[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 121 (Tuesday, July 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7569-H7576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from San Diego, CA [Mr. Filner].
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 1943. Let me stress that this has been a bipartisan 
effort, both in San Diego, where the request originated, and in this 
Congress, where I hope a bipartisan coalition will pass this 
legislation today.
  Without this legislation, San Diegans would be forced to pay billions 
of dollars to meet a bureaucratic requirement that makes no sense, 
given San Diego's geographic position and technological method of 
treating sewage.
  This has been a long fight for me personally. In fact, I have spent 
more than 6 years fighting against this nonsensical requirement. I was 
one of the first members of the San Diego city council who was 
convinced by the testimony of marine scientists from the world-renowned 
Scripps Institute of Oceanography that San Diego was already doing the 
right thing for the environment.
  One of the first bills that I introduced in 1993 as a freshman in the 
103d Congress was H.R. 3190, which is very similar to the bill we are 
discussing today. And in late 1994 in the 103d Congress, my colleagues 
in the Congress unanimously passed my legislation to allow San Diego to 
apply for a waiver from the requirements of the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. Speaker, that bill allowed San Diego to apply for a waiver from 
the Clean Water Act's secondary treatment standards. I am proud to 
state that that application has been submitted and, because it was 
based on sound science, it has already received preliminary approval by 
the EPA. We have no doubt that this application will soon receive final 
approval.
  But we are here today to take the necessary next step; that is to 
remove the requirement that San Diego reapply for that waiver every 5 
years. I want to ensure that San Diego is not required to spend 
millions of taxpayer dollars every 5 years to reapply for a waiver, or 
that it run the risk that some EPA administrator in the future, as it 
has in the past, may reject the waiver application and force San Diego 
into a wasteful transformation of its sewage treatment system.
  Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues have legitimate concerns about 
this legislation, but I want to reassure all of my colleagues that San 
Diego will still have to meet the basic environmental mandates of
 the Clean Water Act and that no damage to the marine environment will 
result.

  This bill requires that San Diego comply with one of the most 
restrictive State ocean plans, California's ocean plan, which 
stipulates a minimum of 75 percent suspended solids removal. The 
California State ocean plan, which has been approved by the national 
EPA, includes a list of standards for specific chemicals that is more 
restrictive than Clean Water Act standards.
  These standards will apply, despite the fact that San Diego's ocean 
outfall is 4 miles out to sea, and therefore outside of the 3-mile 
jurisdiction of the State, because H.R. 1943 would require that the 
city of San Diego apply to the State of California and EPA for an NPDES 
permit ever 5 years. Because of this permit requirement, I have no 
doubt that the EPA will hold San Diego to State of California ocean 
plan standards.
  Finally, at the request of the marine scientists from the Scripps 
Institute, this bill will require San Diego to continue its 
comprehensive ocean monitoring system. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill. It is the right thing to do for both the environment and the 
taxpayers of San Diego.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out, finally, that the protections in 
this bill to require San Diego to meet the California State ocean plan 
and to submit to the comprehensive ocean monitoring system will protect 
against some of the fears that my colleagues have.
  This means that San Diego will not only measure the quality of the 
effluent that is entering the ocean outfall but, more importantly, it 
will conduct a thorough assessment of the effects of the effluent on 
the marine environment. This monitoring system will be evaluated in 
turn not only by State and Federal agencies, but will be made available 
for review by the best marine scientists in the world, the experts that 
work at Scripps.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask my colleague a question on 
that. With regard to the standards, is my colleague familiar with this 
motion to recommit that I intend to offer?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I am.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleague how he feels and whether 
he will be supporting that motion.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, as my friend knows, in the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure I submitted an amendment, which he 
has in his recommittal motion, which will in fact help this bill meet 
some of the problems that some of my colleagues have by requiring 
certain standards that we already meet that we are pledged to do, that 
will require no extra expense. I think that makes this bill stronger 
when it goes to the Senate and when it goes to the President.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleague, that requirement 
makes a lot of sense.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
commonsense legislation. I would point out that it has been considered 
at some length in the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
over which I have the pleasure of chairing. It has been considered by 
the full committee, and as a matter of fact, everyone in this House has 
essentially approved the language of this legislation, because it was 
included in H.R. 961. I did not support that bill; however, we did have 
an alternative, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and myself, 
and that same language was in the alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, this just makes a whole lot of sense. Scientists agree 
that the city's current level of treatment is not harming the ocean 
environment. Complying with the secondary treatment mandate will cost 
the city over $2 billion, and possibly as much as $4.9 billion, if the 
city is enforced to install all the treatment facilities that EPA has 
sought to require the return for settlement of its litigation against 
the city.
  We are moving in the right direction. Frankly, this debate over this 
bill is not over environmental protection. I take a back seat to no one 
on being a strong environmentalist. It is about process. I urge my 
colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this legislation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich] for bringing this issue to the House floor.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues might ask what is a Representative from 
Indiana doing talking about an issue that 

[[Page H 7570]]
affects southern California? But as a member of the advisory committee 
on Corrections Day, this is an issue that is exactly what we were 
looking for in trying to correct unnecessary problems created in our 
regulatory process.
  Mr. Speaker, it is an example of how the one-size-fits-all approach 
actually ends up with a stupid result. The environmental scientists at 
the Scripps Institute say that this waiver for San Diego is actually 
proenvironmental. It will help create a better environment for southern 
California.
  The professional radical environmentalists say, ``No, no, we cannot 
allow any waivers at any time.'' But the scientists, the biologists, 
say this action will be good and will help clean the environment in 
southern California.
  When I asked mayors in Indiana, Do you mind if we start giving 
waivers for cities around the country
 where the situation is different for them on some of these 
environmental regulations, they said to me, ``No, I think it is a good 
idea. Have the situation taken into account for each city, but give us 
a chance to also make our arguments when an issue comes up.''

  Everyone wants to do what is best for the environment in their 
region. It will help save taxpayer dollars and it is time that we act 
how to solve this problem.
  Mr. Speaker, I talked with Mayor Golding of San Diego earlier this 
morning and she told me that she has been working on this issue for 20 
years and that EPA has failed to give them a waiver or allow them to do 
what is both good economics and good for the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, we have waited 20 years so far for a waiver from EPA. I 
do not think we need to wait anymore. It is time that Congress act and 
grant this exemption and do something that is good for the environment 
and for the citizens of San Diego. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor of this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me say I rise in support of 
Corrections Day. I received numerous phone calls in my office 
supporting the approach for us to begin to curb government regulation, 
overburdensome government regulation, and I think today this is a good 
procedure by which we can begin to do that. Both sides of the aisle, we 
want to do away with overburdensome regulation. We want to do away with 
regulations that are unneeded.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to rise in support of H.R. 1943. What I 
think we are doing today, this type of legislation is ideally served 
for the need of the Corrections Day procedures. The Clean Water Act is 
a perfect example of an unfunded mandate. H.R. 1943 will help alleviate 
from the local government a burden of $3 billion, an unnecessary 
burden, because of this regulation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think Corrections Day is intended to give us immediate 
response to misguided laws or government policy. This is clearly a 
misguided initiative by the EPA. I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 
1943.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our very fine colleague, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].
  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am a Member of the corrections advisory 
committee, and I support the idea of a Corrections Day. But that 
Corrections Day ought to be to correct laws or regulations that have 
unintended and burdensome effects. We ought to correct on a bipartisan 
basis. We ought to limit our corrections to those we can all support 
and we will ensure against abuse of that corrections calendar if we do 
not take up controversial issues like the San Diego provisions that is 
before us today.
  We do not want the corrections calendar to become a fast track for 
special interests seeking favored treatment. This is a divisive bill. 
It is over something that is already going to be done by the EPA. It is 
based largely on a false anecdote.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope this is an aberration as to what we are going to 
have on the Corrections Day calendar and is not a signal of how this 
calendar will work in the future. Let us correct issues that ought to 
be corrected, that we all agree upon, and not take up controversial 
issues such as this one where there is such divisiveness.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Johnson.
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, for years now Washington has 
been piling regulations and mandates on its citizens with little regard 
for the heavy toll these burdens have on real people. Today we take the 
first step toward restoring common sense to Washington policy-making.
  Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the previous speaker that this is 
a controversial issue. I think that on wastewater, San Diego is trying 
to get a waiver and they had to spend $2.2 million of taxpayer money 
just to complete the forms. To renew it every 5 years, they are going 
to spend another $2.2 million.
  Mr. Speaker, that is government bureaucracy at its worst. It needs to 
be fixed. By making this simple correction, we can meet environmental 
requirements and save a local government and local taxpayers billions 
of dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, it is about time the Congress used good judgment. Let us 
pass this bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, this bill is exactly 
what Corrections Day ought to be about. The scientific community says 
that San Diego's treatment facility is as good or better than secondary 
treatment requirements under the technicalities of the Clean Water Act.
  The scientific community agrees that they should not have to do what 
the technicalities require, because they are doing as good or a better 
job than the technicalities. And yet, the community has to spend 
millions of dollars every 5 years to get a waiver, which they may or 
may not get depending upon who is in charge of the EPA.
  Mr. Speaker, not only does the scientific community agree that they 
should not be required to do this secondary treatment, but the 
California EPA agrees and the local Sierra Club agrees. And yet, the 
community still has to spend taxpayer dollars to get someone in EPA to 
agree every 5 years.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what Corrections Day ought to be about. 
This bill ought to pass. We ought to end this stupid technical 
requirement when the science says it is unnecessary.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Bercerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I must say, as another member of the advisory committee of 
Corrections Day, I am also very disturbed by this particular bill 
coming up. This is not the appropriate type of vehicle to do this. We 
are here to try to correct dumb legislation. This does not fit the 
bill.
  I must say that I must agree with Mayor Golding of San Diego, who 
said she does not want to get rid of the public comment period provided 
by this bill; H.R. 1943 would undo the ability of the local communities 
to have comment, to give comment on this particular waste disposal 
facility. It is essential, as the mayor has said. I believe it is, as 
well. This is not the way to go. We should not be trying to undo laws 
that protect the community.
  I would urge Members to oppose this particular Corrections Day bill 
because it does not fit the definition of a corrections day bill.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make, a couple of points, first, the 
mayor of San Diego has just been referred to by the previous speaker. 
The mayor of San Diego strongly supports this legislation. So it would 
be very misleading, and I know that the gentleman certainly would not 
do that on purpose; it would be very misleading to suggest anything 
other than the fact the mayor of San Diego strongly supports this 
legislation.

[[Page H 7571]]

  I think it is particularly interesting when you look at this debate 
today, Mr. Speaker, you will see that all six Members of Congress from 
the San Diego area, the southernmost part of California, Republicans 
and Democrats, strongly support this legislation. But when you look at 
who is opposing this legislation, you see the majority of those who 
spoke are not even from California.
  Yes, we have had some northern Californians speak. We are about to 
have a Pennsylvanian speak against this bill, somebody from New Jersey, 
from Michigan, from Tennessee.
  It is very interesting that, in a sense, what this boils down to, it 
is the Washington-knows-best crowd versus the people-know-best 
coalition, and it is unanimously the people, the Members of Congress, 
who represent the area who are strongly in support of this legislation. 
But people from across other parts of the United States seem to think 
they know best what is best for this particular region of the country.
  Most interesting, the California EPA supports this legislation. The 
California water quality people support this legislation. The mayor of 
San Diego supports this legislation. The Governor of California, a 
former mayor of San Diego, supports this legislation. So the people who 
are on the ground, the people who know the problem most intimately and, 
yes, the scientists who know the problem most intimately support this 
legislation.
  I think that is an excellent reason to give overwhelming support to 
this. I urge it be supported.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], who knows best, who is the 
ranking Democratic member of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment.
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to H.R. 1943--
legislation which is unneeded in its concept, unworkable in its 
implementation, and sets a terrible percedent.
  There is no reason whatsoever for this bill--none whatsoever.
  San Diego's problem was taken care of last year. What this bill is 
seeking to correct has already been corrected.
  If people say that requiring San Diego to meet secondary treatment 
standards of the Clean Water Act is dumb, what would they say about 
passing bills to solve problems that have already been solved?
  Legislation was passed last year by Congress and signed by the 
President allowing San Diego to apply for a waiver of the secondary 
treatment standards of the Clean Water Act.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has been acting quickly on the 
San Diego waiver application.
  On August 12, less than 1 month from today, EPA will issue a proposed 
permit granting San Diego the waiver it is seeking.
  If we do nothing today, San Diego will have its waiver by the end of 
the year.
  H.R. 1943 makes changes in the existing law but they are not 
improvements.
  Instead of requiring San Diego to have its waiver reviewed every 5 
years--as the other 40 cities with waivers must--H.R. 1943 would grant 
San Diego a permanent waiver with no provisions for review.
  Instead of requiring San Diego to meet basic treatment standards, as 
San Diego officials said they could last year when we passed the Ocean 
Pollution Reduction Act, sponsored by Mr. Filner, H.R. 1943 has minimal 
and undefined standards that are lower than San Diego is meeting today.
  H.R. 1943 is an open-ended license for the city of San Diego to 
greatly reduce its sewage treatment for as long as it wants.
  With all its drawbacks, this legislation has already passed the House 
as part of H.R. 961, the so-called Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995. 
Why are we doing it again?
  Why is this provision of all the changes in H.R. 961 being singled 
out for special treatment? Why San Diego when its waiver is already on 
the way?
  If we are looking for a bill for Corrections Day, why not a combined 
sewer overflow provision that would help a lot of cities, such as 
Philadelphia, New York, and Chicago?
  The CSO provision in H.R. 961 is supported by every interest group, 
is noncontroversial and would easily get the votes needed for passage.
  Why San Diego and why not Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, and all 
the other cities that face costs of more than $15 billion to correct 
their CSO overflow problems?
  Why the people of San Diego and not the 32 million people served by 
sewage treatment systems with CSO's?
  It is not economics. I believe the budgets of Philadelphia, New York, 
Chicago, and virtually all other cities could use as much financial 
help as San Diego.
  It is not tax base. I am sure San Diego has as many resources to draw 
on as all other cities that have already invested in secondary 
treatment and now face the bills for combined sewer overflows.
  The question remains: Why San Diego?
  Let's provide the help where it is truly needed and not where local 
officials have good connections with the leadership of the Republican 
Party.
  San Diego has gotten the correction it needed and it was done in the 
proper manner. They don't need passage of this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1943.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
distinguished gentleman from San Diego [Mr. Bilbray].
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, as someone who just came from the private 
and public sector out there, trying to address environmental problems, 
into this House, I was rather confused as to where the opposition to 
this bill came from. Now I understand, and it is a total misconception 
of the text, and I would like to point out to my colleagues that once 
you find out the facts and the data here, it is quite obvious that 
anybody reasonable would address this.
  Some have said this is a partisan proposal. Mr. Speaker, when the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] can 
agree on anything, that is not only bipartisan, it is bipolar.
  The fact is I would say this to my colleagues, both Republicans and 
Democrats, look at who is supporting this and try to find a reasonable 
reason why reasonable people cannot sometimes, though their politics 
may be different, come to a reasonable conclusion backed up by science.
  My colleague from New Jersey raised the concern about pollution and 
the problems there. Let me point out that the California plan is twice 
as stringent as the New Jersey contact water standards, that if New 
Jersey had this plan, we would probably be able to avoid a lot of 
problems.
  I am quite concerned about the last speaker from Pennsylvania 
pointing out saying it is just money that we are talking about and if 
it is just money, why do we not allow cities to dump raw sewage and 
overflow into our waterways. I think what has happened is, because my 
colleague from Pennsylvania missed the point here, this is not talking 
about just money, we are talking about the fact that the environmental 
impact report that was drawn up in the 1980's pointed out that going to 
this secondary mandate was going to be an adverse environmental impact. 
In fact, if any reasonable person looked at the environmental impact 
report, it said that the no-project option was the environmentally 
preferred alternative.
  So I hope my colleague from Pennsylvania recognizes this is not just 
money we are talking about here. This is talking about protecting the 
environment.
  The public review that was brought up by the gentleman from 
California, I would like to point out that not only does this maintain 
the public review
 process, constantly maintains it in the same 5-year cycle as existing 
law, but it also continues to require over 250,000 tests be made 
annually, 250,000 tests for pollution and environmental impact, the 
most extensive testing in the United States, in fact, so extensive that 
the EPA has contracted with the city of San Diego to do their testing 
for the northern Baja California area.

   Mr. Speaker, the real issue here is does the environmental 
regulation take precedence; does the process and 

[[Page H 7572]]
the procedure in Congress take precedence over the environment of our 
country?
  This is clearly an issue where you have to recognize that the 
scientists of the National Academy of Sciences, 33 scientists of 
Scripps Oceanography, the most highly noted oceanographic institution 
in the world, have said that we should not be requiring San Diego to go 
ahead with secondary.
  I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if you do 
not believe in the scientists, if you do not believe in commonsense 
application of our environmental regulations, what do you believe in? 
Do you believe that the regulation is more important than the 
environment?
  I hear this is where the real test is.
   Mr. Speaker, as somebody who not only spends a lot of time surfing 
and sailing in this ocean we are talking about, but as someone who has 
fought long and hard to clean up environmental problems along the 
border and along our beaches, it is quite frustrating to see colleagues 
who mean well for the environment but are not willing to recognize 
problems even when the scientists and the facts tell you this should be 
changed.
  I am placing at this point in the Record a letter from James Strock, 
from the California EPA, which clearly points out the California ocean 
plan will continue to be enforced, the EPA will continue to have public 
hearings every 5 years and will continue to either permit or not permit 
the continuation of the discharge at the present location.
  Mr. Strock points out that the continuing information will constantly 
be used to determine if this process should go forward, and if this law 
should apply.
   Mr. Speaker, I guess it comes down to the fact, do my colleagues in 
Congress care more about 27 pounds of studies and the $1\1/2\ million 
that is
 wasted? And that is $1\1/2\ million that could be used for taking care 
of the 300 plus beach closures we have had in my district, and not one 
of them, not one was contributed to by the treatment problem or 
treatment issue, not one out of over 300, and I am saying to you, 
please, colleagues, join with us.

  The gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bilbray], the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Packard], if we can see the light, if we can see the 
facts, if we can see the environmental stakes that are here, please, 
take a look at the fact that maybe those who swim and live on this 
ocean, those who will live with the successes and failures there, maybe 
we do have the ability to observe problems in the existing law and 
threats to existing environmental issues, and maybe you will come 
across and recognize that this is a bipartisan project to protect the 
environment and join with us in protecting the environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning we will be considering H.R. 1943, the San 
Diego Coastal Corrections Act of 1995, under Speaker Gingrich's 
Correction Calendar. I have had the opportunity to speak with many of 
you regarding this important issue, and appreciate the high level of 
interest which has been expressed in fixing this problem. Under current 
law, coastal dischargers like San Diego are required to provide 
traditional secondary treatment of their municipal sewage discharges.
  However, the secondary sewage regulation--part of the original Clean 
Water Act written in 1972--was intended for cities and municipalities 
which discharge into rivers and lakes, and shallow estuaries.
  Scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, the National 
Academy of Sciences, and the California EPA all agree that because of 
its deep ocean outfall, its industrial pretreatment process and 
chemically enhanced primary treatment--chemical secondary--the present 
sewage treatment program utilized by San Diego does not harm the ocean 
environment. Because of the extensive scientific evidence documenting 
this situation, which is unique to San Diego, the San Diego Coastal 
Corrections Act provides permanent relief from the secondary sewage 
regulation.
  As I have talked to you separately about this legislation, I have 
noticed several recurring questions which are very important, and for 
which I want to ensure the correct answers are available.
  The latest and timeliest document to add to evidence that this 
regulation is unnecessary for San Diego is the following letter from 
Jim Strock, the Secretary of Environmental Protection for the 
California Environmental Protection Agency, to Chairman Shuster of the 
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in strong support of 
H.R. 1943. This letter leaves absolutely no question as to the 
scientific validity and environmental soundness of H.R. 1943.
  I would like to read excerpts of the letter and include it for the 
Record:

       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 (San 
     Diego) outfall despite its termination in federal waters.
       This document (the State Plan) 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 have been public allegations that under H.R. 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. This permit will be 
     renewed every five years, with full public review and input.
       * * * 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 the data that 
     confirms compliance with permit requirements and attainment 
     of the Ocean Standards.
       * * * we (Cal EPA) 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 all the necessary protection remains in full force in 
     the future.

  My colleagues, that last sentence says it all. The feds at EPA who 
have tried to force San Diego to comply with a Federal regulation 
scientifically proven to be unnecessary should pay close attention to 
their counterparts at the California EPA who have concluded that it 
makes no sense to comply with the secondary sewage regulation.
                    California Environmental Protection Agency

                                                    July 21, 1995.
     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
     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 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 

[[Page H 7573]]
     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,
                                                        Secretary.
  Secondary Equivalency For San Diego Wastewater Treatment Facility--
                       Supported By Sound Science

       Judge Brewster stated, in his findings in his March, 1994 
     Memorandum Decision and Order Rejecting the Proposed Consent 
     Decree, that ``the scientific evidence without dispute 
     establishes that the marine environment is not harmed by 
     present sewage treatment, and in fact appears to be 
     enhanced.''
       The National Academy of Sciences 1993 report ``Wastewater 
     Management for Coastal Urban Areas'' stated that the Clean 
     Water Act's uniform requirements have not allowed a process 
     that adequately addresses regional variations in 
     environmental systems around the country or that the law 
     responds well to changing needs. In the case of deep ocean 
     discharge, such as San Diego, they concluded that biochemical 
     oxygen demand and suspended solids were of little concern.
       In addition, the Academy scientists concluded that 
     chemically enhanced primary treatment is an effective 
     technology for protecting the environment coupled with deep 
     ocean discharge. Specifically, the report states ``chemically 
     enhanced primary treatment is an effective technology for 
     removing suspended solids and associated contaminants.''
       Scientists from all over the country have testified in 
     various forums, including under oath in the federal district 
     court in San Diego, that San Diego's current level of 
     treatment fully protects the offshore environment.
       A May 1991 ``Consensus Statement'' by thirty-three of the 
     scientists from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography fully 
     supports the concept of advanced primary treatment for 
     discharge in deep swiftly moving marine waters such as those 
     that exist off Point Loma.
       During June, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 
     announced a preliminary determination to approve San Diego's 
     waiver application stating ``San Diego has laid out a 
     detailed wastewater plan that makes both environmental and 
     economic sense.''
       The local Sierra Club unanimously supports a waiver for the 
     Point Loma Wastewater Treatment from secondary treatment.
       The California Environmental Protection Agency supports 
     secondary equivalency for the San Diego system and has stated 
     that the city's sewage treatment system is ``fully capable of 
     protecting the marine environment without the need for 
     expensive secondary treatment.''
       Support the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act (H.R. 1943)

       Under current law, coastal dischargers like San Diego are 
     required to provide traditional secondary treatment of their 
     municipal sewage discharges.
       However, the ``secondary sewage'' regulation, (part of the 
     original Clean Water Act written in 1972) was intended for 
     cities and municipalities which discharge into rivers and 
     lakes, and shallow estuaries.
       San Diego discharges into the Pacific Ocean, 4.5 miles from 
     shore into receiving waters 300 feet below the surface.
       The National Academy of Sciences, scientists from the 
     Scripps Institute of Oceanography and the California EPA all 
     agree that because of its deep ocean outfall, its industrial 
     pre-treatment process and chemically enhanced primary 
     treatment (chemical secondary), the present sewage treatment 
     program utilized by San Diego does not harm the ocean 
     environment.
       Because of the extensive scientific evidence documenting 
     this situation, which is unique to San Diego, the San Diego 
     Coastal Correction Act provides permanent relief from the 
     secondary sewage regulation.
       If San Diego was forced to comply with the secondary sewage 
     regulation, which has been scientifically shown to be 
     unnecessary, San Diego ratepayers would have to pay $3 
     billion dollars for additions/alterations to the sewage 
     treatment plant.
       The federal regulation is not only unnecessary, it is 
     extremely costly, even though no measurable or justifiable 
     benefits are achieved by complying with it. An environmental 
     impact report detailed environmental damage that would occur 
     should the city be required to comply with the regulation.
       However, the San Diego Coastal Corrections Act in no way 
     relaxes or relieves the City from continued compliance with 
     stringent state and federal clean water requirements. San 
     Diego must still submit monthly, quarterly, and annual 
     reports to both the EPA and the Regional Water Quality 
     Control Board, which is the State agency that monitors San 
     Diego's discharge permit.
       San Diego's Ocean Monitoring program is one of the largest 
     in the world, with over 250,000 samples being taken and 
     analyzed annually. The City conducts comprehensive chemical 
     and physical tests of treated effluent, ocean sediments, and 
     biological organisms.
       The City is still required to comply with these state and 
     federal standards under the San Diego Coastal Corrections 
     Act.

   THE EPA WAIVER DOES NOT RESOLVE SAN DIEGO'S PROBLEM; H.R. 1943 DOES  
                        SOLVE SAN DIEGO'S PROBLEM                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Ocean Pollution Control Act of    San Diego Coastal Corrections Act of
         1994 (EPA waiver)                    1995 (H.R. 1943)          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost:                                                                   
  The waiver is temporary. Every    H.R. 1943 provides a permanent long-
   Five years, San Diego must        term solution for San Diego,       
   resubmit a waiver application     provided that state and federal    
   to the EPA at a cost to           clean water standards are          
   ratepayers of $1.2 million        continually met.                   
Process:                                                                
  The EPA may or may not approve    The EPA issues the operating permit 
   the waiver application, every     every five years for the Point Loma
   five years                        Sewage Treatment Plant, subject to 
                                     compliance with state and federal  
                                     clean water standards.             
  Public review and public hearing  Public review and hearing process as
   process as EPA considers waiver   EPA considers re-issuing the NPDES 
   application                       operating permit, every five years.
Protections:                                                            
  San Diego's discharge must        San Diego's discharge must comply   
   comply with Clean Water Act       with Clean Water Act standards, and
   standards, and the more           the more stringent California State
   stringent California State        Ocean Plan standards, or its       
   Ocean Plan standards, or its      operating permit will not be       
   operating permit will not be      renewed.                           
   renewed                                                              
  Regular monthly, quarterly and    Regular monthly, quarterly and      
   annual reports to EPA and         annual reports to the EPA and      
   Regional Water Quality Control    Regional Water Quality Control     
   Board to ensure Point Loma's      Board ensure Point Loma's discharge
   discharge is in compliance with   is in compliance with both state   
   both state and federal clean      and federal clean water            
   water requirements                requirements.                      
  Science submitted in the City's   Science submitted in the City's     
   water application concludes       waiver application is identical to 
   that San Diego's current sewage   that required by H.R. 1943.        
   treatment process meets the                                          
   requirements of the secondary                                        
   sewage mandate                                                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: The cost of the waiver application ($1.2 million) must be paid by
  ratepayers every 5 years.                                             
The process under the waiver is uncertain--the EPA has reversed its     
  position on granting a waiver application to San Diego numerous times.
Because H.R. 1943 ensures protections to the ocean environment must     
  continue, it makes environmental and economic sense to pass San       
  Diego's Coastal Corrections Act.                                      

                              {time}  1130

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McInnis). Pursuant to the rule, the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                motion to recommit offered by mr. mineta

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. MINETA. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Mineta moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1943, the San 
     Diego Coastal Corrections Act of 1995, to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, with instructions to 
     report back the bill with an amendment which provides that 
     chemically enhanced primary treatment as required by this Act 
     result in the removal of not less than 58 percent of the 
     biological oxygen demand (on an annual average) and not less 
     than 80 percent of the total suspended solids (on a monthly 
     average).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] 
is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Is the gentleman from Pennsylvania opposed to the motion to recommit?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I am opposed to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Then the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be 
granted 5 minutes.

[[Page H 7574]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I offer this motion to recommit with the 
intent of preserving the ability of San Diego to continue its current 
practices and engage in less than secondary treatment.
  This motion to recommit will allow San Diego to achieve the level of 
wastewater treatment which it feels it can meet, which San Diego is 
meeting today, and which San Diego feels is appropriate for its ocean 
discharge. This motion will not require San Diego to meet secondary 
treatment, and neither will it require San Diego to undertake any 
additional treatment beyond what it does today.
  Last year, the Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, 
legislation to allow San Diego to apply for a waiver from secondary 
treatment. San Diego has now applied for such a waiver, and EPA expects 
to approve the waiver application. In fact, San Diego will likely have 
its waiver from secondary treatment long before this bill has any 
chance of becoming law.
  As a part of the waiver application, San Diego represented that it 
would consistently meet discharge limits of 58 percent removal of BOD 
and 80 percent removal of suspended solids--precisely the terms which 
are in the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, there is general agreement that San Diego should not be 
required to achieve secondary treatment. And, this motion will not 
require secondary treatment. But, there is also general agreement that 
San Diego should not do less treatment than it is already doing. Yet 
that is exactly what the bill would allow. It is one thing to vote for 
the proposition that San Diego should not have to improve its treatment 
to achieve the secondary standards. But, it is a very different thing 
to vote for the proposition that San Diego should be able to turn off 
existing treatment. By your vote on this motion to recommit, you will 
make it clear which proposition you support.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MINETA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows I strongly support H.R. 
1943. But as I said in the committee that considered the substance of 
his recommittal motion, I thought that this would give a lot of 
security to people to vote for this bill who have some concerns that 
San Diego would backslide. I do not believe that that would be the 
case. San Diego has said in its waiver application, has said in time 
after time, that it meets these standards that the gentleman has in his 
recommittal motion, so San Diego, I agree, will not be having to do 
anything more than it is doing now and would have no extra expense, but 
would give people who have concerns the ability to vote for this 
legislation.
  I would ask for my colleagues in this bipartisan way to accept this 
motion because it allows everybody to say, yes, San Diego will meet 
these things without any additional concerns.
  So I think H.R. 1943 is strengthened by the gentleman's motion, and I 
will be supporting it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, all arguments in favor of a waiver for San 
Diego are predicated upon the level of treatment which the city is 
currently achieving. That is, 58 percent removal of BOD and 80 percent 
removal of suspended solids. Not one speaker in favor of this bill has 
argued, nor can they argue, that any scientific evidence supports 
radical reductions in sewage treatment for San Diego. Yet, without 
standards and under this bill as written, San Diego will be able to 
turn off existing treatment.
  If the motion to recommit is rejected, San Diego may be able to 
reduce the level of treatment which it currently achieves to as little 
as 30 percent removal of BOD and suspended solids. That is an enormous 
potential drop in water quality, one that San Diego has not even said 
it wants. It is the wholesale abandonment of the Clean Water Act 
program, and contrary to San Diego's current program. There is no way 
this can fairly be characterized as just a little correction.
  Opponents of the motion amendment may argue that such a rollback of 
treatment will not occur, but there is nothing in this bill which would 
prevent such a dramatic increase in pollution off the California coast. 
If it is not going to happen, why are we being asked to vote to allow 
it?
  Opponents of this motion will argue that it is micromanagement. How 
ironic. We are here today with the full House considering the details 
of one permit for one community out of the thousands of permits issued 
by States and EPA. The House is specifying the terms of the permit, and 
yet, if there is an attempt to place some standards in the permit, we 
are accused of micromanagement. It is this bill which is 
micromanagement and inappropriate.
  This motion does nothing to increase the obligations of San Diego. It 
will allow San Diego to implement its wastewater treatment program in 
the precise manner San Diego has advocated. And, it will continue to 
offer a basic level of protection to California coastal resources.
  I urge support of the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this motion 
to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the debate has clearly demonstrated that a secondary 
treatment waiver for San Diego is supported by strong science, by 
California scientists, by the California EPA.
  Now my good friend talks about a waiver from EPA. Well, where has the 
EPA been for the past several years? Indeed I am told that the waiver 
that is now being talked about actually includes in it new regulations 
that go beyond the clean water bill. Some waiver.
  This motion to recommit should be defeated, and the legislation 
before us should be supported.
  Now the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] would require San 
Diego to meet a 58-percent biological oxygen demand and no less than 80 
percent total suspended solids. Well, all scientists agree, all 
scientists agree, that BOD is not a meaningful measurement in the 
ocean. There is plenty of oxygen in the ocean, and the California State 
ocean plan, therefore, has no BOD limit for deep ocean outfalls because 
one is not necessary. Now can San Diego backslide? Well, only if the 
State water quality standards let them, and those State standards, we 
are told, are among the toughest in the Nation. In fact, they are 
tougher even, we are told, than the New Jersey standards. The State 
plan does have a 75-percent total suspended-solid requirement which San 
Diego must meet. The State plan also has over 200 other requirements 
relating to metals, toxics, and other actual contaminants. San Diego 
must meet all these requirements so there can be no backsliding.
  In summary the California State ocean plan is among the toughest in 
the Nation and will insure protection of the ocean environment. Vote no 
on this last-ditch effort to impose additional unnecessary Federal 
conditions on a commonsense reform plan.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHUSTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, environmental regulation should not be 
punitive. This motion is a punitive action. It is a devious approach to 
shelve this whole proposal because there is no statement in here of 
reporting back. It is specifically to kill this proposal, and the fact 
is the gentleman from California knows the clean ocean plan in 
California and knows that it has solid removals that are not at 30, but 
at 75, so worse-case scenario.
  Maybe the problem is that we are each talking to different 
environments here. The gentleman is talking about people who have 
discharge in the shallow lakes, shallow bays, rivers, and the gentleman 
wants to punish San Diego because they happen to have a situation that 
the scientists and the people who study this issue point out that this 
environmental regulation, as presented, is inappropriate and that the 
constant attacks at trying to pull this off of the back of the 
ratepayers in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Filner] and pull it off the backs of the impact on the beaches in my 
district is absolutely absurd for the gentleman to continue this unless 
all the gentleman feels is the fact that my constituents had to spend 
money on this issue. So I do not care about the benefit to the 
environment, I do not care about it if it is going to hurt. My biggest 
concern is I want to get San Diego.

[[Page H 7575]]

  Well, remember there are a whole lot of working-class people in San 
Diego. They are Democrats and Republicans, and they are independents, 
and their environment is just as important as the gentleman's 
environment, and, if the gentleman's environment was being hurt, we 
pull together to work with the gentleman, but our environment is being 
hurt by the regulation, and, just as much as the gentleman had a 
responsibility to go to secondary to help the environment, we have just 
as much responsibility to not go to the----
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this motion to recommit, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  This is a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 179, 
nays 245, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 563]

                               YEAS--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--245

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bateman
     Bryant (TX)
     Collins (MI)
     Gilman
     Hilliard
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Myers
     Reynolds
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1201

  Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and Mr. BERMAN changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269, 
noes 156, not voting 9, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 564]

                               AYES--269

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor

[[Page H 7576]]

     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--156

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barcia
     Bateman
     Collins (MI)
     Hilliard
     Mfume
     Moakley
     Myers
     Reynolds
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1220

  So--three-fifths having voted in favor thereof--the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 25, I missed rollcall 
votes 563 and 564 during consideration of H.R. 1943, the San Diego 
Coastal Corrections Act. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' 
on 563 and ``nay'' on 564. In addition I missed rollcall vote 565 
during consideration of S. 395, to lift the ban on Alaskan oil exports. 
Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________