[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.

                          ____________________