[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4802-H4868]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                     CLEAN WATER AMENDMENTS OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 140 
and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 961.

                              {time}  1040


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 961) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
with Mr. Hobson (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, May 
10, 1995, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] had been disposed of, and 
[[Page H4803]] title III was open to amendment at any point.
  Are there further amendments to title III?


                  amendments offered by mr. traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer 2 amendments, and I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendments, one in title III and one in 
title V, be considered en bloc.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendments offered by Mr. Traficant: Page 35, after line 
     23, insert the following:
       ``(2) Limitation and Notice.--If the Administrator or a 
     State extends the deadline for point source compliance and 
     encourages the development and use of an innovative pollution 
     prevention technology under paragraph (1), the Administrator 
     or State shall encourage, to the maximum extend practicable, 
     the use of technology produced in the United States. In 
     providing an extension under this subsection, the 
     Administrator or State shall provide to the recipient of such 
     extension a notice describing the sense of Congress expressed 
     by this paragraph.
       Page 35, line 24, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(3)''.
       Page 35, line 7, strike ``(3)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 35, line 18, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       Page 216, line 12, strike ``521'' and insert ``522''.
       Page 217, line 7, strike ``521'' and insert ``522''.
       Page 219, after line 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 512. AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is further amended by 
     inserting before section 522, as redesignated by section 510 
     of this Act, the following:

     ``SEC. 521. AMERICAN-MADE EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS.

       ``(a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that, to the greatest extent 
     practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds 
     made available under this Act should be American-made.
       ``(b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Administrator, to 
     the greatest extent practicable, shall provide to each 
     recipient of the assistance a notice describing the sense of 
     Congress expressed by subsection (a).''
       Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.

  Mr. TRAFICANT (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, these are basically Buy American 
amendments. This one, though, deals with the fact that if the 
administrator or State extends the deadline for point source 
compliance, and encourages development and use of an innovative 
pollution prevention technology, under paragraph 1, the administrator 
or State shall encourage, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of 
technology produced in the United States. That would encourage more 
technology development in our country to deal with these issues.
  It has been worked out. The second amendment is a standard ``Buy 
American'' amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  We have reviewed these, and we think these are good amendments. We 
support them.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I have no reason to object to the 
amendments offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge a vote in favor of the 
amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other amendments to title III of the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. pallone

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows'.

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone: Strike title IX of the 
     bill (pages 323 through 326).

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike provisions of 
the bill which authorize waivers of secondary treatment requirements 
for sewage treatment plants in certain coastal communities which 
discharge into ocean water.
  There are two major steps to wastewater treatment which I think many 
of us know. One is the physical primary treatment, which is the removal 
of suspended solids. The second is the biological or secondary 
treatment, which is the removal of dissolved waste by bacteria.
  Secondary treatment, in my opinion, is very important, because it is 
critical to the removal of organic material from sewage. It is the 
material linked to hepatitis and gastroenteritis for swimmers. It is 
also the common denominator. Secondary treatment sets a base level of 
treatment that all must achieve, putting all facilities on equal 
ground.
  Today almost 15,000 publicly owned treatment works around the country 
apply secondary treatment. It makes no sense to exempt many of these 
facilities. Under existing law, a national standard of secondary 
treatment for public owned treatment works was established by Congress 
in the original 1972 Clean Water Act.
  There was a window of time during which facilities could apply for 
ocean discharge as an alternative to secondary treatment. However, this 
window has closed. A bill was passed last year, October 31, that allows 
the city of San Diego to apply for a waiver, even though that window 
has closed.
  The EPA has a year pursuant to that legislation to make a decision on 
their application, and at present it looks likely that San Diego would 
be granted such a waiver. However, despite these concessions that have 
been made, a provision has been included in H.R. 961 that would grant 
such a waiver to San Diego without the necessary EPA review.
  I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, that we are going toward what I would 
call a slippery slope on the issue of secondary treatment.

                              {time}  1045

  The San Diego waiver was for ocean outfalls at least 4 miles out and 
300 feet deep. This was the only provision in the original H.R. 961. 
But in committee this section was expanded. Other towns can now apply 
for 10-year permits that would allow for ocean discharge only 1 mile 
out and at 150 feet of depth.
  This new expansion of the section applies to at least six facilities 
in California, two in Hawaii, and there may be two dozen other 
facilities that it could apply. Also, communities under 10,000 are now 
eligible for permits, and there are about 6,500 facilities of 63 
percent of all facilities that could be eligible under this under 
10,000 provision. Soon Puerto Rico may also be able to apply for a 
waiver of secondary treatment because of the legislation the committee 
marked.
  I think that this is a terrible development. I would like to know 
what is next. What other waivers and weakening amendments are going to 
exist to the Clean Water Act?
  Ultimately, if we proceed down this slippery slope, secondary 
treatment may in fact disappear in many parts of the country. Secondary 
treatment may be costly, but it will cost more to clean up the mess 
after the fact, if we can clean it up at all.
  The ultimate problem I have, and I am trying to correct with this 
amendment, is this idea that somehow the ocean is out of sight, out of 
mind, that is, a sort of endless sink that we can continue to dump 
material in. It is not true. The material comes back and ocean water 
quality continues to deteriorate.
  Please do not gut the Clean Water Act. Let us not start down the 
slippery slope of allowing ocean discharge without secondary treatment, 
and please support this amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes all of the secondary treatment 
[[Page H4804]] provisions in the bill. During the debate on the 
unfunded mandates, secondary treatment was cited as one of the most 
costly unfunded mandates to States and localities.
  Our bill provides relief from this mandate, but it provides relief 
only where it is also an unfunded mandate. Our bill allows a waiver of 
secondary treatment for deep ocean discharges, but only where secondary 
treatment provides no environmental benefit.
  Let me emphasize that. We allow for a waiver of secondary treatment 
for deep ocean benefits but only when secondary treatment provides no 
environmental benefit.
  This waiver must be approved by either the State water quality 
authority people or by the EPA, so this is not some willy-nilly waiver 
that a locality can give itself. It must go through the rigorous 
procedure of first showing that by getting the waiver, they are 
providing no environmental benefit, and, second, getting the approval 
of the EPA or the State.
  The bill also allows certain alternative wastewater treatment 
technologies for small cities to be deemed secondary treatment if, and 
this is a big if, if they will contribute to the attainment of water 
quality standards.
  This flexibility, Mr. Chairman, is badly needed because traditional 
centralized municipal wastewater treatment systems do not always make 
economic sense to small communities. We need to provide the flexibility 
to the States and to EPA to allow the use of alternatives, for example, 
like constructed wetlands or lagoons, where they make both economic and 
environmental sense.
  Perhaps the most egregious example of the problems we would face if 
we were to adopt this amendment is the situation in San Diego to spend 
$3 billion on secondary treatment facilities when indeed the California 
EPA and the National Academy of Sciences says it is unnecessary. So 
this flexibility is needed not only for San Diego but for many of the 
cities across America.
  I strongly urge defeat of this amendment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, the idea of waiving secondary treatment 
standards sounds alarms because the successes of the Clean Water Act 
over the past 23 years are attributable in large part to the act's 
requirements for a baseline level of treatment--secondary treatment, in 
the case of municipal dischargers.
  There are several reasons that these waivers should be stricken from 
the bill: First, they are not based on sound science; second, they 
threaten to degrade water quality and devastate the shoreline; third, 
they are unfair; and, fourth, they are unnecessary.


                       Not Based on Sound Science

  Several of the bill's secondary waiver provisions abandon the basic 
requirement that the applicant demonstrate that a waiver will not harm 
the marine environment. The bill abandons this requirement, even though 
it makes sense, and has been met by more than 40 communities that have 
obtained waivers.
  This congressional waiver of scientific standards is at direct odds 
with the themes of sound science and risk analysis that were embraced 
in the Contract With America. The consequences could be devastating to 
the environment.


          Harmful To Water Quality and the Marine Environment

  For example, the secondary waiver provision intended for Los Angeles 
provides for waivers if the discharge is a mere 1 mile offshore, and 
150 feet deep. Unfortunately, history has taught us
 that sewage discharges at about 1 mile offshore can wreak havoc.

  In 1992, San Diego's sewage pipe ruptured two-thirds of a mile 
offshore, spewing partially treated sewage containing coliform and 
other bacterias and viruses, and closing more than 4 miles of beaches. 
This environmental disaster happened just one-third of a mile closer to 
shore than the 1-mile-offshore standard for municipal discharges under 
one of the waivers in this bill.
  In addition, it appears that this waiver provision, although intended 
for Los Angeles, picks up at least 19 other cities as well. And, the 
waiver for small communities makes thousands more communities eligible 
for waivers, even though many of them are already meeting secondary 
requirements and could seek to reduce current treatment under this 
provision.
  Since the number of waivers authorized under this bill is potentially 
quite large, the environmental impact also can be expected to be 
substantial, particularly for waste discharged just 1 mile from shore.
  The San Diego and Los Angeles provisions both provide for enhanced 
primary treatment in place of secondary. We would think for a minute 
about what primary treatment is. It is not really treatment at all--you 
just get the biggest solids out by screening or settling, and the rest 
goes through raw, untreated. Chemically enhanced primary means you add 
a little chlorine to the raw sewage before discharging it.
  This means that even when the system is operating properly--without 
any breaks in the pipe spewing sewage onto our beaches--the bill could 
result in essentially raw human waste being dumped a mile out from our 
beaches. Most Californians do not want essentially raw sewage dumped 1 
mile from their beaches.


                                 unfair

  The waiver provisions are unfair because they grant preferential 
treatment to select communities. This favoritism has direct 
consequences for the thousands of communities that most of us 
represent: those that have expended, or are in the process of spending, 
substantial resources to comply with secondary requirements. Some 
communities, such as the city of San Jose which I represent, have gone 
well beyond secondary.
  The waiver provisions say to all of these communities that they were 
fools for having complied with the law, because if they had just 
dragged their feet, they, too, could have escaped these requirements.


                              unnecessary

  In the case of San Diego, the inequity of allowing a third bite at 
the apple is heightened by the fact that San Diego will obtain a 
secondary waiver treatment without the bill. Yes, the bill's waiver 
provision is completely unnecessary for San Diego because San Diego was 
singled out for preferential treatment just last year.
  In October 1994 President Clinton signed into law a bill that was 
passed in the closing days of the 103d Congress. Of the thousands of 
communities required to achieve secondary treatment, only San Diego was 
authorized to apply for a waiver last year. San Diego submitted its 
application last month, an EPA has publicly announced its commitment to 
act quickly and both EPA and the city expect that a waiver will be 
granted.
  Why, then, is San Diego now receiving another waiver? Because this 
year's waiver would provide even a better deal than last year's--it 
would be permanent, and would excuse Dan Diego from baseline 
requirements that last year San Diego agreed that it could and would 
meet.
  Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  (Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
would have to say, as someone who has spent 18 years fighting to clean 
up the pollution in San Diego County, it concerns me when my colleague 
from California speaks of the pollution problems in San Diego, when in 
fact we can recognize that one of the major problems we have had is 
that the regulation has taken precedence over the science and the need 
to protect the public health.
  This bill as presented by the chairman reflects the scientific data 
that shows that not only does having chemically enhanced primary not 
hurt the environment, but it also shows that the studies that have been 
done by many, many scientific groups, in fact every major scientific 
study in the San Diego region has shown that if we go to secondary, as 
my colleague from California would suggest, that the secondary mandate 
would create more environmental damage than not going to secondary.
  [[Page H4805]] This is a big reason why a gentleman from Scripps 
Institute, a Dr. Revell, came to me and personally asked me to 
intervene. My colleagues may not think that I have any credentials in 
the environmental field, but I would point out that Dr. Revell is one 
of the most noted oceanographers that has ever lived in this century. 
He just passed away. He was saying strongly that the secondary mandate 
on the city of San Diego was going to be a travesty, a travesty to the 
people of San Diego but, more important, a damage to the environment of 
our oceans and our land.
  My colleague from San Jose has pointed out that there may be a 
problem giving waivers. I think we all agree that there are appropriate 
procedures, but those procedures should follow science.
  The city of San Jose has gone to extensive treatment, Mr. Chairman, 
but when the science said that you could dispose of that in the estuary 
of southern San Francisco Bay, my colleague's city of San Jose was 
given a waiver to be able to do that, and will continue to do it 
because the science says that it is okay. Our concern with this is the 
fact that the process should follow the path toward good environment.
  What we have today now is a process that diverts the attention of 
those of us in San Diego and the EPA away from real environmental 
problems and puts it toward a product that is 26 pounds of reports, 1.5 
million dollars' worth of expenses. It is something that I think that 
we really have to test those of us here: Do we care about the 
environment of America or do we care about the regulations of Congress?
  When the science and the scientists who have worked strongly on this 
stand up and say, ``Don't require secondary sewage in San Diego,'' we 
really are put to the test. Are we more wedded to our regulation than 
we are to our environment?

                              {time}  1100
  Now if you do not believe me, though I have fought hard at trying to 
clean up Mexican sewage and trying to get the sewage to stay in pipes, 
while the EPA has ignored that, they have concentrated on this process. 
I would ask my colleague to consider his own colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Filner], who has worked with me on this and lives 
in the community and has talked to the scientists, and Mr. Filner can 
tell you quite clearly that this is not an issue of the regulations 
with the environment, this is one of those situations where the well-
intentioned but misguided mandate of the 1970's has been interpreted to 
mean we are going to damage the environment of San Diego, and I would 
strongly urge that the environment takes precedence here.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleague from San Diego, Mr. Filner, to 
respond to the fact that is it not true that the major marine 
biologists, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, one of the most noted 
institutes in the entire country on the ocean impacts, supports our 
actions on this item?
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate being here with the 
Congressman from my adjacent district, San Diego. Before I answer the 
question, I do want to point out that for many years we had adjacent 
districts in local government, Mr. Bilbray being a county supervisor 
and myself being a San Diego city councilman. We have worked together 
for many, many years on this very issue. We have fought about it, we 
have argued about it, we have come to an agreement about how we should 
handle this, and I think it is very appropriate that we are both now in 
the Congress to try to finally give San Diego some assurance to try to 
deal satisfactorily with the environment, and yet do it in a cost-
effective manner.
  The gentleman from California asked me about good science. The 
gentleman from San Jose talked about good science. The most respected 
scientists who deal with oceanography in the world at the Scripps 
Institute of Oceanography have agreed with our conclusions.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Bilbray] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Filner and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bilbray 
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. FILNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the scientists 
from the Scripps Institute have lobbied this Congress for this change. 
The Federal judge in charge of the case has lobbied us for the change. 
The local environmental groups have lobbied us for the change. The 
local environmental groups have lobbied us for the change. And I would 
ask my colleague to continue that thought.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, my experience 
with Mr. Filner was as the director of the public health department for 
San Diego, and as he knows, this is not something I am not involved 
with. I happened to be personally involved with the water quality 
there. I surf, my 9- and 8-year-old children surf. We have water 
contact; we care about the environment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, what I do not understand though, since the 
existing bill that was passed last year actually allows for you to have 
a waiver, assuming certain conditions are met, and EPA I understand has 
already gone through that application process, why do you find it 
necessary in this bill to grant an absolute waiver?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Bilbray] has again expired.
  (At the request of the Mr. Mineta and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Bilbray was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. BILBRAY. Why would I ask?
  Mr. PALLONE. In other words, my understanding, you tell me if I am 
wrong, is that pursuant to this legislation, I will call it special 
legislation if you will that passed last year, San Diego can now apply 
for a waiver. It may be the only municipality that can. And EPA is now 
in the process of looking at that application for a waiver, and if in 
fact what Mr. Filner and you say is the case that the waiver then is 
likely to be granted, why do we need to take that one exception that is 
already in the law for San Diego and now expand it to many others, 
thousands possibly of other municipalities around the country?
  Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is that it is costing $1.5 million. The fact 
is, it is only a 4- to 5-year waiver, and the fact that under our bill 
all monitoring, the EPA will monitor it, the Environmental Protection 
Agency of California will monitor it. We have developed a system that 
scientists say will be the most cost-effective way of approaching this. 
All of the monitoring, all of the public health protections are there. 
As long as the environment continues not to be injured, we will 
continue to move forward.
  And you have to understand, too, one thing you do not understand that 
Mr. Filner and I do understand, we have had at the time of this 
process, this bureaucratic process has been going on, we have had our 
beaches closed and polluted from other sources that the EPA has 
ignored.
  Mr. PALLONE. I understand, and you have gone through that with me and 
I appreciate that. My only point is I do not want to go down the 
slippery slope of the possibility of getting applications and waivers 
granted.
  Mr. BILBRAY. There is no slippery slope. What it says is those that 
have proven scientifically there is no reasonable reason to think there 
is environmental damage that is going to occur should not have to go 
through a process of having to go through EPA and the Federal 
bureaucracy. I think you would agree if we in the 1970's were told by 
scientists there is no foreseeable damage or foreseeable problem with 
water quality, this law would never have been passed. In San Diego the 
scientists have said that, and I think you need to reflect it.
  Mr. PALLONE. My point is the exemption for San Diego applies to 3 
miles out, certain feet.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Four miles, 300 feet.
  Mr. PALLONE. Now you have another exemption for certain towns.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Totally different.
  [[Page H4806]] Mr. PALLONE. Though you have another exemption, towns 
under 10,000, no scientific basis for that. All these things are thrown 
into the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Bilbray] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Mineta and by unanimous consent, Mr. Bilbray 
was allowed to proceed for an additional 2 minutes).
  Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is here it is outcome-based. In fact the water 
quality is not violated as long as scientists at EPA say there is not 
damage. My concern to you is if the monitoring is done, if the 
environment is protected, if EPA and all of the scientists say it is 
fine, why, then why is the process with a million and a half dollars 
and 26 pounds of paper so important to you to make sure those reports 
have been filed?
  Mr. PALLONE. The difference is you are going through that process and 
you may actually achieve it in convincing the EPA pursuant to the 
existing law that that is the case. But what this bill has done is go 
beyond that, it has said that there is an absolute waiver for San 
Diego, they do not really have to do anything else at this point.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, with all the monitoring that would have to be done 
under existing law, the same review process and public testimony the 
same way.
  Mr. PALLONE. Then it goes on to take another category, 1 mile and 150 
is OK, and for a third category if you are under 10,000 it is OK. For 
another category for Puerto Rico we are going to do the study. You know 
you may make the case, we will
 have to see, that your exception makes sense. You may be able to do 
that to the EPA, but why do we have to gut the entire bill and make all 
those other exceptions? It makes no sense to carry one San Diego case 
that is now going through proper channels. This says they get the 
waiver; they do not need to go through the process in the previous 
bill, and now we have all these other exemptions.

  Mr. BILBRAY. You have to read the bill and all the conditions of 
being able to meet the triggers of the EPA.
  Mr. PALLONE. I have the bill in front of me. It has four different 
categories. The San Diego category, then it goes for the ones who go 1 
mile and 150, then the ones that are 10,000 or fewer, and then it goes 
to Puerto Rico. All of these categories.
  Mr. BILBRAY. And you have monitoring that basically says that you 
have to prove, bring monitoring that you do not, that you are not 
degrading the environment. That is what we are talking about; we are 
talking about an outcome basis. Does it hurt the environment? Not the 
regulations. Is the environment hurt here.
  Mr. PALLONE. I do not see any scientific basis.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Bilbray] has again expired.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Bilbray] be allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I will not 
do so now, but if we are going to move this along, I think we should 
all try to stay within the rules of the House and the time allotment.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I was just 
asking for unanimous consent for the gentleman from San Diego, Mr. 
Bilbray, to be given an additional 2 minutes, and I would like to be 
able to ask a question of him since he also referred to the city of San 
Jose, and I happen to be the former mayor of San Jose.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair will inquire once again, is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield.
  Mr. BILBRAY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, my objection is this: that last year we 
worked to grant the city of San Diego the opportunity to apply under 
previously expired provisions to apply for a waiver. I thought we did 
that in good faith, with the city of San Diego also agreeing to certain 
conditions. Things like the need for alternative uses for their water 
and say that this would be a waiver that would only be good for a 
certain period of time. It is my understanding that the waiver is 
indefinite, except that there is a requirement for a report to be done 
every 5 years. And that to me is a reasonable kind of an approach.
  Also in terms of any waiver for the city of San Jose, I am not 
familiar with what the gentleman is referring to, because we are at 
tertiary treatment in terms of our discharge into San Francisco Bay.
  Mr. BILBRAY. The fact is that San Jose opens into an open trench into 
20 feet of water in an estuary; it does not place it 350 feet deep and 
4\1/2\ miles out in an area where scientists say not only does it not 
hurt the environment, it helps it. And so you do have a waiver to be 
able to do that rather than being required to have to use other outfall 
systems but it is because you were able to show that.
  But the trouble here with this process is that all reasonable 
scientific data shows that there is no reason to have to spend the 26 
pounds of reports, the $1\1/2\ million, and when you get into it, EPA 
will be the trigger to decide if that process needs to go. What EPA 
told me as a public health director when I say this is a waste of 
money, the Government did not mean to do this, they said Congress makes 
us do it. They do not give us the latitude to be able to make a 
judgment call based on reasonable environmental regulations they have 
mandated to us. So I am taking the mandate away from them.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to express my strong support for this amendment 
to strike the waivers of secondary treatment requirements.
  This is an issue of protecting our Nation's beaches and coastal 
waters.
  It is a matter of protecting the tourist economies of many States and 
of protecting the health of the American people.
  Do we want our ocean waters to be a disposal area for sewage that has 
received only the barest minimum of treatment?
  For 20 years, we have done better than that as the secondary 
treatment requirement has stood as one of the pillars of the Clean 
Water Act.
  This bill started with a waiver for one city--San Diego. Then it 
moved to two dozen more in California and another possible six in 
Florida. Then we added Puerto Rico.
  Where will this race to lower standards end?
  H.R. 961 tells those who complied with the Clean Water Act that they 
should have waited. Maybe, they could have gotten a waiver.
  It tells those who waited that they were smart. They could keep 
putting their untreated sewage in the ocean.
  The beaches of New Jersey had frequent water problems several years 
ago before New York City finished its secondary treatment plant.
  The problems in New Jersey should be a warning that we should stick 
to the secondary treatment requirements and not put poorly treated 
sewage in the ocean.
  This provision of H.R. 961 sends us back more than 20 years. Since 
1972, secondary treatment has been the standard that all communities 
have been required to meet.
  That basic standard of the Clean Water Act should not be changed. We 
should keep moving forward on the effort to clean up our waters.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to hold the line on secondary 
treatment and vote for this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to admit that I have seen some alternatives 
around the world that do intrigue me. If we are going to go to this 
broad of an exemption from secondary treatment, for instance in Hong 
Kong, I was there and on the ferry early one morning, and I noticed how 
they deal with it, they do not require secondary; in many cases they do 
not require primary treatment. They are a little oversubscribed to 
their sewer system. They have nifty boats that go around the harbor 
with nets in the front and they scoop up everything that floats, and if 
it does not float, it is not a problem. So I guess 
[[Page H4807]] you know if we cannot support the Pallone amendment, we 
can say we are headed in that direction. We can buy some of the nifty 
little boats from Hong Kong with the nets on the front and drive them 
around the beachfront areas in the morning before people go in for that 
swim, and you know if you cannot see it, it is not a problem.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon knows that on 
almost every environmental issue, we are in total agreement.
  Are you familiar with the percentage of solid removal in the system 
that San Diego now uses?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, my understanding is you attempt to 
achieve 84 percent.
  Mr. FILNER. It is not an attempt. We achieve 84 percent.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I will tell you, reclaiming my time, in my metropolitan 
wastewater facility, of which I was on the board of directors as a 
county commissioner, we built it for $110 million. We get 100 percent 
out. We do secondary and we do tertiary treatment. Theoretically, if 
one wanted to, one could drink the outfall. I do not want to drink the 
outfall. I do not know that we have to drive everything to that 
standard. But to think of the ocean as an endless dump close in 
proximity, I realize you have a big problem with Mexico, basically you 
are saying Mexico can dump all their stuff in there, why cannot we not 
just dump in a small amount of our stuff. I do not think that is the 
solution. I think we should be forcing Mexico to clean up so the people 
in California can go to the beach every day in the future.
  Mr. FILNER. If the gentleman will yield, that is exactly our policy. 
As a matter of fact, those of us who live in San Diego and who 
completely depend on the beaches not only for our own enjoyment but for 
tourism and economic help, we could never possibly see the ocean as 
merely a dumping ground. We believe it, as you do, we believe that 
money to get that infinitesimal increase in solid removal required by 
the EPA to put into water reclamation, to put into tertiary, to deal 
with the Mexican sewage is the way we ought to spend our money, not be 
required to spend billions of dollars on something which gives us very 
little marine environment protection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, do you think 16 percent is 
infinitesimal?
  Mr. FILNER. No, it is not 16 percent. You know what secondary 
requirements are?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I am talking about the difference between the 84 percent 
and the 100 percent.
  Mr. FILNER. The law requires us to do 85 percent. We are doing 84 
percent. Should we spend $5 billion to get an infinitesimal increase in 
that solid removal with enormous damage to the land environment, 
because we would have to put in extra energy to do that for sludge.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. FILNER. It is not environmentally sound.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Does this exemption go narrowly to that 1 percent for 
San Diego, or does exemption go beyond that?
  Mr. FILNER. I am certainly supporting it as the section in the bill 
that applies to San Diego.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I spoke yesterday generally about this bill 
and my objections to it.
  I am rising today to support the Pallone amendment, and also to make 
some more specific comments about that portion of the bill providing a 
waiver for full secondary treatment. That portion of the bill was 
drafted by my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Horn], and his district is just south of mine, and we agree on 
most everything, except for this.
  I want to explain why we disagree and also to say that we worked 
together. His office was extremely helpful to me in providing 
information in support of his amendment, and I hope he understands that 
my demur has to do specifically with what I believe are the unintended 
consequences of his amendment on Santa Monica Bay.
  Santa Monica Bay is the largest bay in southern California, and most 
of it is in my congressional district. I wrote to EPA so that I could 
understand better whether good science was involved in his amendment 
and how it would affect Santa Monica Bay. The letter that I received 
the other day from the assistant administrator of EPA says, in part:

       This amendment does not appear to be based upon sound 
     science. We are not aware of any scientific documentation 
     which suggests that discharges through outfalls that are 1 
     mile and 150 feet deep are always environmentally benign. To 
     the contrary, a 1993 study by the National Research Council 
     recommended that, ``Coastal wastewater management strategy 
     should be tailored to the characteristics, values, and uses 
     of the particular receiving environment.'' Thus, we believe 
     this blanket exemption is neither scientifically nor 
     environmentally justifiable, and could result in harm to the 
     people who depend upon the oceans and coasts for their 
     livelihood and enjoyment.

  And the letter goes on to say specifically that with respect to the 
Santa Monica Bay Restoration project, a project worked on by all sorts 
of agencies and individuals in California and supported by California's 
Governor, Pete Wilson, this blanket exemption could derail the key 
element of the restoration plan.
  For those careful and specific reasons, I oppose the Horn language, 
and I support the Pallone amendment.
  And let me add just one thing, Mr. Chairman. Somewhere here is a 
chart that was provided to me by EPA, and it shows the consequences of 
not going to full secondary treatment. The suspended solids that can be 
discharged are the biggest problem, and the chart has this broken out 
by area of Los Angeles. In the L.A. County sanitation district, which 
would be directly affected by this exemption, the suspended solids are 
the highest portion of this chart, and it is a big problem specifically 
for Los Angeles.
  Let me finally say one more thing. The gentleman from California [Mr. 
Horn] has sent, I think today, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter, and he 
makes a point with which I agree, and I want to apologize to him. He 
says that in a different ``Dear Colleague'' letter circulated by some 
of us, we said that his amendment could result in raw sewage dumped 
into Santa Monica Bay. That was an error. I apologize for that. The 
amendment would result in partially treated sewage dumped into Santa 
Monica Bay.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Pallone amendment.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding.
  The San Diego situation is a classic example of regulatory overkill. 
But regardless of how you feel about San Diego, you should vote ``no'' 
on this amendment, because it guts all of the provisions that allow 
flexibility on secondary treatment, including the flexibility for small 
communities across America.
  We have worked on all of these provisions with State officials, 
wastewater and environmental engineers, and we should resoundingly 
defeat this amendment not only because of San Diego but because of what 
it does across America.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment 
to strike the provisions of the bill which authorize waivers of 
secondary treatment requirements for certain coastal communities which 
discharge into deep waters.
  I successfully offered this provision in the committee markup of H.R. 
961. My reasons for doing so were based on sound scientific reasons, 
and they are environmentally responsible.
  I was delighted, and I am delighted to take the apology of my 
distinguished colleague from southern California.
  That letter she quotes from the assistant administrator of EPA talks 
in broad generalities. It does not talk about the specifics of the Los 
Angeles 
[[Page H4808]] area situation, and I want to go into that.
  There is no permanent waiver in this provision. It would be good for 
10 years. It would be subject to renewal after that period. The driving 
force behind this amendment is simply good science.
  This Congress is moving forward to implement cost/benefit analysis 
and risk assessment across all environmental statutes.
  Deep ocean outfalls that meet all water quality standards are an 
obvious place to apply these principles.
  Now, to obtain this waiver, publicly owned treatment works must meet 
a stringent high-hurdles test, and I have not heard one word about that 
today. Outfalls must be at least 1 mile long, 150 feet deep. The 
discharge must meet all applicable State and local water quality 
standards, and I do not think anyone is going to tell us that 
California has low water quality standards. We have high standards, 
just as we do in air pollution.
  Now, the publicly owned treatment works must have an ongoing ocean 
monitoring plan in place, and we do in Los Angeles City and County. The 
application must have an EPA-approved pretreatment plan, and we do in 
Los Angeles City and County. Effluent must have received at least a 
chemically enhanced primary treatment level, and at least 75 percent of 
suspended solids must have been removed. That is exactly what we have.
  This provision is not any broad loophole. Indications also are that 
only five publicly owned treatment works in the country would meet this
 high-hurdles test. They are Honolulu, Anchorage, Orange County, and 
Los Angeles Country, and the city of Los Angeles. The first three 
cities already have waivers.

  As I said in committee, the program under which the original waivers 
were given to the city and country, that has expired. The country of 
Los Angeles is being forced to spend $400 million to go to full 
secondary treatment.
  Now, if that money went to improving the environment or cleaning up 
real environmental problems, and we have hundreds of them where usually 
the lawyers are getting the fees and we are not cleaning up the 
problems, that would all be understandable. But it is not.
  This provision simply assures that we are spending local and Federal 
dollars wisely, not forcing communities to take steps that simply make 
no sense, which begs the question: Why should we force communities to 
spend hundreds of millions of dollars to meet a standard where that 
standard is already being met?
  The city of Los Angeles treatment already meets the requirements of 
secondary treatment. So why spend millions of the taxpayers' hard-
earned dollars to require Los Angeles to build facilities that already 
meet that required standard? The effluent from the county of Los 
Angeles far exceeds the rigorous State ocean plan developed by the 
State of California for every single measured area, including suspended 
solids, toxics, and heavy metals.
  I have some attached graphs here some of you might want to wander up 
and look at. The current requirements to force the publicly owned 
treatment works to full secondary treatment is not justified when 
meeting that standard will bring no environmental improvement to the 
ocean but will cost local ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, the science behind this provision is irrefutable. No 
one is advocating pumping untreated wastewater into deep oceans off of 
Santa Monica Bay or in Santa Monica Bay or elsewhere.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Hobson). The time of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Horn] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Horn was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, going to full secondary treatment will not 
have any positive environmental benefit. Instead, we will be spending, 
as I have said earlier, hundreds of millions of dollars of the citizens 
of the county and city of Los Angeles, local taxpayer money, for no 
good reason. We simply cannot afford to be wasting money on problems 
that do not exist.
  If municipal wastewater treatment facilities are meeting the high-
hurdles test, including in H.R. 961, it serves the public interest, it 
serves the interests of the local taxpayers, and it serves the 
interests of the Nation to keep this waiver intact, and all else is 
really nonsense.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Horn] has again expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Pallone and by unanimous consent, Mr. Horn was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, what I wanted to ask is: We had the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] read from some sections of 
this letter from the EPA from a Mr. Perciasepe. I do not know if the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] has seen this or not.
  Mr. HORN. I have not.
  Mr. PALLONE. And also from the EPA I received a list of another, I do 
not know, another 10 to 20 municipalities beyond 6 in California and 
the extra 2 in Hawaii you mentioned. My concern is this; this is the 
crux of it. Clearly, San Diego is one situation. They already have a 
waiver pursuant to existing law. But the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] which now goes to the 150-foot 
depth and the 1 mile.
  Mr. HORN. And 5 miles, I might add, is the other one. One is 1 mile 
out, one is 150; the other is 5 miles out, 150.
  Mr. PALLONE. This begins to open the door, if you will, to a whole 
different group of municipal sewage treatment plants beyond the San 
Diego waiver and is, of course, of greater concern to me than even that 
one.
  You mentioned scientific evidence. Clearly, this letter from the EPA 
assistant administrator indicates that they are very concerned that 
this exemption that you have now put in is not based on sound science, 
plus the EPA has given us a strong indication that beyond the 6 or so 
California and the 2 Hawaii ones, we are talking now possibly about 
another 20 or 30. We do not know how many. It is a major concern. I 
just have not heard anything from the gentleman to verify scientific 
basis for this new exemption that goes beyond San Diego.
  Mr. HORN. I know of no one that disagrees that the city and county of 
Los Angeles have met the scientific standards. EPA has never said it. 
If they are suddenly coming in at the last minute with a little 
sideswiping and saying all of these cities will be eligible for it, 
that is nonsense.

                              {time}  1130

  My language is very specific. It applies to one situation: The city 
and county of Los Angeles, that already have the waste treatment, that 
goes out to sea. There has not been any complaints that they are 
violating any standard of science. They test regularly.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The time of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn] has expired.
  (At the request of Mr. Hunter and by unanimous consent, Mr. Horn was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. chairman, my point is, again, I heard the San Diego 
argument, I heard the Los Angeles argument. I do not agree with it, but 
I am hearing it. You are opening the door, and you have opened it to 
the six California and two Hawaii ones, to eliminating secondary 
treatment requirements for a whole slew of other municipalities. That 
is a problem.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, may I say to the 
gentleman from New Jersey, we are not opening the door. The language is 
very specific. The hurdles are quite specific as to the outfalls 1 mile 
long, 150 feet deep, that must meet all applicable State and local 
water quality standards and must have an ongoing ocean monitoring plan 
in place. That is exactly what we have. These charts show that we are 
way below the level of concern.
  The question if very simple, folks. For the sake of the ego of EPA, 
do we have the taxpayers of Los Angeles spend $400 million when it will 
not improve the situation one iota, because 
[[Page H4809]] they already meet it? So the full secondary bit has been 
met in the pre-secondary, and that is why we should not be spending 
$400 million more.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me 
say I support him in his efforts to inject some common sense into this 
arbitrary application of law that defies science. The best scientists 
in the world have supported our situation in San Diego, where they say 
nature takes care of this; you do not have to spend $2 billion, EPA, we 
can spend it somewhere else where we desperately need it. Science also 
supports the gentleman from Long Beach.
  The point is, the gentleman says this opens the door. Let me say to 
my friend from New Jersey, the door should always be open to reason, 
common sense, and science. That is precisely what we are injecting in 
this argument today. With all the programs, good programs, that must 
take reductions because of the deficit problem, the idea that you do 
not use common sense to reduce spending where it does not have to be 
done makes no sense. So I support the gentleman.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, not to beat a dead horse or a dead sewage system, as 
the case may be, I do rise in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  This amendment raises the possibility that San Diego will be forced 
to waste, yes, waste, billions of dollars to change a sewage system 
that this Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, a Federal 
District Court judge, the San Diego chapter of the Sierra Club, the 
world renowned scientists from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, 
have all agreed does no harm and in fact may benefit the marine 
environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the one-size-fits-all requirement of the Clean Water 
Act just does not make sense for San Diego. It does not make scientific 
sense, it does not make economic sense, nor does it make environmental 
sense. It is simply a bureaucratic requirement to provide a level of 
treatment that is unnecessary, costly, and provides no beneficial 
impact to the marine environment.
  This is not simply my personal opinion. The option, as we stated over 
and over again, is stated by scientists from the Scripps Institute of 
Oceanography and from the National Academy of Sciences. It is supported 
by reams of scientific data collected over the years. These studies 
have shown there is no degradation of water quality or the ecology of 
the ocean due to the discharge of the plant's chemically enhanced 
treated waste water.
  Let me point out, this is not merely a chlorine treated primary 
situation. This is an alternative to secondary treatment that includes 
a much higher level of technology that my friend, if I can yield to my 
friend from California [Mr. Bilbray], might explain.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I think the 
problem is understanding the technical issues here. The fact that what 
was interpreted as being chlorination, San Diego is not using the 
chlorination.
  Chemically enhanced primary treatment was actually brought to San 
Diego by members of the Sierra Club as a much more cost effective and 
environmentally safe way of getting to secondary treatment. It is where 
you use chemicals to remove the solids to fulfill the standard.
  What it does is say look, back in the seventies we thought there was 
only one way to able to clean up the water. Now scientists have come up 
with new technologies. If we look at a 1970 car and a 1990 car, we will 
agree there is a difference.
  The other issue, the chemical, what is called chemical enhanced 
primary, the fact is primary really is talking about a secondary 
treatment that does not use injected air and bubbling sewage around, 
biological activity. In a salt water environment scientists say there 
is no problem with this, it does the job. The only difference is the 
BOD, the biochemical oxygen demand, which in a deep salt water 
environment does not create any problem according to the scientists.
  I would like to point out, too, as my colleague has, we are talking 
about this can only be done if the facility's discharges are consistent 
with the ocean plan for the State of California, one of the most strict 
water quality programs in the entire Nation, if not the most. So we are 
saying how you do it we do not mind, as long as the finished product 
does not hurt the environment and gets the job done.
  I appreciate my colleagues who are going through a transition here. 
We are getting away from command and control, Washington knows the 
answer to everything. What we are trying to get down to is saying, 
local people, if you can find a better answer to get the job done that 
we want done, you not only have a right to do that, you have a 
responsibility, and we will not stand in the way of you doing that.
  I would like to point out that the monitoring continues. If there is 
a pollution problem, if the EPA sees there is a hassle, if the 
monitoring problem shows there is an environmental problem, this waiver 
immediately ceases and we go back to the same process. That should 
assure everyone who cares about the environment.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do want to thank the 
chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for 
understanding the issues for San Diego, for helping us last year get 
our waiver, and for guaranteeing a success this year.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FILNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I would like my colleagues in the Congress 
to recognize that this has been an issue that has been before the 
Congress for as long as I have served in Congress, for 12 years and 
more. We have been working on this issue of trying to resolve the 
problems that San Diego has had. If we are to follow the general policy 
that is now taking place in the Congress, where we evaluate every 
requirement and every mandate and every regulation on the basis of 
cost-benefit analysis, there is absolutely no question that we would 
never impose a multibillion-dollar process on San Diego.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Filner] has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Filner was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, there is no way that this project, as it 
would be required to go to secondary treatment, could possibly pass a 
cost-benefit analysis, and thus we ought to really allow the 
flexibility that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has put 
in the bill that would allow the City of San Diego to meet their 
requirements in an environmentally sound way.
  I strongly urge that the Congress approve the bill as it is written 
and reject this amendment. There is a bipartisan issue for this. The 
entire delegation from San Diego, of whom I am one, has recommended we 
disapprove this amendment. It is certainly important to us that we do 
not impose a $12 billion cost on the people of San Diego.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to Mr. Pallone's amendment to the 
clean water reauthorization bill. This amendment plays right into the 
environmentalists' chicken little cries that our environmental 
protection system is falling. On the contrary, chairman Shuster's 
amendments to the clean water bill provide communities the flexibility 
they need to better protect our natural resources.
  Specifically, Mr. Pallone claims that allowing San Diego a permanent 
waiver to the EPA's burdensome secondary sewage requirements 
jeopardizes southern California's water resources. The facts just do 
not support this assertion.
  San Diego's location on southern California's beautiful coastline 
allows the city to take advantage of deep ocean outfall capabilities. 
Scientific studies conclude that San Diego's sewage treatment efforts 
are both effective and environmentally sound. In fact, the surrounding 
ecosystem flourishes partly as a result of the outfall effluence.
  Yet, the EPA continues to shove their Federal mandates from 
Washington down the throats of San Diego taxpayers. They continue 
[[Page H4810]] to require San Diego to spend up to $12 billion on an 
unnecessary and potentially environmentally damaging secondary sewage 
treatment plant.
  Year after year, San Diego officials battle Federal bureaucrats who 
require the city to submit a costly, time consuming waiver application. 
The last one cost $1 million and was more than 3,000 pages long. The 
American people are tired of this kind of bureaucratic bullying
  Far from the Chicken Little cries of the environmentalists, the 
American people cry out for a little commonsense. Chairman Shuster's 
bill and the San Diego waiver provision bring a level of rationality to 
the environmental protection process. Since I began my service in 
Congress, I have worked as a former member of Chairman Shuster's 
committee to do just that. Now as part of a Republican majority, I am 
pleased to see my efforts come to fruition.
  Republicans love the environment as much as anyone. My district in 
southern California contains some of the most beautiful natural 
resources in the country. I would never vote for a bill which would 
damage those resources in any way. I just think the people who live on 
the coast, or in the forests, or canyons or grasslands have a better 
sense of how to protect their resources than some bureaucrat sitting in 
an office in Washington. The situation in San Diego demonstrates this 
most clearly. For that reason, I oppose Mr. Pallone's amendment.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an issue on which I would like to engage in a 
colloquy and get the support of the chairman of the committee. I 
understand that section 319(h)(7)(F) identifies the scope for which a 
State may use clean water grants.
  Mr. Chairman, in my State of Florida, the excessive growth of 
nonindigenous, noxious aquatic weeds, like hydrilla, is an extremely 
serious impairment of our waters. Funds available for control of these 
weeds are presently very limited.
  This provision authorizes States like Florida to utilize a portion of 
their nonpoint source funds, should they choose to do so, for the 
control of excessive growth of these nonindigenous aquatic weeds. 
Although this is an important use, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding 
that the utilization of funds for aquatic weed control should not 
deplete the funds available for other nonpoint source programs. Is that 
the understanding of the chairman of the committee?
  Mr. SHUSTER. If the gentlewoman will yield, Mr. Chairman, that is 
correct.
  Mrs. FOWLER. I thank the chairman of the committee for his support 
and clarification of this section.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. H.R. 961 is 
a dangerous piece of legislation for my district, which includes the 
beautiful Santa Monica Bay. For years the people of Los Angeles have 
worked to clean the bay and make it safe for swimmers, divers, and the 
thousands of people who eat local seafood.
  The city of Los Angeles, however, deserves very little credit for 
this. City bureaucrats have dragged their feet and done everything they 
could to avoid tougher controls. But our community was so committed 
that it overruled the bureaucrats and twice voted by overwhelming 
margins to stop the Los Angeles sewage system from dumping poorly 
treated sewage into the bay.
  As a result, we have spent over $2 billion to bring full secondary 
treatment to the Hyperion treatment plant. Let me repeat that, because 
it is important to understand our situation. We have already spent $2 
billion to stop dangerous pollution. To complete the project, we need 
to spend $85 million more.
  Well, under this bill, we will never spend that $85 million, and we 
will never be able to clean up the bay. H.R. 961 would overturn our 
local decision and relieve the sewage system from meeting its 
obligation under the Clean Water Act to treat sewage.
  This is a bizarre situation. This Congress is going to overturn a 
local decision made by Los Angeles voters, and in the process throw $2 
billion down the drain and condemn the Santa Monica Bay to a constant 
flow of sewage. Let us avoid this lunacy and vote for the Pallone 
amendment.
  Let me point out the anomaly here. Unless we have EPA insisting that 
the decisions be made to protect the Santa Monica Bay, the publicly 
owned sewage system will not be upgraded to accomplish that result. 
They have dragged their feet. The local decisionmakers, the people, 
will be frustrated.
  We need the strength of the Environmental Protection Agency to be 
sure that the people's will is carried out.
  The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] has indicated in her 
statements the points made by the assistant administrator of the EPA, 
where he has said in the letter to her that the bill would alter
 fundamentally the current processes and standards by which EPA assures 
that communities achieve cost-effective commonsense sewage treatment 
solutions.

  The decision that will be made in fact if this bill is not amended by 
the Pallone amendment would be to undermine decisions based upon sound 
science. It would undermine the process of the Santa Monica Bay 
restoration project, which has involved so many people over many years 
in developing comprehensive approaches to water pollution control and 
infrastructure investments.
  The key point is not to let government bureaucrats in Los Angeles 
decide to ignore what the people in the area want, which is secondary 
treatment so that we can protect Santa Monica Bay.
  I urge that we adopt the Pallone amendment, so that it would permit 
the existing law that has been pursued in making that work to succeed, 
and that we not let the present bill, which is being proposed today, 
undermine what is so important for the Santa Monica Bay and all around 
this country, to protect the public and to overturn the last 20 years 
of effort to clean up polluted waters.

                              {time}  1145

  I urge support for the Pallone amendment.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just take issue with the theme that was offered 
by my friend and colleague from the Los Angeles area and apply it to 
our situation in San Diego.
  In San Diego, we have the Scripps Institute, as has been said a 
number of times by the gentlemen from California, Mr. Filner and Mr. 
Bilbray and Mr. Packard, the best scientists in the world with respect 
to oceanography. Those scientists over many years have affirmed and 
reaffirmed that you do not need to do this $2 billion treatment program 
for the cleaning of San Diego sewage.
  We have literally thousands of projects throughout the country where 
you do have pollution problems, where you are begging for dollars.
  In the defense nuclear weapons complex, we have a $6 billion budget 
that has been submitted to us by the Clinton administration to clean up 
the nuclear waste that has been reposited through the years at our 
defense weapons installations.
  You have a lot of places where we can use this money. Here we have 
our own scientists, the best scientists in the world, who are not 
rebutted scientifically by anybody, saying, you do not have to spend $2 
billion doing this.
  I have been in these meetings with EPA over the years, as Mr. Bilbray 
has. The basic theme that has come from them time and again in the 
meetings has been, we do not care what the scientists say. You have got 
to do it because it is the law.
  Here we are affording our colleagues and the taxpayers to do what is 
right, to do what is consistent with science, to do what is consistent 
with public safety and to save $2 billion. If we cannot understand that 
this blind adherence to this rigid philosophy that has made EPA frankly 
an enemy of many communities in this country, if we cannot understand 
that this philosophy needs to be changed, then we are going to be 
spending billions in the future that we do not need to spend.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  [[Page H4811]] I do want to make a clear distinction between the San 
Diego situation and the Los Angeles-Santa Monica Bay situation. Under 
existing law, San Diego can get a waiver, and I think you are making an 
excellent case for that waiver. But if this bill becomes law, places 
like Santa Monica Bay, which should not be excused from secondary 
treatment, would be disadvantaged. You are taken care of, but the bill, 
without the Pallone amendment, disadvantages Los Angeles and other 
communities around this country where good science would indicate that 
we ought to have the secondary treatment.
  Mr. HUNTER. As I understand it, this permanentizes our waiver. If we 
do not achieve it, we will be back in the same boat perhaps in a year 
or two begging the Federal Government not to force us to spend in San 
Diego several billions of dollars.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that in each section, 
the facility discharge is subject to the ocean monitoring program 
acceptable to Federal and State regulators, and it must be in 
compliance with the ocean plan for the State of California.
  If my colleague from California feels that California's water quality 
board is somehow not enforcing, we have one of the most efficient water 
quality controls here. In fact, they pointed out in the San Diego 
instance that--the water quality control board has pointed out that we 
do fulfill their discharge requirements and that EPA would have the 
lead role in assessing these permits. This happens at both locations. I 
think the problem is we are talking about chemically enhanced primary, 
does it fulfill the intention of Congress of cleaning up the pollution?
  The BOD, which is what it does not address, does not apply, is not 
needed in a saltwater deep outfall. It does in an estuary like the 
shallow waters of San Francisco and in the lakes and rivers. But here 
what we get down to is, is Congress worried about the environment or is 
it a command and control thing; we made a decision that there was a 
certain way you treated sewage and if somebody has a different way that 
does the job cheaper, we do not care. We will not allow them to do it 
because we figure there is only one way to get the job done.
  All of the regulatory agencies, the EPA, let me point out, the EPA 
not only is impressed with San Diego's jump on monitoring. The Federal 
Government, EPA has hired the city of San Diego's monitoring system to 
monitor the entire northern Baja.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The time of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Pallone, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my point again is that with regard to the 
San Diego situation, we understand that under current law you can apply 
for this waiver, and we have every reason to believe that you will get 
the waiver.
  I would disagree with the gentleman from San Diego in his statement 
that the language of the bill in just granting the waiver outright 
allows at some future time for this waiver to be taken back. I do not 
see the ocean monitoring program as providing for that.
  Leaving that aside, the point of the matter is that this legislation 
opens up a lot of other waivers, for LA, for a lot of other different 
towns. The letter that we have--and the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Harman] presented today from the EPA--actually says that that is 
not scientifically based.
  I understand the arguments that are being made by the San Diego 
people, but I think it is distinct and they have opportunities for a 
waiver. There has been no evidence presented that there is any 
scientific basis for any of these other waivers.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. BILBRAY. The scientific data, what is called chemically enhanced 
primary, is equivalent to secondary treatment.
  I would like to make several points about my legislation to recognize 
San Diego's primary advanced treatment as the equivalent of secondary 
sewage treatment.
  Comprehensive ocean monitoring studies conducted by the city of San 
Diego demonstrates that the present combination of industrial waste 
source controls, chemically enhanced primary treatment facilities and 
ocean discharge facilities are highly effective at protecting the ocean 
environment.
  Under the legislation I have introduced, the city will still be 
required to demonstrate that it meets the State and Federal clean water 
standards through the continued monitoring and testing procedures 
witnessed today.
  As many of my California colleagues know, Mayor Golding has submitted 
the city's application for a waive from the secondary sewage 
requirement of the Clean Water Act.
  The city had worked for years to get straightforward, unconditional 
legislation to acknowledge the scientific basis for the adequacy of our 
existing level of treatment. During the closing days of the 103d 
Congress, a compromise was ultimately accepted in the form of a free 
standing bill which limits the capacity of the point Loma plant and 
requires significant water reclamation capacity.
  Failure to obtain this legislation would have meant a costly time-
consuming trial on the requirement of the secondary treatment.
  I would like to point out to you today what the difference between 
the waiver application, and my legislation, which provides permanent 
relief from the mandate.
  Point Loma must operate under a National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination [NPDES] permit, issued by the Environmental Protection 
Agency every 5 years.
  Regardless of whether the city is operating under a waiver, or an 
exemption as I have proposed, Point Loma must still renew its permit.
  Likewise, the permit can only be reissued after a public review and 
hearing process is completed.
  Eithr way, if the city is not in compliance with State or Federal 
standards, it would not receive its operating permit from the EPA.
  The bottom line: It is more cost effective to provide the city with 
permanent relief from the secondary sewage requirement. The waiver 
application that Mayor Golding submitted to the EPA was 15 volumes long 
and cost $1 million dollars to assemble.
  This is money which could be spent improving the existing system, or 
expanding it to meet future needs.
  Finally, I'd like to point out that the State of California, which 
was a plaintiff in the Federal lawsuit against San Diego for 6 years 
switched sides, and became a defendant in the case, supporting the 
city's contention that the sewage treatment standard is needlessly 
stringent for San Diego. California switched sides after the city began 
operating the extended sewage disposal pipe, an action designed to 
bring the city into compliance with the State's ocean plan.
  The city has currently been in compliance with the State standards 
for 17 months.
  My legislation in no way exempts the city from the requirements and 
standards of the clean Water Act.
  Continued monitoring and testing is explicitly provided for in order 
to ensure that the ocean environment is protected.
  And if the State of California can be convinced that the city was 
acting in good faith to protect the ocean, the EPA must surely be able 
to recognize that the city's resources can be spent on more 
environmentally friendly pursuits that $1 million dollar waiver 
applications.
  My legislation will accomplish the parallel goals of protecting our 
ocean environment and the taxpayer's wallet.

                                          California Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                    Sacramento, CA, March 8, 1995.
     Hon. Susan Golding,
     Mayor, City of San Diego,
     San Diego, CA.
       Dear Mayor Golding: The purpose of this letter is to convey 
     the California Environmental Protection Agency's support for 
     your efforts to obtain a legislative exemption from the 
     federal secondary treatment requirements for San Diego's Pt. 
     Loma wastewater treatment plant.
       This support is in recognition of the demonstrated ability 
     of the Pt. Loma plant to comply with state Ocean Plan 
     standards. The recently extended ocean outfall has been shown 
     to be performing very well. This, in conjunction with the 
     successful implementation of chemically enhanced treatment at 
     Pt. Loma has given the city of San Diego a sewage treatment 
     and disposal system fully capable of protecting the marine 
     environment without the need for expensive secondary 
     treatment.
       The consensus statements by the scientists of the Scripps 
     Institution of Oceanography fully support the concept of 
     advance primary 
     [[Page H4812]] treatment for discharge in swiftly moving 
     marine waters such as those that exist off Pt. Loma. 
     Additionally, scientists of the National Academy of Science, 
     after three years of study, have published conclusions that 
     support San Diego's efforts to amend the Clean Water Act. The 
     Academy's April 1993 study ``Waste Management for Coastal 
     Urban Areas'' includes many findings applicable to San 
     Diego's situation. The Academy concluded that the secondary 
     treatment requirement can lead to overcontrol and 
     overprotection along open ocean coasts. Further, the Academy 
     stressed that the Clean Water Act does not allow regulators 
     to adequately address regional variations in environmental 
     systems. In the case of a deep ocean discharge, such as San 
     Diego, they concluded that biochemical oxygen demand, 
     pathogens, nitrogen and other nutrients were of little 
     concern. In summary, the Academy scientists concluded that 
     chemically enhanced primary treatment is an effective 
     technology for removing suspended solids and associated 
     contaminants.
       The State of California concurs with the Scripps scientists 
     as well as the National Academy of Science. Our review of 
     your system and the extensive Ocean Monitoring Program 
     reports further support the fact that San Diego will continue 
     to meet all State Ocean Plan Standards for your discharge. 
     Based on this scientific evidence, the State of California 
     fully supports the City's request for legislation to grant an 
     exemption from secondary treatment.
           Sincerely,
     James M. Strock.
                                                                    ____

         California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San 
           Diego Region,
                                    San Diego, CA, March 27, 1995.
     David Schlesinger,
     Director, Metropolitan Wastewater Department,
     San Diego, CA.
       Dear Mr. Schlesinger: Recently there have been some 
     questions raised about regulation of the City of San Diego's 
     discharge through the Point Loma Ocean Outfall. Because of 
     the length of the extended outfall, the terminus is now 
     beyond the 3 mile offshore boundary for State waters. 
     Nevertheless, a NPDES permit would still be required for the 
     City's ocean discharge. However, U.S. EPA would have the lead 
     role in the issuance of this permit.
       I anticipate that the Regional Board will participate in 
     formulating the regulations that will apply to the City's 
     ocean discharge. This participation will most likely be 
     either furnishing comments on the NPDES permit to be issued 
     by U.S. EPA or the issuing of a NPDES permit for the 
     discharge by the Regional Board. In either event, it would be 
     my recommendation that the NPDES permit for the City's ocean 
     discharge contain requirements consistent with the State's 
     Ocean Plan for the effluent, receiving waters and monitoring. 
     Further, with regard to the State's Ocean Plan, I would 
     recommend that the receiving water limits therein apply at 
     the boundary of the zone of initial dilution (ZID) even 
     though the ZID is beyond the 3 mile limit.
       If you have any questions, or would like to discuss this 
     matter further, please call me at the number on the 
     letterhead.
           Very truly yours,
                                                    Arthur L. Coe,
     Executive Officer.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Union-Tribune, Mar. 23, 1995]

     End the Nightmare--Boxer Should Support Bilbray's Sewage Bill

       San Diego's multibillion-dollar sewage nightmare is on the 
     verge of being solved. A solution has been devised in the 
     House of Representatives in the form of a bill that would 
     permanently exempt San Diego's sewage system from the 
     secondary treatment mandates contained in the Clean Water 
     Act.
       It looks like this legislation, sponsored by Rep. Brian 
     Bilbray, R-Imperial Beach, will pass the House easily. It is 
     supported by our country's entire congressional delegation 
     and by the House Republican leadership, including Speaker 
     Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
       That means the crucial hurdle for the Bilbray bill will be 
     the Senate.
       On a measure that affects only one state, tradition in the 
     Senate holds that both senators from that state must approve 
     of the bill before it can reach the floor for a vote. So, San 
     Diego ratepayers' hopes of avoiding what could be an 
     extremely costly and totally unnecessary sewage upgrade rest 
     with California Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne 
     Feinstein.
       Boxer in the past has shown a good grasp of this issue. She 
     sponsored an amendment in the Senate last year that allowed 
     San Digeo to apply for a waiver from the secondary treatment 
     mandates in the Clean Water Act. The waiver, which the city 
     is applying for, would have to be renewed every five years.
       Boxer lobbied hard for the waiver, explaining to her 
     colleagues that secondary treatment is unnecessary for San 
     Diego's sewage system because of our deep ocean outfall. With 
     San Diego city officials at here side she pointed out at 
     public hearings that the scientific community overwhelmingly 
     supports that contention.
       The exemption now proposed by Bilbray would simply codify 
     in perpetuity the waiver that Boxer sponsored for San Diego 
     last year.
       Local environmental groups such as the Sierra Club have 
     opposed the exemption because they have said it wouldn't 
     mandate the extensive ocean monitoring that the waiver 
     requires. Upon hearing that complaint, Bilbray toughened the 
     language on environmental monitoring in his bill.
       The Sierra Club's other objection to the exemption has been 
     that it would undermine provisions for producing reclaimed 
     water that are contained in the waiver legislation. The 
     exemption actually divorces the issue of water reclamation 
     from sewage treatment, which is proper. The two are separate 
     issues.
       If scientists say San Diego doesn't need to treat its 
     sewage to secondary standards, there's no reason it should be 
     forced to treat some of it to an even higher standard for 
     reclaimed water. If San Diegans want reclaimed water, that 
     should be a local policy decision wholly separate from the 
     issue of secondary sewage treatment.
       The Bilbray measure could move to the Senate in one of two 
     ways, either as a separate bill or as an amendment to a 
     broader bill reauthorizing the Clean Water Act, Either way, 
     Boxer and Feinstein should support it.
       Boxer understands San Diego's sewage problems, so she 
     should see that the exemption is even better than the waiver.
       And so should Feinstein, who voted for the waiver amendment 
     last year. With their support, San Diego's sewage nightmare 
     could vanish.
                                                                    ____

                [From the Union-Tribune, Apr. 10, 1995]

     Pass the Sewage Bill--Filner, Boxer Should Not Bow to Pressure

       San Diego has reached a crucial turn in its long battle to 
     escape a multibillion-dollar federal sewage mandate that 
     scientists agree is environmentally unnecessary.
       At stake is more than $3 billion in potential outlays by 
     San Diego ratepayers to build a mammoth secondary-sewage 
     treatment plant, as required by the federal Clean Water Act.
       A measure by Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Imperial Beach, to 
     exempt San Diego from this exorbitant--and scientifically 
     specious--mandate is advancing on Capitol Hill. It deserves 
     the support of San Diego County's five representatives in the 
     House and California's two Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer 
     and Dianne Feinstein.
       Regrettably, however, the legislation does not have the 
     unanimous backing of our delegation in Congress.
       Last week, Sen. Boxer announced her opposition to the 
     Bilbray measure. A day later, Rep. Bob Filner, D-San Diego, 
     said he was undecided whether to support reauthorization of 
     the Clean Water Act, a broad bill which includes Bilbray's 
     sewage exemption.
       Filner says he backs the exemption, which he long has 
     championed. But he has very serious reservations about other 
     provisions in the bill. ``There are significant problems with 
     the bill overall,'' he says.
       Consequently, Filner may vote against it when it reaches 
     the House floor--despite the billions of dollars at stake for 
     San Diego households.
       The Democratic lawmaker was conspicuously absent last week 
     when the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 
     approved the Clean Water Act by a 42-16 vote. Filner, the 
     only San Diego-area lawmaker on the panel, said he missed the 
     critical vote because he had a doctor's appointment.
       But political reality is that both Boxer and Filner, along 
     with other Democratic lawmakers, are under intense lobbying 
     pressure from environmentalists to vote against the Clean 
     Water Act. Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club 
     vigorously oppose San Diego's sewage exemption and other 
     provisions of the bill which they claim would harm the 
     environment.
       But, unlike opponents of the exemption, San Diego has 
     science on its side.
       An authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences 
     concluded in 1993 that San Diego's current method of 
     ``enhanced primary treatment'' of its sewage poses no harm to 
     the environment. That's because San Diego discharges its 
     sewage 4.5 miles out to sea, where the water is over 300 feet 
     deep. A ``consensus statement'' signed by 33 eminent 
     scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La 
     Jolla reached the same conclusion.
       In the face of such evidence, Rep. Filner and Sen. Boxer 
     should recognize that Bilbray's exemption serves the 
     interests of not only San Diego sewage users but the 
     environment as well. The real question is whether these two 
     lawmakers will sacrifice good science and billions of dollars 
     out of the pockets of San Diegans to satisfy the demands of 
     Democratic pressure groups.
                                                                    ____

 Historical Review of San Diego's Efforts To Meet the Requirements of 
                    the Clean Water Act, April 1995


                    the metropolitan sewerage system

       The Metropolitan Sewerage System serves approximately 1.8 
     million persons living in San Diego and in 14 other cities 
     and sewer districts in San Diego County. Each day, 180 to 190 
     million gallons of sewage collected from these entities is 
     treated at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant which is 
     owned and operated by the City of San Diego.
       The Point Loma Plant uses a settling method known as 
     advanced primary treatment to remove approximately 80 percent 
     of the solids from sewage. The liquid waste, or effluent, is 
     then discharged into the Pacific 
     [[Page H4813]] Ocean through an ocean outfall pipe which 
     originally stretched about two and a half miles into the 
     ocean to a discharge depth of more than 200 feet. This 
     outfall was extended to a total length of 4.5 miles with a 
     discharge depth of 320 feet in November 1993.
       Solids, or sludge, are settled out of the sewage and are 
     discharged into ``digester'' tanks. Heating of the sludge 
     within the digesters produces methane gas which is burned to 
     generate electricity to run the Point Loma plant and to 
     produce revenue to offset a portion of the operating costs of 
     the plant.
       The heating also reduces the volume of the sludge by half, 
     and the remaining solids are then pumped to open-air drying 
     beds and mechanical presses on Fiesta Island. After the 
     sludge is dried, it is beneficially used in soil 
     conditioners, or landfilled when necessary.
       Improvements currently under way at the Point Loma Plant 
     will increase its treatment capacity to 240 million gallons 
     per day (mgd). An additional 100 mgd will be needed in the 
     system by the year 2050.


                          the clean water act

       In 1972, the federal Clean Water Act became law, and 
     directed the EPA to adopt standards of secondary sewage 
     treatment for all municipal wastewater dischargers. Cities 
     and sewerage districts were originally given five years to 
     construct facilities to meet the secondary standards, and 
     costs were to be shared by local, state and federal 
     governments under the Clean Water Grant Program. The deadline 
     for compliance with the secondary treatment standards was 
     extended several times, and eventually was set at July 1, 
     1988.
       Under the Clean Water Act, all U.S. dischargers were 
     required to obtain from EPA a National Pollutant Discharge 
     Elimination System (NPDES) permit which established effluent 
     standards for both the sewage discharge and for receiving 
     waters. A single set of standards was adopted for all 
     municipal dischargers whether their effluent entered a lake, 
     stream, river, bay or ocean. This approach differed 
     dramatically from California's existing system for setting 
     discharge standards. Prior to the Clean Water Act, California 
     had been operating under the Dickey Act, which allowed the 
     Regional Water Quality Control Board to adopt the 
     requirements for individual dischargers within their 
     jurisdiction. The Regional Board studied the discharge and 
     receiving water at each individual point of discharge and set 
     the requirements for each discharger based on the specific 
     technical data from that site. This resulted in different 
     standards for communities which discharged into smaller 
     bodies of water or into waters which served as drinking water 
     supplies than for communities which discharged into the 
     ocean.
       EPA regulations under the Clean Water Act defined secondary 
     treatment in terms of three wastewater constituents; 
     Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), suspended solids, and pH: 1) 
     BOD is a measure of how much the organic material in the 
     wastewater can be broken down by microorganisms. Thirty-day 
     average concentrations of BOD were not to exceed limits of 30 
     milligrams per liter (mg/l) or 85% removal, whichever was 
     more restrictive. In San Diego's case, because the influent 
     concentration can be as high as 300 mg/l, the 85% removal 
     rate yields a 45 mg/l effluent concentration. Therefore, the 
     30 mg/l requirement is the more stringent, and a 90% removal 
     rate is required. 2) Suspended solids were also not to exceed 
     thirty-day average concentration limits of 30 mg/l or 85% 
     removal. As with BOD, the more stringent criterion is the 30 
     mg/l, which corresponds to approximately 90 percent removal 
     of solids from the incoming wastewater. 3) pH is a measure of 
     the acidity of the wastewater. A range from 6.0 to 9.0 was 
     established for pH.
       With the exception of the BOD, suspended solids and pH, the 
     EPA relied on the water quality standards contained in the 
     State Ocean Plan to control the numerous other constituents 
     found in normal municipal discharge, such as microorganisms, 
     heavy metals and organic toxic substances. In addition to the 
     secondary requirements set by EPA, California dischargers had 
     to meet 200 other technical requirements set by federal and 
     state water standards.


                    the metropolitan facilities plan

       At the time the federal secondary treatment standards were 
     adopted, the Point Loma discharge was operating under a State 
     of California permit which contained no limitation for BOD 
     pH, and a limitation of 125 mg/l for suspended solids.
       San Diego received its first NPDES permit for Point Loma in 
     1974. The initial permit allowed the facility to continue to 
     treat sewage at the primary level as had been practiced for 
     more than a dozen years under the State waste discharge 
     requirements, but directed the City to complete plans and 
     specifications to convert to secondary treatment by January 
     1, 1977.
       The City was awarded a federal/state Clean Water Grant in 
     1975 to finance the preparation of a facilities plan to 
     convert the metropolitan sewerage system to secondary 
     treatment. Preparation
      of the plan included review of comprehensive ocean 
     monitoring data, extensive analysis of numerous primary 
     and secondary treatment alternatives, study of various 
     layouts of the Metropolitan Sewerage System and multiple 
     cost estimates.
       The report, referred to as the ``Metropolitan Facilities 
     Plan'' was completed in January of 1977. It concluded that 
     San Diego's primary effluent was creating virtually no 
     adverse impacts on the ocean and that secondary treatment was 
     not necessary at Point Loma. The consultant recommended that 
     San Diego request a waiver from EPA's secondary treatment 
     standards.
       At the time the facilities plan was written, however, there 
     was no provision in the Clean Water Act which authorized EPA 
     to grant waivers from secondary treatment. Because the waiver 
     process did not exist and there was no guarantee that San 
     Diego could obtain one, the facilities plan also included a 
     plan to convert Point Loma to secondary treatment.


                   the section 301(h) waiver process

       While the NPDES permit for Point Loma was being renewed in 
     1977, San Diego began action in Congress to enable EPA to 
     grant waivers from secondary treatment. The City was soon 
     joined by an association of all the major municipal 
     wastewater dischargers in the United States. In late 1977, 
     Congress added to the Clean Water Act Section 301(h) which 
     established the waiver process.
       Section 301(h) allowed municipalities discharging 
     wastewater to marine waters to apply for modified standards 
     of secondary treatment. Modifications were to be granted on a 
     case-by-case basis and were to allow the dischargers to meet 
     comparable state standards in place of the federal secondary 
     standards for BOD, suspended solids and pH. The 
     municipalities had to demonstrate that sewage discharged 
     under the modified standards protected the environment at a 
     level comparable to sewage treated under federal secondary 
     standards. The dischargers also had to meet all state and 
     federal ocean water quality standards and had to protect the 
     beneficial uses of the ocean.


       the waiver application and dual facility planning efforts

       San Diego filed its waiver application in September of 
     1979. The application asked that San Diego be allowed to meet 
     State Ocean Plan standards which are based on advanced 
     primary treatment of sewage as an alternative to federal 
     standards for secondary treatment.
       Concurrent to filing an application for a waiver, the City 
     continued facility planning efforts. The Metro II facilities 
     plan which included engineering studies for both advanced 
     primary treatment and secondary treatment recommended a new 
     system that would consist of a 45 mgd secondary sewage 
     treatment plant at Point Loma and a 140 mgd secondary sewage 
     treatment plant in the Tijuana River Valley. A major new 
     interceptor system would convey sewage south to the border 
     area and a new land outfall would be constructed along the 
     Tijuana River connecting the new treatment plant with a new 
     ocean outfall.


      state water resources control board's reaction to the waiver

       After San Diego submitted its Section 301(h) waiver 
     application to EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board 
     assigned a very low priority to the award of federal grant 
     money for construction of secondary treatment facilities. On 
     May 15, 1980, the State Board resolved through Resolution No. 
     80-37 not to award Clean Water Grants for any ocean discharge 
     project in excess of that needed to meet the provisions of 
     the Ocean Plan until the Board determined that sufficient 
     grant funds were available to justify funding of such 
     projects.
       After the resolution was adopted, numerous coastal 
     communities throughout the state, including San Diego, 
     modified their wastewater treatment planning to eliminate or 
     postpone secondary treatment. Plans already completed or 
     partially completed were shelved as the dischargers awaited 
     the outcome of the Section 301(h) applications.
       Resolution No. 80-37 is still in effect and has not been 
     amended.


                 epa's tentative approval of the waiver

       On September 23, 1981, EPA tentatively approved San Diego's 
     waiver application, conditioned upon the issuance of a 
     revised NPDES permit for the Point Loma discharge. The 301(h) 
     permit was to be issued following a joint public hearing 
     before EPA staff and the Regional Water Quality Control 
     Board. The public hearing was held in November 1982, however, 
     the issuance of the permit was held in abeyance to allow the 
     EPA and Regional Board to consider the public testimony.


                  mexican/united states border issues

       In April 1982, San Diego continued its facilities planning 
     efforts by initiating a study directed toward determining a 
     long-term solution for the Tijuana sewage discharge problem 
     that had resulted in millions of gallons of raw sewage 
     entering the United States from Mexico. The City Council 
     conceptually approved in 1983, a plan for the construction of 
     a $730 million joint international wastewater treatment and 
     disposal system with capacity for both Tijuana and a portion 
     of San Diego.


                       revised waiver application

       During the three years in which the EPA was reviewing the 
     original waiver application, the City updated population 
     projections. The new projections were substantially higher 
     than those used in determining the projected sewage flows in 
     the waiver application. When, in 1983, the EPA opened up the 
     waiver process for a second time, the 
     [[Page H4814]] City used the opportunity to revise and
      resubmit its initial waiver application to include 
     projections for sewage discharge through the year 1993, 
     and to account for treatment of Tijuana sewage. The 1983 
     application reaffirmed the 1979 conclusions that secondary 
     treatment of the Point Loma sewage discharge was not 
     necessary to protect public health and the environment.


                    revision of the state ocean plan

       While the City was filing its revised waiver application 
     with EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board was making 
     changes in the State Ocean Plan which would eventually have a 
     direct impact upon the application.
       In 1983, the board adopted two significant revisions to the 
     plan:
       1. Body contact bacteriological standards, the same ones 
     formerly applied only to public bathing beaches, were adopted 
     for all kelp beds off the California coast. This action was 
     taken to protect those persons who SCUBA dive in the beds, 
     and was to take effect on July 1, 1988. The law also allowed 
     the Regional Board to examine kelp beds near sewer outfalls 
     on a case-by-case basis and exclude them from the standards 
     (``dedesignation'') where warranted.
       2. Cities were given the opportunity to apply for an 
     exemption from the suspended solids standards under the Ocean 
     Plan and to request to remove 60 percent rather than 75 
     percent of suspended solids.
       Prior to the 1983 revision of the Ocean Plan, neither the 
     City nor any public health or water quality regulatory agency 
     had received complaints of illness among SCUBA divers in or 
     near the Point Loma kelp beds. In 1985, the City asked the 
     State to exclude or ``dedesignate'' the Point Loma kelp beds 
     from the body-contact bacteriological standards. By excluding 
     the Point Loma kelp beds from the new state standards, the 
     Point Loma discharge would be subject to the original Ocean 
     Plan bacteriological standards, as addressed in the City's 
     1979 and 1983 waiver applications.
       The Regional Water Quality Control Board conducted public 
     hearings on the City's request for dedesignation of the kelp 
     beds in September and November of 1985. The Regional Board 
     postponed a decision on the matters, however, until after the 
     City completed further studies.


                   dedesignation and waiver requests

       A. Dedesignation.--After the City filed its original 
     dedesignation request in September 1985, with the Regional 
     Water Quality Control Board, it conducted extensive field 
     studies of the Point Loma kelp beds and of the health of 
     those who dive in the kelp beds. The study showed that the 
     proposed bacteriological standards were being met in the 
     inner portions but were frequently exceeded along the outer 
     edges of the beds.
       The accompanying health effects study showed, however, that 
     few cases of gastrointestinal illness were reported among 
     divers after using the Point Loma beds, and that the number 
     of reported cases was well below the level accepted by the 
     EPA. (The study indicated eight reported cases of illness 
     following 1,000 dives, and the proposed EPA bacterial 
     standards permit up to 19 cases per 1,000).
       In September of 1986, the Executive Officer of the Regional 
     Water Quality Control Board indicated at a public meeting 
     that he would recommend against San Diego's dedesignation 
     request because no alternate ocean standards had been 
     developed to protect divers in the kelp beds. He also said he 
     would recommend against the City's proposed reduction in 
     suspended solids removal because San Diego could not 
     demonstrate an economic necessity for it and was already 
     removing 75 percent of sewage solids at Point Loma with 
     existing rate revenues.
       Following discussions at a Council meeting on December 9, 
     1986, (discussed further in following paragraphs), the City 
     of San Diego discontinued its dedesignation request for a 
     revision to the water quality standards on December 16, 1986.
       B. Waiver.--On September 30, 1986, EPA announced its 
     decision to reverse its tentative approval of San Diego's 
     1979 waiver application and to tentatively deny both the 
     City's 1979 and 1983 applications. EPA cited two reasons for 
     denying the applications: First, it cited the City's 
     inability to comply with the new State Ocean Plan 
     bacteriological standards scheduled to take effect in 1988. 
     Those standards apply body-bacteriological standards, like 
     those formerly applied only to public bathing beaches, to all 
     kelp beds off the California coast. The EPA stated that 
     compliance with the standards is necessary to protect the 
     health of recreational users of the kelp beds, and concluded 
     that the Point Loma sewage discharge ``has degraded the 
     recreational beneficial use in the kelp bed vicinity''. 
     Second, the EPA concluded that the Point Loma discharge 
     ``interferes with the protection and propagation of a 
     balanced indigenous population'' of bottom dwelling ocean 
     organisms in the vicinity of the Point Loma outfall. In 
     support of this conclusion, EPA noted that species of clam is 
     found in greater abundance near the outfall discharge than 
     away from the outfall, and a species of starfish, a brittle 
     star, is less common near the outfall discharge point than 
     away from the outfall. The brittle star found in reduced 
     numbers near the outfall is one of the most common and 
     abundant species on the Southern California shelf.
       The City had until March 30, 1987 to submit a revised 
     waiver application to EPA if it intended to continue to 
     pursue the waiver. On November 3, the San Diego City Council 
     authorized the City Manager to send EPA a letter of intent to 
     file a revised application. That letter had to be submitted 
     to EPA by November 15, 1986, or the EPA tentative denial 
     would have become final, and a revised waiver application 
     would not be allowed. In authoring the filing of the letter,
      several members of the Council cautioned that their action 
     did not indicate support for the filing of a revised 
     waiver application, and that such a decision would be made 
     following a public hearing on the waiver scheduled on 
     December 9.


                          san diego's decision

       San Diego's City Council devoted two public hearings, one 
     on December 9, 1986, and one on February 17, 1987, to the 
     issue of the 301(h) waiver application versus secondary 
     treatment. Public response at both meetings favored 
     abandoning waiver efforts and pursuing the federally mandated 
     secondary treatment requirements. Additionally, there was 
     much emphasis and support placed on the potential for water 
     reclamation and reuse if the City were to modify its sewage 
     treatment system.
       Public testimony combined with consistent negative response 
     by the regulatory agencies placed the City of San Diego in a 
     position requiring immediate forward action. While all the 
     efforts of the past (waiver and facilities planning) had 
     provided beneficial avenues to San Diego, laws as well as 
     public opinion changed over time and it was clear that either 
     option that the City chose would require long range planning 
     and provisions for water reclamation.
       On February 17, 1987, the decision was made to discontinue 
     waiver efforts and comply with federal sewage treatment 
     standards. The City immediately proceeded at full speed to 
     implement secondary treatment and water reclamation. 
     Immediate actions by the City included establishing an 
     advisory committee, the Metropolitan Sewer Task Force (MSTF), 
     to lend expertise and guidance to Council on the many issues 
     surrounding the sewage modifications; and creating the Clean 
     Water Program to oversee the upgrade and expansion of the 
     sewerage system.


                  consent decree discussions with epa

       Although the City was swiftly and judiciously pursuing 
     facilities planning efforts, it was clear that the July 1, 
     1988 compliance deadline would not be met. Beginning in 
     January, 1988, the City embarked on discussions with the 
     Department of Justice, EPA, SWRCB and RWQCB to establish a 
     realistic time schedule for compliance with the federal 
     discharge standards. Despite the City's commitment to comply, 
     the federal government sued the City on July 27, 1988. The 
     State of California joined as a co-plaintiff.
       From 1987 to 1989 the City carried out intensive facilities 
     planning with a team of engineers, planners, and 
     environmental specialists working with the community. After 
     consolidating twenty-two alternatives into seven, the City 
     adopted a plan that included the upgrade of the Point Loma 
     treatment plant, the construction of a new secondary 
     treatment plant in the South Bay, and seven new water 
     reclamation plants located throughout the service area. This 
     plan, called Alternative IVa, was the basis for an agreement 
     between the City and the State and Federal governments. This 
     agreement, called a Consent Decree, was signed by the parties 
     in January 1990 and was lodged in federal court. The cost to 
     implement the facilities in the Consent Decree was estimated 
     to be $2.5 billion in 1992 dollars.


                   federal court findings, june 1991

       When presented with the proposed plan, Judge Rudi Brewster 
     noted that in order to finalize the Decree, he would need to 
     find that the plan was in the best interest of the public. He 
     held a hearing on whether or not the present discharge at 
     Point Loma has adverse impacts on the marine environment and 
     found that, while there is a potential impact to divers using 
     the kelp beds due to bacteriological contamination, there is 
     no significant impact to the sea life surrounding the 
     discharge. He also recognized in his findings that extension 
     of the outfall (which has now been completed) would eliminate 
     the contamination of the kelp beds.
       Judge Brewster ruled on June 18, 1991 that the proposed 
     Consent Decree should be deferred to January 1993. He 
     directed that the City conduct pilot tests at the Point Loma 
     facility to determine whether or not chemically-enhanced 
     primary treatment could meet the secondary treatment 
     requirements and suggested that the City pursue its best 
     efforts to amend the Clean Water Act. He also suggested that 
     the National Academy of Science study entitled ``Wastewater 
     Management for Coastal Urban Areas,'' which was due to be 
     completed soon, be used as further guidance on the level of 
     treatment necessary to protect the environment.


                         consumers' alternative

       In May 1992 the City Council directed a reevaluation of 
     Alternative IVa based on retaining Point Loma as an advanced 
     primary treatment plant operating at an ultimate capacity of 
     240 mgd. With this change, 90 mgd of additional capacity 
     could be provided at the Point Loma plant that would not be 
     available if a conversion to secondary treatment had occurred 
     as envisioned by Alternative IVa. The new plan, dubbed the 
     Consumers' Alternative, has an estimated capital cost of $1.2 
     billion in 1992 dollars. At a July 10, 1992 hearing in 
     Federal Court, Judge 
     [[Page H4815]] Brewster directed the City to proceed with the 
     Consumers' Alternative and await the results of the pilot 
     testing at Point Loma and the report from the National 
     Academy of Science.


                          pilot study results

       The City completed the 18-month pilot testing in August 
     1993. Its purpose was to determine whether or not chemically 
     enhanced primary treatment could be used to bring the Point 
     Loma Plant into compliance with the 30 mg/l effluent 
     requirement for total suspended solids and BOD currently 
     embodied in the Clean Water Act. The results are clear for 
     both constituents: the 30 mg/l law to achieve secondary 
     treatment cannot be met. As a result, the City has redoubled 
     its efforts to amend the Clean Water Act to provide modified 
     standards where it is demonstrated that there will be no 
     adverse impact to the environment.
             national academy of science report conclusions

       After three years of study the Academy released 
     ``Wastewater Management for Coastal Urban Areas'' in April 
     1993. No specific recommendations were made regarding San 
     Diego's wastewater treatment system, but a number of 
     conclusions reported by the Academy support San Diego's 
     efforts to amend the Act: (1) The secondary treatment 
     requirement can lead to over-control and over-protection 
     along open ocean coasts; the 1972 Clean Water Act does not 
     allow regulators to adequately address regional variations in 
     environmental systems. (2) In the case of deep ocean 
     discharge where BOD, pathogens, nitrogen, and other nutrients 
     are of little concern, and contributions of toxics and metals 
     associated with solids are low, treatment for removal of 
     these constituents is unnecessary. (3) Chemically enhanced 
     primary treatment is an effective technology for removing 
     suspended solids and associated contaminants.


                federal court findings and interim order

       On March 31, 1994 Judge Rudi Brewster rejected the Consent 
     Decree proposed in 1990 as ``not in the public interest.'' 
     His memorandum decision stated that the Consent Decree 
     presents no environmental benefit, requires wasteful over-
     treatment, requires unnecessary sludge production, and 
     mandates unnecessary reclamation facilities. Key testimony in 
     the courtroom included the legislative efforts of San Diego's 
     Councilmembers, Senators, and Members of Congress to allow 
     the Point Loma Treatment Plant to continue its advanced 
     primary level of treatment.
       An Interim Order issued August 26, 1994 requires San Diego 
     to continue implementation of the Consumers' Alternative.


                     ocean pollution reduction act

       After the bill received the unanimous support of the House 
     and Senate, President Clinton signed the Ocean Pollution 
     Reduction Act on October 31, 1994. This Act allows the City 
     of San Diego to apply for a waiver from secondary treatment 
     within six months and requires the EPA to complete its review 
     of the application within one year of its receipt. It 
     requires that San Diego commit to 45 MGD of water reclamation 
     capacity by 2010 and that certain effluent parameters (80% 
     suspended solids removal and 58% biological oxygen demand 
     removal) be met. It also requires that there be fewer 
     suspended solids discharged to the ocean at the end of the 
     waiver period than are discharged at the beginning of the 
     waiver period.
       San Diego submitted the waiver application on April 24, 
     1995. EPA Administrator Carol Browner has notified San Diego 
     that an initial assessment will be completed by about June 8, 
     1995 and a Tentative Decision Document will be issued by 
     about August 7, 1995.
                                                                    ____

                                                      May 9, 1995.
     Hon. David Dreier,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the 
         House, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. David M. McIntosh,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural 
         Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government 
         Reform and Oversight, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman: I write to respond to a letter written by 
     the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, dated May 1, 1995 (the ``May 
     1 letter'') and delivered to your Subcommittees for 
     consideration in connection with your hearing on the 
     procedures to be used for the Speaker's ``Corrections Day.'' 
     In that letter, Congressman Mineta voices his concerns with 
     H.R. 794, a bill introduced by Congressman Bilbray, that has 
     been widely touted as a prime candidate for the Corrections 
     Day process.
       The purpose of this response is to set the record straight 
     about San Diego's motivations, justifications and evidentiary 
     support for H.R. 794, and further to assuage the concerns of 
     those who mistakenly believe that H.R. 794 is ill-conceived 
     or ill-motivated. Contrary to the message of the May 1 
     letter, H.R. 794 is critical to the long-term resolution of 
     San Diego's wastewater treatment plans, and specifically the 
     City's dispute with the Environmental Protection Agency (the 
     ``EPA'') over the level of treatment necessary to protect the 
     environment. By responding to the assertions made in the May 
     1 letter, I hope to educate and assure the members of 
     Congress that by enacting H.R. 794 they are promoting fiscal 
     and environmental responsibility.
       San Diego has been pursuing environmentally sound and 
     fiscally responsible compliance with the Clean Water Act (the 
     ``CWA'') for more than two decades. Over the past four years 
     our Congressional representatives have worked with the 
     appropriate Congressional committees to pass legislation that 
     would provide an opportunity to establish, once and for all, 
     that the current level of sewage treatment at the Point Loma 
     Treatment Plant fully protects the marine environment, and 
     that the secondary level of treatment prescribed by the CWA 
     does not make sense for our ocean or our ratepayers. Last 
     year we consistently requested straightforward, unconditional 
     legislation that would acknowledge the scientific basis for 
     the adequacy of our existing level of treatment, but 
     ultimately accepted compromise language that limits the 
     capacity of the Point Loma plant and requires significant 
     water reclamation capacity to be built. We worked hard to get 
     this language into the CWA reauthorization; when it became 
     clear that the CWA was not going to be reauthorized, we 
     agreed in the closing days of Congress to the Ocean Pollution 
     Reduction Act of 1994, a stand-alone bill that mirrored the 
     compromise provision in the CWA. Failure to obtain this 
     legislation by either vehicle would have meant a costly, 
     time-consuming trial on the requirement for secondary 
     treatment.
       H.R. 794 embodies precisely the legislation we originally 
     sought. In recent months, the House Transportation and 
     Infrastructure Committee approved H.R. 961, which contains a 
     coastal discharge provision for San Diego that substantially 
     mirrors H.R. 794. We are encouraged by the bi-partisan 
     support we received from the committee, but with the 
     experience of last year's CWA re-authorization process still 
     fresh in our minds, we urge you to consider H.R. 794 as 
     equally vital to ensure that the necessary, long-awaited 
     legislative relief is assured.
       The May 1 letter authored by Congressman Mineta argues that 
     H.R. 794 is inappropriate for consideration under Corrections 
     Day procedures, raising in support of that argument several 
     concerns as to San Diego's motivation, justification and 
     evidentiary support for H.R. 794. Although I understand these 
     arguments were addressed in the course of including the 
     coastal discharge provision in H.R. 961, I offer the 
     following detailed response to aid you in fully understanding 
     San Diego's position on each of these matters.


                    the need for secondary treatment

       There is no dispute that the nationwide requirement for 
     secondary treatment, imposed in 1972, has improved the 
     overall quality of the nation's water. This is because most 
     treatment plants in the country discharge into inland lakes, 
     rivers and
      streams where there is limited capacity to assimilate 
     suspended solids or biochemical oxygen demand (``BOD''). 
     The May 1 letter notes that the city of San Jose, 
     California, requires an even higher level of treatment 
     than secondary to protect the environment; this, however, 
     is because San Jose discharges into a tidal estuary in 
     South San Francisco Bay via an open channel (not a 
     submerged outfall pipe) into waters approximately 20 feet 
     deep--a far different circumstance from San Diego's 
     outfall pipe discharge into swiftly moving currents off 
     our open coast at over 300 feet of depth and over four 
     miles offshore. In fact, San Jose also has to have a 
     ``conditional exception'' to the requirements of the Bays 
     and Estuaries Act, which would otherwise prohibit 
     discharges of this nature to the Bay in that area.
       There is also little dispute that San Diego's current use 
     of advanced primary treatment protects the marine 
     environment. Among the numerous favorable findings of various 
     scientists and agencies, I offer the following for your 
     consideration:
       The Environmental Protection Agency, in its 1981 Tentative 
     Decision Document on San Diego's original waiver application, 
     states that ``the applicant's proposed discharge will comply 
     with the California State water quality standards'' and that 
     ``the applicant's proposed discharge will not adversely 
     impact public water supplies or interfere with the protection 
     and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of marine 
     life, and will allow for recreational activities.''
       Judge Brewster stated, in his findings in his March, 1994 
     Memorandum Decisions and Order Rejecting the Proposed Consent 
     Decree, that ``the scientific evidence without dispute 
     establishes that the marine environment is not harmed by 
     present sewage treatment, and in fact appears to be 
     enhanced.''
       The National Research Council committee on ``Wastewater 
     Management for Coastal Urban Areas'' stated in its April 1993 
     report that ``chemically enhanced primary treatment is an 
     effective technology for removing suspended solids and 
     associated contaminants.''
       Scientists from all over the country have testified in 
     various forums, including under oath in the federal district 
     court in San Diego, that San Diego's current level of 
     treatment fully protects the offshore environment.


                        industrial pretreatment

       The May 1 letter credits secondary treatment and ``the 
     corresponding basic level of treatment for industrial 
     discharges'' with the success of the CWA. In fact, wastewater 
     plant treatment and industrial pretreatment are two entirely 
     separate requirements, not at all reliant on one another 
     although they can work in concert, as they do in San Diego. 
     San Diego's strong industrial 
     [[Page H4816]] pretreatment program is exactly what makes our 
     sewage treatment system a model for the rest of the country. 
     Instead of spending billion of dollars on ever higher levels 
     of treatment, San Diego works with its industries to ensure 
     that toxic constituents never even get into the system. As a 
     result, San Diego has a higher quality of wastewater coming 
     into its Point Loma plant than is required for the effluent 
     discharged after treatment.
       Part of this confusion in the May 1 letter may be 
     attributable to a misunderstanding of what ``secondary 
     equivalency'' means. San Diego's application for modified 
     standards of secondary treatment is exactly that, and no 
     more: a redefinition of ``secondary'' under certain 
     circumstances. It is not a waiver of or an exemption from the 
     protections of the CWA, and it is certainly not a ``license 
     to pollute.'' San Diego's permit under the Ocean Pollution 
     Reduction Act--and any modified definition applied under H.R. 
     794--seeks modification of only two of the secondary 
     treatment requirements: total suspended solids and BOD. All 
     of the 200-plus other constituents that are typically 
     measured and monitored at treatment plants across the nation 
     will still have to conform to the secondary treatment 
     requirements of the CWA. Because of the comprehensive and 
     effective industrial pretreatment program currently in place, 
     San Diego meets those standards now and would continue to 
     meet those standards under the new law. ``Secondary 
     treatment,'' as currently defined in the CWA, would add 
     nothing significantly beneficial to the process.


          reasons for rejection of the 1983 waiver application

       The May 1 letter is incorrect insofar as it implies that 
     the State of California denied San Diego's waiver application 
     in 1986. The state's Regional Water Quality Control Board 
     (``RWQCB''), in a March 1985 letter, informed the City that 
     the State had responded to the EPA with a tentative finding 
     that ``the discharge will comply with applicable state laws, 
     including applicable water quality standards, and will not 
     result in additional treatment, pollution control, or other 
     requirements on any other point or non-point source.'' The 
     denial was the work of the EPA, not the State. Moreover, the 
     Tentative Decision Document issued in 1986 by the EPA clearly
      states that EPA's tentative denial was due to the 1983 
     amendment of the California State Ocean Plan that applied 
     the same water quality standards to the offshore kelp beds 
     as had previously been applied only to bathing beaches. 
     This change came after the Point Loma plant had been 
     operating for over twenty years, and led to the extension 
     of the outfall that is currently in place. It was a change 
     in the Ocean Plan, and not a failure of San Diego's 
     treatment system, that led to the denial.


            san diego's withdrawal of the waiver application

       The circumstances under which San Diego withdrew its waiver 
     application in 1987, as referenced in the May 1 letter, must 
     be corrected for the record. In federal court the issue was 
     fully reviewed and the testimony demonstrated that key 
     officials from the EPA and Regional Board convinced San 
     Diego's mayor at that time that not only would a revised 
     application not receive favorable review, but that the EPA 
     would ensure that federal funds would be forthcoming to help 
     San Diego pay for upgrade of the system to secondary 
     treatment. In addition, those who opposed anything less than 
     secondary treatment used sewage spills from a major pump 
     station as a tool to convince some San Diegans to press for 
     withdrawal of the waiver application. Unfortunately, it was 
     never explained to the public that the two issues are in no 
     way related, and that spending billions on secondary 
     treatment would do nothing to prevent sewer spills or pump 
     station break-downs (and would, in fact, take away dollars 
     sorely needed to address those problems).\1\ Based on the 
     promises of the EPA and the concerns of a few citizens, the 
     City Council voted 8-1 to withdraw the application, thus 
     closing the door on San Diego's waiver unless reopened by new 
     law.
     \1\The further implication in the May 1 letter that the 1992 
     break in the outfall was somehow forecast by the EPA in 
     1983--or that spending billions of dollars on secondary 
     treatment would have prevented the break--is equally 
     unfounded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


                        san diego's ``history''

       The May 1 letter characterizes San Diego's ``reversals'' 
     during the last 23 years, regarding whether or not to 
     implement secondary treatment, as a failure of municipal 
     leadership. The true history of the situation does not 
     support that contention.
       When Congress passed the law requiring secondary treatment 
     in 1972, San Diego, along with most other municipalities in 
     the country, began the facilities planning necessary to 
     implement the higher level of treatment. After the 
     appropriate environmental impact documents had been 
     completed, the findings were that the No Project Alternative 
     (not implementing secondary treatment) had the least 
     environmental impact. Other municipalities discharging 
     through long deep ocean outfalls had similar findings, and 
     based on that, in 1977 Congress amended the Clean Water Act, 
     adding Section 301(h), allowing for waivers from secondary 
     treatment.
       San Diego applied for a waiver in 1979 and in 1981 received 
     a tentative approval from EPA. We were encouraged that we 
     were on the right track. Then in 1986 the EPA reversed 
     itself, issued a tentative denial, convinced San Diego to 
     withdraw the waiver application, and sued the City.
       San Diego pursued not just secondary treatment, but an 
     aggressive water reclamation program, from 1988 until 1992, 
     when it became apparent that the cost far outweighed both the 
     need and the benefits of seven new water reclamation plants 
     by 1999. We revised our plans, advised the court, and the 
     court agreed, rejecting the Proposed Consent Decree that 
     would have required these overreaching efforts. The judge 
     cautioned, however, that the City had to obtain a change in 
     the law, or he would be forced by existing law to put us on a 
     schedule to implement secondary treatment. Because time was 
     literally running out, and because Congress at the time was 
     not receptive to the legislative relief now proposed by H.R. 
     794 (or its counterpart provision in H.R. 961), San Diego 
     agreed to the conditions included in the Ocean Pollution 
     Reduction Act. Importantly, it was never represented that 
     with the passage of the Ocean Pollution Reduction Act, the 
     city would abandon its efforts to obtain permanent 
     legislative relief for its ratepayers.
       Recognizing that the cost of the conditions in the Ocean 
     Pollution Reduction Act was high, and that the compromise was 
     not necessarily in the best long-term interests of San 
     Diego's ratepayers, I began discussions with our 
     Congressional delegation to enact a better bill--one that 
     would be based on science, would give San Diego the same 
     opportunity given to other coastal dischargers, and would 
     continue to protect the marine environment.
       San Diego's actions over the past 23 years have always been 
     in response to changes that were made by Congress, the EPA, 
     or both. One of the reasons for H.R. 794 is to provide some 
     certainty to San Diego that as long as the ocean is
      protected, as verified by scientific testing, secondary 
     treatment will not be required due purely to changing 
     bureaucracies and the individuals that make them up.


                         Secondary equivalency

       The May 1 letter states that H.R. 794 would give San Diego 
     ``a permanent exemption from secondary treatment--no 
     conditions, no review, no questions asked,'' and further 
     asserts that the City would merely screen out the larger 
     solids and add chlorine to the rest, ``basically untreated 
     sewage except for the chlorine.'' This contention is likewise 
     in error. First, chemically enhanced primary treatment is, 
     according to the National Research Council, ``an effective 
     technology for removing suspended solids and associated 
     contaminant.'' San Diego does not chlorinate its effluent, as 
     is stated in the May 1 letter, because the length and depth 
     of its outfall precludes the need for doing so. The 
     wastefield is completely isolated from both the kelp beds and 
     the bathing beaches, fully protecting the health and safety 
     of our citizens.
       Moreover, H.R. 794 merely allows the regulators responsible 
     for enforcing the Clean Water Act, the EPA and the RWQCB, to 
     deem certain discharge to be the equivalent of secondary 
     treatment. An operating permit will still be required, and to 
     obtain that permit the City will have to continually meet 
     some very strict standards. Even San Jose, with its tertiary 
     treatment level must have an operating permit issued by the 
     EPA and RWQCB, must monitor the treatment plant and receiving 
     waters, must have an industrial pretreatment program in 
     place, and must renew its permit every five years. 
     Implementing secondary treatment--or a higher level of 
     treatment--does not exempt a plan from oversight by the 
     regulatory agencies, nor does it exempt a plant from any of 
     the other requirements of the CWA.


          support of scientists for current level of treatment

       The assertion in the May 1 letter, that Scripps Institution 
     of Oceanography has taken no position on H.R. 794, is true. 
     However, every credible scientist who has taken a position on 
     whether or not secondary treatment is needed at the Point 
     Loma facility has supported the current level of treatment. 
     Further, Scripps Institution of Oceanography does not, as an 
     institution, take positions on policy issues such as this. 
     Even so, a consensus statement signed by 33 professors and 
     researchers employed by Scripps supports the current level of 
     treatment, and many other scientists around the country at 
     other prestigious academic and research institutions also 
     support the current level of treatment. Finally, the 1933 
     report issued by the National Research Council, the operating 
     arm of the National Academy of Science, solidly supports the 
     appropriateness of less than secondary treatment for 
     municipalities like San Diego and more than secondary 
     treatment for municipalities like San Jose. There is ample, 
     uncontroverted scientific support for San Diego's position.


                 judge brewster's comments on san diego

       The May 1 letter includes just one comment by Judge 
     Brewster, made in 1991 when he made his Findings regarding 
     the several changes brought by the Department of Justice on 
     behalf of EPA. The quote refers to spills and sewer backups, 
     for which San Diego was fined $500,000. That problem is 
     irrelevant to the question addressed by the consideration of 
     H.R. 794: whether or not San Diego should be required to 
     implement secondary treatment.
        [[Page H4817]] In that regard, Judge Brewster in his 1994 
     decision rejecting the Proposed Consent Decree, said that ``. 
     . . with the new outfall, the scientific evidence without 
     dispute establishes that the marine environment is not harmed 
     by present sewage treatment, and in fact it appears to be 
     enhanced . . .'' He goes on to note that the National 
     Research Council report states ``that on a scientific basis, 
     it would be wise to consider environmental differences 
     regulating sewage treatment standards under the CWA'' and 
     that ``BOD is irrelevant in deep ocean discharges because of 
     the massive abundance of oxygen in the ocean.'' He reminds us 
     that in his 1991 Findings, the same ones that Mr. Mineta 
     references, ``this Court held that the City's Point Loma 
     discharge was not causing significant harm to the balanced 
     indigenous population surrounding the outfall pipe.'' And 
     most recently, at a May 1, 1995 hearing in his courtroom, 
     Judge Brewster stated that ``the City has aggressively moved 
     forward to complete all of the Court-ordered projects--many 
     ahead of schedule.''
       The fact is that San Diego has a well-run sewage treatment 
     system. There have been, and will continue to be, spills 
     occurring, as there are with every municipality in the 
     country. However, it is noteworthy that the California Water 
     Pollution Control Association in March 1995 awarded the City 
     of San Diego its ``Best of the Best'' award for the 
     Collection System of the Year. San Diego is making progress 
     and will continue to do so. The money that would be spent on 
     secondary treatment can unquestionably be better spent on 
     pipelines and pump stations to continue our improvement of 
     the system.
       Finally, San Diego has made substantial commitments to 
     supplementing our water supply in ways which include water 
     reclamation. We began construction on the North City Water 
     Reclamation Plant, a facility with a capacity of 30 million 
     gallons per day (``MGD''), in 1993, and expect to begin 
     operation in 1997. It is a $150 million state-of-the-art 
     plant that will provide reclaimed water for customers in the 
     northern part of our service area. We are also designing a 7 
     MGD water reclamation plant in the South Bay. As we go 
     forward with our system-wide planning we will continually 
     evaluate the market demand and economics that are an integral 
     part of the viability of water reclamation.
       We recognize in San Diego that the ocean is one of our most 
     valuable assets, and we are committed to protecting it now 
     and in the future. The existing waiver process provides 
     temporary relief from expensive overtreatment, but will only 
     be valid for five years. Thus, in another four years, the 
     City will once again have to expend over $1 million to 
     prepare another waiver application, to show once again what 
     is already a matter of scientific fact--that secondary 
     treatment is unnecessary and cost-ineffective for San Diego. 
     Given the City's history of dispute with the EPA, the city is 
     wary of having to fight further battles over this issue.
       The House Transportation and I infrastructure Committee 
     believes H.R. 794 makes sense, as evidenced by its ready 
     willingness to include it as well in H.R. 961. This provision 
     protects the environment, provides continuing monitoring and 
     oversight, and welcomes public review of the permit 
     application. The relief provided by H.R. 794 does not give 
     San Diego a license to pollute; on the contrary, it 
     acknowledges a continuing duty to meet strict California 
     State Ocean Plan standards for coastal discharge. What it 
     does provide is relief from regulators who disregard 
     scientific fact and common sense, in favor of a strict, blind 
     and costly adherence to ill-fitting regulations.
       Thank you for this opportunity to present the facts 
     underlying this important legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                Susan Golding,

                                                            Mayor,
                                                City of San Diego.

  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] 
has again expired.
  (On request of Mr. Waxman, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Hunter was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Waxman] who has agreed that the San Diego case is a valid one.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the gentleman makes a very 
good case for San Diego and he ought to get his waiver under existing 
law. But the point I want to make to the gentleman, it is not in any 
way denigrating your case, but in our situation, the local people want 
the secondary treatment and the bureaucrats that are dragging their 
feet are local bureaucrats. So let us understand, bureaucrats are not 
only at the Federal level that frustrates actions that the people want.
  Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the tie goes to the 
runner. We would rather have the local bureaucrats making decisions 
than those in Washington, DC.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
as somebody who was operating a health department, the elected 
officials locally that have to surf in those waters, the ones who are 
elected and go face to face with the citizens every day, they are the 
ones who know what really is happening in the ocean and they are the 
ones who are the most concerned and the most appropriate to be able to 
enforce this.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
they are the ones who have dragged their feet contrary to the will of 
the people who have had to vote twice to say they wanted this.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 267, not voting 13, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 315]

                               AYES--154

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--267

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     [[Page H4818]] Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Barrett (NE)
     Bono
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     McDade
     McInnis
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers
     Sanford
     Towns
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1212

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. McInnis against.

  Mr. MARTINI changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. LAZIO of New York changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there additional amendments to title 
III of the bill?


                    Amendment offered by Mr. MINETA

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 30, as printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mineta:
       Page 133, strike line 15, and all that follows through line 
     9 on page 170 and insert the following:
     SEC. 322. MUNICIPAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) State Programs.--Title III (33 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 322. MUNICIPAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to assist 
     States in the development and implementation of municipal 
     stormwater control programs in an expeditious and cost 
     effective manner so as to enable the goals and requirements 
     of this Act to be met in each State no later than 15 years 
     after the date of approval of the municipal stormwater 
     management program of the State. It is recognized that State 
     municipal stormwater management programs need to be built on 
     a foundation that voluntary pollution prevention initiatives 
     represent an approach most likely to succeed in achieving the 
     objectives of this Act.
       ``(b) State Assessment Reports.--
       ``(1) Contents.--After notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, the Governor of each State, consistent with or as 
     part of the assessment required by section 319, shall prepare 
     and submit to the Administrator for approval, a report 
     which--
       ``(A) identifies those navigable waters within the State 
     which, without additional action to control pollution from 
     municipal stormwater discharges, cannot reasonably be 
     expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality 
     standards or the goals and requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) identifies those categories and subcategories of 
     municipal stormwater discharges that add significant 
     pollution to each portion of the navigable waters identified 
     under subparagraph (A) in amounts which contribute to such 
     portion not meeting such water quality standards or such 
     goals and requirements;
       ``(C) describes the process, including intergovernmental 
     coordination and public participation, for identifying 
     measures to control pollution from each category and 
     subcategory of municipal stormwater discharges identified in 
     subparagraph (B) and to reduce, to the maximum extent 
     practicable, the level of pollution resulting from such 
     discharges; and
       ``(D) identifies and describes State and local programs for 
     controlling pollution added from municipal stormwater 
     discharges to, and improving the quality of, each such 
     portion of the navigable waters.
       ``(2) Information used in preparation.--In developing, 
     reviewing, and revising the report required by this 
     subsection, the State--
       ``(A) may rely upon information developed pursuant to 
     sections 208, 303(e), 304(f), 305(b), 314, 319, 320, and 321 
     and subsection (h) of this section, information developed 
     from any group stormwater permit application process in 
     effect under section 402(p) of this Act and such other 
     information as the State determines is appropriate; and
       ``(B) may utilize appropriate elements of the waste 
     treatment management plans developed pursuant to sections 
     208(b) and 303, to the extent such elements are consistent 
     with and fulfill the requirements of this section.
       ``(3) Review and revision.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of the enactment of the Clean Water Amendments of 
     1995, and every 5 years thereafter, the State shall review, 
     revise, and submit to the Administrator the report required 
     by this subsection.
       ``(c) State Management Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--In substantial consultation with local 
     governments and after notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, the Governor of each State for the State or in 
     combination with the Governors of adjacent States shall 
     prepare and submit to the Administrator for approval a 
     municipal stormwater management program based on available 
     information which the State proposes to implement in the 
     first 5 fiscal years beginning after the date of submission 
     of such management program for controlling pollution added 
     from municipal stormwater discharges to the navigable waters 
     within the boundaries of the State and improving the quality 
     of such waters.
       ``(2) Specific contents.--Each management program proposed 
     for implementation under this subsection shall include the 
     following:
       ``(A) Identification of model management practices and 
     measures.--Identification of the model management practices 
     and measures which will be undertaken to reduce pollutant 
     loadings resulting from municipal stormwater discharges 
     designated under subsection (b)(1)(B), taking into account 
     the impact of the practice and measure on ground water 
     quality.
       ``(B) Identification of programs and resources.--
     Identification of programs and resources necessary 
     (including, as appropriate, nonregulatory programs or 
     regulatory programs, enforceable policies and mechanisms, 
     technical assistance, financial assistance, education, 
     training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects) to 
     manage municipal stormwater discharges to the degree 
     necessary to provide for reasonable further progress toward 
     the goal of attainment of water quality standards which 
     contain the stormwater criteria established under subsection 
     (h) for designated uses of receiving waters identified under 
     subsection (b)(1)(A) taking into consideration specific 
     watershed conditions, by not later than the last day of the 
     15-year period beginning on the date of approval of the State 
     program.
       ``(C) Program for reducing pollutant loadings.--A program 
     for municipal stormwater discharges identified under 
     subsection (b)(1)(B) to reduce pollutant loadings from 
     categories and subcategories of municipal stormwater 
     discharges.
         ``(D) Schedule.--A schedule containing interim goals and 
     milestones for making reasonable progress toward the 
     attainment of standards as set forth in subparagraph (B) 
     established for the designated uses of receiving waters, 
     taking into account specific watershed conditions, which may 
     be demonstrated by one or any combination of improvements in 
     water quality (including biological indicators), documented 
     implementation of voluntary stormwater discharge control 
     measures, or adoption of enforceable stormwater discharge 
     control measures.
       ``(E) Certification of adequate authority.--
       ``(i) In general.--A certification by the Attorney General 
     of the State or States (or the chief attorney of any State 
     water pollution control agency that has authority under State 
     law to make such certification) that the laws of the State or 
     States, as the case may be, provide adequate authority to 
     implement such management program or, if there is not such 
     adequate authority, a list of such additional authorities as 
     will be necessary to implement such management program.
       ``(ii) Commitment.--A schedule for seeking, and a 
     commitment by the State or States to seek, such additional 
     authorities as expeditiously as practicable.
       ``(F) Identification of federal financial assistance 
     programs.--An identification of Federal financial assistance 
     programs and Federal development projects for which the State 
     will review individual assistance applications or development 
     projects for their effect on water quality pursuant to the 
     procedures set forth in Executive Order 12372 as in effect on 
     September 17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance 
     applications or development projects would be consistent with 
     the program prepared under this subsection; for the purposes 
     of this subparagraph, identification shall not be limited to 
     the assistance programs or development projects subject to 
     Executive Order 12372 but may include any programs listed in 
     the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which 
     may have an effect on the purposes and objectives of the 
     State's municipal stormwater management program.
       ``(G) Monitoring.--A description of the monitoring of 
     navigable waters or other assessment which will be carried 
     out under the program for the purposes of monitoring and 
     assessing the effectiveness of the program, 
     [[Page H4819]] including the attainment of interim goals and 
     milestones.
       ``(H) Identification of certain inconsistent federal 
     activities.--An identification of activities on Federal lands 
     in the State that are inconsistent with the State management 
     program.
       ``(I) Identification of goals and milestones.--An 
     identification of goals and milestones for progress in 
     attaining water quality standards, including a projected date 
     for attaining such standards as expeditiously as practicable 
     but not later than 15 years after the date of approval of the 
     State program for each of the waters listed pursuant to 
     subsection (b).
       ``(3) Utilization of local and private experts.--In 
     developing and implementing a management program under this 
     subsection, a State shall, to the maximum extent practicable, 
     involve local public and private agencies and organizations 
     which have expertise in stormwater management.
       ``(4) Development on watershed basis.--A State shall, to 
     the maximum extent practicable, develop and implement a 
     stormwater management program under this subsection on a 
     watershed-by-watershed basis within such State.
       ``(d) Administrative Provisions.--
       ``(1) Cooperation requirement.--Any report required by 
     subsection (b) and any management program and report required 
     by subsection (c) shall be developed in cooperation with 
     local, substate, regional, and interstate entities which are 
     responsible for implementing municipal stormwater management 
     programs.
       ``(2) Time period for submission of management programs.--
     Each management program shall be submitted to the 
     Administrator within 30 months of the issuance by the 
     Administrator of the final guidance under subsection (l) and 
     every 5 years thereafter. Each program submission after the 
     initial submission following the date of the enactment of the 
     Clean Water Amendments of 1995 shall include a demonstration 
     of reasonable further progress toward the goal of attaining 
     water quality standards as set forth in subsection (c)(2) 
     established for designated uses of receiving waters taking 
     into account specific watershed conditions by not later than 
     the date referred to in subsection (b)(2)(B), including a 
     documentation of the degree to which the State has achieved 
     the interim goals and milestones contained in the previous 
     program submission. Such demonstration shall take into 
     account the adequacy of Federal funding under this section.
       ``(3) Transition.--
       ``(A) In general.--Permits issued pursuant to section 
     402(p) for discharges from municipal storm sewers, as in 
     effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this 
     section, shall remain in effect until the effective date of a 
     State municipal stormwater management program under this 
     section. Stormwater dischargers shall continue to implement 
     any stormwater management practices and measures required 
     under such permits until such practices and measures are 
     modified pursuant to this subparagraph or pursuant to a State 
     municipal stormwater management program. Prior to the 
     effective date of a State municipal stormwater management 
     program, municipal stormwater dischargers may submit for 
     approval proposed revised stormwater management practices and 
     measures to the State, in the case of a State with an 
     approved program under section 402, or the Administrator. 
     Upon notice of approval by the State or the Administrator, 
     the municipal stormwater discharger shall implement the 
     revised stormwater management practices and measures which 
     may be voluntary pollution prevention activities. A municipal 
     stormwater discharger operating under a permit continued in 
     effect under this subparagraph shall not be subject to 
     citizens suits under section 505.
       ``(B) Antibacksliding.--Section 402(o) shall not apply to 
     any activity carried out in accordance with this paragraph.
       ``(e) Approval or Disapproval of Reports or Management 
     Programs.--
       ``(1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), not later than 
     180 days after the date of submission to the Administrator of 
     any report or revised report or management program under this 
     section, the Administrator shall either approve or disapprove 
     such report or management program, as the case may be. The 
     Administrator may approve a portion of a management program 
     under this subsection. If the Administrator does not 
     disapprove a report, management program, or portion of a 
     management program in such 180-day period, such report, 
     management program, or portion shall be deemed approved for 
     purposes of this section.
       ``(2) Procedure for disapproval.--If, after notice and 
     opportunity for public comment and consultation with 
     appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested 
     persons, the Administrator determines that--
       ``(A) the proposed management program or any portion 
     thereof does not meet the requirements of subsection (b) of 
     this section or is not likely to satisfy, in whole or in 
     part, the goals and requirements of this Act;
       ``(B) adequate authority does not exist, or adequate 
     resources are not available, to implement such program or 
     portion; or
       ``(C) the practices and measures proposed in such program 
     or portion will not result in reasonable progress toward the 
     goal of attainment of applicable water quality standards as 
     set forth in subsection (c)(2) established for designated 
     uses of receiving waters taking into consideration specific 
     watershed conditions as expeditiously as possible but not 
     later than 15 years after approval of a State municipal 
     stormwater management program under this section;

     the Administrator shall within 6 months of the receipt of the 
     proposed program notify the State of any revisions or 
     modifications necessary to obtain approval. The State shall 
     have an additional 6 months to submit its revised management 
     program, and the Administrator shall approve or disapprove 
     such revised program within 3 months of receipt.
       ``(3) Failure of state to submit report.--If a Governor of 
     a State does not submit a report or revised report required 
     by subsection (b) within the period specified by subsection 
     (d)(2), the Administrator shall, within 18 months after the 
     date on which such report is required to be submitted under 
     subsection (b), prepare a report for such State which makes 
     the identifications required by paragraphs (1)(A) and (1)(B) 
     of subsection (b). Upon completion of the requirement of the 
     preceding sentence and after notice and opportunity for a 
     comment, the Administrator shall report to Congress of the 
     actions of the Administrator under this section.
       ``(4) Failure of state to submit management program.--
       ``(A) Program management by administrator.--Subject to 
     paragraph (5), if a State fails to submit a management 
     program or revised management program under subsection (c) or 
     the Administrator does not approve such management program, 
     the Administrator shall prepare and implement a management 
     program for controlling pollution added from municipal 
     stormwater discharges to the navigable waters within the 
     State and improving the quality of such waters in accordance 
     with subsection (c).
       ``(B) Notice and hearing.--If the Administrator intends to 
     disapprove a program submitted by a State the Administrator 
     shall first notify the Governor of the State, in writing, of 
     the modifications necessary to meet the requirements of this 
     section. The Administrator shall provide adequate public 
     notice and an opportunity for a public hearing for all 
     interested parties.
       ``(C) State revision of its program.--If, after taking into 
     account the level of funding actually provided as compared 
     with the level authorized, the Administrator determines that 
     a State has failed to demonstrate reasonable further progress 
     toward the attainment of water quality standards as required, 
     the State shall revise its program within 12 months of that 
     determination in a manner sufficient to achieve attainment of 
     applicable water quality standards by the deadline 
     established by this section. If a State fails to make such a 
     program revision or the Administrator does not approve such a 
     revision, the Administrator shall prepare and implement a 
     municipal stormwater management program for the State.
       ``(5) Local management programs; technical assistance.--If 
     a State fails to submit a management program under subsection 
     (c) or the Administrator does not approve such a management 
     program, a local public agency or organization which has 
     expertise in, and authority to, control water pollution 
     resulting from municipal stormwater sources in any area of 
     such State which the Administrator determines is of 
     sufficient geographic size may, with approval of such State, 
     request the Administrator to provide, and the Administrator 
     shall provide, technical assistance to such agency or 
     organization in developing for such area a management program 
     which is described in subsection (c) and can be approved 
     pursuant to this subsection. After development of such 
     management program, such agency or organization shall submit 
     such management program to the Administrator for approval.
       ``(f) Interstate Management Conference.--
       ``(1) Convening of conference; notification; purpose.--
       ``(A) Convening of conference.--If any portion of the 
     navigable waters in any State which is implementing a 
     management program approved under this section is not meeting 
     applicable water quality standards or the goals and 
     requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of 
     pollution from stormwater in another State, such State may 
     petition the Administrator to convene, and the Administrator 
     shall convene, a management conference of all States which 
     contribute significant pollution resulting from stormwater to 
     such portion.
       ``(B) Notification.--If, on the basis of information 
     available, the Administrator determines that a State is not 
     meeting applicable water quality standards or the goals and 
     requirements of this Act as a result, in whole or in part, of 
     significant pollution from stormwater in another State, the 
     Administrator shall notify such States.
       ``(C) Time limit.--The Administrator may convene a 
     management conference under this paragraph not later than 180 
     days after giving such notification under subparagraph (B), 
     whether or not the State which is not meeting such standards 
     requests such conference.
       ``(D) Purpose.--The purpose of the conference shall be to 
     develop an agreement among the States to reduce the level of 
     pollution resulting from stormwater in the portion of the 
     navigable waters and to improve the water quality of such 
     portion.
       ``(E) Protection of water rights.--Nothing in the agreement 
     shall supersede or abrogate rights to quantities of water 
     which have 
     [[Page H4820]] been established by interstate water compacts, 
     Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws.
       ``(F) Limitations.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     pollution which is subject to the Colorado River Basin 
     Salinity Control Act. The requirement that the Administrator 
     convene a management conference shall not be subject to the 
     provisions of section 505 of this Act.
       ``(2) State management program requirement.--To the extent 
     that the States reach agreement through such conference, the 
     management programs of the States which are parties to such 
     agreements and which contribute significant pollution to the 
     navigable waters or portions thereof not meeting applicable 
     water quality standards or goals and requirements of this Act 
     will be revised to reflect such agreement. Such management 
     programs shall be consistent with Federal and State law.
       ``(g) Grants for Stormwater Research.--
       ``(1) In general.--To determine the most cost-effective and 
     technologically feasible means of improving the quality of 
     the navigable waters and to develop the criteria required 
     pursuant to subsection (g), the Administrator shall establish 
     an initiative through which the Administrator shall fund 
     State and local demonstration programs and research to--
       ``(A) identify adverse impacts of stormwater discharges on 
     receiving waters;
       ``(B) identify the pollutants in stormwater which cause 
     impact; and
       ``(C) test innovative approaches to address the impacts of 
     source controls and model management practices and measures 
     for runoff from municipal storm sewers.

     Persons conducting demonstration programs and research funded 
     under this subsection shall also take into account the 
     physical nature of episodic stormwater flows, the varying 
     pollutants in stormwater, the actual risk the flows pose to 
     the designated beneficial uses, and the ability of natural 
     ecosystems to accept temporary stormwater events.
       ``(2) Award of funds.--The Administrator shall award the 
     demonstration and research program funds taking into account 
     regional and population variations.
       ``(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection 
     $20,000,000 per fiscal year for fiscal years 1996 through 
     2000. Such sums shall remain available until expended.
       ``(h) Development of Stormwater Criteria.--
       ``(1) In general.--To reflect the episodic character of 
     stormwater which results in significant variances in the 
     volume, hydraulics, hydrology, and pollutant load associated 
     with stormwater discharges, the Administrator shall 
     establish, as an element of the water quality standards 
     established for the designated uses of the navigable waters, 
     stormwater criteria which protect the navigable waters from 
     impairment of the designated beneficial uses caused by 
     stormwater discharges. The criteria shall be technologically 
     and financially feasible and may include performance 
     standards, guidelines, guidance, and model management 
     practices and measures and treatment requirements, as 
     appropriate, and as identified in subsection (g)(1).
       ``(2) Information to be used in development.--The 
     stormwater discharge criteria to be established under this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) shall be developed from--
       ``(i) the findings and conclusions of the demonstration 
     programs and research conducted under subsection (g);
       ``(ii) the findings and conclusions of the research and 
     monitoring activities of stormwater dischargers performed in 
     compliance with permit requirements of this Act; and
       ``(iii) other relevant information, including information 
     submitted to the Administrator under the industrial group 
     permit application process in effect under section 402 of 
     this Act;
       ``(B) shall be developed in consultation with persons with 
     expertise in the management of stormwater (including 
     officials of State and local government, industrial and 
     commercial stormwater dischargers, and public interest 
     groups); and
       ``(C) shall be established as an element of the water 
     quality standards that are developed and implemented under 
     this Act by not later than December 31, 2008.
       ``(i) Collection of Information.--The Administrator shall 
     collect and make available, through publications and other 
     appropriate means, information pertaining to model management 
     practices and measures and implementation methods, including, 
     but not limited to--
       ``(1) information concerning the costs and relative 
     efficiencies of model management practices and measures for 
     reducing pollution from stormwater discharges; and
       ``(2) available data concerning the relationship between 
     water quality and implementation of various management 
     practices to control pollution from stormwater discharges.
       ``(j) Reports of Administrator.--
       ``(1) Biennial reports.--Not later than January 1, 1996, 
     and biennially thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate, a report for the preceding fiscal 
     year on the activities and programs implemented under this 
     section and the progress made in reducing pollution in the 
     navigable waters resulting from stormwater discharges and 
     improving the quality of such waters.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1), 
     at a minimum shall--
       ``(A) describe the management programs being implemented by 
     the States by types of affected navigable waters, categories 
     and subcategories of stormwater discharges, and types of 
     measures being implemented;
       ``(B) describe the experiences of the States in adhering to 
     schedules and implementing the measures under subsection (c);
       ``(C) describe the amount and purpose of grants awarded 
     pursuant to subsection (g);
       ``(D) identify, to the extent that information is 
     available, the progress made in reducing pollutant loads and 
     improving water quality in the navigable waters;
       ``(E) indicate what further actions need to be taken to 
     attain and maintain in those navigable waters (i) applicable 
     water quality standards, and (ii) the goals and requirements 
     of this Act;
       ``(F) include recommendations of the Administrator 
     concerning future programs (including enforcement programs) 
     for controlling pollution from stormwater; and
       ``(G) identify the activities and programs of departments, 
     agencies, and instrumentalities of the United States that are 
     inconsistent with the municipal stormwater management 
     programs implemented by the States under this section and 
     recommended modifications so that such activities and 
     programs are consistent with and assist the States in 
     implementation of such management programs.
       ``(k) Guidance on Model Stormwater Management Practices and 
     Measures.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal, State, and local departments and 
     agencies, and after providing notice and opportunity for 
     public comment, shall publish guidance to identify model 
     management practices and measures which may be undertaken, at 
     the discretion of the State or appropriate entity, under a 
     management program established pursuant to this section. In 
     preparing such guidance, the Administrator shall consider 
     integration of a municipal stormwater management program of a 
     State with, and the relationship of such program to, the 
     nonpoint source management program of the State under section 
     319.
       ``(2) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish 
     proposed guidance under this subsection not later than 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this subsection and 
     shall publish final guidance under this subsection not later 
     than 18 months after such date of enactment. The 
     Administrator shall periodically review and revise the final 
     guidance upon adequate notice and opportunity for public 
     comment at least once every 3 years after its publication.
       ``(3) Model management practices and measures defined.--For 
     the purposes of this subsection, the term ``model management 
     practices and measures'' means economically achievable 
     measures for the control of pollutants from stormwater 
     discharges which reflect the most cost-effective degree of 
     pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the 
     best available practices, technologies, processes, siting 
     criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives.
       ``(l) Enforcement With Respect to Municipal Stormwater 
     Dischargers Violating State Management Programs.--Municipal 
     stormwater dischargers that do not comply with State 
     management program requirements under subsection (c) are 
     subject to applicable enforcement actions under sections 309 
     and 505 of this Act.
       ``(m) Entry and Inspection.--In order to carry out the 
     objectives of this section, an authorized representative of a 
     State, upon presentation of his or her credentials, shall 
     have a right of entry to, upon, or through any property at 
     which a stormwater discharge or records required to be 
     maintained under the State municipal stormwater management 
     program are located.
       ``(n) Limitation on Discharges Regulated Under Watershed 
     Management Program.--Municipal stormwater discharges 
     regulated under section 321 in a manner consistent with this 
     section shall not be subject to this section.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments to Industrial Stormwater 
     Discharge Program.--Section 402(p) (33 U.S.C 1342(p)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the subsection heading by striking ``Municipal 
     and'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by striking ``1994'' and inserting 
     ``2001'';
       (3) by adding at the end of the paragraph (1) the 
     following: ``This subsection does not apply to municipal 
     stormwater discharges which are covered by section 322.'';
       (4) in paragraph (2) by striking subparagraphs (C) and (D) 
     and by redesignating subparagraph (E) as subparagraph (C);
       (5) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking the heading for subparagraph (A);
       (B) by moving the text of subparagraph (A) after the 
     paragraph heading; and
       (C) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (6) in paragraph (4)--
       (A) by striking the heading for subparagraph (A);
       (B) by moving the text of subparagraph (A) after the 
     paragraph heading;
       (C) by striking ``and (2)(C)''; and
       (D) by striking subparagraph (B);
       (7) by striking paragraph (5);
       (8) by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (5); and
       (9) in paragraph (5) as so redesignated--
       [[Page H4821]] (A) by striking ``1993'' and inserting 
     ``2000''; and
       (B) by inserting after ``paragraph (2)'' the following: 
     ``and other than municipal stormwater discharges''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(25) The term `stormwater' means runoff from rain, snow 
     melt, or any other precipitation-generated surface runoff.
       ``(26) The term `stormwater discharge' means a discharge 
     from any conveyance which is used for the collecting and 
     conveying of stormwater to navigable waters and which is 
     associated with a municipal storm sewer system or industrial, 
     commercial, oil, gas, or mining activities or construction 
     activities.''.

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike the provision in 
the bill related to control of stormwater discharges, and replace it 
with a revised version which addresses all of the cities' concerns.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would amend the bill to address the 
stormwater horror stories which have been raised by the cities and the 
other side, and it would continue the expectations of our constituents 
that industrial dischargers will continue to do their share.
  Stormwater pollution from municipalities and industry has been 
identified as a major contributor of water quality violations by the 
states. In 1987, Congress enacted a comprehensive mechanism to address 
stormwater discharges from municipalities and industries. We approved a 
phased approach, allowing for flexibility in the program's 
implementation.
  The current provision has not been without its difficulties, 
particularly for municipalities, and is in need of amendment. But we 
should not throw out the current program in its entirety for a new 
untested program--a program which will create huge loopholes for 
industry, with questionable environmental benefits.
  The stormwater program has been criticized for being overly 
burdensome. But the question is, do we fix the burdens while 
maintaining environmental protection, or do we do away with the 
environmental protection?
  I have heard my colleagues and the witnesses at our hearings talk 
about the need to reduce burdens, but always with the commitment to 
continue environmental protection. My amendment does that.
  My amendment adopts the provisions of H.R. 961 related to stormwater 
discharges from municipalities. There would no longer be permits for 
municipal stormwater discharge, just like in the bill.
  For nonmunicipal dischargers, my amendment continues the status quo. 
No new requirements are added. The amendment continues the exemption 
for commercial or other discharges, leaving those discharges to be 
regulated by States as they see fit, or to be controlled under the 
nonpoint source program.
  Finally, like the bill reported by the committee, I would create a 
new $100 million program to conduct stormwater research to test 
innovative approaches to stormwater control.
  Mr Chairman, we have heard a number of objections to the current 
stormwater program from the mayors and city councils. We should address 
them.
  While I am not convinced that the municipal permitting program should 
be scrapped, I am willing to try something other than the current 
program.
  But, we should not throw out the entire program and force the States 
to begin anew for industrial discharge. Too much valuable time and too 
many resources have been devoted to the effort to date.
  If the amendment is adopted in its current form, States will have to 
begin the development of entirely new programs for the control of 
industrial stormwater discharges. This requirement for completely new 
programs will apply even in States which do not currently implement a 
stormwater permitting program.
  While it may be appropriate to impose this burden upon the States to 
provide relief for a few hundred cities, I find no compelling reason to 
mandate that States create entirely new programs to address thousands 
of industrial discharges when a mechanism currently exists. It appears 
that water quality suffers, the States have a new mandate, but 
industrial polluters benefit.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the recurring arguments in favor of repealing 
the stormwater permitting program is that the permitted entities cannot 
control what is put into their stormwater. If, for example, a homeowner 
decides to put excessive amounts of pesticide on his lawn right before 
it rains, that will show up in stormwater pollution. That is very 
difficult for a community to control. However, for industry, the 
industry can control what pollutants are present at their site, the 
industry can control the activities of its employees, and the industry 
can control the exposure of pollutants to precipitation.
  The arguments which are used to justify relief for municipalities 
just do not hold up for industrial stormwater. Let us make the program 
work, ease the burdens upon cities, and address our Nation's water 
pollution problems in a responsible manner.
  Support my amendment to give relief to the cities, but assure that 
industry does its share.
                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be soundly defeated, because it 
really destroys our effort to reform the stormwater provisions in the 
bill.
  We have provided for State-developed stormwater management programs. 
Under this amendment, private firms would continue to be regulated or 
unregulated, depending on the standard industrial classification code 
of the industry, not on whether or not it contributed pollution to 
stormwater discharges. This is another example of regulatory overkill, 
of one-shoe-fits-all.
  As a result, if a company falls within a particular industry code, 
under this amendment it would have to get a stormwater permit even, and 
get this, even if the company happens to be located in an office suite 
and has no outside facilities. It makes no sense.
  This amendment leaves this broken program in place for over 7 million 
commercial and smaller industrial facilities that are covered by the 
stormwater permitting program today, merely extending the permit 
deadline until the year 2001. This amendment also would fragment the 
Stormwater Program into two parts, increasing rather than decreasing 
the bureaucracy.
  In contrast, our bill provides the needed regulatory relief and will 
protect the environment from stormwater discharges. Our bill repeals 
section 402(p) and regulates stormwater in a manner similar to other 
nonpoint sources and discharges. However, unlike the section 319 
nonpoint program, our Stormwater Program will require enforceable 
pollution prevention plans. If necessary, the program also provides for 
the general and site specific permits.
  I would emphasize that we have a letter from the association of State 
and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators strongly 
supporting our provision in the bill and opposing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The votes was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 159, 
noes 258, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 316]

                               AYES--159

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     [[Page H4822]] Gilman
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Walsh
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--258

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Baldacci
     Bono
     Brown (FL)
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Hall (OH)
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Peterson (FL)
     Rangel
     Rogers
     Smith (MI)
     Torkildsen
     Towns
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1243

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bono against.

  Mr. MEEHAN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    amendment offered by mr. pallone

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman I offer and amendment, amendment No. 44.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Pallone:
       Page 72, strike line 20 and all that follows through line 
     18 on page 73 and insert the following:
       (b) Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure, and 
     Health.--
       (1) Water quality criteria and standards.--
       (A) Issuance of criteria.--Section 304(a) (33 U.S.C. 
     1314(a)) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(13) Coastal recreation waters.--(A) The Administrator, 
     after consultation with appropriate Federal and State 
     agencies and other interested persons, shall issue within 18 
     months after the effective date of this paragraph (and review 
     and revise from time to time thereafter) water quality 
     criteria for pathogens in coastal recreation waters. Such 
     criteria shall--
       ``(i) be based on the best available scientific 
     information;
       ``(ii) be sufficient to protect public health and safety in 
     case of any reasonably anticipated exposure to pollutants as 
     a result of swimming, bathing, or other body contact 
     activities; and
       ``(iii) include specific numeric criteria calculated to 
     reflect public health risks from short-term increases in 
     pathogens in coastal recreation waters resulting from 
     rainfall, malfunctions of wastewater treatment works, and 
     other causes.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `coastal 
     recreation waters' means Great Lakes and marine coastal 
     waters commonly used by the public for swimming, bathing, or 
     other similar primary contact purposes.''.
       (B) Standards.--
       (i) Adoption by states.--A State shall adopt water quality 
     standards for coastal recreation waters which, at a minimum, 
     are consistent with the criteria published by the 
     Administrator under section 304(a)(13) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act not later than 3 years following the 
     date of such publication. Such water quality standards shall 
     be developed in accordance with the requirements of section 
     303(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. A State 
     shall incorporate such standards into all appropriate 
     programs into which such State would incorporate water 
     quality standards adopted under section 303(c) of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act.
       (ii) Failure of states to adopt.--If a State has not 
     complied with subparagraph (A) by the last day of the 3-year 
     period beginning on the date of publication of criteria under 
     section 304(a)(13) of the Federal Water Pollution Control 
     Act, the Administrator shall promulgate water quality 
     standards for coastal recreation waters for the State under 
     applicable provisions of section 303 of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act. The water quality standards for 
     coastal recreation waters shall be consistent with the 
     criteria published by the Administrator under such section 
     304(a)(13). The State shall use the standards issued by the 
     Administrator in implementing all programs for which water 
     quality standards for coastal recreation waters are used.
       (2) Coastal beach water quality monitoring.--Title IV (33 
     U.S.C. 1341-1345) is amended by adding at the end thereof the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 406. COASTAL BEACH WATER QUALITY MONITORING.

       ``(a) Monitoring.--Not later than 9 months after the date 
     on which the Administrator publishes revised water quality 
     criteria for coastal recreation waters under section 
     304(a)(13), the Administrator shall publish regulations 
     specifying methods to be used by States to monitor coastal 
     recreation waters, during periods of use by the public, for 
     compliance with applicable water quality standards for those 
     waters and protection of the public safety. Monitoring 
     requirements established pursuant to this subsection shall, 
     at a minimum--
       ``(1) specify the frequency of monitoring based on the 
     periods of recreational use of such waters;
       ``(2) specify the frequency of monitoring based on the 
     extent and degree of use during such periods;
       ``(3) specify the frequency of monitoring based on the 
     proximity of coastal recreation waters to pollution sources;
       ``(4) specify methods for detecting short-term increases in 
     pathogens in coastal recreation waters;
       `'(5) specify the conditions and procedures under which 
     discrete areas of coastal recreation waters may be exempted 
     by the Administrator from the monitoring requirements of this 
     subsection, if the Administrator determines that an exemption 
     will not impair--
       ``(A) compliance with the applicable water quality 
     standards for those waters; and
       ``(B) protection of the public safety; and
       ``(6) require, if the State has an approved coastal zone 
     management program under section 306 of the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455), that each coastal 
     zone management agency of the State provide technical 
     assistance to local governments within the State for ensuring 
     that coastal recreation waters and beaches are as free as 
     possible from floatable materials.
       [[Page H4823]] ``(b) Notification Requirements.--
     Regulations published pursuant to subsection (a) shall 
     require States to notify local governments and the public of 
     violations of applicable water quality standards for State 
     coastal recreation waters. Notification pursuant to this 
     subsection shall include, at a minimum--
       ``(1) prompt communication of the occurrence, nature, and 
     extent of such a violation, to a designated official of a 
     local government having jurisdiction over land adjoining the 
     coastal recreation waters for which a violation is 
     identified; and
       ``(2) posting of signs, for the period during which the 
     violation continues, sufficient to give notice to the public 
     of a violation of an applicable water quality standard for 
     such waters and the potential risks associated with body 
     contact recreation in such waters.
       ``(c) Floatable Materials Monitoring Procedures.--The 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(1) issue guidance on uniform assessment and monitoring 
     procedures for floatable materials in coastal recreation 
     waters; and
       ``(2) specify the conditions under which the presence of 
     floatable material shall constitute a threat to public health 
     and safety.
       ``(d) Delegation of Responsibility.--A State may delegate 
     responsibility for monitoring and posting of coastal 
     recreation waters pursuant to this section to local 
     government authorities.
       ``(e) Review and Revision of Regulations.--The 
     Administrator shall review and revise regulations published 
     pursuant to this section periodically.
       ``(f) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `coastal recreation waters' means Great 
     Lakes and marine coastal waters commonly used by the public 
     for swimming, bathing, or other similar body contact 
     purposes; and
       ``(2) the term `floatable materials' means any matter that 
     may float or remain suspended in the water column and 
     includes plastic, aluminum cans, wood, bottles, and paper 
     products.''.
       (3) Study to identify indicators of human-specific pathoens 
     in coastal recreation waters.--
       (A) Study.--The Administrator, in co-operation with the 
     Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, shall 
     conduct an ongoing study to provide additional information to 
     the current base of knowledge for use for developing better 
     indicators for directly detecting in coastal recreation 
     waters the presence of bacteria and viruses which are harmful 
     to human health.
       (B) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and periodically thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall submit to the Congress a report 
     describing the findings of the study under this paragraph, 
     including--
       (i) recommendations concerning the need for additional 
     numerical limits or conditions and other actions needed to 
     improve the quality of coastal recreation waters;
       (ii) a description of the amounts and types of floatable 
     materials in coastal waters and on coastal beaches and of 
     recent trends in the amounts and types of such floatable 
     materials; and
       (iii) an evaluation of State efforts to implement this 
     section, including the amendments made by this section.
       (4) Grants to states.--
       (1) Grants.--The Administrator may make grants to States 
     for use in fulfilling requirements established pursuant to 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) (including any amendments made by such 
     paragraphs).
       (B) Cost sharing.--The total amount of grants to a State 
     under this paragraph for a fiscal year shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the cost to the State of implementing requirements 
     established pursuant to such paragraphs.
       (5) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       (A) the term ``coastal recreation waters'' means Great 
     Lakes and marine coastal waters commonly used by the public 
     for swimming, bathing, or other similar body contact 
     purposes; and
       (B) the term ``floatable materials'' means any matter that 
     may float or remain suspended in the water column and 
     includes plastic, aluminum cans, wood, bottles, and paper 
     products.
       (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator--
       (A) for use in making grants to States under paragraph (4) 
     not more than $3,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1996 
     and 1997; and
       (B) for carrying out the other provisions of this 
     subsection not more than $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal 
     years 1996 and 1997.

       Page 204, line 14, strike ``406'' and insert ``407''.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment provides for a national 
uniform beach water quality testing and monitoring program that 
provides adequate protection for swimmers and flexibility for the 
States. It is basically oriented toward providing, if I could call it, 
a right-to-know for bathers and swimmers in the Nation's waters that 
they should know when the beach water quality is such that they should 
not be bathing in those particular waters or at that particular beach.

                              {time}  1245

  Again, the amendment provides for a nationally uniform beach water 
quality testing and monitoring program for bathers and swimmers, 
essentially to assure that bathers and swimmers on the Nation's beaches 
have a right to know and should know when the beaches are of such 
quality that they should not be swimming there.
  The reason we need this amendment is because coastal areas are the 
most populated areas of the country and also the areas most rapidly 
being developed. The growth in population demands on sewer systems are 
extreme and have resulted in overflows contaminating coastal waters 
with human waste. This human waste is the leading cause of human health 
problems in coastal waters.
  The coastal economy and the economy of our Nation in general is 
inextricably linked to the quality of our coastal waters. Coastal 
tourism, recreation, commercial fishing are all mutibillion-dollar 
industries and create thousands of jobs. The health and safety of 
coastal residents and visitors to coastal waters depend on it.
  States have highly inconsistent water quality standards for sewage 
contamination, beach water quality testing, and beach closing standards 
and criteria. Monitoring in some States is completely absent. Most 
States have not even adopted EPA's recommended testing methods.
  Essentially, this amendment is based on the Beaches, Environmental 
Assessment, Closure and Health Act of 1993, long championed by our 
former colleague, Mr. Hughes from New Jersey.
  This language which we have in the amendment today enjoyed broad-
based support and passed overwhelmingly, I stress overwhelmingly, in 
the House in the 101st and 102d Congresses. The amendment provides for 
a national uniform beach quality testing program. It requires the EPA 
to issue regulations on procedures to monitor coastal recreational 
waters, but it provides the States with flexibility in the way that 
they go about the monitoring program. It also establishes minimum 
standards to protect the public from pathogen contaminated waters and 
requires States to post signs at beaches alerting beachgoers whenever 
standards are violated.
  It also requires the EPA and NOAA to conduct a study to develop 
better indicators for detection pathogenic risk to human health and 
guidance of marine debris, the floatables that many of us know occur, 
continue to occur, but really were a major cause for our beach closings 
in New Jersey back in 1987 and 1988.
  Mr. Chairman, the focus of the bill basically is to ensure States 
have in place adequate beach testing programs. We provide authorization 
of $1 million to the EPA to carry out its responsibility and $3 million 
for States to have matching grants so that they can also follow up on 
this beach water quality and monitoring program.
  Again, I would stress the lack of uniformity around the country with 
regard to beach closings is a major problem. In my own State of New 
Jersey, we do have a very good program that has moved forward in terms 
of monitoring beaches and making sure that they are closed when the 
water quality level if unacceptable for swimmers and bathers.
  However, this is not the case nationally, and I would urge this 
amendment be passed so that, as I said, again, our bathers and swimmers 
and tourists that use the coastal waters of this Nation will know when 
it is safe to swim.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment, which is a mandate on States to monitor beaches and 
incorporates criteria for pathogens on the State water quality 
standards, and this would appear to me to be maybe one of the first 
examples we would have of a potentially unfunded mandate.
  I wanted to address the author of the amendment with regard to the 
funding of this, whether any consideration has been given, or CBO has 
been asked to give, any sort of estimate as to what the cost of this 
might be applied nationwide.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. I would say, first of all, again, I would point out that 
this amendment is exactly the same as legislation that passed in the 
last two 
[[Page H4824]] Congresses and that there were estimates made. The 
funding provided in the bill for the grant programs is basically in 
there to provide adequate funding for the States on a matching grant 
basis to do this kind of monitoring.
  Now, again, I am not saying a lot of States do not already do this. 
Some do, some do not. What we are trying to do is provide uniform 
criteria and provide the States with some funding so that they can 
administer the program.
  Mr. CLINGER. Reclaiming my time, I understand that while the 
amendment did pass in the previous two Congresses, it was given very 
minimal debate. We really have had not a full-scale discussion of this 
issue.
  I would also point out that in the last two Congresses we did not 
have on the books, albeit not applicable, we did not have on the books 
an unfunded mandates statute.
  Mr. PALLONE. I would point out to the gentleman that, you know, 
again, from a procedural point of view, that unfunded mandate 
legislation, of course, does not go into effect until next year. But I 
would maintain there is adequate funding in this bill, at least the 
authorization for it, to provide adequate funding to the States to do 
this type of monitoring.
  Mr. CLINGER. It strikes me there are analogies here to the Great 
Lakes initiative where we have had some indication what the cost might 
be, but the costs became wildly beyond anybody's wildest dreams what it 
might actually involve.
  At any rate, Mr. chairman, I must oppose the amendment, as the 
gentleman from New Jersey has indicated, that that State, New Jersey, 
has adopted pathogen criteria on their water quality standards. That is 
certainly something every State can and perhaps should consider, but 
what this amendment would do would be to force that, would make other 
States do precisely the same thing.
  As I say, New Jersey may, and obviously does, consider it useful to 
have pathogen criteria, but other States may disagree or may have 
different criteria that they would prefer to pursue.
  Point sources do not discharge pathogens. It is a very difficult 
task, sometimes almost impossible, to determine the source, so it is 
really unclear how a State may meet a pathogen standard if forced to 
adopt one, which this amendment would ultimately require, a forced 
adoption of pathogen standards.
  So New Jersey may, indeed, think it is useful to monitor beaches. 
Other States may agree, and certainly that would be, in my personal 
idea, would be a good idea, but to force them under this, in this 
mechanism, I think is wrong.
  H.R. 961 does, I would point out, acknowledge the importance, extreme 
importance, of monitoring by requiring EPA to develop monitoring 
guidance, to give guidance to the States on how to go about monitoring, 
but it is not a mandate. It is not something that is going to be 
forced, assuming again into Washington total wisdom, total knowledge 
how to do this. We have enough mandates already.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been some Government programs we have seen 
throughout the years that have worked. We have seen some that have 
failed.
  But few, from the perspective of my State of New Jersey, have been as 
successful as our ocean testing and monitoring program.
  Since 1974, the State of New Jersey has developed a program to ensure 
to those who visit our beaches, those in our $18 billion tourist 
industry, if you swim in the waters off our shore, it is safe, it is 
clean, it is a place you would want to take your family. Today, 180 
different locations and 143 bays and rivers are monitored continuously 
to assure that level of safety, and to anyone who in any summer visits 
those ocean locations, there is a perceptible and an overwhelming 
difference in the quality of the water and the enjoyment of your 
vacation time at a New Jersey resort.
  We did it, Mr. Chairman, because we had no choice. There were 
allegations of sickness, implications of health, and, indeed, the 
economic losses were mounting. Restoring confidence to families and to 
business became critical.
  In the last Congress, the Members of this institution recognized the 
success of this program and overwhelmingly, Democrats and Republicans, 
320 strong, voted to have just such a program across the country. They 
were right then. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is right 
now.
  This is a program we should have on a national basis. It makes about 
as much sense, Mr. Chairman, for one State to have ocean monitoring and 
another not to have it as if the States would have individual air 
quality standards. It is only a few miles from the beaches of Coney 
Island, NY, to the beaches of Sandy Hook, NJ. If one State will have 
high standards and monitor and attempt to assure a quality of water and 
another State will not, it is no more than a swift breeze, an ocean 
current away from one State violating the standard of another.
  Indeed, it goes to the very issue of federalism. These are the kinds 
of standards that were contemplated in forming a union to assure 
uniformity, safety for all of the States and their interests.
  I trust, Mr. Chairman, that in each of our States we recognize the 
potential loss economically and in quality of life if people lose 
confidence in the basic American right on a weekend or a summer 
afternoon to take your child and your family to a beach. That is what 
life is all about, and if the Federal Government can mean anything to 
our families, for all of the excesses of other things it has done, all 
the programs that did not work, all the things we should eliminate, do 
we really want to go so far that as a Federal Government we cannot say 
to an individual American family, ``We will assure you you will know 
when your child walks into an ocean resort, that water will be safe and 
it will be to the highest standards, whether it is the Oregon, 
California, New York, New Jersey or Florida''? That is what the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] asks, and almost to the person, 
Democrats and Republicans, have voted for exactly that in the past.
  Today, we ask you to do so again.
  I congratulate the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for 
offering this amendment. I am very proud to have joined with him in his 
sponsorship, and I am very proud that my State uniquely has taken the 
lead in setting these high standards.
  Mr. Chairman, the alternative situation is this: Some States will 
offer their citizens no assurance at all. Twenty-two other States will 
have 11 different standards, conflicting, lower but without any minimum 
Federal guarantee. As we offer this for the air we breathe and the 
water we drink, the ocean that would receive our families should have 
no less.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I will not take the 5 minutes.
  I simply rise in strong opposition to this.
  New Jersey certainly can impose whatever regulatory requirements they 
have, but to mandate what New Jersey says is good for New Jersey on the 
other 49 States, I think, is wrong.
  We have required EPA to develop monitoring guidance, but not a 
mandate. This is just one mandate, and it should be defeated.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment.
  Water pollution at beaches poses a special health problem because 
these are the places where people, including numerous children, come 
into direct contact with dirty water. With little protection, and 
sometimes without warning, people are exposed to serious water-borne 
diseases.
  Coastal waters are also particularly susceptible to pollution because 
virtually all of the water eventually drains to the sea. As water flows 
toward the coast, pollutants are picked up and become increasingly 
concentrated. The result is a very serious health problem and a very 
serious environmental problem.
  This amendment provides very necessary protection to the public who 
visits our coastal recreation areas. It would require EPA to issue 
water quality criteria for pathogens, and States to establish water 
quality standards, in 
[[Page H4825]] these areas. It would also require a State program to 
monitor beach water quality, and to notify local governments and the 
public of violation of applicable water quality standards.
  This is the approach that has brought us most of the improvement in 
water quality under the Clean Water Act to date. We should expect it to 
be equally effective in addressing beach water pollution problems.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the Pallone amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will 
be brief. My only point is essentially I believe that this amendment, 
more than anything else, is what I call a right-to-know amendment. In 
other words, when people are swimming or bathing, they should know 
whether the water quality is clean enough. I do not think it matters 
whether you are in New Jersey or any other State. The problem is, 
without some sort of national standard and program for testing, with 
flexibility for the individual States about how they go about it, there 
is no way for a bather or swimmer to know when they are swimming 
whether the water quality is adequate.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 251, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 317]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--251

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Bono
     Collins (IL)
     Laughlin
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Norwood
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers

                              {time}  1320

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bono against.

  Mr. BAESLER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts and Mrs. KENNELLY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). Are there further amendments 
to title III of the bill?


                    amendment offered by mr. mineta

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 36.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mineta: Page 170, line 19, strike 
     ``issuing''.
       Page 170, line 20, before ``any'' insert ``issuing''.
       Page 170, line 24, strike ``or''.
       Page 171, line 1, before ``any'' insert ``issuing''.
       Page 171, line 3 strike the period and insert a semicolon.
       Page 171, after line 3, insert the following:
       ``(3) granting under section 301(g) a modification of the 
     requirements of section 301(b)(2)(A);
       ``(4) issuing a permit under section 402 which under 
     section 301(p)(5) modifies the requirements of section 301, 
     302, 306, or 307;
       ``(5) extending under section 301(k) a deadline for a point 
     source to comply with any limitation under section 
     301(b)(1)(A), 301(b)(2)(A), or 301(b)(2)(E) or otherwise 
     modifying under section 301(k) the conditions of a permit 
     under section 402;
       ``(6) issuing a permit under section 402 which modifies 
     under section 301(q) the requirements of section 301(b), 306, 
     or 307;
       ``(7) issuing a permit under section 402 which modifies 
     under section 301(r) the requirements of section 301(b), 306, 
     or 307;
       ``(8) renewing, reissuing, or modifying a permit to which 
     section 401(o)(1) applies if the permittee has received a 
     permit modification under section 301(q) or 301(r) or the 
     exception under section 402(o)(2)(F) applies;
       ``(9) extending under section 307(e) the deadline for 
     compliance with applicable national categorical pretreatment 
     standards or otherwise modifying under section 307(e) 
     pretreatment requirements of section 307(b);
       ``(10) waiving or modifying under section 307(f) 
     pretreatment requirements of section 307(b);
       ``(11) allowing under section 307(g) any person that 
     introduces silver into a publicly owned treatment works to 
     comply with a 
     [[Page H4826]] code of management practices in lieu of 
     complying with any pretreatment requirement for silver;
       ``(12) establishing under section 316(b)(3) a standard 
     other than best technology available for existing point 
     sources;
       ``(13) approving a pollutant transfer pilot project under 
     section 321(g)(1); or
       ``(14) issuing a permit pursuant to section 402(r)(1) with 
     a limitation that does not meet applicable water quality 
     standards.

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Chairman for his 
diligence in chairing the Committee of the Whole House.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill would allow new waivers for as many as 70,000 
chemical pollutants, waivers which would allow some to trade air 
pollution credits in one area for the right to dump extra pollution 
into the river in another area, waivers to industrial polluters 
discharging into municipal sewer systems, waivers for innovative 
technologies, waivers for mining, pulp and paper, iron and steel, photo 
processing, food processing, electric power, cattle, oil and gas, and 
waivers from water quality standards if you say you are in a watershed. 
And this is not an exhaustive list.
  As a result, an enormous number of decisions are going to have to be 
made about waivers, and those decisions taken together will have an 
enormous effect on the environment and on the costs of compliance. In 
fact, taken all together, these decisions on all these waiver requests 
will be very important regulatory decisions.
  There has been a lot of talk in recent months about cost-benefit 
analysis and risk assessment, and how important these tools are when 
making regulatory decisions involving tradeoffs between costs and 
benefits. Many have defended the new cost-benefit and risk assessment 
proposals as better ways to make regulatory decisions, and they have 
denied that they were merely trying to hamstring the issuance of new 
regulations.
  Here's our chance to show what it is that we really mean. The waiver 
decisions in H.R. 961 would constitute important regulatory decisions 
and they should be subject to an assessment of the risks they pose. My 
amendment would apply risk assessment to those aspects of the bill 
where it is most desperately needed.
  Opponents of this amendment will say that there is no need to apply 
the risk assessment provisions to these waivers since the risk 
assessment will have been done in establishing the original standard 
from which the waiver is granted. But that argument just further 
justifies my amendment.
  When the basic requirements from which waivers are requested are put 
in place, a risk assessment determined that the required measures were 
justified by the risks which would be avoided. Now, under the bill, 
industry will have the opportunity to do less than the basic standard--
the standard which the risk to be addressed justified. If undertaking 
the basic requirement is justified by the reduction of risk, shouldn't 
we know what the risks are of doing something less than what has been 
determined to be justified? Sound risk assessment demands no less.
  My amendment expands the use of risk assessment under the bill. This 
amendment would simply say that in making the decision to grant these 
waivers, EPA should do the same risk assessment that this bill would 
require of many other regulatory decisions. If it's a good way to make 
regulatory decisions, then let's use it. We owe it to our constituents 
to be able to say that when industry receives a waiver from the basic, 
minimum requirements of the Clean Water Act, we required that there be 
an assessment of the risks posed by such a waiver.
  Support my amendment to achieve consistency in and expand the use of 
risk assessment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in 
opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman from California and his 
leadership on many issues in the transportation and public works arena, 
but I rise this afternoon in strong opposition to the amendment he has 
proposed.
  Let me say first of all that this amendment was very soundly rejected 
in the committee by a very large and wide bipartisan majority of 38 to 
18. Earlier in the debate, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], referred in his comments on the floor 
to the liberals big lie strategy to try and defeat this bill.
  This amendment is predicated on one of the small fibs that makes up 
the big lie strategy, I am afraid to say.
  This amendment is based on the fiction that risk assessments only 
apply when standards are being made stronger and do not apply if they 
are being made weaker. It masquerades as what is good for the goose is 
good for the gander in the form of an amendment.
  This is simply not true, and I will demonstrate that fact in just a 
minute.
  First, let me tell you why the bill distinguishes between generally 
applicable regulations and site-specific decisions. The reason for this 
distinction is already clear to the sponsor of this amendment.
  I might note that the dissenting views in the committee report 
support national affluent limitations over site-specific standards 
because they allow the regulator to implement the Clean Water Act 
without exhausting resources on complex resource-intensive scientific 
adjustments, such as those required under many of the waiver provisions 
of H.R. 961.

                              {time}  1330

  I agree that the amount of risk assessment analysis necessary to make 
up a site-specific permit modification should be left up to the EPA or 
the State. Some site-specific modification will undoubtedly be needed, 
but others will not. As the report language warns, a mandatory risk 
assessment would unnecessarily exhaust precious resources in these 
cases. Let me tell the Members why this amendment is based on a fib.
  The fact is the bill already allows a what-is-good-for-the-goose-is-
good-for-the-gander philosophy. There are simply two separate flocks of 
geese here. The first flock are local site-specific decisions. Site-
specific permit modification, regardless of whether a limitation is 
being made more or less stringent, will not automatically trigger a 
risk assessment.
  For instance, under section 402, EPA can tighten the limitations in a 
facilities permit based on new site-specific information showing 
greater ecological harm than was previously expected. H.R. 961 does not 
require EPA to perform a risk assessment to make the permit more 
stringent.
  The second flock, using that analogy, are significant regulations, 
such as effluent limitation guidelines for a class of industry. They 
must be supported by sound risk assessment, regardless of whether they 
are raising or lowering regulatory requirements, because they can have 
potentially broad and important effects on a large number of people.
  For instance, any deregulation that may be necessary to refocus EPA's 
priorities will be subject to a risk assessment. What is particularly 
ironic about this amendment is that it actually does the opposite of 
its stated purpose. Far from treating all requirements equally, the 
list of waivers and permit modification it would subject to risk 
assessment do not include any modification that would tighten permit 
requirements.
  The Mineta amendment before us would not apply risk assessment when 
EPA wants to tighten requirements for a permittee, but magically, risk 
assessment would be necessary before a permittee would be granted any 
kind of variance, no matter how minor. This approach is a microcosm of 
a well-worn extreme environmentalist strategy: scream long, scream loud 
about any alleged advantage so-called polluters are getting, while you 
slip in your own fix that gives you the very advantage you were just 
condemning.
  The American people have really been turned off by this mixture of 
arrogance and hypocrisy that has been displayed in the past, and this 
is no place for this today. That is why Congress has overwhelmingly 
passed risk assessment in every consistent vote before this body by 
wider and wider margins. That is why we must defeat this amendment. It 
is an ill-conceived amendment. It does just the opposite of what we 
need to do.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues 
to defeat this amendment, and let us pass a good revision to our clean 
water legislation.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  [[Page H4827]] Mr. Chairman, I support this commonsense amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California.
  If we are serious about apply risk assessment to the Clean Water Act 
then we should apply it to proposals to grant waivers of the Clean 
Water Act.
  What could have more risk associated with it than relaxing pollution 
control standards?
  These waivers raise the possibility of adding serious and harmful 
pollutants into our Nation's rivers, lakes, and streams.
  If we are going to allow these waivers, we should at least subject 
them to the same risk analysis as other parts of the clean water 
program.
  If these waivers can withstand the scrutiny of risk analysis, then 
there is even more reason for granting them.
  If they cannot measure up, they should not be allowed.
  This bill allows waivers of the Clean Water Act's requirements to 
limit discharges into the waters.
  I do not believe there is a full understanding of the meaning of 
those waivers.
  The waiver proposal has not been subjected to any kind of scientific 
evaluation.
  The Mineta amendment would apply science--good science--and risk 
analysis to these waivers.
  If we want to limit these waivers to areas where they won't harm the 
environment, this is the right amendment.
  I urge passage of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 152, 
noes 271, not voting 11, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 318]

                               AYES--152

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--271

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Davis
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers
     Torres

                              {time}  1354

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bono against.

  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. COSTELLO changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. BUNNING of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I was back in Kentucky on 
personal business yesterday attending the funeral of Shirley Rogers, 
the late wife of my Kentucky colleague, Hal Rogers. I was not present 
for rollcall votes Nos. 311 through 314.
  I would like for the Record to show that if I had been present I 
would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 311, ``no'' on rollcall 
vote No. 312, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 313, and ``no'' on rollcall 
vote No. 314.


             amendments offered by miss collins of michigan

  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of amendments 
at the desk, amendments 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. I ask unanimous consent 
that they be considered en bloc. It is my understanding that the 
majority has no objection to this.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The Clerk will first designate 
the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendments offered by Miss Collins of Michigan:
       Page 62, after line 14, insert the following:
       (d) Consideration of Consumption Patterns.--Section 304(a) 
     if further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Consideration of consumption patterns.--In 
     developing human health and aquatic life criteria under this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall take into account, where 
     practicable, the consumption patterns of diverse segments of 
     the population, including segments at disproportionately high 
     risk, such as minority populations, children, and women of 
     child-bearing age.''.
       Page 62, line 15, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       [[Page H4828]] Page 63, line 4, strike ``(e)'' and insert 
     ``(f)''.
       Page 63, line 24, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       Page 64, line 4, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(h)''.
       Page 73, strike lines 19 through 22 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Fish Consumption Advisories.--Section 304 (33 U.S.C. 
     1314) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(o) Fish Consumptions Advisories.--
       ``(1) Posting.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall propose 
     and issue regulations establishing minimum, uniform 
     requirements and procedures requiring States, either directly 
     or through local authorities, to post signs, at reasonable 
     and appropriate points of public access, on navigable waters 
     or portions of navigable waters that significantly violate 
     applicable water quality standards under this Act or that are 
     subject to a fishing or shell-fishing ban, advisory, or 
     consumption restriction (issued by a Federal, State, or local 
     authority) due to fish or shellfish contamination.
       ``(2) Signs.--The regulations shall require the signs to be 
     posted under this subsection--
       ``(A) to indicate clearly the water quality standard that 
     is being violated or the nature and extent of the restriction 
     on fish or shellfish consumption;
       ``(B) to be in English, and when appropriate, any language 
     used by a large segment of the population in the immediate 
     vicinity of the navigable waters;
       ``(C) to include a clear warning symbol; and
       ``(D) to be maintained until the body of water is 
     consistently in compliance with the water quality standard or 
     until all fish and shellfish consumption restrictions are 
     terminated for the body of water or portion thereof.''.
       Page 73, after line 18, insert the following:
       (c) Fish and Shellfish Samplings.--Section 304 (33 U.S.C. 
     1314) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(n) Fish and Shellfish Samplings; Monitoring.--Not later 
     than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Administrator shall propose and issue regulations to 
     establish uniform and scientifically sound requirements and 
     procedures for fish and shellfish sampling and analysis and 
     uniform requirements for monitoring of navigable waters that 
     do not meet applicable water quality standards under this Act 
     or that are subject to a fishing or shell-fishing ban, 
     advisory, or consumption restriction (issued by a Federal, 
     State, or local authority) due to fish or shellfish 
     contamination.''
       Page 73, line 19, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 203, after line 8, insert the following:

     SEC. 410. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE REVIEW.

       Section 402 (32 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(u) Environmental Justice Review.--No permit may be 
     issued under this section unless the Administrator or the 
     State, as the case may be, first reviews the proposed permit 
     to identify and reduce disproportionately high and adverse 
     impacts to the health of, or environmental exposures of, 
     minority and low-income populations.''.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of the bill accordingly. 
     Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 213, after line 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 508. DATA COLLECTION.

       Section 516 (33 U.S.C. 1375) is amended by inserting after 
     subsection (e) the following:
       ``(f) Data Collection.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall, on an ongoing 
     basis--
       ``(A) collect, maintain, and analyze data necessary to 
     assess and compare the levels and sources of water pollution 
     to which minority and low-income populations are 
     disproportionately exposed; and
       ``(B) for waters receiving discharges in violation of 
     permits issued under section 402 or waters with levels of 
     pollutants exceeding applicable water quality standards under 
     this Act, collect data on the frequency and volume of 
     discharges of each pollutant for which a violation occurs 
     into waters adjacent to or used by minority and low-income 
     communities.
       ``(2) Publication.--The Administrator shall publish 
     summaries of the data collected under this section 
     annually.''.
       Redesignate subsequent sections of the bill accordingly. 
     Conform the table of contents of the bill accordingly.
       Page 236, strike lines 13 and 14.
       Page 236, line 15, strike ``(k)'' and insert ``(j)''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  (Miss COLLINS of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr Chairman, my amendment in part directs 
the Administrator to take into account the differing consumption 
patterns of different segments of the population when developing water 
quality criteria.
  There is compelling evidence to show that different segments of our 
population consume greater quantities of fish per capita than do 
others. Consequently, if the fish are tainted with toxic compounds, 
these segments of the population would be at far greater risk of health 
problems than others.
  One specific example is in my home State of Michigan. There, 
different native American ethnic groups such as the Ottawa and Chippewa 
have a long and well-documented fishing culture. Studies have shown 
their fish consumption rate to be as high as four times the rate of the 
average Michigan resident. These higher consumption rates coincide with 
higher average level of PCB's in the blood of these people.
  The Michigan native Americans provide only one example of this 
problem. So, consequently, I ask that in developing human health and 
aquatic life criteria under this subsection, the administrator shall 
take into account, where practicable, the consumption patterns of 
diverse segments of the population, including segments with 
disproportionately high risk such as minority population, children, and 
women of child-bearing age.
  The next amendment asks that not later than 18 months after the 
enactment of this act the Administrator shall propose and issue 
regulations to establish uniform and scientifically sound requirements 
and procedures for fish and shellfish sampling and uniform requirements 
for monitoring of navigable waters that do not meet applicable water 
standards under this act or that are subject to a fishing ban, 
advisory, or consumption restriction. The amendment asks that the 
States have uniform requirements to either directly or through local 
authorities post signs at reasonable and appropriate points of public 
access.
  These amendments are designed for those who rely on lakes and rivers 
and other navigable waters as a recreation or sustenance. They work 
together, so there I am presenting them together. The problems 
addressed by these amendments are quite serious. One-third of the 
Nation's shellfish beds are closed or restricted to harvest due to 
pollution. In 1992, over 2,600 beaches were closed or placed under 
swimming advisories because of dangers to public health. However, there 
are no uniform requirements for fish and shellfish bans or advisory and 
consumer restrictions.
  Moreover, there are no Federal requirements for public notification 
when water quality standards are violated. Unfortunately, there is a 
great disparity in the manner in which States monitor water safety for 
fishing and swimming. There is also much disparity in their means for 
notifying the public.
  The problems are especially significant for people who depend
   on local fishing as a regular food source because they may be 
subjected to higher doses of contaminants.

  The public has a right to know if their waters are safe for swimming 
or fishing, and these amendments will justify that need.
  Mr. Chairman, my next amendment seeks to include impact evaluations 
on minority and low-income populations in their review of pollution 
discharge permit applications.
  Studies by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Law 
Journal, the University of Michigan, the United Church of Christ, and 
the Council on Environmental Quality have demonstrated beyond any 
reasonable doubt that minority and low-income neighborhoods are more 
likely to be situated near major sources of pollution than other 
neighborhoods. Consequently, these neighborhoods suffer greater 
exposure to health risk. In fact, the President issued Executive Order 
12-898 in February 1994 to address issues related to environmental 
justice in minority and low-income populations.
  This amendment would ensure that all permit applications under 
section 402 of the Clean Water Act be reviewed for their effect on 
minority and low-income populations. This amendment sends a message 
that minority neighborhoods and water tables will not be dumping 
grounds for irresponsible toxic waste dumpers. Mr. Chairman, this 
amendment seeks to collect and publish data on water pollution 
affecting minority and low-income populations. The need for such a 
function is clear. Many different studies have shown a strong 
correlation between race and income and exposure to unsafe 
environmental factors.
  [[Page H4829]] Studies by the EPA, the National Law Journal, the 
University of Michigan, the United Church of Christ, and the Council on 
Environmental Quality have demonstrated that minority and low-income 
neighborhoods are more likely to be situated near major sources of 
pollution than are other neighborhoods. For example, three out of the 
Nation's five largest waste disposal facilities are located in minority 
areas, including Emil, AL, site of the biggest toxic landfill in the 
United States. Also, the Nation's biggest concentration of hazardous 
waste sites is on Chicago's South Side, where the residents are 
predominantly African-American.
  A personal example concerns my hometown of Detroit where the 
University of Michigan researchers assessed the relative influence of 
income and race on the distribution of waste management facilities. 
Their study found that minority residents were four times more likely 
than white residents to live within a mile of commercial hazardous 
waste facility, and that race was a better predicator of proximity to 
the site than was income. In the name of equality and decency, I ask 
all my colleagues to support this en block amendment.
  In the name of equality and decency, I ask all my colleagues to 
support this enbloc amendment.
                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I must reluctantly oppose these amendments from my good friend. These 
amendments simply represent the mandating of more regulations so that 
specific groups will get special protection.
  The goal of all environmental legislation is to protect all people 
from unreasonable risks. The EPA already has sufficient authority to 
consider the effects on sensitive subject populations in the design of 
their standards. EPA already is factoring environmental justice 
considerations into all of its programs. And nothing in this 
legislation would prohibit those considerations.
  We simply believe that we should not be creating new regulations. We 
should not be forcing EPA, we should not be micromanaging EPA to do 
what they already have the authority to do if they decide it is in the 
best interests of the environment in our country.
  Further, section 323(b) of our bill requires risk assessment used to 
develop water quality criteria to provide a description of the specific 
populations subject to the assessment.
  So for all of those reasons, while these are very well-intentioned en 
bloc amendments, I must urge their defeat.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the en bloc amendment 
offered by our fine colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan.
  These amendments attempt to provide protection against disease caused 
by consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish caught from polluted 
waters.
  Waterborne diseases are hazardous to your health. We may recall that 
more than 100 people died in Milwaukee when they drank contaminated 
water. Eating contaminated seafood is no less deadly.
  This amendment would require scientifically sound sampling and 
monitoring of fish and shellfish, as well as posting of signs on 
navigable waters that significantly violate applicable water quality 
standards. Doing so will let us know if the catch is safe to eat, and 
if it is not, warn people against eating it.
  Low-income and minority communities often are exposed to a higher 
level of water pollution than society as a whole. To adequately protect 
residents of these at-risk communities, we need good information and 
special recognition of their disproportionate exposure.
  That is what this amendment will do. It would require EPA to take 
steps to minimize the health and environmental impacts on poor and 
minority populations when issuing discharge permits. It would also 
require EPA to take into account consumption patterns of poor and 
minority when developing water quality criteria.
  These efforts will help address the higher risks facing these 
communities. I urge support of the Collins enbloc amendment.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Collins en bloc 
amendments, and I want to tell this group much progress has been made 
since the Clean Water Act has been enacted. It is one of our Nation's 
success stories, but much still remains to be done. One-third of the 
Nation's shellfish beds are still closed or restricted to harvest; one-
half of the Nation's rivers are polluted; and there are still great 
disparities as to how States monitor pollution and warn citizens of 
polluted waters. Florida was once called the polluted paradise. Many 
other States still have that distinction, they still can be called 
polluted areas.
  This, Mr. Chairman, puts many Americans at risk. Studies show that 
many minorities and particularly the poor search for fish and use fish 
for subsistence. They live from their daily fishing catch.
  The clean water bill before us today is really a misnomer, Mr. 
Speaker. It will not provide clean water. It does nothing to address 
environmental inequities faced by millions of minority and low-income 
Americans. Their communities are exposed to disproportionately high 
levels of pollutants that end up in the water supply.
  This environmental injustice is real, Mr. Chairman, and it must be 
stopped. But the bill before us today is virtually silent on 
environmental injustice. It ignores the years of environmental abuse 
suffered by minority and low-income communities across this great 
country of ours, whether they are farm workers, inner-city teenagers, 
native Americans on reservations, or minorities in small towns.
  The Collins amendments will begin to bring some justice to those 
Americans who face daily environmental threats to their health.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues in support of environmental 
justice to support the Collins amendments.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in strong support of this en 
bloc amendment offered by my esteemed colleague from Michigan. It is 
true that at times we try to do our utmost to protect our societies and 
our communities from pollution, from hazards, from the environment when 
we create those hazards. But oftentimes we do not succeed.
  It is unfortunate that current law has not done the job of protecting 
certain communities, mostly low-income communities, minority 
communities, when it comes to things like environmental hazards. Let me 
give some very concrete examples.
  I represent a portion of the city of Los Angeles. I happen to 
represent, in portions of my district, some of the wealthiest 
individuals in Los Angeles, and at the same time in another portion of 
my district I represent individuals of very low income.
  On one end of my district I have no freeways crossing through the 
district. I have no problems with waste dumps. I have no problems with 
projects for incineration plants or for pipelines for oil to be passed 
through. But on the other side of my district, I do. I have a district 
that has within its 5-mile radius around seven prison facilities that 
have been housed there over the last 10 years as a result of a supposed 
need by the county to have a place to house prisoners. We have a toxic 
waste dump that is on the EPA site for cleanup, and it must be taken 
care of because it is emitting pollutants and hazardous emissions. I 
had, at one point nearby, a proposal to build a toxic waste 
incineration plant in the district or close to the district. It has not 
gone through, but clearly present law was not enough to protect this. 
Current legislation is not enough to protect, and we need the en bloc 
amendments by the gentlewoman from Michigan to make sure we do so, 
because there is a danger, it is clearly the case, the facts show it, 
that disproportionately minority communities, low-income communities 
share the exposure, the highest exposure and the burden of that 
exposure of those environmental hazards.
  [[Page H4830]] We should and we must do what we can to ensure that 
there is equal treatment of all communities when it comes to hazardous 
wastes to make sure that they are all protected, but oftentimes we do 
not go far enough. This gives us an opportunity to ensure that the past 
wrongs can be righted and that we will never make those mistakes again, 
so that every community, whether they are very empowered, very 
enfranchised, or not, have the opportunity to say that they will 
benefit from the protections of our environment that we are trying to 
do here today.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, it is clear that all of us do not represent districts 
that are exactly alike. My district is very similar to Congressman 
Becerra's. We have right now a Superfund site.
  I do not think we can address water in this country without 
addressing health status in this country. And unfortunately, this bill 
which is before us fails to address this issue from the standpoint of 
public health. This poses a very serious problem. In families with 
annual incomes at or below poverty, almost 70 percent of black children 
suffer from high lead blood levels, while only 36 percent, which is 
much too high, of the nonblack children. Blood poisoning is the most 
preventable disease that we can address. It is identifiable. We just 
need the protections to do it. We know what levels; our scientific 
levels and science has taught us that.
  What we need now are standards that ensure that all of our citizens 
are protected. Women living less than 1 mile from a hazardous waste 
site have a 12-percent higher risk of having a child with a birth 
defect than other mothers. Three million homes or 74 percent of all 
private housing built before 1980 contains some lead paint.

                              {time}  1415

  Minority and low-income people are more likely to live in these older 
homes. The lead which they are exposed to is stored in the bone, and 
later calcium and lead are released into the bloodstream, placing these 
people, particularly women, at risk for continuing lead poisoning many 
years later.
  We are considering now the costs of health care. We cannot do that in 
a vacuum. We must consider all of the things that lead to a large price 
tag when we talk about the cost of health care. We cannot afford to 
ignore a very preventable illness that is so common among the poor.
  We cannot stand here and say that we are upholding our oath without 
remembering that we have a large percentage of poor people and poor 
children in this country, and they live in the areas that many of us 
might not see, but that does not mean they do not exist.
  The clean water bill now before us is notably silent about these and 
other important issues relating to the health of minorities and low-
income Americans.
  These amendments offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Miss Collins] take an important step toward addressing these 
concerns, and I urge this body, I urge my colleagues who might not know 
of these kinds of areas, to please give serious consideration in 
supporting these amendments.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Collins amendment.
  It is time to do right by our Nation's poor and minority communities. 
Too often, we throw garbage, place incinerators and dump dirty water in 
these communities.
  This amendment is an important step in making a bad bill better. 
People have a right to know what is in their water, the water they 
drink. The poor and minorities have the same right to clean water as 
the rest of us.
  Mr. Chairman, our right to clean water is threatened.
  In 1972, Democrats and Republicans came together to end pollution of 
our water. They recognized that no industry, no person--no matter how 
rich or how powerful--has the right to poison our streams, our lakes, 
or our people.
  The Clean Water Act is a proud, bipartisan law that stands up for the 
common person. It says ``no'' to those who would poison our 
environment. We must not allow it to be weakened.
  I plead, with all my colleagues to make this bad bill a little bit 
better. Support the Collins en bloc amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Collins 
amendments.
  Mr. Chairman, although pollution affects all people, no matter where 
they live, direct exposure to water pollutants and other environmental 
hazards are disproportionately distributed. Data now indicate that low-
income, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in areas 
where they face environmental risk.
  However, a stronger data base is needed to better understand the 
problems, to identify solutions to those problems and evaluate the 
efficacy of programs that address the problems. This is why it is 
imperative that the Environmental Protection Agency collect and analyze 
data on sources of water pollution to which minorities and low-income 
populations are disproportionately exposed. For example there are clear 
situations where certain populations are exposed to higher levels of 
pollutants in waters. Thus it is essential that prior to the granting 
of discharge permits, the Environmental Protection Agency review the 
permit application and related elements to ensure that minority and 
low-income communities will not be adversely impacted.
  Recognizing that a number of factors might increase susceptibility to 
the effects of water pollutants, the environmental justice amendment 
calls for the development of water quality standards that take into 
consideration the variations in water usage among diverse segments of 
the population, including the high risk individuals such as pregnant 
women and children. These individuals may be more or less sensitive 
then others to the toxic effects of water pollutants.
  Mr. Speaker, these and other provisions of the environmental justice 
amendment will help ensure that water improvement approaches are 
applied equitably across racial and socioeconomic groups, minority and 
low-income communities faced with a higher level of environmental risk.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentlewoman from Michigan [Miss Collins].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 153, 
noes 271, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--271

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     [[Page H4831]] Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Fields (TX)
     McDade
     Moakley
     Oxley
     Peterson (FL)
     Richardson
     Rogers

                              {time}  1437

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Bono against.

  Mr. RIGGS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. ORTIZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendments were rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. mineta

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mineta: Page 172, line 14, insert 
     ``similar'' before ``risks''.
       Page 172, line 15, before the period insert the following: 
     ``regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency resulting 
     from comparable activities and exposure pathways''.
       Page 172, after line 15, insert the following:

     Comparisons under paragraph (7) should consider relevant 
     distinctions among risks such as the voluntary or involuntary 
     nature of risks and the preventability and nonpreventability 
     of risks.
       Page 173, line 18, after the period insert closing 
     quotation marks and a period.
       Page 173, strike line 19 and all that follows through page 
     172, line 17.
       Page 176, lines 10 and 11, strike ``the requirement or 
     guidance maximizes net benefits to society'' and insert ``the 
     incremental benefits to human health, public welfare, and the 
     environment of the requirement or guidance will likely 
     justify, and be reasonably related to, the incremental costs 
     incurred by State, local, and tribal governments, the Federal 
     Government, and other public and private entities''.
       Page 178, line 14, insert ``and benefits'' after ``costs''.
       Page 179, strike line 3, and all that follows through page 
     180, line 22.
       Page 180, line 23, strike ``(g)'' and insert ``(f)''.

  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would make this bill's 
provisions on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis consistent with 
those in H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Act of 1995 
already passed by the House earlier this year.
  This bill requires elaborate risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis to be performed before regulations to protect clean water can 
be issued.
  The argument in favor of these requirements is that the House has 
already spoken on the issue of risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis, and we should be consistent with it in the Clean Water Act.
  But the provisions in this bill are not consistent with H.R. 1022--
they are more extreme and more onerous in three key respects.
  First, regarding comparative risk analysis, H.R. 961 would have EPA 
and the Corps of Engineers compare the risks which are the subject of 
their rulemaking to not only risks that they know something about, such 
as the health effects of toxics in water or flooding due to filling of 
wetlands, but also risks about which they know nothing, such as auto 
accidents on highways or building collapse due to earthquakes. H.R. 
1022 specifically rejected having agencies make risk comparisons 
outside their areas of expertise, because of a valid concern that 
agencies wouldn't know what they were doing.
  Second, this bill contains a look-back provision which would require 
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to be applied to existing, as 
well as proposed, regulations. This was the Barton amendment to H.R. 
1022, but without safeguards to protect the risk assessment process. 
This issue was specifically rejected on the House floor during debate 
on H.R. 1022. The House rejected Mr. Barton's look-back idea because of 
concerns that it would overwhelm not only the regulatory process but 
also the risk assessment procedures, and subject them to endless legal 
challenges. We should not adopt in this bill what the House has earlier 
specifically rejected for the risk assessment bill.
  And third, this bill goes well beyond the standard established in 
H.R. 1022, that regulatory benefits would likely justify, and be 
reasonably related to, costs. Instead, it requires a clean water 
regulation to maximize net benefits. H.R. 1022 did not adopt that 
standard because our ability to quantify all costs and all benefits is 
not that precise. Requiring an agency to select the one regulatory 
option with the highest net benefits, out of all possible options, 
assumes a level of measurement precision which does not exist in our 
agencies, nor can be achieved by cost-benefit analysis. H.R. 1022 did 
not adopt this standard for the simple reason that it was bound to 
fail.
  Many have argued that on risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis we 
should be consistent with what the House did on H.R. 1022. That is 
exactly what my amendment does. I assume this amendment, therefore, 
will be noncontroversial, and urge its adoption.
                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, again I rise in opposition to another amendment by the 
distinguished gentleman from California which, unfortunately, would 
also gut some of the provisions we have worked so hard to establish in 
this legislation dealing with risk assessment and cost-benefit 
analysis.
  I would like to also share with my colleagues the fact that this 
amendment, just like the other amendment offered, again by the 
distinguished gentleman, was soundly rejected by our committee. This 
amendment has really a grab bag of provisions in it and changes, some 
of which there is good news for and some bad news for. Unfortunately, 
most of the news presented in this amendment is bad news.
  Let me say, for instance, that the one good thing in this proposed 
amendment is that it would clarify that risk comparisons should include 
a discussion of differences between the nature of risks being compared. 
However, this is already addressed in section 324(b)(2)(C) on page 177, 
but it does not 
[[Page H4832]] really hurt to misstate as the champion of this 
particular amendment has offered.
  Now, that is the good news. Now, my colleagues, let us look at the 
bad news, and there are a number of areas that fall into that category. 
Unfortunately, the majority of the changes proposed in the rest of this 
amendment are all undesirable, and I want to highlight a couple of 
these.
  First, the amendment would change the cost-benefit criterion for 
maximizing net benefits to a weaker standard. The benefits must be 
``reasonably related to the cost.''
  This is a standard that already exists under certain sections of the 
Clean Water Act, such as section 302(b)(2)(A), and would be less than 
vigorous at weeding out unnecessary and really inept rules.
  Further, this standard, since it does not address cost effectiveness, 
conflicts with the regulatory review criteria adopted by the House in 
H.R. 1022 this year that passed earlier by a wide margin.
  Second, the amendment would greatly restrict the risks that EPA could 
use for comparison purposes. Under the amendment, EPA could only 
compare risks if they have already been regulated by EPA and result 
from comparable activities and exposure pathways. This would greatly 
diminish the benefit of risk comparisons.
  For instance, part of the value of performing these comparisons is to 
see whether there may be other unregulated risks that deserve more 
immediate attention. This would not be possible under the amendment 
proposed by my good colleague.
  Finally, and unfortunately, this amendment would wipe out the modest 
retroactive provisions of this bill. Let me say, I would like to see 
much more retroactive attention to all of these regulatory matters, 
even in this legislation.
  For instance, the retroactive coverage has been described and 
misquoted, and let me give you one example here, by the National 
Wildlife Federation, as repealing ``23 years of existing major Clean 
Water Act standards by requiring extensive cost-benefit and risk 
assessment reviews for all major existing standards within an 
impossible deadline of 18 months.''
  This is simply untrue and misleading. In fact, H.R. 961, our 
legislation, requires EPA to review only those regulatory requirements 
and guidelines issued after February 15, 1995, that would result in 
costs of $100 million or more per year. Such reviews must be completed 
within 18 months of enactment of this section.
  Thus far, only one requirement, the Great Lakes Initiative, issued in 
March 1995, would need to be reviewed under this subsection. Further, 
since rules costing $100 million or more already are required to be 
evaluated by EPA and the Office of Management and Budget under 
Executive Order 12866, the committee expects that the retroactive 
review required by sections 323 and 324 will place little or no 
additional burden on EPA, assuming EPA has complied with the Executive 
order.
  These are only three of the serious problems with the grab bag of 
changes proposed under this amendment, and any one of them is in fact 
enough for my colleagues to come forth and vote against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, on the basis of just these three points, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Volkmer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Mica was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, let me say I appreciate the extension of 
time, and also the opportunity to talk about risk assessment, because 
this is probably the last frontal attack on risk assessment before the 
House of Representatives.
  As my colleagues know, this issue came before the House in the last 
Congress and we were denied an opportunity to bring this forth in the 
form of a complete piece of legislation. It was never voted on as far 
as affecting all regulatory items before the Congress.
  Now we have the first individual bill, a regulatory bill, a 
regulatory reform bill, and we have an opportunity to pass good cost-
benefit risk assessment language. This is in fact going to be the last 
assault, I believe, on risk assessment.
  So many of the colleagues who have come here on many occasions to 
vote for risk assessment will have that opportunity today. Many of the 
people who have come here and asked for cost-benefit analysis in the 
way we pass regulations in this Congress and through the agencies, the 
Federal Government, will have an opportunity to vote today. And once 
and for all we can bring common sense to a process, a regulatory 
process, that has been out of control, out of hand, put people out of 
work, out of business, out of jobs.
  So I urge my colleagues to come to the floor this afternoon, defeat 
this final amendment that proposes a frontal assault on good risk 
assessment language and also on cost-benefit language that is so 
essential to have in this clean water bill. This is what this is all 
about, bringing common sense, bringing some light into an area of 
darkness in the regulatory processes of this country.
  I thank the gentleman for the additional time.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mineta amendment. I 
have to tell the House that the Democratic members of the House 
Committee on the Budget were put to a very difficult choice yesterday: 
Should we stay across the street in the Cannon Building and fight the 
surprise attack disclosed in its details for the first time yesterday 
morning of the Republican members of the Committee on the Budget to 
wreck havoc with Medicare, to break their promises with reference to 
Medicare, and to affect senior citizens across this country by reaching 
in their pocket and insisting they come up with more money to fund 
their health care, the same group that wants to challenge the middle 
class families of this country who want to send a child to college, to 
thwart their efforts by adding $5,000 to the cost of a Stafford loan, 
do we stay over there and fight that kind of surprise attack concocted 
in the shadows of this Capitol by secret Republican task forces, or do 
we come across the street and help the gentleman from California here 
on the floor of the Congress stave off the polluters who want to wreck 
one of the most
 effective pieces of environmental protection legislation that this 
country has ever known?

  Well, it was a tough choice. But staying there from 10 in the morning 
until after 1 o'clock this morning did not stop a mean-spirited budget 
resolution from passing. But I hope it has helped inform the American 
people about what lies ahead, because with Mother's Day coming up, if 
there is any American citizen that has not yet bought a present for 
Mom, they better send her some money if she is on Social Security, 
because these Republicans are coming after Social Security and coming 
after Medicare.
  Now, what about this issue of water? Not having had a chance to fight 
the battle yesterday, I do not quite understand why some of our 
Republican colleagues are so insensitive to the idea of clean water. 
Maybe it is because they drink Perrier all the time. I do not know what 
it is. But for whatever the reason, in my part of the country, Colorado 
on the rocks is still not a bad drink. You take Colorado River water 
that is pure, and you pour it over some good ice, and on a hot summer 
day in Texas it tastes might good. This battle is about protecting 
Colorado on the rocks, protecting the drinking water in the Colorado 
River, in the critical tributary of that river called Barton Creek, 
with a natural spring called Barton Springs, which is a source of 
entertainment and, I might say, a little coolness on a hot summer day 
in Texas.
  Citizens all over central Texas are struggling to protect that 
natural resource. They recognize we have something very unique in the 
beauty and the quality of the water of the Colorado River and of Barton 
Springs, a place to swim, to fish, and, most importantly, a source of 
drinking water. And what is occurring today affects Austin, TX, very 
much, because we value our water. We have developed a balance between 
the necessary part of our economy, the need to expand and 
[[Page H4833]] develop and have jobs, and the recognition that does not 
have to be in conflict with clean water and the environment. Rather, 
the two can interface and work together.
  Our children will benefit because we would not let those two very 
legitimate concerns get in conflict. What is occurring here today is an 
effort to thwart the attempt of the people of central Texas to protect 
their water supply.
  Mr. Chairman, the bottomline is that this so-called Clean Water Act 
is really a dirty water act. And of the many horrible provisions of 
this bill, and goodness knows there are a lot of them, the one that the 
distinguished gentleman from California is now trying to fix concerning 
the standards for risk assessment is one of the worse.
  What this measure does is to take an amendment that was rejected by 
the House Committee on Science, chaired by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], and rejected here on the floor of the House. 
Let me tell you, an amendment that is so bad that it gets rejected in 
that committee is so bad you cannot scrub it down with a brush, 
Members.
  Let me assure you that that committee on risk assessment--and let me 
remind you how it handled the risk assessment bill. This is a committee 
where when you ask the committee counsel about the risk assessment 
bill, he cannot give you an answer without turning over his shoulder 
and getting the answer from the lobbyists that helped draft the bill. 
That risk assessment bill is the one this House passed. It will be in 
this piece of legislation even if the amendment of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta] is adopted today. The question is, do we go 
even further than that?
  Well, the amendment that is already in the bill has received 
bipartisan opposition. It was Senator Chafee, the Republican Member of 
the Senate, who indicated that this is not about good science, it is 
about gumming up the regulatory process or, to use his words, it is a 
recipe for gridlock. And that is all that people want who oppose this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Volkmer, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Doggett was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, risk assessment is a good concept if, and 
only if, risk assessment means good science. If risk assessment is only 
good politics, if risk assessment is only gumming up the regulatory 
process so that you cannot regulate and assure clean water, then it is 
a pretty worthless concept.

                              {time}  1500

  We get a good dose of that in this bill, because it was not 30 
minutes ago that the distinguished gentleman from California said, 
well, let us have it both ways. If they are going to come along and 
weaken the process, if they are going to come along and have waivers so 
that polluters can pollute a little here on the side and a little there 
and a little here, then let us apply risk assessment to that. Was that 
amendment accepted? Absolutely not, because this is a one way street 
for polluters.
  It is OK to pollute; do not get in the way of anyone trying to 
regulate the polluter. But if it is someone who wants to do something 
about regulating pollution, then let us erect as many barriers as 
possible.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DOGGETT. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that H.R. 1022 applies to 
all regulations that may be forthcoming under this legislation? The old 
risk assessment regulatory reform bill that we passed, the House passed 
back during the 100 days.
  Mr. DOGGETT. It does that. This is a question of whether you go even 
further than that bad old amendment that we passed back then.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Let us say that that bill goes on and eventually becomes 
law and then we have this bill go on with these provisions that the 
gentleman from Florida thinks so much about and this House does not 
think so much, if you follow the regulatory reform process in the House 
when we voted on these things, but, anyway, this passes. Now we have 
got two different, EPA, Corps of Engineers for everybody else to 
follow; is that correct?
  Mr. DOGGETT. That is absolutely right.
  Mr. VOLKMER. It is absolutely crazy. I do not generally disagree with 
the thrust of much of this legislation. As far as the agriculture 
sections of it, I love it. But when it comes to things like this, these 
are the kinds of things that make me question whether I want to vote 
for this bill.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  With respect to the Mineta amendment, I would argue against this and 
in favor of the bill. President Clinton and Mrs. Browner and many in 
the press have stated over and over again that big business is 
responsible for the risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. This 
legislation does have the support of over 1,000 industry trade 
associations, the NFIB, and the National Farm Bureau, but the truth is 
that the risk and cost-benefit agenda is long overdue and represents 
principles with broad-ranging support among State and local 
governments.
  The claim that this is just an agenda of big business is nonsense. 
President Clinton and Mrs. Browner and the press know it. The National 
Governors Association states:

       Environmental requirements should be based upon sound 
     science and risk-reduction principles, including the 
     appropriate use of cost-benefit analysis that considers both 
     quantifiable and qualitative measures. Such analyses will 
     ensure that funds expended on environmental protection and 
     conservation address the greatest risks first and provide the 
     greatest possible return on investment.

  The National Association of Counties in hearings before the Committee 
on Commerce stated:

       Congress should adopt legislation which requires federal 
     agencies to provide fair, scientifically sound and consistent 
     assessments of purported health, safety or environmental 
     risks prior to the imposition of new regulations. It is just 
     plain wrong to regulate without at least an attempt to make a 
     scientifically based assessment of the risk that is sought to 
     be abated, its relationship to other risks, and the costs 
     involved.

  The American public, by a margin of three to one, supports cost-
benefit analysis. This amendment would significantly weaken that. That 
is why I would urge Members to vote against this amendment and in 
support of the bill.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GANSKE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a couple of responses 
in response to some comments that were made by a previous speaker who 
came to the floor and said that he was only given the opportunity to be 
at budget hearings or to run to the floor and talk about this clean 
water legislation. Indeed, those are some of the choices that we have 
to face.
  We have to face the fact that literally for the last 40 years that we 
have, that this Congress has robbed every cookie jar in the country and 
that the cookie jars are all empty and we have busted the budget, and 
the country is in serious shape, financial shape, and facing a 
disaster. Those are the choices before us.
  The choice is not a question of just balancing the budget or going on 
in the means that we have done in the past. The choice is that we, in 
fact, address these serious financial problems and that the cookie jar 
has been raided for the last time, and we have to make those choices.
  The choice on the floor today that we run back and forth on relates 
to regulation and the regulatory process. We have so overregulated. We 
have had the experience of this law on the books and we know what it is 
doing. We know how it is driving people out of business, out of jobs, 
out of the open world competition market.
  We know, in fact, that he talked about bottled water and Perrier. 
Well, there are probably no Federal regulations except for possibly 
some fancy labeling regulations. That is a situation we find ourselves 
in, we are swatting at the flies and missing the elephants. So we have 
to make those choices and we have to decide.
  We have to bring into the regulatory process cost-benefit analysis 
and risk assessment, which is only a commonsense approach. This is not 
anything 
[[Page H4834]] that is intended to destroy the environment and have a 
lesser environment, have less pure water or air. It is to bring some 
reasonableness, some common sense to the process.
  So whether it is the physical condition of the United States or the 
regulatory conditions imposed by this Congress in years and years of 
overregulation, those are the questions before us.
  Now we have a chance with this amendment to defeat the progress we 
want to make in regulatory reform. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
Mineta amendment.
 Let us go forward. Let us bring common sense to the process. Let us 
make this Congress work for the people and for business and for jobs 
and for competition rather than against folks and make some commonsense 
improvements in the process.

  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta].
  Very simply, the House spent a week debating the issues of risk 
assessment and cost-benefit determinations.
  I did not agree with all of the outcomes but the House has made a 
determination.
  Unfortunately, many of the provisions of this bill go far beyond the 
House-passed provisions.
  In one case, this bill contains a look back provision that was 
specifically rejected on the House floor by a vote of 206 to 220.
  The bill also contains language on maximum net benefits that goes 
well beyond the cost-benefit language approved by the House by a vote 
of 415 to 15.
  Mr. Chairman, we should not go beyond what the House has already 
done.
  I urge support for the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I do so because the 
gentleman from Florida gave a very compelling speech here. It just did 
not happen to be accurate. Because the reason we have the Clean Water 
Act, the reason we have the Clean Water Act was not because of 40 years 
of overregulation. It was because of 100 years of people abusing the 
waterways of this Nation, abusing the airways of this Nation, abusing 
the natural resources and lands of this Nation that the taxpayers 
unfortunately now have had to come back and clean up much of that mess.
  Without the Clean Water Act, without the Clean Air Act, there was no 
industry that walked into the Congress and said, I am going to 
voluntarily clean up the air in the San Francisco Bay area or in Los 
Angeles or in Cincinnati or in Philadelphia. There was no industry that 
walked in here and said, I will voluntarily take our sewage, our toxic 
materials from the steel mills, from the chemical mills, from the 
refineries out of the bays, out of the rivers, nobody did that. They 
fought this measure tooth and nail. They have been fighting it for 30 
years.
  But what has been the net result? The net result is we have the 
cleanest industry and the most efficient industries in almost every 
segment of manufacturing, of doing business in the entire world.
  The auto industry is now more efficient and it is cleaner. And when 
you read the business journals, you will understand that much of that 
innovation, much of that technology, much of that efficiency came about 
as a result of having to comply with RCRA, with clean air, with clean 
water.
  Why does Dow Chemical now recycle what used to be toxics that were 
taken off their site, or duPont? Because of the efficiencies that were 
built in and the cost that was built in when they could no longer dump 
it in the river, when they could no longer dump it in the land, when 
they could no longer dump it in people's backyards, when they had to 
think about how to do it.
  What happens now? We refine more oil out of every barrel. We refine 
more materials and refine more products that are used in exports, that 
are used in products in this country than ever before. Why? Because it 
was subsidized before. It was subsidized by throwing it into the river, 
by sending it up a smokestack and not caring what happened.
  If Members want to see what happens to those nations that chose 
another route, that chose not to have clean water in the 1960's and 
1970's, 1980's and 1990's, go to Eastern Europe, go to Asia. You cannot 
breathe. You cannot go outside of your hotel. Citizens cannot live. 
They cannot grow vegetables. Lands are taken out of circulation.
  No, this is a monument to success.
  Wonderful speech by the gentleman from Florida. It simply was not 
accurate. It simply was not accurate. It was a bunch of anecdotal crap 
that cannot be supported on the record.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 262, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--157

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--262

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     [[Page H4835]] McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Barton
     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Lazio
     Linder
     Moakley
     Parker
     Peterson (FL)
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Walsh
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1530

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Barton against.

                    amendment offered by mr. defazio
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio: Page 92, line 2, strike 
     ``or other facility'', as inserted on page 14 of the 
     committee amendment offered by Mr. Shuster.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before the committee would 
restore three words that were in the act as it passed out of committee. 
Those three simple words, which were struck yesterday by the so-called 
technical amendments and an unamendable amendment at the beginning of 
consideration, are very important because they would subject the 
Federal Government of the United States and Federal facilities to the 
same laws that apply to every State, to every private entity in America 
and every municipal entity in America.
  Should we grant a broad exemption to Federal facilities in this bill 
from the Clean Water Act when private contractors, industry, municipal 
governments, county governments, sewer districts and others cannot get 
such broad exemptions? I think that for the sake of consistency, most 
Members of the House would argue no.
  We are going to hear further that this exemption is warranted for 
national security purposes, because most of these facilities, these are 
nuclear Navy facilities, are essential to the defense of the United 
States. There is another section in the bill, and that section allows 
the President of the United States, by simple Executive order, to 
exempt any Federal facility or operation from all the requirements of 
this bill, but that would require a separate action.
  I would argue that that would be the more consistent way to deal with 
these facilities. If some of them truly need an exemption from the 
Clean Water Act, I do not know what they are doing or what they are 
putting in the water that they need exemptions. But if they need 
exemptions so that they can put things in the water that industries and 
local governments are not allowed to put in the water, then they should 
ask the Commander in Chief for individual exemptions so there is at 
least some level of accountability and scrutiny applied.
  There are 10 States directly affected by this amendment, and a total 
of 12 States when you consider downstream entities. Again, the question 
is what is it that is objected to by the Federal Government? What can 
the Federal Government not do? What are they putting in the water?
  I think the people who live in or represent those 12 States should 
ask that question. I think their constituents are going to ask them 
that question in the future. What are they putting in the water that we 
will not allow industry to put in the water, that we will not allow 
local governments to put in the water? What is the Federal Government 
putting in my water it needs a blanket exemption under the act?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, am I hearing what the gentleman said 
correctly, that all of the Navy nuclear facilities have been taken out 
and you did not know about this? Did I hear what he said?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The committee saw fit to 
include them under the bill and then the technical amendments removed 
them from the jurisdiction of this bill.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman would yield again, I have always 
really respected him. He is one of the few who really reads the bill. I 
assume he did not get any notice, he just found this out?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that neither the staff nor I 
caught this before the technical amendments had gone through the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, how many 
facilities are there like this? I really find it amazing that the 
Federal Government does not want to be under the same law as everyone 
else is.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This would exempt 12 Federal facilities, Mr. Chairman, 
from the laws that every other local government, State government and 
industry would be subjected to. Furthermore, we will hear, I am 
certain, and the gentlewoman is familiar with this from her work on the 
committee, the claim that they need an exemption for national security 
purposes.
  The bill allows the President with the stroke of a pen to exempt 
anything, any Federal facility, if that is necessary. Beyond that, two 
are closed and one is being decommissioned. Why would we remove a 
closed or a decommissioned facility from jurisdiction under the Clean 
Water Act for national security purposes?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I thought I heard what he said and I 
appreciate very much the gentleman clarifying that. That is really 
shocking. I hope people support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Again, just back to the basic point here. If indeed there is a threat 
to national security, particularly at those closed bases or the base 
that is being decommissioned----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has 
expired.
  (On request of Mrs. Schroeder, and by unanimous consent, Mr. DeFazio 
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, again the question is, Why should we grant 
a blanket exemption under this bill when the President has the 
authority as Commander in Chief to exempt any individual military 
facility? In particular, why is it in the States of California, Idaho, 
and South Carolina that we would exempt facilities that are closed or 
being decommissioned? It is particularly puzzling.
  Even beyond that, I think the residents of the other States, and the 
list is long, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Virginia, Idaho, 
Washington, Hawaii, Connecticut, I think the residents of those States 
should ask, what is it that the Federal Government is putting into the 
water that no industry in America is allowed to put into the water, 
that no local government in America is allowed to put into their water, 
whether it is recreational water or drinking water or just something 
that happens to flow through their community; what is it that the Feds 
are putting in that they need this blanket exemption? I think that is a 
question that should be answered.
  All I am saying is put back in the words, subject the Federal 
Government to the same requirements as everyone else in this country, 
the same way we subjected the Congress of the United 
[[Page H4836]] States to the same laws as everyone else in this 
country, for the sake of consistency make the Federal Government follow 
its own laws, and if it needs an exemption for national security 
purposes, the bill allows it with a simple signature by the President 
of the United States.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment creates a new and duplicative regulatory 
authority for the EPA.
  The Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program currently exercises regulatory 
authority over the activities affected by this amendment. This is a 
system that has worked well and has been found by the GAO to contain 
``no significant deficiencies.'' The system is already regulated and 
has no need for additional or duplicative regulations by the EPA.
  Contrary to our efforts to reinvent government, do more with less, 
and reduce unnecessary regulation, the gentleman's amendment would do 
just the opposite.
  I am particularly concerned with the costs this would impose on the 
Navy. As with most other branches of the Government, the Navy is facing 
significant budget cuts. Adding another layer of unnecessary regulation 
will have the effect of imposing additional tax on the Navy and require 
the Navy to devote scarce resources from defense programs and missions 
and instead use them for yet another layer of unnecessary and 
duplicative regulations.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and protect 
scarce naval resources.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. FOWLER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I would make the point that this simply returns us to current law. In 
fact, in the Mineta clean water bill of last year, this provision was 
included. We are simply doing what was in last year's clean water bill.
  Perhaps most importantly, I was the author of the provision to change 
it, and I was wrong. After I studied the issue, I came to the 
conclusion that the points that the gentlewoman makes are very valid 
points. We do not need a duplicative process. This is already regulated 
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It works. ``If it ain't broke, 
don't fix it.''
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased that my colleague, the gentleman 
from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], has brought this to my attention because I 
am just shocked that my constituents are not going to be told that 
there are nuclear materials being put into the rivers, into the waters, 
if that polluter is a Federal facility.
  We do not allow anyone else in this country to self-regulate. It does 
not seem fair that private businesses are held to stricter rules, to 
stricter costs, much greater costs than government facilities. If 
private businesses are not allowed to self-regulate, why should the 
Federal Government be?
  I represent the First Congressional District of Oregon. That is on 
the Columbia River. The Idaho National Engineering Lab is upstream from 
me. That means that my constituents of the First Congressional District 
of Oregon may be having nuclear materials put into the river and they 
are not going to be told about it. I just think that is plain wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, we are sent here to speak for our constituents, to 
defend their health. I would like to urge my colleagues who represent 
districts that are downstream from these Federal facilities to make 
sure that we do not allow our constituents' health to be damaged.
  I am going to vote yes to protect the health of my citizens on the 
DeFazio amendment, and I would like to urge every other Member who 
represents someone who is maybe downstream from a Federal facility to 
do the same.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. FURSE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to the previous speech, I 
was a bit puzzled to hear that the nuclear Navy is subject to the EPA 
and NRC. If that were true, then there would be and there would never 
have been any need to include them in this bill.
  They are exempt from the Clean Water Act, they are exempt from the 
authority of the Environmental Protection Agency, and they self-
regulate. Unlike any other polluter in America, the nuclear Navy tells 
us they have adopted standards, they are meeting their standards and we 
should not worry about it.
  Well, if that is good enough for the nuclear Navy, perhaps we should 
look at that approach for private interests or municipal interests. I 
resent the fact that my municipal government has to be monitored by the 
EPA for its sewer system. It costs money.
  But at some point we do not allow self-regulation. I realize that of 
course the Navy is certainly holding itself to higher standards and 
certainly meeting its own conditions, and if that is true, then it will 
cost them nothing to comply.
  Ms. FURSE. I say to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio], the 
point you make I think is really important. The city of Portland has 
invested $750 million in cleaning up any pollution site and they are 
happy to live by the rules of the EPA.
  I am just shocked to find the nuclear Navy, this Federal facility, is 
not held to the same standards. I think it is really great that the 
gentleman brought it to our attention. I certainly support the 
amendment and hope my colleagues will do so, too.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not have much more than 5 minutes because we have 
to get a budget resolution out here on the floor for next week.
  Somebody posed a question a few minutes ago, what is the nuclear Navy 
putting in the waters that others don't? Well, they put in nuclear 
submarines, for one thing, torpedoes. They even put this marine in the 
water once.
  This amendment would strike much of what was accomplished yesterday 
in the chairman's en bloc amendment. Let me emphasize, Mr. Chairman, 
and I think members ought to listen to this on both sides of the aisle. 
The Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, and the Joint 
Chiefs under President Clinton all strongly oppose this DeFazio 
amendment. Keep that in mind.

                              {time}  1545

  You know only a few years ago there was a Congressman here by the 
name of Synar who, like Congressman DeFazio, is a remnant of the 
nuclear freeze movement. You know they led all of that fight a few 
years ago.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal privilege.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Can I yield to my good friend, because the gentleman was 
part of the movement on this floor. You and I have debated it many 
times.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I said that with all due respect, as you know.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman perhaps is 
overreaching with his rhetoric. I am not aware of a movement which 
people signed up for. We certainly differ over the need for additional 
nuclear capability when we have 12,000 hydrogen bombs, that is correct.
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is exactly what I was referring to, and I thank the 
gentleman for repeating what I just said.
  But let me just say Mr. Synar and I think Mr. DeFazio probably, I do 
not know, requested that the General Accounting Office determine if 
there was a safety or a health or an environmental problem with the 
nuclear Navy. And you know what the GAO report came back with? They 
found no deficiencies in the area of the environmental protection, they 
found no deficiencies in nuclear safety, and they even found no 
deficiencies in occupational safety and health.
  Just last month, and I think the minority side of the aisle ought to 
listen to this too, our President, President Clinton, praised the 
nuclear Navy. I would like to quote him. He said, ``Our Navy has 
steamed over 100 million miles on nuclear power * * * in a way that has 
protected the public and the environment, both here and abroad.'' And 
that, ladies and gentlemen, that is a fact, 100 million miles.
  [[Page H4837]] We all know my colleague and friend from Oregon 
opposes all things nuclear, but this amendment does not make sense. It 
is an attempt to fix something that is not only not broken, but is 
actually working very, very well.
  In fact, I would again quote President Clinton, who just recently 
described the nuclear propulsion program as ``exemplifying the level of 
excellence we are working toward throughout our government.''
  Mr. Chairman, no environmental problem exists with this program. I 
think we can safely assume this amendment is little more than a 
backdoor attempt to once again undermine an essential national security 
program in this country. And again I would request that Members support 
the position taken by the Navy and our Joint Chiefs of Staff and 
President Clinton and myself and vote ``no'' on this DeFazio amendment.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia, one of the most 
distinguished members of the National Security Committee.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want 
to join in the comments just made by my colleague from New York, the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee. I would only offer in 
addition to that if you take the record of the Navy's nuclear 
propulsion system, the standards of safety and their performance, the 
military discipline and integrity that has underlain their program for 
all of these years, and you wanted to make an amendment to make EPA and 
others subject to them and give them the money to discharge it, it 
might make sense, but which certainly do not add any additional cost to 
the taxpayers for duplicating, replicating that which is already being 
done in a very distinguished way.
  The idea that people are putting things in your water and you do not 
know about it I think is basically pretty darn frivolous.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Let me remind my colleagues of what is going to happen here next 
week. There is going to be on this floor a budget resolution which is 
going to lead to a balanced budget sometime at least by the year 2002. 
There are going to be drastic cuts in the programs in the Environmental 
Protection Agency, in all of these programs, and to pile yet another 
obligation on our Navy which is already so under-funded today is just 
outrageous. This amendment had better be defeated for the good of 
America.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words and I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment.
  I must admit I was very, very surprised, Mr. Chairman, when I came on 
the floor and heard what the gentleman was saying, because I know those 
of us in the Colorado delegation have insisted that Federal 
installations be under the same laws that the private sector is. I 
think that has been very important and we have wanted that in our own 
State, and I was really shocked to find out that even though we are 
lessening some of these standards, we still do want these installations 
to be at the same standard that the private sector is. And even when if 
the President thought there was some reason, he could with the stroke 
of a pen pull them out.
  So I think the gentleman's amendment is the right way to go and that 
is the way the bill was originally, if I remember.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Yes, 
the bill as passed out of committee by a large margin included these 
Federal facilities. They would have been subjected to the same laws as 
all other businesses or Federal facilities in America.
  The situation that would be created here, first off, vessels were 
never a consideration, vessels were not part of this bill. So to bring 
out the red herring of the nuclear submarines or nuclear-powered 
carriers is a red herring. They were never included.
  This is shore-based fixed facilities in the United States of America 
which have the potential to harm American citizens. That is what we are 
trying to regulate here, and in fact the situation would be created if 
this amendment is not adopted, in Idaho we would have two different 
Federal agencies regulating two different standards at Idaho nuclear 
propulsion laboratories, because part of the property is nuclear Navy, 
which will be exempt from all Federal laws, and part of the property is 
DOE and will be subject to Federal laws. So the situation we are going 
to create is bizarre, and to say it is a burden or it is going to 
create a national security risk when we are dealing with two bases that 
have already been closed, two that are closed and one that is being 
decommissioned, that is an absurdity to say somehow by subjecting two 
closed bases, which perhaps, you know, pose a daily threat to nearby 
citizens from the Clean Water Act is a threat to our national security. 
The gentlewoman is on the committee of jurisdiction.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I do not really understand it, because one of the 
things I found when we were going through this base-closure process was 
many of the citizens are very upset. They are so afraid we are going to 
declare these areas sacrifice zones and not clean them up, and I 
certainly hope that is not what we are doing in this bill, because if 
you are saying closed bases do not have to comply, and we are doing it 
to save money, well, if people who happen to live around it want it to 
be cleaned up, I guess what we are saying is they have to do it with 
their own money at the local level and the Federal Government is not 
going to help. I really think this is surprising, and I am particularly 
startled that the gentleman was not notified then that the bill was 
changed before it came to the House floor.
  I think the gentleman's point too that he is
   making is he is talking about the shore installations. He is not 
talking about tracking ships and doing all of that, you are talking 
about the shore installations that should be good neighbors, and if 
there is some reason that cannot be that is highly classified, the 
gentleman is assuring me there is something in the bill that would 
allow the President to deal with that, am I correct?

  Mr. DeFAZIO. That is correct. On page 86 beginning with line 17, 
``The President may exempt any effluent source of any department, 
agency or instrumentality,'' et cetera, and goes on to explain there is 
no limitation on that authority.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. I really thank the gentleman from Oregon again for 
his vigilance.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am shocked, I am absolutely penetratively shocked. I 
do not think the gentlewoman from Colorado has even been shocked about 
anything in her life, especially this.
  Second, I look at the individuals that are offering this. Is there 
any shocking doubt, the same people that would vote to cut defense $177 
billion, the same ones that would put homos in the military, the same 
ones that would not fund BRAC, the same ones that would not clean up.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman----
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, I will not. Sit down, you socialist.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman----
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The ludicrousness of this, even to appeal this. It is 
the lunacy of this, the EPA and other organizations have continually 
stated you take the shore-based and the surface-based, have less 
problems than any of your public bases, less than all of them put 
together.
  I have operated off these carriers. I have operated out of these. You 
want to take a Geiger counter, go ahead. I have scuba dived underneath 
the docks. I am not going to do that if it is polluting. And the same 
people that would control with big Government the rules and the 
regulations and try and diminish national security, look at them, just 
look at them right here. And the same people. The team never changes, 
and you want to put these burdens, and the problems is that you fail to 
see the solutions to very simple problems. You state your own opinion 
as fact when it is not.
   [[Page H4838]] There are studies and studies and studies that show 
that there is no discharge, that it is not regulated, but yet you would 
cost the American taxpayers and lay on rules and regulations and have 
bigger Government, more facilities, more control over the regulatory 
factors, and that is wrong.
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Chairman, do we have to call the gentleman ``the 
gentleman'' if he is not one?
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the amendment. I thank 
the chairman very much and would like the opportunity, if the gentleman 
from California would respond, just to ask him a brief question, if I 
might.
  My ears may have been playing a trick on me, but I thought I heard 
the gentleman a moment ago say something quote unquote about homos in 
the military. Was I right in hearing that expression?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SANDERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Absolutely, putting homosexuals in the military.
  Mr. SANDERS. You said something about homos in the military. Was the 
gentleman referring to the thousands and thousands of gay people who 
have put their lives on the line in countless wars defending this 
country? Was that the groups of people that the gentleman was referring 
to?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am talking about the military. People in the 
military do not support this.
  Mr. SANDERS. That is not what we were talking about. You used the 
word homos in the military. You have insulted thousands of men and 
women who have put their lives on the line. I think they are owed----
  Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would also say that if my friend 
in support of this amendment, if my friend from Oregon was involved in 
the nuclear freeze movement, I want to congratulate him. There are 
millions of Americans who wonder about the wisdom of spending millions 
and millions more dollars building more and more nuclear weapons at the 
same time as the Republicans are cutting back on Medicare, Medicaid, 
and student loans.
  Furthermore, I find it incomprehensible that at a time when the vast 
majority of the people in this country are terribly concerned about 
what is going on in the environment, terribly concerned about the 
environmental implications of nuclear energy, that the American people 
do not know what is in their waterways, and that various military 
installations might be exempted from Federal regulatory practices.
  So I very much applaud this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 126, 
noes 294, not voting 14, as follows:
                             [Roll No 321]

                               AYES--126

     Abercrombie
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--294

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Barton
     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Dunn
     Frisa
     Hancock
     Martinez
     Moakley
     Peterson (FL)
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Schumer

                              {time}  1619

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On the vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for with Mr. Bono against.
       Mr. Moakley for, with Ms. Dunn against.
       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Frisa against.

  Messrs. BERMAN, MORAN, and JEFFERSON, and Mrs. CLAYTON changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. LINCOLN changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was not on the floor during the last debate, but I 
was informed of some of the remarks that I want to address. I am here, 
Mr. Chairman, referring to the comment of the 
[[Page H4839]] Member from California in opposition to the last 
amendment in which he said that this was to be expected from those who 
supported homos in the military.
  Mr. Chairman, I very much regret taking the time away from Members on 
this serious subject, but the time is over when I will let that kind of 
gratuitous bigotry go unchallenged, and I take the floor simply to 
express my contempt for the effort to introduce such unwarranted and 
gratuitous slurs on decent human beings on the floor of this House.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] in expressing my shock, 
outrage, and contempt for what was said on the floor of this House a 
little while ago. To express gratuitous bigotry when the subject of 
gays and lesbians in the military was not on the agenda--we are 
debating an environmental bill--for someone to get up and make an ad 
hominem attack on an environmental bill by saying, ``What do you expect 
from someone who would support homos in the military,'' is beneath the 
dignity of what should be uttered on the floor of this House and 
deserves condemnation by every decent individual in this House.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all it was not the only item 
mentioned. It is a series of things in which the liberals in this House 
have supported their social agenda.
  Second, do I support homosexuals in the military? The answer is no. I 
personally believe that it affects readiness; yes, I do.
  Does the majority of the military, men and women in the military, 
want homosexuals in the military? The answer is no, and, as long as the 
military leaders and those people feel that way, and if the gentleman 
could ever prove to me that that does not have an effect, then I will 
change that position, but that is the position currently, that it 
affects the national security and readiness of this country, and that 
is what I support.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I come to Congress prepared 
to do a number of things that are difficult. I like the job, and I will 
undertake them, but trying to prove anything to the gentleman from 
California goes beyond the pale of my oath, and I will not try.
  I will say again that we are not here talking about the merits of 
that issue. We are talking about the gratuitously bigoted formulation 
of it by which it was injected into this debate, and I find that to be 
beneath the dignity of the House.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as I understood the statement which was 
directed at me, it was not to say that I wanted to put them in the 
military. Well, I have news for the gentleman from California. There 
are quite a number of gays and lesbians serving proudly in the U.S. 
military, unfortunately not serving proudly and openly because of the 
fact that people like him exist and have pressured, as my colleagues 
know, the President and others to deny that opportunity to those 
people.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Let me say to the gentleman I do not want 
to get diverted. I am not here debating the substance of the policy; we 
have done that, and we will do it again. I am particularly calling 
attention to the formulation, the gratuitously, I believe, bigoted and 
insulating formulation, and I am very disappointed to see that language 
on the floor of the House.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think the gentleman would be correct if that is the 
only issue. I meant it. I said it as a policy of the people in general 
that support the issues that degrade national security of this country, 
and that is one of those many issues which the gentleman supports, and 
in a case of amendment that is absolutely ridiculous, it was meant to 
formulate those same people that do not support defense are trying to 
tie the hands of defense even in the future.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. The defense of a bigoted remark, and it 
was one of several remarks, makes even less sense than I had expected. 
I am talking about the formulation. It was bigoted, and I would hope it 
would not be repeated.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  First of all, it is not a bigoted statement. Many times the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dellums] has told me that people have differences 
of opinion. It is this Member's opinion that homosexuals in the 
military do not do service to the national security of this country, 
and in that vein making a statement that those that support that are 
supporting the nonreadiness of defense is--and I will be happy to yield 
in just a second.
  The second thing is that there is a tendency by the Members that 
support that kind of activity, support all the rest of it, and it is 
meant that we need to support national security in this country.
  I say to my colleagues, ``A bigoted statement, if I was directing it 
to you or anybody else in this thing, in other contexts, yes, would be 
bigoted, but a personal opinion, that it degrades the national 
readiness of this country, is not a bigoted statement.''
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I was referring in part to the 
formulation of homos in the military. The gentleman has been very 
careful since that time to say homosexuals, but he was not very careful 
when he got up on the floor, and I took specific offense to the 
deliberately bigoted and belittling form of words that he chose to use.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I 
used the shorthand term, and it should have been homosexuals instead of 
homos. We do misspeak sometimes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the previous speaker, the gentleman from California, 
attempted to make a correction in the utilization of the word homo or 
homosexuals. I just want to reemphasize the point that I think my 
colleagues are making on this side of the aisle. It is the point that 
we were discussing an environmental issue, and it is the point that for 
some reason it was thought appropriate to intrude a discussion on 
another nonmeritorious issue that gave some suggestion that the 
gentleman was throwing stones, if my colleagues will, at a person for 
having supported a group of people on another issue on another point. 
That to me seems to suggest bigotry, and maybe the gentleman did not 
mean that, and we would accept, certainly, his clarification and even 
an apology, but it is certainly my understanding that, if my colleagues 
were discussing one issue, and someone throws another issue in and 
castigates a group of people, then he has clearly made it an issue of 
discrimination and bigotry. Inappropriate behavior and words, and this 
certainly calls for an apology to both the colleague that was speaking 
and, as well, the whole group that he has maligned.


                    amendment offered by mr. nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Nadler: Page 50, strike line 19 
     and all that follows through line 10 on page 52.

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today so that we will not have to 
see signs like the one to my left in the future. It is the right of 
citizens of this country to have clean water. If this bill is passed in 
its current form, the signs will never come down.
  During the committee markup of this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I 
introduced an amendment that would have deleted a section of the bill 
that allowed pollution controls to be lowered or eliminated for 
waterways that had already 
[[Page H4840]] been cleaned up if the cost of maintaining those 
controls outweighed the benefit of maintaining the level of water 
quality in the opinion of the State. I would like to commend the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for taking this section of 
the bill out of the bill in his en bloc amendments we adopted 
yesterday. While I am pleased this was done, I believe we must go 
further.
  The bill still permits States to abandon all efforts to attain the 
previously set water quality goals, or even any water quality goals at 
all, if the State determines that in its opinion the cost of reaching 
the designated water quality standard outweighs the benefit.
                              {time}  1630

  My amendment would delete this section of the bill and maintain the 
current process in which the designated use, the designated quality, 
fishable, swimmable, navigable, can be reviewed by the State every 3 
years.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment for the following 
reasons: First, this bill waives Clean Water Act quality standards if 
the cost outweighs the benefit of keeping the water clean.
  I ask, how do you measure the benefit of parents being able to take 
their children fishing, or of children using their favorite watering 
hole, or a fisherman making their livelihoods, and how do you determine 
whether that outweighs the cost of attaining that level of water 
quality?
  The bill does not define what constitutes a benefit that would 
outweigh the cost, and vice versa. The bill does not define how to 
measure the cost versus the benefit and what standards to apply to 
measure which exceeds the other.
  Second, proponents of this bill never referred to any problems with 
the current guidelines for determining how clean the waterway must be, 
what standards must be attained, nor does this bill try to modify 
existing guidelines. They do not identify why we should change it.
  Instead, the bill reflects the notion that if a State believes it is 
too expensive to reach the water quality levels set pursuant to the 
standards that it already determined, and that it can change every 3 
years, then you can just stop, or not try quite as hard to clean up the 
water.
  The bill essentially says in this section that we do not really care 
about the health and well-being of the people using this water. If it 
is expensive for a polluter to clean up the water, do not bother. In 
other words, the cost to the polluter is more important than the health 
of our children under this text.
  Third, the current law gives the States ample flexibility to adjust 
the designated uses of a waterway and the level of water quality they 
must attain. Current law reflects that every 3 years this must be 
reviewed in the practicality of keeping the designation of each 
waterway, whether it be fishable, swimmable, navigable, must be 
reviewed every 3 years. They must take into account health, safety, 
agricultural, industrial, and recreational uses of the waterway. The 
States can then, after EPA approval, increase the amount of pollution 
that is allowed into those waters.
  Some of my colleagues argue we should trust the States to make these 
determinations without EPA approval and allow them greater flexibility. 
But this is not just a matter of trusting the States. It has to do with 
preventing polluters, big businesses, from in essence blackmailing the 
States by saying to a State if you do not lower the water quality 
standards, we will move to the other States and we will take our taxes 
and our jobs with us.
  The only way to protect the States against this form of blackmail by 
big polluters is to have the EPA still have a role to set minimal 
standards, so that the State can say well, while you may be able to 
move because you do not want to attain the quality standards here, but 
you will not be able to do the same kind of pollution in the next State 
either.
  It also has to do with preventing interstate pollution. If one State 
lowers its water quality standards in their section of a river, that 
pollution then flows down the river to other States that need the same 
water for fishing or recreational, agricultural, fishing or drinking 
purposes. As I mentioned earlier, the States already have the ability 
to lower water quality standards if they need to do so. But by 
including this cost-benefit analysis without any guidelines, it gives 
too much leverage to large polluters.
  Finally it says that the State may eliminate the water quality 
standard if the State determines that the costs of achieving the 
designated use are not justified by the benefits. It can go to no 
standard at all.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we must adopt this amendment and get rid 
of this language if we are going to attain a safe and healthy 
environment for people to fish, swim, and drink the water.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the gentleman from New York has 
presented an amendment in search of a problem. States actually have 
asked for this flexibility, and States currently set these standards 
now. What we are looking at proposing in our legislation is to allow a 
reasonable change and a reasonable opportunity to make changes under 
reasonable circumstances.
  The amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] strikes the 
provisions of H.R. 961 that allow States to take costs and benefits 
into account in revising designated uses of water bodies.
  Let me point out that in 1975, the administrator required States to 
designate all navigable waters for which a use had not been designated 
as follows: They are either fishable, swimmable, and that is to use the 
quote, the designation by the administrator. They are designated as 
fishable-swimmable.
  As a result, many of the waters have received a designated fishable-
swimmable category and an unrealistic designated use. For example, 
streams in the arid West that are dry most of the year have been 
designated as fishable and swimmable.
  The bill that we have proposed changes current regulations, the 
revision of designated uses, in two ways. Let me explain those two 
ways. First, current regulations allow a State to revise designated 
uses if it demonstrates to EPA that achieving the designated use is 
infeasible. The bill allows the State to make the determination of 
feasibility, but feasibility is still defined by EPA.
  Second, and let us look at the second point, under current law 
designated uses may be revised only if attaining the use will result in 
substantial economic dislocations.
  Certainly the author of this amendment is very familiar with economic 
dislocations. I had the opportunity to visit his district some time 
ago, and I saw the skyline of his district and the vacated factories, 
and I think he told how many hundreds of thousands of manufacturing 
jobs have been gone, how the piers are abandoned and how the housing 
tenements are abandoned. So we know about this question of substantial 
economic dislocation. I am sure the gentleman is familiar with that.
  Let me say that H.R. 961 allows States to revise a designated use 
that is not being attained if the cost of attainment is outweighed by 
the benefits. So what we are trying to do is something reasonable. This 
is a reasonable approach, and this is an approach that we think makes a 
lot of sense. So we are using costs and benefits here in a manner that 
will give flexibility to the States, and the States have requested this 
flexibility.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida is quite correct when he 
says that we are granting this flexibility to the States. The key 
difference, of course, is that under current law the administrator of 
EPA has to agree with the State that is changing the designated use 
that it meets the requirements of the law. That in effect is being 
removed here. Here the final authority is the States. That is exactly 
the kind of flexibility which would mean that there would be no uniform 
standard across the country to make sure that States are in fact making 
proper progress toward Clean Water Act standards, and that is a key 
difference.

[[Page H4841]]

  Mr. MICA. Reclaiming my time, if I may, again, I think feasibility is 
still defined under our legislation by the Environmental Protection 
Agency. They will be a participant in this process. Indeed, the 
gentleman from New York is offering an amendment that is in search of a 
problem that does not exist, that we have a broad base of support for 
this from the States, from governors, from counties and cities and 
local officials. What we are trying to do is take some of the 
unreasonable approaches, and I gave an example, swimmable-fishable in 
the desert, in an area that may have water in it a few days a year. 
This does not make sense.
  So we are just trying to take a common sense approach, look at this, 
and move forward.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Adoption of the amendment will preserve the current, cooperative 
system of States and EPA combining in the protection of State water 
quality consistent with the States' goals and desires.
  Designated uses are set by the States. They reflect the use of the 
waterbody which the State determines is appropriate--not what the 
Federal Government determines is appropriate.
  Currently, States may change a designated use if attaining the use is 
not feasible because the more stringent controls would result in 
substantial and widespread economic and social impact. The bill would 
expand the ability to downgrade water quality standards if a State 
determines that the costs of achieving the designated use are not 
justified by the benefits.
  This gives much too great an emphasis on cost at the expense of 
environmental and human health impacts. Cost is and always should be of 
concern in the Clean Water Act. However, cost should be used when 
determining the method of achieving water quality goals--it should not 
operate as a limit upon those goals.
  If this amendment is rejected, the bill would allow cost to become 
the overriding concern in establishing water quality standards. That is 
not the way to achieve expected water quality.
  The American people want and expect clean, healthy water in their 
rivers, lakes and coastal areas. The Nadler amendment will help assure 
that the wishes of the people are fulfilled. Support the amendment.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I came to the 
well yesterday and talked about the pendulum of regulation being pulled 
back to the middle, not going back to where we were, but to where we 
should be based on a reasonable balance of regulation.
  One of the other defining issues, I believe, in this new Congress is 
this notion of do we trust those that we elect to office in our 
respective States with a lot of the decisions that come before the 
people in those States. We do not have to federally micro-manage every 
specific element of every program.
  We need to Clean Water Act. We do agree with the concept of clean 
water. But overregulation, I believe, is what brings us to this debate 
in 1995 to amend the Clean Water Act with some reasonable amendments. I 
believe the States will do the right thing. I believe the elected 
leadership of our States are closer to the people, they are more 
responsible to the people. And I believe that sometimes costs can shut 
down a free market and there needs to be a reasonable balance of 
regulation.
  That is what we are here today, yesterday, and even tomorrow to 
debate with these revisions to the Clean Water Act.
  I clearly believe that this amendment goes too far again with Federal 
micro-management of many decisions that can be best made by our States. 
The 10th amendment clearly articulates the difference here between the 
Federal micro-management and the rights we should have in our States.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage our friends from both sides of the aisle to 
oppose this amendment.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York?
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, the 
gentleman has already spoken; has he not?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. That is the purpose of the Chair 
asking if there was objection.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Did the gentleman ask for 2 additional minutes?
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Nadler] is recognized for 2 additional minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the fundamental question in this amendment 
is twofold. One, do we not believe, do we recognize that the water 
quality standards are not, first of all, an issue only with respect to 
one State? Rivers flow through several States. It is not simply the 
case that a decision on the quality of water only affects necessarily 
that one State. When one State decides to permit pollution to continue 
because it thinks it is too expensive, the costs outweigh the benefits, 
that will affect the next State the river runs through. This is not 
simply something that we can keep within one State.
  Second, it is not simply a question of do we trust the States? We 
know that the States are subject to pressures that exceed what the 
Federal Government is exposed to. We know that the polluting businesses 
have a major way, a major leverage over the State to tell the State, 
You had better give us this ability to keep polluting. Do not make us 
spend this money or move to the other State.
  That does not mean the State officials necessarily agree that it is 
better to let the pollution continue. But they might agree that they 
have no choice but to submit to this ultimatum and say, We will let you 
continue polluting. We will lower the water quality standards because 
we do not want to lose the jobs and the taxes.
  The Federal Government is not subject to that pressure and therefore 
can better represent, therefore has to be in a partnership with the 
State to represent the interests of the people to fishable, navigable, 
swimmable, drinkable, safe, clean water.
  Therefore, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 121, 
noes 294, not voting 19, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 322]

                               AYES--121

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--294

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     [[Page H4842]] Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barton
     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Dunn
     Frisa
     Hancock
     Leach
     McCollum
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Peterson (FL)
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Schumer
     Skelton
     Torres

                              {time}  1708

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Watts against.
       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Barton against.
       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Ms. Dunn of Washington 
     against.

  Mr. MASCARA and Ms. FURSE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HOYER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye''.
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       Page 100, strike line 5 and all that follows through the 
     first period on line 10 on page 101.
       Page 102, line 1, strike ``Such demonstration'' and all 
     that follows through the first period on line 3.
       Page 114, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 
     4 on page 115.
       Page 115, line 5, strike ``(n)'' and insert ``(m)''.
       Page 117, line 4, strike ``(o)'' and insert ``(n)''.
       Page 117, line 6, strike ``(q)'' and insert ``(p)''.
       Page 117, line 10, strike ``(p)'' and insert ``(o)''.
       Page 117, line 12, strike ``(r)'' and insert ``(p)''.

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman and colleagues, nonpoint source pollution 
is the next frontier of our clean water program. The Nation has done 
very well in cleaning up pollution from point sources. Over the past 
20-plus years since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, industry 
and municipalities both have spent on the order of $230 billion 
cleaning up point sources.
  Yet, although a measure of progress has been made in our lakes and 
streams, we still have unacceptably high levels of pollution, 
principally coming from runoff from open land sources: agricultural 
lands, lands under development for housing or other purposes, forestry 
lands that have not been properly protected.
  The most egregious effect of such runoff from nonpoint source was the 
already-referred-to attack of Cryptosporidium in the city of Milwaukee 
a couple of years ago, where runoff from agricultural land carried with 
it a deadly disease; it got into the drinking water of the city of 
Milwaukee, and affected some 400,000 citizens, of whom 120-plus died.
  Those illnesses and those deaths could have been prevented with 
effective nonpoint source protection programs. I spent some 10 years 
attempting to develop such language, which was included in the 
committee bill introduced by our chairman in the last Congress, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], and which I have very strongly 
advocated.
  That bill died with the 103d Congress, and in the current 
legislation, the bill before us does attempt to deal with the issue of 
nonpoint source. I commend our current chairman, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, for attempting to address this issue.
  However, there are two fatal shortcomings in this bill that make the 
nonpoint source program utterly ineffective. The first is one that 
introduces into this debate a totally new concept. On section 319 (B)7, 
subsection 7, there is language providing for an exemption for whole 
farm or ranch natural resources management plans, but nowhere in the 
bill are those two items defined. Nowhere in legislative language do we 
have those items clarified.
  Yes, there is some reference to it in committee report language, but 
as we all know, when an issue of this kind is challenged in court, the 
court does not look to committee report language. It scarcely looks at 
the debate that we conduct here on the floor. It looks to the 
legislative language, and there is no definition of what is a whole 
farm or a ranch natural resources management plan.
  The bill, therefore, in that section, where it should be addressing 
runoff from open sources, pesticides, fungicides, rodenticides, 
fertilizers, herbicides, makes no such reference, has no control 
mechanism. Then in a further section, the bill provides some funding, 
for which I do commend our chairman.
  It starts off at $100,000 and goes up to $300,000 a year. Then it 
says ``However, if the appropriation level does not meet the 
authorization level, the enforcement does not follow.'' The State is 
not required to enforce the program. EPA has no enforcement authority.
  This scenario, and in these tight budget times, that language becomes 
a self-fulfiling prophecy. If we get close, say $95 million in 
appropriation, but not $100 million, there is no requirement for 
enforcement. There is some sort of language that suggests that if the 
administrator of EPA and the State together certify that the amounts 
appropriated are sufficient to meet the requirements of the section, 
that the deadline then will be enforced.
  I do not think that will ever happen. I do not think we are ever 
going to have a Governor saying less will do more.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
                      [[Page H4843]] {time}  1715

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, although we know the pressures and 
constraints and we know very well what enormous pressures there will be 
on Governors not to move to the stage of compliance, I want to see 
compliance. I want to see our open spaces, runoff of pollution from 
open lands, cleaned up.
  That is the next frontier. That is the challenge that we must meet. 
This bill gives 19 years to get to that point, but the deadline will 
always be a mirage. It will always be out there just beyond our grasp 
because the funding will never be there.
  I wish the Chair would agree to a means in which we could accomplish 
that the objective without having it slip from our grasp and not be so 
elusive as this bill provides.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which strikes those 
provisions and puts some teeth into the non-point source provisions of 
this bill, which otherwise are reasonably good.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that my good friend from the great 
agricultural State of Minnesota would come forward with a provision 
that really guts, eliminates whole farm planning in the State's non-
point source management program. Essentially what this amendment says 
is, once again, we do not trust the States. Once again, we in 
Washington know best.
  In fact, we have a letter from the National Governors Association 
dated just yesterday in which they urge strong support for the language 
that we have in the bill. They say, ``We support this approach to non-
point source pollution.''
  So the Governors are strongly in support of what we are attempting to 
do here, and I think it is time that we trust our States and do not 
come to the conclusion that Washington always know best.
  The whole farm plan is a voluntary initiative that makes 
environmental sense. What is very significant is that there must be 
approval from the water quality people in the State, through a written 
memorandum of agreement, that the whole farm plan is consistent with a 
non-point source management program before such a whole farm plan can 
be adopted in the State.
  That is fair. That says that we do put emphasis on the environment. 
That says there has got to be a non-point source management program in 
a State.
  Further, I may not agree with too much of what the Clinton 
administration is attempting to do, Mr. Chairman, but the Clinton 
administration, and I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
the Clinton administration has proposed the whole farm plan in the 1995 
farm bill. It is a Clinton farm initiative and it is a good one, and we 
should support it.
  In fact, as to the issue of the definition of what this plan should 
be, first of all, it is indeed defined in the report; but much more 
importantly than being defined in the report, we looked to the 
Committee on Agriculture of this House to define it in the farm bill.
  That is where the definition should take place. It is a farm issue. 
The farm bill should be the place where the definition is provided. We 
have confidence in the Committee on Agriculture to do that. Further, 
the gentleman's amendment also strikes the safeguards against unfunded 
mandates. This is an extremely important point.
  The last thing I think we want to do around here is eliminate 
safeguards against unfunded mandates. Indeed, if the appropriation is 
enough in any given year to allow the States to implement the program, 
there is no slippage of deadlines.
  For all of those reasons, I think we should support our farmers, we 
should support our Governors, we should support our States, and we 
should reject this amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have here in my hand a letter from the Governor of 
Oregon. He says in this letter, ``The State of Oregon is opposed to 
H.R. 961. This bill includes several unacceptable provisions that would 
undermine the careful balance of the Clean Water Act.''
  He goes on to say, ``Proposals raise significant concerns that the 
progress made in improving water quality over the last 20 years will be 
traded in for short-term economic gains without sufficient 
consideration of the long-run costs.''
  ``The proposals,'' he says, ``which raise the greatest concern in 
Oregon include failure to add clear deadlines, goals, and consequences 
to the non-point source program.''
  For 95 percent of Oregon's 100,000 miles of streams, non-point 
pollution is the only source of pollution. Yet H.R. 961, as the 
Governor has said, does not provide clear guidance or goals to address 
non-point source pollution. Even worse, the bill would repeal the 
State's existing coastal zone non-point pollution programs.
  In other words, for 95 percent of the State's streams, the Oregon 
streams, H.R. 961 would not only fail to make any progress in combating 
water pollution problems, it would actually undermine existing 
programs.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it a little ironic that the 104th Congress, 
which has repeatedly said it is a protector of States' rights, is now 
advocating to pull the rug from under States like Oregon which are 
diligently trying to improve the quality of life inside their borders.
  There is absolutely no point to H.R. 961's non-point provisions. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose them by supporting the amendment of the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] which would put teeth into non-
point source pollution protections.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlemen's 
amendment to strike the provisions of the bill supporting the concept 
of whole farm and ranch management programs. The provisions as included 
in the bill have the support of many major commodity groups (including 
the U.S. Wheat Growers, National Cotton Council, National Corn Growers, 
American Soybean Association), several farm and agribusinesses 
organizations (American Farm Bureau, National Council of Farm 
Cooperatives), along with that of the National Governor's Association 
and the National Association of the State Departments of Agriculture. 
These provisions direct the EPA Administrator, in coordination with the 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, to consult with individual States in 
order to reduce or eliminate conflicting requirements and guidelines 
relating to nonpoint source pollution--this amendment removes those 
incentives.
  As I have stated in this body many times over the years, American 
farmers and ranchers are the original stewards of the land. No one has 
a greater interest in maintaining and improving the quality of their 
soil and water than the domestic farm and ranch producer. I have also 
noted that the hard-working men and women of today's farming and 
ranching communities are willing to further commit themselves to 
continued responsible soil and water practices. These provisions direct 
farmers and ranchers to work with their individual State in developing 
and implementing a voluntary plan to address nonpoint source pollution.
  For too long, agricultural producers have been subject to onerous 
rules and regulations from both the federal and state level. In many 
cases, this confusion has deterred efforts to exercise common-sense, 
nonpoint source pollution reduction efforts. By rejection of this 
amendment, farmers and ranchers will be able to utilize sound 
conservation practices, such as Best Management Practices, low-tillage, 
no-tillage, buffer strips, and a variety of other USDA approved 
management practices in their crop production efforts.
  Individual farmers and ranchers finally deserve the opportunity to 
prove their commitment to nonpoint source pollution reduction without 
the heavy-handed, inflexible mandatory demands of Washington's federal 
bureaucracy. I ask the Members of this body to reject this attempt to 
take away incentives to provide some much-needed flexibility to our 
nation's farmers and ranchers to adopt proven plans to improve water 
quality on agricultural lands.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment. It would eliminate 
two of the most egregious loopholes in the nonpoint source section of 
the bill.
   [[Page H4844]] First, the amendment would strike a provision that 
exempts agricultural producers from the nonpoint provisions of the 
Clean Water Act, if a producer has in place a plan referred to as a 
``whole farm or ranch natural resources management plan.''
  I want to be clear at the outset. I have no objection to the concept 
of whole farm plans. It makes a lot of sense for farms that are subject 
to numerous planning requirements to consolidate them into a 
comprehensive management plan. But that is not what H.R. 961 does.
  H.R. 961 creates a mechanism for escape from Clean Water Act coverage 
without any assurance whatsoever that a farm plan will even address 
nonpoint source pollution.
  Any farmer who prepares a document and calls it a whole farm plan can 
be out of the nonpoint program entirely.
  The bill contains no specifications or standards as to what the farm 
plan should address, or what it should attempt to accomplish.
  There is no requirement that the State or Federal environmental 
agencies with expertise in protecting water quality play any role in 
ensuring that these plans address water quality concerns.
  In fact, there is no requirement that the plans include measures to 
address water quality concerns.
  H.R. 961 removes from the reach of the Clean Water Act the single 
greatest source of water quality impairment. By allowing whole farm 
plans to serve as compliance, the bill takes away from States the 
ability to require nonpoint control by these producers, even if the 
State program is not making progress in controlling nonpoint pollution. 
This will unnecessarily hamper the efforts of States in achieving 
environmental results.
  The Oberstar amendment also would strike provisions that improperly 
make environmental protection contingent on receipt of Federal funding. 
Requirements on States for assessments, nonpoint program implementation 
and monitoring would all be delayed one year for each year that the 
Federal appropriation for nonpoint programs falls even one dollar short 
of the amount authorized. And, the amount of federal assistance 
provided will be taken into consideration in determining whether a 
State's program is making reasonable progress toward attainment of 
water quality standards.
  These concepts of linking Clean Water Act goals with Federal funding 
are bad policy and are certain to thwart any progress in addressing the 
largest remaining source of pollution. The Clean Water Act has never 
been a fully federally funded program. Individuals and corporations 
have responsibilities not to contaminate their neighbors' water 
regardless of whether they receive any payments from the Federal 
Government.
  As with all of the loopholes in the bill, someone will pay the price. 
Nonpoint sources of pollution need to do more, not less, to reduce 
water pollution. That is the only way to avoid disproportionate burdens 
on industrial and municipal dischargers, and enormous losses to the 
tourism industry, recreation and others. And, it is the only way we can 
achieve the quality of water that our citizens expect and deserve.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Oberstar amendment.
                              {time}  1730

  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strongest possible opposition to the Oberstar 
amendment. This is an amendment that every single member of the House 
should oppose.
  First of all, as a fourth generation family farmer, I cannot stress 
strongly enough how offensive the Oberstar amendment is. We, in 
agriculture, are sick and tired of Washington, DC, bureaucrats treating 
us with contempt.
  There is general agreement among people who understand agriculture 
that Best Management Practices are the most cost effective programs for 
reducing agricultural run-off. That is the responsible principle that 
this bill seeks to put into affect.
  And, who are the experts on agricultural run-off? I assure you that 
the answer is not the bureaucrats at EPA.
  H.R. 961 puts the responsibility of developing Best Management 
Practices in the hands of the USDA.
  The Oberstar amendment demonstrates contempt for farmers and contempt 
for the USDA.
  As far as the unfunded mandates portion of the Oberstar amendment, 
President Clinton has already signed into law the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act to prevent exactly this type of legislation from being 
passed by Congress.
  The provisions of H.R. 961 are simple, but fair. The bill makes an 
estimate of annual needs toward attaining the goals of the Clean Water 
Act. If Congress does not appropriate these funds, compliance deadlines 
for the States are delayed.
  This is the type of unfunded mandate relief that both Houses of 
Congress have already approved overwhelmingly and is already Federal 
law.
  The Oberstar amendment says ``forget all that, let's pretend that the 
unfunded mandate bill never passed. Let's go back to business as usual, 
passing the buck as we've done before.''
  Even if you didn't support unfunded mandate reform, you should 
respect that this is now the law of the land. No Member, no matter how 
you feel about the rest of the bill, should support this amendment.
  Vote ``no'' on the Oberstar amendment. It's an insult to farmers. It 
deserves to be defeated resoundingly. In fact, it deserves to be 
defeated unanimously.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 122, 
noes 290, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                               AYES--122

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Clay
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--290

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     [[Page H4845]] Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Barton
     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Dunn
     Frisa
     Hancock
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Schumer
     Tanner
     Torres
     Waldholtz
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)
                              {time}  1751

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Texas for, with Mr. Bono against.
       Mr. Markley for with Ms. Dunn against.
       Mrs. Collins of Michigan for, with Mr. Watts against.

  Messrs. FRANKS, of New Jersey, WISE, CLYBURN, and BRYANT of Texas 
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. DeLAURO and Mr. DOGGETT changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?


                    amendment offered by mr. pallone

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, Amendment No. 41.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. PALLONE:
                                H.R. 961

                        Offered By: Mr. Pallone

       Amendment No. 41: Page 81, after line 1, insert the 
     following:
       (a) Finding With Respect to Harm Caused by Violations.--
     Section 101 (33 U.S.C. 1251) is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(i) Finding With Respect to Harm Caused by Violations.--
     Congress finds that a discharge which results in a violation 
     of this Act or a regulation, standard, limitation, 
     requirement, or order issued pursuant to this Act interferes 
     with the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, 
     physical, and biological integrity of any waters into which 
     the discharge flows (either directly or through a publicly 
     owned treatment works), including any waters into which the 
     receiving waters flow, and, therefore, harms those who use or 
     enjoy such waters and those who use or enjoy nearby lands or 
     aquatic resources associated with those waters.
       ``(j) Finding With Respect to Citizen Suits.--Congress 
     finds that citizen suits are a valuable means of enforcement 
     of this Act and urges the Administrator to take actions to 
     encourage such suits, including providing information 
     concerning violators to citizen groups to assist them in 
     bringing suits, providing expert witnesses and other evidence 
     with respect to such suits, and filing amicus curiae briefs 
     on important issues related to such suits.''.
       (b) Violations of Requirements of Local Control 
     Authorities.--Section 307(d) (33 U.S.C. 1317(d)) is amended 
     by striking the first sentence and inserting the following: 
     ``After the date on which (1) any effluent standard or 
     prohibition or pretreatment standard or requirement takes 
     effect under this section or any requirement imposed in a 
     pretreatment program under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of 
     this Act takes effect, it shall be unlawful for any owner or 
     operator of any source to operate such source in violation of 
     the effluent standard, prohibition, pretreatment standard, or 
     requirement.''.
       (c) Inspections, Monitoring, and Providing Information.--
       (1) Applicability of requirements.--Section 308(a) (33 
     U.S.C. 1318(a)) is amended by striking ``the owner or 
     operator of any point source'' and inserting ``a person 
     subject to a requirement of this Act''.
       (2) Public access to information.--The first sentence of 
     section 308(b) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(including information contained in the 
     Permit Compliance System of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency)'' after ``obtained under this section'';
       (B) by inserting ``made'' after ``shall be''; and
       (C) by inserting ``by computer telecommunication and other 
     means'' after ``public'' the first place it appears.
       (3) Public information.--Section 308 is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Public Information.--
       ``(1) Posting of notice of polluted waters.--At each major 
     point of public access (including, at a minimum, beaches, 
     parks, recreation areas, marinas, and boat launching areas) 
     to a body of navigable water that does not meet an applicable 
     water quality standard or that is subject to a fishing and 
     shell fishing ban, advisory, or consumption restriction 
     (issued by a Federal, State, or local authority) due to fish 
     or shellfish contamination, the State within which boundaries 
     all or any part of such body of water lies shall, either 
     directly or through local authorities, post and maintain a 
     clearly visible sign which--
       ``(A) indicates the water quality standard that is being 
     violated or the nature and extent of the restriction on fish 
     or shellfish consumption, as the case may be;
       ``(B) includes (i) information on the environmental and 
     health effects associated with the failure to meet such 
     standard or with the consumption of fish or shellfish subject 
     to the restriction, and (ii) a phone number for obtaining 
     additional information relating to the violation and 
     restriction; and
       ``(C) will be maintained until the body of water is in 
     compliance with the water quality standard or until all fish 
     and shellfish consumption restrictions are terminated with 
     respect to the body of water, as the case may be.
       ``(2) Notice of discharges to navigable waters.--Except for 
     permits issued to municipalities for discharges composed 
     entirely of stormwater under section 402 of this Act, each 
     permit issued under section 402 by the Administrator or by a 
     State shall ensure compliance with the following 
     requirements:
       ``(A) Every permittee shall conspicuously maintain at all 
     public entrances to the facility a clearly visible sign which 
     indicates that the facility discharges pollutants into 
     navigable waters and the location of such discharges; the 
     name, business address, and phone number of the permittee; 
     the permit number; and a location at which a copy of the 
     permit and public information required by this paragraph is 
     maintained and made available for inspection or a phone 
     number for obtaining such information.
       ``(B) Each permittee which is a publicly owned treatment 
     works shall include in each quarterly mailing of a bill to 
     each customer of the treatment works information which 
     indicates that the treatment works discharges pollutants into 
     the navigable waters and the location of each of such 
     discharges; the name, business address and phone number of 
     the permittee; the permit number; a location at which a copy 
     of the permit and public information required by this 
     paragraph is maintained and made available for inspection or 
     a phone number for obtaining such information; and a list of 
     all violations of the requirements of the permit by the 
     treatment works over the preceding 12-month period.
       ``(3) Regulations.--
       ``(A) Issuance.--The Administrator--
       ``(i) not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection, shall propose regulations to 
     carry out this subsection; and
       ``(ii) not later than 18 months after such date of 
     enactment, shall issue such regulations.
       ``(B) Content.--The regulations issued to carry out this 
     subsection shall establish--
       ``(i) uniform requirements and procedures for identifying 
     and posting bodies of water under paragraph (1);
       ``(ii) minimum information to be included in signs posted 
     and notices issued pursuant to this subsection;
       ``(iii) uniform requirements and procedures for fish and 
     shellfish sampling and analysis;
       ``(iv) uniform requirements for determining the nature and 
     extent of fish and shellfish bans, advisories, and 
     consumption restrictions which--

       ``(I) address cancer and noncancer human health risks;
     [[Page H4846]]   ``(II) take into account the effects of all 
     fish and shellfish contaminants, including the cumulative and 
     synergistic effects;
       ``(III) assure the protection of subpopulations who consume 
     higher than average amounts of fish and shellfish or are 
     particularly susceptible to the effects of such 
     contamination;
       ``(IV) address race, gender, ethnic composition, or social 
     and economic factors, based on the latest available studies 
     of national or regional consumption by and impacts on such 
     subpopulations unless more reliable site-specific data is 
     available;
       ``(V) are based on a margin of safety that takes into 
     account the uncertainties in human health impacts from such 
     contamination; and
       ``(VI) evaluate assessments of health risks of contaminated 
     fish and shellfish that are used in pollution control 
     programs developed by the Administrator under this Act.''.

       (4) State reports.--Section 305(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1315(b)(1)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (D);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (E) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(F) a list identifying bodies of water for which signs 
     were posted under section 308(e)(1) in the preceding year.''.
       (d) Civil Penalties.--
       (1) Enforcement of local pretreatment requirements.--
       (A) Compliance orders.--
       (i) Initial action.--Section 309(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1319(a)(1)) is amended by inserting after ``of this Act,'' 
     the following: ``or is in violation of any requirement 
     imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 
     402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this Act,''.
       (ii) Issuance of orders.--Section 309(a)(3) is amended by 
     inserting before ``he shall'' the following: ``or is in 
     violation of any requirement imposed in a pretreatment 
     program approved under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this 
     Act,''.
       (B) Criminal penalties.--Section 309(c)(3)(A) is 
     amended by inserting before ``and who knows'' the following: 
     ``or knowingly violates any requirement imposed in a 
     pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or 
     402(b)(8) of this Act,''.
       (C) Administrative penalties.--Section 309(g)(1) is amended 
     by inserting after ``or by a State,'' the following: ``or has 
     violated any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program 
     approved under section 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of this Act or 
     an order issued by the Administrator under subsection (a) of 
     this section,''.
       (2) Treatment of single operational upsets.--
       (A) Criminal penalties.--Section 309(c) is amended by 
     striking paragraph (5) and redesignating paragraphs (6) and 
     (7) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively.
       (B) Civil penalties.--Section 309(d) is amended by striking 
     the last sentence.
       (C) Administrative penalties.--Section 309(g)(3) is amended 
     by striking the last sentence.
       (3) Use of civil penalties for mitigation projects.--
       (A) In general.--Section 309(d) is amended by inserting 
     after the second sentence the following: ``The court may, in 
     the court's discretion, order that a civil penalty be used 
     for carrying out mitigation projects which are consistent 
     with the purposes of this Act and which enhance the public 
     health or environment.''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 505(a) (33 U.S.C. 
     1365(a)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
     of the last sentence the following: ``, including ordering 
     the use of a civil penalty for carrying out mitigation 
     projects''.
       (4) Determination of amount of penalties.--
       (A) Civil penalties.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is 
     amended by inserting ``the amount of any penalty previously 
     imposed on the violator by a court or administrative agency 
     for the same violation or violations,'' after ``economic 
     impact of the penalty on the violator,''.
       (B) Administrative penalties.--Section 309(g)(3) is 
     amended--
       (i) by striking ``or savings''; or
       (ii) by inserting ``the amount of any penalty previously 
     imposed on the violator by a court or administrative agency 
     for the same violation or violations,'' after ``resulting 
     from the violation,''.
       (5) Limitation on defenses.--Section 309(g)(1) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``In a proceeding to 
     assess or review a penalty under this subsection, the 
     adequacy of consultation between the Administrator or the 
     Secretary, as the case may be, and the State shall not be a 
     defense to assessment or enforcement of such penalty.''.
       (6) Amounts of administrative civil penalties.--
       (A) General rule.--Section 309(g)(2) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(2) Amount of penalties; notice; hearing.--
       ``(A) Maximum amount of penalties.--The amount of a civil 
     penalty under paragraph (1) may not exceed $25,000 per 
     violation per day for each day during which the violation 
     continues.
       ``(B) Written notice.--Before issuing an order assessing a 
     civil penalty under this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     give to the person to be assessed the penalty written notice 
     of the Administrator's proposal to issue the order and the 
     opportunity to request, within 30 days of the date the notice 
     is received by such person, a hearing on the proposed order.
       ``(C) Hearings not on the record.--If the proposed penalty 
     does not exceed $25,000, the hearing shall not be subject to 
     section 554 or 556 of title 5, United States Code, but shall 
     provide a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present 
     evidence.
       ``(D) Hearings on the record.--If the proposed penalty 
     exceeds $25,000, the hearing shall be on the record in 
     accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code. 
     The Administrator may issue rules for discovery procedures 
     for hearings under this subparagraph.''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--Section 309(g) is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1) by striking ``class I civil penalty or 
     a class II'';
       (ii) in the second sentence of paragraph (4)(C) by striking 
     ``(2)(A) in the case of a class I civil penalty and paragraph 
     (2)(B) in the case of a class II civil penalty'' and 
     inserting ``(2)''; and
       (iii) in the first sentence of paragraph (8) by striking 
     ``assessment--'' and all that follows through ``by filing'' 
     and inserting ``assessment in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia or in the district in 
     which the violation is alleged to have occurred by filing''.
       (7) State enforcement actions as bar to federal enforcement 
     actions.--Section 309(g)(6)(A) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``or'' after the comma at the end of 
     clause (i);
       (B) by striking clause (ii); and
       (C) in clause (iii)--
       (i) by striking ``or the State''; and
       (ii) by striking ``or such comparable State law, as the 
     case may be,''.
       (8) Recovery of economic benefit.--Section 309 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Recovery of Economic Benefit.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, any civil penalty assessed and collected under 
     this section must be in an amount which is not less than the 
     amount of the economic benefit (if any) resulting from the 
     violation for which the penalty is assessed.
       ``(2) Regulations.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
     issue regulations establishing a methodology for calculating 
     the economic benefits or savings resulting from violations of 
     this Act. Pending issuance of such regulations, this 
     subsection shall be in effect and economic benefits shall be 
     calculated for purposes of paragraph (1) on a case-by-case 
     basis.''.
       (9) Limitation on compromises.--Section 309 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Limitation on Compromises of Civil Penalties.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the 
     amount of a civil penalty assessed under this section may not 
     be compromised below the amount determined by adding--
       ``(1) the minimum amount required for recovery of economic 
     benefit under subsection (h), to
       ``(2) 50 percent of the difference between the amount of 
     the civil penalty assessed and such minimum amount.''.
       (10) Minimum amount for serious violations.--Section 309 is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(j) Minimum Civil Penalties for Serious Violations and 
     Significant Noncompliers.--
       ``(1) Serious violations.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section (other than paragraph (2)), the 
     minimum civil penalty which shall be assessed and collected 
     under this section from a person--
       ``(A) for a discharge from a point source of a hazardous 
     pollutant which exceeds or otherwise violates any applicable 
     effluent limitation established by or under this Act by 20 
     percent or more, or
       ``(B) for a discharge from a point source of a pollutant 
     (other than a hazardous pollutant) which exceeds or otherwise 
     violates any applicable effluent limitation established by or 
     under this Act by 40 percent or more,

     shall be $1,000 for the first such violation in a 180-day 
     period.
       ``(2) Significant noncompliers.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this section, the minimum civil penalty which 
     shall be assessed and collected under this section from a 
     person--
       ``(A) for the second or more discharge in a 180-day period 
     from a point source of a hazardous pollutant which exceeds or 
     otherwise violates any applicable effluent limitation 
     established by or under this Act by 20 percent or more,
       ``(B) for the second or more discharge in a 180-day period 
     from a point source of a pollutant (other than a hazardous 
     pollutant) which exceeds or otherwise violates any applicable 
     effluent limitation established by or under this Act by 40 
     percent or more,
       ``(C) for the fourth or more discharge in a 180-day period 
     from a point source of any pollutant which exceeds or 
     otherwise violates the same effluent limitation, or
       ``(D) for not filing in a 180-day period 2 or more reports 
     in accordance with section 402(r)(1),

     shall be $5,000 for each of such violations.
       ``(3) Mandatory inspections for significant noncompliers.--
     The Administrator 
     [[Page H4847]] shall identify any person described in 
     paragraph (2) as a significant noncomplier and shall conduct 
     an inspection described in section 402(q) of this Act of the 
     facility at which the violations were committed. Such 
     inspections shall be conducted at least once in the 180-day 
     period following the date of the most recent violation which 
     resulted in such person being identified as a significant 
     noncomplier.
       ``(4) Annual reporting.--The Administrator shall transmit 
     to Congress and to the Governors of the States, and shall 
     publish in the Federal Register, on an annual basis a list of 
     all persons identified as significant noncompliers under 
     paragraph (3) in the preceding calendar year and the 
     violations which resulted in such classifications.
       ``(5) Hazardous pollutant defined.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `hazardous pollutant' has the meaning 
     the term `hazardous substance' has under subsection (c)(7) of 
     this section.''.
       (11) State program.--Section 402(b)(7) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(b)(7)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(7) To abate violations of the permit or the permit 
     program which shall include, beginning on the last day of the 
     2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the 
     Clean Water Compliance and Enforcement Improvement Amendments 
     Act of 1995, a penalty program comparable to the Federal 
     penalty program under section 309 of this Act and which shall 
     include at a minimum criminal, civil, and civil 
     administrative penalties, and may include other ways and 
     means of enforcement, which the State demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Administrator are equally effective as 
     the Federal penalty program;''.
       (12) Federal procurement compliance incentive.--Section 
     508(a) (33 U.S.C. 1368(a)) is amended by inserting after the 
     second comma ``or who is identified under section 309(j)(3) 
     of this Act,''.
       (e) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permits.--
       (1) Withdrawal of state program approval.--Section 402(b) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1342(b)) is amended by striking ``unless he 
     determines that adequate authority does not exist:'' and 
     inserting the following: ``only when he determines that 
     adequate authority exists and shall withdraw program approval 
     whenever he determines that adequate authority no longer 
     exists:''.
       (2) Judicial review of rulings on applications for state 
     permits.--Section 402(b)(3) is amended by inserting ``and to 
     ensure that any interested person who participated in the 
     public comment process and any other person who could obtain 
     judicial review of that action under any other applicable law 
     has the right to judicial review of such ruling'' before the 
     semicolon at the end.
       (3) Inspections for major industrial and municipal 
     dischargers.--Section 402(b) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (9) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) To ensure that any permit for a discharge from a 
     major industrial or municipal facility, as defined by the 
     Administrator by regulation, includes conditions under which 
     such facility will be subject to at least annual inspections 
     by the State in accordance with subsection (q) of this 
     section;''.
       (4) Monthly reports for significant industrial users of 
     potws.--Section 402(b) is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(11) To ensure that any permit for a discharge from a 
     publicly owned treatment works in the State includes 
     conditions under which the treatment works will require any 
     significant industrial user of the treatment works, as 
     defined by the Administrator by regulation, to prepare and 
     submit to the Administrator, the State, and the treatment 
     works a monthly discharge monitoring report as a condition to 
     using the treatment works;''.
       (5) Permits required for introduction of pollutants into 
     potws.--Section 402(b) is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(12) To ensure that, after the last day of the 2-year 
     period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph, any significant industrial user, or other source 
     designated by the Administrator, introducing a pollutant into 
     a publicly owned treatment works has, and operates in 
     accordance with, a permit issued by the treatment works or 
     the State for introduction of such pollutant; and''.
       (6) Granting of authority to potws for inspections and 
     penalties.--Section 402(b) is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(13) To ensure that the State will grant to publicly 
     owned treatment works in the State, not later than 3 years 
     after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, authority, 
     power, and responsibility to conduct inspections under 
     subsection (q) of this section and to assess and collect 
     civil penalties and civil administrative penalties under 
     paragraph (7) of this subsection.''.
       (7) Inspection.--Section 402 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(r) Inspection.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Each permit for a discharge into the 
     navigable waters or introduction of pollutants into a 
     publicly owned treatment works issued under this section 
     shall include conditions under which the effluent being 
     discharged will be subject to random inspections in 
     accordance with this subsection by the Administrator or the 
     State, in the case of a State permit program under this 
     section.
       ``(2) Minimum standards.--The Administrator shall establish 
     minimum standards for inspections under this subsection. Such 
     standards shall require, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(A) An annual representative sampling by the 
     Administrator or the State, in the case of a State permit 
     program under this section, of the effluent being discharged; 
     except that if the discharge is not from a major industrial 
     or municipal facility such sampling shall be conducted at 
     least once every 3 years.
       ``(B) An analysis of all samples collected under 
     subparagraph (A) by a Federal or State owned and operated 
     laboratory or a State approved laboratory, other than one 
     that is being used by the permittee or that is directly or 
     indirectly owned, operated, or managed by the permittee.
       ``(C) An evaluation of the maintenance record of any 
     treatment equipment of the permittee.
       ``(D) An evaluation of the sampling techniques used by the 
     permittee.
       ``(E) A random check of discharge monitoring reports of the 
     permittee for each 12-month period for the purpose of 
     determining whether or not such reports are consistent with 
     the applicable analyses conducted under subparagraph (B).
       ``(F) An inspection of the sample storage facilities and 
     techniques of the permittee.''.
       (8) Reporting.--Section 402 is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(s) Reporting.--
       ``(1) General rule.--Each person holding a permit issued 
     under this section which is determined by the Administrator 
     to be a major industrial or municipal discharger of 
     pollutants into the navigable waters shall prepare and submit 
     to the Administrator a monthly discharge monitoring report. 
     Any other person holding a permit issued under this section 
     shall prepare and submit to the Administrator quarterly 
     discharge monitoring reports or more frequent discharge 
     monitoring reports if the Administrator requires. Such 
     reports shall contain, at a minimum, such information as the 
     Administrator shall require by regulation.
       ``(2) Reporting of hazardous discharges.--
       ``(A) General rule.--If a discharge from a point source for 
     which a permit is issued under this section exceeds an 
     effluent limitation contained in such permit which is based 
     on an acute water quality standard or any other discharge 
     which may cause an exceedance of an acute water quality 
     standard or otherwise is likely to cause injury to persons or 
     damage to the environment or to pose a threat to human health 
     and the environment, the person holding such permit shall 
     notify the Administrator, in writing, of such discharge not 
     later than 2 hours after the later of the time at which such 
     discharge commenced or the time at which the permittee knew 
     or had reason to know of such discharge.
       ``(B) Special rule for hazardous pollutants.--If a 
     discharge described in subparagraph (A) is of a hazardous 
     pollutant (as defined in section 309(j) of this Act), the 
     person holding such permit shall provide the Administrator 
     with such additional information on the discharge as may be 
     required by the Administrator. Such additional information 
     shall be provided to the Administrator within 24 hours after 
     the later of the time at which such discharge commenced or 
     the time at which the permittee became aware of such 
     discharge. Such additional information shall include, at a 
     minimum, an estimate of the danger posed by the discharge to 
     the environment, whether the discharge is continuing, and the 
     measures taken or being taken (i) to remediate the problem 
     caused by the discharge and any damage to the environment, 
     and (ii) to avoid a repetition of the discharge.
       ``(3) Signature.--All reports filed under paragraph (1) 
     must be signed by the highest ranking official having day-to-
     day managerial and operational responsibility for the 
     facility at which the discharge occurs or, in the absence of 
     such person, by another responsible high ranking official at 
     such facility. Such highest ranking official shall be 
     responsible for the accuracy of all information contained in 
     such reports; except that such highest ranking official may 
     file with the Administrator amendments to any such report if 
     the report was signed in the absence of the highest ranking 
     official by another high ranking official and if such 
     amendments are filed within 7 days of the return of the 
     highest ranking official.''.
       (9) Limitation on issuance of permits to significant 
     noncompliers.--Section 402 is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(t) Significant Noncompliers.--No permit may be issued 
     under this section to any person (other than a publicly owned 
     treatment works) identified under section 309(j)(3) of this 
     Act or to any other person owned or controlled by the 
     identified person, owning or controlling the identified 
     person, or under common control with the identified person, 
     until the Administrator or the State or States in which the 
     violation or violations 
     [[Page H4848]] occur determines that the condition or 
     conditions giving rise to such violation or violations have 
     been corrected. No permit application submitted after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection may be approved 
     unless the application includes a list of all violations of 
     this Act by a person identified under section 309(j) of this 
     Act during the 3-year period preceding the date of submission 
     of the application and evidence indicating whether the 
     underlying cause of each such violation has been 
     corrected.''.
       (10) Applicability.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to permits issued before, on, or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act; except that--
       (A) with respect to permits issued before such date of 
     enactment to a major industrial or municipal discharger, such 
     amendments shall take effect on the last day of the 1-year 
     period beginning on such date of enactment; and
       (B) with respect to all other permits issued before such 
     date of enactment, such amendments shall take effect on the 
     last day of the 2-year period beginning on such date of 
     enactment.
       (f) Expired State Permits.--Section 402(d) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Expired state permits.--In any case in which--
       ``(A) a permit issued by a State for a discharge has 
     expired,
       ``(B) the permittee has submitted an application to the 
     State for a new permit for the discharge, and
       ``(C) the State has not acted on the application before the 
     last day of the 18-month period beginning on the date the 
     permit expired,

     the Administrator may issue a permit for the discharge under 
     subsection (a).''.
       (g) Compliance Schedule.--Section 302(b)(2)(B) (33 U.S.C. 
     1312(b)(2)(B)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 
     ``The Administrator may only issue a permit pursuant to this 
     subparagraph for a period exceeding 2 years if the 
     Administrator makes the findings described in clauses (i) and 
     (ii) of this subparagraph on the basis of a public 
     hearing.''.
       (h) Emergency Powers.--Section 504 (33 U.S.C. 1364) is 
     amended to read as follows:
     ``SEC. 504. COMMUNITY PROTECTION.

       ``(a) Issuance of Orders; Court Action.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of this Act, whenever the Administrator 
     finds that, because of an actual or threatened direct or 
     indirect discharge of a pollutant, there may be an imminent 
     and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare 
     (including the livelihood of persons) or the environment, the 
     Administrator may issue such orders or take such action as 
     may be necessary to protect public health or welfare or the 
     environment and commence a suit (or cause it to be commenced) 
     in the United States district court for the district where 
     the discharge or threat occurs. Such court may grant such 
     relief to abate the threat and to protect against the 
     endangerment as the public interest and the equities require, 
     enforce, and adjudge penalties for disobedience to orders of 
     the Administrator issued under this section, and grant other 
     relief according to the public interest and the equities of 
     the case.
       ``(b) Enforcement of Orders.--Any person who, without 
     sufficient cause, violates or fails to comply with an order 
     of the Administrator issued under this section, shall be 
     liable for civil penalties to the United States in an amount 
     not to exceed $25,000 per day for each day on which such 
     violation or failure occurs or continues.''.
       (i) Citizen Suits.--
       (1) Suits for past violations.--Section 505 (33 U.S.C. 
     1365) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1) by inserting ``to have violated 
     or'' after ``who is alleged'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(ii) by striking ``occurs'' and 
     inserting ``has occurred or is occurring''; and
       (C) in subsection (f)(6) by inserting ``has been or'' after 
     ``which''.
       (2) Time limit.--Section 505(b)(1)(A) is amended by 
     striking ``60 days'' and inserting ``30 days''.
       (3) Effect of judgments on citizen suits.--Section 505(b) 
     is further amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(B)--
       (i) by striking ``, or a State''; and
       (ii) by striking ``right.'' and inserting ``right and may 
     obtain costs of litigation under subsection (d), or''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The notice under 
     paragraph (1)(A) need set forth only violations which have 
     been specifically identified in the discharge monitoring 
     reports of the alleged violator. An action by a State under 
     subsection (a)(1) may be brought at any time. No judicial 
     action by the Administrator or a State shall bar an action 
     for the same violation under subsection (a)(1) unless the 
     action is by the Administrator and meets the requirements of 
     this paragrah. No administrative action by the Administrator 
     or a State shall bar a pending action commenced after 
     February 4, 1987, for the same violation under subsection 
     (a)(1) unless the action by the Administrator or a State 
     meets the requirements of section 309(g)(6) of this Act.''.
       (4) Consent judgments.--Section 505(c)(3) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``Consent judgments entered 
     under this section may provide that the civil penalties 
     included in the consent judgment be used for carrying out 
     mitigation projects in accordance with section 309(d).''.
       (5) Pretreatment requirements.--Section 505(f)(4) is 
     amended by striking ``or pretreatment standards'' and 
     inserting ``or pretreatment standard or requirement described 
     in section 307(d)''.
       (6) Effluent standard definition.--Section 505(f)(6) is 
     amended by inserting ``narrative or mathematical'' before 
     ``condition''.
       (7) Definition of citizen.--Section 505(g) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(g) Citizen Defined.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term `citizen' means a person or persons having an interest 
     (including a recreational, aesthetic, environmental, health, 
     or economic interest) which is, has been, or may be adversely 
     affected and includes a person who uses or enjoys the waters 
     into which the discharge flows (either directly or through a 
     publicly owned treatment works), who uses or enjoys aquatic 
     resources or nearby lands associated with the waters, or who 
     would use or enjoy the waters, aquatic resources, or nearby 
     lands if they were less polluted.''.
       (8) Offers of judgment.--Section 505 is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Applicability of Offers of Judgment.--Offers of 
     judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure shall not be applicable to actions brought under 
     subsection (a)(1) of this section.''.
       (j) Issuance of Subpoenas.--Section 509(a)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1369(a)(1)) is amended by striking ``obtaining information 
     under section 305 of this Act, or carrying out section 507(e) 
     of this Act,'' and inserting ``carrying out this Act,''.
       (k) Judicial Review of EPA Actions.--Section 509(b)(1) (33 
     U.S.C. 1369(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting after the comma at the end of clause (D) 
     ``including a decision to deny a petition by interested 
     person to veto an individual permit issued by a State,'';
       (2) by inserting after the comma at the end of clause (E) 
     ``including a decision not to include any pollutant in such 
     effluent limitation or other limitation if the Administrator 
     has or is made aware of information indicating that such 
     pollutant is present in any discharge subject to such 
     limitation,''; and
       (3) by striking ``and (G)'' and inserting the following: 
     ``(G) in issuing or approving any water quality standard 
     under section 303(c) or 303(d), (H) in issuing any water 
     quality criterion under section 304(a), including a decision 
     not to address any effect of the pollutant subject to such 
     criterion if the Administrator has or is made aware of 
     information indicating that such effect may occur, and (J)''.
       (l) National Clean Water Trust Fund.--
       (1) In general.--Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is amended 
     by redesignating section 519 as section 522 and by inserting 
     after section 518 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 519. NATIONAL CLEAN WATER TRUST FUND.

       ``(a) Creation of Trust Fund.--There is established in the 
     Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 
     `Clean Water Trust Fund'.
       ``(b) Transfers to Trust Fund.--There are hereby 
     appropriated to the Clean Water Trust Fund amounts equivalent 
     to the penalties collected under section 309 of this Act and 
     the penalties collected under section 505(a) of this Act 
     (excluding any amounts ordered to be used to carry out 
     mitigation projects under section 309 or 505(a), as the case 
     may be).
       ``(c) Administration of Trust Fund.--The Administrator 
     shall administer the Clean Water Trust Fund. The 
     Administrator may use moneys in the Fund to carry out 
     inspections and enforcement activities pursuant to this Act. 
     In addition, the Administrator may make such amounts of money 
     in the Fund as the Administrator determines appropriate 
     available to carry out title VI of this Act.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment to state revolving fund program.--
     Section 607 (33 U.S.C. 1387) is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``There is''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Treatment of Transfers From Clean Water Trust Fund.--
     For purposes of this title, amounts made available from the 
     Clean Water Trust Fund under section 519 of this Act to carry 
     out this title shall be treated as funds authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this title and as funds made 
     available under this title.''.
       (m) Applicability.--Sections 101(h), 309(g)(6)(A), 
     505(a)(1), 505(b), 505(g), and 505(i) of the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act, as inserted or amended by this 
     section, shall be applicable to all cases pending under such 
     Act on the date of the enactment of this Act and all cases 
     brought on or after such date of enactment relating to 
     violations which occurred before such date of amendment.
       Redesignate subsequent subsections of section 313 of the 
     bill accordingly.
       Page 81, line 4, strike ``(h)'' and insert ``(k)''.
       Page 131, line 5, strike ``(r)'' and insert ``(u)''.
       Page 188, line 21 strike ``(s)'' and insert ``(v)''.
       Page 192, line 6, strike ``(t)'' and insert ``(w)''.
       Page 216, line 11, strike ``by'' and all that follows 
     through ``518'' on line 13 and insert ``by inserting after 
     section 519''.
       Page 216, line 14, strike ``519'' and insert ``520''.
     [[Page H4849]]   Page 217, line 7, strike ``before'' and all 
     that follows through the comma on line 8 and insert ``after 
     section 520''.
       Page 217, line 9, strike ``520'' and insert ``521''.
       Page 321, line 3, strike ``(8)'' and insert ``(7)''.

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment seeks to improve enforcement 
of the Clean Water Act. Based on EPA data, almost 20 percent of U.S. 
major industrial, municipal and Federal facilities were in significant 
noncompliance with their Clean Water Act permits.
  The EPA inspector general has found that penalty assessments are not 
sufficient to recover the economic benefits gained by noncompliance 
with the Clean Water Act. Small fines and lengthy time limits to 
achieve compliance promote an it-pays-to-pollute mentality, and failure 
to recover economic benefits places those who comply with the law at an 
economic disadvantage relative to those who are in violation of the 
law.
  The Clean Water enforcement program should be strengthened to promote 
greater incentives to comply with the law.
  Mr. Chairman, in New Jersey we have on the books as a State law Clean 
Water enforcement amendments, which became law in May of 1990, that 
increase enforcement. In March of 1995, the New Jersey department of 
environmental protection released their 4th annual report of the Clean 
Water Enforcement Act in New Jersey. Their findings reflect a 
significant decrease in penalty assessments as a result of increased 
compliance. The number of significant noncompliers declined from 70 to 
44 in a given year.
  Basically, the enforcement provisions in this amendment require State 
programs to establish mandatory minimum penalties for serious 
violations of and significant noncompliance with the Clean Water Act. 
They require penalties recover at least economic benefits, and they 
improve and increase the frequency of discharge reporting.
  In addition to the enforcement provisions, this amendment would 
remove obstacles to citizen suits. The 1972 Clean Water Act included 
authority for citizens to sue polluters, thereby recognizing the U.S. 
EPA and the States might be unable or unwilling to aggressively pursue 
all violators, and citizen suits are a proven enforcement tool.
  According to a U.S. Department of Justice statistical report, private 
citizen actions over 5 fiscal years have recovered approximately $11 
million in penalties and interest. Basically, what we do in this 
amendment is allow citizens to sue for past violations, overturning a 
1987 Supreme Court case which made those kinds of actions more 
difficult.
  The amendment also increases citizens' rights to know, through 
posting notice requirements and fish consumption advisories. There are 
currently no Federal requirements the public be notified when water 
quality standards are violated. There are no uniform requirements for 
determining the nature and extent of fish and shellfish bans. 
Essentially, we have posting of notice requirements for areas where you 
should not swim or fish, and also fish consumption advisories.
  Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I would point out the amendment establishes a 
national Clean Water trust fund to carry out inspections and 
enforcement pursuant to the act. The idea is the penalties we would get 
for increased enforcement would go into this fund, and they would be 
used to carry out the purposes of the act.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that this amendment be considered. I think that 
one of the most important things we can do is increase enforcement of 
the Clean Water Act, and that is the primary purpose of this amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This 
amendment is 5 congressional pages of mandatory enforcement provisions 
inserted into the Clean Water Act. This amendment not only is 
unnecessary but could be, and is, counterproductive to effective 
enforcement of the act.
  This amendment, and get this, this amendment would deny due process 
to alleged violators in connection with the imposition of 
administrative penalties. Penalties could be imposed without the 
alleged violators having the right to due process.
  Further, this amendment specifies minimum penalties, mandatory 
minimum penalties, that must be imposed, and so severely limits the 
abilities of the enforcement authorities, the EPA and the States, to 
sit down and compromise proposed penalties, to negotiate proposed 
penalties. In some instances, it would bar such compromises altogether.
  Now, this certainly is not flexibility.
  The National Governors' Association is strongly opposed to this 
amendment. The State water quality officials are strongly opposed to 
this amendment, and, indeed, this amendment also would allow 
duplicative enforcement by citizens' groups of violations that have 
been the subject of State enforcement actions. Not only could the State 
bring an enforcement action, but citizens' groups could come along and 
also bring an enforcement action, and even worse, citizens' groups 
could bring an enforcement action against something that already has 
been corrected. Let me emphasize that.
  Even though something has been corrected, citizens' groups would be 
able to reach back and bring an enforcement action against somebody 
even though they corrected the problem.
  In sum, this amendment imposes greater rigidity on the Clean Water 
Act. It would encourage, rather than discourage, protracted litigation. 
This is a lawyers' paradise, and this should be defeated.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very important that citizens be notified when a 
beach or lake where they take their children to swim or fish is subject 
to a fishing ban due to fish contamination, or is not meeting water 
quality standards. This amendment would give the public the information 
it deserves, so that people can protect themselves from illness caused 
by eating contaminated fish or swimming in polluted water.
  It makes sense that where a court finds that a discharger has 
violated the Act, the penalty should, at a minimum, recoup the economic 
benefit that the violator realized as a result of its violations. 
Otherwise, the polluter would gain an advantage over its competitors 
who complied with the law. This amendment would prevent windfalls that 
reward polluters.
  These are just a few of examples of how the amendment would 
strengthen enforcement and other provisions of the Act, and ultimately 
improve the quality of our Nation's waters and the protection provided 
to our citizens.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the amendment.
                              {time}  1800

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
   Mr. Chairman, the thrust of this amendment is to bring about 
mandatory enforcement, and I do not find that as a shocking thing, or 
something that is undesirable or should not be part of this bill.
  I do not believe anybody who is more than 25 or 30 years old in this 
country has any problem remembering the bad old days, the days when the 
Cuyahoga River was so polluted that it actually caught fire, the days 
when the Willamette River in Oregon, a State highly regarded for its 
environmental laws, was not fishable, swimmable, or drinkable, and, 
thanks to the Clean Water Act, and actual mandatory enforcement, those 
rivers have been substantially cleaned up.
  But work remains to be done, and I do not see how those on the other 
side of the aisle who are diluting the standards which would be 
enforceable under this bill, and minimizing them, and moving 
significant areas of concern to voluntary compliance, would object for 
those few things that they leave to be mandatorily regulated, that to 
be the prospect of fines against polluters and higher fines against 
repeat polluters. There is due process for every violation. I am 
puzzled that the esteemed chairman would say there is not due process. 
It is there.
  On the issue of fines, Mr. Chairman, what we would do here is level 
the playing field among competitors in an industry. For example, in my 
State, in my district, one of my paper mills has just spent $50 
million, and that is a lot of money, to clean up its discharge into the 
Willamette River because downstream that same river is used for 
drinking water in addition to the fishing and other benefits, and they 
are 
[[Page H4850]] state-of-the-art, fully in compliance. Now should 
another mill, which has drug its feet thus far and is not in compliance 
with existing law, be allowed to continue in that vein and economically 
benefit? This amendment says no, that the fine would be commensurate at 
least to the economic benefits. So what we would do is level the 
playing field among members of an industry, between those who have 
acted in good faith as good citizens, good corporate citizens and good 
citizens of their community, and those who have not.
  So I do not find it a radical proposal at all that we should have 
mandatory enforcement of those standards which do remain the bill which 
is before us today, and I rise in strong support.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that what 
we are basically talking about here are bad actors, repeat offenders, 
and in the case of the bad actors or the repeat offenders of their 
discharge permits, we are imposing mandatory minimum penalties, and 
then they, for the more serious violations, those penalties increase on 
a daily basis to a maximum penalty which is much higher than what is 
currently in the law. The idea is basically very similar to what is 
done in a lot of statutes where we want to make sure that bad actors 
have to pay a fine that is commensurate with the economic benefit that 
they have received. Otherwise, what is the point of having the Clean 
Water Act?
  In regard to the State administrative actions, I know the gentleman 
on the other side mentioned that he did not like the idea of State 
administrative actions, that they should be able to preclude citizens' 
suits, but I would point out that in many cases courts have construed 
the preclusion provision so broadly that almost any State 
administrative action, no matter how inadequate, has had a preclusive 
effect on citizens' suits. So we want citizens to be able to bring 
actions where necessary to enforce the act, and again, in the past 
those citizen action suits have really done a lot to enforce the Clean 
Water Act and should be encouraged.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone] for his good work on this amendment and urge my colleagues to 
support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 106, 
noes 299, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]
                             [Roll No 324]

                               AYES--106

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Menendez
     Mineta
     Moran
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--299

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Obey
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Abercrombie
     Barton
     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Dicks
     Dunn
     Fattah
     Frisa
     Hancock
     Kleczka
     Martini
     Meek
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rogers
     Schumer
     Tanner
     Torres
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1825

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr Nussle against.
       Mr. Moakley for, Mr. Barton against.
       Miss Collins of Michigan for, Ms. Dunn against.
       Mr. Rangel for, Mr. Bono against.

  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts and Mr. TORKILDSEN changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                amendment offered by mr. young of alaska

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Young of Alaska: Page 70, after 
     line 25, insert the following:
       (e) Anchorage, Alaska.--Section 301 (33 U.S.C. 1311) is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) Anchorage, Alaska.--The Administrator may grant an 
     application for a modification pursuant to subsection (h) 
     with respect to the discharge into marine waters of 
     [[Page H4851]] any pollutant from a publicly owned treatment 
     works serving Anchorage, Alaska, notwithstanding subsection 
     (j)(1)(A) and notwithstanding whether or not the treatment 
     provided by such treatment works is adequate to remove at 
     least 30 percent of the biological oxygen demanding 
     material.''.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman. My amendment will revise section 
301(h) of the Clean Water Act to allow the city of Anchorage which has 
a waiver of secondary treatment to be relieved of the 30-percent BOD 
removal requirement. This requirement puts a tremendous burden on the 
city.
  EPA requires the Anchorage Wastewater Utility to remove 30 percent of 
organic material from sewage before it can be discharged. Meeting this 
requirement for Anchorage has been extremely difficult because sewage 
inflow is very clean.
  In 1991, the utility was approached by 2 fish processors who wanted 
to discharge 5,000 pounds of fish guts into the system daily. Anchorage 
approved the request and it made it easier to meet the 30 percent 
requirement. The discharge was less clean, but the EPA requirement was 
satisfied. This is a perfect example of why we need cost benefit 
analysis in our laws.
  The cost for Anchorage is $180,000 per year in increased operating 
expenses. They will be required to spend more than $4 million within 
the next 2 years. All this while spending $1 million over 6 years to 
monitor outflows to ensure there is no negative impact from the 
discharge.
  Had their been some flexibility in the law, Anchorage could have 
avoided millions of unnecessary expenditures.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this is limited to 
Anchorage, AK.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. SHUSTER. It makes a lot of sense, and I support the gentleman.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to make a short comment 
that I oppose this amendment. This is just another waiver of standards, 
another rollback of existing requirements, and it is specifically for 
Anchorage, AK. If this amendment is adopted, the law will allow for 
less than primary treatment. I am concerned that the next amendment 
will be to allow totally untreated sewage to be discharged into coastal 
waters, whether it is offered by the gentleman from Alaska or other 
amendments that will come forward.

                              {time}  1830

  I urge rejection of the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young].
  The amendment was agreed to.
                   amendment offered by mr. visclosky

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, 
amendment No. 54.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Visclosky: Page 82, after line 21, 
     insert the following:
       (c) National Clean Water Trust Fund.--Section 309 (33 
     U.S.C. 1319) is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(i) National Clean Water Trust Fund.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury 
     a National Clean Water Trust Fund (hereinafter in this 
     subsection referred to as the `Fund') consisting of amounts 
     transferred to the Fund under paragraph (2) and amounts 
     credited to the Fund under paragraph (3).
       ``(2) Transfer of amounts.--For fiscal year 1996, and each 
     fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     transfer, to the extent provided in advance in appropriations 
     Acts, to the fund an amount determined by the Secretary to be 
     equal to the total amount deposited in the general fund of 
     the Treasury in the preceding fiscal year from fines, 
     penalties, and other moneys obtained through enforcement 
     actions conducted pursuant to this section and section 
     505(a)(1), including moneys obtained under consent decrees 
     and excluding any amounts ordered to be used to carry out 
     mitigation projects under this section or section 505(a), as 
     the case may be.
       ``(3) Investment of amounts.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall invest in interest-bearing obligations of the United 
     States such portion of the Fund as is not, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such 
     obligations shall be acquired and sold and interest on, and 
     the proceeds from the dale or redemption of, such obligations 
     shall be credited to the Fund in accordance with the 
     requirements of section 9602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       ``(4) Use of amounts for remedial projects.--Amounts in the 
     Fund shall be available, as provided in appropriations Acts, 
     to the Administrator to carry out projects to restore and 
     recover waters of the United States from damages resulting 
     from violations of this Act which are subject to enforcement 
     actions under this section and similar damages resulting from 
     the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United 
     States.
       ``(5) Selection of projects.--
       ``(A) Priority.--In selecting projects to carry out under 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall give priority to a 
     project to restore and recover waters of the United States 
     from damages described in paragraph (4), if an enforcement 
     action conducted pursuant to this section or section 
     505(a)(1) against such violation, or another violation in the 
     same administrative region of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency as such violation, resulted in amounts being deposited 
     in the general fund of the Treasury.
       ``(B) Consultation with states.--In selecting projects to 
     carry out under this section, the Administrator shall consult 
     with States in which the Administrator is considering 
     carrying out a project.
       ``(C) Allocation of amounts.--In determining an amount to 
     allocate to carry out a project to restore and recover waters 
     of the United States from damages described in paragraph (4), 
     the Administrator shall, in the case of a priority project 
     under subparagraph (A), take into account the total amount 
     deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as a result of 
     enforcement actions conducted with respect to such violation 
     pursuant to this section or section 505(a)(1).
       ``(6) Implementation.--The Administrator may carry out a 
     project under this subsection either directly or by making 
     grants to, or entering into contracts with, the Secretary of 
     the Army or any other public or private entity.
       ``(7) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall transmit to Congress a 
     report on implementation of this subsection.''.
       ``(d) Use of Civil Penalties for Mitigation Projects.--
       ``(1) In general.--Section 309(d) (33 U.S.C. 1319(d)) is 
     amended by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     ``The court may, in the court's discretion, order that a 
     civil penalty be used for carrying out mitigation projects 
     which are consistent with the purposes of this Act and which 
     enhance the public health or environment.''.
       ``(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 505(a) (33 U.S.C. 
     1365(a)) is amended by inserting before the period at the end 
     of the last sentence the following: ``, including ordering 
     the use of a civil penalty for carrying out mitigation 
     projects in accordance with section 309(d)''.

  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
H.R. 961, which would help expedite the cleanup of our Nation's waters. 
My amendment would create a national clean water trust fund, establishe 
fines, penalties and other moneys collected through enforcement of the 
Clean Water Act to help alleviate the problems for which the 
enforcement actions were taken.
  This amendment would not in any way change the way in which 
enforcement actions were taken, the nature of the penalties or the 
manner in which the penalties were levied. I would want to make that 
very clear. A similar provision was included in last year's Clean Water 
Act reauthorization, H.R. 3948.
  Currently, there is no guarantee that fines or other moneys that 
result from violations of the Clean Water Act be used to correct water 
quality problems. Instead, some of the money goes into the general fund 
of the U.S. Treasury without any provision that it be used to improve 
the quality of our nation's water.
  The congressional district I represent is in northwest Indiana. It is 
home to abundant rivers and wetlands. It is also home to the Indiana 
Dunes National Lakeshore and five major steel facilities. A century of 
industrial development has created many toxic hot spots, 
[[Page H4852]] including the Indiana Harbor Ship Canal, which pose a 
constant threat to the health and safety of northwest Indiana 
residents. I am keenly aware of the need to balance between protecting 
the environment and encouraging economic growth. It would certainly be 
a step in the right direction to ensure that penalty moneys paid to the 
U.S. Treasury for violations of the act were used to clean up polluted 
water.
  Today I am concerned that EPA enforcement activities under which 
fines and other penalties are levied ignore the fundamental issue of 
how to pay for the cleanup of the water pollution problems for which 
the enforcement occurred. If we are really serious about ensuring the 
successful implementation of the act, we should put enforcement funds 
to work and actually clean up our nation's waters.
  It does not make sense for scarce resources to go into the bottomless 
pit of the Treasury's general fund especially if we fail to solve our 
serious water quality problems.
  Specifically my amendment would establish a National Clean Water 
Trust Fund within the U.S.
 Treasury for fines, penalties, and moneys including consent decrees 
obtained through enforcement of the act that would otherwise be placed 
into the Treasury's general fund. Under my proposal, the EPA 
Administrator would be authorized to prioritize and carry out projects 
to restore and recover waters of the United States using the funds 
collected from violations of the Clean Water Act.

  However, this amendment would not in any way preclude EPA's authority 
to undertake and complete supplemental environmental projects as part 
of settlements related to violations of the act and other legislation. 
I strongly support the use of SEPs to facilitate the cleanup of serious 
environmental problems which are particularly prevalent in districts 
such as mine.
  However, my bill would dedicate the cash payment to the Treasury, to 
the Clean Water Trust Fund. The amendment further specifies that 
remedial projects be within the same EPA region where enforcement 
action was taken. Northwest Indiana is in EPA Region 5, and there are 
10 EPA regions throughout the United States. Under the proposal, any 
funds collected from enforcement of the Clean Water Act in Region 5 
would remain in the trust fund for that region.
  The establishment of the trust fund is an innovative way in which to 
help improve the quality of our nation's waters by targeting funds 
accrued from enforcement of the act that would otherwise go into the 
Treasury. We can put scarce resources to work to facilitate the cleanup 
of the problem areas throughout not only the Great Lakes but this great 
country.
  I urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. It is with 
great reluctance that I must oppose the amendment of my good friend.
  This amendment has appeal. I would be very happy to work with the 
gentleman and other interested committees on this to see if indeed we 
could work something out. The concerns we have here tonight, however, 
are multifold.
  First of all, this could end up creating a slush fund for the EPA. 
That, I think, we do not want to see happen. This, in effect, could 
become a superfund for water, if you will, an aquatic superfund. We 
certainly do not want to see a replay of all the superfund problems we 
have had.
  One of the things that concerns me greatly is that this provision, I 
am told, could encourage citizen lawsuits for even minor infractions 
and, indeed, it could possibly create a situation where EPA might 
exercise prosecutorial discretion. That is something I do not think we 
want to see happen.
  Indeed, it also, as I understand the way it is crafted, could create 
a situation where hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens groups would 
be going into the court to seek funds out of this program or, indeed, 
going into court using, even worse, using the funds from this program 
to pay for citizen lawsuits.
  Finally, the Committee on Ways and Means certainly has a clear 
interest in this because it does take money out of the general fund 
Treasury, and so I think anything that we do here would have to be done 
in concert with the Committee on Ways and Means.
  For all of the reasons, I think we should reject this amendment 
tonight. But I would be happy to work with the gentleman to see if we 
could craft something that might be acceptable not only to our 
committee but to the other committees of jurisdiction.
  I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support the gentleman's amendment.
  In today's tight economic times, it is important that we attempt to 
maximize the resources available for environmental protection. This 
amendment would assure that the fines and penalties which are assessed 
and collected for violations of the Clean Water Act are used to benefit 
the environment in the area where the violation occurred.
  This amendment will put these fines and penalties to use to create 
remedial projects to restore and recover from damages resulting from 
the violation. While consent orders often include environmental 
remediation, when cases go to trial, fines and penalties often end up 
as miscellaneous receipts in the Treasury. This may assist the general 
fund, but it doesn't help the local environment which has suffered the 
harm.
  Funding at all levels of government is under increasing pressure. If 
we can increase funding for environmental cleanup, without using tax 
receipts, I believe that we should pursue such an option.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I just also want to indicate support for the amendment 
of the gentleman. As those of you who listened to the debate on my 
amendment previously know, I had advocated establishing a trust fund 
with fines and penalties that are received from violations for 
enforcement purposes. But I think that the purpose of the gentleman 
from Indiana, [Mr. Visclosky], in setting up this trust fund is 
certainly just as valid.
  There is no question that we need more funding for cleanup, and I 
would like to see nothing better than to have the money that comes from 
violations of the Clean Water Act placed into a fund that would be used 
for more cleanup rather than go to the general Treasury. I think that 
is the way to go in order to provide additional funding for cleanup.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman asking for unanimous 
consent to be recognized for 1 minute?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 
an additional 2 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the arguments 
made by the chairman.
  First of all, the idea that a slush fund would be traded is simply 
not true. If you look at the total national fines that have been 
imposed by EPA and the courts, you are talking about $12 million in a 
year like 1989. You are talking about $28 million in a year like 1993.
  Second, that the moneys would be used to pay for citizens' suits is 
absolutely not true. I point out in the text of the amendment it 
states, ``Amounts in the fund shall be available, as provided in 
appropriations acts,'' that is your ultimate break on this system, ``to 
the administrator to carry out projects to restore and recover waters 
of the United States from damages resulting from violations of this act 
which are subject to enforcement actions under this section and similar 
damages resulting from the discharge of pollutants into the waters of 
the United States.''
  Again, the control of this system is the appropriations process. They 
are subject to it, and they are only available to clean up polluted 
waterways in the United States.
  The final point the gentleman made, that this would encourage 
bureaucrats to run amok, again, the break on the 
[[Page H4853]] system is the subject of the annual appropriations 
process, just as the highway trust funds, the aviation trust funds and 
other funds are. So I do not think we have that encouragement. We are 
not changing the penalties.
  I would recommend the amendment to the Members' attention.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a very interesting amendment. I think 
it should be very carefully considered.
  The purpose of my rising today is to address an undercurrent that is 
going on in the House right now. That undercurrent pertains to the vote 
last night on the coastal zone management program. There are a number 
of Members who are wondering what really is going to happen now that 
the House has spoken its will by a vote of 224 to 199.
  There are a lot of Members wondering what people outside this Chamber 
who have a vested interest in the success of this program are saying. 
So I thought it would be timely to share with my colleagues in the 
House a letter I have received just today from the Coastal States 
Organization which says:
  ``We are writing in great appreciation for the vote on the floor of 
the House yesterday in restoring and fixing the coastal nonpoint 
pollution control program during the debate on the reauthorization of 
the Clean Water Act. Finally, through your amendment''--the letter is 
addressed to me--``we can address the critical problem of coastal 
nonpoint pollution in a manner that grants the coastal states, rather 
than the federal agencies, the flexibility and authority to determine 
which coastal waters are threatened or degraded, target the coastal 
nonpoint pollution program as well as prioritize which waters to 
address first, utilize voluntary measures first to address coastal 
nonpoint pollution rather than being required to implement mandatory 
requirements and start working to address this serious problem now, not 
five years from now.''
  The letter from the Coastal States Organization goes on to say:
  ``Through your amendment, this program has been redesigned to be a 
state-implemented program. Thank you for taking this `states rights' 
approach and granting us the authority and flexibility to address this 
serious problem as the states deem appropriate as well as for saving 
over four years worth of work. Please convey our gratitude to all the 
Members of Congress who supported your efforts to restore and protect 
this nation's companies.''

                              {time}  1845

  Less than 24 hours ago, the House, by a decisive vote, voted to 
protect the coastal management program. Now the undercurrent in this 
Chamber indicates that there is a secretive plan to undo what we did. I 
want Members to know the Coastal States Organization does not want any 
secret plan to be implemented. The Coastal States Organization does not 
want any sleight of hand. The Coastal States Organization, with 30 
States involved, representing tens of millions of people, are watching 
us, and they are saying ``Don't back down.'' I thought it was very 
important, so timely, to present this letter to this Chamber, so that 
we could all have the benefit of the wisdom of the Governors in the 
States and the people we are trying to effectively serve.
  What we are about today is addressing a most sensitive environmental 
and public health piece of legislation. Let no undercurrents undermine 
what we have already done.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 156, 
noes 247, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                               AYES--156

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Castle
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schroeder
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--247

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Ackerman
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brown (FL)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Dunn
     Fattah
     Frisa
     Hancock
     Harman
     Istook
     Johnston
     McNulty
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Tanner
     Torres
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  1904

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  [[Page H4854]] On this vote:

       Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mr. Watts against.
       Mr. Moakley for, with Mr. Bono against.
       Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Ms. Dunn of Washington 
     against.

  Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, today I returned to Arizona to attend the 
graduation of my daughter from Arizona State University. Consequently, 
I missed a number of rollcall votes on H.R. 961. Had I been present, I 
would have voted in the following manner: ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No. 
323; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 324; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 
325.
                          legislative program

  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of inquiring from the chairman 
of the committee or the distinguished majority leader if we could know 
what the schedule is for the remainder of today and tomorrow.
  I rise because we were told during the period when the contract was 
on that when the contract was finished, that the schedule would be a 
little more family friendly and that we could get people home at a 
reasonable hour. This is the second night that we are going to be here 
late.
  I realize this is important legislation but as I look at the schedule 
for next week, there are days when there is not a lot of business that 
we could perhaps finish this bill. I inquire of the distinguished 
majority leader if we could perhaps leave fairly soon so that Members 
could see their families and come back tomorrow and try to finish.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, let me thank the gentleman 
for his inquiry. We have been talking to a variety of Members on both 
the majority and minority side.
  There are for a great many of our Members very serious matters before 
the House that have very serious consequences to their particular 
national and local interests. It has been our hope and intention to 
move this bill to the point that we could complete the work on the bill 
by 1 p.m. tomorrow because many Members have some departure times that 
are very strategically important to them there as well.
  It is our hope to finish the bill by 1 p.m. tomorrow and to do that 
in such a way as to not abridge the rights of any Member that chooses 
to offer the amendment that they in so many cases have so often 
carefully prepared and so patiently waited their turn to offer, and 
also to hold without any bias against that Member their right to call 
their vote. Many times a Member offers an amendment and wants to have a 
vote, a recorded vote, and it is fundamentally that Member's right.
  In the meantime we have been in discussions, and I had hoped that by 
7 p.m. we would have some greater clarity of understanding to where I 
could make an announcement. As it is now, I think discussions are still 
ongoing.
  We are still optimistic that we could either continue tonight to a 
later hour and finish the bill, so that we could all be done with our 
week this evening, or to see clearly that it is possible for us to rise 
at an earlier hour and then complete the bill tomorrow in such a time 
as to convenience those people who are trying to get their departure by 
1 p.m. or thereabouts.
  The other option that is out there that we are cognizant of is to 
hold the bill over into next week. That is something that a great many 
Members also would like to avoid.
  Let me just say that we are continuing that information. Perhaps 
during the course of the next amendment, between now and the next vote 
that is called, we can have some definitive final understanding of 
where we can go, and we will be able to make an announcement that 
defines which of the three alternatives has sort of presented itself 
through the will of the Members who are participating in the bill.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
  I realize it is difficult to make everything come out on time, but I 
really believe that there was a great amount of anticipation and 
excitement among all Members when we talked about making the schedule 
more family friendly. I admit it is hard to do. I have been in your 
position, and I know how difficult it is. But in that this bill is not 
essential, we are not on a strict time line, I really believe it would 
be helpful if Members could go home at a decent hour, come back 
tomorrow, get out at 1 p.m., come back on Tuesday and get our work 
done.
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman will yield further, let me just say, I 
understand that, and again as the gentleman from Missouri knows, we 
always try to juggle as fairly as possible the heartfelt interests of a 
large group of different Members with different interests, and we are 
continuing to work with that.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, the distinguished leader from Texas and I 
have engaged many times over the course of the last 125 days about the 
schedule, and about getting a more predictable schedule and a more 
effective schedule and a more family-friendly schedule.
  I would just like to ask the leader a couple of questions.
  How many amendments do we have left on this bill?
  Mr. ARMEY. If the gentleman would yield, there are a fairly 
significant number of amendments, about 15. Then there are questions 
related at who among the 15 choose to offer their amendment? Do they 
choose to call recorded votes? Are there agreements that might be made?
  We have also looked at the option of a time limitation. We have some 
Members that feel very strongly they do not want that and would object 
to it.
  As I have said, I suppose I have sort of kept the gates of bargaining 
and negotiation open a little longer perhaps than one normally does. 
But we like to keep options open for fair consideration for all 
interested parties as long as we can before we come to some sort of 
``This is it, we've got to pick option A, B, or C and close the gate on 
the other options.''
  Mr. ROEMER. If the leader would answer some other questions, we have 
about 3 or 4 amendments left on this side, so you have 10 or 11 
amendments left on your side. Is that correct?
  You are working on your side now to try to get some unanimous-consent 
agreements to bracket the wetlands section or to limit time on this 
open rule?
  Mr. ARMEY. I think the gentleman is almost wholly correct. We are 
really working with our side rather than on our side. Given that little 
subtlety, we are working together, and I understand we all would like 
to get out early. If we are going to come back tomorrow, we would 
rather get out earlier than later.
  I think if we can get back to the bill and maybe again talk to some 
of these final Members, maybe we can get a final answer.
  Mr. ROEMER. Can the leader give us some time as to when he is going 
to make an announcement tonight to let us know if we will be in until 
midnight tonight and until 1 p.m. tomorrow? Can we begin to let our 
staffs know when we can make reservations to fly back home tomorrow?
  Can the leader be a little bit more specific, since the 11 or 12 
amendments are on his side?
  Mr. ARMEY. Again, if I may remind you, the schedule has been, as a 
matter of fact, the schedule you had before you left for your April 
recess that scheduled your departure time for tomorrow at 3 p.m. We are 
working for 1 p.m.
  In all due respect to all the other Members, I have more or less felt 
that anything between now and your printed schedule that you had prior 
to your April recess that says 3 p.m. is fair game. Again, I am trying 
to work with everybody.
  I would not hold anybody late tonight unless there was some chance we 
could compensate for that lateness by getting the bill done.
  Mr. ROEMER. That is my question to the leader, is if we go late 
tonight, we could be out earlier than 1 p.m. tomorrow and we could make 
reservations to fly back home at 10 or 11 a.m. tomorrow.
  When would we know that?
  Mr. ARMEY. That is a level of fine-tuning that goes even beyond the 
great expectations of Keynesian fiscal policy in the early 1960's. 
Certainly we should 
[[Page H4855]] be able to get a look at whether or not we can finish 
the bill tonight or must come back tomorrow. When we get to that 
definitive point, then we can see the option.
  I would not ask Members to stay until midnight tonight, stay late 
tomorrow, and then come back next week and work on this bill.
  Mr. ROEMER. Would the leader be willing to roll votes until tomorrow 
and have debate on these serious questions?
  I agree with the leader that many of these questions and many of 
these amendments are very serious. We offered a serious substitute 
yesterday. Many of these amendments need to be seriously debated, but 
to then limit this serious debate between now and 1 p.m. tomorrow does 
not do the service that the leader has talked about.
  What about on Tuesday, where you have scheduled the New London 
National Fish Hatchery Conveyance Act? I think that is the only order 
of business all day Tuesday.
  Mr. ARMEY. I thank the gentleman again for that recommendation.
  Mr. ROEMER. But he is not going to listen to my recommendation.
  Mr. ARMEY. The gentleman, I think, does me a bit of a disservice to 
presume that I have not taken that into consideration up to this point.
  Mr. ROEMER. You are the leader, and I am sure you are way ahead of 
this minority Member.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Perhaps if I could reclaim my time and bring this to a 
conclusion, because we are now wasting time.
  Mr. ARMEY. As Randy Quaid says, ``I'll get back to you later with the 
details as quickly as I can.''
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I know the gentleman is doing everything that he can to 
bring this to a successful and swift conclusion. Just please know that 
there is a lot of, unhappiness maybe is too strong of a word, but deep 
concern and unhappiness, I am sure, on both sides of the aisle about 
the failure to get out.
  The contract is over. It is time for family friendly.

                              {time}  1915

  Let us do everything we can to make that happen.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. THOMAS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would like to point 
out there have been nine recorded votes on your side today, none on 
ours.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I understand.
  Mr. ARMEY. If I may respond to the gentleman?
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. I do understand the concern the Members have. And let me 
just say to a large extent it is out of our concern for the full rights 
of each individual Member that we have come to this point, and we will 
get back to that business and try to resolve this as quickly as we can.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to title III.
  The Clerk will designate title IV.
  The text of title IV is as follows:
                     TITLE IV--PERMITS AND LICENSES

     SEC. 401. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL 
                   FEEDING OPERATIONS.

       Section 402(a) is amended by adding the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(6) Concentrated animal feeding operations.--For purposes 
     of this section, waste treatment systems, including retention 
     ponds or lagoons, used to meet the requirements of this Act 
     for concentrated animal feeding operations, are not waters of 
     the United States. An existing concentrated animal feeding 
     operation that uses a natural topographic impoundment or 
     structure on the effective date of this Act, which is not 
     hydrologically connected to any other waters of the United 
     States, as a waste treatment system or wastewater retention 
     facility may continue to use that natural topographic feature 
     for waste storage regardless of its size, capacity, or 
     previous use.''.
     SEC. 402. PERMIT REFORM.

       (a) Duration and Reopeners.--Section 402(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``five'' and inserting 
     ``10'' and by striking ``and'';
       (2) by inserting ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subparagraph (D); and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) can be modified as necessary to address a significant 
     threat to human health and the environment;''.
       (b) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Section 301(d) (33 
     U.S.C. 1311(d)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) Review of Effluent Limitations.--Any effluent 
     limitation required by subsection (b)(2) that is established 
     in a permit under section 402 shall be reviewed at least 
     every 10 years when the permit is reissued, and, if 
     appropriate, revised.''.
       (c) Discharge Limit.--Section 402(b)(1)(A) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(b)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting after the semicolon at 
     the end the following: ``except that in no event shall a 
     discharge limit in a permit under this section be set at a 
     level below the lowest level that the pollutant can be 
     reliably quantified on an interlaboratory basis for a 
     particular test method, as determined by the Administrator 
     using approved analytical methods under section 304(h);''.
     SEC. 403. REVIEW OF STATE PROGRAMS AND PERMITS.

       (a) Review of State Programs.--Section 402(c) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(c)) is amended by inserting before the first sentence 
     the following: ``Upon approval of a State program under this 
     section, the Administrator shall review administration of the 
     program by the State once every 3 years.''.
       (b) Review of State Permits.--Section 402(d)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(d)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``as being outside 
     the guidelines and requirements of this Act'' and inserting 
     ``as presenting a substantial risk to human health and the 
     environment''; and
       (2) in the second sentence by striking ``and the effluent 
     limitations'' and all that follows before the period.
       (c) Court Proceedings to Prohibit Introduction of 
     Pollutants into Treatment Works.--Section 402(h) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(h)) is amended by inserting after ``approved or where'' 
     the following: ``the discharge involves a significant source 
     of pollutants to the waters of the United States and''.

     SEC. 404. STATISTICAL NONCOMPLIANCE.

       (a) Number of Excursions.--Section 402(k) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(k)) is amended by inserting after the first sentence the 
     following: ``In any enforcement action or citizen suit under 
     section 309 or 505 of this Act or applicable State law 
     alleging noncompliance with a technology-based effluent 
     limitation established pursuant to section 301, a permittee 
     shall be deemed in compliance with the technology-based 
     effluent limitation if the permittee demonstrates through 
     reference to information contained in the applicable 
     rulemaking record that the number of excursions from the 
     technology-based effluent limitation are no greater, on an 
     annual basis, than the number of excursions expected from the 
     technology on which the limit is based and that the 
     discharges do not violate an applicable water-quality based 
     limitation or standard.''.
       (b) Pretreatment Standards.--Section 307(d) (33 U.S.C. 
     1317(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In 
     any enforcement action or citizen suit under section 309 or 
     505 of this Act or applicable State law alleging 
     noncompliance with a categorical pretreatment standard or 
     local pretreatment limit established pursuant to this 
     section, a person who demonstrates through reference to 
     information contained in the applicable rulemaking record--
       ``(1) that the number of excursions from the categorical 
     pretreatment standard or local pretreatment limit are no 
     greater, on an annual basis, than the number of excursions 
     expected from the technology on which the pretreatment 
     standard or local pretreatment limit is based, and
       ``(2) that the introduction of pollutants into a publicly 
     owned treatment works does not cause interference with such 
     works or cause a violation by such works of an applicable 
     water-quality based limitation or standard,

     shall be deemed in compliance with the standard under the 
     Act.''.
     SEC. 405. ANTI-BACKSLIDING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 402(o) (33 U.S.C. 1343(o)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(4) Nonapplicability to publicly owned treatment works.--
     The requirements of this subsection shall not apply to 
     permitted discharges from a publicly owned treatment works if 
     the treatment works demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
     Administrator that--
       ``(A) the increase in pollutants is a result of conditions 
     beyond the control of the treatment works (such as 
     fluctuations in normal source water availabilities due to 
     sustained drought conditions); and
       ``(B) effluent quality does not result in impairment of 
     water quality standards established for the receiving 
     waters.''.

     SEC. 406. INTAKE CREDITS.

       Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by 
     inserting after subsection (k) the following:
       ``(l) Intake Credits.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any provision of this 
     Act, in any effluent limitation or other limitation imposed 
     under the permit program established by the Administrator 
     under this section, any State permit program approved under 
     this section (including any program for implementation under 
     section 118(c)(2)), any standards established under section 
     307(a), or any program for industrial users established under 
     section 307(b), the Administrator, as applicable, shall or 
     the State, as applicable, may provide credits for pollutants 
     present in or caused by intake water such that an owner or 
     operator of a point source is not required to remove, reduce, 
     or treat the amount of any pollutant in an effluent below the 
     amount of such pollutant that is present in or caused by the 
     intake water for such facility--
       ``(A)(i) if the source of the intake water and the 
     receiving waters into which the effluent is ultimately 
     discharged are the same;
       ``(ii) if the source of the intake water meets the maximum 
     contaminant levels or treatment 
     [[Page H4856]] techniques for drinking water contaminants 
     established pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water Act for the 
     pollutant of concern; or
       ``(iii) if, at the time the limitation or standard is 
     established, the level of the pollutant in the intake water 
     is the same as or lower than the amount of the pollutant in 
     the receiving waters, taking into account analytical 
     variability; and
       ``(B) if, for conventional pollutants, the constituents of 
     the conventional pollutants in the intake water are the same 
     as the constituents of the conventional pollutants in the 
     effluent.
       ``(2) Allowance for incidental amounts.--In determining 
     whether the condition set forth in paragraph (1)(A)(i) is 
     being met, the Administrator shall or the State may, as 
     appropriate, make allowance for incidental amounts of intake 
     water from sources other than the receiving waters.
       ``(3) Credit for nonqualifying pollutants.--The 
     Administrator shall or a State may provide point sources an 
     appropriate credit for pollutants found in intake water that 
     does not meet the requirement of paragraph (1).
       ``(4) Monitoring.--Nothing in this section precludes the 
     Administrator or a State from requiring monitoring of intake 
     water, effluent, or receiving waters to assist in the 
     implementation of this section.''.
     SEC. 407. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.

       Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(s) Combined Sewer Overflows.--
       ``(1) Requirement for permits.--Each permit issued pursuant 
     to this section for a discharge from a combined storm and 
     sanitary sewer shall conform with the combined sewer overflow 
     control policy signed by the Administrator on April 11, 1994.
       ``(2) Term of permit.--
       ``(A) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any compliance 
     schedule under section 301(b), or any permit limitation under 
     section 402(b)(1)(B), the Administrator (or a State with a 
     program approved under subsection (b)) may issue a permit 
     pursuant to this section for a discharge from a combined 
     storm and sanitary sewer, that includes a schedule for 
     compliance with a long-term control plan under the control 
     policy referred to in paragraph (1), for a term not to exceed 
     15 years.
       ``(B) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance deadline 
     specified in subparagraph (A), the Administrator or a State 
     with a program approved under subsection (b) shall extend, on 
     request of an owner or operator of a combined storm and 
     sanitary sewer and subject to subparagraph (C), the period of 
     compliance beyond the last day of the 15-year period--
       ``(i) if the Administrator or the State determines that 
     compliance by such last day is not within the economic 
     capability of the owner or operator; and
       ``(ii) if the owner or operator demonstrates to the 
     satisfaction of the Administrator or the State reasonable 
     further progress towards compliance with a long-term control 
     plan under the control policy referred to in paragraph (1).
       ``(C) Limitations on extensions.--
       ``(i) Extension not appropriate.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (B), the Administrator or the State need not 
     grant an extension of the compliance deadline specified in 
     subparagraph (A) if the Administrator or the State determines 
     that such an extension is not appropriate.
       ``(ii) New York-New Jersey.--Prior to granting an extension 
     under subparagraph (B) with respect to a combined sewer 
     overflow discharge originating in the State of New York or 
     New Jersey and affecting the other of such States, the 
     Administrator or the State from which the discharge 
     originates, as the case may be, shall provide written notice 
     of the proposed extension to the other State and shall not 
     grant the extension unless the other State approves the 
     extension or does not disapprove the extension within 90 days 
     of receiving such written notice.
       ``(3) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court order 
     entered by a United States district court, or administrative 
     order issued by the Administrator, before the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection establishing any deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables, for the evaluation, design, or 
     construction of treatment works for control or elimination of 
     any discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary 
     sewer system shall be modified upon motion or request by any 
     party to such consent decree or court order, to extend to 
     December 31, 2009, at a minimum, any such deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables as is necessary to conform to the 
     policy referred to in paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the 
     objectives of this subsection. Notwithstanding the preceding 
     sentence, the period of compliance with respect to a 
     discharge referred to in paragraph (2)(C)(ii) may only be 
     extended in accordance with paragraph (2)(C)(ii).''.
     SEC. 408. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS.

       Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(t) Sanitary Sewer Overflows.--
       ``(1) Development of policy.--Not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
     Administrator, in consultation with State and local 
     governments and water authorities, shall develop and publish 
     a national control policy for municipal separate sanitary 
     sewer overflows. The national policy shall recognize and 
     address regional and economic factors.
       ``(2) Issuance of permits.--Each permit issued pursuant to 
     this section for a discharge from a municipal separate 
     sanitary sewer shall conform with the policy developed under 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Compliance deadline.--Notwithstanding any compliance 
     schedule under section 301(b), or any permit limitation under 
     subsection (b)(1)(B), the Administrator or a State with a 
     program approved under subsection (b) may issue a permit 
     pursuant to this section for a discharge from a municipal 
     separate sanitary sewer due to stormwater inflows or 
     infiltration. The permit shall include at a minimum a 
     schedule for compliance with a long-term control plan under 
     the policy developed under paragraph (1), for a term not to 
     exceed 15 years.
       ``(4) Extension.--Notwithstanding the compliance deadline 
     specified in paragraph (3), the Administrator or a State with 
     a program approved under subsection (b) shall extend, on 
     request of an owner or operator of a municipal separate 
     sanitary sewer, the period of compliance beyond the last day 
     of such 15-year period if the Administrator or the State 
     determines that compliance by such last day is not within the 
     economic capability of the owner or operator, unless the 
     Administrator or the State determines that the extension is 
     not appropriate.
       ``(5) Effect on other actions.--Before the date of 
     publication of the policy under paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator or Attorney General shall not initiate any 
     administrative or judicial civil penalty action in response 
     to a municipal separate sanitary sewer overflow due to 
     stormwater inflows or infiltration.
       ``(6) Savings clause.--Any consent decree or court order 
     entered by a United States district court, or administrative 
     order issued by the Administrator, before the date of the 
     enactment of this subsection establishing any deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables, including any interim deadlines, 
     schedules, or timetables, for the evaluation, design, or 
     construction of treatment works for control or elimination of 
     any discharge from a municipal separate sanitary sewer shall 
     be modified upon motion or request by any party to such 
     consent decree or court order, to extend to December 31, 
     2009, at a minimum, any such deadlines, schedules, or 
     timetables, including any interim deadlines, schedules, or 
     timetables as is necessary to conform to the policy developed 
     under paragraph (1) or otherwise achieve the objectives of 
     this subsection.''.
     SEC. 409. ABANDONED MINES.

       Section 402 (33 U.S.C. 1342) is further amended by 
     inserting after subsection (o) the following:
       ``(p) Permits for Remediating Party on Abandoned or 
     Inactive Mined Lands.--
       ``(1) Applicability.--Subject to this subsection, including 
     the requirements of paragraph (3), the Administrator, with 
     the concurrence of the concerned State or Indian tribe, may 
     issue a permit to a remediating party under this section for 
     discharges associated with remediation activity at abandoned 
     or inactive mined lands which modifies any otherwise 
     applicable requirement of sections 301(b), 302, and 403, or 
     any subsection of this section (other than this subsection).
       ``(2) Application for a permit.--A remediating party who 
     desires to conduct remediation activities on abandoned or 
     inactive mined lands from which there is or may be a 
     discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States or 
     from which there could be a significant addition of 
     pollutants from nonpoint sources may submit an application to 
     the Administrator. The application shall consist of a 
     remediation plan and any other information requested by the 
     Administrator to clarify the plan and activities.
       ``(3) Remediation Plan.--The remediation plan shall include 
     (as appropriate and applicable) the following:
       ``(A) Identification of the remediating party, including 
     any persons cooperating with the concerned State or Indian 
     tribe with respect to the plan, and a certification that the 
     applicant is a remediating party under this section.
       ``(B) Identification of the abandoned or inactive mined 
     lands addressed by the plan.
       ``(C) Identification of the waters of the United States 
     impacted by the abandoned or inactive mined lands.
       ``(D) A description of the physical conditions at the 
     abandoned or inactive mined lands that are causing adverse 
     water quality impacts.
       ``(E) A description of practices, including system design 
     and construction plans and operation and maintenance plans, 
     proposed to reduce, control, mitigate, or eliminate the 
     adverse water quality impacts and a schedule for implementing 
     such practices and, if it is an existing remediation project, 
     a description of practices proposed to improve the project, 
     if any.
       ``(F) An analysis demonstrating that the identified 
     practices are expected to result in a water quality 
     improvement for the identified waters.
       ``(G) A description of monitoring or other assessment to be 
     undertaken to evaluate the success of the practices during 
     and after implementation, including an assessment of baseline 
     conditions.
       ``(H) A schedule for periodic reporting on progress in 
     implementation of major elements of the plan.
       ``(I) A budget and identified funding to support the 
     activities described in the plan.
       ``(J) Remediation goals and objectives.
       ``(K) Contingency plans.
       ``(L) A description of the applicant's legal right to enter 
     and conduct activities.
       ``(M) The signature of the applicant.
       ``(N) Identification of the pollutant or pollutants to be 
     addressed by the plan.
       ``(4) Permits.--
       ``(A) Contents.--Permits issued by the Administrator 
     pursuant to this subsection shall--
       ``(i) provide for compliance with and implementation of a 
     remediation plan which, following issuance of the permit, may 
     be modified by the applicant after providing notification to 
     and opportunity for review by the Administrator;
       ``(ii) require that any modification of the plan be 
     reflected in a modified permit;
       ``(iii) require that if, at any time after notice to the 
     remediating party and opportunity for 
     [[Page H4857]] comment by the remediating party, the 
     Administrator determines that the remediating party is not 
     implementing the approved remediation plan in substantial 
     compliance with its terms, the Administrator shall notify the 
     remediating party of the determination together with a list 
     specifying the concerns of the Administrator;
       ``(iv) provide that, if the identified concerns are not 
     resolved or a compliance plan approved within 180 days of the 
     date of the notification, the Administrator may take action 
     under section 309 of this Act;
       ``(v) provide that clauses (iii) and (iv) not apply in the 
     case of any action under section 309 to address violations 
     involving gross negligence (including reckless, willful, or 
     wanton misconduct) or intentional misconduct by the 
     remediating party or any other person;
       ``(vi) not require compliance with any limitation issued 
     under sections 301(b), 302, and 403 or any requirement 
     established by the Administrator under any subsection of this 
     section (other than this subsection); and
       ``(vii) provide for termination of coverage under the 
     permit without the remediating party being subject to 
     enforcement under sections 309 and 505 of this Act for any 
     remaining discharges--

       ``(I) after implementation of the remediation plan;
       ``(II) if a party obtains a permit to mine the site; or
       ``(III) upon a demonstration by the remediating party that 
     the surface water quality conditions due to remediation 
     activities at the site, taken as a whole, are equal to or 
     superior to the surface water qualities that existed prior to 
     initiation of remediation.

       ``(B) Limitations.--The Administrator shall only issue a 
     permit under this section, consistent with the provisions of 
     this subsection, to a remediating party for discharges 
     associated with remediation action at abandoned or inactive 
     mined lands if the remediation plan demonstrates with 
     reasonable certainty that the actions will result in an 
     improvement in water quality.
       ``(C) Public participation.--The Administrator may only 
     issue a permit or modify a permit under this section after 
     complying with subsection (b)(3).
       ``(D) Effect of failure to comply with permit.--Failure to 
     comply with terms of a permit issued pursuant to this 
     subsection shall not be deemed to be a violation of an 
     effluent standard or limitation issued under this Act.
       ``(E) Limitations on statutory construction.--This 
     subsection shall not be construed--
       ``(i) to limit or otherwise affect the Administrator's 
     powers under section 504; or
       ``(ii) to preclude actions pursuant to section 309 or 505 
     for any violations of sections 301(a), 302, 402, and 403 that 
     may have existed for the abandoned or inactive mined land 
     prior to initiation of remediation covered by a permit issued 
     under this subsection, unless such permit covers remediation 
     activities implemented by the permit holder prior to issuance 
     of the permit.
       ``(5) Definitions.--In this subsection the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Remediating party.--The term `remediating party' 
     means--
       ``(i) the United States (on non-Federal lands), a State or 
     its political subdivisions, or an Indian tribe or officers, 
     employees, or contractors thereof; and
       ``(ii) any person acting in cooperation with a person 
     described in clause (i), including a government agency that 
     owns abandoned or inactive mined lands for the purpose of 
     conducting remediation of the mined lands or that is engaging 
     in remediation activities incidental to the ownership of the 
     lands.

     Such term does not include any person who, before or 
     following issuance of a permit under this section, directly 
     benefited from or participated in any mining operation 
     (including exploration) associated with the abandoned or 
     inactive mined lands.
       ``(B) Abandoned or inactive mined lands.--The term 
     `abandoned or inactive mined lands' means lands that were 
     formerly mined and are not actively mined or in temporary 
     shutdown at the time of submission of the remediation plan 
     and issuance of a permit under this section.
       ``(C) Mined lands.--The term `mined lands' means the 
     surface or subsurface of an area where mining operations, 
     including exploration, extraction, processing, and 
     beneficiation, have been conducted. Such term includes 
     private ways and roads appurtenant to such area, land 
     excavations, underground mine portals, adits, and surface 
     expressions associated with underground workings, such as 
     glory holes and subsidence features, mining waste, smelting 
     sites associated with other mined lands, and areas where 
     structures, facilities, equipment, machines, tools, or other 
     material or property which result from or have been used in 
     the mining operation are located.
       ``(6) Regulations.--The Administrator may issue regulations 
     establishing more specific requirements that the 
     Administrator determines would facilitate implementation of 
     this subsection. Before issuance of such regulations, the 
     Administrator may establish, on a case-by-case basis after 
     notice and opportunity for public comment as provided by 
     subsection (b)(3), more specific requirements that the 
     Administrator determines would facilitate implementation of 
     this subsection in an individual permit issued to the 
     remediating party.''.
     SEC. 410. BENEFICIAL USE OF BIOSOLIDS.

       (a) References.--Section 405(a) (33 U.S.C. 1345(a)) is 
     amended by inserting ``(also referred to as `biosolids')'' 
     after ``sewage sludge'' the first place it appears.
       (b) Approval of State Programs.--Section 405(f) (33 U.S.C. 
     1345(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Approval of state programs.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Administrator shall approve for 
     purposes of this subsection State programs that meet the 
     standards for final use or disposal of sewage sludge 
     established by the Administrator pursuant to subsection 
     (d).''.
       (c) Studies and Projects.--Section 405(g) (33 U.S.C. 
     1345(g)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1) by inserting 
     ``building materials,'' after ``agricultural and 
     horticultural uses,'';
       (2) in paragraph (1) by adding at the end the following: 
     ``Not later than January 1, 1997, and after providing notice 
     and opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall 
     issue guidance on the beneficial use of sewage sludge.''; and
       (3) in paragraph (2) by striking ``September 30, 1986,'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 1995,''.

     SEC. 411. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.

       Title IV (33 U.S.C. 1341-1345) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 406. WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEMS DEFINED.

       ``(a) Issuance of Regulations.--Not later than 1 year of 
     the date of the enactment of this section, the Administrator, 
     after consultation with State officials, shall issue a 
     regulation defining `waste treatment systems'.
       ``(b) Inclusion of Areas.--
       ``(1) Areas which may be included.--In defining the term 
     `waste treatment systems' under subsection (a), the 
     Administrator may include areas used for the treatment of 
     wastes if the Administrator determines that such inclusion 
     will not interfere with the goals of this Act.
       ``(2) Areas which shall be included.--In defining the term 
     `waste treatment systems' under subsection (a), the 
     Administrator shall include, at a minimum, areas used for 
     detention, retention, treatment, settling, conveyance, or 
     evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or cooling water 
     unless--
       ``(A) the area was created in or resulted from the 
     impoundment or other modification of navigable waters and 
     construction of the area commenced after the date of the 
     enactment of this section;
       ``(B) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or operator 
     allows the area to be used by interstate or foreign travelers 
     for recreational purposes; or
       ``(C) on or after February 15, 1995, the owner or operator 
     allows the taking of fish or shellfish from the area for sale 
     in interstate or foreign commerce.
       ``(c) Interim Period.--Before the date of issuance of 
     regulations under subsection (a), the Administrator or the 
     State (in the case of a State with an approved permit program 
     under section 402) shall not require a new permit under 
     section 402 or section 404 for any discharge into any area 
     used for detention, retention, treatment, settling, 
     conveyance, or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or 
     cooling water unless the area is an area described in 
     subsection (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), or (b)(2)(C).
       ``(d) Savings Clause.--Any area which the Administrator or 
     the State (in the case of a State with an approved permit 
     program under section 402) determined, before February 15, 
     1995, is a water of the United States and for which, pursuant 
     to such determination, the Administrator or State issued, 
     before February 15, 1995, a permit under section 402 for 
     discharges into such area shall remain a water of the United 
     States.
       ``(e) Regulation of Other Areas.--With respect to areas 
     constructed for detention, retention, treatment, settling, 
     conveyance, or evaporation of wastewater, stormwater, or 
     cooling water that are not waste treatment systems as defined 
     by the Administrator pursuant to this section and that the 
     Administrator determines are navigable waters under this Act, 
     the Administrator or the States, in establishing standards 
     pursuant to section 303(c) of this Act or implementing other 
     requirements of this Act, shall give due consideration to the 
     uses for which such areas were designed and constructed, and 
     need not establish standards or other requirements that will 
     impede such uses.''.
     SEC. 412. THERMAL DISCHARGES.

       A municipal utility that before the date of the enactment 
     of this section has been issued a permit under section 402 of 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for discharges into 
     the Upper Greater Miami River, Ohio, shall not be required 
     under such Act to construct a cooling tower or operate under 
     a thermal management plan unless--
       (1) the Administrator or the State of Ohio determines based 
     on scientific evidence that such discharges result in harm to 
     aquatic life; or
       (2) the municipal utility has applied for and been denied a 
     thermal discharge variance under section 316(a) of such Act.
                     amendment offered by mr. riggs

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment numbered 47 offered by Mr. Riggs: Insert at the 
     appropriate place in title IV the following new section:
       ``Discharge Volume.--Section 402(o)(2) (33 U.S.C. 
     1342(o)(2)) is amended in the first sentence by inserting 
     ``the concentration or loading of'' after the words 
     ``applicable to''.

  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], for his 
excellent work on the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope and believe that my amendment should not be 
controversial. It reaffirms what the EPA 
[[Page H4858]] should already know. Clean water is not itself a 
pollutant, and should not be regulated as such.
  Specifically, Mr. Chairman, my amendment clarifies the anti-
backsliding exception in the Clean Water Act under section 402(o). The 
act now allows a discharge permit to be ``renewed, reissued or modified 
to contain a less stringent effluent limitation applicable to a 
pollutant'' in certain circumstances.
  The amendment would make clear that as long as other clean water 
precautions are followed, a discharge permit could be renewed, reissued 
or modified to contain a less stringent effluent limitation applicable 
to the concentration or loading of a pollutant.
  The effect of the language is that increased volumes of treated 
wastewater could be discharged into a river or other body of water as 
long as water quality is not degraded.
  The amendment is consistent with the spirit of H.R. 961 in that it 
gives flexibility while preserving requirements that water quality 
standards be met.
  This amendment is particularly important to a jurisdiction, a portion 
of which I represent, the city of Santa Rosa in Sonoma County, CA.
  Mr. Chairman, the anti-backsliding exception criteria explicitly 
addresses only the concentration of effluent quality constituents, not 
the pollutant quantity or wastewater flow. It appears that my amendment 
would enable the city of Santa Rosa to discharge into a nearby river at 
a greater than 1 percent rate only with modification of the anti-
backsliding provision.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will allow funds to be spent where the 
environment will benefit the most. Without this proposed language 
publicly owned wastewater treatment works across the country could be 
forced by existing regulations to forgo implementation of wastewater 
reuse projects that would restore wetlands and supply reclaimed water 
to support local agriculture, the wastewater that would be made 
available by this amendment and in the case of the city of Santa Rosa, 
avoid agricultural pumping of water from streams used by salmon and 
flathead.
  For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' 
approval of this amendment, and again I would hope that my amendment 
would be accepted by the minority and I believe that my amendment is 
noncontroversial in nature.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise 
in support to the Riggs amendment. It provides a needed clarification 
of the 402(o) exemptions, and I would urge a yes vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to title IV?
  The Clerk will designate title V.
  The text of title V is as follows:
                      TITLE V--GENERAL PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. CONSULTATION WITH STATES.

       Section 501 (33 U.S.C. 1361) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Consultation With States.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall consult with and 
     substantially involve State governments and their 
     representative organizations and, to the extent that they 
     participate in the administration of this Act, tribal and 
     local governments, in the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     decisionmaking, priority setting, policy and guidance 
     development, and implementation under this Act.
       ``(2) Inapplicability of federal advisory committee act.--
     The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to meetings held to carry out paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) if such meetings are held exclusively between Federal 
     officials and elected officers of State, local, and tribal 
     governments (or their designated employees with authority to 
     act on their behalf) acting in their official capacities; and
       ``(B) if such meetings are solely for the purposes of 
     exchanging views, information, or advice relating to the 
     management or implementation of this Act.
       ``(3) Implementing guidelines.--No later than 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the 
     Administrator shall issue guidelines for appropriate 
     implementation of this subsection consistent with applicable 
     laws and regulations.''.

     SEC. 502. NAVIGABLE WATERS DEFINED.

       Section 502(7) (33 U.S.C. 1362(7)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following: ``Such term does not include `waste 
     treatment systems', as defined under section 406.''.
     SEC. 503. CAFO DEFINITION CLARIFICATION.

       Section 502(14) (33 U.S.C. 1362(14)) is further amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(other than an intermittent nonproducing 
     livestock operation such as a stockyard or a holding and 
     sorting facility)'' after ``feeding operation''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The term does 
     include an intermittent nonproducing livestock operation if 
     the average number of animal units that are fed or maintained 
     in any 90-day period exceeds the number of animal units 
     determined by the Administrator or the State (in the case of 
     a State with an approved permit program under section 402) to 
     constitute a concentrated animal feeding operation or if the 
     operation is designated by the Administrator or State as a 
     significant contributor of pollution.''.
     SEC. 504. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS DEFINED.

       Section 502 (33 U.S.C. 1362) is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(27) The term `publicly owned treatment works' means a 
     treatment works, as defined in section 212, located at other 
     than an industrial facility, which is designed and 
     constructed principally, as determined by the Administrator, 
     to treat domestic sewage or a mixture of domestic sewage and 
     industrial wastes of a liquid nature. In the case of such a 
     facility that is privately owned, such term includes only 
     those facilities that, with respect to such industrial 
     wastes, are carrying out a pretreatment program meeting all 
     the requirements established under section 307 and paragraphs 
     (8) and (9) of section 402(b) for pretreatment programs 
     (whether or not the treatment works would be required to 
     implement a pretreatment program pursuant to such 
     sections).''.

     SEC. 505. STATE WATER QUANTITY RIGHTS.

       (a) Policy.--Section 101(g) (33 U.S.C. 1251(g)) is amended 
     by inserting before the period at the end of the last 
     sentence ``and in accordance with section 510(b) of this 
     Act''.
       (b) State Authority.--Section 510 (33 U.S.C. 1370) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the section heading and ``Sec. 510. 
     Except'' and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 510. STATE AUTHORITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Except''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(b) Water Rights.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed 
     to supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair any right or 
     authority of a State to allocate quantities of water 
     (including boundary waters). Nothing in this Act shall be 
     implemented, enforced, or construed to allow any officer or 
     agency of the United States to utilize directly or indirectly 
     the authorities established under this Act to impose any 
     requirement not imposed by the State which would supersede, 
     abrogate, or otherwise impair rights to the use of water 
     resources allocated under State law, interstate water 
     compact, or Supreme Court decree, or held by the United 
     States for use by a State, its political subdivisions, or its 
     citizens. No water rights arise in the United States or any 
     other person under the provisions of this Act. This 
     subsection shall not be construed as limiting any State's 
     authority under section 401 of this Act, as excusing any 
     person from obtaining a permit under section 402 or 404 of 
     this Act, or as excusing any obligation to comply with 
     requirements established by a State to implement section 
     319.''.

     SEC. 506. IMPLEMENTATION OF WATER POLLUTION LAWS WITH RESPECT 
                   TO VEGETABLE OIL.

       (a) Differentiation Among Fats, Oils, and Greases.--
       (1) In general.--In issuing or enforcing a regulation, an 
     interpretation, or a guideline relating to a fat, oil, or 
     grease under a Federal law related to water pollution 
     control, the head of a Federal agency shall--
       (A) differentiate between and establish separate classes 
     for--
       (i)(I) animal fats; and
       (II) vegetable oils; and
       (ii) other oils, including petroleum oil; and
       (B) apply different standards and reporting requirements 
     (including reporting requirements based on quantitative 
     amounts) to different classes of fat and oil as provided in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) Considerations.--In differentiating between the classes 
     of animal fats and vegetable oils referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i) and the classes of oils described in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii), the head of the Federal agency shall consider 
     differences in physical, chemical, biological, and other 
     properties, and in the environmental effects, of the classes.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section, the following 
     definitions apply:
       (1) Animal fat.--The term ``animal fat'' means each type of 
     animal fat, oil, or grease, including fat, oil, or grease 
     from fish or a marine mammal and any fat, oil, or grease 
     referred to in section 61(a)(2) of title 13, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Vegetable oil.--The term ``vegetable oil'' means each 
     type of vegetable oil, including vegetable oil from a seed, 
     nut, or kernel and any vegetable oil referred to in section 
     61(a)(1) of title 13, United States Code.

     SEC. 507. NEEDS ESTIMATE.

       Section 516(b)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1375(b)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence by striking ``biennially 
     revised'' and inserting ``quadrennially revised''; and
       (2) in the second sentence by striking ``February 10 of 
     each odd-numbered year'' and inserting ``December 31, 1997, 
     and December 31 of every 4th calendar year thereafter''.

     SEC. 508. GENERAL PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS.

       Section 517 (33 U.S.C. 1376) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``$135,000,000''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 
     following: ``, and such sums as may be necessary for each of 
     fiscal years 1991 through 2000''.
     [[Page H4859]] SEC. 509. INDIAN TRIBES.

       (a) Cooperative Agreements.--Section 518(d) (33 U.S.C. 
     1377(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``In 
     exercising the review and approval provided in this 
     paragraph, the Administrator shall respect the terms of any 
     cooperative agreement that addresses the authority or 
     responsibility of a State or Indian tribe to administer the 
     requirements of this Act within the exterior boundaries of a 
     Federal Indian reservation, so long as that agreement 
     otherwise provides for the adequate administration of this 
     Act.''.
       (b) Dispute Resolution.--Section 518 is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (j); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(h) Dispute Resolution.--The Administrator shall 
     promulgate, in consultation with States and Indian tribes, 
     regulations which provide for the resolution of any 
     unreasonable consequences that may arise as a result of 
     differing water quality standards that may be set by States 
     and Indian tribes located on common bodies of water. Such 
     mechanism shall provide, in a manner consistent with the 
     objectives of this Act, that persons who are affected by 
     differing tribal or State water quality permit requirements 
     have standing to utilize the dispute resolution process, and 
     for the explicit consideration of relevant factors, including 
     the effects of differing water quality permit requirements on 
     upstream and downstream dischargers, economic impacts, and 
     present and historical uses and quality of the waters subject 
     to such standards.''.
       (c) Petitions for Review.--Section 518 (33 U.S.C. 1377) is 
     amended by inserting after subsection (h) (as added by 
     subsection (b) of this section) the following:
       ``(i) District Courts; Petition for Review; Standard of 
     Review.--Notwithstanding the provisions of section 509, the 
     United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over 
     actions brought to review any determination of the 
     Administrator under section 518. Such an action may be 
     brought by a State or an Indian tribe and shall be filed with 
     the court within the 90-day period beginning on the date of 
     the determination of the Administrator is made. In any such 
     action, the district court shall review the Administrator's 
     determination de novo.''.
       (d) Definitions.--Section 518(j)(1), as redesignated by 
     subsection (b) of this section, is amended by inserting 
     before the semicolon at the end the following: ``, and, in 
     the State of Oklahoma, such term includes lands held in trust 
     by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe or an 
     individual member of an Indian tribe, lands which are subject 
     to Federal restrictions against alienation, and lands which 
     are located within a dependent Indian community, as defined 
     in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code''.
       (e) Reservation of Funds.--Section 518(c) (33 U.S.C. 
     1377(c)) is amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by striking ``beginning after September 30, 1986,'';
       (2) by striking ``section 205(e)'' and inserting ``section 
     604(a)'';
       (3) by striking ``one-half of''; and
       (4) by striking ``section 207'' and inserting ``sections 
     607 and 608''.
     SEC. 510. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

       Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is amended by redesignating 
     section 519 as section 521 and by inserting after section 518 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 519. FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY.

       ``In developing any effluent guideline under section 
     304(b), pretreatment standard under section 307(b), or new 
     source performance standard under section 306 that is 
     applicable to the food processing industry, the Administrator 
     shall consult with and consider the recommendations of the 
     Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human 
     Services, Department of Agriculture, and Department of 
     Commerce. The recommendations of such departments and 
     agencies and a description of the Administrator's response to 
     those recommendations shall be made part of the rulemaking 
     record for the development of such guidelines and standards. 
     The Administrator's response shall include an explanation 
     with respect to food safety, including a discussion of 
     relative risks, of any departure from a recommendation by any 
     such department or agency.''.

     SEC. 511. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

       Title V (33 U.S.C. 1361-1377) is further amended by 
     inserting before section 521, as redesignated by section 510 
     of this Act, the following:

     ``SEC. 520. AUDIT DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

       ``(a) Establishment of Board.--The Administrator shall 
     establish an independent Board of Audit Appeals (hereinafter 
     in this section referred to as the `Board') in accordance 
     with the requirements of this section.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Board shall have the authority to review 
     and decide contested audit determinations related to grant 
     and contract awards under this Act. In carrying out such 
     duties, the Board shall consider only those regulations, 
     guidance, policies, facts, and circumstances in effect at the 
     time of the grant or contract award.
       ``(c) Prior Eligibility Decisions.--The Board shall not 
     reverse project cost eligibility determinations that are 
     supported by an decision document of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, including grant or contract approvals, 
     plans and specifications approval forms, grant or contract 
     payments, change order approval forms, or similar documents 
     approving project cost eligibility, except upon a showing 
     that such decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of 
     law in effect at the time of such decision.
       ``(d) Membership.--
       ``(1) Appointment.--The Board shall be composed of 7 
     members to be appointed by the Administrator not later than 
     90 days after the date of the enactment of this section.
       ``(2) Terms.--Each member shall be appointed for a term of 
     3 years.
       ``(3) Qualifications.--The Administrator shall appoint as 
     members of the Board individuals who are specially qualified 
     to serve on the Board by virtue of their expertise in grant 
     and contracting procedures. The Administrator shall make 
     every effort to ensure that individuals appointed as members 
     of the Board are free from conflicts of interest in carrying 
     out the duties of the Board.
       ``(e) Basic Pay and Travel Expenses.--
       ``(1) Rates of pay.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     members shall each be paid at a rate of basic pay, to be 
     determined by the Administrator, for each day (including 
     travel time) during which they are engaged in the actual 
     performance of duties vested in the Board.
       ``(2) Prohibition of compensation of federal employees.--
     Members of the Board who are full-time officers or employees 
     of the United States may not receive additional pay, 
     allowances, or benefits by reason of their service on the 
     Board.
       ``(3) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United 
     States Code.
       ``(f) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Board, the Administrator shall provide to the Board the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Board to 
     carry out its responsibilities under this section.
       ``(g) Disputes Eligible for Review.--The authority of the 
     Board under this section shall extend to any contested audit 
     determination that on the date of the enactment of this 
     section has yet to be formally concluded and accepted by 
     either the grantee or the Administrator.''.
                    amendment offered by mr. Emerson

  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Emerson: Insert the following new 
     section into H.R. 961:

     SEC.   . FEDERAL POWER ACT PART I PROJECTS.

       Section 511(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1371) is amended by adding after ``subject to 
     section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899,'' the following, and 
     by renumbering the remaining paragraph accordingly:
       ``(3) applying to hydropower projects within the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or 
     its successors under the authority of Part I of the Federal 
     Power Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 791 et seq.);''.

  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to 
resolve the friction and conflict that the Clean Water Act, as 
interpreted by the Supreme Court in its 1994 Tacoma decision, is 
creating with the Federal Power Act. The Supreme Court has interpreted 
the Clean Water Act, in particular section 401 of the Act, so broadly 
as to effectively supersede the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's 
licensing authority over hydropower projects under the Federal Power 
Act. This amendment would rectify that situation by exempting 
hydropower projects from regulation under the Clean Water Act.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission already conducts a 
comprehensive review of proposed new hydropower projects when first 
deciding whether to issue a license and again upon relicensing. That 
review takes into account the inputs of State and Federal agencies, 
Indian tribes, and the public. The review also carefully evaluates and 
addresses the potential environmental impacts of each proposed and 
existing project. Therefore, in the context of hydropower projects 
under the Commission's jurisdiction, there is no need for the 
additional, duplicative layer of regulation that the Clean Water Act 
now creates. This amendment eliminates the duplicative layer of Federal 
regulation.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. EMERSON. I am happy to yield to the chairman of the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
understand what he is attempting to accomplish here. My judgment is 
that it does go a little too far, and I am hopeful that we might be 
able to work out a compromise. I believe either Congressman Tate or 
myself or Congressman Laughlin will have a compromise, and I would be 
constrained to vigorously support the compromise and hope the gentleman 
might be able to see his way clear to do that.
  Mr. EMERSON. I am glad to be amended, if that is the intent of the 
chairman.
  [[Page H4860]] Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for his 
cooperation.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of talk this 
year about unfunded mandates, about the rights of the States, about 
regulatory burdens on local units of government. Well, I would say to 
my colleagues, this amendment represents the granddaddy of all burdens 
on the States, of all unfunded mandates on the States and of all 
violations of the rights of the States.
  What this amendment says is that we will let the Federal Government, 
in the form of FERC, run roughshod over State water quality 
determinations during the licensing of hydroelectric power projects.
  It is an amendment of convenience. At times, it is convenient to 
support State primacy. This time, to some, apparently it is not 
convenient.
  And so, what this amendment basically says is that we will allow FERC 
to shove hydro projects down the throats of the States, and while we're 
at it, overturn a Supreme Court decision and disregard the views of 40 
State attorneys general.
  The simple fact of the matter is that water quality, where the States 
have primacy under section 401 of the act, and water quantity 
considerations cannot be separated.
  For this reason, the States currently have the right to condition 
hydroelectric power licenses issued by FERC to protect their bona fide 
interest in maintaining the water quality of their rivers and streams.
  This amendment would do away with that fundamental right of the 
States.
  As 40 State attorneys general wrote to the committee leadership 
recently: ``This Congress is actively pursuing a new federalism, 
seeking to delegate to states authority previously held by the federal 
government.''
  They concluded: ``How ironic it would be for this Congress to reverse 
this policy and strip away longstanding state authority over water 
quality.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
  amendment offered by mr. laughlin as a substitute for the amendment 
                         offered by mr. emerson

  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Laughlin as a substitute for the 
     amendment offered by Mr. Emerson: Page 213, after line 5, 
     insert the following:

     SEC. 507. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

       (a) In General.--Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act does not apply with respect to the licensing of a 
     hydroelectric project under Part I of the Federal Power Act 
     if the relevant federal agency makes the determination 
     referred to in subsection (b) in accordance with the 
     mechanism described in subsection (c).
       (b) Determination.--The determination referred to in 
     subsection (a) is a specific determination that a denial, 
     condition, or requirement of a certification under section 
     401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for such a 
     project is inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of 
     Part I of the Federal Power Act.
       (c) Mechanism.--The dispute resolution mechanism for 
     purposes of subsection (a) shall be a mechanism established 
     by the relevant federal agency in consultation with the 
     Administrator and the States, for resolving any conflicts or 
     unreasonable consequences resulting from actions taken under 
     section 401 by a State, an interstate water pollution control 
     agency or the Administrator relating to the issuance of a 
     license (or to activities under such license) for a 
     hydroelectric project under Part I of the Federal Power Act. 
     Such mechanism shall include, at a minimum, a process 
     whereby: (1) the relevant federal agency, in coordination 
     with the State, the interstate agency or the Administrator 
     (as the case may be) may determine whether any denial, 
     condition or requirement under section 401 of the Federal 
     Water Pollution Control Act relating to the issuance of such 
     license or to activities under such license is inconsistent 
     with the purposes and requirements of Part I of the Federal 
     Power Act; (2) such denial, condition, or requirement shall 
     be presumed to be consistent with the purposes and 
     requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act if based on 
     temperature, turbidity or other objective water quality 
     criteria regulating discharges of pollutants; and (3) any 
     denial, condition, or requirement not based on such criteria 
     shall be presumed to be consistent with the purposes and 
     requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act unless the 
     relevant federal agency, after attempting to resolve any 
     inconsistency, makes a specific determination under 
     subsection (b) and publishes such determination together with 
     the basis for such determination in the license or other 
     appropriate order.

  Mr. LAUGHLIN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman, the Laughlin-Tate-Brewster-Bachus-
Parker amendment to the Emerson amendment is a balanced, 
reasonable amendment to address the ongoing problem involving section 
401 of the Clean Water Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission.
  This sets up a balanced, fair dispute resolution process. It responds 
to the conflicts--or at least potential conflicts--between Clean Water 
Act water quality certifications and FERC hydropower licensing 
decisions.
  A recent Supreme Court case has expanded the interpretation and use 
of section 401.
  This amendment does not overturn that case. It does not weaken States 
rights to protect water quality.
  Instead, it sets up a fair mechanism to resolve potential conflicts 
or unreasonable consequences. It also retains States rights to protect 
water quality--the original intent of the Clean Water Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the substitute 
amendment.
  (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with hydroelectric 
power. Hydroelectric power is our largest renewable energy source. 
Ninety-five percent of our renewable energy in the United States is 
hydroelectric power. That source of renewable energy is threatened by 
the 1994 Supreme Court ruling which the gentleman from Texas mentioned, 
and it has placed this energy resource in jeopardy. The Supreme Court 
ruling known as the Tacoma decision expands the role of the State water 
quality agency beyond traditional water quality issues by permitting 
these agencies to regulate operations of a hydro project, a power 
previously under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission and Federal natural resource agencies.

                              {time}  1930

  Hydropower today provides 12 percent of our Nation's electricity, and 
I call your attention to the fact that hydropower emits no greenhouse 
gases or pollutants. It does not produce any toxic waste. It is 
completely renewable through annual rainfall and snow melt, and it is 
domestically produced, which is critical to national security. In the 
next decade a large portion of the Nation's hydroelectric projects will 
come up for relicensing before FERC.
  In my home State of Alabama, 70 percent of the hydroelectric projects 
must be relicensed in the next 10 years. Unfortunately, as these vital 
projects come up for relicensing, they are threatened by the Tacoma 
decision.
  If left unaddressed in this present legislation, the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of section 401 of the existing Clean Water Act threatens 
the continuing operation of hydroelectric projects throughout this 
country, and in doing so, it threatens the viability of our most 
significant renewable resource and millions of business and customers 
who depend on hydroelectric power. To allow this situation to threaten 
the hundreds of existing projects that will undergo relicensing in the 
coming year is simply not good environmental or public policy.
  As the largest provider of renewable energy, hydropower must not be 
strangled by the dual regulatory process that has been inadvertently 
created by the Tacoma decision.
  The substitute being offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Laughlin], the gentlemen from Washington, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and 
myself, gives this Congress the chance to pull hydroelectric projects 
out of the regulatory quicksand that has been created and get our 
energy and environmental policies working together for a secure, clean 
energy future.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  If I could enter into a discussion with my friend from Missouri, we 
just received a copy of this, and what I am trying to understand in 
reading through it is: Are we preempting the States? I know that that 
was the objective of the original amendment, to preempt the State's 
authority to control its own water. In this case, we seem to 
[[Page H4861]] have some kind of a dispute mechanism being set up, but 
it seems to me ultimately the decisions will all be made within the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. EMERSON. The object here is to establish a dispute resolution 
process. That is the intent of the amendment, to avoid duplicative 
efforts.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, who would have the final say in a 
dispute where a State has determined that a hydro project is 
inconsistent with that State's regulation of its own waters; that is, 
of whether they have a concern regarding drinking water quality, 
turbidity, fisheries, whatever?
  Mr. EMERSON. In an issue involving the jurisdiction of FERC, it would 
be FERC.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time then, so the gentleman is preempting 
States' rights, and in the western States a number of States have opted 
to oppose projects by FERC, and now in this case, should a State oppose 
a project approved by FERC, FERC could overrule the State? Is that 
correct? I guess it is.
  Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, no, the States still have 
their right to protect their water quality. It is when we get into the 
issues of water quantity that you need an arbiter above an individual 
State
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I do not know how in the West, where 
it does not rain in the summertime and some years we do not have a lot 
of runoff, we can separate the issues of water quantity and quality. 
They kind of go together. If we do not have enough water, a lot of 
times there may be something, a problem with resident fish, and there 
may be a problem with other naturally occurring pollutants. We have 
some mercury contamination that is natural. If we do not have enough 
water, it reaches dangerous levels.
  Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, I think the best way to 
put it is that when a State acts under the Clean Water Act and there is 
a dispute, you need a higher authority to go to resolve the dispute. So 
this is a dispute resolution mechanism more than anything else.
  Certainly, it would not be my object to preempt States' rights, but 
there certainly are issue areas where States, where a higher authority 
needs to be invoked.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, is the gentleman familiar with the 
position of the Western Governors, and have the Western Governors 
signed off on this? Because they were opposed to the previous 
amendment.
  Mr. EMERSON. We have worked with the Western Governors. No, they have 
not signed off on it. We have given them every opportunity to be 
involved, and that is one of the reasons, quite frankly, for which 
there needs to be a dispute resolution.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, there is a dispute resolution now. 
It has been determined, you know, through the Supreme Court that, in 
fact, States ultimately control the waters within their States and they 
cannot be preempted by a bunch of faceless Federal bureaucrats. I guess 
I would ask, could the gentleman name the members of the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission? I cannot. I do not know who they are.
  Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, the Supreme Court 
specifically did not address the issue that the gentleman is raising, 
which is why we need a dispute resolution process.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, I mean, so we would determine that 
if a State disagrees with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would essentially have the 
ultimate say. As a western Member, I have a real concern giving 
authority over State water in the Western States to a bunch of 
nameless, faceless bureaucrats in Washington, DC, even if they are 
appointed by an ostensibly Democrat President and Administration.
  Really, it is not something I am particularly interested in granting 
to this agency, and this amendment seems to do so, and I am not 
interested in doing that. I am trying to understand this. The staff is 
furiously reading through it. If we could ask for an additional 
extension of time, I would appreciate the Chair doing so.
  Mr. BACHUS. If the gentleman would yield, I would like to respond to 
your concerns for the Western States by pointing out to you some 
testimony from David Conrad, who is the water resource specialist for 
the National Wildlife Federation, and he, in fact, in testimony given 
in connection with H.R. 649.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] has 
expired.
                          legislative program

  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Shuster was allowed to speak out of 
order.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this time in order to make 
an announcement.
  In consultation with several Members, including the majority leader, 
what we have decided is to rise tonight at 8:30, to come in tomorrow at 
10 o'clock, work until 1 o'clock, rise tomorrow afternoon, take this 
bill up Monday evening, probably around 6 o'clock, as soon as we can 
Monday. I understand there is other legislation before us Monday, and 
take the bill up again at 10 a.m. on Tuesday and attempt to complete it 
on Tuesday.
  The majority leader tells me that we would consider setting time 
limits next week, if necessary, but this is my understanding of where 
we are. So I would expect that we will rise around 8:30 tonight, and I 
thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 
5 minutes for the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus] so the gentleman 
and I may continue our colloquy.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Oregon?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I defer to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Bachus].
  Mr. BACHUS. What I was saying was Mr. Conrad gave testimony in 1991, 
in which he argued against FERC giving up being the final arbitrator of 
these hydroelectric projects, and he said at that time that he would 
like FERC preserved as the final arbitrator by saying that if the right 
was withdrawn, it would eliminate, and he gave three reasons, it would 
eliminate the critical floor of environmental protection that now 
exists in the Federal Power Act and in related Federal environmental 
laws; second, it would make hydroelectric licensing and the protection 
of the environment much more difficult and unpredictable than it is 
currently; and third, and to address your specific concerns, it would 
vastly reduce, especially in the Western States, the opportunities for 
the public to be involved in the environmental conditions associated 
with hydropower development.
  As I am sure the gentleman is aware, FERC goes through exhaustive 
hearings in which local citizens are allowed to give testimony. Local 
agencies are allowed to give testimony, and under the amendment which 
has been proposed, the States would still have every right to establish 
and to enforce water quality standards, including adopting water 
quality standards to rightfully establish the amount of chemicals or 
pollutants, percentages, in the water, and establish numeric water 
quality criteria standards.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If I could ask the gentleman, the point I was making, 
for instance, and I can go to a specific instance but I will not, but 
it involved quantity, not quality, because without the quantity we do 
not get to that point because of naturally occurring pollutants. So you 
are saying if there is a naturally occurring problem or pollutant, the 
State could control the quantity sufficient to dilute it, because that 
is essentially what we are doing in this instance, in order to keep up 
temperatures and in order to offset other problems in the water; we 
could, the State would still have the right to control quantity if it 
could make a case based on water quality grounds. Is that the 
gentleman's understanding of the amendment?
  Mr. BACHUS. As the gentleman knows, you have to have adequate inflow 
for these projects, and FERC would continue to be the final arbiter of 
that. But the States would, and local governments and citizen groups, 
would all participate through a mediation or arbitration process that 
is set up in this amendment.
  [[Page H4862]] Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time then, I guess 
ultimately, I mean I would then conclude, in opposition to the 
amendment, because I do not want the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to be the final arbiter of something that concerns the 
waters of a sovereign western State. You know, we had a dispute in my 
State between FERC and the State, and the State prevailed because the 
State demonstrated that the project approved by FERC would have caused 
the decimation of a fishery. The State had wildlife concerns, and also 
would have very detrimental effects on a very, very heavily used river 
in terms of whitewater rafting.
  So I am not assured by the idea that these faceless, nameless 
bureaucrats at FERC are going to be the protectors of the 50 States' 
sovereign water rights. So I would reluctantly rise in objection to the 
amendment, as I understand it. I have hardly been given the opportunity 
to review it.
  Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, we do recognize that 
quality and quantity are mixed. But let me say to the gentleman that 
when a State makes a quantity decision that may be in conflict with 
FERC, there needs to be a dispute resolution process.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Reclaiming my time, my understanding now, in those 
cases, either it has been decided by the courts, I am not certain, or 
certainly people have had recourse to the courts, given the conflict 
between a State agency and a Federal agency. But to have a dispute 
resolution wherein FERC has the final say, if this were a neutral 
dispute resolution process with an arbitrator or a mediator or 
something, someone not part of FERC, I would be more interested and 
enthusiastic, but to say there will be a dispute resolution and FERC, 
who disagrees with the State, will get to determine the resolution is 
going back to the fox guarding the chickenhouse.
  Mr. EMERSON. If the gentleman would yield, if it is strictly a FERC 
issue, FERC will decide. The problem comes when there is a conflict 
between FERC and the States.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Again, that is my concern. I would like to see the 
States have at least equal footing, if not preeminence, when it comes 
to this.
  Mr. TATE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the chairman of the 
Transportation Committee for his efforts on this particular issue, 
trying to forge a compromise, as well as the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Laughlin] and others who have been working on this particular issue.
  Since January 4, we have been trying to make Government more 
efficient, less bureaucracy, trying to streamline all processes of 
Government.
  The Tacoma case complicates this entire issue. What we are trying to 
do is bring some common sense back to this, and there are some 
questions left unanswered by the Supreme Court.
  Now, this amendment recognizes the expanded role granted to the 
States by the Supreme Court, but we need a balance. We need a reasoned 
approach.
  The current process under FERC looks at environmental concerns, looks 
at power production, looks at fish and wildlife, looks at native 
American treaties, looks at irrigation, looks at management of Federal 
lands, looks at interstate flow issues, and FERC does not always rule 
on the side of hydro.
                              {time}  1945

  I mean, if we do not have these kind of changes, this is going to be 
a lawyers' dream. We are going to fight over between who and which is 
right. The current process is complicated. The current process is 
lengthy. Otherwise, if we do not make these changes, we are going to 
have the Noah's Ark approach. We are going to have two of everything. 
We have got to have some kind of process to solve this problem.
  This amendment, I think and I believe, will promote what is our 
renewable resource right here in America, and that is our water 
resources. We need to protect it. To me this is a commonsense solution. 
It has been worked out in a bipartisan way, and I think that it 
deserves the support of the Members of this body.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TATE. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, again just returning to--as my colleague knows, I 
think we all strive for consistency. I mean the issue of preempting the 
State on waters solely within, as my colleague knows, its jurisdiction 
disturbs me, and I would assume it disturbs the gentleman to give that 
power to a bunch of---- Could the gentleman name the members of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for me?
  Mr. TATE. Once again, I cannot name the names of the FERC, but the 
point to keep in mind, the gentleman from Oregon, is, if we do not make 
these differences and changes, we are going to have two processes. I 
mean we have to decide. Eventually, there has to be an answer. 
Otherwise this becomes a lawyers' dream. We are going to argue between 
which is right. I am someone who respects States' rights, but 
ultimately there needs to be a decision. This provides that ultimate 
decision. Otherwise we are just hanging out there in space waiting for 
someone to answer. This gives a final answer, and that is what we need.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman will yield, in my State we got to a 
final answer. FERC approved the project, the State disapproved it, and 
the project did not go forward, and I would hope that would be the 
result, but under this amendment FERC would approve it, the State would 
disapprove it, and FERC would then preempt the State, and I am puzzled 
that a Western Member would support----
  Mr. TATE. Reclaiming my time, that could still occur under this 
current provision. We are just trying to have some finality to this, 
some certainty to this, and to move forward with this. The gentleman's 
scenario would still exist under this particular bill, or actually 
substitute to the Emerson amendment.
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TATE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. DICKS. I rise in support of this substitute amendment. This case 
occurred in--Tacoma case is in my district and it affected a dam up on 
the Olympic Peninsula in the State of Washington, and I have thought 
about this at some great length, and in my judgment we have to have 
some way to resolve this. I say to my colleagues, You can't have the 
States being able to completely block. I mean that the FERC should 
consider the States' objections, they should give them very thorough 
consideration and that there should be--as I understand the bill, there 
is basically you're saying that, unless the FERC can show that it's 
inconsistent with the Federal Power Act, basically it has to go along 
with the State objection. It seems to me that is fine, but to have 
this--to have these two processes where both of them are kind of State 
FERC's and a national FERC I think is a big mistake, and I think this 
is a good compromise. I think it's well-thought-out and very balanced, 
and I would hope that it would be adopted.
  Mr. TATE. Reclaiming my time to agree with the gentleman from the 
Sixth District of Washington, I say, You are exactly right. The burden 
of proof is on FERC to prove that it is the problem, and so that's--we 
are solving the problem with this. We are getting rid of the 
duplication, and I commend the gentleman for his support.
  Mr. DICKS. I would point out this does mean this is kind of a strong 
Federal system, but I think in this case it is warranted.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  As my colleagues know, it is very interesting that in the Northwest 
we rely about 40 percent on hydropower production. Unfortunately, 
hydropower production is dependent upon water for its fuel source, and 
unless there is a reliable quantity of water which could be taken away 
from a project because of quality concerns, and unless there is a 
stability in that in the long term over the period of the license, a 
project can be threatened, and ratepayers ultimately have to pay that 
cost.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield on that point?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Maybe I misheard the gentlewoman, but I understood her 
to 
[[Page H4863]] say that a project might be deprived of a quantity of 
water because of quality, water quality, concerns. Well, I would hope 
that would be the case, and I would imagine that most people in Idaho 
would hope that would be the case.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Well, reclaiming my time, if a project is required 
because of water quality problems to have to spill in order to raise 
the level of the water downstream because of water quality problems, 
and they are required by a State agency to spill above and beyond the 
capacity of the plan to take the water, and they are not only able to 
produce the electricity that they should be producing over a period of 
time, that causes a great deal of uncertainty, not only to the power 
producers, the ratepayers, but also to the bankers and the bond 
company. The water is the fuel source, and before a license is granted, 
the license applicant certainly has to go though all of the hoops set 
forth in the Environmental Comprehensive Protection Act which requires 
that the State once and for all set the criteria as far as quality and 
quantity of water and how that would mix. Our concern is that the goal 
posts do not get moved down the pike so that it can break projects 
because we are so reliant on hydropower.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield again?
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I just like to point out, and I do not know the 
gentlewoman's relationship with the gentleman, but Allen G. Lance, 
attorney general of Idaho, was opposed to the last iteration of this 
that he saw, and I do not believe he has had an opportunity to review 
this one.
  Mrs. CHENOWETH. Yes, I do not think our attorney general has had the 
opportunity to review this amendment, and I have not had the 
opportunity to speak to him. I am a very strong proponent of States' 
water rights; that is one of the reasons I ran for Congress, but I 
think that we have to offer to our ratepayers and to the license 
holders a certain degree of certainty, and I think that this amendment 
would do that.
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Laughlin amendment. Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment resolves very simply a potential problem 
resulting from the so-called Tacoma decision by the Supreme Court. That 
decision actually puts the Clean Water Act in direct conflict with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act. It 
erodes FERC's ability to balance broad national interests when making 
decisions about hundreds of hydro projects around the country.
  Without this amendment, hydroelectricity's clean and 
affordable contribution to our Nation is threatened. I urge my 
colleagues to support the Laughlin amendment.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STOCKMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I think one unfair thing about this debate 
is there has been some suggestion that under this amendment that the 
States and their water quality agencies do not have significant 
authority under this amendment. I would remind the gentleman from 
Oregon and anyone that is concerned about this that FERC will still be 
required to include the State's position on the need for power for the 
project, the value of the project to the local and regional economy, as 
well as the effects on recreation, fish and wildlife, and water quality 
in deciding whether or not to issue a license, and over the past 
history of FERC's regulation, even prior to this amendment which 
expands the rights of the water quality agencies of the States, FERC 
has accepted the recommendations of the States in over 90 percent of 
the cases, and we strengthen that. We strengthen under this amendment 
the right of the States to mandatory input and to mandatory 
participation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The qualification I see in here is for such a project, 
is inconsistent with the purposes and requirement of part 1 of the 
Federal Power Act. Again, not having been given the time to go back and 
review the statutes, what protections are in part 1 of the Federal 
Power Act. Are all the things that the gentleman just mentioned 
included in part 1 of the Federal Power Act.
  Mr. BACHUS. All the present protections of the Federal Power Act are 
included and preserved under this amendment.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. So part 1 of the Federal Power Act includes all of those 
concerns and additions the gentleman just listed.
  Mr. BACHUS. Either those or the Clean Water Act, which is now in 
effect, or other statutes and FERC regulations, rules and regulations.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman would yield further, the point is we 
are exempting them unless it is inconsistent here, and I guess, as the 
gentleman knows, I think that this is an amendment of such import to 
the West, to unveil it with no opportunity to have it reviewed by the 
rather lengthy list of attorney generals--four pages from the West; I 
am not sure how many are on here, and other States other than the West: 
Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine. Well, looks like we 
went to the East: Pennsylvania, New Mexico, et cetera. It looks like 
most of the State attorney generals signed this, and to not have an 
opportunity to run it by all the attorney generals that objected to the 
original iteration, it seems again, as my colleagues know, that
 this is something that would perhaps be better left until Tuesday to 
at least give some of us an opportunity to review it with attorney 
generals.

  Mr. BACHUS. In conclusion I would like to say to the gentleman from 
Oregon and to the Members, ``Remember the days when hydroelectric power 
was the most popular of energy resources. It was cheap, it was friendly 
to the environment. Fishermen and boaters loved the reservoirs that 
were created. The big dams were called the Eight Wonders of the World. 
The National Geographic had article after article about the popularity 
and the attractiveness of hydroelectric power.''
  I say that is not changed today. It is 95 percent of our renewable 
energy comes from hydroelectric power. It is as important today, if not 
more important, than it was then, and 70 percent of those projects, 
hundreds of projects throughout this country, are going to be coming up 
for relicensing in the next 10 years. We have to establish an 
arbitration and a licensing agreement and not keep these tied up in 
court, as the gentleman alluded to, for years and years. It is a matter 
of national security. It makes us less dependent on foreign oil.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Laughlin] as a substitute for the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. This vote is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Emerson] as amended; is that correct?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is not correct.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. All right; go ahead. I was just trying to get straight 
for Members what we are voting on. We are voting on the amendment 
offered as a substitute for the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
  The vote as taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 309, 
noes 100, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                               AYES--309

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     [[Page H4864]] Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--100

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bonior
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Conyers
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnston
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McInnis
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mineta
     Mink
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Barton
     Bono
     Boucher
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Dunn
     Frisa
     Hancock
     Harman
     Istook
     Livingston
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Moakley
     Ortiz
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Rogers
     Schumer
     Stark
     Tanner
     Torres
     Watts (OK)
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2020

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Bono for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.
       Mr. Watts for, with Mr. Moakley against.
       Mr. Barton for, with Miss Collins of Michigan against.

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. PELOSI, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms. McKINNEY, 
and Messrs. SKAGGS, BARRETT of Wisconsin, and MEEHAN changed their vote 
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi, BROWNBACK, WISE, BARCIA, POMEROY, and 
HOUGHTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment was agreed 
to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation
  Mr. MFUME. Mr. Chairman, I was, unfortunately, required to attend to 
business in my congressional district in Baltimore this evening and 
thus forced to miss two record votes. Specifically, I was not present 
to record my vote on rollcall vote No. 325, the amendment offered by 
Mr. Visclosky of Indiana and rollcall vote No. 326, the amendment 
offered by Mr. Laughlin of Texas to the Emerson of Missouri amendment.
  Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 325 
and ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 326.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], as amended.
  The question was taken, and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it, and the 
amendment is rejected.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SHUSTER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I was on my feet and did not hear the 
Chair announce the vote. What was the announcement of the 5-minute 
vote?
  The CHAIRMAN. The announcement of the 5-minute vote was that the noes 
prevailed. The Chair stands corrected. It was not a 5-minute vote. 
There was a voice vote.
  On the voice vote, the noes prevailed and the amendment was not 
agreed to.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Those in favor of a recorded vote will indicate by 
standing.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MINETA. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me Members have left. To now 
call for a vote----
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will be in order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman----
  The CHAIRMAN. The House will be in order. Members will suspend.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] has been recognized by the 
Chair. The gentleman from California shall proceed.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of what we have now heard, I 
ask unanimous consent that the last vote be reconsidered, that the 
voice vote be reconsidered; that there be a reconsideration of the 
voice vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. A motion to reconsider is not in order.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman----
  The CHAIRMAN. The Members will suspend.
  By unanimous consent, the Committee may vacate a voice vote, and do 
it over.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the voice vote 
be vacated.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, after title VI is read, I will then move that the 
Committee do rise. We will come in tomorrow at 10 o'clock to resume 
debate on this legislation. We will proceed until 1 o'clock 
[[Page H4865]] tomorrow afternoon. We will take up this legislation 
Tuesday morning. However, I am informed by the majority leader that 
there will be other votes on Monday, as has been previously announced.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title V?
  If not, the Clerk will designate title VI.
  The text of title VI is as follows:
        TITLE VI--STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING FUNDS
     SEC. 601. GENERAL AUTHORITY FOR CAPITALIZATION GRANTS.

       Section 601(a) (33 U.S.C. 1381(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``(1) for construction'' and all that follows through the 
     period and inserting ``to accomplish the purposes of this 
     Act.''.

     SEC. 602. CAPITALIZATION GRANT AGREEMENTS.

       (a) Requirements For Construction of Treatment Works.--
     Section 602(b)(6) (33 U.S.C. 1382(b)(6)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``before fiscal year 1995''; and
       (2) by striking ``201(b)'' and all that follows through 
     ``218'' and inserting ``211''.
       (b) Compliance With Other Federal Laws.--Section 602 (33 
     U.S.C. 1382) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Other Federal Laws.--
       ``(1) Compliance with other federal laws.--If a State 
     provides assistance from its water pollution control 
     revolving fund established in accordance with this title and 
     in accordance with a statute, rule, executive order, or 
     program of the State which addresses the intent of any 
     requirement or any Federal executive order or law other than 
     this Act, as determined by the State, the State in providing 
     such assistance shall be treated as having met the Federal 
     requirements.
       ``(2) Limitation on applicability of other federal laws.--
     If a State does not meet a requirement of a Federal executive 
     order or law other than this Act under paragraph (1), such 
     Federal law shall only apply to Federal funds deposited in 
     the water pollution control revolving fund established by the 
     State in accordance with this title the first time such funds 
     are used to provide assistance from the revolving fund.''.
       (c) Guidance for Small Systems.--Section 602 (33 U.S.C. 
     1382) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Guidance for Small Systems.--
       ``(1) Simplified procedures.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall assist the States in establishing 
     simplified procedures for small systems to obtain assistance 
     under this title.
       ``(2) Publication of manual.--Not later than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this subsection, and after 
     providing notice and opportunity for public comment, the 
     Administrator shall publish a manual to assist small systems 
     in obtaining assistance under this title and publish in the 
     Federal Register notice of the availability of the manual.
       ``(3) Small system defined.--For purposes of this title, 
     the term `small system' means a system for which a 
     municipality or intermunicipal, interstate, or State agency 
     seeks assistance under this title and which serves a 
     population of 20,000 or less.''.

     SEC. 603. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL REVOLVING LOAN FUNDS.

       (a) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--Section 603(c) (33 
     U.S.C. 1383(c)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Activities Eligible for Assistance.--
       ``(1) In general.--The amounts of funds available to each 
     State water pollution control revolving fund shall be used 
     only for providing financial assistance to activities which 
     have as a principal benefit the improvement or protection of 
     water quality to a municipality, intermunicipal agency, 
     interstate agency, State agency, or other person. Such 
     activities may include the following:
       ``(A) Construction of a publicly owned treatment works if 
     the recipient of such assistance is a municipality.
       ``(B) Implementation of lake protection programs and 
     projects under section 314.
       ``(C) Implementation of a management program under section 
     319.
       ``(D) Implementation of a conservation and management plan 
     under section 320.
       ``(E) Implementation of a watershed management plan under 
     section 321.
       ``(F) Implementation of a stormwater management program 
     under section 322.
       ``(G) Acquisition of property rights for the restoration or 
     protection of publicly or privately owned riparian areas.
       ``(H) Implementation of measures to improve the efficiency 
     of public water use.
       ``(I) Development and implementation of plans by a public 
     recipient to prevent water pollution.
       ``(J) Acquisition of lands necessary to meet any mitigation 
     requirements related to construction of a publicly owned 
     treatment works.
       ``(2) Fund amounts.--The water pollution control revolving 
     fund of a State shall be established, maintained, and 
     credited with repayments, and the fund balance shall be 
     available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance 
     described in paragraph (1). Fees charged by a State to 
     recipients of such assistance may be deposited in the fund 
     for the sole purpose of financing the cost of administration 
     of this title.''.
       (b) Extended Repayment Period for Disadvantaged 
     Communities.--Section 603(d)(1) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting after ``20 years'' the 
     following: ``or, in the case of a disadvantaged community, 
     the lesser of 40 years or the expected life of the project to 
     be financed with the proceeds of the loan''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``not later than 20 
     years after project completion'' and inserting ``upon the 
     expiration of the term of the loan''.
       (c) Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technology.--Section 
     603(d)(5) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(5)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(5) to provide loan guarantees for--
       ``(A) similar revolving funds established by municipalities 
     or intermunicipal agencies; and
       ``(B) developing and implementing innovative 
     technologies.''.
       (d) Administrative Expenses.--Section 603(d)(7) (33 U.S.C. 
     1383(d)(7)) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end the following: ``or $400,000 per year, whichever is 
     greater, plus the amount of any fees collected by the State 
     for such purpose under subsection (c)(2)''.
       (e) Technical and Planning Assistance for Small Systems.--
     Section 603(d) (33 U.S.C. 1383(d)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (7) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) to provide to small systems technical and planning 
     assistance and assistance in financial management, user fee 
     analysis, budgeting, capital improvement planning, facility 
     operation and maintenance, repair schedules, and other 
     activities to improve wastewater treatment plant operations; 
     except that such amounts shall not exceed 2 percent of all 
     grant awards to such fund under this title.''.
       (f) Consistency With Planning Requirements.--Section 603(f) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1383(f)) is amended by striking ``and 320'' and 
     inserting ``320, 321, and 322''.
       (g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--Section 603(g) 
     (33 U.S.C. 1383(g)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) Limitations on Construction Assistance.--The State 
     may provide financial assistance from its water pollution 
     control revolving fund with respect to a project for 
     construction of a treatment works only if--
       ``(1) such project is on the State's priority list under 
     section 216 of this Act; and
       ``(2) the recipient of such assistance is a municipality in 
     any case in which the treatment works is privately owned.''.
       (h) Interest Rates.--Section 603 is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Interest Rates.--In any case in which a State makes a 
     loan pursuant to subsection (d)(1) to a disadvantaged 
     community, the State may charge a negative interest rate of 
     not to exceed 2 percent to reduce the unpaid principal of the 
     loan. The aggregate amount of all such negative interest rate 
     loans the State makes in a fiscal year shall not exceed 20 
     percent of the aggregate amount of all loans made by the 
     State from its revolving loan fund in such fiscal year.
       ``(j) Disadvantaged Community Defined.--As used in this 
     section, the term `disadvantaged community' means the service 
     area of a publicly owned treatment works with respect to 
     which the average annual residential sewage treatment charges 
     for a user of the treatment works meet affordability criteria 
     established by the State in which the treatment works is 
     located (after providing for public review and comment) in 
     accordance with guidelines to be established by the 
     Administrator, in cooperation with the States.''.
       (i) Sale of Treatment Works.--Section 603 is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(k) Sale of Treatment Works.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provisions of 
     this Act, any State, municipality, intermunicipality, or 
     interstate agency may transfer by sale to a qualified private 
     sector entity all or part of a treatment works that is owned 
     by such agency and for which it received Federal financial 
     assistance under this Act if the transfer price will be 
     distributed, as amounts are received, in the following order:
       ``(A) First reimbursement of the agency of the unadjusted 
     dollar amount of the costs of construction of the treatment 
     works or part thereof plus any transaction and fix-up costs 
     incurred by the agency with respect to the transfer less the 
     amount of such Federal financial assistance provided with 
     respect to such costs.
       ``(B) If proceeds from the transfer remain after such 
     reimbursement, repayment of the Federal Government of the 
     amount of such Federal financial assistance less the 
     applicable share of accumulated depreciation on such 
     treatment works (calculated using Internal Revenue Service 
     accelerated depreciation schedule applicable to treatment 
     works).
       ``(C) If any proceeds of such transfer remain after such 
     reimbursement and repayment, retention of the remaining 
     proceeds by such agency.
       ``(2) Release of condition.--Any requirement imposed by 
     regulation or policy for a showing that the treatment works 
     are no longer needed to serve their original purpose shall 
     not apply.
       ``(3) Selection of buyer.--A State, municipality, 
     intermunicipality, or interstate agency exercising the 
     authority granted by this subsection shall select a qualified 
     private sector entity on the basis of total net cost and 
     other appropriate criteria and shall utilize such competitive 
     bidding, direct negotiation, or other criteria and procedures 
     as may be required by State law.
       ``(l) Private Ownership of Treatment Works.--
       ``(1) Regulatory review.--The Administrator shall review 
     the law and any regulations, policies, and procedures of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency affecting the construction, 
     improvement, replacement, operation, maintenance, and 
     transfer of ownership of current and future treatment works 
     owned by a State, municipality, intermunicipality, or 
     interstate agency. If permitted by law, the Administrator 
     shall 
     [[Page H4866]] modify such regulations, policies, and 
     procedures to eliminate any obstacles to the construction, 
     improvement, replacement, operation, and maintenance of such 
     treatment works by qualified private sector entities.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall submit 
     to Congress a report identifying any provisions of law that 
     must be changed in order to eliminate any obstacles referred 
     to in paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `qualified private sector entity' means any nongovernmental 
     individual, group, association, business, partnership, 
     organization, or privately or publicly held corporation 
     that--
       ``(A) has sufficient experience and expertise to discharge 
     successfully the responsibilities associated with 
     construction, operation, and maintenance of a treatment works 
     and to satisfy any guarantees that are agreed to in 
     connection with a transfer of treatment works under 
     subsection (k);
       ``(B) has the ability to assure protection against 
     insolvency and interruption of services through contractual 
     and financial guarantees; and
       ``(C) with respect to subsection (k), to the extent 
     consistent with the North American Free Trade Agreement and 
     the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade--
       ``(i) is majority-owned and controlled by citizens of the 
     United States; and
       ``(ii) does not receive subsidies from a foreign 
     government.''.

     SEC. 604. ALLOTMENT OF FUNDS.

       (a) In General.--Section 604(a) (33 U.S.C. 1384(a)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Formula for Fiscal Years 1996-2000.--Sums authorized 
     to be appropriated pursuant to section 607 for each of fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 shall be allotted for 
     such year by the Administrator not later than the 10th day 
     which begins after the date of the enactment of the Clean 
     Water Amendments of 1995. Sums authorized for each such 
     fiscal year shall be allotted in accordance with the 
     following table:

                                                     Percentage of sums
``States:                                                 authorized:  
  Alabama....................................................1.0110.

  Alaska.....................................................0.5411.

  Arizona....................................................0.7464.

  Arkansas...................................................0.5914.

  California.................................................7.9031.

  Colorado...................................................0.7232.

  Connecticut................................................1.3537.

  Delaware...................................................0.4438.

  District of Columbia.......................................0.4438.

  Florida....................................................3.4462.

  Georgia....................................................1.8683.

  Hawaii.....................................................0.7002.

  Idaho......................................................0.4438.

  Illinois...................................................4.9976.

  Indiana....................................................2.6631.

  Iowa.......................................................1.2236.

  Kansas.....................................................0.8690.

  Kentucky...................................................1.3570.

  Louisiana..................................................1.0060.

  Maine......................................................0.6999.

  Maryland...................................................2.1867.

  Massachusetts..............................................3.7518.

  Michigan...................................................3.8875.

  Minnesota..................................................1.6618.

  Mississippi................................................0.8146.

  Missouri...................................................2.5063.

  Montana....................................................0.4438.

  Nebraska...................................................0.4624.

  Nevada.....................................................0.4438.

  New Hampshire..............................................0.9035.

  New Jersey.................................................4.5156.

  New Mexico.................................................0.4438.

  New York..................................................12.1969.

  North Carolina.............................................1.9943.

  North Dakota...............................................0.4438.

  Ohio.......................................................5.0898.

  Oklahoma...................................................0.7304.

  Oregon.....................................................1.2399.

  Pennsylvania...............................................4.2145.

  Rhode Island...............................................0.6071.

  South Carolina.............................................0.9262.

  South Dakota...............................................0.4438.

  Tennessee..................................................1.4668.

  Texas......................................................4.6458.

  Utah.......................................................0.4764.

  Vermont....................................................0.4438.

  Virginia...................................................2.2615.

  Washington.................................................1.9217.

  West Virginia..............................................1.4249.

  Wisconsin..................................................2.4442.

  Wyoming....................................................0.4438.

  Puerto Rico................................................1.1792.

  Northern Marianas..........................................0.0377.

  American Samoa.............................................0.0812.

  Guam.......................................................0.0587.

  Pacific Islands Trust Territory............................0.1158.

  Virgin Islands..........................................0.0576''..
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 604(c)(2) is amended by 
     striking ``title II of this Act'' and inserting ``this 
     title''.

     SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 607 (33 U.S.C. 1387(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (5) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(6) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 1995;
       ``(7) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1996;
       ``(8) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1997;
       ``(9) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;
       ``(10) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1999; and
       ``(11) $2,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
     SEC. 606. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 
                   REVOLVING FUNDS.

       Title VI (33 U.S.C. 1381-1387) is amended--
       (1) in section 607 by inserting after ``title'' the 
     following: ``(other than section 608)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
     ``SEC. 608. STATE NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 
                   REVOLVING FUNDS.

       ``(a) General Authority.--The Administrator shall make 
     capitalization grants to each State for the purpose of 
     establishing a nonpoint source water pollution control 
     revolving fund for providing assistance--
       ``(1) to persons for carrying out management practices and 
     measures under the State management program approved under 
     section 319; and
       ``(2) to agricultural producers for the development and 
     implementation of the water quality components of a whole 
     farm or ranch resource management plan and for implementation 
     of management practices and measures under such a plan.

     A State nonpoint source water pollution control revolving 
     fund shall be separate from any other State water pollution 
     control revolving fund; except that the chief executive 
     officer of the State may transfer funds from one fund to the 
     other fund.
       ``(b) Applicability of Other Requirements of This Title.--
     Except to the extent the Administrator, in consultation with 
     the chief executive officers of the States, determines that a 
     provision of this title is not consistent with a provision of 
     this section, the provisions of sections 601 through 606 of 
     this title shall apply to grants made under this section in 
     the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to 
     grants made under section 601 of this title. Paragraph (5) of 
     section 602(b) shall apply to all funds in a State revolving 
     fund established under this section as a result of 
     capitalization grants made under this section; except that 
     such funds shall first be used to assure reasonable progress 
     toward attainment of the goals of section 319, as determined 
     by the Governor of the State. Paragraph (7) of section 603(d) 
     shall apply to a State revolving fund established under this 
     section, except that the 4-percent limitation contained in 
     such section shall not apply to such revolving fund.
       ``(c) Apportionment of Funds.--Funds made available to 
     carry out this section for any fiscal year shall be allotted 
     among the States by the Administrator in the same manner as 
     funds are allotted among the States under section 319 in such 
     fiscal year.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000,000 per 
     fiscal year for each of fiscal years 1996 through 2000.''.

  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 961. This 
bill has many, many flaws. It allows industry to discharge more toxics 
than they do today--forcing cities and towns to be responsible for 
cleaning up industry's discharges, or allowing those pollutants to flow 
into our waterways. The bill does nothing to address the problems of 
non-point source pollution, which is now an even bigger problem than 
point source pollution. The bill establishes wholesale new categories 
of waivers and exemptions which will roll back protections for our 
citizens and set us back in our efforts to clean up our rivers and 
streams.
  There is a lot wrong with this bill. However, as a scientist, I want 
to address in detail one particular set of appalling provisions--those 
concerning wetlands.
  We have heard repeatedly since the start of the 104th Congress and in 
the debate on this very bill over the last two days that Republicans 
want to rely on sound science in reforming our environmental laws. 
Speaker Gingrich himself endorsed this principle in describing his 
vision of what 21st Century America should look like.
  In fact, Mr. Shuster's Committee report emphasizes the importance of 
using sound science, and says quite plainly ``The Committee also heard 
repeatedly of the need to ensure that Clean Water Act standards and 
requirements are based on sound scientific evidence and principles.''
  I agree. In fact, I think wetlands regulation is one area crying out 
for greater reliance on scientific knowledge.
  But unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern emerge in this House that 
sound science is only to be used when it agrees with the preconceived 
notions of Republicans.
  The National Academy of Sciences assembled a very broad and diverse 
panel to examine how we can identify a wetland. The results of two 
years of study by the best people working in the field--wetlands 
professionals and academics alike--are now in.
  The study makes it absolutely clear that there is no scientific 
justification for the wetlands provisions in H.R. 961.
  For example, the NAS Committee concluded that the best scientific 
description of a wetland would use 14 days of water saturation in the 
root zone. H.R. 961 mandates a definition of 21 days of saturation on 
the surface. The difference could result in 30 to 50 percent less 
wetlands across the country.
  In addition, H.R. 961 restricts protections of wetlands on the basis 
of the functions they perform. This might be a fine idea--if we had the 
knowledge to back it up. I strongly support increased cost-
effectiveness and prioritization in our environmental protection. 
However, the NAS study found that we simply do not know enough about 
wetlands at this point to reliably classify them on the basis of 
function. The NAS Committee found that any shorthand 
[[Page H4867]] attempt to prioritize wetlands on the basis of size, or 
proximity to developed areas, is wholly inadequate from a scientific 
point of view.
  We should classify wetlands, but only based on our scientific 
knowledge. We know that wetlands perform important functions--in flood 
prevention, water quality, wildlife habitat and other areas. However, 
the plain fact is that no one has the scientific knowledge to pick and 
choose which wetlands to regulate on the basis of function.
  Each Member of this House faces a straightforward test of whether or 
not one agrees with the principle of basing our regulatory decisions on 
sound science.
  Any suggestion that the content or timing of the NAS report is 
politically motivated is outrageous and represents a wholesale 
rejection of the principle that Congress should utilize professional 
expertise in making difficult scientific decisions.
  The fact is, Members who make such insinuations are simply 
disappointed that their ostrich-like efforts to schedule floor 
consideration of H.R. 961 in advance of the release of this report were 
unsuccessful.
  Make no mistake, if you support using sound science in regulatory 
decisions, you must oppose the provisions of H.R. 961. Anything less is 
sheer hypocrisy.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, there they go again.
  The pattern the Republicans set for the first 200 days was to cut 
spending and repeal programs intended to help children, the poor, the 
elderly, legal immigrants, and working families, so they can give tax 
cuts to the wealthiest Americans at the same time they are balancing 
the federal budget by 2002.
  The first significant piece of legislation for the second hundred 
days is the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, H.R. 961, known in some 
circles as the ``Dirty Water Act'' because the Republicans have chosen 
to protect polluters rather than the health and well-being of ordinary 
people.
  This bill would roll back two decades of progress in reducing 
pollution in our lakes, rivers, and coastal areas, and halt further 
progress. It would let corporate polluters increase pollution, and make 
downstream water users pay to remove pollution that shouldn't get into 
the water in the first place.
  There are problems throughout the bill. Perhaps the most widely 
debated provisions would redefine 80 percent of the nation's wetlands 
out from under federal protection.
  Now, we don't have a lot of wetlands in the South Bronx, but we do 
drink water, and wetlands recharge water supplies and filter harmful 
substances from our water. We eat fish and seafood, and wetlands 
provide critical habitat, assuring adequate stocks now and in the 
future. We enjoy fishing, swimming, and other recreation on and around 
the water, and wetlands help keep our waters clean. But H.R. 961's 
wetlands provisions would cost us more while reducing the quality of 
our water and the safety and quantity of our seafood. We have plenty of 
reasons to care about wetlands.
  Another major problem for me, Mr. Chairman, is the burden this bill 
would place on urban consumers downstream from runoff sources--the 
agribusinesses, miners, foresters, and developers that would not be 
required to take even minimal actions to prevent pollution for decades, 
if every. In many areas, overall water quality continues to be poor 
because sources of polluted runoff are not doing their share. Under 
H.R. 961, low-income urban ratepayers would have to pay more to get 
clean water, while upstream businesses that could afford to limit 
pollution would not be required to do so.
  In addition, I am deeply distressed by the bill's lack of 
environmental justice protections for poor people and people of color. 
Amendments to require water quality testing and reporting in areas 
where the most vulnerable populations live, work, fish, and swim, and 
posting of fish advisories to warn subsistence fishers that fish in 
certain waters are too poisoned to eat--low-cost and cost-effective 
measures--have been rejected.
  And, Mr. Chairman, these are only a few of the problems I see in this 
bill. The Clean Water Act is widely regarded as one of our most 
effective and successful environmental laws. It has produced marked 
improvements in the health of our people, the quality of life along our 
waterways and coasts, and the availability of clean water for household 
use and recreation. But the Republicans, in H.R. 961 reverse these 
successes and deny us further progress.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, as do many thoughtful New Yorkers, 
who have written letters opposing H.R. 961.
  Marcia Fowle of the New York City Audubon Society wrote:

       Over 23 years, the water quality of New York Harbor, the 
     Hudson River, the East River, Long Island Sound and Jamaica 
     Bay--making up 578 miles of New York City waterfront--has 
     markedly improved due primarily to the Clean Water Act. This 
     progress should not be broken nor weakened.

  Judith Enck and Linda Babiarz of NYPIRG wrote:

       There are few things as important to sustaining life as 
     water. We must not return to the days when swimming and 
     fishing threatened our health.

  Bruce Carpenter of New York Rivers United wrote:

       Regardless of amendments, please vote NO on H.R. 961. The 
     quality of our country's waters must not be undermined by 
     polluters and special interests.

  Rav Freidel of Concerned Citizens of Montauk wrote:

       We have tried to find alternative amendments that would 
     make the Clean Water Act clean again. There is no way to fix 
     it. It is simply a dirty water bill.

  Marcy Benstock of the Aquatic Habitat Project, Clean Air Campaign in 
New York City wrote:

       H.R. 961 includes so many harmful changes that it cannot be 
     fixed.

  They are right. No amendments adopted in the House will fix this bill 
and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against passage of H.R. 
961.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, the Federal regulation of stormwater in my 
congressional district has become known simply as the ``rain tax.''
  The city has imposed a new utility tax on all property owners in 
order to raise $5.5 million annually to offset some of the costs of 
this unfunded Federal mandate. As my constituents in Greensboro, NC, 
have become aware of the direct tax resulting from the current Clean 
Water Act, they have called and written my office to express their 
outrage over this, a perfect example of Federal overreach. ``What will 
be taxed next?'' they ask.
  I have a letter from Greensboro's city manager, Bill Carstarphen, in 
which he supports the stormwater management provisions in H.R. 961. 
Further, city officials urge the defeat of amendments that could 
subvert the improved flexibility in H.R. 961 for State and local 
governments to address stormwater pollution. Our city's environmental 
services director, Elizabeth Treadway, praises the recognition in H.R. 
961 that stormwater cannot be considered a point-source pollution 
problem. These are our community experts speaking to the need for 
developing this program to the States, with an emphasis on voluntary 
compliance.
  Greensboro was issued its permit in late 1994. The city spent almost 
$1 million over a 2-year period just to secure the permit. The city was 
forced to spend this money even though a solution to stormwater 
pollution under current law is unenforceable. It is multi-source.
  The stormwater provisions in H.R. 961 have been criticized as rolling 
back existing protections and allowing currently treated stormwater to 
be discharged without treatment. In fact, H.R. 961 does not eliminate 
the permit under which Greensboro currently manages its stormwater 
program. Greensboro and 341 other large cities--and 134,000 industrial 
facilities--already have stormwater permits. Greensboro would be 
required to comply with the existing permit until it became subject to 
voluntary activities, enforceable plans, general permits, and site-
specific permits under approved State stormwater management programs 
described in H.R. 961.
  The stormwater provisions of the current Clean Water Act are 
unworkable. H.R. 961 would replace the current, broken Federal 
requirements with a new program worked out between local governments 
and their State. H.R. 961 would recognize city officials' concerns that 
stormwater varies dramatically by season, by climate, and by each 
storm. This issue cries out for the application of balance.
  I urge my colleagues to reject stormwater amendments designed to 
perpetuate the status quo.
  Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the clean water bill, H.R. 961. 
Among its many good provisions, which have already been described and 
extolled, is a commonsense solution to an issue that has unnecessarily 
burdened cities in my district, as well as many others, regarding 
separate ``Sanitary Systems Overflows'' [SSO's].
  H.R. 961 instructs the EPA to develop a reasonable, flexible, 
consistent, and economically feasible approach for controlling 
discharges from SSO's. It also instructs them to stop, review, and 
modify enforcement actions for projects required under the old policy.
  While overinterpreting the Clean Water Act, the EPA has required 
cities with SSO systems, like Dallas and Fort Worth in my district, to 
eliminate all overflows. The overflows in question do not present a 
public health or water quality concern. Yet, to date, the EPA has 
forced cities in Texas alone to begin hundreds of millions of dollars 
of work to eliminate all overflows. This bill will correct this 
situation.
  We have come a long way since I asked EPA officials to meet in my 
office with representatives of Dallas and Forth Worth on this 
[[Page H4868]] issue, when few others were raising this concern.
  I thank the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee for his help on this issue and would like to work with him to 
make some technical and refining changes that are currently being 
discussed. I strongly support the solution included in this bill and 
look forward to it becoming law.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Weller) having assumed the chair, Mr. McInnis, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 961) to 
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________