Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

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. 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. 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and he said at that time that he would like FERC preserved as the final arbitrator by saying that if the right was withdrawn, it would eliminate, and he gave three reasons, it would eliminate the critical floor of environmental protection that now exists in the Federal Power Act and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. 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.

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. 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. 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, 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.

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I did allow that amendment to be read because it was short, and it basically speaks for itself. The bill refers to small businesses, without any definition that allows the administrator of the EPA total discretion in defining small business. What we have simply done, at the request of small business advocates, including the NFIB, is simply ask that the administrator of the Small Business Administration and the small business advocate at the EPA have input in defining small businesses. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will further clarify the provisions of the bill which are intended to reduce the paperwork and regulatory burden placed upon small businesses. In order to reduce the regulatory burden that strangles small businesses in our Nation, the committee bill purports to exempt small businesses from general and site-specific stormwater discharge permits. While the reformed permit process contained in the committee bill is a tremendously positive step in the right direction, the bill leaves it to the total discretion of the EPA to promulgate a definition of whether or not a business qualifies as a ``small business.'' Many members, myself included, fear that EPA will attempt to circumvent the clear intent of the bill and define ``small business'' so narrowly that it will, as a practical matter, exempt few of the Nation's small businesses. My amendment requires that the EPA work with the Small Business Administration and the EPA's Small Business Ombudsman in defining ``small business.'' We think, and the NFIB and other small business advocacy groups agree, that with SBA and the Small Business Ombudsman's input, it will help ensure that in drafting its definition of ``small business'' the EPA will not frustrate the intent of the bill. While my amendment will continue to give discretion to the EPA in coming to a proper definition of ``small business,'' in my personal view any EPA definition of ``small business'' which does not include as small businesses, at the minimum, all businesses with 100 or fewer employees, would frustrate the intent of the bill. Including all such businesses as small businesses would be consistent with section 507 of the Clean Air Act that defines ``small businesses'' as any business with 100 or fewer employees. In closing, let me stress that this amendment does not affect those provisions in the bill that empower a State to find that stormwater discharges from any entity would have a significant adverse effect on water quality. In any such case, a permit would be required regardless of whether the entity was a small business or not. Thus, it should be made very clear that any small business can be made subject to the permit requirement if a State finds that the entity is conducting an activity that has a truly significant adverse effect on water quality. What my amendment does is help protect the goal of the committee to reduce cost and paperwork that burdens literally thousands of small businesses that do not pose a threat to our Nation's water quality.

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer a noncontroversial amendment. This is a revised version of amendment 1, as originally printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BACHUS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, under Chairman Shuster's bill, H.R. 961-- Clean Water Act Amendments of 1995, general and site-specific permits are required unless the entity can prove that its activities do not pose a significant risk to health and the environment, in which case, a permit would be required. However, an exemption is provided for small businesses that meet the definition of ``small business'' as promulgated by the EPA. Under the provisions of the committee bill, a small business is exempt from general and site-specific permits unless the State finds that, without permits, stormwater discharges would have a significant adverse effect on water quality. In this case, a permit would be required regardless of whether the entity was a small business or not. While the reformed permitting process is a tremendous positive step in the right direction, the bill leaves it to the discretion of the EPA to define ``small business.'' We fear that EPA will attempt to circumvent the clear intent of the bill and define ``small business'' so narrowly that it has no practical application. The amendment which I plan to offer, a copy of which follows, uses similar language from section 507 of the Clean Air Act as it relates to defining ``small business'' based on number of employees. Under the Small Business Stationary Source Technical and Environment Compliance Assistance Program, small business is defined as having 100 or fewer employees. Our amendment as written would still allow EPA to define ``small business,'' but any definition would have to include language to define ``small business'' as having 100 or fewer employees. Even if this amendment is adopted, a State would still maintain authority to require permits by certain small businesses if it found that the stormwater discharges from the business would have a significant adverse effect on water quality. The amendment is intended to reduce the cost and paper-work that literally thousands of small business would be burdened with if they were not initially excluded from the permitting process. Amendment to H.R. 961, as Reported Offered by Mr. Bachus of Alabama Page 146, line 21, after the period insert the following: At a minimum, the term ``small business'' shall include a corporation, partnership, unincorporated business, and sole proprietorship employing 100 or fewer full time employees.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, a proposed EPA regulation would allow companies to continue to produce carbon tetrachlorides for export for feed stock use. Without this regulation these companies would be severely limited and could lose foreign customers. It is my opinion and belief that this proposed regulation is covered under the exemption from the moratorium for rules that repeal, narrow, streamline or otherwise reduce a regulatory burden, and I wanted the chairman's opinion.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], is in agreement with this opinion?

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we are fixing to take a vote, and the gentleman from Massachusetts on the Democratic side I think framed the entire issue from here, and I think that if you believe him, you should vote for this amendment. If you do not believe him, you should oppose this amendment with every fiber in your body. Let me repeat what the gentleman from Massachusetts said. He said, ``There is no more Darth Vader.'' He said, ``The world is not the dangerous place that it used to be.'' If I believed that there were no Darth Vaders in the world today, I would probably vote for this amendment. But, Mr. Chairman, before we take this vote, every Member of this House needs to remember what the Central Intelligence Agency has advised this Congress. It says there are 25 nations a ballistic missile capable of hitting, not Kuwait, not our carriers, not eastern Europe, capable of hitting the United States. I recently read that a poll in this country conducted of American citizens said 58 percent of Americans believe that we have the technology to stop such a missile attack. I believe that an equal number in this House apparently are under that misconception. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have the technology to stop a long- range ballistic missile attack. That is what this bill is about. If this amendment passes, then among those 25 nations, we have Iran, we have North Korea, and we have Libya, 3 nations that have said, ``We will destroy America if we can.'' And they are building the technology to do just that. So we are fixing to vote. You can vote to give the military the technology and the ability to stop such an attack, or, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, you can say there is no Darth Vader. You can say that Russia is stable and that Russia is our friend, and you can ignore one of the lead stories on NBC News tonight that said Yeltsin is unstable. Or you can vote against this amendment, vote for the safety of the American public that you represent. If you believe that this world is safe, and that those 25 countries that the CIA says exist, if you do not believe that, then vote for this amendment. But if you want to protect your families, your neighbors, and those people you represent, you will vote against this amendment and you will vote for this bill.