Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me thank all parties for their cooperation over the last 3 or 4 days. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and I have worked together with the gentleman's very cooperative staff to arrive at an agreement, which, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri] points out correctly, is not perfect. However, we believe it does move in the right direction and solve some of our problems, particularly relative to the ability to opt out of the program. It does provide that the EPA Administrator has the power to review and to, subsequent to the review, require a CZMA program that would have to do with nonpoint coastal pollution. The State would then be required to adopt programs that would bring their CZMA nonpoint coastal pollution program to quality water standards, and while this is not perfect, certainly it is something that we believe at this late stage in negotiations we can live with.

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

Mr. SAXTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. SAXTON. We can certainly agree on that point, Mr. Chairman. We can certainly agree. I think there are three items that are contentious. We can certainly agree on two, the one the gentleman just mentioned, whether this is a program and whether this is a program that is administered through the EPA or NOAA, but the ability of States who have internal political pressure to opt out of the program or to fail to opt into the program is something that is very contentious and something that we have not and cannot agree to.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the very difficult position of having to oppose the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri]. As we suggested over the last several days, modifications to the amendment could have been made to shore up some of the problem areas, but were not. As a matter of fact, when the debate of this issue started a few minutes ago, we were still off the floor trying to understand how we could arrive at those agreements. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I must say that this amendment, while it is true it does not touch the language of the Boehlert amendment, does do violence to the CZMA Program, in that it essentially takes away the motivation that is currently in the current law to provide for those aspects that encourage people to be in the program. As a matter of fact, I have before me a memorandum from the Coastal States Organization which I would like to quote directly from, because the Coastal States Organization very much opposes the Tauzin-Petri amendment. They say that they have reviewed this amendment and determined that it is not consistent with either the policy of the National Governors' Association or with the Coastal States Organization. In regards to the revised version of Tauzin-Petri they say the following: The revised version has the same problems as the original version in that the amendment would allow States to operate out of CZMA section 6217, contrary to what we have heard from some of the proponents of Tauzin-Petri amendment. Allowing States to operate out of the program does not serve the purpose of additional flexibility to the States. Rather, it will put increased pressure on the States by those pollution, polluters, to opt out of CZARA 6217 in favor of the 319 program which holds little prospect of improving water. This is the statement brought to us today, May 16, by Kerry Kehoe of the Coastal States Organization. In the interest of the integrity of CZMA as it relates to nonpoint source pollution, this is simply a revote, this is nothing more than a revote of the amendment that we voted last week. In addition, the proposed amendment deletes the enforceable policy requirements from CZARA. As you are aware, NOAA and the EPA have recently agreed to longstanding policies which this apparently also deletes. Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance but with a sense of determination that this revote on the amendment that was offered last week, which has the same effect, and that is to gut the CZMA nonpoint pollution program, must be defeated.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make three very quick, and, I hope, succinct points. I came to this House and served for a number of years on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and while I was there, I found myself taking part in debates similar to this where we were making policy decisions based on a number of factors, and after a couple of years of serving there and weighing those factors, I came to the conclusion that we did not pay a lot of attention to science, and this debate today points out that back in those days that I thought I was right I can prove that, in fact, I was right, because, as a matter of fact, the National Academy of Sciences does not agree in any way, shape, or form with the definition of wetlands as it occurs today in H.R. 961. One of the major thrusts of the Boehlert amendment is that it changes that definition so that it is in concert with what we think is a good definition based on science. Second, H.R. 961, as it currently stands, would allow for destruction of well over half of the Nation's wetlands, and those of us who recognize the value of wetlands in terms of the life cycle, in terms of its use to slow down floodwater and act as a filter for pollutants which enter our waters upstream, recognize that it would be a disaster to permit an opportunity to destroy more than half of the Nation's wetlands. And, third, let me point out that the debate that just occurred between my friend from Maryland and my friend from Iowa, I think, is ample evidence that we ought to listen to what the Governors say, because my friend from Maryland perceives wetlands as being one thing, and my friend from Iowa, a different State with a different structure, land structure, perceives wetlands as something quite different. And the Boehlert amendment adopts the National Governors Association proposals on wetlands reform, part of which is to give the States more say in defining and carrying out the wetlands programs. So I wholeheartedly and strongly support the Boehlert amendment.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It is my understanding that title X will in effect act as an amendment to a previous amendment brought to the floor and passed relative to the Coastal Zone Management Act. If the new title is accepted and is voted affirmatively, I would like to reserve the right, if that is the necessary language, to offer a substitute to the bill, which would in effect amend title X. I understand that I have the right to do that under the current rule, and I would like to affirm that that is in fact the case and that nothing being done here would abridge that right.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I would just like to ask the gentleman, the nutrification process that you speak of in bodies of waters such as the Chesapeake Bay where nutrients create a situation where aquatic life cannot exist, at least in a healthy way, comes from in most cases the non-point source pollution issue that we are addressing in the substitute. The educational process, to enlist the help of the army of people necessary to change our forms of behavior, is absolutely necessary, as included in this bill. I bring this up because the Chesapeake Bay is the great example of a great body of water that everybody is in love with and that everybody would like to help to nurture back to a good state of health, if only we had programs to help people understand how to do that. branch of the Tunkhannock Creek, which nobody has heard of. But it feeds into the east branch of the Susquehanna River, which is of course the source of fresh water for the Bay, and that is where the nutrients come from. My father a few years ago adopted the south branch of the Tunkhannock Creek and went about trying to eliminate the nutrients coming from that area. Throughout Pennsylvania, those kinds of programs are necessary in order to help bring the Bay back to an appropriate level of healthfulness. So I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] for bringing this amendment back to the floor tonight, and I would also like to commend the ranking minority member for having the foresight to support it. I would just say two things. Mr. Chairman, the first point I would make is that it is impossible for the Congress of the United States to pretend that the issue of nonpoint source pollution does not exist around the coasts of the United States. It is simply impossible, because the problem is there. It is a fact of life as clear as the nose on our faces. Beaches close every year. Red tides and blue tides and green tides, they come from algae buildup because nutrient buildup is there. Organizations form around our coasts like the Committee to Save Chesapeake Bay, the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association, and other groups like that which recognize the seriousness of this problem. This House in 1990 recognized it as well. That is why we amended the Coastal Zone Management Act to provide for a nonpoint source pollution program and encouraged the States to adopt these programs. It is dumb to pretend that the problem does not exist, just plain dumb. For us to stop in the middle of the road, amend the Coastal Zone Management Act while pretending the problem does not exist, is equally dumb. I do not know any other way to say it. It just does not make any sense whatsoever. The second point that I would make, and I know that the chairman did not mean to misrepresent the identity of those organizations that support this amendment, but the Coastal States Organization is an organization made up of 35 States, Territories, and Commonwealths who are coastal States and legislation. The Coastal States Organization was founded in 1970 to represent the Governors of coastal States. We have a letter here which at the appropriate time I would like to make part of the Record, because it is as clear as a bell in support of the Boehlert amendment. I would just read one paragraph from that letter. The serious problem of non-point pollution of the Nation's coastal waters is well-documented. Runoff pollution causes significant economic harm. Commercial and recreational fisheries are being closed. Beaches are being closed to the public. Non-point pollution poses serious human health and safety concerns while at the same time degrades wildlife habitat. This problem needs to be addressed now, before this country suffers further economic losses, health hazards and environmental degradation. With the proper amendments, which we understand your bill contains, the section 6217 program will well serve this purpose. It goes on to explain other reasons for supporting the program to do something about the very serious problem that remains in the coastal areas, namely, nonpoint source pollution, and the program is well under way with the States all around the coasts of this country. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has to be passed in order to do any kind of sane continuation to solve the problem that we all must know exists. Mr. Chairman, I include the letter referred to for the Record. Coastal States Organization, Washington, DC, May 8, 1995. Hon. Jim Saxton, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Saxton: We are encouraged to hear you will offer an alternative package on the Clean Water Act reauthorization that would amend, rather then repeal, the coastal nonpoint pollution control program established by Sec. 6217 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA). We write to support you in this effort. The serious problem of nonpoint pollution of the Nation's coastal waters is well documented. Runoff pollution causes significant economic harm. Commercial and recreational fisheries are being closed. Beaches are being closed to the public. Nonpoint pollution poses serious human health and safety concerns, while at the same time degrades wildlife habitat. This problem needs to be addressed now, before this country suffers further economic losses, health hazards and environmental degradation. With the proper amendments, which we understand your bill contains, the Sec. 6217 program will serve this purpose. It is no secret that we have had complaints about the Sec. 6217 program. Nonetheless, we believe that the immediacy of the coastal nonpoint pollution problem calls for this program to be fixed, not killed. The coastal States have over four years worth of work invested in developing the Sec. 6217 programs; they are nearly complete, and are due for submission in July. Why throw four years of diligent work out the window two months before the completion date? By amending the Sec. 6217 program as we propose, the Nation will have in place an effective coastal nonpoint pollution control program within 8 months from now. Repealing Sec. 6217, on the other hand, will delay getting any program up and running for another five or six years. We strongly support your efforts to amend, not repeal, the coastal nonpoint pollution control program established under Sec. 6217 of OBRA. Sincerely, H. Wayne Beam, Chairman.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out, I know there is some confusion over all the letters we have had floating around here today, but the letter that the gentleman from New York refers to that does endorse this provision, the provision that is the subject of this amendment, is a letter from the Coastal States Organization which was an organization founded in 1970 to represent the Governors of the 35 coastal States, Territories and Commonwealths on coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean affairs.

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

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

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] is going to be our last speaker. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I wish to yield whatever time the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] did not use, in addition to the 5 minutes, to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].

Mr. SAXTON. I amend my unanimous consent request to that effect.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I amend my unanimous-consent request.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit further debate to 45 minutes, to be equally divided between the opponents and proponents.

Mr. SAXTON. If we could limit debate to 45 minutes, that would take care of the situation.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we limit additional debate time to 30 minutes, to be divided equally between the proponents and the opponents of the substitute.

Mr. SAXTON. I believe on our side we have three or four, possibly three additional speakers.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair, with the gentleman from Indiana, if we might explore limiting debate time to perhaps an additional period of time. May I ask the gentleman, how many additional speakers he believes he may have.