
and discharges into 310 feet of water. The swift currents easily 
disperse the effluent.
  Because of these factors, scientists have determined that secondary 
treatment for San Diego would provide no measurable environmental 
improvement.
  Complying with the secondary treatment mandate will cost the city at 
least $2 billion, and possibly as much as $4.9 billion to comply with 
all of the requirements EPA has sought to impose on the city in return 
for a settlement of its lawsuit against the City for failure to achieve 
secondary treatment.
  San Diego's situation has received extensive scientific review 
because of this EPA lawsuit. After reviewing all of the evidence, the 
Federal district judge held that there would be no environmental 
benefit to forcing San Diego to meet secondary treatment. However, the 
judge cannot waive a statutory requirement. That is something we must 
do.
  San Diego's situation also has come to the attention of the Speaker. 
After reviewing all the facts, the Speaker decided that a waiver from 
secondary treatment for San Diego is a prime example of the type of 
bill to be considered under the new Corrections Calendar.
  H.R. 1943 is identical to a provision in the House-passed clean water 
bill, H.R. 961.
  It also is identical to a provision in the Boehlert-Saxton clean 
water substitute, so the House has already spoken on this issue. We 
should reinforce it today.
  The San Diego waiver is widely supported.
  Let me emphasize while Federal bureaucrats in Washington say this 
must be done, EPA in California, the California EPA, as well as the 
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, say this is unnecessary. 
This is a prime example of the bureaucrats in Washington imposing 
multibillion-dollar costs on the city which are absolutely unnecessary. 
It is a good bill. I am glad that it is the first bill brought up under 
our new Corrections Calendar, and I urge all of my colleagues to 
support this legislation. Send a message to the bureaucrats in 
Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I have here letters in support of this legislation from 
the California EPA, the Governor of California, and the Association of 
Metropolitan Sewage Agencies, which I will include in the Record.
                                          California Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                    Sacramento, CA, July 21, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The purpose of this letter is to convey 
     the California Environmental Protection Agency's (Cal/EPA's) 
     support for H.R. 1943, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act 
     of 1995. This bill would deem San Diego's Point Loma 
     Wastewater Treatment Plant to be the equivalent of secondary 
     treatment by virtue of its chemically enhanced primary 
     treatment combined with an exceptionally long and deep ocean 
     outfall.
       This support is in recognition of the demonstrated ability 
     of the Point Loma treatment plant to comply with California 
     State Ocean Plan standards. During 1994 the treatment 
     facility met every requirement of its National Pollutant 
     Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit without fail, 
     earning it the distinction of receiving a Gold Award from the 
     Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. This award 
     could only have been earned with a strict industrial source 
     control program, a well-run treatment plant, and an effective 
     ocean outfall.
       The California State Ocean Plan, which is tailored to 
     provide strict standards to protect the marine environment, 
     was developed in 1972 by the State Water Resources Control 
     Board. It was prepared by a team of scientists and was 
     adopted only after a series of public hearings and full 
     disclosure and review by all interested parties. It was also 
     approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. 
     EPA). Since the adoption of the initial plan, it has 
     undergone periodic review and been revised in 1973, 1978, 
     1983, and 1990. This document (now under revision, for 
     completion in 1997) is the basis for NPDES Permits for ocean 
     discharges within California, and contains over 200 
     standards--making it the most comprehensive state-adopted 
     plan in the nation. There has been some concern expressed in 
     the past about whether or not the Ocean Plan Standards are 
     enforceable in federal waters more than four miles offshore. 
     However, H.R. 1943 clearly requires compliance with Ocean 
     Plan Standards and therefore would be applicable to the Point 
     Loma outfall despite its termination in federal waters.
       There have been public allegations that under HR 1943 San 
     Diego would be allowed to discharge raw sewage or partially 
     treated sewage. That simply is not the case. The effluent 
     from the Point Loma treatment plant is required to meet all 
     State Ocean Plan standards, and will continue to be permitted 
     by California on this basis. The permit will be renewed every 
     five years, with full public review and input. In addition, 
     San Diego is required to continue its in-depth monitoring 
     program to ensure compliance with all standards and full 
     protection of the ocean. Reports are submitted monthly, 
     quarterly, and annually providing all of the data that 
     confirms compliance with permit requirements and attainment 
     of the Ocean Standards.
       I understand that some groups, including the U.S. EPA, 
     support the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act of 1994 but oppose 
     HR 1943. In a July 11, 1995 letter to you, the U.S. EPA 
     Assistant Administrator for Water, Mr. Bob Perciacepe, states 
     that the bill is ``unnecessary, eliminates public review, and 
     is scientifically unsound.'' Nothing could be further from 
     the truth. The bill is necessary to allow San Diego to plan 
     for the future without the vagaries of federal bureaucratic 
     changes; it includes the same public review of the permit and 
     scientific basis as the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act.
       Mr. Perciacepe's letter also states that H.R. 1943 
     conflicts with the National Research Council's 1993 report, 
     Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. He says that the 
     bill ``would provide for a blanket exemption from secondary 
     treatment, even if changed circumstances or evolving science 
     raise reasonable questions about the continued wisdom of the 
     waiver'' and that this conflicts with the report's caution to 
     allow flexibility to respond to new information. My 
     understanding is that H.R. 1943 includes precisely the 
     flexibility that the National Research Council suggests, 
     allowing the continuously-updated, site-specific criteria of 
     the State Ocean Plan to apply--rather than the one-size-fits-
     all secondary treatment requirement mandated by the Clean 
     Water Act over 20 years ago.
       In summary, we urge support for H.R. 1943 because current 
     monitoring and data analysis demonstrates that the ocean 
     waters offshore of the Point Loma treatment plant are fully 
     protected. Continuing compliance with the California State 
     Ocean Plan--including changes to the Plan reflecting evolving 
     and increasing scientific knowledge--will assure that the all 
     necessary protection remains in full force in the future.
           Sincerely,
     James M. Strock.
                                                                    ____

                                         Governor Pete Wilson,

                                    Sacramento, CA, July 18, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: The State of California supports H.R. 
     1943, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act of 1995. Your 
     leadership in establishing Corrections Day to expeditiously 
     address unnecessary regulations, like the one San Diego has 
     endured for over 20 years, is recognized and appreciated by 
     the citizens of this state, the ratepayers in the San Diego 
     region, and federal taxpayers everywhere.
       The question of whether or not San Diego should implement 
     secondary sewage treatment was an issue during my tenure as 
     mayor--and it is a tribute to Mayor Susan Golding that this 
     cause is being carried on despite almost overwhelming 
     bureaucratic and legal challenges presented by the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency and others.
       With the passage of H.R. 1943, San Diego will continue to 
     monitor the ocean that is such a precious resource to the 
     community, will continue to have oversight from the U.S. EPA 
     and California's EPA, will comply with rigorous requirements 
     of the California 

[[Page H 7564]]
     State Ocean Plan, and will save $3 billion by not having to build 
     unnecessary secondary treatment facilities.
       Thank you for your support of this bill and for 
     establishing a procedure for correcting this and other 
     unnecessary regulations.
           Sincerely,
     Pete Wilson.
                                                                    ____

                                       Association of Metropolitan


                                            Sewerage Agencies,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chair, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House 
         of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Shuster: I write today to express AMSA's 
     support for H.R. 1943, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act 
     of 1995. AMSA believes that unique ecosystems often require 
     site-specific solutions to effectively protect water quality. 
     H.R. 1943 provides such a solution by ensuring protection of 
     our coastal waters through the application of site-specific 
     water quality-based criteria for qualifying discharges to 
     marine waters.
       The legislation requires San Diego's publicly-owned 
     treatment works (POTWs) to work within the existing 
     permitting and enforcement provisions of the Clean Water Act, 
     and ensure that monitoring and reporting requirements 
     currently in place would continue. Under the legislation, 
     pretreatment requirements and all other provisions of the 
     Clean Water Act would also remain intact. H.R. 1943 will 
     allow San Diego to allocate scarce resources to areas of 
     greatest concern while providing no relaxation of water 
     quality standards and no exemption for effluent toxic 
     pollutant limitations.
       Site-specific criteria for marine dischargers is cost-
     effective and environmentally-sound. For this reason, AMSA 
     urges Congress' support of H.R. 1943.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Ken Kirk,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. It is unnecessary 
and an affront to the communities that most of us represent. In 
addition, it fails to meet the criteria for corrections legislation as 
set by the Speaker's guidelines. H.R. 1943 should not be approved by 
the House, and certainly not under Corrections Day procedures.


                        the bill is unnecessary

  The issue is not whether San Diego should receive a waiver from 
secondary treatment. San Diego will receive its waiver. Under 
legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton last 
year, San Diego alone got the right to seek a waiver, and has applied 
for a waiver from secondary treatment. EPA has publicly announced that 
it fully expects to grant the waiver in the near future, after the 
normal process which includes the opportunity for public comment.
  I have observed a common thread in many of the arguments offered in 
support of H.R. 1943: There is a steadfast commitment to ignoring the 
legislation that was enacted into law last year which addressed San 
Diego's need for relief from secondary treatment requirements.
  For example, a ``Dear Colleague'' in support of H.R. 1943 claims that 
``The fact is, there is no disagreement that San Diego needs this 
legislation. * * *'' That simply is not true. There is considerable 
disagreement as to San Diego's need for this legislation, as evidenced 
by this debate.
  Some acknowledge the existence of last year's fix, but try to make 
the case that H.R. 1943 is necessary because last year's enacted San 
Diego bill is inadequate. The concern is that last year's bill does not 
grant a permanent exemption from secondary treatment.
  But why should San Diego get a permanent waiver, when not one single 
waiver recipient in the history of the Clean Water Act has received a 
permanent waiver of this type?
  Is it the cost of reapplying? No. Most of the cost of periodic re-
application and review is the cost of monitoring, and that cost will be 
incurred with or without H.R. 1943.
  Is it the risk that San Diego may lose its waiver during a 5- or 10-
year review? No. Every other waiver recipient is required to 
demonstrate that its waiver continues to be appropriate in view of 
changing conditions or new information. And, none is
 known to have lost its waiver in the course of such a review. 
Moreover, if new information or changed conditions prove that the 
waiver is harming human health, then sound science would dictate that 
there be an opportunity to reconsider the terms of the waiver.

  It also has been suggested that H.R. 1943 is needed because even if, 
as expected, EPA approves the waiver this August, San Diego will be in 
the same position as it was previously when EPA reversed a prior 
tentative approval.
  This assertion ignores the fact that San Diego's first effort at 
getting a secondary waiver failed because the State of California 
opposed the plan as inconsistent with the State's ocean standards. San 
Diego then withdrew its waiver application, knowing that, under the law 
then in effect, to do so was to forever forgo any further option of 
obtaining a waiver.
  This time around, however, the State of California supports the 
waiver application San Diego has already made under last year's bill.
  The simple truth is that no further legislative action is necessary 
for San Diego to be relieved from the secondary treatment requirements 
of the Clean Water Act.
  This bill is not about San Diego not doing secondary treatment. San 
Diego is about to receive a waiver of secondary treatment. This bill is 
about allowing San Diego to do substantially less treatment than it is 
doing today. This is unconscionable. That is why I will offer a motion 
to recommit with instructions to adopt the amendment Mr. Filner offered 
in committee, which would assure that San Diego would at least not 
backslide from where it is today.
  All of the supporters of this bill argue that San Diego's discharge 
is not harmful--but they are referring to San Diego's current 
discharge, and this bill allows a massive rollback of treatment. My 
motion will require San Diego to meet its current level of treatment, 
nothing additional, and will not require San Diego to achieve secondary 
treatment. If San Diego's sewage is not harmful at today's levels, then 
San Diego should continue today's level of treatment and not be allowed 
to increase its pollution in the ocean.


                           the bill is unfair

  A second issue I will raise, Mr. Speaker, is the inequity of taking 
up H.R. 1943 when there are far greater issues to be addressed in the 
Clean Water Act. H.R. 1943 is an affront to the communities that most 
of us represent.
  At the same time that San Diego is getting special treatment, less 
than 1 year after it received special treatment allowing it to apply 
for a waiver, the Republican leadership is supporting a provision in 
the VA/HUD appropriations which denies $1.4 billion in grants to States 
and cities to implement Clean Water Act programs. All of our cities and 
States continue to bear the burden of State and Federal requirements to 
improve water quality.
  Funding for fiscal year 1996 for every city and State is being held 
hostage by the Appropriations Committee for reauthorization of the 
Clean Water Act, yet San Diego is singled out for its own private 
relief bill. San Diego does not have to wait for Clean Water Act 
reauthorization--and it is the one community which doesn't need any 
legislation.
  Why is it that San Diego, which will receive a waiver from secondary 
treatment with no further legislation, is getting a bill considered 
separately, and yet thousands of communities which are in technical 
violation of the law for failure to have stormwater permits cannot 
receive separate legislative attention?
  Why is it that the hundreds of cities looking for approval of EPA's 
combined sewer overflow policy cannot receive separate legislative 
action?
  None of these communities will receive any assistance by the action 
which we are taking today. Thousands of communities which need 
legislation are being told that they must wait for the larger bill to 
be considered. Yet the one city that needs no further legislative 
action to receive the relief which it wants is getting a special bill, 
just for it, for the third time in less than a year. The thousands of 
other communities can wait.


    h.r. 1943 fails to meet the criteria for corrections legislation

  I also want to note, Mr. Speaker, that H.R. 1943 fails to meet the 
substantive and procedural requirements for bills to be
 considered under the corrections procedure. For example, it 

[[Page H 7565]]
does not ``address rules, regulations, statutory laws or court 
decisions which impose a severe financial burden, are ambiguous, 
arbitrary, or ludicrous.'' Nor does it ``aid the average family, small 
business, worker, or promote the well-being of all.'' EPA has already 
announced that San Diego will receive a waiver of secondary treatment 
requirements, thereby saving San Diego as much as $1 billion.

  It has been suggested that the bill meets corrections criteria 
because it addresses a court decision and a statutory requirement that 
impose heavy financial burdens on the taxpayer. This assertion may have 
been compelling were it not for the fact that last year's enacted bill 
has already relieved the citizens of San Diego of this burden, by 
providing for a waiver of secondary requirements.


                               conclusion

  This bill is completely unnecessary, it is an injustice to the 
majority of communities and citizens that each of us represents, and it 
is motivated solely by politics.
  I recognize that the bill may well pass this House anyway, but it 
will not pass for the right reasons. That is why I will offer a motion 
to recommit upon conclusion of the debate. My motion to recommit will 
simply instruct that the amendment Mr. Filner offered in committee, 
assuring that San Diego at least would provide no less treatment than 
it provides today, be made a part of this bill. My motion will reveal 
what this bill is really all about. If the proponents just want a 
secondary waiver, they will support my motion to recommit with 
instructions. But if what they really want is for San Diego to do less 
treatment than it is doing today, then they will oppose my motion. We 
will soon know what this is all about.
  If my motion to recommit is defeated, then what we have here is a 
bill to allow San Diego to rollback its existing treatment, not a bill 
just to excuse San Diego from improving its treatment levels. And a 
bill to rollback existing treatment should definitely be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, some background is useful here. In passing the Clean 
Water in 1972, Congress faced the question of whether to require all 
cities to do the same level of sewage treatment, or to base treatment 
requirements on the local conditions of the water body into which the 
treatment works discharged. Congress decided that the most reasonable 
approach was to require all cities to do a basic level of treatment--
referred to as secondary treatment--and then subsequently and only 
where clearly necessary to protect receiving waters, standards could be 
raised to higher levels of treatment. Under the act, all communities 
were required to achieve secondary treatment by July 1, 1988. The 
majority of communities have not been required to do more, although 
some, including my own city of San Jose have gone considerably beyond 
secondary treatment to tertiary treatment.
  The secondary treatment requirement, and the corresponding basic 
level of treatment for industrial dischargers, has accounted for most 
of the success under the Clean Water Act, which is widely acknowledged 
to be the most successful of the environmental statutes. Key to that 
success is that a basic level of treatment was required up front, so 
that cleanup could begin before the endless litigation which has 
plagued most environmental programs. More difficult questions of how 
much treatment was enough were postponed until later, and in most 
instances have not needed to be raised at all.
  In the 1977 amendments to the act, Congress created the section 
301(h) waiver window, under which communities with deep ocean outfalls 
could apply for and receive a waiver from the secondary treatment 
requirement if they could show that there would be no harm to health 
and the environment as a result. Communities could only submit waivers 
from 1977 through 1982,
 although waiver applications submitted within the window could be 
acted on after 1982.

  Approximately 40 cities, many of them small communities adjacent to 
close-in deep waters along the Alaska and Maine coasts, have received 
the waivers. Unfortunately a few larger coastal cities, with more 
dubious claims of having deep ocean outfalls, wasted years in failed 
attempts to qualify for the waiver, and as a result are now far behind 
where most communities are and are having to play a very expensive game 
of catch-up. San Diego is on of those cities.
  San Diego applied for a secondary waiver during the original section 
301(h) application period in 1978, at a time when its ocean outfall was 
approximately 2 miles out and 200 feet deep. It was originally not EPA, 
but the State of California under Governor Deukmejian, which opposed 
San Diego's application as inconsistent with the State ocean plan. 
California based that decision on the fact that the outfall was in a 
major kelp bed which was actively used for recreation, and on the fact 
that it did not consider the existing outfall pipe to be reliable. 
Several years later, California's concerns were borne out when the 
outfall pipe burst, spewing sewage which washed ashore forcing the 
closure of 4\1/2\ miles of beaches.
  Based on the negative findings of the State of California, President 
Reagan's administration gave San Diego's waiver application a tentative 
denial in 1986.
  At this point, San Diego had the option of revising its waiver 
application and continuing to pursue it. It could have, for example, 
done what it has done in the 1990's, which is rebuild its outfall pipe 
to a deeper point farther out (it is now approximately 4.5 miles out 
and 310-320 feet deep) and meet the waiver requirements in that way. 
San Diego considered that option, but in 1987 rejected it in favor of 
keeping its existing outfall and investing instead in secondary 
treatment. As a result, in 1987, San Diego voluntarily withdrew its 
waiver application, knowing that under law it would as a result be 
committed to achieving secondary treatment and could not not go back to 
seeking a waiver.
  If San Diego had not withdrawn its application, no waiver legislation 
would ever have been necessary for San Diego. Only because it first 
decided to seek a waiver, then in 1987 reversed itself and decided it 
did not want a waiver, then in the early 1990's reversed itself again 
and decided it did want to waiver, did Congress have a face the 
question of providing special legislation for San Diego.
  Thus, if the purpose of Corrections Day is to correct ill-advised 
Federal regulatory or legislative requirements, San Diego's secondary 
treatment is hardly an appropriate case. The issue of San Diego's 
secondary treatment stands more for vacillating and inconsistent 
municipal decisionmaking than it does for Federal intrusiveness and 
inflexibility. The problem here was not inflexible Federal laws or 
regulations. Federal law was flexible in that it gave San Diego the 
opportunity to deal with the objections of the State of California 
either by going to secondary treatment or by extending its outfall 
pipe. San Diego's problem was that it could not stick with one decision 
or the other; it was not capable of handling the flexibility it was 
given.
  San Diego is a better case for giving less flexibility to 
municipalities than it is for giving more. And I consider that very 
unfortunate, because as a former mayor myself I have long worked to 
achieve greater flexibility for municipalities. What has needed 
correcting here has been local, not Federal.
  When San Diego reversed itself for the second time and sought, in the 
last Congress, a legislatively granted waiver, it made several key 
representatives as to why it should be accorded the special treatment 
of having the waiver window reopened for it. First, it represented that 
it required only a slight deviation from secondary treatment standards 
and only with respect to biological oxygen demands [BOD]. It would 
continue to meet, for example, the secondary treatment standard for 85 
percent removal of total suspended solids. Second, it would reduce the 
total amount of its discharge by undertaking a major reclamation 
project, by which a significant minority of San Diego's total 
wastewater would be reclaimed and used for various landside purposes. 
And third, by obtaining a waiver it would be subject to the same kinds 
of monitoring and periodic renewal that any waiver holder and any 
permit holder is subject to in order to assure that there are no 
substantial deviations.

[[Page H 7566]]

  In the course of considering that legislation during 1994, San Diego 
again began changing its mind as to what it was willing to do. As a 
result, the bill enacted in the fall of 1994, at San Diego's 
insistence, relaxed not only the BOD standard from 85 to 58 percent, 
but also lowered the total suspended solids standard from 85 to 80 
percent; and it reduced the amount of reclamation and extended the date 
by which it would achieve that reclamation, as compared to San Diego's 
initial representations.
  The bill Congress enacted in the fall of 1994 was what San Diego said 
in the fall of 1994 it could do and was willing to do. Yet now in 1995, 
San Diego is back trying to get out of what it had just said it would 
do. Under H.R. 1943, San Diego would receive in effect a permanent 
exemption from secondary treatment--no conditions, no review, no 
questions asked. Not only would the secondary treatment standard be 
tossed aside, but so would the 58 percent BOD standard and the 80 
percent total suspended solids standard. Anything that was chemically 
enhanced primary treatment would qualify. That simply means screening 
out the larger solids and adding chemicals to the rest--basically 
untreated sewage except for the addition of chemicals. Any requirement 
for reclamation would be tossed aside. And there would be no 
requirement for periodic review. It is important to note that this bill 
would allow San Diego to provide significantly less treatment than it 
provides today.
  So the issue presented by H.R. 1943 is not whether San Diego should 
have to do secondary treatment--it will not have to do secondary 
treatment whether this bill is enacted or not. The issue is whether San 
Diego should have to do the things it proposed a few months ago that it 
should do in lieu of secondary treatment and whether it should even 
have to continue the low level of treatment it provides today.
  I should also note that it is sometimes claimed that the Scripps 
Institution of Oceanography supports this bill. That is not true, and I 
have reconfirmed that with the director of the institution. There are a 
couple of employees of the institution who, as individuals, endorsed a 
secondary waiver for San Diego, but whatever their position may be, 
they do not speak for Scripps.
  Let me conclude with these points. This is not a case of excessive or 
rigid Federal requirements needing to be corrected. The problem here is 
that Federal law--section 301(h) in particular--gave San Diego a degree 
of flexibility which it could not handle. First San Diego wanted a 
waiver, then it rejected the waiver option, then it wanted the waiver 
and needed legislation to get it, then it wanted legislation to 
eliminate the commitments it had devised to get the wavier legislation.
  Second, San Diego is already getting its secondary waiver pursuant to 
legislation enacted last year. No further legislation is necessary or 
advisable; it's only purpose is to even further weaken the limited 
protections in the waiver San Diego is about to get under last year's 
bill. Last year San Diego wanted and got a waiver. This year it wants 
carte blanche to pollute as it sees fit, and it shouldn't get it.
  Third, it is not as though Corrections Day is necessary for there to 
be congressional consideration of this bill. Provisions similar to H.R. 
794 have already been included in section 309 of H.R. 961, which was 
approved by the House. This situation hardly stands for the proposition 
that without Corrections Day issues like San Diego's sewage treatment 
cannot get expeditious legislative action. This issue has already been 
considered and passed through this committee and the House as part of 
H.R. 961.
  The concept of Corrections Day is that there should be an opportunity 
to repeal Federal requirements which are so clearly ill-advised that 
their repeal would be noncontroversial and approved by an overwhelming 
and bipartisan vote. This bill does not meet those parameters. This 
bill is not noncontroversial and I oppose it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the committee, for bringing this first 
corrections day procedure to the floor, and I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the first corrections day bill of 
the 104th Congress, H.R. 1943 represents the correction of a dumb 
government action and is an excellent start to the corrections process 
for this Congress.
  The concept of corrections day originated with the Speaker of the 
House earlier this year. At that time, the Speaker created a 
Corrections Day Task Force to formulate a proposal to bring legislation 
to the House floor to fix arbitrary, ambiguous, and ludicrous laws, 
government regulations, or actions.
  Mr. Speaker, that task force went to work and produced an excellent 
proposal. The task force was very ably chaired by the gentlelady from 
Nevada, Mrs. Vucanovich, and also consisted of Representatives Zeliff 
and McIntosh. These Members held countless meetings and participated in 
several committee hearings in the appropriate committees of 
jurisdiction to refine the corrections concept.
  The Rules Committee eventually took up their product and held 
hearings and a markup of House Resolution 168, a House rules change to 
abolish the Consent Calendar and create a Corrections Calendar.
  Mr. Speaker, that resolution passed the House on June 20, 1995, on a 
bipartisan basis, by a vote of 271 to 146.
  The corrections day process agreed to by the House on that day meets 
the goals established by the Speaker and preserves the deliberative 
aspects of the legislative process.
  The corrections procedure protects the committee system in the House, 
in which detailed analysis and consideration of legislation takes 
place. To be eligible for corrections day, bills must be reported by a 
primary committee of jurisdiction and placed on the Union or House 
calendar.
  The procedure also requires a three to five vote to pass, ensuring 
that only bipartisan measures will brought to the floor.
  To many Americans, this may sound like inside baseball. But the fact 
is, Mr. Speaker, this procedure will have real results for real people 
in real towns.
  My constituents in upstate New York have been saddled with the costs 
of unwise regulations generated by this Government for years.
  Today, on a bipartisan basis, the House is initiating an innovative 
new technique to repeal these costly dumb rules.
  For 10 years, the city of San Diego has been involved in a dispute 
over an exemption from the so-called secondary treatment requirement 
for sewage discharged miles out into the ocean under the Clean Water 
Act. The San Diego treatment system has been examined by scientists and 
the California Environmental Protection Agency and both support the 
need for this legislative exemption.
  According to the Congressional Budget Office, estimates to upgrade 
the San Diego facility to comply with this arbitrary rule could amount 
to several billion dollars. Additionally, the city estimates that its 
recent application for a waiver from the rule cost $1 million to 
prepare. Enactment of this legislation will save potentially billions 
in construction and other costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this legislation and I am proud 
to be considering it under the new corrections procedure.
  I strongly urge support for this very first corrections day bill to 
come before this House. Please come over here and vote unanimously for 
it. We will send these bureaucrats a message.

                              {time}  1040

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement], a very distinguished colleague.
  (Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a strong supporter of the clean 
water bill when it passed the House last May to urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the bill before us today. Let me take a moment to 
explain why I oppose the 

[[Page H 7567]]
bill before us today even though I supported the larger bill from which 
it was taken.
  I supported the clean water bill because it contained key provisions 
which were very important to my constituents. Most Members who 
supported the bill did so for the same reason. For some Members the 
specific provision their constituents wanted was wetlands reform, for 
others it was agricultural runoff issues, and still for others, it was 
relief for their municipalities on the combined sewage overflow issue 
or on the stormwater permits issue.
  Whatever the individual Member issue, there was something in that 
bill that was very important to each of us and to our constituents.
  Now we see the San Diego provision being split off from the rest of 
the bill for priority treatment. The San Diego provision does none of 
the things that our constituents want. What San Diego wanted they 
already got last year: special legislation so they could get a waiver 
from secondary treatment. They already have that special treatment.
  Now we are being asked to ignore our constituents and what they want, 
but go ahead and give special legislation to San Diego, which already 
has it.
  If your constituents really need wetlands reform, or moderation on 
agricultural runoff issues, or a break on combined sewage overflow or 
municipal stormwater permits, then I suggest you vote ``no'' on any 
bill which gives priority treatment to somebody else's provision in the 
clean water bill and ignores yours. If we are going to start splitting 
the clean water bill apart, it ought to solve more than one city's 
problems. I am sure you will agree with me that our problems are at 
least as important as San Diego's.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1943 and on any other 
clean water split-offs that do not do anything for your constituents.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, this is not special for San Diego. This is 
special for the taxpayers of the United States, because they are the 
people that are going to be paying this $2 billion for an unnecessary 
secondary treatment.
  This is exactly what Sam Donaldson was talking about the other day 
when he stood in the middle of the Arizona desert in his special on 
regulation and talked about the massive protection for, ``aquatic 
creatures, water creatures,'' that EPA was thrusting on Arizona. He 
went to EPA and said, ``Show me the aquatic creatures in the middle of 
the Arizona desert.'' They could not show it to him. They could not 
show him a reason for the regulation.
  Here we have in San Diego the best ocean scientists in the world at 
Scripps saying you do not have to have secondary regulation. I will say 
to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], I have been 
to the meetings with EPA sitting there saying, ``We don't care what 
they say, it says right here in the law you're going to build a $2 
billion plant. By golly, you're going to build it.''
  This helps all the taxpayers.
  It has been said that this is going to prejudice in some way other 
communities. This is not going to prejudice other communities. This is 
going to pave the way for other communities to lift their unnecessary 
regulation. Believe me, all of us are going to be voting right with 
you. This is a great symbol of common sense and science meeting 
dumbbell regulation and overtaking it.
  Please vote ``yes.''
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier].
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, for yielding me this time.
  Today is a great day for the people's House, because this concept, 
which was first initiated by Speaker Gingrich following a conversation 
with the mayor of San Diego and several other State and local elected 
officials, established corrections day. The concept being very simply 
that we should look at some of the most preposterous ideas that are out 
there by way of Government regulation, that have been imposed from 
Washington, DC on State and local governments and other entities, and 
deal with them. A three-fifths vote is required, and we will have from 
this institution taken our action to actually eliminate it.
  This issue has raised some controversy on the other side of the 
aisle, and some statements have been made that frankly need to be 
addressed. My very good California colleague from the San Jose area up 
north has said that this is pure politics. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is 
not pure politics.
  As was said by the gentleman from Tennessee, this was addressed 
earlier by a vote when this institution was under the control of what 
is now, I am happy to say, the minority party. When the Democrats 
controlled this institution, they took action providing this waiver, 
yet the Environmental Protection agency has still been screwing around 
with this.
  We have now gotten to the point where we want to take the firm action 
that is necessary to deal with it, and that is what we are doing today. 
It has not been handled adequately. To call it pure politics is way off 
base. Why? Because the bipartisan effort has come together to deal with 
this question.
  Dr. Ravel, in his last words to Brian Bilbray, who has worked long 
and hard on this, who was a member of the San Diego County Board of 
Supervisors, said that this issue needs to be addressed. He is not some 
right-wing conservative Republican who is playing pure politics; the 
father who discovered the whole greenhouse effect. He said this to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] before he passed away.
  My colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], and others have worked on this. 
This is the responsible thing to do. We should move forward and do it 
immediately in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Packard].
  (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, today marks the first Corrections Day in 
the history of Congress. I cannot tell you how pleased I am that the 
first issue being considered is one that I have worked for years to get 
passed.
  For over a decade I have worked to relieve San Diego of an arbitrary 
mandate in the Clean Water Act that costs San Diego ratepayers and the 
American taxpayers $3 billion for additions and alterations to their 
sewage treatment system. Even though scientific evidence demonstrates 
that the city's advanced primary treatment already complies with the 
standard set forth in the Clean Water Act, we have been forced to 
submit to the ludicrous regulation.
  Today, we have the opportunity to make government more accountable 
and establish a way for Congress to quickly fix onerous and burdensome 
regulations. Corrections Day signals the people's triumph over silly, 
obsolete rules and regulations and the bureaucracies that thrive on 
them.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution, and let us put a stop to a 
requirement of billions of dollars to be paid for no appreciable gain.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my good friend the gentleman on the 
other side of the aisle has stated that this legislation was motivated 
by politics. Commissioner Ganagi, the mayor of San Diego, the Governor 
of the State of California, the delegation that represents the area, 2 
million people, support this legislation. The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Bilbray] as a mayor supported this years and years ago and now is 
in the House and still fighting the same battle. The Ocean Pollution 
Reduction Act that was rushed through Congress last year only says that 
San Diego can apply for a waiver. The gentleman stated that no other 
place has ever received this waiver.
  This is an extreme example of an unfunded mandate. Every Member, 
Republican and Democrat, has onerous rules and regulations by the 
Federal Government that is inflexible, that 

[[Page H 7568]]
should be allowed some change. The EPA and the rule for off-sewage was 
written when you dump already treated sewage into a lake or river. Best 
science from Scripps Oceanographic, these people deal in what is good 
for the ocean, have stated good science, it actually enhances the 
ecology of the ocean because this is not dumped into a lake or a river, 
it is dumped miles and
 miles out to sea below a depth of 300 feet.

  What else does it mean? It means that the residents of California 
will pay. Think of the senior citizen on a fixed income that is going 
to have her sewage bill doubled when it is not even necessary and good 
science says it is not necessary but certain special interest groups 
fight to change it.
  Speaker Gingrich took a look and said, let's take some of these 
Federal regulations that affect Members on both sides of the aisle, 
that are onerous and that are not working, written with good intention 
but they are inflexible, and let's change some of that on the House 
floor.
  That is what this is about. For years and years we have been working 
on this situation, and just applying for a waiver does not do it. This 
does it. This completes that requirement. The delegation from San 
Diego, with Mr. Hunter, Mr. Packard, Mr. Bilbray, myself, and even Mr. 
Filner on the other side of the aisle, have worked on this thing over 
and over again trying to make this change. This is a chance finally to 
come to fruition. I ask my colleagues to support it. It is important, 
and it is one of the first steps we have to bring logic back to this 
House.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day in this House in my 
opinion. When I was first elected to the House of Representatives back 
in 1988, it was a fall after a summer when the Jersey shore and many of 
the States along the eastern coast had experienced very severe ocean 
pollution problems, beach washups, problems from sewage discharge and 
from other pollution that was dumped into the ocean. I thought at that 
time after the very strict laws that were passed, the Clean Water Act 
and various other legislation, that we had learned the lesson that we 
cannot dump in the ocean. Today I find out that that simply is not 
true. The message that we are sending today to the American people is 
that it is OK to dump in the ocean. It does not matter. This Congress 
does not care.
  How ironic that on the first Corrections Day, instead of dealing with 
things that are really arbitrary or ludicrous or capricious like the 
$250 toilet seat or other agency actions that we know should be taken 
up on Corrections Day, instead we are granting an automatic and 
permanent waiver for the ocean discharge of waste. I guess the idea of 
protecting our environment, our water, our oceans in which we swim and 
fish is something that this House now considers, and I think one of the 
gentleman said, arbitrary or ludicrous, since this is a substantive 
requirement of Corrections Day.
  The whole idea of trying to achieve secondary treatment is not 
ludicrous and it is certainly not arbitrary. It makes a lot of sense. 
That is why we have laws on the books which this is trying to change 
that require secondary treatment.
  Secondary treatment is critical to the removal of organic material 
from sewage. This is the material that is linked to diseases like 
hepatitis and gastroenteritis for swimmers.
  Mr. Speaker, we have in the Clean Water Act an effort to try to go 
down this slippery slope. Let us not kid ourselves. This is not just 
San Diego. Today it is San Diego, tomorrow it is going to be other 
California cities, then other cities around the country. We remember 
during the Clean Water Act that the Clean Water Act reauthorization 
specifically allows waivers, not only for San Diego but for a number of 
other cities around the country. Then they added the provision that 
said that for cities that were under 10,000 or municipalities that had 
under
 10,000, that they might be able get a waiver. Then they added Puerto 
Rico, then Alaska. This is the beginning of the end in my opinion for 
secondary treatment and the requirement that that imposes. The notion 
that somehow that is okay and that we are going to take this material 
and dump it further and further out to sea and somehow it is not going 
to come back, that is the ludicrous part of what we are considering 
today.

  In light of what occurred a couple of months ago in the Clean Water 
Act, I guess there is no reason to be surprised today. We are dealing 
with a number of efforts to degrade the environment. The Interior 
appropriations bill, the cuts in funding for both NOAA and EPA which we 
are about to address, all of these things are gradually taking us down 
the slippery slope. In addition to that, I think we have to understand 
that this bill eliminates a number of things that are very important. 
It eliminates the public review of the decision to allow the waiver. 
Essentially without this bill under the existing waiver process that is 
already law, there would be a public review that would start occurring 
sometime this summer or sometime in the near future. This is eliminated 
under this bill.
  Also there has been a lot of mention about the scientific basis for 
this. Another thing this bill eliminates is basically the ability to 
look at the science in the future, because once the waiver is granted, 
if we find out that this process does not achieve what the authors are 
saying it is going to achieve, what opportunity is there to go back and 
look at the future science of the process?
  I guess my problem here today, Mr. Speaker, is that I just think that 
the process of considering this bill on the Corrections Day Calendar is 
really improper because it is essentially saying to this House that 
Corrections Day is a day when we can make exemptions to environmental 
laws.
  Coastal and ocean waters do not recognize State boundaries. We 
learned that a few years ago in New Jersey when medical waste from New 
York washed up on our shores. As a representative from a coastal State, 
I can tell you that my constituents do not want ocean disposal of 
waste. They do not want environmental loopholes and waivers. They 
certainly do not consider environmental regulations that protect our 
water, our estuaries, our wetlands and our beaches as arbitrary and 
capricious. Although today we are talking about California, this sets a 
very dangerous precedent. Today it is California but next Corrections 
Day it may be your neighboring State. There is absolutely no way that 
we are going to ultimately obtain the goal of the Clean Waste Act which 
is fishable and swimmable waters around this Nation if we continue this 
process.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a historic day. For the first time we have before 
us an item from the Corrections Calendar. As Chairman of the 
Corrections Day advisory group, I would like to discuss why I and the 
majority of Members of the Speakers advisory group recommended this 
bill for consideration on the Corrections Calendar. In fairness, I want 
to acknowledge that three members of the advisory group opposed placing 
this item on the calendar.
  Let me say that the fact that this bill does not have unanimous 
support does not disqualify it from the corrections procedure.
  Obviously, I would prefer that every Member support this bill, but in 
designing the corrections procedure we anticipated some opposition to 
items on the calendar. If we restrict ourselves to only those items 
with unanimous support we would not need the Corrections Calendar.
  Much inaccurate information has been put out by those who would like 
to see corrections day fail. It boggles my mind that these new 
defenders of corrections day claim San Diego should not be a correction 
bill, when it was this very situation which prompted the Speaker to 
suggest the idea of corrections day. I would remind my colleagues that 
many of these same defenders of the corrections day process are the 
ones who argued strenuously not to even have corrections day.
  Mr. Speaker, the San Diego waste water problem is precisely the type 
of legislation we should be doing on this calendar. It will save the 
nearly 2 million residents of San Diego County billions of dollars. 
This bill is narrow in 

[[Page H 7569]]
scope as it should be to be considered on this calendar, and it has 
bipartisan support. Most importantly it is time we bring over 20 years 
of wrangling between the EPA and San Diego to an end. Delaying this 
legislation will only cost the taxpayers of southern California 
millions more of their tax dollars with no change in the end result.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote in support of this legislation.
                             {time}   1100

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Rivers].
  (Ms. RIVERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

  [Ms. RIVERS addressed the House. Her remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________