[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15653-15657]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      CLARIFYING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN VESSEL DISCHARGES

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 3298) to clarify the circumstances during which the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and applicable 
States may require permits for discharges from certain vessels, and to 
require the Administrator to conduct a study of discharges incidental 
to the normal operation of vessels.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                S. 3298

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

     SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
       (2) Covered vessel.--The term ``covered vessel'' means a 
     vessel that is--
       (A) less than 79 feet in length; or
       (B) a fishing vessel (as defined in section 2101 of title 
     46, United States Code), regardless of the length of the 
     vessel.
       (3) Other terms.--The terms ``contiguous zone'', 
     ``discharge'', ``ocean'', and ``State'' have the meanings 
     given the terms in section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1362).

     SEC. 2. DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS.

       (a) No Permit Requirement.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), during the 2-year period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator, or a State 
     in the case of a permit program approved under section 402 of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1342), 
     shall not require a permit under that section for a covered 
     vessel for--
       (1) any discharge of effluent from properly functioning 
     marine engines;
       (2) any discharge of laundry, shower, and galley sink 
     wastes; or
       (3) any other discharge incidental to the normal operation 
     of a covered vessel.
       (b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with 
     respect to--
       (1) rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials 
     discharged overboard;
       (2) other discharges when the vessel is operating in a 
     capacity other than as a means of transportation, such as 
     when--
       (A) used as an energy or mining facility;
       (B) used as a storage facility or a seafood processing 
     facility;
       (C) secured to a storage facility or a seafood processing 
     facility; or
       (D) secured to the bed of the ocean, the contiguous zone, 
     or waters of the United States for the purpose of mineral or 
     oil exploration or development;
       (3) any discharge of ballast water; or
       (4) any discharge in a case in which the Administrator or 
     State, as appropriate, determines that the discharge--
       (A) contributes to a violation of a water quality standard; 
     or
       (B) poses an unacceptable risk to human health or the 
     environment.

     SEC. 3. STUDY OF DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO NORMAL OPERATION OF 
                   VESSELS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating and the heads of other interested Federal agencies, 
     shall conduct a study to evaluate the impacts of--
       (1) any discharge of effluent from properly functioning 
     marine engines;
       (2) any discharge of laundry, shower, and galley sink 
     wastes; and
       (3) any other discharge incidental to the normal operation 
     of a vessel.
       (b) Scope of Study.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) characterizations of the nature, type, and composition 
     of discharges for--
       (A) representative single vessels; and
       (B) each class of vessels;
       (2) determinations of the volumes of those discharges, 
     including average volumes, for--
       (A) representative single vessels; and
       (B) each class of vessels;
       (3) a description of the locations, including the more 
     common locations, of the discharges;
       (4) analyses and findings as to the nature and extent of 
     the potential effects of the discharges, including 
     determinations of whether the discharges pose a risk to human 
     health, welfare, or the environment, and the nature of those 
     risks;
       (5) determinations of the benefits to human health, 
     welfare, and the environment from reducing, eliminating, 
     controlling, or mitigating the discharges; and
       (6) analyses of the extent to which the discharges are 
     currently subject to regulation under Federal law or a 
     binding international obligation of the United States.
       (c) Exclusion.--In carrying out the study under subsection 
     (a), the Administrator shall exclude--
       (1) discharges from a vessel of the Armed Forces (as 
     defined in section 312(a) of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(a));
       (2) discharges of sewage (as defined in section 312(a) of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1322(a)) 
     from a vessel, other than the discharge of graywater from a 
     vessel operating on the Great Lakes; and
       (3) discharges of ballast water.
       (d) Public Comment; Report.--The Administrator shall--
       (1) publish in the Federal Register for public comment a 
     draft of the study required under subsection (a);
       (2) after taking into account any comments received during 
     the public comment period, develop a final report with 
     respect to the study; and
       (3) not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, submit the final report to--
       (A) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       (B) the Committees on Environment and Public Works and 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) 
each will control 20 minutes.

[[Page 15654]]

  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 bill, S. 3298, and include therein extraneous material.
  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, 
briefly, to describe the purpose of this legislation, which was 
vigorously supported by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor); 
the gentleman from Alaska, our former chairman, Mr. Young; Mr. LoBiondo 
from New Jersey; and, of course, the very distinguished ranking member 
of the subcommittee, Mr. LaTourette; by Chairman Cummings, who gave his 
full support and initiative to this legislation.
  This is a 2-year moratorium for discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of certain commercial vessels other than discharges of 
ballast water. It also directs the Environmental Protection Agency to 
conduct additional studies on the implications of discharges incidental 
to the normal operation of a vessel.
  We developed this legislation in similar fashion to the previous bill 
in recreational boating on the initiative of the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and 
the other Members that I mentioned previously.
  We also worked across the way with the other body, the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works and various individual Members of the 
other body. It took a little while to get their commitment, get their 
attention, to release the bill from holds over there, which are a 
quaint practice, not practiced in this body. Again, we were prepared to 
bring this bill to the House floor and had it scheduled for the 
suspension calendar this week out of exasperation with lack of progress 
across the way.
  But I know those 200 meters that separate the two wings of the 
Capitol are very difficult to traverse. Sometimes it can take as long 
as the Old Chisholm Trail to move from one end to the other, but that 
movement has been made. I will include in the Record the specifics of 
the legislation, the legislative history which is necessary to 
establish the legislative balance and the factual construct within 
which we bring this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 3298 provides a two-year moratorium for discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of certain commercial vessels, other 
than discharges of ballast water, as well as directs the Environmental 
Protection Agency (``EPA'') to conduct additional study on the 
implications of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel.
  This legislation, which was developed in close coordination with the 
two lead co-sponsors of the House companion bill, H.R. 6556, the 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. LaTourette), as well as our counterpart in the Other Body, the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and several individual 
senators. I applaud the work of all of my colleagues, in both chambers, 
for resolving their differences, and moving this legislation (S. 3298), 
and S. 2766, the ``Clean Boating Act of 2008'', in tandem today.
  S. 3298 strikes an important legislative balance between the need to 
protect our water-related environment and the need to provide 
additional time for certain vessel owners and operators to address the 
discharge of pollutants from their vessels.
  This legislation provides a targeted two-year moratorium from the 
Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or 
NPDES, permit requirements for commercial fishing vessels and other 
commercial vessels less than 79 feet in length--giving the nation's 
commercial fishermen and other small commercial vessel owners and 
operators more time to understand and address discharges from these 
vessels.
  This moratorium provides a narrow exception--providing additional 
time for those vessel owners and operators, which, in the opinion of 
Congress, were least prepared for the impending implementation of the 
Clean Water Act permitting requirements on September 30, 2008.
  For example, any vessel that was subject to the NPDES requirements of 
the Clean Water Act prior to the decision of the U.S. District Court 
for the Northern District of California, such as certain oil and gas 
exploration vessels, energy and mining vessels, and seafood storage and 
processing facilities will remain subject to such requirements under 
this legislation.
  In addition, the scope of discharges included within this moratorium 
mirrors those discharges that were included within the regulatory 
exclusion found at 40 CFR 122.3(a), with the exception of the discharge 
of ballast water, which is not included within the scope of the two-
year moratorium. Accordingly, any category of discharge from a 
``covered vessel'' that was subject to the Clean Water Act exemption 
prior to the court decision, such as bilge water, cooling water, 
weather deck runoff, and effluent from properly functioning marine 
engines, is covered withint the two-year moratorium of S. 3298. The 
only exception to this rule is if the EPA Administrator, or a State, as 
appropriate, could demonstrate that such discharge either contributes 
to a violation of a water quality standard or poses an unacceptable 
risk to human health or the environment.
  As was evident from testimony during a hearing on this topic before 
the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, the lack of sufficient information 
on the types, volumes, and composition of discharges from differing 
classes of commercial vessels has complicated the ability of Congress 
to address these discharges in a comprehensive manner.
  S. 3298 will provide Congress with additional time, and with 
additional information on what, exactly, is meant by discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, so that upon the 
expiration of this two-year period, Congress can revisit this issue and 
address these discharges in a manner that is workable, commensurate 
with their impact, and consistent with goals of the Clean Water Act to 
``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity 
of the nation's waters.''
  Mr. Speaker, S. 3298 is in direct response to a March 2005 decision 
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 
which overturned a decades-old Clean Water Act exclusion for discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel. This decision, entitled 
Northwestern Environmental Advocates v. U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, held that the 1979 EPA regulation (found at 40 CFR 122.3(a)) 
which excluded certain vessel discharges from the permitting 
requirements of the Clean Water exceeded the Agency's authority under 
the law. In essence, the court was concerned that the 1979 Clean Water 
Act exclusion was written too broadly, and accordingly, the court 
issued an order vacating the regulatory exclusion for discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel as of September 30, 
2008.
  In response to the court decision, and the pending outcome of an 
appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the EPA was required to 
enforce the permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act on all 
vessel discharges. On June 17, 2008, the Environmental Protection 
Agency published in the Federal Register two separate Draft National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') General Permits for 
Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel.
  The first--the draft Recreational General Permit--would establish a 
set of mandatory and recommended best management practices for 
discharges from recreational vessels less than 79 feet in length. 
However, the need for the Recreational General Permit will be rendered 
unnecessary by passage of the Clean Boating Act of 2008, which provides 
a targeted statutory exemption from the NPDES permitting requirements 
of the Clean Water Act for all recreational vessels, regardless of 
length.
  The second draft general permit--the draft Vessel General Permit 
(``VGP'')--addresses discharges from recreational vessels greater than 
79 feet in length and all other commercial vessels; however, the need 
for a general permit to address discharges from recreational vessels 
is, again, eliminated by enactment of the Clean Boating Act, but the 
need to address discharges from other vessels remains at the end of the 
two-year moratorium contained in S. 3298.
  EPA's draft VGP establishes effluent limits for 28 discharges 
typically found in the effluent of commercial vessels, as well as best 
management practices designed to decrease the amount of these 
pollutants being discharged into the waters of the United States. The 
draft VGP establishes varying levels of regulatory authority and 
management practices to control these discharges scaled on the size and 
class

[[Page 15655]]

of vessels, as well as establishes new monitoring and reporting 
requirements. The effective date of the draft VGP was to be September 
30, 2008, as established by the Northwestern Environmental Advocates 
decision.
  S. 3298 will suspend the implementation of the draft VGP, providing 
an additional two years for the Environmental Protection Agency to 
finalize an appropriate regulatory approach to address discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel, as well as a time to 
further study the nature, types, composition, volumes, locations, and 
potential impacts of vessel discharges.
  However, unlike the Clean Boating Act, S. 3298 is not a statutory 
exemption for discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel. During the two-year period following the date of enactment, EPA 
should continue to work with the individual States to resolve the 
outstanding State certification process under section 401 of the Clean 
Water Act, as well as work with other Federal agencies, including the 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to satisfy its obligations under other 
Federal statutes.
  In addition, this two-year moratorium provides the regulated 
community with additional time to evaluate and provide public comment 
on EPA's draft Vessel General Permit. EPA should utilize this two-year 
period to work with vessel owners and operators, and hopefully address 
any technical or practical implementation questions raised by the 
regulated community.
  In essence, this two-year moratorium provides EPA with adequate time 
to complete its statutory obligations under the Clean Water Act and 
other Federal statutes, and be ready to implement the appropriate Clean 
Water Act mechanisms for controlling, minimizing, and properly 
addressing vessel discharges at the end of the moratorium.
  S. 3298 also directs the Environmental Protection Agency, in 
coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard and other interested Federal 
agencies to conduct a study on discharges incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel. The intent of this study is to provide the 
Agency and the Congress with additional information on the nature, 
types, volumes, and composition of vessel discharges, and the potential 
impact of these discharges on human health, welfare, or the 
environment.
  S. 3298 specifically excludes three types of discharges from the 
scope of the study: discharges from vessels of the Armed Forces, 
discharges of sewage from vessels, and the discharge of ballast water. 
The Committee believes that all three types of discharges have been 
studied in the past, and should be excluded from the scope of this 
study to ensure that the Administrator is able to meet the 15-month 
deadline in this legislation. This study should cover only those 
discharges which EPA determines are ``incidental to the normal 
operation of a vessel'' and should exclude those discharges that are 
not necessary for the operation of a vessel, such as the discharge of 
dry cleaning byproducts, photo processing chemicals, medical wastes, 
and noxious liquid substance residues--all of which were similarly 
excluded from the scope of coverage under EPA's Vessel General Permit.
  In sum, 3298 is a narrowly tailored compromise that should provide 
certain vessel owners and operators and the Environmental Protection 
Agency with sufficient time and information to better understand the 
implications of discharges incidental to the normal operation of a 
vessel and, at the same time, preserve the goals of the Clean Water Act 
to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity 
of the nation's waters.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Again, I want to praise a number of our colleagues, first and 
foremost among them, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar, 
who introduced just yesterday, I think, H.R. 6556, and, again, would 
indicate that anyone that followed the House schedule doesn't need to 
adjust their television set. We are, in fact, doing Senate 3298 and not 
House bill 6556.
  Again, it's thanks to the pressure, and I didn't know I was citing a 
biblical verse before, but give thanks to the pressure exerted by 
Chairman Oberstar indicating that we were prepared to proceed.
  Just a quick story about those 200 meters to the other side, there is 
a rather famous clock on the other side of the Capitol called the Ohio 
Clock. Every time I have been over there it doesn't seem to be working, 
but it's right twice a day, and I think once today at least and in 
passing these pieces of legislation, the United States Senate has sent 
us a good piece of legislation, which we can send on to the President.
  I rise in support of Senate 3298, and this has been the result of 
bipartisan, bicameral discussions by a number of Members on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The House is taking action to approve this bill in conjunction with 
the recreational boating measure that we just passed, the court 
decision which would require this permitting business that we have 
talked about that was never contemplated by the Clean Water Act.
  The bill will exempt small commercial vessels and all fishing vessels 
from obtaining these permits for 2 years while the agency studies the 
nature of impacts and discharges that are normal to the operation of 
these vessels. Following the submission of the required report, 
Congress will have better tools to determine if these discharges should 
be regulated or exempted, as is the case with recreational vehicles.
  Enactment of this legislation and its companion will carry out an 
agreement made with Chairman Oberstar to address the entire scope of 
vessels that will be impacted by the pending EPA permit program.
  I, again, want to commend Chairman Oberstar, thank him for working 
with us, and on our side of the aisle someone who has been dogged, and, 
I think, concerned as Gene Taylor of Mississippi was on the Democratic 
side of the aisle, on our side of the aisle Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. 
LoBiondo of New Jersey were afraid that because we have 14 million 
recreational boaters, perhaps we would deal with that issue and then 
leave this issue hanging in limbo.
  But, again, as a result of the reaching across the aisle and across 
the Capitol, can-do spirit of Chairman Oberstar, we were able to come 
to this moment in time. I guess the only thing that we can hope, is if 
the reference to the slumbering dinosaur is accurate, that 2 years is 
enough time for them to again awaken from their slumber and solve this 
problem when this moratorium expires.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on our side 
and reserve the balance of the time.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield 
such time as he may consume to one of the aforementioned champions on 
this issue, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity 
to rise on this piece of legislation and the one prior, S. 2766.
  Mr. Oberstar, let me again tip my hat to you. I continue to be amazed 
and impressed at the bag of pixie dust you sometimes carry around for 
special circumstances to get the other body to move when it looks like 
they have no movement in their mind at all.
  As Mr. Oberstar and Mr. LaTourette so accurately detailed on the 
previous bill, S. 2766, and for this bill S. 3298, thanks to the Ninth 
District Court of San Francisco, who have added to their disgraceful 
list of decisions on how they are completely disconnected from the real 
world, and what actually happens in people's lives, we are forced to 
deal with these issues.
  When we have people that are upset with us, we want to make sure that 
they understand that this is the Ninth Circuit Court, it wasn't the 
EPA. We are very hopeful that the EPA will take the time necessary to 
look at this very closely.
  I rise in very strong support of S. 3298. A few minutes ago the House 
considered a bill that I also strongly support to permanently exempt 
over 15 million recreational vessels from being slapped with $32,000 in 
fines daily for incidental discharges, and that's the part that I think 
that gripes us the most, is incidental discharges.
  But the bill, I think, needed to have a little bit extra attention in 
a particular area. It didn't really treat all boats equally. While the 
bill did exempt recreational vessels and other

[[Page 15656]]

small commercial boats, like many of the fishing vessels and tour-boat 
operators in my district, they would not have received an exemption. It 
would have been unfair to provide exemptions for 15 million 
recreational vessels while refusing to extend the same exemption to 
approximately 30,000 commercial vessels that are of equal and, in many 
cases, a smaller size.
  In addition, rainwater runoff, bilge water and engine-cooling water 
and other charges are materially the same, regardless of whether they 
are discharged from a recreational vessel, a fishing vessel or a small 
tour boat. Since the Clean Water Act's inception in 1973, these 
discharges have been exempt from EPA permitting. For 35 years these 
exemptions have been accepted by Congress and have stood unchallenged 
in the courts. But, more importantly, these exemptions have been 
applied to all vessels equally. Therefore, it was fair.
  The commercial fishing industry in my district is the second largest 
on the east coast, but it's suffering from a lot of the stress and 
strains that other areas of the economy is, increased fuel costs, catch 
limitations and the economic slump in general.
  Now this infamous court in California is attempting to make things 
worse by forcing the EPA to make our fishermen abide by costly permits 
or face tens of thousands of daily fines and lawsuits. At a time when 
our economy is experiencing a downturn, it is critically important that 
Congress move both of these bills, S. 2766 and S. 3298, to protect both 
the recreational and commercial boating industry, and the millions of 
jobs that they support from unfair regulations. While S. 3298 does not 
go as far as I would have liked, it represents a very fair compromise.
  I want to take the time again to thank Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mica and Mr. 
LaTourette for their work on these issues, as well as many others in 
this Congress. The 2 years that we have for the exemption or the 
extension will give the EPA some of the time they have requested to 
study the issue of incidental discharges and their effect on the 
environment before being forced to implement regulations by a court.
  While I support this legislation, I would like to clarify language in 
the bill that excludes fishing vessels from this temporary exemption 
when they are secured to a storage facility or a seafood-processing 
facility. It is clear this language applies to fishing vessels that are 
permanently secured or are at least secured for extended periods of 
time to a storage facility or to a seafood-processing facility, and is 
not meant to apply when a fishing vessel is unloading its catch at a 
seafood-processing facility docked at the processing facility for a 
short period of time or stored at the facility during the off season.
  With that, I would like to again thank Chairman Oberstar, Ranking 
Member Mica, Mr. LaTourette and all the others who have worked so hard 
on this. I especially want to thank Mr. Taylor. We had many early 
morning meetings, but we got a lot accomplished.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. OBERSTAR. I am prepared to close on this side after the gentleman 
from Ohio.
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time 
for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. Speaker, just a couple of observations. I am glad that, again, 
Mr. LoBiondo has singled out Gene Taylor of Mississippi, who is a 
tireless champion on a number of these issues, and was dead set, as was 
Mr. LoBiondo and Mr. Young, on making sure that this piece moved with 
the other piece. And in honor of Mr. Taylor today on the floor, I 
actually wore chinos and a blue blazer, which is the Taylor national 
uniform, to commemorate his participation in the House of 
Representatives.
  The other thing, before I came over to the floor I got the benefit of 
an e-mail that is being sent around by some environmental groups 
indicating that this somehow is a dangerous bill and is going to lead 
to pollution. And again, I will tell you, for those that are weak at 
heart and maybe nervous about that type of communication, first, again, 
over 99 percent of the recreational vehicles and vessels we are talking 
about don't have any ballast water. So the ballast water and invasive 
species issue that we are attempting to deal with is a nonstarter, 
literally, a red herring.
  The second piece, and that is that somehow we are authorizing the 
discharge of noxious chemicals and pollutants into the water stream is 
also not correct, in that that was taken care of in the Oil Pollution 
Act of 1990. And what we are truly talking about here, Mr. Speaker, are 
incidental discharges, as I think I described during the discussion of 
the other bill.
  I am grateful that we were able to permanently take care of our 
recreational friends; that we now have a 2-year window with which to 
collect additional data to make sure we get it right on fishing 
vessels.
  I again commend Mr. Oberstar and our committee and our friends in the 
Senate for getting it to us; and hopefully President Bush will sign 
this soon, and this problem will be taken care of.
  I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. To the list of encomiums that have been expressed on 
the floor during this discussion, I add that of Mr. Mica, who has 
participated all through the process in partnership, as we do on our 
committee, in crafting the approach, agreeing to separate tracks for 
the two bills, to patience waiting for the other body, and I greatly 
appreciate the support of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), our 
ranking member.
  To all Members who have given so much of their time and energy and 
pointing out, as several have done, that if we don't act, as we are 
doing today, if we don't act promptly, come the start of commercial 
fishing season, there could be a shutdown of the entire industry with 
calamitous economic consequences, and we don't want that to happen.
  So we are here now to bring this bill to conclusion, a 2-year 
moratorium, give the regulated users, boaters, time to evaluate to 
provide public comment on EPA's draft vessel general permit.
  We also caution EPA to use this 2-year period to work with the vessel 
owners within the context of that court ruling and address technical or 
practical implementation issues raised in this entire context. There 
should be plenty of time for EPA to complete statutory obligations 
under the Clean Water Act and other statutes, and address vessel 
discharges at the end of this moratorium period so we don't have to 
have another crisis situation again.
  And I know that all those who are engaged in the commercial boating 
activities will appreciate the dispatch with which we have acted. And I 
assure one and all that we would have acted weeks ago had it not been 
out of respect for the other body and the procedural problems 
encountered in moving bills over there.
  Again, I thank all those who have given so much of their time and 
energy and early morning meetings, yes, to resolution of this issue.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of S. 3298.
  The Clean Water Act is clear in its mandate that point source 
discharges into waters of the United States are subject to regulation. 
But while the law is clear on this point, the Act is less clear in 
providing guidance on how to deal with the concerns of mobile sources.
  Discharges from vessels complicate this matter all the more. First, 
the sheer numbers of vessels make pollution control and regulation 
challenging.
  Second--and very importantly--we are unclear on the effects of many 
of the discharges that emanate from vessels.
  Third, efforts to address mobile sources of pollution are inherently 
more complicated than that of stationary ones.
  For many years--from 1973 to 2005--the Environmental Protection 
Agency avoided these vexing issues by decreeing that discharges 
incidental to the normal operation of a vessel were exempt from 
regulation.
  While a convenient and understandable approach to the challenges of 
regulating vessels under the Clean Water Act, EPA did nothing to 
control or even understand the nature of discharges that stemmed from 
vessels.
  In 2005, however, a federal court ruled that EPA had acted in excess 
of its authority in

[[Page 15657]]

``exempting an entire category of discharges'' from regulation under 
the Clean Water Act. As a result of this Court decision, all vessels 
would be subject to Clean Water Act permitting requirements by 
September 30th of this year.
  In both pieces of legislation before us today--in this bill, S. 3298 
as well as in the Clean Boating Act--we seek to strike a balance among 
the various factors that have been central to the issue of minimizing 
pollution from vessels. And I believe we have been successful in 
realizing this challenge.
  Central to S. 3298 is a moratorium of 2 years from regulation for a 
majority of vessels potentially eligible.
  During this time, the EPA will do what it has not done enough of 
before--rigorously study what vessels actually discharge, and what the 
human health and environmental effects of those discharges might be.
  This will provide the Congress with additional information that will 
allow us to properly address whether, what, and how the discharge of 
pollutants from vessels should be addressed.
  Among the vessels that will be subject to the moratorium is much of 
the Nation's fishing fleet. We recognize the financial margins that 
fishermen are subject to, and realize it would not be prudent to 
control their various discharges without better information.
  However, given the uncertainty related to the types, volumes, and 
composition of discharges from larger commercial vessels, such as 
cruise ships and super-tankers, these vessels are excluded from the 2 
year moratorium. This is only right. Our Nation's valuable fisheries 
and coastal areas should not be subject to the discharge of pollutants 
that enter our Nation's waters in such quantities.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 3298 strikes an appropriate balance between 
precaution and commerce, and between aquatic health and pragmatism.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation today.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 3298.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the 
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________