BACKGROUND: The Clean Water Amendments of 1995 is a bill that includes provisions that would change the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) enacted in 1972. This bill would relax environmental standards and the enforcement of those standards set forth in the Clean Water Act. The Amendments bill would allow states and localities more flexibility and space to waive pollution discharge standards. The bill would base pollution reduction programs on a cost-benefit analysis, meaning the environmental gain would have to exceed economic cost as measured by guidelines created in the bill. The bill also contains provisions that would eliminate a measure that allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to develop guidelines for determining when fish are contaminated, ease Federal regulations on publicly owned treatment centers that discharge pollutants into marine waters at certain distances from the shore, and exempt municipal or industrial treatment works that use only a small amount of hazardous materials or oil from following the regulations of the Clean Water Act. The bill also increases funds for rural communities to comply with the Clean Water Act, eliminates language prohibiting property from being labeled a wetland based solely on the fact that migratory birds are present, and would compensate landowners for economic loss due to actions taken under the Clean Water Act to protect wetlands.

KEY PLAYERS: Sponsored by Rep. E.G. (Bud) Shuster (R-PA) and 30 other co-sponsors. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. The bill has also been sent to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

STATUS: The Clean Water Amendments Act of 1995 (H.R. 961) was passed by the House (240-185) on May 16, 1995. The bill was sent to the Senate where hearings were held by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. While Senate action is pending, the Congress has taken up other environmental measure that, instead of relaxing specific environmental standards, weaken the ability of the government to enforce regulations.

PRO: Supporters of the revised environmental law state that the present laws are inflexible and are costly. The believe that this bill allow states and localities -- who, they argue, are more in touch with the people -- to have the responsibility for enforcing environmental standards. Supporters believe the government agencies have been over-eager in the attempts to label wetlands of limits to development.

"The American people sent us a message in November, loud and clear: Tame the regulatory beast! Our constituents want us to break the Fed's stranglehold on our economy and to get them out of decisions that are best left to the individual." -- Rep. Thomas J. Bliley (R-VA)

CON: Opponents say that this bill eliminates needed protection of the environment, in this case water and wetlands. Opponents also point to a survey by regulatory agencies that suggests that if this bill were passed, nearly all wetlands that are regulated under current law would be free from Federal protection.

"It will be more difficult, in my opinion, to explain to my constituents and others why they cannot fish in local streams, why they are losing business due to beach closings and other reductions in recreation and tourism, and why their property values have decreased or why their drinking water is not usable...In brief, the bill we are about to consider would make it much easier for polluters to pollute." -- Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)

WHAT'S NEXT: The bill in now in the Senate where action in pending. The bill may have to overcome a Senate filibuster and if it passes that, President Clinton has threatened to veto the bill as in now stands. Even if this bill does not pass, many other bill seek to relax environmental standards and protection, including a reduction in funding for the EPA.