Tom Petri

Mr. PETRI

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

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

Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, I would point out that our Governor, Tommy Thompson, has felt this is of extreme importance to the State of Wisconsin, too, and they want the flexibility, not whether or not to have a program, but to administer it with the EPA.

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, which I am offering with Representative Tauzin, makes certain additional revisions, as requested by the States, to the coastal nonpoint pollution program under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. First, this amendment keeps in law the coastal zone program, as we voted last week, but provides that it is up to each State to determine whether to participate in the program. While the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will still play a role, the amendment provides the EPA will be the lead agency in administering the program, and it makes Federal grants available for implementation of coastal zone programs in addition to simply development of the plans. Mr. Chairman, last week, we went back and forth as to who and what groups were supporting what position. Let me be clear--we have worked with the National Governors' Association and the State water pollution control officials in drafting these improvements to the program. The amendments to the 6217 program made by Chairman Boehlert's amendment last week were necessary and positive and we do not change any of that language, but further improvements can be made to the program. This amendment gives flexibility to the Governors in determining how to address coastal pollution. But the amendment also keeps in place the 6217 program so that States which want to continue to move forward with programs--those States which have found it to be successful for their State--may continue to pursue the 6217 program. This amendment would allow a State to opt out of the program if it wishes. But I would point out that the State will still have to address nonpoint source pollution through the Clean Water Act section 319 nonpoint source program. Again, States that want to continue under the coastal zone program are fully able to do so. Let me note that, in essence, participation in section 6217 already is voluntary. If a State has a management program approved pursuant to section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, then it must submit a nonpoint program under section 6217. But it is up to a coastal State to determine whether to participate in the basic coastal zone management program in the first place. A State currently can simply withdraw from the entire program if it wishes and section 6217 does not apply. My own State of Wisconsin is currently considering doing just that. This amendment streamlines the program so that States will deal with only one agency. That agency will be the EPA--which is, after all, the Federal agency with the expertise in nonpoint source pollution. However, NOAA will continue to be involved in the program. As we have heard repeatedly, a constant source of frustration for those trying to implement programs is when various Federal agencies administer a single program, and we correct that here. As we heard last week, some States are about ready to submit their programs and so this amendment makes Federal funds eligible for the next phase--that of implementation. Currently, Federal grants may be used only for development of programs. The revisions made to the program through the Boehlert amendment last week are very necessary and do improve the program. These are further improvements to section 6217, as requested by the States. I urge the House to adopt this amendment to provide needed flexibility to ensure that States can develop effective coastal nonpoint programs.

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

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I would just attempt to summarize the language that has been worked out. Mr. Chairman, we will have to, I think, continue working on this problem in conference. Frankly, like any compromise, it is not fully acceptable to me, and I will have to check with my State administrators and others, but in the spirit of comity and to try to move this process forward and get this bill acted on tonight, we have, I think, reached an agreement which provides that after discussions and consultation between the EPA and the various States, the administrator of EPA would determine whether a State's plan, as far as coastal nonpoint source runoff, was adequate or not, and if it was adequate, then they would move forward. It would not be at the discretion or election of the Governor or of the State, it would be at the discretion or election of the EPA, so there would be national standards there, but we would gain the opportunity of being able to actually spend money on cleaning up the environment instead of on planning, as is required in the law now, and we think that is important. We are trying to clean up the environment, not Second, we would have the opportunity of dealing with the EPA, potentially, rather than with a multiplicity of Federal agencies, and that is important in terms of simplicity.

Mr. PETRI. Reclaiming my time, I would urge all of my colleagues to support the amendment as it is before the House.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr Petri: Page 362, after line 23, add the following:

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the pending amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I am informed by staff that the amendment that we have introduced does not delete the enforceability provisions. I just wanted to correct the record so far as that is concerned and also assure both my colleagues that should this amendment be adopted, we would be eager to continue working with the gentleman as the bill moved forward through conference and so on to work out any problems. We are not trying to do anything to hurt the Coastal Zone Program. What we are tying to do is give States the opportunity to deal with one Federal agency, if that makes sense.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the Bateman amendment and in opposition to the Lipinski amendment. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment which would reinstate a previously rejected and inequitable formula for the allocation of Federal capitalization grants for State revolving loan funds. First of all, it is my understanding that there is a certain amount of controversy regarding the validity of the 1992 needs survey on which the formula in the amendment is based. In addition, the formula results in such wild fluctuations that most States experience either tremendous losses or tremendous gains in their allotment. My own State of Wisconsin would experience a 48-percent drop from the formula in existing law. And that is not the most severe decrease-- several States would be cut even more dramatically. How can we be expected to support that? A decrease of that amount would be particularly frustrating and discouraging to States which are leaders in water quality programs and devote State resources to wastewater treatment programs beyond the required 20-percent match under the Clean Water Act. Many of these leaders would be cut severely under this amendment. A 10-percent decrease still causes some concern, but a 48-percent drop would be devastating and would send the wrong message to our State partners in clean water. I can assure you that many of us would be happy to receive a 10- percent increase. Some States will receive less of an increase under the formula in H.R. 961, but they are still receiving a 10-percent increase. Finally, I believe that we really should take another look at what elements are included in this needs based formula. H.R. 961 opens up the State revolving loan funds so that States can use the Federal funds for wastewater treatment, clean lakes programs, nonpoint source pollution control programs, watershed and stormwater programs, and a host of other activities. But this formula reportedly is based primarily on wastewater treatment capital infrastructure requirements. But if you consider Wisconsin's nearly 15,000 lakes, 57,000 stream and river miles, 1,100 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, 1,700 square miles of estuaries and harbors, and the agricultural pollution times what New York State has--and if all of these factors were included in the formula, I can assure you the overwhelming water needs we have in Wisconsin would become quite apparent. I want to commend the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for his action and leadership on this issue. And I urge that the Lipinski amendment be defeated by the House as it already has been in the committee.

Mr. PETRI. That is absolutely right. What this would do, too, is, frankly, based on needs and not looking at what States have done tends to reward States that have been ineffective in using funds they got under the last program rather than States that have done a good job. It seems to me that is a little bit funny, plus removing the nonpoint source approaches here and the needs assessment survey does not reflect the broadening of the State and Federal pollution fighting effort. The needs is based on wastewater needs, not on total needs in each State.

Mr. PETRI. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly must oppose the substitute to H.R. 961 offered by Mr. Saxton and Mr. Boehlert--two Members of Congress who are dedicated and sincere in their efforts and support for clean water programs. Many of the provisions in the substitute are laudable and certainly deserve support. It is what is not in the amendment which is the problem. Unfortunately, many of the provisions of H.R. 961 which I believe make meaningful and significant reforms to the Clean Water Act are not included in this substitute. For example, this substitute does not contain the stormwater program reforms which are found in section 322 of H.R. 961. There is little dispute that the current stormwater permitting program simply does not work and hasn't since the day it was enacted. H.R. 961 corrects this problem by treating stormwater runoff as runoff--and not trying to regulate discharges through cumbersome and confusing permits. Instead, States will have a variety of tools-- including site specific permits if necessary--which can be used to fashion a program that will be more effective and cover more facilities than is possible under the current program. The stormwater provisions in H.R. 961 were developed with the close cooperation and consultation of the States and cities which are, after all, responsible for implementing the program. They support this new approach to stormwater control. Let me also briefly mention one other area which has generated a lot of discussion over the past few weeks--that is the repeal of section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments and the incorporation of certain successful elements of that coastal program into the nonpoint source program. Over the past several years, I have spent many hours listening to various officials from my State of Wisconsin expressing their concerns about this program. In fact, Wisconsin may even pull out of the program because they just don't think it is worth it. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources supports the repeal of section 6217. The secretary of the department sent a letter to me a few weeks ago which includes this statement about H.R. 961: We also support the elimination of the coastal non-point pollution control program contained in Section 6217 * * *. With the provisions proposed to be added to Section 319 to provide for protection of coastal waters, Section 6217 is no longer needed. We favor having one non-point source management program in Wisconsin that provides for the achievement of water quality goals in all the waters of the State, including coastal areas. Again, while I applaud the intentions and sincerity of the sponsors of this substitute, I do not believe their amendment is preferable to the overall approach of H.R. 961, and so I must urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill and in opposition to the Boehlert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995. This bill makes significant commonsense reforms to our Nation's clean water program. It maintains the goals of the Clean Water Act while providing more flexibility to our States and local authorities who know their States and their waters and know best how to reach those goals. Let me point out that this flexibility is given to the States and also to EPA to utilize if they see fit--industry has not been given sweeping unilateral waivers from critical requirements of the act as has been charged. This bill strengthens the current nonpoint source program and replaces the current broken stormwater program with one that will be more effective and gives States a range of tools--from voluntary measures to site-specific permits--to deal with stormwater runoff. The section on watershed management encourages States to pursue comprehensive point and nonpoint source programs on a watershed basis to most efficiently meet water quality standards. The bill continues the Federal-State partnership by authorizing Federal assistance to the States for the construction of wastewater treatment plants, to address nonpoint source pollution, to continue cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay and the Great Lakes, and for a host of other pressing water quality needs. H.R. 961 also incorporates many of the principles that the House has already passed, such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to ensure that our limited financial resources are utilized in such a way as to get the greatest water quality benefit. Now, with any bill of this length which addresses such complex issues, there undoubtedly will be some provisions that may cause some concern. For example, I may have some concerns regarding some of the wetlands provisions, but I realize that this bill will continue to be a work in progress and undoubtedly more revisions will be made before the bill finally is enacted into law. Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, we know that Americans want to preserve and protect our environment, particularly our precious water resources, and we know that they want commonsense regulation--that was made clear in last year's elections. I believe we can have both as is accomplished in this bill, and I urge the House to approve H.R. 961.

Mr. PETRI. I just want to reiterate what you said as far as the State of Wisconsin is concerned. We are just a coastal State. We do oppose the Boehlert amendment. DNR has worked on this very closely with Chairman Shuster and others. We want a strong non-point source program. We have to have an integrated one, not a separate one for coastal, and for lakes, and for rivers, and to get the job done, and, to do it most effectively, we want one program, not a proliferation of many programs. So the gentleman is absolutely right.

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

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It came as no surprise to anyone that one of the few programs President Clinton proposes to increase in his recently released budget is his pet project, AmeriCorps. But does this program really warrant the kind of unwavering support the President would have us give it? because the volunteers themselves and the communities they assist seem happy with it. But why shouldn't they? The communities receive services that are paid for by the Federal Government rather than local taxpayers. As for the AmeriCorps participants, they receive a stipend of $7,500 and $4,700 in educational credits for 1,700 hours of work which is a little more than 10 months at 40 hours a week for--quote-- volunteering. In 1995 the program is expected to spend over $24,000 per volunteer. Supporters will cry foul at the use of that number since it includes administrative costs and the average participant doesn't receive that amount. But the President claimed in his State of the Union Address that the program is ``changing the way government works because there's no bureaucracy at all.'' We are spending $24,000 per volunteer. If there is no bureaucracy and the volunteers don't get it all where is the money going? Clearly the fact that those who benefit from a Federal program are happy with it does not prove its worth to the taxpayers. So what other ways do we have to evaluate the program? The President says that the program will rekindle the spirit of community and mutual cooperation. This is a example of the belief that if the Government doesn't do it, it doesn't happen. The President ignores the 80 million Americans-- about a third of the population--who currently volunteer their time for no compensation. I assert that they represent a spirit of community or sacrifice more than do the 47,000 AmeriCorps volunteers who are compensated. The volunteers across this Nation didn't & don't need a Government program to encourage them to give of their time to make their community a better place. Another problem with taxpayer financed volunteerism is that many activities which are just fine for someone truly volunteering his or her time, are inappropriate when Government funding is involved. That's surely true of political protest and advocacy--activities which are supposedly prohibited for AmeriCorps by law. We have probably all heard by now about the protests sponsored by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now--ACORN--which prevented our Speaker from addressing a lunch sponsored by the National Association of Counties. The National Service program has hired 42 volunteers for ACORN at a cost of over $1 million. National Service supporters point out that the volunteers were not involved in the protest, but we must ask why a service program is giving money to an organization the main function of which is political advocacy in the first place. Furthermore, according to the Los Angeles Times, Americorps volunteers in San Francisco's Summer of Safety program were used to organize a protest against last year's crime bill's ``three strikes and you're out'' provision. Americorps denies that this happened but the journalist who wrote the article stands behind her story. Is this a proper use of federally funded volunteers? Proponents also like to paint the program as a way to help young people pay for college. But the cost of one Americorps participant would pay for seven Pell grants. Moreover, you don't have to be in economic need to participate in Americorps. Why are we paying for the education of students whose parents may be wealthy or who themselves may have high after-school incomes while many low-income people cannot afford to send their kids to college? If our current student aid programs are not meeting the need, we should change those programs, not try to do it through the back door of Government jobs program. The President is ignoring the obvious; Government cannot program true volunteerism and cannot mandate acts of charity. This program undermines the volunteer spirit it was intended to foster. We have heard a great deal about the importance of the veterans programs this rescissions bill seeks to cut. Well, we would all like to increase funding for any justifiable program. I don't want to cut veterans either. But it is time to be responsible. If veterans programs are to be restored we should make the cuts elsewhere and the national service program, which duplicates other Government programs and private efforts, compromises true volunteerism, and puts Federal tax dollars to questionable uses, is a good place to start.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to former U.S. Representative William K. Van Pelt of Fond du Lac, WI, on the occasion of his 90th birthday today. A popular Member of Congress who was known for his quiet common sense and integrity, Bill served Wisconsin's Sixth District from 1951 through 1964, winning seven consecutive terms with little serious opposition. Respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle, Bill was proud of his record of service to his constituents and of his committee work. When he left office, Bill was the second ranking Republican member of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, which handled all conservation issues coming before the House. He was also a senior member of the Committee on Science and Astronautics, whose jurisdiction included policymaking and oversight of various facets of America's evolving space program. Bill's first term in Congress came after he won an upset victory in a four-way Republican primary in 1950 in his first bid for public office. Before that time, Bill was in business for himself as owner and operator of City Fuel Co. of Fond du Lac and was an active participant in Republican Party politics on the local level, serving as chairman of the Fond du Lac County Republican Party from 1944 to 1950. Throughout his tenure of office, Bill remained true to his roots as a businessman and advocate of Republican Party principles. He was a strong believer in the free enterprise system and in the need for a limited Federal Government dedicated to fiscal responsibility and a balanced Federal budget. He was not afraid to take unpopular stands, and was called on the carpet by his political opponents for daring to question the expenditure of Federal conservation dollars on a Wisconsin project he and many others deemed to be of dubious value. In 1964, Bill Van Pelt was quoted as saying, ``The Federal Government does not have to be a partner in a program to ensure its ultimate success.'' Thirty years later, I think Bill would have felt right at home in the current congressional climate, working to advance the tenets of the Contract With America. Bill would probably be less comfortable, however, with the prevailing practices of political campaigning. A gentleman known for his unpretentious manner and low-key sense of humor, Bill prided himself on conducting campaigns free of personal attacks and disparagement. ``I might say that I don't indulge in personalities,'' he said. ``Never in eight campaigns have I felt it necessary to go to name-calling.'' On this his 90th birthday, I want to congratulate Bill Van Pelt and to wish him continued health and happiness. In addition, on behalf of the people of the Sixth Congressional District, I want to thank him for his 14 years of service in the House of Representatives and for his legacy of integrity and commonsense leadership.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing legislation, at the request of the pipeline industry, to reauthorize our pipeline safety programs. This legislation represents the consensus view of both the natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline industries on the future direction of pipeline safety programs and will be considered at a Surface Transportation Subcommittee hearing to be held next week.

Mr. PETRI

Mr. PETRI. Mr. Speaker, today, along with the other Members of the Wisconsin delegation, I am introducing the Level of Effort Clean Water Bonus Fund Act of 1995. This bill would amend the Clean Water Act to set aside 20 percent of the amount provided annually for federal capitalization grants under the State Revolving Loan Fund [SRF] Program and use those funds to provide grants to States that have devoted financial resources to the SRF or other wastewater treatment grant programs beyond the minimum required under the program. States which have made clean water a top priority and have invested resources toward wastewater treatment beyond what is required under the Clean Water Act naturally have seen significant improvement in their water quality. Unfortunately, since Federal funds are distributed through a formula which is based in large part on needs, these States find that the Federal response to their hard efforts is to reduce their Federal funds. States which have not devoted the resources necessary to make real improvements in their water quality, for lack of effort or other reasons, will receive an increase in Federal funding. This is an approach which does not make sense to me. Too many of our Federal programs contain disincentives for States to invest their own funds beyond the minimum required. An incentive grant program would recognize the hard budget choices and efforts made by States which overmatch the required SRF contribution and it would encourage other States to invest greater resources in this program in the future. I believe this is a more rational policy than rewarding States which do less by giving them more Federal money. As Congress begins the Clean Water reauthorization process, I hope that we will take a look at how we spend our Federal dollars and use those dollars to provide incentives to States so that overall spending on clean water will increase, and our water quality will improve as well.