Sherwood Boehlert: “Mr. Chairman, now we come to the moment of decision. The vote on our amendment presents this House with a clear, stark…”

“Mr. Chairman, now we come to the moment of decision. The vote on our amendment presents this House with a clear, stark question: Are we truly for reform of the Clean Water Act, or is the word reform simply an alias to mask the evisceration of our Nation's most successful environmental statute? That is the choice. If what Members want is to retreat on the Clean Water Act, support H.R. 961 as reported. However, if what they want is true reform of the Clean Water Act, this substitute provides it. Let me give some of the details that highlight the difference between reform and repeal. Let us look at the wetlands provisions. Are there problems with the wetlands provisions of current law? Of course there are. My district has wetlands, including agricultural wetlands. I know there are problems. How would H.R. 961 propose to deal with these problems? By allowing the wholesale elimination of wetlands, wetlands that purify our waters, and prevent flooding. Is that a remedy? And on what basis does H.R. 961 allow the destruction of these wetlands? Certainly not on a scientific basis. The National Academy of Sciences' distinguished panel on this issue has stated that the definitions in H.R. 961 have no scientific basis, and with all due respect to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana let me point out that these eminent scientists are not paid by the Environmental Protection Agency.”