[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13361-13362]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



          MILCON CONFERENCE REPORT: CLEAN WATER ACT PROVISION

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
a provision, which has been included in the military construction 
conference report, that prevents EPA from using any funds to implement 
a new rule to clean up our nation's streams, rivers, and lakes.
  Let me explain why this rule is important.
  Since 1972, when the Clean Water Act became law, we've made a lot of 
progress in cleaning up our water, especially with respect to so-called 
``point sources'' like sewage treatment plants and industrial plants; 
the pipe that come out of plants and go into lakes and streams.
  But we still are far from reaching our goal of fishable, swimmable 
waters. That is the standard in the act.
  That's where the new rule comes in. It relates to something called 
``total maximum daily loads,'' or TMDLS. It is a long, technical-
sounding label. But it's a pretty simple concept. A TMDL is really a 
pollution budget for a watershed. It's like the Clean Water Act version 
of a State implementation plan under the Clean Air Act.
  The TMDL program was actually enacted as part of the original Clean 
Water Act, way back in 1972. For a long time, it was dormant. But, in 
recent years, environmental groups have lawsuits requiring EPA and 
states to implement the program. In virtually every single case, they 
have won.
  In light of this, EPA decided to revise its rules for the TMDL 
program, to bring them up to date. To begin with, it convened a group 
of stakeholders, who worked for two years to make recommendations. 
Then, last August, EPA proposed new rules.
  Make no mistake about it. These rules have been controversial.
  Like many others, I have been particularly concerned about the 
proposal to require many forestry operations to get Clean Water Act 
permits. I thought EPA was taking a long, winding road that didn't end 
up in the right place.
  But EPA has been listening. In response to Congressional hearings and 
public comments, it has made changes. For example, it dropped the 
forestry proposal and made other parts of the rule more workable.
  As I understand it, the rule has gone to OMB for review, and should 
be published, in final form, soon.
  But then we get this conference report. Out of the blue, it provides 
that none of the funds appropriated to EPA for 2000 and 2001 can be 
used to implement the new rule.
  I have two major problems with this provision. The first problem is 
the process by which the provision has been included in the conference 
report. The process is, in a word, outrageous. Clearly, there are 
differences of opinion about the TMDL rule. But there are several 
opportunities for those differences to be debated.
  The Environment and Public Works Committee is considering a bill, 
introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Crapo and Committee Chairman Smith, 
that would, among other things, delay the final rule. The House HUD/VA/
Independent Agencies Appropriations bill contains a provision that also 
would delay the rule.
  Of course, there is the regulatory review process we enacted in 1996, 
that allows Congress to disapprove a final rule.
  In each case, we would have a debate. The merits would be discussed. 
Senators could explain why they believe that the rule should be 
delayed; others could respond. Then we would have a vote, and the 
public could judge our actions.
  That's not what's going on here. Instead, opponents of the rule have 
slipped the provision into an unrelated conference report that cannot 
be amended--no debate, no sunshine, no public knowledge of what is 
going on. And they have done it on a bill that provides emergency 
funding for many urgent national needs, so that the President is under 
strong pressure to sign the bill.
  Frankly, I wonder why they have taken this approach. Why not debate, 
in clear public view? What are they afraid of?
  Another thing, by using conference reports this way, we further 
weaken the bonds that bind this institution together, and reduce public 
confidence in our deliberative process. This is no way to run a 
railroad.
  The second problem with the provision is substantive. Despite 
significant progress since 1972, too many of our rivers, streams, and 
lakes do not meet water quality standards.
  EPA's proposed rule makes some important improvements. At the heart 
of it, the rule clarifies the operation of the TMDL program and 
requires implementation plans, so that the program becomes more than a 
paperwork exercise. At the same time, the rule gives

[[Page 13362]]

States more time to complete their lists, allocations, and plans--a lot 
more time.
  That is a pretty good tradeoff.
  By blocking the rule, we will simply delay the tough decisions about 
how to make the program work. We will perpetuate the current outdated, 
fragmented, litigious system.
  Most important of all, we will delay, once again, the day when our 
nation finally has clean streams, rivers, and lakes, from sea to 
shining sea.
  I regret that this provision has been included in the conference 
report and I will work to reverse the decision at the earliest 
opportunity.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 minutes in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________