Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. 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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I defer to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bachus].

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

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 it seems to me ultimately the decisions will all be made within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

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.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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 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. 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. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

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.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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.