mr. chairman , our amendment would stop the epa from moving forward with a dangerous proposal that would allow more partially treated sewage into our waterways . 
this morning the epa issued a statement saying it will not finalize its current proposal . 
the epa has been mulling over this policy change for nearly 2 years . 
i am pleased to see that the epa has now recognized that this policy proposal is bad for our health , bad for our environment , and bad for business . 
now congress needs to seal the deal by passing our amendment to make sure this misguided proposal is gone for good . 
let me clarify something that has been misunderstood . 
our amendment will not cost a thing . 
it will not change a thing . 
it leaves things just the way they are right now . 
currently , clean water rules say during major wet weather events , sewage treatment plants are allowed to combine the filtered but untreated human sewage with fully treated waste water before discharge , in a process known as `` blending , '' when no other feasible alternative exists . 
the epa 's 2003 proposal would weaken current environmental standards by allowing facilities to discharge largely untreated sewage virtually anytime it rains . 
our amendment simply stops the epa from weakening existing environmental standards and requires that sewage be effectively treated to remove the viruses , parasites , and bacteria that make people sick . 
i know many of my colleagues are hearing that this amendment will pose astronomical costs on local communities . 
that is simply not true . 
this amendment will not cost communities a dime . 
our amendment would maintain the current policy . 
it would not prevent utilities from blending under any of the current allowable legal circumstances . 
it would merely support current safeguards which do not allow blending when full treatment is feasible . 
let me repeat that . 
our amendment will not ban blending . 
we have a clear policy choice . 
should we provide effective treatment for sewage , remove pollutants that poison drinking water sources , close beaches , contaminate shellfish , make people sick , and rob the water of oxygen the fish need to breathe ? 
or should we allow routine discharges of inadequately treated sewage virtually every time it rains ? 
to ask the question is to answer it . 
the choice is clear just as it has been under the clean water act for the past 30 years . 
congress needs to send a strong , clear message on behalf of our constituents . 
we do not want human waste in the water we drink and swim in . 
as a step in the right direction , vote `` yes '' on the bipartisan stupak/shaw/pallone/miller amendment . 
groups weighing in against epa 's sewage proposal american littoral society ; american public health association ; american shore and beach preservation assoc. ; american rivers ; children 's environmental health network ; citizens campaign for the environment ; clean ocean action ; clean water action ; coast alliance ; east coast shellfish growers association ; earthjustice ; us conference of catholic bishops ; environmental integrity project ; and coalition on the environment and jewish life . 
lake michigan federation ; league of conservation voters ; national fisheries management institute ; natural resources defense council ; new york rivers united ; pacific shellfish growers association ; physicians for social responsibility ; riverkeeper , inc. ; sierra club ; surfers ' environmental alliance ; surfrider foundation ; the ocean conservancy ; us pirg ; and us conference on catholic bishops . 
mr. chairman , i thank the gentleman for raising this concern and want to clarify this issue for him . 
the short answer is `` no. '' my amendment would not change the existing requirements for cso communities , which are outlined in the 1994 cso policy and were incorporated in the cwa in 2000 . 
the cso policy allows combined sewer systems to bypass secondary treatment when it is not feasible to provide full treatment for sewage . 
bypassing is allowed under the cso policy as part of a long-term plan to minimize sewer overflows and maximize treatment . 
epa 's proposed sewage dumping policy is inconsistent with the 1994 cso policy because it would allow bypassing full treatment even when it is feasible . 
the proposed policy would undercut those communities investing in long-term solutions that are protective of public health , the environment , and downstream economies . 
the proposed policy would also allow separate sanitary sewer systems to bypass secondary treatment and discharge largely untreated sewage even if full treatment would be feasible , as it should be under normal operating conditions for most well operated and maintained separate sanitary systems . 
given the heavy load of viruses , parasites , bacteria , toxic chemicals , and other contaminants in sewage , it is critical that sewage treatment plants strive to achieve full treatment , not just discharge poorly treated sewage because it is cheaper to do so . 
i also incorporated mr. meehan 's statement relating blending policy to this statement . 
mr. chairman , i reserve the balance of my time . 
