Volume 141, No. 93 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“THOUGHTFUL WORDS ON WETLANDS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E1175 on June 8, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
THOUGHTFUL WORDS ON WETLANDS
______
HON. BUD SHUSTER
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, June 7, 1995
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, the absolute chaos unleashed by the current section 404 wetlands program in the 1972 Clean Water Act is excellently documented in the following editorial, which appeared in the Lewistown Sentinel, a newspaper in my Ninth Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Indeed, the word ``wetlands'' is not even mentioned in the main provisions of the original 1972 act. Instead, abuses and distortions that exist currently in the wetlands regulatory program stem from just 10 words in original 1972 legislation: ``The discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters.''
It is from this simple phrase that bureaucrats and judges have created what is so eloquently written described in the editorial's concluding paragraph. This editorial provides a good overview of the issue and I commend it to my colleagues and all people interested in the wetlands debate.
[From the Lewistown Sentinel, May 31, 1995]
Clean Water Bill Is Solid Legislation
Two years ago last week, conservationist Bill Ellen was released from the federal prison at Petersburg, Va., after serving a six-month sentence for allegedly violating wetland regulations.
Ellen ran afoul of the Environmental Protection Agency in the course of building a wildlife preserve, where he was the project supervisor.
A couple of loads of clean fill were placed on land so dry that his crews were spraying water on the ground to reduce dust for safety reasons. But overly broad regulations--upon which even assorted federal and state agencies did not agree at the time--called the spot wet, at least by the EPA's lights.
If revisions to the Clean Water Act adopted by the House of Representatives this week become law, there won't be any more Bill Ellen cases. The legislation requires the Army Corps of Engineers--the primary wetlands agency--and the Department of Agriculture to write new regulations, this time with real definitions that would put wetlands into three categories according to their ecological importance. Land in the least significant category could be used for other purposes, whereas land in the most significant category would be tightly restricted. Property owners might be entitled to just compensation in such instances.
Rep. Bud Shuster is a sponsor of the bill, which passed the House in a 240-185 bipartisan vote. Shuster, whose district includes Mifflin and Juniata counties, is chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Central Pennsylvania's congressman has spent a good bit of time lately defending the bill against broadsides from the Clinton administration. The White House is threatening a veto. In a public relations campaign against the bill, they're calling it ``The Polluters' Protection Act,'' which is utter nonsense.
Among other points, Shuster has correctly pointed out that the bill contains many points that align with Clinton's own blueprint for federal reform. He also noted that the bill received support from the bipartisan National Governors' Association, which Clinton once headed.
``The president read from a script handed him by the environmental extremists,'' Shuster said. ``This is a common-sense bill written and supported by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of House members.''
Shuster is right on the money. Like him, we can't see the logic in Clinton's attack. He's missing the real question at hand, which is whether environmental regulation in this country is going to be governed by rule of law or by arbitrary bureaucrats.
Americans are entitled, through their elected representatives, to define what is important and what's not and to set down some clear definitions.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up