Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

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

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. 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. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman I offer and amendment, amendment No. 44.

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

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

Mr. PALLONE. I do not see any scientific basis.

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. 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. 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. PALLONE. Now you have another exemption for certain towns.

Mr. PALLONE. My point is the exemption for San Diego applies to 3 miles out, certain feet.

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. 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. 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?

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

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. 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. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed yesterday that the substitute for the Clean Water Act was not passed on the House floor, but I think that during the course of the debate one very important fact was brought out. Several speakers said and pointed out that the problem with clean water, or the problem with water in general, is that it follows, it crosses State lines. In other words, when we are dealing with the various amendments to the Clean Water Act today, we have to keep in mind that each State cannot be responsible totally for the water within its jurisdiction, because it has an impact on other States. That is why I think it was very important yesterday that we were able to pass the amendment on coastal nonpoint source pollution, because it means that one State will not be able to have a lesser standard or a lesser management program than another State and negatively impact that State. The same philosophy has to go before us today when we are dealing with the other amendments, whether it is ocean discharge and waivers for secondary treatment, or it is beach water testing. All these things should be voted on and looked at in the context of the fact that water crosses State lines. Whatever one State does is going to have an impact on another State.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, May 13, 1995, at the Pines Manor in Edison, NJ, the Civic League of Greater New Brunswick, Inc., will hold its annual dinner. I rise today to pay tribute to this great institution, which has made such a significant difference in the lives of generations of people in Middlesex County. The Civic League of Greater New Brunswick, formerly the Urban League, was established in 1945 as a civil rights organization. A non-profit, tax-exempt organization, the League's mission is ``to enable African Americans and other minority group members to cultivate and exercise their full human potential on par with all other Americans. To accomplish this mission, the Civic League intervenes at all points in the social and economic structure where the interests of African Americans, other racial minorities and the poor are at stake.'' To accomplish this mission, the League provides community advocacy along with the provision of employment and housing referral services. The League also offers a comprehensive youth development program to help young people become academically successful, emotionally sound and productive contributors to their communities. The Civic League is governed by a 21-member Board of Directors, volunteers with a diversity of backgrounds and experiences. This policy-making body has set a major agenda for the 1990's which includes more program activities in the health and youth development areas. The Project 2000 Program, supported by corporate volunteers, became one of the first initiatives developed as a result of an increased focus of the organization on early youth development activities. A Middle School Development Program was initiated recently, also with corporate support, to offer classroom support to the public school adolescent population. Since 1970, C. Roy Epps has served as the League's Executive Director. The 25th anniversary of Mr. Epps's leadership of the League was marked 2 months ago with a roast in his honor. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege as the Representative of the Sixth District of New Jersey to pay tribute to this great institution located in my district. The Civic League of Greater New Brunswick is a wonderful example of everything that is good about America--dedicated people working together, often under difficult circumstances, to build a better community and provide our people with a sense of purpose, direction and hope.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the 5 minutes. I did want to make reference though to a previous speaker, the gentleman from California, and his statement about the vote being very close on the Saxton-Boehlert amendment, and also the suggestion that somehow this amendment was not in order. I would point out that the vote was actually fairly close on the Boehlert-Saxton amendment, and also that this amendment is a very important part of that overall substitute which I think should be addressed separately. I think one of the things that needs to be pointed out tonight is that the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] basically is a reasonable compromise, if you will, based on the recommendations of the Coastal States Organization. The amendment does not take us back to the original language of the existing statute but, rather, it is a carefully crafted compromise that allows States that have not received Federal approval of their coastal zone management program to have 30 months to submit their coastal nonpoint source pollution program. It only applies to threatened or significantly degraded waters as opposed to coastal waters generally. It allows for prioritization of areas for implementation of management measures. It allows for conditional approval when States request additional time to complete their plans without penalty. The bottom line is the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], again, as part of this substitute, has drafted something that seeks to change the language, if you will, of the current law without sacrificing the mandatory and enforceable nature of the original law, and I think that is the key. Nonpoint source pollution is really the problem that we face with regard to water quality in the future. Over the next 5 or 10 years this is likely, if it is not already, to become the major source of pollution that would we have, and the committee bill makes this whole program voluntary. Basically what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is trying to do is to put the teeth back into the program, preserving the program while also looking at it in a way that I think is very reasonable and manageable. I have to say, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very important amendment, because section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act reauthorization amendments is the only enforceable program developed by Congress to prevent nonpoint source pollution, and H.R. 961 basically repeals this entire section 6217 and, instead, the bill replaces the enforceable provisions with a proviso that State programs make reasonable progress, essentially making the program voluntary. As my own State of New Jersey has made significant progress with regard to this program, and is very proud of the progress we have made, there are about 19 other coastal States, including New Jersey, that went through a very helpful threshold review, with respect to these plans. In our State in the summer of 1994, we did a review. We held three public hearings this month. We will be submitting our completed section 6217 program proposal in July. All of the coastal States are currently making progress in development of their coastal nonpoint programs. Thousands of dollars and years of efforts have been expended, and proposals for new programs have been made. The section 6217 program has already gained a significant momentum, and shows great promise. But to undermine it with a less substantive program that decreases predictability of action would greatly increase the risks to valuable coastal resources, and it would penalize those coastal States that have made a concerted effort to comply with existing law. I ask the House, do not pull the rug out from under the program. Support the Boehlert amendment. I is what the coastal States want.