[Pages H4681-H4688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H4681]]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 961, CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 140 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 140

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for
failure to comply with section 302(f) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed two hours equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to
consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment
under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
by title rather than by section. The first three sections and
each title of the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. Points of order
against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute
for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or clause
5(a) of rule XXI or section 302(f) of the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During consideration of the
bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. Before consideration of
any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. That amendment may be offered
only by a Member designated in the report, may amend portions
of the bill not yet read for amendment, shall be considered
as read, shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, shall not
be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. If that amendment is adopted, then the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as so
amended shall be considered as original text for the purpose
of further amendment. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment for the Committee shall rise and
report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have
been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the
House on an amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole
to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of
debate only.
(Mr. QUILLEN asked and was give permission to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 140 is an open rule
providing for the consideration of H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments
of 1995. The rule provides 2 hours of general debate divided equally
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule waives section 302(f) of
the Budget Act, prohibiting new budget authority in excess of the
committee's section 602(b) allocation, against consideration of the
bill.
The rule also makes in order the committee amendment in the nature of
a substitute as original text for amendment purposes, which shall be
read by title rather than section for amendment, with each title
considered as read. The rule provides the following waivers against the
amendment in the nature of a substitute: waives clause 7 of rule XVI
pertaining to germaneness; clause 5(a) of rule XXI, prohibiting
appropriations in a legislative bill, and section 302(f) of the Budget
Act.
Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to
consider the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. This is an en bloc amendment addressing
concerns of other committees of jurisdiction and makes technical
amendments. This amendment may be offered only by Mr. Shuster or his
designee, may amend portions of the bill not yet read for amendment,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. If that
amendment is adopted, then the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute as so amended shall be
considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee furnished the Rules Committee with a list of
waivers required and specified the provisions requiring such waivers.
Therefore, I do not object to the waivers provided in this rule.
Under this rule, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act has not been amended comprehensively
since 1987, and I strongly support this bill. I'm particularly pleased
to see that the bill takes giant steps toward relieving the enormous
burdens placed on the States, on business and industry and agriculture,
and on individuals by outrageous and unnecessary Federal regulations.
The Clean Water Act has done a good job in getting Federal, State, and
local governments and private industry to work together to provide our
Nation with clean, healthy water. But the Clean Water Act has not been
without controversy, and this bill before us today provides an
important balance between environmental protection and private property
rights. It provides much needed clarification of wetlands issues and
requires risk assessment and cost benefit analysis for any new clean
water regulations. Perhaps most important, this bill provides
flexibility to State and local governments in implementating
regulations.
H.R. 961 has been strongly endorsed by almost all agricultural,
business, and industry organizations, and this widespread support is a
clear indication that a great deal of cooperation, dedication, and
common sense went into the development of this important legislation. I
commend the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
for their hard work.
This open rule will allow Members to offer any relevant amendments to
address their particular concerns, and I urge adoption of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following material
comparing open and closed rules in the 103d and 104th Congresses:

THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of May 9, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\............... 46 44 24 75
Modified Closed\3\.................. 49 47 8 25
Closed\4\........................... 9 9 0 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page H4682]]
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS--
Continued
[As of May 9, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals:....................... 104 100 32 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).

SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of May 9, 1995]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. No. (Date
rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95) O................... H.R. 5.............. Unfunded Mandate Reform.. A: 350-71 (1/19/
95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95) MC.................. H. Con. Res. 17..... Social Security.......... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1......... Balanced Budget Amdt..... 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 101............ Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/1/
Pueblo Indians. 95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 400............ Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/1/
Nat'l. Park and Preserve. 95).
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95) O................... H.R. 440............ Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/1/
County, Calif. 95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95). O................... H.R. 2.............. Line Item Veto........... A: voice vote (2/2/
95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 665............ Victim Restitution....... A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95). O................... H.R. 666............ Exclusionary Rule Reform. A: voice vote (2/7/
95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95). MO.................. H.R. 667............ Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/9/
Incarceration. 95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95). O................... H.R. 668............ Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/10/
Deportation. 95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95) MO.................. H.R. 728............ Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/10/
Grants. 95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95) MO.................. H.R. 7.............. National Security PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
Revitalization. 127 (2/15/95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95) MC.................. H.R. 831............ Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
Deductibility. 188 (2/21/95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95) O................... H.R. 830............ Paperwork Reduction Act.. A: v.v. (2/22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95) MC.................. H.R. 889............ Defense Supplemental..... A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95) MO.................. H.R. 450............ Regulatory Transition Act A: 252-175 (2/23/
95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95) MO.................. H.R. 1022........... Risk Assessment.......... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/ O................... H.R. 926............ Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/28/
95). Relief Act. 95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/ MO.................. H.R. 925............ Private Property A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
95). Protection Act.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 988............ Attorney Accountability A: voice vote (3/6/
Act. 95)
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95) MO.................. H.R. 1058........... Securities Litigation ...................
Reform.
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95) MO.................. .................... ......................... A: 257-155 (3/7/95)
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95) Debate.............. H.R. 956............ Product Liability Reform. A: voice vote (3/8/
95)
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95) MC.................. .................... ......................... PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
181 (3/9/95)
H. Res. 115 (3/14/ MO.................. H.R. 1158........... Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
95). Approps.. 95)
H. Res. 116 (3/15/ MC.................. H.J. Res. 73........ Term Limits Const. Amdt.. A: voice vote (3/28/
95). 95)
H. Res. 117 (3/16/ Debate.............. H.R. 4.............. Personal Responsibility A: voice vote (3/21/
95). Act of 1995. 95)
H. Res. 119 (3/21/ MC.................. .................... ......................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95). 95)
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 1271........... Family Privacy Protection A: 423-1 (4/4/95)
Act.
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95) O................... H.R. 660............ Older Persons Housing Act ...................
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95) MC.................. H.R. 1215........... Contract With America Tax A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
Relief Act of 1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95) MC.................. H.R. 483............ Medicare Select Expansion A: 253-172 (4/6/
95)
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95) O................... H.R. 655............ Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/2/
1995. 95)
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95) O................... H.R. 1361........... Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996 A: voice vote (5/9/
95)
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95) O................... H.R. 961............ Clean Water Amendments... ...................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous
question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.

{time} 1200

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we support this open rule for H.R. 961, the clean water
amendments of 1995, which makes major and substantial changes in
current requirements for controlling water pollution and protecting
wetlands.
Fortunately, the majority on the Committee on Rules did not accede to
a request from the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure that a time limit be place don the amendment process.
This is an enormously controversial bill that would in the view of many
of us reverse many of the gains in water quality that have been
achieved by what is probably our most successful environmental law, and
Members should not be shut out by an arbitrary time limit.
As the gentleman from Tennessee has explained, the rule does contain
several waivers. We are told that the waiver of the Budget Act
prohibition against legislation containing new budget authority in
excess of the committee's 602(b) budget allocation is necessary because
of the provision in the bill that waives the Federal Government's
sovereign immunity under the Clean Water Act.
We would point out to Members that the Congressional Budget Office
was unable to provide estimates for the cost of this provision that is
being protected, but it did report that the cost ``could be
significant.''
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules heard criticism yesterday about
the process of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in
considering this bill. Many of us are concerned that some of the most
controversial provisions of H.R. 961 did not receive adequate attention
in the hearings that preceded markup of the bill. The provisions in
question are those that provide waivers, loopholes, and rollbacks of
existing Clean Water Act provisions relating to major dischargers of
pollution in our waters.
We are concerned that the public did not have the opportunity to
comment on the new provisions in the bill that were added late in the
process and which would weaken or revoke many of the basic features of
the Clean Water Act that have made it so successful over the years.
We are concerned, too, about widespread reports that those provisions
of H.R. 961 were written in large part by lobbyists representing
industries that are major polluters. Several agencies, including the
EPA and the Department of Justice, have protested that they did not
have the opportunity to comment in a timely manner on these new and
very damaging provisions.
This open rule will give us the opportunity to discuss and emphasize
some of those changes and ensure that the public has a greater
awareness of their impact on the quality of our Nation's water supply.
Mr. Speaker, we will agree that there are reasonable changes that
should be made in the Clean Water Act. Its requirements should be as
rational, efficient, and cost effective as possible.
Complying with its regulations should not be more expensive or more
burdensome than is necessary for the municipalities, industries, and
private landowners affected by the provisions of the act.
Unfortunately, the bill before us would have widespread and serious
consequences for the quality of the Nation's water supply. It would
make legitimate regulation much more difficult, in many cases
impossible.
Interestingly, many of its provisions--including the new
classification system and compensation program for wetlands--would set
up cumbersome and costly procedures that are likely to require more
Federal employees and agency costs at a time when we are
[[Page H4683]] trying to downsize the Federal bureaucracy, or the
agencies in charge will simply have to decide not to effectively
enforce the law.
And, as CBO reported, the cost of the compensation program for
landowners of wetlands is impossible to estimate, but it is a program
that could dramatically increase costs to the taxpayers. There are
preliminary estimates that indicate that the effect of the bill would
be to increase the deficit by several billion dollars during fiscal
years 1995-98.
The Clean Water Act has been one of our most successful environmental
laws and one of the most popular ones with individual citizens, a great
majority of whom would prefer to see the act strengthened, and not
weakened as H.R. 961 would do. This is legislation that threatens to
overturn very important health protections that citizens have under the
law as it is currently written.
The bill in its present form is likely to invite massive amounts of
new litigation that ignores scientific information, most notably in
making major changes in wetlands regulation without the benefit of a
congressionally-mandated study on wetlands that was released just
yesterday and which, and I quote from the article in the New York Times
discussing it, ``repudiates the basic approach taken by the bill,''
mainly because it found that the cost-benefit analysis requirements in
the bill are inflexible and unrealistic.
The bill has many other objectionable features including those that
reduce water quality protection by undermining the strong national
standards that have produced significant water quality improvements in
the last 20 years. It seeks to repeal regulations that protect city
water from pollution runoff.
It eases Federal protections for industrial polluters, and allows
development of protected wetlands that are critical to our Nation's
water supply. In fact it would redefine wetlands in such a way that
well over half of the Nation's wetlands, including parts of the
Everglades, would be removed from protection.
Mr. Speaker, one would think from reading this bill that we have gone
too far or certainly far enough in attempting to clean up our Nation's
waters. In fact, however, over 40 percent of our waters do not meet the
standards for the uses designated under existing law.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the administration strongly opposes the bill
because, in its words, it threatens to undermine achievement in
cleaning up the Nation's waters and would significantly delay progress
in addressing remaining water pollution problems.
Among its most objectionable provisions, the bill would reduce water
quality protection, eliminate fundamental wetlands protections, create
enormous new costs, fail to address effectively non-point source
pollution, and finally would paralyze the Federal Government's ability
to issue regulations and guidance to protect the Nation's waters.
Fortunately as we have discussed, as the gentleman from Tennessee
told us at the outset, this is an open rule, so we will have the
opportunity to try to change many of the most worrisome features of the
bill. We hope that amendments strengthening the act, or at least
returning it to its existing state, are approved.
Again, Mr. Speaker, we support the rule for H.R. 961. We urge its
approval so that we may proceed with consideration of this legislation
today.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

Floor Procedure in the 104th Congress; Compiled by the Rules Committee Democrats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration Amendments in order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1*.............. Compliance........... H. Res. 6....... Closed.................... None.
H. Res. 6............ Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5....... Closed; contained a closed None.
Package. rule on H.R. 1 within the
closed rule.
H.R. 5*.............. Unfunded Mandates.... H. Res. 38...... Restrictive; Motion N/A.
adopted over Democratic
objection in the
Committee of the Whole to
limit debate on section
4; Pre-printing gets
preference.
H.J. Res. 2*......... Balanced Budget...... H. Res. 44...... Restrictive; only certain 2R; 4D.
substitutes.
H. Res. 43........... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ). Restrictive; considered in N/A.
Scheduling. House no amendments.
H.R. 2*.............. Line Item Veto....... H. Res. 55...... Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
preference.
H.R. 665*............ Victim Restitution H. Res. 61...... Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Act of 1995. preference.
H.R. 666*............ Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60...... Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Reform Act of 1995. preference.
H.R. 667*............ Violent Criminal H. Res. 63...... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time N/A.
Incarceration Act of Cap on amendments.
1995.
H.R. 668*............ The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69...... Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Deportation preference; Contains self-
Improvement Act. executing provision.
H.R. 728*............ Local Government Law H. Res. 79...... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time N/A.
Enforcement Block Cap on amendments; Pre-
Grants. printing gets preference.
H.R. 7*.............. National Security H. Res. 83...... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time N/A.
Revitalization Act. Cap on amendments; Pre-
printing gets preference.
H.R. 729*............ Death Penalty/Habeas. N/A............. Restrictive; brought up N/A.
under UC with a 6 hr.
time cap on amendments.
S. 2................. Senate Compliance.... N/A............. Closed; Put on suspension None.
calendar over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831............. To Permanently Extend H. Res. 88...... Restrictive; makes in 1D.
the Health Insurance order only the Gibbons
Deduction for the amendment; waives all
Self-Employed. points of order; Contains
self-executing provision.
H.R. 830*............ The Paperwork H. Res. 91...... Open...................... N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889............. Emergency H. Res. 92...... Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Supplemental/ order only the Obey
Rescinding Certain substitute.
Budget Authority.
H.R. 450*............ Regulatory Moratorium H. Res. 93...... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time N/A.
Cap on amendments; Pre-
printing gets preference.
H.R. 1022*........... Risk Assessment...... H. Res. 96...... Restrictive; 10 hr. Time N/A.
Cap on amendments.
H.R. 926*............ Regulatory H. Res. 100..... Open...................... N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*............ Private Property H. Res. 101..... Restrictive; 12 hr. time 1D.
Protection Act. cap on amendments;
Requires Members to pre-
print their amendments in
the Record prior to the
bill's consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and budget
act points of order as
well as points of order
concerning appropriating
on a legislative bill
against the committee
substitute used as base
text.
H.R. 1058*........... Securities Litigation H. Res. 105..... Restrictive; 8 hr. time 1D.
Reform Act. cap on amendments; Pre-
printing gets preference;
Makes in order the Wyden
amendment and waives
germaness against it.
H.R. 988*............ The Attorney H. Res. 104..... Restrictive; 7 hr. time N/A.
Accountability Act cap on amendments; Pre-
of 1995. printing gets preference.
H.R. 956*............ Product Liability and H. Res. 109..... Restrictive; makes in 8D; 7R.
Legal Reform Act. order only 15 germane
amendments and denies 64
germane amendments from
being considered.
H.R. 1158............ Making Emergency H. Res. 115..... Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations and nonemergency 1159 and
Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in order
only pre-printed
amendments that include
offsets within the same
chapter (deeper cuts in
programs already cut);
waives points of order
against three amendments;
waives cl 2 of rule XXI
against the bill, cl 2,
XXI and cl 7 of rule XVI
against the substitute;
waives cl 2(e) od rule
XXI against the
amendments in the Record;
10 hr time cap on
amendments. 30 minutes
debate on each amendment.
H.J. Res. 73*........ Term Limits.......... H. Res. 116..... Restrictive; Makes in 1D; 3R.
order only 4 amendments
considered under a
``Queen of the Hill''
procedure and denies 21
germane amendments from
being considered.
H.R. 4*.............. Welfare Reform....... H. Res. 119..... Restrictive; Makes in 5D; 26R.
order only 31 perfecting
amendments and two
substitutes; Denies 130
germane amendments from
being considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a
``Queen of the Hill''
procedure; All points of
order are waived against
the amendments..
H.R. 1271*........... Family Privacy Act... H. Res. 125..... Open...................... N/A.
H.R. 660*............ Housing for Older H. Res. 126..... Open...................... N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*........... The Contract With H. Res. 129..... Restrictive; Self Executes 1D.
America Tax Relief language that makes tax
Act of 1995. cuts contingent on the
adoption of a balanced
budget plan and strikes
section 3006. Makes in
order only one
substitute. Waives all
points of order against
the bill, substitute made
in order as original text
and Gephardt substitute..
H.R. 483............. Medicare Select H. Res. 130..... Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill; makes
H.R. 1391 in order as
original text; makes in
order only the Dingell
substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to
file a report on the bill
at any time..
H.R. 655............. Hydrogen Future Act.. H. Res 136...... Open...................... N/A.
H.R. 1361............ Coast Guard H. Res 139...... Open; waives sections N/A.
Authorization. 302(f) and 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives c1 5(a) of rule
XXI against the committee
substitute.

[[Page H4684]]
Floor Procedure in the 104th Congress; Compiled by the Rules Committee Democrats--Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration Amendments in order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 961............. Clean Water Act...... H. Res 140...... Open; pre-printing gets N/A.
preference; waives
sections 302(f) and
602(b) of the Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration; waives c1
7 of rule XVI, c1 5(a) of
rule XXI and section
302(f) of the Budget Act
against the committee
substitute. Makes in
order Shuster substitute
as first order of
business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. **All legislation, 68% restrictive; 32% open. ****Restrictive rules
are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so called modified open and
modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as
opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart
of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the 103rd Congress. ****Not included in this chart are
three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a very valuable member of the
Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], the chairman emeritus, for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule for the clean water
amendments of 1995. The Clean Water Act is one our most important and
far-reaching environmental laws, and the policies associated with it
deserve a full hearing on the floor of this House.
I congratulate Chairman Shuster and Subcommittee Chairman Boehlert
for their hard work in acting on this reauthorization in such a timely
manner--it is a credit to them and the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee that we have this bill on the floor in early
May.
Mr. Speaker, clean water is vital to everyone in America, but nowhere
more so than in the State of Florida. We are literally surrounded by
water--the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico. In southwest Florida,
we have lakes, streams, and wetlands that are national treasures like
the Everglades and Big Cypress--all of which are vital to our economy
and our well-being. Thousands of new residents move to my district
every year for the pristine beaches, the clear harbors, and the
subtropical climate, providing tremendous economic growth. Each one of
our major industries--tourism, fishing, and agriculture, depend on
clean water and a healthy environment.
For years, the Clean Water Act has helped to remove pollution from
many of America's lakes, rivers, and coastlines. It has aided in the
preservation of our more pristine bodies of water. And yes, it has
created some problems along the way. Wetlands protection, for instance,
has become a regulatory nightmare for most ordinary citizens. Obtaining
permits can take years, enforcement can be inconsistent, and local
conditions are sometimes not considered. States and local governments
have complained about rigid Federal mandates that are both costly and
inefficient.
Improvements to the Clean Water Act can and should be made, and I
look forward to addressing these issues in a full and open debate. I am
especially pleased that this debate will include a substitute amendment
offered by my friend, Jim Saxton, from New Jersey.
The floor discussion on the fine points of these proposals will
likely be determinant for the way many Members will vote. For instance,
I will be seeking answers to questions like, will H.R. 961 replace one
inefficient, unworkable wetlands bureaucracy with another? How will the
classification criteria used by the Army Corps of Engineers relate to
the just-released National Academy of Sciences Wetlands Report? Would
it be better to address the problems associated with wetlands
permitting by adopting the National Governor's Association proposal to
do the work at the local level, with Federal oversight?
In addition, I will be interested in the debate over the coastal zone
management provisions in H.R. 961; specifically, are we better off
eliminating the nonpoint source pollution provisions from the CZMA, or
do these just need some basic reforms? And if we do repeal section 1627
of the CZMA, are we providing enough coastal protection in other areas?
Finally, I am concerned about the takings language in H.R. 961 that
would provide automatic compensation for any portion of a property that
lost 20 percent of its value. Estimates from the Congressional Budget
Office suggest that the cost to the Corps of Engineers of this
provision alone could be $15 billion. The alternative could be to leave
our most vital wetlands unprotected.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], the distinguished ranking
member of the full committee.
(Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
California, for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It provides no
limitations in terms of amendments, nor any limitation on the time
available for amendments.
This is a very large and very complex bill with enormous consequences
for people from all across America. It will determine how healthy or
unhealthy their drinking water supply will be. It will determine
whether the water that flows through their community is a blessing or a
blight, and whether they need to try to keep their kids from swimming
in it or fishing in it. It will determine whether they have enough
clean water to be able to attract new businesses with new jobs.
This is a big bill. When it was introduced, it was 141 pages. Now it
is 326 pages. This bill makes far-reaching changes in the Clean Water
Act, one of the most important and successful basic protections that
our citizen have.

{time} 1215

This bill will reach into every community, every home and come out
through every faucet in America. This is a bill which requires careful
and thorough consideration. This is a bill where we cannot afford to
make mistakes and we cannot afford to act in haste. It is therefore
imperative that this rule does not limit amendments or amendment time.
Whatever concerns Members have, we need to hear from them. We need to
consider them. We need to correct them if they need correcting, and for
the same reasons it is important to hear all points of view in general
debate.
We have Democrats who oppose the bill, and Democrats who support the
bill. We have Republicans who oppose the bill, and we have Republicans
who support the bill. All have different concerns and issues that they
wish to air, and all should be given that opportunity.
The rule contributes to that goal by providing extra general debate
time, 2 hours to be equally divided. But that still leaves open the
question of distributing that time is a way which is fair to all points
of views and allows all points of view to be heard.
I, for my part, have committed that I will yield 15 minutes of my
time to Democrats who are in favor of the bill; namely in opposition to
the position I take. And my suggestion yesterday at the Committee on
Rules was that 15 minutes of the majority time should be set aside for
Republicans who are in opposition to the bill. In that way both parties
and both opponents and proponents would have equal time. To do
otherwise would bar some points of view from being expressed on the
floor, and would artificially skew the debate by providing more time
for proponents than for opponents, which would be clearly an attempt to
bias the debate.
I assume that no one here is afraid of anyone else's arguments, and
so if I might I would like to ask either the gentleman from Tennessee,
or my very fine chairman from Pennsylvania, as to whether or not
Republicans who oppose the bill will have time from the majority side,
something on the other of let us say 15 minutes, as I have given to
[[Page H4685]] the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] to express
their view on the bill.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINETA. I am more than happy to yield to my friend, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SHUSTER. I am pleased to respond to the gentleman that the
Republican leadership has agreed to give 15 minutes to the Democratic
proponents of the bill, and so I of course will accede to that request.
There were no requests at the Committee on Rules yesterday formally
submitted at the time we met. It would be my intention to give as much
time as I possibly could to all points of view.
However, because of the previous commitment that had been made by the
Republican leadership to those Democrats who support the bill, I am
constrained to honor that commitment, but I would point out that I
understand there is a substitute which the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Boehlert] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] have which
will be offered and under the rule there will be unlimited debate made
available on that.
So, it certainly would not be my intention at this time to attempt to
limit or constrain their time on their substitute at all.
Mr. MINETA. If I might reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, as I understand
it then under the arrangement then the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Shuster] will have 45 minutes of general debate time under his control,
I will have 45 minutes of debate time under my control, and the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] will then have a half hour, is
that correct?
Mr. SHUSTER. That is my understanding as to what the agreement was
that I am simply carrying out.
Mr. MINETA. And that opponents of the bill that will be on the floor,
then, will be accorded their time only when they present their
substitute rather than under general debate time under H.R. 961.
Mr. SHUSTER. If I have the time I will be happy to yield to them, but
since I do not know whether I am going to have any time, I cannot
commit a block of time, because that block of time previously had been
committed by the Republican leadership. Of course, the gentleman from
California is certainly free to yield whatever time he wants to the
opponents of the bill.
Mr. MINETA. Absolutely. I am going to be yielding my time to do that.
I appreciate the gentleman from California giving me the time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster]
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I simply take this time to announce to the
body that it is our intention to finish this bill by 1 p.m. Friday
afternoon. In consultation with the leadership, I am informed that we
might go tonight until between 9:30 and 10, that we will go tomorrow
night as long as is necessary, so that we can finish this bill by 1
p.m.
I am pleased that we have an open rule; I am pleased that we have no
time limits. If it appears that it is being dragged out, or there might
be dilatory tactics, which I certainly do not anticipate, but should
there be such tactics to delay or to get to go to final passage, then I
of course reserve the right to move to put time limits on the debate.
I hope that we do not have to do that. It is not my intention, but it
is indeed our intention to complete this bill and have final passage by
1 p.m. Friday afternoon.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], the ranking member of the
subcommittee.
Mr. BORSKI. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to express my support for the rule and my strong
opposition to H.R. 961, an industry-written bill filled with loopholes
and waivers to roll back the Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 will do tremendous damage to our Nation's environment, the
water quality of our rivers, lakes, and streams, and will threaten the
health of the American public.
This bill has been rushed through the process with no time for
adequate consideration.
At no time was the Democratic leadership of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee ever consulted about the drafting of this
bill.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the environmental community
were totally excluded from the process.
H.R. 961 is an industry wish-list drafted by secret industry task
forces that has had no hearings and the barest minimum of consideration
in the committee.
The 326-page industry wish-list was unveiled for the first time on
March 22. One week later, we went to subcommittee markup.
Less than 1 week after that markup began in full committee. These
were markups that were scheduled over the objections of the Democratic
leadership.
In only 15 days, we moved from seeing a 326-page bill for the first
time, through subcommittee and full committee markups.
That would be impressive for a non-controversial bill--but this bill
is very controversial.
The result of that one-sided and exclusive process--a process that is
totally unprecedented in our committee--is a bill that will completely
gut the Clean Water Act.
H.R. 961 will roll back 20 years of environmental protection that has
cleaned up many of our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams.
Before 1972, the rivers in many cities were no more than open sewers.
Some even caught fire.
We must not turn back the clock on environmental protection.
H.R. 961 would pit State against State, city against city, in the
race to save money and attract industry by relaxing environmental
standards.
It would do virtually nothing to attack the major remaining source of
water pollution--non-point source runoff from rural and urban areas. In
fact, it would eliminate the Coastal Zone Non-Point Control Act--the
one effective program we have for managing non-point pollution.
In the last 10 years, there have been more than 100 outbreaks of
waterborne disease. In Milwaukee polluted runoff in drinking water
resulted in 400,000 illnesses and more than 100 deaths.
H.R. 961 would remove protection from 60 to 80 percent of our
Nation's wetlands.
It would leave parts of such valuable areas as the Florida
Everglades, the Great Dismal Swamp and large portions of the New Jersey
shore unprotected.
Mr. Speaker, this bill should be defeated. The Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee should start over on a bill that will make the
reforms that are truly needed in the Clean Water Act but will maintain
protection of the environment.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who is chairman of the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I support the rule we will vote on this
morning. I am proud that the people's House will bring this landmark
legislation up for debate under an open rule that allows for maximum
debate.
I think it is a sign of the maturity and confidence of the new
majority that we are willing to air our disagreements over major
legislation. Competing ideas are not just permitted, but encouraged to
percolate to the top, where we will have full and open debate.
Let me also say that I believe the committee's hearing process was
open as well. As Chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, I presided over
six major hearings in Washington, and one field hearing in upstate New
York, that one dealing exclusively with the subject of nonpoint source
pollution.
The process was open, and I applaud that. I voted for the bill out of
subcommittee to report it to the full committee despite the fact that I
had major objections, but I feel that the day has long since gone when
one person in the House can deny all of the
[[Page H4686]] others the opportunity to consider major legislation.
I voted for that bill to come out of the subcommittee to the full
committee, but I could not in good conscience vote for that bill in the
full committee, and let me tell Members why.
First of all, a 334-page bill was filed last Thursday. For most
Members, the first opportunity that they had to be exposed to the
extensive material on this complex legislation was yesterday when we
returned to the Nation's Capital, and today we are debating the
legislation.
This legislation will remove over 60 percent of our Nation's wetlands
from any level of protection, and allow the destruction of maybe 80
percent of the Nation's wetlands. Just yesterday the National Academy
of Sciences issued a report, and in effect at the briefing these
preeminent scientists said there is no scientific basis for the
wetlands provision in the committee bill. We have to deal with good
science.
We have gone, those of us who are proposing an alternative, my
colleagues Congressman Saxton of New Jersey and Congressman Roemer of
Indiana, we have gone with an extensive outreach program with the
National Governors Association and we have listened. That is what we
are supposed to do in Washington, listen, and we have embraced the
National Governors Association section of our bill dealing with
wetlands.
The bill, the committee bill, repeals the coastal zone nonpoint
source pollution control problem, a very serious mistake with very
serious consequences, so we reached out. We went to the coastal zone
organization, comprised of 30 States, their Governors, their key
environment and public safety people, and we have embraced, adopted
their provision to deal with the Coastal Zone Reauthorization Act
amendments.
The bill repeals entirely the storm water permitting process. We
think that is a big mistake. We recognize problems for smaller
communities and smaller businesses, so we have put into our alternative
a 10-year moratorium that would exempt communities of less than 100,000
or smaller industries. We have tried to be responsive.
Time after time, poll after poll, the people of America said they
want us to do something meaningful about clean water. There is not one
person in this House, not one person in America, who would hesitate in
this richest, most technologically advanced nation to go to a water
fountain in any city to quench their thirst, but they did that in
Milwaukee and 104 people died in 1993; 400,000 were made ill.

{time} 1230

Four hundred thousand were made ill, and that is just the most
recent, the flagrant example of how the public health is in jeopardy if
we do not do a better job with our Nation's clean water program.
My colleagues in the House, the people across America, I urge you to
give very careful consideration to the alternative that will be offered
by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], myself, and the
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Clean water should be an American birthright.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and
against this bill. This bill guts one of our strongest environmental
statutes, the Clean Water Act. This bill is a bonanza for special
interests and polluters. They are probably jumping for joy over this
bill.
They are doing so because they probably wrote it and, in fact, a
better title for this bill should be ``The Dirty Water Act of 1995'' or
``The Polluters' Bill of Rights of 1995.''
Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a dirty water bill which would
significantly weaken laws, affecting protection of wetlands,
enforcement of water quality standards, regulation of storm water
runoff and a number of other sewage standards relaxed much too much. In
effect, this legislation would leave 50 to 70 percent of our Nation's
most valuable wetlands unprotected. It would delete controls on the
discharge of more than 70,000 chemicals which are now regulated by the
act, 70,000 chemicals no longer regulated by the act. It would allow
waivers for more than two dozen cities to discharge sewage into the
ocean. It would ignore the impact of pollution from runoff, which is
the No. 1 source of pollution in our Nation's surface waters.
And here is a statement by the administration: ``For these reasons,
if H.R. 961 were presented to the President in its current form, the
Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of
OMB, and the Attorney General would recommend that the bill be
vetoed.'' Again, this bill reduces water quality protection.
We should support pollution prevention and flexible tailored cost
approaches to meeting the goals of the act, but this bill would
undermine the strong standards that have produced significant water
quality improvements in the last 20 years.
On wetlands, wetlands are critical to our Nation's water supply by
functioning as natural filters which improve water quality and mitigate
potential disastrous flooding plus protecting a number of species. This
bill would redefine wetlands and remove even the Everglades--as I said,
over 70 percent of all wetlands.
Now, costs are created by this bill. We should all support private
property rights, but the takings provision in this bill would
dramatically increase costs to the taxpayer of protecting our vital
wetlands.
The bill fails to address nonpoint source pollution. Nonpoint source
pollution is the major water quality problem currently facing the
country. It paralyzes the Federal Government's ability to issue
regulations and guidance to protect the Nation's water.
The administration believes that cost-benefit analysis can and should
influence environmental decisions and that regulations should be
adopted upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the
regulation would justify its cost, but this bill would impose overly
broad and judicially reviewable risk assessment and cost-benefit
requirements prior to the issuance of such rules.
And most importantly, if you look at pay-as-you-go scoring, H.R. 961
would affect direct spending. Therefore, it would be subject to the
pay-as-you-go provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990, and minimum estimates indicate that the effect of the bill would
be to increase the deficit by several billion dollars during fiscal
years 1995 and 1998.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It should be rejected. We should
start over and do this carefully. We must reauthorize the Clean Water
Act, but not with this.
Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for
yielding me this time.
Let me just say at the outset that I want to thank the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and the Republican leadership for giving us
the opportunity to debate this very important matter under an open
rule, giving us the opportunity to bring our points forward as the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and I will do in a substitute a
little later on. I called the Speaker on Friday and I expressed my
concerns about this bill from a New Jersey coastal perspective. The
Speaker, without hesitation, said ``You get together what you think is
good for New Jersey in the way of a substitute or in the way of however
you want to propose your amendments, and you bring them to floor, and
we will have an open rule.'' And I appreciate that. I also appreciate
the cooperation by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and
members of the Committee on Rules in this regard. It truly is an
opportunity for us to debate before the American people some issues
that I think are of great importance.
I have now been in this House for a decade, and when I was elected to
the House and became a member of the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, soon to be joined by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Pallone], already in place was Mr. Hughes from New Jersey, we were
there because we had great concerns,
[[Page H4687]] concerns about water quality particularly in the
coastal areas of our State.
I think the same concerns exist in many coastal States, but perhaps
they were emphasized in New Jersey because of our density of
population. Perhaps they were emphasized because of our proximity to
the largest city on our coast in the country, New York City, of course.
We began to look at some of the problems caused by that in the
Northeast, Long Island, New England, and along the New Jersey coast; we
began on a bipartisan basis, without consideration for politics, in my
opinion, in any partisan form, to put together programs that were
intended to create a much better condition for inhabitants and visitors
to those coastal areas. We had massive beach closings in the summers of
1987 and 1988 in New York and New Jersey and other coastal States. We
had flooding in many areas of our country, both inland areas as well as
coastal areas, and that has to do very much with this bill.
We identified sources of pollution that were relatively easy to take
care of, namely, point sources of pollution, and we also recognized
that there is another category of pollution known as nonpoint sources
of pollution that are much more difficult to deal with, and we put in
place national policy sometimes tailored specifically to States through
the Coastal Zone Management Act, and that process to take care of many
of these programs and to take care of many of these issues and problems
as well.
I must say together, as Republicans and Democrats, we have been very,
very successful. As a matter of fact, just the day before yesterday, an
airplane pilot friend of mine who has been flying over the Eastern
coast for many years said to us, ``One of the things you have done
right,'' he said, ``and I know this from my observations of flying over
these areas and viewing the habitat and the environment, particularly
the water, that you have done a good job in beginning to turn the
corner on coastal pollution,'' and we have been able to do that.
Unfortunately, I take issue with many or some, at least, of the
provisions of this bill relative to the treatment of wetlands and their
importance in keeping the environmental quality what it should be in
coastal areas, with the repeal of the CZMA section which has reference
to nonpoint pollution, and that is why the Coastal States Association
endorses the Saxton-Boehlert approach which we think is much more
sensible, as well as the storm water discharge and the permitting
process which is repealed by this act. All of these things are vitally
important to the health and welfare and the environmental quality that
affects the people's lives that inhabit and visit coastal areas.
One other issue of particular importance, I know it is of importance
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], as it to me, is the
ocean dumping provisions of this bill that relate to dredge spoils
being dumped offshore and the elimination of the involvement on a
direct basis of the Environmental Protection Agency.
And so we will offer at the appropriate time a substitute which we
hope we will get broad consensus on relative to these and a few other
subjects. And so, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to
express my support for the rule this morning and my appreciation for
the leadership on our side and the Committee on Rules for permitting us
to offer under an open rule changes in regard to these provisions.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
for yielding me this time.
I rise to say to Americans who believe that progress is preordained
in this country, ``Wake up.'' Because today we are going backwards.
Today we are on a real slippery slope, and for people who thought we
would always be able to have clean water in America, that is one of the
things we have been very proud of, you can turn on a tap, and rely on
it. Guess what, today we are saying, ``Well, no more. We just do not
want to push the polluters, it costs them too much to deal with the
pollution.''
And so let me say in the next breath, for those who are looking for
growth stocks today, I say buy bottled water stocks, because the real
message is we do not want the polluters to have to clean up. We are
going to have the people who use the water have to go buy bottled water
or whatever in the future.
This is not the America or the Federal Government that I knew, and I
must say I find it a very sad day. I do not even want to vote for the
rule. Yes, it is open. I do not have any problem with the rule. The
only problem is I do not think we should be dealing with this bill
today, because the scientific evidence on this bill is not in.
Eighteen hours before we started debating this bill, the esteemed
National Academy of Sciences released its report, 18 hours. Now, maybe
everybody here is a little quicker than I am, but to absorb that and
figure out how to deal with that and get it to the House floor in 18
hours is almost beyond, I think, most of our capability.
The Chair of that commission is William Lewis, a University of
Colorado professor, and he and the others who drafted it were not
complimentary at all of this bill. They said it was much too
simplistic, and that it needed many, many pieces of work. They also
were not particularly accepting of how the policy had gone on in the
past. They came out with some long awaited changes of how we might be
more efficient, how we might deal with some of the inconsistencies
between different Federal agencies. To me, that is the issue I wish we
had in front of us.
And I do not think this is the day that we have had time to get it
done, so I fear that Americans are going to wake up and suddenly say,
``What happened? Why didn't you tell us? Why didn't we know? We can't
believe anybody undid this.'' Well, here we are, we are doing it, and I
find it very sad.
As we talk about these issues, you know, people will talk about the
wetlands, the wetlands, how very serious, there are too many wetlands,
we do not need the wetlands.
Well, what do wetlands do? You know, wetlands are absolutely vital as
a filter to filter out a lot of the pollutants, a lot of the
pesticides, the sediment, the nitrogen that otherwise gets right into
the water source and everything else. We cannot put concrete on and we
cannot develop every inch of this planet, because the runoff and stuff
needs to go somewhere. It needs to be filtered through some place, and
the wetlands are a very essential part of that ecosystem.
When you also look at all the different contaminants being put in and
the level of toxics that go into rivers that will be considered
acceptable, well, let me tell you, if we are going to allow these to be
in flux, if we are going to treat much more cavalierly the 70,000
different pollutants people have been talking about, that is going to
get transferred to people, and in either having to buy bottled water or
in higher health care costs, and more environmental damage to people's
health, all sorts of things before you even get to the fallout on what
happens to the wildlife.
We now know songbirds are dying in America at a much faster pace than
we would like to see that happen. We do not know why. We were learning
in this whole ecology debate that we are having more and more about how
interconnected we have become and how important it is to take these
things seriously.
But I would hope that this body would go on good science. I hope that
we find out for people who support this bill long term when good
science says this is not a good bill to support, I would hope that it
is bad politics not to support good science.
You know, this has not been a flat Earth caucus. This has been a
Nation that has been built on good science and relying on academics and
relying on people who do not have a dog in the fight, and when the
academics have spoken and when those who are really with no ax to bear
have spoken, but they have spoken just 18 hours ago and they are
warning this bill is going in the wrong direction, I hope we wake up
and listen to that. I sincerely do.
I am very sorry that this day has come.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 961 represents a fundamental change in the way we
think about clean water. Unfortunately, the change is not a positive
one.
[[Page H4688]] Under current law, polluters do not have a right to
dump messes into public resources; if they do, they pay a fine. In my
district, for example, paying for the Sand Creek greenway was part of
Conoco's penalty for discharging toxics into Sand Creek. Under H.R.
961, the outcome might be different. The cost benefit provisions in
H.R. 961 essentially make polluting a legally acceptable use of water.
Currently, the level of toxic contamination in a river or lake that
is considered acceptable is based on human health and ecological
standards. The Shuster bill will change that standard. It incorporates
the polluter's needs into the formula.
Wetlands would change too. For the most part they would disappear.
Wetlands filter more than 90 percent of the pesticides, sediment, and
nitrogen that would otherwise pollute our bodies of water. Wetlands are
also vital to over 75 percent of our fish and shellfish. H.R. 961
eliminates wetlands protection by narrowly defining a wetland and
allowing a claim as a ``taking'' for the protection of those wetlands
that fit the difinition.
The original goal of the Clean Water Act was to make the Nation's
waters swimmable, fishable, and drinkable. While we have not cleaned up
everything, the Clean Water Act has brought us a long way on the road
to that goal. The Shuster bill not only abandons that goal, but if
enacted, will threaten our gains. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 961.

Stewart School,

Oxford, OH, April 7, 1995.
Save Our Seas,
Washington, DC.
Dear Sir or Madam: We are learning about oceans in school,
and we don't like the pollution. Not only fish are dying, but
birds, seagulls, and many more animals. I love animals and I
hate pollution. Oil spils should be stopped. Well, I and 24
other friends of mine hate it.
Sincerely,
Faith Manka.

____________________