[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 16, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11603-H11607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RECOGNIZING THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 725) recognizing the 35th anniversary of the
Clean Water Act, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 725
Whereas clean water is a natural resource of tremendous
value and importance to the Nation;
Whereas there is resounding public support for protecting
and enhancing the quality of the Nation's rivers, streams,
lakes, marine waters, and wetlands;
Whereas maintaining and improving water quality is
essential to protect public health, fisheries, wildlife, and
watersheds and to ensure abundant opportunities for public
recreation and economic development;
Whereas it is a national responsibility to provide clean
water for future generations;
Whereas since the enactment of the Clean Water Act in 1972,
substantial progress has been made in protecting and
enhancing water quality due to a deliberate and national
effort to protect the Nation's waters;
Whereas substantial improvements to the Nation's water
quality have resulted from a successful partnership among
Federal, State, and local governments, the private sector,
and the public;
Whereas serious water pollution problems persist throughout
the Nation and significant challenges lie ahead in the effort
to protect water resources from point and nonpoint sources of
pollution and to maintain the Nation's commitment to a ``no
net loss'' of wetlands;
Whereas the Nation's decaying water infrastructure and a
lack of available funding to maintain and upgrade the
Nation's wastewater infrastructure pose a serious threat to
the water quality improvements achieved over the past 35
years;
Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Congressional Budget Office, and other stakeholders have
identified a funding gap of between $300,000,000,000 and
$400,000,000,000 over the next 20 years for the restoration
and replacement of wastewater infrastructure;
Whereas further development and innovation of water
pollution control programs and advancement of water pollution
control research, technology, and education are necessary and
desirable; and
Whereas October 18, 2007, is the 35th anniversary of the
enactment of the Clean Water Act: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) recognizes the 35th anniversary of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water
Act);
(2) recommits itself to restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters in accordance with the goals and objectives of the
Clean Water Act;
(3) dedicates itself to working toward a sustainable, long-
term solution to address the Nation's decaying water
infrastructure; and
(4) encourages the public and all levels of government--
(A) to recognize and celebrate the Nation's accomplishments
under the Clean Water Act; and
(B) to renew their commitment to restoring and protecting
the Nation's rivers, lakes, streams, marine waters, and
wetlands for future generations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on the resolution, H. Res. 725.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we meet on the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act
from 1972; a bill that started out in the House, made its way through
the Committee on Public Works, as it was known then, through the House,
to the Senate Committee on Public Works, and then through a 10-month
House-Senate conference, a remarkable meeting of Members of the House
and Senate which, in a time very different from the times we experience
recently, where Members actually participated, sat across the table
from one another, not separated by staff, although I was a member of
the staff at the time, not relegating their responsibilities to others,
but actually participating vigorously with informed judgment, with
strongly held views in shaping what everyone in that conference knew
was going to be a new future for the waters of the United States.
That legislation was considered against a backdrop of 14 years of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, crafted by my predecessor, John
Blotnick, who was Chair first of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors
and then Chair of the Full Committee on Public Works, to clean up the
Nation's waters.
[[Page H11604]]
In that year, 1955, and then following, in 1956, John Blotnick wanted
to acquaint himself with the new responsibilities of being a chairman
of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors, and managing the inland
waterways of the United States and the locks and dams and the harbors
of this country, of the saltwater coast and the fresh water of the
Great Lakes. So he journeyed down the Mississippi, part of the Ohio-
Illinois river systems.
He was a biochemist by training, and a teacher of biochemistry, and
observed that by the time he got to New Orleans, there was so much
trash, discharge, waste, feces and raw phenols bubbling in the
Mississippi River by the time they reached New Orleans, he was
appalled. And he said the purpose no longer became how can we move
goods through the inland waterway system and barges of this Nation, but
how can we, what must we do to clean up this resource of fresh water.
On return to Washington that spring, he visited the Tidal Basin, the
cherry blossoms in bloom, and he observed all of the debris and all of
the foul smell in the Tidal Basin and called it the best dressed
cesspool in America, and crafted a three-part program to deal with this
problem of cleaning up America's waters.
{time} 1745
And he undertook what was then a unique activity: a Dear Colleague
letter. It's very common. We see them by the hundreds today. But it was
very rare in 1955 and 1956 to do something of that nature, and reserved
the Caucus Room of the Cannon House Office Building, which can seat
over 600 people, because he thought so many would want to come and
participate in this great enterprise of protecting America's waters and
restoring our rivers and lakes.
And three people showed up: John Blotnick; Congressman Bob Jones from
Alabama, who was elected in 1946, the same year as John Blotnick; and
Murray Stein, an attorney in the U.S. Public Health Service whose
office was, as John Blotnick described it, in the 7th sub-basement of
HEW, the Health, Education, and Welfare building. And there they
crafted broad outlines of what became the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
Research, engaging the best minds in this country to understand what
are the limiting factors in our waters that, if removed, would restore
good health. Nitrogen, phosphates, toxics, phenols, how do you get them
out of the water once they're in? How do you prevent them from getting
in? The second point, treatment. Treating our wastes before they get
into the receiving waters. And, third, an enforcement program to bring
the States together to resolve common problems of enforcing a program
of cleaning streams before they get into the receiving waters.
It was signed into law by President Eisenhower in 1956. It had $30
million in Federal funding, 30 percent Federal grants to municipalities
to build sewage treatment facilities. It was supported by the garden
clubs of America. They were the first ones, the leaders, seeing the
need for a national program of clean water.
The next 3 years saw broad acceptance of this legislation, a need for
increased funding. So John Blotnick proposed a successor to increase to
$50 million Federal funding and 30 percent Federal grants and a
stronger enforcement and more money for research. And that bill was
vetoed by President Eisenhower with a veto message that read in its
last sentence: ``Pollution is a uniquely local blight. Federal
involvement will only impede local efforts at cleanup.''
But that was an election year. John F. Kennedy, Democratic candidate,
committed to an expanded program of clean water. And he came in and
signed a bill that moved through our committee for $100 million in
Federal funding with 50 percent Federal grants and an expanded research
and development and much stronger enforcement.
And over the succeeding years, the program grew, and so did our
understanding of the broader needs and the broader reach of a Federal
program to go beyond point sources but to get to the watershed, to go
beyond the point of discharge, to reach further out into the country.
At the same time, great suds, mounds of suds, were floating down the
Ohio River system and the Illinois River system and the Mississippi.
And people were turning on their faucets and finding soap coming out
instead of clean water. And then the Cuyahoga River caught on fire in
1968 in the town of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
LaTourette), and the Nation was galvanized into action. That led to
increased funding for the clean water program and a recognition that we
need to have a much broader scope program.
So in 1970 the committee began extensive hearings on a much wider
reach of the program. And in 1971 I was chief of staff of the Committee
on Public Works when we began this much broader scope program.
The result of all these efforts was the Clean Water Act of 1972,
whose opening paragraph reads: ``The purpose of this act is to
establish and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters,'' not just the navigable waters, which had been
the signature word of previous legislation but the Nation's waters,
going beyond what you can paddle in a canoe, going to the source of
pollution.
That massive bill was vetoed by President Richard Nixon. But the veto
was overridden by a 10-1 vote in the House and a similar 10-1 vote in
the United States Senate and has remained our cornerstone act for
maintaining the integrity of the Nation's waters.
It is our legacy to pass on to other generations that all the water
there ever was in the world or ever will be is here now, and we have
the responsibility to care for it. This Clean Water Act is our
guarantee that it will be done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to manage the time on this important
resolution for the minority to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the
Clean Water Act.
Clean water is critical to the Nation and our standard of living. The
Clean Water Act has resulted in significant water quality improvement
in the last 35 years. However, we still have work to do before all of
our lakes and streams meet State water quality standards.
H. Res. 725 encourages the American people to recognize and celebrate
the water quality improvements we have achieved and recommit ourselves
to the goals of the Clean Water Act.
No committee in the Congress has done more to work towards the clean
water goals that all of us want to achieve than the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, which was called, as Chairman Oberstar has
mentioned, the Public Works and Transportation Committee for many years
before the new name. And no one man who has ever served in this
Congress has done more than has Chairman James Oberstar in working to
achieve clean water in this country, first as a staff member and then
staff director for 11 years for the committee and then for the last 33
years representing his district and, indeed, the entire Nation in
working to clean the waters of this Nation.
And we have made great progress over that time. The leading liberal
magazine, the New Republic, said in an editorial a short time ago that
to listen to some people ``is to learn that the environment is in bad
shape today and, with the smallest push, could be in disastrous shape
tomorrow . . . Fortunately, this alarm is a false one. All forms of
pollution in the United States,'' the New Republic said, ``air, water,
and toxic materials have been declining for decades.''
In 1972 only 30 to 40 percent of our waters were estimated to have
met water quality standards. Today, monitoring data indicate that 60 to
70 percent of our waters meet these goals and twice as many Americans
are served by advanced or secondary wastewater treatment.
Twenty-five years ago, we were losing almost 400,000 acres of
wetlands annually; yet the latest data collected by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service indicate that we are close to achieving a net gain in
wetlands nationwide.
Our Nation's health, quality of life, and economic well-being rely on
adequate wastewater treatment. Industries that rely on clean water,
like farmers, fishermen, and manufacturers,
[[Page H11605]]
contribute over $300 billion a year to our gross domestic product.
To provide clean water, our Nation already has invested over $250
billion in wastewater infrastructure. But this infrastructure is now
aging and our population is continuing to grow, increasing the burden
on our existing infrastructure. If communities do not repair, replace,
and upgrade their infrastructure, we could lose the environmental,
health, and economic benefits of this investment. And no matter how
much progress has been made in the past, you can always do better.
People always need to improve, although we need to do this in a way
that doesn't overregulate, but that brings about progress in a
commonsense, practical manner and one that doesn't impede progress.
Various organizations have quantified wastewater infrastructure
needs. The Congressional Budget Office, EPA, and the Water
Infrastructure Network have estimated that it could take between $300
billion and $400 billion to address our Nation's clean water
infrastructure needs over the next 20 years to keep our drinking water
and waterways clean and safe. This is twice the current level of
investment by all levels of government. These needs have been well
documented in our committee and subcommittee hearings.
We can reduce the overall cost of wastewater infrastructure with good
asset management, innovative technologies, water conservation and
reuse, and regional approaches to water pollution problems. But these
things alone will not close the large funding gap that now exists
between wastewater infrastructure needs and current levels of spending.
Increased investment must still take place. That leads to the
question where is the money going to come from. There is no single
answer to that question. Municipal wastewater services are a State and
local responsibility, but there is clearly a strong Federal interest in
keeping our waters clean.
With all due respect to President Eisenhower, who I think was a great
President and who, especially, was certainly right in warning about the
dangers of the excesses of the military industrial complex, I believe
there is a legitimate Federal interest in clean water in this country.
The people in Tennessee drink the water and use the wastewater systems
of people in other States, and the people of other States fish and swim
and drink the water in Tennessee. So there is a legitimate Federal
interest, I believe.
But what we need is an effective partnership between all levels,
Federal, State, and local. That means all partners need to contribute.
If we do not start investing in our wastewater system now, it is going
to cost our Nation many billions more in the future if we delay.
In any event, the Federal Government, while its role is important, is
not going to be able to solve this problem alone. The Democratic
Governor of Montana told us at a committee hearing earlier this year
that his State did not want the ``long arm of the Federal Government''
imposing regulations that would threaten the livelihoods of ranchers,
farmers, and miners. He asked that the Federal Government be a
``partner and collaborator'' with the States in a joint effort to
protect water resources.
Clarity and reasonableness and common sense are needed in the
regulatory program. It is unknown exactly what are the maximum limits
of Federal authority under the Clean Water Act. Neither Congress nor
the courts have defined them explicitly. This uncertainty is a matter
for much speculation and probably much future litigation. What we may
ultimately need is legislation that clearly and reasonably delineates
the Federal role and the State role and the local role in regulating
activities affecting the Nation's waters.
While the historical perspective of the Clean Water Act is
interesting and informative, we must decide under today's circumstances
what is appropriate Federal regulation of the Nation's waters.
We should celebrate the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act by
providing the tools and resources needed to achieve the goals of that
act.
We need to reform the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund
program to make it more efficient, effective, and flexible to improve
the management of infrastructure assets, fund those activities that
will best improve water quality, address the needs of small and
disadvantaged communities, and encourage private financing of treatment
works to help bring private resources to bear on the overwhelming needs
of the Nation's water infrastructure.
It is also time to fashion new water quality management tools so we
can continue the job of achieving clean water. These new tools could
include utilizing more in the way of performance-based standards than
rigid Federal mandates; harnessing market forces within the public and
private sectors to safeguard and improve the environment more
effectively; protect individual and private property rights; and
adequately considering the costs and benefits of government actions so
we can set priorities.
{time} 1800
It is appropriate today that we celebrate this anniversary of the
Clean Water Act, but we must be prudent as we go forward. We all want
the same thing, clean water. I encourage all Members to support this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to thank the
gentleman from Tennessee for his splendid statement, comprehensive,
thoughtful overview of the needs of the Clean Water program, and also
for his very generous comments about my service in the Congress.
I will also point out that the gentleman from Tennessee chaired the
Water Resources Subcommittee for 6 years and led the committee in
vigorous hearings on the issue of clean water, and we are the better
for it.
I yield now such time as he may consume to the distinguished
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the author of the resolution
recognizing the 35th anniversary, and thank the gentleman for his
splendid service to the Congress.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. I deeply appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
permitting me to speak on this, his kind words, and his leadership in
expediting this legislation to come to the floor.
I am honored that Chairman Oberstar and Congressman Duncan are
cosponsors of this legislation. And I was privileged to work on the
Water Resources Subcommittee for those 6 years that Congressman Duncan
chaired it, and it was a valuable and productive time. It was an
opportunity for me to learn about this critical area.
And the reason we are introducing this resolution today is because of
the history that was recounted by my good friend from Minnesota. There
is nothing more critical to our survival than water. It is essential to
our survival; it sustains human life. Its patterns have dictated the
development of species and ecosystems, and more recently, of the bilky
environment. I am pleased that we are celebrating this landmark
legislation, and not just a celebration, but an opportunity to reflect
upon what has worked and why, as my friend from Tennessee indicated,
where we might go. We have an opportunity to understand where there are
continuing challenges and what else needs to be done.
We must move beyond commemoration. We must make a commitment not to
celebrate another milestone with the Clean Water Act without more
demonstrable progress here at home and abroad. And I hope this
resolution inspires further action that is both quick and ambitious.
Issues confronting us today and over the next 35 years are even more
complex than when the Clean Water Act was enacted. There are still
problems with pollution, water supply, infrastructure integrity, and
the technical jurisdictional issues. The growth and development we've
seen across the country compounds that. And global warming gives these
issues a new sense of urgency. We just finished a meeting, and I know
the Transportation and Infrastructure team met with officials from the
Netherlands, who are dealing with immediate challenges with their water
resources as a result of climate change, rising water levels and
extreme water events.
Changing climate will have an influence on many aspects of our lives,
and it will take many of them in the form
[[Page H11606]]
of water; floods, sea levels, drought. This will make water supply and
quality issues much harder to deal with.
In the Pacific Northwest, for instance, where we rely heavily on
hydroelectric power, where the snowpack in the mountains every year
determines the amount of our drinking water, we have a sense of urgency
as we watch that snowpack diminish.
Just this last month, there have been two additional reports
highlighting the work in front of us. A report by the U.S. PIRG found
that thousands of facilities across the United States continue to
exceed the limits under their Clean Water Act permits; 57 percent
violated those permit limits at least once during the year 2005, many
for more than once, and many for more than one pollutant.
A report by Food and Water Watch found that the majority of States
are facing current and projected wastewater infrastructure needs that
are far out of line with their available funding. At the same time,
Federal support for State and community wastewater projects has
declined.
When my good friend first came to Congress in the early days of this
program, 78 percent of the funding was supplied by the Federal
Government in 1978. Now, maybe we don't want to return to those
glorious days of yesteryear, but last year it was 3 percent of the
funding. It undercuts the potential partnership that we have. And all
of this at a time when our decaying water infrastructure was recently
given a grade of D minus by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
For these reasons, I believe we need a sustainable, reliable,
dedicated revenue source that will help communities address these
important needs.
Clean water is critical to environmental and public health. But I
think it also, as demonstrated by the action here on this floor, has
the potential of bringing people together. Mr. Oberstar mentioned the
history back in contentious times when there was an overwhelming vote
to sustain a veto, not the easiest thing to do. As was shown by this
bipartisan resolution, I found working with the Water Resources
Subcommittee that this brings people together and there is common
ground.
This bipartisan resolution is evident of recent polling that shows
that more than eight in 10 Americans are very concerned about America's
water, that it will not be clean or safe enough for their children or
grandchildren. Eighty-nine percent of Americans say that ``Federal
investment to guaranteed clean and safe water is a critical component
of our Nation's environmental well-being.''
I hope that, even as we move beyond commemoration and towards
addressing some of these critical unresolved issues, that we can keep
the same spirit of bipartisanship.
I hope our colleagues will do more than just vote for this
resolution. I hope we educate ourselves and our constituents about what
it represents, what it represents in terms of the status of water
quality and infrastructure in our own State and community, offer our
own contributions to practical solutions, and, as I said, a dedicated
trust fund and financial resources to do the job right.
Mr. Oberstar gave us 50 years of history in a very short period of
time. I hope this commemoration is a point of departure for the next 50
months under the leadership of the chairman, with the work of Mr.
Duncan, with a new administration that's coming to town, that we will
have, over these next 50 months, a landmark in water quality, and I
look forward to working with you all in achieving it.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Oberstar was kind enough to mention
my 6 years as chairman of the Water Resources Environment Subcommittee.
I tried to have an active subcommittee with many hearings because I
thought that that work was among the most important that the Congress
could deal with, and that's why I'm here tonight, because I don't
believe there is any topic, or very few topics, anyway, more important
than clean water. And certainly the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) was one of the most active members of that subcommittee.
Another member, though, who has also been very active on these issues
is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), and I yield him such time as
he may consume.
Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman, and I rise in celebration of this,
one of the most important environmental laws in the history of our
country, the Clean Water Act.
For 35 years, the Act has helped limit the discharge of pollution
that poisons our water and our beaches. I think it's not enough just to
commemorate groundbreaking legislation. As illness, beach closings,
habitat loss, and billions of dollars in lost economic opportunity and
environmental damage continue, Congress should move to strengthen the
Clean Water Act.
This year sheds particular light on a gaping hole in the Clean Water
Act. Just a few months ago, we learned that the State of Indiana ended
a decade-long dumping ban in the Great Lakes, allowing British
Petroleum to increase by 54 percent its ammonia dumping in Lake
Michigan, and adding 35 percent more sludge to the lake each day. It
was only due to the vigilance of citizens and environmental
organizations and lawmakers around the Lake Michigan shore that we got
BP to back down.
Thanks to the thousands of Illinois volunteers, BP has now agreed to
maintain its current discharge levels. But shockingly, the permit that
was issued by the State of Indiana was completely allowed under the
current Clean Water Act. Now, Indiana is once again seeking to renew a
discharge permit that failed to protect Lake Michigan.
The draft permit for United States Steel--Gary Works, already the
largest polluter of Lake Michigan, will delay for 5 years compliance
with Clean Water Act limits on dangerous toxic chemicals such as
mercury, free cyanide, zinc, copper and ammonia.
The draft permit sets a very weak standard for mercury, oil and
grease, free cyanide and other harmful pollutants. It also would allow
United States Steel to follow a 10-year-old storm water pollution
prevention plan.
I want to commend the Environmental Protection Agency, especially
from my region, for at least delaying the issuance of this Indiana
permit because I think this permit fails to protect the people that
depend on Lake Michigan for their drinking water.
Current law right now will fail to protect the drinking water for
nearly 30 million Americans who rely on the Great Lakes. I believe it's
time to commit this Congress to upgrade our Federal protection of the
Great Lakes under the Clean Water Act. We should move forward in a
bipartisan way to enact a complete future ban on all dumping in the
Great Lakes and bring forward a 21st century clean water act that
builds on the tradition that we commemorate today.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains
on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 2 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee has 8\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I will just simply close for our side by
saying that I think this is a resolution that all of our Members can
support. And it is very appropriate to commemorate this 35th
anniversary of, as the gentleman from Illinois just said, one of the
most important environmental pieces of legislation that this Nation has
ever seen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time,
first to observe that Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chair of the
Water Resources Subcommittee, would have been here to manage this bill
were it not for the death of her mother. And we join with her in
mourning that loss. I know that she and her mother were very, very
close. She spoke so warmly of her mother so often, and we join in
prayers for both of them.
We have engaged in spacecraft missions to the Moon, to Mars, to
Saturn, to the asteroid belt in quest of water. The very first effort
is to look for water on distant planetary objects in our system, for
primitive life forms that may exist in that water, and yet we have not
looked closely enough at the water here on Earth.
This recognition of the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act will
give us that opportunity to stop, to reflect upon the journey that we
have made
[[Page H11607]]
over these three and a half decades, and the journey yet ahead of us to
clean up that remaining one-third, to protect that other two-thirds of
water, to pass on to the next generation this priceless heritage of
fresh water, that we do not have to go wandering in space looking for
water that we may have destroyed on Earth so that we may bring it from
some extraterrestrial planetary system to replenish our fresh water on
Earth. No, let us be custodians of that fresh water that we have. It's
only 2 percent of all the water on Earth. Let us resolve and renew our
efforts. Let's resolve to maintain the purpose of that Clean Water Act,
to protect the waters of the United States.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 725, to
commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. This landmark
legislation established the basic structure for our national commitment
to restoring and maintaining the environmental integrity of our
Nation's waters.
When the Cuyahoga River caught fire and Lake Erie was declared
``dead'', Congress finally took action and passed the Clean Water Act,
which is now the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the
United States. The statute employs a variety of regulatory and
nonregulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant discharges into
waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and
manage polluted runoff. These tools are employed to achieve the broader
goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
Even as the population of the United States has increased by close to
50 percent, the Clean Water Act has enabled our waterways to show
dramatic improvement in water quality. In 1972, only one-third of the
country's waters met water quality goals--today two-thirds do.
And for those of us who live in the Great Lakes region, the success
of the Clean Water Act is even more personal and poignant. As a kid, my
brothers and I used to have to hold our breath to swim past the dead
fish in Lake Michigan before we could pop up and play in the cleaner
water. Today, my children are able to enjoy a much cleaner Lake
Michigan.
This success deserves our praise, but at the same time, we must
recognize that there is still much work to be done. We have the
opportunity to recommit ourselves to the goals and objectives of the
Clean Water Act by dedicating ourselves to working toward a
sustainable, long-term solution to the Nation's decaying water
infrastructure. Recent events involving BP and U.S. Steel looking to
expand the pollutants they discharge into Lake Michigan heighten
concern for those of us who are committed to protecting and restoring
the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes provide drinking water and recreation
for over 30 million people, and they are the economic engine that
drives the Midwest. The Clean Water Act has helped preserve this
national treasure, but we have more work to do to restore it and invest
in the environmental and economic health of the Great Lakes region.
Mr. Speaker, clean water is not a partisan issue. I am proud to have
worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to fight to clean
up our Lakes, and I will continue to do so. The Clean Water Act has
been a fundamental tool in the protection of our Nation's environment,
and I hope my colleagues will join me in commemorating this important
legislation and its accomplishments by supporting H. Res. 725.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walz of Minnesota). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that
the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 725.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________