[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: February 2, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3425, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION ACT
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 312 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 312
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3425) to redesignated the Environment
Protection Agency as the Department of Environmental
Protection, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this
resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Government Operations. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute
rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill
for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Government Operations now printed in the bill.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
be considered as read. All points of order against the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be in order except those printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against the
amendment numbered 9 in the report are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion expect one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Durbin). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from the Catskills, NY [Mr.
Solomon], and pending that, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MOAKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 312 is the rule providing
for the consideration of H.R. 3425, the Department of Environmental
Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Government Operations. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The rule makes in order
the Government Operations Committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose
of amendment. The substitute will be considered as read. All points of
order against the substitute are waived.
The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report
to accompany the rule. The amendments are to be considered in the order
and manner specified, with debate time also specified in the report.
The amendments shall be considered as read. The amendments are not
subject to amendment, and are not subject to a demand for a division of
the question.
All points of order are waived against amendment No. 9 in the report,
which is the amendment in the nature of substitute to be offered by
Representative Clinger. No other points of order are waived against any
other amendment.
At the conclusion of the consideration of the bill for amendment, the
committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member is then allowed to
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit
with or without instruction.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk briefly about the amendments that
were submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill and why some were
not made in order. The Rules Committee, after requesting amendments
prior to consideration of the rule, received 27 amendments; 7 were
subsequently withdrawn by the sponsors and 2 were identical to 2 other
germane amendments which were made in order. Of the remaining 18
amendments, 10 of them were subject to points of order and would have
required waivers in order to be considered on the floor. In fact,
several of the most controversial and emotional issues raised during
the hearing were on amendments that were clearly nongermane to the
bill.
H.R. 3425 elevates the EPA to a Cabinet Department and makes a number
of structural and management changes. It very specifically does not
change any in any way existing statutes adminstered by the EPA.
Therefore, in an effort to be fair and craft a responsible rule to
address the issues in the bill, the committee decided to make in order
only those amendments which did not violate any House rules. The one
exception was the substitute bill offered by Mr. Clinger, the ranking
minority member of the committee of original jurisdiction. The Rules
Committee, in deference to Mr. Clinger, did waive points of order on
this otherwise germane amendment for minor budget act and clause 5(a),
rule XXI violations.
H.R. 3425 would elevate the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]
from its current status as an independent agency to the 15th Cabinet
Department, the Department of Environmental Protection. Nearly
identical legislation was passed by the House in the 101st Congress and
by the Senate in the 102d Congress. The bill does not amend any
existing EPA administered statutes and does not change environmental
policy. The bill redesignates the EPA to an executive department in the
executive branch of Government and makes a number of much-needed
improvements in the management and structure at the new Department.
H.R. 3425 calls for the appointment of a Secretary and a Deputy
Secretary to head the Department; and transfers the functions, powers,
and duties of each officer and employee of the EPA to the new
Department. The Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and Assistant
Administrators would be redesignated as Secretary, Deputy Secretary,
and Assistant Secretaries respectively. All these positions would be
appointed by the President with confirmation by the Senate.
The purpose of the elevation of the EPA to a Department is to enhance
U.S. environmental protection activities by providing this increased
standing on the President's Cabinet thereby placing environmental
issues on an equal footing with other Federal agencies. Furthermore,
this move will place the United States' chief environmental entity on
the same tier as its international counterpart environmental
ministries. Clearly those policies and issues relating to the
environment are absolutely critical to our Nation's future and
certainly deserve the recognition and attention that cabinet level
status provides. I believe it is important to pass this rule and move
on to the debate of this responsible and timely legislation.
The bill makes a number of improvements in the overall management of
the new Department including the development of a strategic business
plan to clearly outline the goals, products, and services of the
Department. The plan also is to maintain a system of program
performance measurement to ensure that the Department's resources are
utilized effectively and efficiently. The bill establishes a Chief
Information Officer, with the rank of Assistant Secretary, to oversee
the design, development, implementation, and procurement of an
effective information system for the Department. Public access to the
Department's programs, services, and products is to be improved through
development and maintenance of an inventory listing of such products
available through an easily accessible data base. An independent,
nonpartisan Bureau of Environmental Statistics is to be created to help
improve analysis of environmental conditions and trends to better
determine the effectiveness of environmental policies and activities.
An Office of Environmental Justice is established to develop and
implement a strategy to promote environmental justice for all
individuals regardless of income, race, ethnicity, or national origin.
The bill requires the promulgation of strict peer review and quality
assurance guidelines for use in preparing science-based and science-
dependent technical information and products of the Department.
Contracting procedures are reformed in a number of areas including
limitations on so-called umbrella contracts and allowable contractor
reimbursements. The bill establishes an Office of Environmental Risk to
implement a strategy to attain reductions in risk to human health and
the environment that are practicable with the resources available.
{time} 1550
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
modified closed rule on H.R. 3425, the Department of Environmental
Protection Act.
Mr. Speaker, let me make clear at the outset that this modified
closed rule does make in order some nine amendments, including eight
submitted by Republican Members. And for that we are grateful.
Notwithstanding the constructive amendments made in order, I must
still oppose the rule because of what it does not do. It does not make
in order the bipartisan amendment submitted by two outstanding freshman
Members from Florida, Mrs. Thurman and Mr. Mica.
Their amendment is identical to the Johnston risk-assessment
amendment in the other body which was passed as part of the Senate
Environmental Protection Department bill by a vote of 95 to 3. I
repeat, 95 to 3.
So this is a matter we will have to go to conference on, and this
House deserves an opportunity now to vote on it before we go to
conference.
The amendment would simply require the Secretary to include with any
new regulations on health or the environment an estimate of the risk to
be addressed, the costs associated with implementation and compliance,
and a comparative analysis of the risks addressed relative to other
risks.
What could be more reasonable, more commonsensical, and more
necessary in creating such a powerful regulatory bureaucracy as this?
I am sure the American people are completely baffled at the fact that
this House will not even be allowed to consider such an amendment. Why
wasn't it made in order?
Well, we are told that the amendment isn't germane and therefore
should have no place in our debate about creating a new regulatory
Cabinet department on the environment.
Mr. Speaker, I have followed this bill through the legislative
process with great interest. Residents in my upstate New York district
are keenly interested in environmental issues. And I am sure they are
just as puzzled as I am about our strange notions of what is and is not
germane sometimes.
How can you create this new regulatory bureaucracy and not allow the
House to even require that it consider the costs and benefits of the
regulations it imposes on the country?
Moreover, we will not have an opportunity under this rule to vote on
two important amendments offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Tauzin] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] relating to
protecting the legal and constitutional rights of private property
owners from improper property takings resulting from decisions of the
new department.
Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to envision the Congress moving ahead
with elevation of the EPA without addressing such a basic concern
raised by business leaders and private property owners all across the
country.
This rule is another example of the majority arbitrarily using the
rules for their political advantage--enforcing them to block things
they don't like while waiving them when they want to spend more money.
Yes, this rule waives all points of order against the bill. Hold onto
your wallets.
Now here we are on the floor. This House is prepared to make an
irreversible decision--to create the 15th Cabinet department.
As sure as life will bring death and taxes, Government agencies will
bring taxes, but enjoy life eternal.
There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats alike who would like to
support EPA Cabinet elevation. But they have been put in a procedural
box by the majority leadership and the Rules Committee. And that box is
so wrapped up in regulatory red tape that no one can put the scissors
of common sense to it.
Believe me, Mr. Speaker, this rule is no gift. It is a box containing
a bureaucratic time bomb that will someday blow up in our faces. Let's
send this explosive package back to the Rules Committee bomb squad to
defuse.
If we vote down this rule today and send it back to the Rules
Committee, we can have back on this floor as early as tomorrow a truly
fair rule, reflecting the will of this House and the American people.
That is the right thing to do. Let us do right by the American people
and do it.
Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments to the Proposed
Rule on H.R. 3425, Department of Environmental Protection Act,
Wednesday, November 17, 1993
1. Open rule--This amendment to the proposed rule provides
for one-hour, open rule and makes the Government Operations
Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute in order as
an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule.
Vote (Defeated 2-5): Yeas--Quillen, Goss; Nays--Moakley,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Solomon Dreier.
2. Thurman-Mica #11--Requires the Secretary to include with
any new regulations relating to human health or the
environment: 1) an estimate of the risk to be addressed; 2)
the costs associated with implementation and compliance with
the regulation; and 3) a comparative analysis of the risk
addressed relative to other risks.
Vote (Defeated 2-5): Yeas--Quillen, Goss; Nays--Moakley,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Solomon, Dreier.
3. Walker (PA) #12--Substitute amendment creating a
Department of Science, Space, Energy, and Technology which
would include the current EPA.
Vote (Defeated 2-5): Yeas--Quillen, Goss; Nays--Moakley,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Solomon, Dreier.
4. Baker (LA) #9--Establishes a regulatory procedure to
address the impact of federal legislative and regulatory
activity on small business and the private economic sector.
Vote (Defeated 2-5): Yeas--Quillen, Goss; Nays--Moakley,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Solomon, Dreier.
5. (en bloc):
Hefley (CO) #8--Requires the Secretary to conduct cost-
benefit analyses for all proposed environmental regulations
and limits to issuance of those regulations whose costs
exceed the benefits to public health and the environment.
Herger (CA) #10--Requires the Secretary to assess any
Department of Environmental Protection regulatory action for
any potential taking of private property.
Mica (FL) #16--Creates an Office of Environmental Risk and
Cost Analysis.
Mica (FL) #17--Delays the elevation of the EPA to cabinet-
level status for one year pending the implementation of
agency management reforms.
Vote (Defeated 2-5): Yeas--Quillen, Goss; Nays--Moakley,
Beilenson, Frost, Gordon, Slaughter. Not voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Solomon, Dreier.
6. Adoption of rule--
Vote (Adopted 5-2): Yeas--Moakley, Beilenson, Frost,
Gordon, Slaughter; Nays--Quillen, Goss. Not voting: Derrick,
Bonior, Hall, Wheat, Solomon, Dreier.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open rules Restrictive rules
Congress (years) Total rules ---------------------------------------
granted\1\ Number Percent\2\ Number Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78)............................................. 211 179 85 32 15
96th (1979-80)............................................. 214 161 75 53 25
97th (1981-82)............................................. 120 90 75 30 25
98th (1983-84)............................................. 155 105 68 50 32
99th (1985-86)............................................. 115 65 57 50 43
100th (1987-88)............................................ 123 66 54 57 46
101st (1989-90)............................................ 104 47 45 57 55
102d (1991-92)............................................. 109 37 34 72 66
103d (1993-94)............................................. 50 12 24 38 76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of
order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is
otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
of total rules granted.
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called
modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for
consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are
restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''
Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Nov. 17, 1993.
OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Amendments
Rule number date reported type Bill number and subject submitted Amendments allowed Disposition of rule and date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993...... MC H.R. 1: Family and medical 30 (D-5; R-25).. 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
leave. 1993).
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993...... MC H.R. 2: National Voter 19 (D-1; R-18).. 1 (D-0; R-1).............. PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
Registration Act. 1993).
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993.... C H.R. 920: Unemployment 7 (D-2; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.
compensation. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993..... MC H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments 9 (D-1; R-8).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
1993).
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization 13 (d-4; R-9)... 8 (D-3; R-5).............. PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.
Act of 1993. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 1335: Emergency 37 (D-8; R-29).. 1 (not submitted) (D-1; R- A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).
supplemental Appropriations. 0).
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993.... MC H. Con. Res. 64: Budget 14 (D-2; R-12).. 4 (1-D not submitted) (D- PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.
resolution. 2; R-2). 18, 1993).
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 670: Family planning 20 (D-8; R-12).. 9 (D-4; R-5).............. PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.
amendments. 24, 1993).
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993.... C H.R. 1430: Increase Public 6 (D-1; R-5).... 0 (D-0; R-0).............. PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
debt limit. 1993).
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993...... MC H.R. 1578: Expedited 8 (D-1; R-7).... 3 (D-1; R-2).............. A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).
Rescission Act of 1993.
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993...... O H.R. 820: Nate NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).
Competitiveness Act.
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).
of 1993.
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993..... O H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel NA.............. NA........................ A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).
Safety Act.
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993...... MC S.J. Res. 45: United States 6 (D-1; R-5).... 6 (D-1; R-5).............. A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)
forces in Somalia.
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993..... O H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental NA.............. NA........................ A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993..... MC H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget 51 (D-19; R-32). 8 (D-7; R-1).............. PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27,
reconciliation. 1993).
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 2348: Legislative branch 50 (D-6; R-44).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June
appropriations. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993.... O H.R. 2200: NASA authorization NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993.... MC H.R. 5: Striker replacement.. 7 (D-4; R-3).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993.... MO H.R. 2333: State Department. 53 (D-20; R-33). 27 (D-12; R-15)........... A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).
H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993.... C H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).
Track''.
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993.... MC H.R. 2295: Foreign operations 33 (D-11; R-22). 5 (D-1; R-4).............. A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993.... O H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993.... MO H.R. 2445: Energy and Water NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).
appropriations.
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993.... O H.R. 2150: Coast Guard NA.............. NA........................ A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993.... MO H.R. 2010: National Service NA.............. NA........................ A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).
Trust Act.
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 14 (D-8; R-6)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July
assistance supplemental. 22, 1993).
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993.... MC H.R. 2667: Disaster 15 (D-8; R-7)... 2 (D-2; R-0).............. A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).
assistance supplemental.
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993.... MO H.R. 2330: Intelligence NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).
Authority Act, fiscal year
1994.
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993.... O H.R. 1964: Maritime NA.............. NA........................ A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).
Administration authority.
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense 149 (D-109; R- .......................... A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).
authority. 40).
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993.... MO H.R. 2401: National defense ................ .......................... PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.
authorization. 13, 1993).
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993... MC H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act 12 (D-3; R-9)... 1 (D-1; R-0).............. A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993... MO H.R. 2401: National Defense ................ 91 (D-67; R-24)........... A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).
authorization.
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993... O H.R. 1845: National NA.............. NA........................ A: 238-188 (10/06/93).
Biological Survey Act.
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993... MC H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities, 7 (D-0; R-7).... 3 (D-0; R-3).............. PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.
museums. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).
compensation amendments.
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993..... MO H.R. 2739: Aviation N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).
infrastructure investment.
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 3167: Unemployment 3 (D-1; R-2).... 2 (D-1; R-1).............. PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.
compensation amendments. 14, 1993).
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993.... MC H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate 15 (D-7; R-7; I- 10 (D-7; R-3)............. A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).
America Act. 1).
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 281: Continuing N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).
appropriations through Oct.
28, 1993.
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993.... O H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).
Act.
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993.... C H.J. Res. 283: Continuing 1 (D-0; R-0).... 0......................... A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).
appropriations resolution.
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993.... O H.R. 2151: Maritime Security N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).
Act of 1993.
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993..... MC H. Con. Res. 170: Troop N/A............. N/A....................... A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).
withdrawal Somalia.
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993..... MO H.R. 1036: Employee 2 (D-1; R-1).... N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).
Retirement Act-1993.
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993..... MC H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill 17 (D-6; R-11).. 4 (D-1; R-3).............. A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993..... O H.R. 322: Mineral exploration N/A............. N/A....................... A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993..... C H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY N/A............. N/A....................... .................................
1994.
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status 27 (D-8; R-19).. 9 (D-1; R-8).............. .................................
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 796: Freedom Access to 15 (D-9; R-6)... 4 (D-1; R-3).............. .................................
Clinics.
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993.... MC H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young 21 (D-7; R-14).. 6 (D-3; R-3).............. .................................
Offenders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Government Operations.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules and the
members of the committee for crafting a rule that is consistent with
the regulations of this House and is also fair to the purposes of this
Department of Environmental Protection.
This is a bill not to deal with the substantive matters of EPA or the
environment, but it is an elevation bill. It is a reorganization bill.
I would point out to my good friend, the ranking member on the
Committee on Rules, who has been following this matter for 10 years
along with me since my committee brought the bill forward, that this
rule does not make part of the rule amendments that he objected to in
the 101st Congress when this bill brought to the floor under a set of,
again, very fair rules that the gentleman had helped craft.
What I want to do is spend just a few minutes pointing out that the
rule is fair and open. How can we be quarreling about a rule that has
nine germane amendments allowed: one amendment that would require EPA
to develop a strategy to ease unfunded mandates on State and local
governments; two amendments which would establish ombudsmen for local
governments and small businesses to help comply with EPA regulations; a
third Republican amendment in the nature of a substitute in which
points of order were waived?
We have, I contend, an eminently fair rule. The rule prohibits the
Mica-Thurman amendment on risk assessment as nongermane. That is not an
unreasonable conclusion that the Committee on Rules arrived at.
The amendment requires EPA to conduct a comparative analysis of risks
addressed by any EPA regulation relative to other non-EPA-regulated
risks to certify that the regulation will substantially advance
protecting human health and safety or the environment, and that the
benefits justify the implementation and compliance costs to the
Government and the public.
{time} 1600
The purpose of this bill is not to change environmental policy as the
Mica amendment would do. It is to make the EPA a Cabinet department, to
correct major management problems in contracting, procurement of
information systems, creation of a Bureau of Environmental Statistics,
and establish performance goals for EPA.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has waited too long. For 5 years the
legislation making EPA the 15th Cabinet department has been through
fits and starts in the Congress. We already passed this elevation bill.
It was veto-proof in the 101st Congress. Unfortunately, the other body
chose not to act. Last year, when the other body did act, we were not
able to get to it because of the extremely crowded schedule that we had
at the end of our year.
So the gridlock is over. The bipartisan effort is now kicking in.
H.R. 3425 is a clean bill, free of extraneous matter, with a rule of
such extreme generosity I find it extremely hard for Members to still
be complaining at this late date, with all of the amendments that have
been granted, that this rule is anything more than an eminently fair
and acceptable one.
I urge support for both the rule and the bill.
Mr. SOLOMON. I will just say to my good friend, the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], that all we want is a level playing field for
Members on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Mica], the very distinguished Member who is being denied on this floor
today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
(Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for
yielding this time to me, especially as I am rising in support of the
bill, but I have trouble with the rule, as do many in this House.
The trouble I have with the rule is that it does not allow us, again,
the type of rule that would not allow policy amendments within the EPA;
to debate key issues which have already been debated in the other body.
This House is eager to debate those on the House floor.
One of those is the risk assessment amendment Mr. Mica is proposing.
My own Senator, Senator Johnston, has already warned on the Senate side
and attached to this bill an amendment that requires EPA to do a simple
thing before it begins regulating us one more time, and that is to
assess the risk involved against the cost involved--that is, to take
the least-cost, best approach toward improving our environment--a
simple theory that I think most of us, most of the Americans would
approve of if we ever had a chance to debate it and vote on it in the
House as the Senate has already done.
Second, the amendment we propose and are prepared to offer at any
time we eventually have the right to do so, would create in law a right
of citizens in America to demand compensation under the fifth amendment
to our Constitution, when that property is taken from them by virtue of
environmental Federal regulation issued by the Environmental Protection
Agency or the Corps of Engineers, as the case may be.
The notion that our Government of the United States can take our
property from us for public purposes is enshrined in law and in the
Constitution for a long time now, but the notion that the Government
can take a property has always been, if you will, accepted with the
notion that Government must compensate the individual.
In fact, the fifth amendment says no private property shall be taken
for public purposes without just compensation. It does not say if EPA
decides to take it by regulation, it does not say except if it is a
wetland, it does not say if in fact these regulations are for the
public good. There are no exceptions.
What we would like this House one day to be able to debate--if we
ever get the chance under a rule that permits this--is an amendment
that says very clearly in law that property owners are entitled under
the fifth amendment to compensation when takings occur like that.
If you do not believe the damage as these agencies do that work in
America, think for just a little while back to the news from California
when homeowners lost their homes because they were told by the EPA,
``You cannot do what we have ordered you to do for many years, and that
is to disc the brush around your homes to stop the brush fires from
starting.''
Think about the homes that were lost in California because EPA said
the kangaroo rate had to be protected and folks could not protect their
homes. Think about the folks in California who lost all of their homes
or their property because nobody did a risk assessment and looked at
the value of these regulations against the value of their property.
Sometime or other we are going to be debating those issues on the
floor of the House, you are not going to escape them. It is unfortunate
this rule does not give us a chance today to do it; we ought to have
that chance. That is why I am voting against the rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the gentleman from
Louisiana, is one of the outstanding Members of this House, and he is
so right.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr.
McCandless] another very distinguished member of the committee.
{time} 1610
Mr. McCANDLESS. Mr. Speaker, if EPA is to be elevated to Cabinet
status, in spite of all its much discussed and highly publicized
internal problems, then the Mica-Thurman amendment must be part of it.
We could spend the rest of this week trading horror stories about well-
intentioned environmental regulations gone haywire in each and every
one of our own districts. In my part of the California desert, a much
needed project to improve and widen the State's deadliest two-lane
highway, a project which was two-thirds complete, was abruptly halted
over a year ago. The EPA decided that wetlands may possibly exist near
the project site. These alleged wetlands, if they do exist, are the
result of agricultural runoff. In the 13 months since construction was
stopped, another 10 lives have been lost on Highway 86. Will the road
be finished one day? Probably. Will it have been worth the trade-off in
human lives? Not even close. But this risk equation is not considered
by EPA in current practice. In fact, the Agency's priorities are so
backwards, it is hard to believe that we are even arguing over whether
it should adopt risk assessment and risk management.
Risk assessment is not antienvironment. Witness the
shameful squandering of lives and resources which is too often brought
about by a lack of coherence and pragmatism in environmental
regulation. Given this, I resent the wailing about the alleged
``difficulties'' the risk assessment amendment would cause. Mr.
Speaker, I spend a great deal of time dealing with the negative effects
of environmental regulation on my constituency. I do not see how
factoring in risk assessment could be anything but a change for the
better.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida [Mrs. Thurman].
(Mrs. THURMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Moakley] for the time which he has yielded to me today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, and I rise reluctantly, to oppose the rule
on H.R. 3425, which is the Department of Environmental Protection
elevation bill.
There has been a lot of work put into this bill, and I have been part
of that being part of the Committee on Government Operations. I think
we have done and taken great strides to improve.
However, on the other hand of this, I feel like I am kind of being
painted as this person who does not care about human life, or health,
or the environment, and I do not believe that is true of any person in
this Chamber, and I can especially tell my colleagues that it is not
true of myself.
But what I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, is why we are blocking
this amendment that I believe actually tries to improve the
effectiveness and the efficiency of EPA. Tell me what is wrong with
allowing this House to debate an amendment to require EPA to do what
has been endorsed in an executive order, applying the tools of risk
assessment and cost-benefit analysis to the rulemaking process. What is
wrong with the Federal Government setting priorities to stretch limited
tax-paid dollars the way State and local governments must? What is
wrong in giving the House a chance to debate and vote on this amendment
which, I might add, passed the Senate 95 to 3?
The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis survey in November found that 62
percent of the respondents favored risk analysis and setting
environmental priorities. The budget we passed last year, which freezes
spending for 5 years, demands that we make our tax dollars go further.
Our local governments and small business owners are demanding that we
set priorities. But this rule prevents us from doing these things.
Mr. Speaker, I, for one, will have a tough time explaining why to my
constituents, so I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs.
Thurman] is certainly right on target.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Albuquerque, NM
[Mr. Schiff], another distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon] for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is time that we raised the Environmental
Protection Agency to Cabinet level rank. Environmental protection
policy does not exist in and of itself separately and apart from
everything else we are doing. Quite the contrary. It ought to be an
integral part of all of our other decisions, which is why the present
Administrator should be of Cabinet level and should be seated with the
other Cabinet level officials.
It is with regret, however, that I ask this House to defeat the rule
that is proposed before us. The main reason is, although certain
amendments have been included to be voted on today, others have not.
Most particularly, as has already been discussed, is the proposed
bipartisan Thurman-Mica amendment, which would deal with risk
assessment by this new department, if it comes to pass.
Now it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that our distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Rules stated that the reason this amendment was not
allowed was because it was not germane and would, therefore, be subject
to a point of order challenge on the House floor. I have to say I do
not agree with that. I do not agree that determining how regulations
will be promulgated by this new department is not germane, but I have
to, with respect, point out that this is the same Committee on Rules
which, for example, last year insisted that we vote on an urban aid
project for the city of Los Angeles inside a bill that was for
emergency relief for flood victims along the Mississippi River, and I
would further point out that most of the rules I have seen in this
House waived points of order to challenge. So, it seems to me that the
idea of germaneness and the idea of points of order being a problem are
only a problem when the Committee on Rules does not agree with the
content of an amendment rather than anything procedural.
The fact of the matter is that it has also been stated the other body
adopted their version of the Thurman-Mica amendment by a 95-to-3
margin, so it is obvious, if this bill is going to proceed into a
conference with the other body, that we will be considering that
particular policy, and we cannot avoid it. So, I think we should
proceed to give the Members here in the House a vote today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman].
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the
Committee on Rules for yielding this time to me. I want to explain to
my colleagues, especially some of the freshmen who think that they are,
perhaps, being deprived of an opportunity to debate an issue, that the
proposal that is not going to be permitted for an amendment is a
nongermane proposal. We give rules to allow germane amendments. Now,
should they have been elected to the Senate, they could offer any
amendment to any subject because there are no restrictions on
germaneness.
I think this amendment is a bad idea in and of itself, but let us
understand what is at stake. If we defeat the rule, we are defeating
the idea of elevating the EPA Administrator to Cabinet level. That is a
worthwhile objective, and we should not defeat the rule that would
allow us to accomplish that result.
But let me say from an environmental point of view that we have some
laws, like the Clean Air Act, where we have standards tied to health
and the Clean Water Act. We have standards tied to technology in the
FIFRA where we balance the risks and benefits; in other words, the
substantive law that the EPA is handled differently. I do not think we
ought to have one-size-fits-all restrictions on risk assessment to be
handled in the same exact way on every environmental issue.
Now, the fact of the matter is EPA does do risk assessment. Risk
assessment is a very useful tool. But the Mica amendment, as was the
Bennett Johnston amendment in the Senate, is one size fits all. It
would be a barrier to EPA acting to adopt regulations in the various
areas over which they have jurisdiction.
I say to my colleagues: If you want to change the Clean Air Act, then
change the Clean Air Act. If you don't like the way the pesticide
regulations are handled, and I don't, then we are going to try to
change those regulations. But let's deal with it in the substantive law
involved to make a thoughtful decision, and let's deal with this issue
strictly on what is at stake, and that's to elevate procedurally the
Administrator to Cabinet level so that she can be at the table with all
the other Cabinet people when decisions that affect the environment are
being made.
Mr. Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
{time} 1620
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our distinguished
Republican leader, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Bob Michel, is
retiring at the end of this year. We certainly will miss him. He is one
of the most respected Members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the Republican leader 2 minutes.
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New
York [Mr. Solomon] who serves so ably as our ranking member on the
Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in opposition to the rule. Our
Democratic leadership in this House loves to hide behind closed rules
to avoid tough votes, and here again is a perfect example. The issue to
be avoided here, of course, is risk assessment. This is the same
amendment that passed the Senate overwhelmingly, 95 to 3.
Why would our Democratic leadership block a vote here in the House?
Quite frankly, because it would pass. That is why. To avoid an argument
on the merits, especially when they are likely to lose, it is best to
keep it off the House floor. That is their game.
I might say, with tongue in cheek, that this is probably an issue
that we will consider during an Oxford style debate. It is important
enough to debate but not safe enough to vote.
As I have listened to our Nation's mayors and Governors, one thing is
heard time and time again: They want less regulation and fewer unfunded
mandates. That was their message to us and it came from both parties.
What better provision to have in this bill than one that would
require the EPA to perform risk assessments and cost analyses
associated with implementation and compliance of all new regulations?
Our mayors, Governors, businesses, and the American people are crying
for relief from an unreasonable Government, and this key amendment is
the answer, but our Democratic leadership will not allow us to vote on
it.
I am going to make a little prediction here: If this rule is not
defeated and risk assessment is not considered, Al Gore will need two
forklifts for just EPA regulations the next time he claims he is
opposed to undue regulation.
Mr. Speaker, let us oppose undue regulation and defeat this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in
support of the measure.
This culminates 6 years of very hard work dating back to 1988 when on
a bipartisan basis then Congressman Jim Florio of New Jersey and this
Member introduced legislation to elevate EPA to Cabinet-level status.
What does this bill do? Here are some of the major features: the
development of a strategic business plan and performance measurement
system to improve and make more efficient Department programs and the
use of resources; the appointment of a chief information officer to
collect needed information and establish cost effectiveness; it
improves public access to environmental information to assist
businesses and enhance the public awareness; it creates the Bureau of
Environmental Statistics to improve the analysis of environmental
conditions and trends in order to better determine the effectiveness of
environmental policies and programs; it establishes an Office of
Environmental Justice to improve coordination of existing programs in
order to provide environmental justice for all people; and it
strengthens scientific integrity of the Department to ensure that the
scientific information prepared by the Department is creditable and
unbiased.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Heritage for the Environment dates back
to President Teddy Roosevelt, and I would remind my colleagues that it
was a Republican President, Richard Nixon, under whose leadership the
Environmental Protection Agency was created. And it was George Bush,
our last Republican President, who was a much better environmentalist
than he was given credit for, who essentially signed off on this bill
with every major environmental group in America to move this forward.
Why are we constructing a rule in this manner? Because we want to
limit the change to structural and managerial elevation of the Agency.
This is a clean bill, in order to stave off crippling amendments from
the left and the right.
Quite frankly, in 1992 we were ready to move forward with this bill.
President Bush signed off on it, the environmentalists signed off on
it, and to my disappointment my Democratic colleagues would not move it
forward because we were in the midst of a Presidential election and
they did not want to give President Bush an environmental victory.
But that was the old way of doing business. In 1992 the message I got
from the American electorate is that they want change. They do not want
us doing things the same old way.
This bill is cosponsored by 23 Democrats, 21 Republicans, and 1
Independent. That is true bipartisanship. The key vote will be on the
rule that is before us. That is what the people are watching for. All
across America people who are afraid to drink the water, people who
know they cannot swim in the water or fish in the water, people who are
afraid to walk out of their houses in the morning to breathe the air
because it is besmirched and befouled, want us to do something. They
want us to give the environment the very highest of priority.
Mr. Speaker, with this legislation we will do just that, and I urge
my colleagues to support it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me correct my good friend, the gentleman from New
York, who borders my district. George Bush and Jerry Solomon were in
favor of creating a Cabinet-level seat in the Oval Office, not in
creating a bureaucratic new department. George Bush would have vetoed
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to an outstanding Member, 1 of the 118
new Members of this House, the gentlewoman from Ohio, [Ms. Pryce].
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
this time to me.
I rise in opposition to this rule because it denies the House an
opportunity to debate concepts that are critical to reforming the
Nation's regulatory process--risk assessment and cost analysis.
State and local governments, as well as many businesses, are pleading
for objective and informed decisionmaking when it comes to issuing new
environmental mandates. Last year, I received a letter from my
constituent the mayor of Columbus, OH, Greg Lashutka, urging the House
to adopt language to ensure that scientific worth and estimated costs
are evaluated before new environmental regulations are imposed.
Columbus has been a national leader in pointing out the consequences
that cities face as a result of unfunded mandates from the Federal
Government. A recent study by the city found that the cost to comply
with 14 major environmental mandates would total more than $1 billion
in 1991 dollars.
``Unless environmental regulations are based on common sense and
measured risk,'' the mayor wrote, ``I fear that the waste of billions
on misguided, one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington will cause a
public backlash against legitimate environmental protection.''
And I could not agree more.
The amendment offered in the Rules Committee by my colleagues from
Florida [Mrs. Thurman and Mr. Mica], would require each new
environmental regulation to undergo a cost/benefit estimate based on a
comparative analysis of risk, and would require the Secretary of the
Environment to certify that the benefits of such regulation outweigh
the cost.
A similar amendment passed by an overwhelming margin in the other
body, by a vote of 95 to 3, and the Thurman/Mica amendment should have
been made in order under this rule.
When will the majority leadership learn that sound public policies
cannot be developed when the legislative process is so sadly lacking in
free and open debate?
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman from Ohio will yield, I
might point out that the gentlewoman who just sat down had her
amendment made in order, so I am very happy that we were able to do
something for her.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, and I thank
him.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my strong support for
this rule. And I must add that I am pleased that we in the House now
have the opportunity to fulfill the promise made by President Clinton
to elevate the EPA to Cabinet-level. By passing this rule today, we
will send a strong message to the administration and to the American
people that we recognize and accept our responsibility to give reality
to the term ``environmental protection.'' How could we be dealing this
year with the Clean Water Act, the Superfund program, the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Resource Recovery and
Conservation Act without dealing with a Cabinet-level department?
H.R. 3425 is truly landmark legislation, not only because it elevates
the EPA to full Cabinet level, but for the statement it makes about our
values as a nation. Passage of this rule means that we value our
environment. It means that we believe that environmental protection is
as important as protecting public health, providing good schools for
kids, building safe roads and bridges and providing markets for
American made goods and services.
Americans have made great strides in cleaning up and improving
national environmental quality since the 1970's. Yet 40 percent of the
country's rivers and lakes are still not fishable or swimmable, many
Americans live near toxic waste sites that need to be cleaned up and
several areas of the country are not yet meeting air quality standards.
The success of our future improvement efforts depends on integrating
national policies at the Cabinet level. The Secretary of Agriculture
and the new Secretary of Environmental Protection will need to work
closely to give farmers the incentives they need to abate nonpoint
source runoff. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the
new Secretary of Environmental Protection must work together in
reducing public exposures to lead. In formulating administration
environmental policy, such as the recent debate on Superfund proposals,
in which the Department of Treasury, Interior, Energy, Council of
Economic Advisors were involved, EPA must have a Cabinet officer of
equal status if environmental policy is to be successfully integrated
with other national policies.
For that matter, there are very few national policy debates that do
not have an impact on environmental quality. When the Department of
Energy calls for energy conservation, whether for national security or
economic reasons, such as lowering customers utility rates, the
environment benefits from the reduced use of natural resources and
reductions in pollution and waste generated in making electricity. We
need a Department of the Environment not only in charge of enforcing
national laws and regulations but a Department of the Environment that
can articulate the environmental implications of all national policies
such as energy policy, transportation policy, and housing policy.
Because of his commitment to the environment, President Clinton has
been gracious in having EPA Administrator Browner sit as a member of
his Cabinet. We need to make the President's invitation to the Cabinet
permanent to ensure that national environmental policies will be
effectively represented at the Cabinet table regardless of a
president's level of commitment to environmental protection.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida, [Ms. Brown].
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
H.R. 3425, the Department of Environmental Protection Act, and in
support of the rule, but first we must clear the air about the rule.
The rule approved by the Rules Committee is fair and open. It allows
nine amendments to be considered. These germane amendments include
measures to ease unfunded mandates on our local and State governments
and to provide ombudsmen for small businesses and local governments
within the new Department.
This is a good rule for a good bill that will elevate EPA to full
Department status. The purpose of the bill is not to change substantive
environmental policy; this is an organizational bill. The rule keeps us
on point by not allowing nongermane amendments that would change
environmental policy or legislation. The question of risk assessment is
an important one that President Clinton has already begun to tackle
with a recent executive order. This bill, elevating EPA, is not the
vehicle to address risk assessment, which will impact many other
agencies and departments across our government.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the EPA elevation bill.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska,
Mr. Young.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am against the bill and I am against the rule. I think many of the
previous speakers have spoken very clearly: The people are fed up with
big government, more regulations, and taking away the opportunity of
American people for jobs.
How many of you face the EPA and what it does to the small
communities, when it mandates sewer treatment systems, and there isn't
the money to build those systems without robbing from the small
community, without any justification, without any appeal.
So I say to you, not only should this not be a Cabinet level
position, which I opposed when Mr. Bush was President and I oppose
today, but to not allow the debate on the risk factor is wrong. Oh,
yes, we can say this is not germane. I listened to that argument. Oh,
it is not germane. You are afraid to have the debate on the floor. You
are afraid to have the people of America understand where Congress is
coming from and how we are again imposing restrictions through
regulatory actions by an agency without any justification.
Mr. Speaker, I am urging my colleagues on this side of the aisle, on
that side of the aisle, if you are listening to the people at home, to
vote against this rule. Give us an opportunity to debate this issue
before this body, so the American people can understand who is really
for jobs in the small communities. It is time for really doing
something. Less talk, let us walk, let us do something right.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Torres.
Mr. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, all of the Members of this body received a
letter this week from the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture [NASDA] which states that EPA's farmworker protection
standards for pesticides were prepared without a cost-benefit analysis.
For this reason, they state, we should vote to defeat the rule. This is
absolutely incorrect.
I am here not only as a Member of Congress, but also as the son and
grandson of farmworkers, and I have never known the National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture to fight for additional
farmworker protection standards. You and I know that workers need
protection from chemical exposure. EPA worked for 10 long hard years in
developing the farmworker protection standards. Their work included a
well-documented regulatory impact analysis; it thoroughly examined the
costs and benefits; it complied with all regulatory Executive orders
and it is part of the public record.
What more does industry want? I am convinced that they want to defeat
this rule so that they can attach a provision to the Department of
Environmental Protection Act that would prevent the new Department from
ever coming to any conclusions and issuing any regulations. We can't
allow this to happen.
EPA does intensive risk analysis now. There is no need to cement in
statute further requirements which will ultimately hamper EPA from
protecting our health and the environment. I urge my colleagues to
support the rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Boehner].
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, this manikin standing next to me is not a
NASA project. It is a suit that farmers must wear in the hot growing
season when applying pesticides. The EPA doesn't know the cost of this,
because they didn't have to do a cost-benefit analysis. The USDA
estimates it will cost $500 million for farmers to meet the regulations
here.
The standard is impossible for the States to regulate. It is another
unfunded mandate on the States. It shows no benefits in the health of
workers.
It is time for Congress to stop heaping additional mandates on the
States without consideration of the cost of these regulations. It is
time for Congress to stop issuing regulations on businesses and on
farmers without risk-benefit analysis.
If we had done a risk-benefit analysis by the EPA on this project,
the EPA would have found out that the farmers who use these suits would
have been dead long before they would have ever had any risk of
pesticide abuse to their health, because they would suffocate to death,
having to wear these in the hot growing season.
It is time to defeat the rule and require EPA to do risk-benefit and
cost-benefit analysis before they issue regulations.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, the honorable gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell].
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I don't have any dummies or props before
you. But I want it known, I yield to no man in my criticism of EPA. I
am the one fellow around here that has investigated and shown some
extraordinary evidence of incompetence, of inability to manage
contracts, of inability to handle the business of the agency, of loss
of control of the agency to the contractors, and of bad science and bad
information management.
Interestingly enough, requirements that EPA be structured to abate
the only criticisms that have been found by legitimate congressional
investigations are in the bill.
Now, I have heard a lot of complaints from my colleagues about the
fact that this doesn't lay down substantive requirements. The comment
is that it needs a risk assessment provision or that it needs a cost-
benefit requirement provision.
Well, perhaps EPA needs something of that kind. And when something of
that kind comes on the floor of a substantive character, I may very
well be actively in support of it because I have to deal with EPA on
almost a daily basis on their issuance of regulations.
But this is not a substantive bill, and I don't believe this House
wants to get a rule out of the Committee on Rules which would require
this House to then consider all manner of substantive amendments to
things like the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean
Water Act, the legislation that relates to leaking underground storage
tanks and Superfund. Those are terrible fights, and they are fights
where responsibility is very difficult to see manifest in this body.
{time} 1640
And the reason is that those are lobbyists' paradises, and they are
big business for the environmentalists.
We are going to have those kinds of fights at different times in this
body. I would urge my colleagues to withhold substantive amendments
from consideration by this body. I would tell my colleagues that what
we should do is to structure the agency properly and then let us
address the kind of questions that my colleagues over here want, but to
do it as a matter of substantive approach to substantive statute.
That is where that kind of matter should be addressed. That situation
is not before us.
I would urge my colleagues that writing legislation regarding
Superfund or safe drinking water or clean air or clean water is not
something which should be done on the floor. It is something which
should be done in a committee so that wise guidance and careful
judgment and wise balance can be before this body when the legislation
comes before us.
The rule is fair. The rule allows the House to consider all the
questions that it should of a procedural and structural and an
organizational structure with regard to EPA.
I would urge my colleagues to follow the leadership of the Committee
on Rules. Vote through the rule, and then, if they have complaints on
substantive law, let us address them. But let us address them in a
proper forum, a proper time, a proper place and in a proper piece of
legislation, carefully crafted under procedures that enable us to
behave in a responsible fashion.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Dodge City, KS [Mr. Roberts].
(Mr. ROBERTS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairman of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, a man I respect, proper forum? Proper
forum?
What we are faced with in 66 counties in my district is we have no
forum. We have mandates, regulations and costs primarily coming from
the EPA that are involved in rural dismantlement.
I went on a tour of my 66 counties out on the prairie, and we have
community after community trying to put up with the regulations and
costs that make no sense. Landfill regulations by date certain, where
66 of my counties have to close down landfills to send the trash and
trucks that do not exist to regional landfills that do not exist by
date certain.
Charging senior citizens 50 bucks a month to haul trash to Denver,
250 miles away, this is the kind of nonsense we are trying to stop.
If Members adopt this rule, we will not have a vote on Thurman-Mica.
What is wrong with a vote? Make your same argument, if you will, on
the substantive forum that we must have to take place in this body, but
at least give us a vote.
If Members are worried about unfunded mandates, this is a crucial,
crucial vote on the rule.
I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, that would restrict
debate on H.R. 3425, legislation to elevate the EPA to department
level. I share the concern of many of my colleagues that consideration
of this legislation should include discussion of risk assessment
requirements on various environmental legislation and mandates.
Contained within a similar EPA bill already adopted by the Senate is
language, known as the Johnston amendment, to provide risk assessment.
A similar provision has been put forward in the House, the Thurman-Mica
amendment, but was not included in the rule for consideration during
debate on H.R. 3425. This rule will prohibit the House from voting up
or down on one of the critical issues facing farmers, ranchers, small
businesses, State and local governments and others--the proliferation
and cost of some environmental mandates.
Risk assessment is a complicated and sometimes confusing term to
describe a simple system--prior to any environmental mandate being
implemented--that would require a review of the cost and benefit of the
proposed environmental regulation. This review would simply look at the
overall costs involved and the benefits being achieved. It would ensure
that millions of dollars would not be spent to achieve either marginal
or minimal gains in environmental protection. Instead, it would help to
focus environmental protection, reduce costs and eliminate overly-
burdensome requirements.
The Thurman-Mica proposal has broad support and appeal among our
communities suffering the financial burdens of unfunded mandates. It is
critical that we, in the very least, consider this serious proposal.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and support our efforts in
support of the risk assessment for environmental regulations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Durbin). At this point in the debate,
the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 4 minutes remaining
and the right to close, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has
9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Herger].
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because of
its complete disregard for private property rights.
Last year, this House expressed its overwhelming support for private
property by passing the Taylor amendment to the National Biological
Survey Act.
Like the NBS, the Department of Environmental Protection is another
new, more powerful environmental entity. One would think we would be
allowed to offer amendments requiring the Department to ensure one
basic constitutional right to property.
Unfortunately, my amendment, which would merely require the
Department to assess whether takings would occur when issuing a new
regulation, was ruled out of order.
Why are we not being at least allowed to offer this amendment when
just last fall this body was given the opportunity to express its
overwhelming support for private property rights when it passed the
Taylor amendment?
Vote ``no'' on this rule and allow private property protection
amendments to be offered.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on H.R.
3425, because it does not allow the Mica-Thurman amendment to be
offered and voted on in this House. Really, that sounds so reasonable.
How in the world this House could turn down a vote on that amendment is
beyond me.
It appears to me that there are two important enemies from within in
this great Nation of ours. One is our miserable record in financial
management in this country, and the second is runaway, excessive
bureaucratic regulation.
If Members do not believe me, ask their constituents. They will tell
Members up front.
Let us do something about it. Let us have a vote on it. Let us change
the way we operate this system, and let us make it reasonable.
This amendment is reasonable. We ought to have a vote on it. I
suggest a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Oxley].
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, a series of articles published last winter by
the New York Times summed up a substantial problem:
In the last 15 years, environmental policy has too often
evolved largely in reaction to popular panics, not in
response to sound scientific analysis of which environmental
hazards present the greatest risks. As a result * * *
billions of dollars are wasted each year in battling problems
that are no longer considered especially dangerous, leaving
little money for others that cause far more harm.
Unfortunately the Rules Committee is prohibiting the Members of this
body from voting on amendments which could help solve this problem.
There is an amendment offered by Mr. Mica, for example, which would
simply provide important information to decisionmakers and the Congress
that would be the basis for reforming EPA programs. A system to provide
sound information is clearly a management reform and fully consistent
with the efforts of the President and Vice President. Republicans are
eager to work vigorously on the initiatives to reinvent the government
but the Rules Committee has, once again, precluded real progress. I am
advised that the Parliamentarian's office considers the Mica amendment
germane. There are other amendments as well that warrants serious
consideration.
I should also note that the rule precludes the Thurman-Mica amendment
which is the analogue to the Johnston amendment on the other body's EPA
Cabinent bill. The other body voted for the amendment 95-3. Some
Members in the House, however, do not want a vote on the floor so that
they can quietly work behind closed doors against that provision. If
this amendment was brought to a vote on the floor it would probably
pass and be the will of the House. This rule precludes Members from
even voting on this reform. Thus, this rule is preventing the House
from having a true say on what it wants in conference.
This rule is about the same closed-door politics. I ask my colleagues
to vote against the rule and consider meaningful reform on the House
floor.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, last week, President Clinton in his State of the Union
Address called upon Congress to get on with the job we were sent here
to do.
Our first major test this year is to vote down this rule.
Unfortunately, the House leadership continues to rule this body with
contempt for differences of opinion, and refuses to allow entirely
germane ideas a to be debated and voted on the House floor. Even though
the U.S. Senate has debated a similar amendment for cost-benefit
analysis, and approved it nearly unanimously, the House leadership
refuses to allow this idea to be voted on. Why? Why, Mr. Speaker?
This is not the first time. The balanced budget amendment, term
limits, a genuine line item veto--all these issues have overwhelming
public support, and haven't seen the light of day in this Chamber. The
American people wonder why they haven't been acted upon. The reason is
the leadership refuses to allow them to the floor for a vote. And when
it comes time for allowing amendments, the leadership only allowed open
rules on 12 percent of the bills debated last year. Twelve percent!
Whether or not you agree with the amendment that the Senate passed,
or whether or not you even agree with the bill itself, you should be
willing to allow an issue to reach the floor and be debated. That's
what all of us were sent here to do.
Please vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that America woke up and
all of us, as colleagues, woke up as to what is going on in this
Chamber.
Not since 1910--and the end of the days of czar Joseph Cannon, the
Republican Speaker--has this Chamber been under such rigid control.
{time} 1650
The people sent us here to vote issues up or down. Some days we lose,
some days we win. We abide by a majority vote. We ought to be voting,
by majority, on those issues that the people who sent us here expect us
to be voting on. We ought to have the chance in this Chamber to vote on
substance when substance is in the bill before us.
This is not a mere redesignation of EPA in to a Cabinet department.
This legislation has authorized at least 16 Presidential appointees and
several new functions, much of which I agree with.
I am an original cosponsor of this legislation. I believed it should
be elevated long before President Bush suggested it, and President
Clinton reaffirmed it. However, I think it is wrong for the Committee
on Rules operation, the political guillotine of the House, where nine
Democrats overrule four Republicans almost every day of the week in
order to deny us the right to vote substance up or down. Please vote
against the rule. The Thurman-Mica bipartisan amendment to establish
cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment procedures in this
legislation deserves to be considered.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
(Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, this is probably the first time in my 12
years as a Congressman in the House of Representatives that I have
risen to support a rule that is not an ``open'' rule. But, I believe
that the rule before us is a fair and essentially open rule. All
Members were given the opportunity to submit amendments to H.R. 3425 to
the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee made in order all those
amendments that were found by the Parliamentarian to be germane to the
legislation or not subject to a point of order.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that many of my colleagues have legitimate
concerns over current environmental policy--and I agree with my
colleagues that there are serious problems with the way environmental
regulations are currently carried out in this country--but this bill is
clearly not the place to address such concerns.
This bill deals solely with the structural elevation and management
reforms of the EPA, and avoids environmental policy issues that should
be addressed during consideration of new environmental statutes and
reauthorizations of existing laws. Because of this, amendments that
address policy issues, such as cost-benefit analysis and the taking of
private property, have rightly been ruled out of order by the Rules
Committee because they are clearly nongermane to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, elevation of the EPA to Cabinet level is long overdue.
President Bush proposed creating a Department of Environmental
Protection 5 years ago, and yet we have not been able to elevate the
EPA because of repeated squabbles over environmental policy. Let us
leave those debates to a more appropriate time and deal with the issue
at hand. Let us pass this rule and let us create the long-awaited
Department of Environmental Protection.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].
(Mr. DOOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
I support the amendment on risk assessment that my colleagues Mrs.
Thurman and Mr. Mica would like to offer should this rule be defeated.
In fact, I feel the House has an obligation to address this issue, and
this is the appropriate time to do it.
But despite strong support from a wide range of organizations,
including the Nation's Governors, despite the 95-3 approval of a
similar amendment on this same bill in the Senate, despite claims that
we have an open rule on this bill, the rule before us keeps us from
discussing the subject of risk assessment, and it should be defeated.
The so-called Thurman/Mica amendment does not create new
environmental policy or rewrite the existing environmental laws. It
simply provides a new management tool to help the Secretary prepare the
most cost-effective environmental policy for our country.
As a legislative body, we cannot hear story after story of
regulations that are out of touch with reality, and then refuse to
consider a possible solution. Senator Johnston noted the example of
Yucca Mountain when he debated his version of this amendment on the
Senate floor. Let me repeat his story of regulatory overkill:
In 1985, regulations were initially proposed that set certain limits
on carbon 14 emissions at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. It
would have cost the taxpayers of this country $3.2 billion to comply
with that regulation. Yet it would have resulted in stopping only a
tiny amount of background radiation--only one six-thousandth of what
occurs in the human body ordinarily.
It is stories like these that prompt reasonable people to scratch
their heads and ask how in the world can such regulations even be
contemplated by our Government. The answer is that our bureaucrats
either refuse or are ordered not to consider the cost/benefit tradeoffs
of environmental regulation. This situation has to stop. We must
acknowledge that we cannot do everything and we cannot do it all at
once.
The cost/benefit analysis called for by Thurman/Mica in no way
relieves any individual or any government from complying with
environmental laws. It would not put our environment at risk. In fact,
the argument has been made, by the GAO and many others, that by not
prioritizing, we are now doing less to protect our environment than we
could be.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, the Democrat leadership is not starting out
the year on the right foot. Rather than demonstrating to the American
people that the House of Representatives is a body of open debate and
free thinking, they are bringing a modified closed rule on H.R. 3425 to
the floor, limiting debate on one of the first pieces of legislation of
the session.
Why are they doing this? Well, it seems they are afraid that a
certain amendment that has widespread support throughout the country--
but does not quite coincide with their particular philosophical views--
would likely pass if brought up in the House. It is the Mica amendment,
which would require a cost-benefit analysis to accompany regulations
proposed by the EPA. Despite the fact that it was passed in the other
body by a vote of 95-3, the House is not even being permitted to
consider it.
The Mica amendment is very timely in light of the fact that just
yesterday the EPA announced its plan to develop a national strategy for
the use of chlorine and chlorine compounds. Chlorine and chlorinated
compounds are used to meet the most essential and vital needs of modern
society, and are found in 85 percent of all medicines, 96 percent of
all crop-protection chemicals, all vinyl plastics, and thousands of
other products. They save U.S. consumers more than $90 billion
annually--$1,440 for every family of four--versus alternative products
or processes, with no guarantee that the alternatives would enhance
human health or the environment. Furthermore, according to the Chemical
Manufacturers Association, 1.3 million U.S. jobs depend on the chlorine
industry and almost 40 percent of all U.S. jobs and income depend in
some way on chlorine and the products of the chlorine industry.
Considering environmental regulations cost approximately $1,500 per
U.S. household, there is obviously a need to weigh the costs and the
benefits of actions taken by environmental regulators. The question is,
will the EPA conduct a cost-benefit analysis as it develops its
national strategy for chlorine regulation? The effects of not
conducting one could be devastating. It is for this reason that I
believe the exclusion of Mr. Mica's risk assessment amendment from the
rule for consideration of H.R. 3425 is sufficient reason to oppose the
rule altogether, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Durbin). The gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss] has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have long favored elevating EPA to Cabinet
level status. I think it is justified. I think part of the purpose of
doing that, of course, is to give us the opportunity to resolve some of
the very costly confusion, some of the debilitating confrontation, and
some of the intense conflict we have seen and has been alluded to in
the debate here today.
I would have, of course, preferred a clean bill. Many of us would.
However, we do not have a clean bill. We have a bill that has been
amended. In fact, several amendments have been made in order, and not
all amendments of those that were asked have been afforded that
privilege, so we only have selected amendments, in fact.
Unfortunately, one of the ones that was not selected has been
absolutely a critical amendment to the debate that is before us.
Leaving out the amendment that the gentleman from Florida, John Mica,
and the gentlewoman from Florida, Karen Thurman, have proposed is a
little bit like inviting a guest to dinner and then not serving the
main course. You go away with the feeling of emptiness, that somehow
you have not quite gotten what you came for.
We need to talk about private property rights, takings, risk
assessments. These are issues that are not going to go away, and this
Congress needs to speak on them and debate them.
I must say, I was very impressed, we all are, with the statements of
the chairman, the very distinguished gentleman from California [Mr.
Waxman]. The media recently described him as the master of mysterious
Medicaid add-ons, and he spoke to us brilliantly about germaneness.
I agree, germaneness is important. The Committee on Rules has the
ability to weigh on germaneness, but what is really important is in the
real world, risk-taking is a germane part of this subject. It is the
real world we should be legislating for.
It has been said today that many of the colleagues on the Committee
on Rules are urging a ``yes'' vote on this. It is equally true that
many colleagues on the Committee on Rules are urging a ``no'' vote on
this. I am one of those.
The Committee on Rules is ready to go back upstairs and craft a new
rule that gets to the debate, or a clean rule. We are here. We are
ready to work. We get paid to do the job. I urge a ``no'' vote on this
rule, and let us come back with a better product.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley] has 3 minutes remaining, and has the right to close debate.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar], to close debate.
(Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, we have had a fascinating 1 hour debate. What
I would like to do is to take this time that I have to talk about what
this bill is not about. This bill is not about regulatory reform of
landfills, sewers, or water. This bill is not about the illegal taking
of private property. This bill is not about reining in an EPA that is
out of control. This bill is not about setting environmental
priorities. It is not about unfunded Federal mandates. It is not about
big government and excessive regulations. Most of all, it is not about
redesigning farmers' spring wardrobes.
What this bill, that we consider today, is about is whether we as a
nation believe that the Environmental Protection Agency should be
raised to a Cabinet level position so that it can hold other Federal
departments and agencies accountable to lead on the environmental
front, as we do with small businessmen and individuals, and whether we
believe the Environmental Protection Agency should be of the stature
that the rest of the world places their environmental protection
agencies, so that as we try to clean up not only our own country but
this planet, we do it with the dignity and stature it deserves.
This bill is also about making needed management and structure
changes within EPA so it can accomplish its very simple mission: To
protect the health and safety of all Americans.
The debate we have had over the last hour has not been about that. In
fact, it has been terribly misleading.
{time} 1700
The facts are very simple.
Fact No. 1 is that the EPA is doing risk assessment today, as it does
thousands of times every year.
Fact No. 2, even if the amendment on risk assessment were allowed,
not one city, not one State, not one local water system, not one
corporation, not one small business, not one citizen would get any
relief from any rule until we in Congress had the guts to tackle the
underlying statutes that set the priorities, that fund the priorities,
that direct the priorities that EPA implements. That is what this is
all about.
As the oversight chairman for EPA for over a decade, only the
gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, has spent more time in his
career trying to make EPA more responsive, trying to clean up its
mismanagement and trying to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent
efficiently. If I believed the risk assessment amendment would
accomplish any of those goals, I would have joined and helped lead this
fight, but it will do none of those.
I implore my colleagues, let us be responsible, and let us support
this rule and raise EPA up to a Cabinet-level position. Then let us do
one more thing. Let us roll up our sleeves together and help make EPA
more responsive and less intrusive by making our environmental laws
work for all America.
Please support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 3425, legislation
to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to a Cabinet-level
Department of Environmental Protection.
With strong bipartisan support, the House has previously voted
overwhelmingly to elevate EPA to Cabinet status; I hope we can approve
this rule and take similar action here in the House today.
Obviously, some Members are voicing opposition to the rule on grounds
that it does not permit them to offer their pet amendments.
But the Rules Committee quite properly understood that this
legislation is designed solely to address the structure of the Agency
and to deal with management problems--it has never been intended as a
vehicle for addressing Members concerns over environmental policy, as
some now want to do.
In particular, I want to urge Members not to be swept away by the
misleading rhetoric of those who would defeat the rule in an effort to
have the House consider amendments dealing with issues like risk
assessment and cost-benefit analysis.
Now, I recognize that there is legitimate concern over these issues
and that certain amendments--like the Mica-Thurman proposal--have
struck a chord with some Members.
These amendments, like the Johnston amendment in the Senate, are
based on the very simple, but misleading, notion that, since risk
assessments and cost-benefit analyses are good things, we can magically
solve all our problems overnight by simply requiring the Agency to do
more of them.
In fact, they're so convinced this will solve all our problems, they
want EPA to do these assessments on virtually everything--every rule
and regulation, no matter how lowly and inconsequential those rules may
be.
Well, I admit that that has some superficial appeal. But I would also
submit that if these proposals were subjected to FTC scrutiny, they
would be outlawed for false advertising.
It's important to get beyond the superficial appeal and look at what
these risk and cost-benefit proposals would actually do, and not do.
First, it's true that risk assessment and cost-benefit issues at EPA
are sometimes controversial.
But when there is controversy, it isn't about how many they do, it's
about how they do them.
Do the amendments being advocated by some in any way address the
issue of how EPA does risk and cost-benefit assessments?
No, they do not; they just intend to make EPA do more of them.
Second, most risk and cost-benefit issues are addressed primarily in
our underlying environmental statutes. To the extent there is a
problem, that is where the problem is.
Would the Mica-Thurman or Johnston amendments address those problems?
The sponsors say they are not intended to change underlying law--so
what have they accomplished?
Third, it is clear that the issues needing as much, or more,
attention are in risk management and risk communication.
Are those areas addressed by the proposed Mica-Thurman or Johnston
amendments?
No, they are not.
Fourth, it's clear that all the issues and controversies surrounding
the subject of risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis are common
problems throughout the Government.
But do the proposed amendments try to deal with these problems in a
sensible way across the Government?
No, they do not.
Now, I'm the first to admit that risk assessment and cost-benefit
analysis are extremely complicated issues.
And I won't pretend to understand all the possible ramifications of
these proposals.
But some things are clear.
So now that we've talked about what the proposals won't do, let's
focus on what the proposals would do.
First, instead of trying for better and smarter risk assessments and
cost-benefit analyses, the proposals only require more of them.
Instead of reducing and streamlining the bureaucracy, the proposals
would simply ensure that we have more of it.
Instead of targeting these costly and critical studies on the most
important or controversial rules, the proposals wants to make every
rule and regulation subjected to risk and cost-benefit analysis--
apparently in the curious belief that, even though they don't like the
way EPA does it, they should do more of it.
Well, I'm sorry to say that when it comes to risk assessments and
cost-benefit analysis, just doing more is not doing better.
Friends, these proposals are not the magic solution to the problems
at EPA. If there are problems, we have a responsibility as legislators
to look for the right solution--not just any solution.
That means we are going to have to get into the underlying
environmental statutes and get our hands dirty and make the tough
decisions there.
The bill before you already has very important provisions which
establish an Office of Risk Assessment within the new Department.
Last September, President Clinton issued a carefully crafted, and
very comprehensive, Executive order on regulatory reform which is
already addressing the very problems and issues being raised here
today.
EPA is working closely with them in that government-wide effort.
Don't go for the quick-hit, for the superficial appeal.
We're better than that.
Our constituents sent us here not just to govern, but to govern
wisely.
Let's show them we're willing to take on tough problems the way they
deserve to be addressed: with hard work and careful consideration of
the facts--not through some expedient, mislabeled approach to reform
which ultimately will exacerbate the existing problems and cost
industry and the taxpayers millions in wasted dollars in the process.
Let us support the rule, get this elevation bill enacted, and then
get down to the hard work on the underlying statutes, where our actions
and votes can make a real difference.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the rule on H.R. 3425, The Department of Environmental Protection
Act. I want to commend the Rules Committee for providing a rule that
recognizes the proper role of the committee process and gives the House
an opportunity to conduct its business in a judicious and efficient
manner.
The rule on H.R. 3425 is a good rule, it is a fair and equitable rule
that makes in order all germane amendments that were presented to the
Rules Committee. These include an amendment calling for annual
performance assessments of each regional office of the Department of
Environmental Protection, one that calls on the Inspector General and
the Department of Justice to join forces in identifying waste, fraud,
and criminal misconduct within the Department, another that seeks to
provide assistance to small businesses and local governments to comply
with environmental laws, another aimed at developing a strategy to ease
unfunded Federal environmental mandates imposed on State and local
governments, and a substitute that would elevate EPA to cabinet status
without any structural or policy changes.
The rule provides an opportunity to vote on these amendments and
others that relate directly to the organization, structure, and
management of the new Department. What the rule properly does, in my
opinion, is to prohibit discussion on nongermane amendments on the
floor of the House. That, is, the rule prohibits voting on amendments
which could change environmental policy or alter the duties and
responsibilities given to EPA under existing statutes.
As Chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, one
of the five committee's with substantive jurisdiction over EPA, I
believe it is appropriate for this rule to prohibit such policy changes
to be effected by this legislation. I urge my colleagues, who are
opposed to the rule, not to lose sight of the need to ensure that such
environmental policy questions are properly examined and debated
through the normal committee process of holding hearings, drafting,
introducing, and markingup legislation, and then reporting it to the
floor of the House for further discussion and revision by the full
membership of this body prior to a vote.
My colleagues, the House of Representatives operates through a
committee structure and process that it has entrusted with conducting a
deliberate and rigorous review and debate of such public policy issues.
To make all amendments in order, irrelevant of their germaneness to the
bill in question, would be to usurp the thorough review of public
policy issues which our citizens deserve and which the committee
structure has been set up to provide.
A number of policy concerns have been voiced by those opposed to the
rule. One of these is the issue of the appropriate role and use of risk
assessment in developing, implementing, and managing this Nation's
environmental protection activities. In November 1993, the Science
Committee held its second hearing in the first session of the 103d
Congress on the topic of risk assessment. At this hearing, the
committee released an OTA report, which had been requested in June
1991, on risk assessment research in the Federal Government. We will
continue to hold hearings on this topic in the coming year. In fact,
tomorrow we are holding a hearing on the State's experience in using
comparative risk analysis as a planning tool to establish environmental
priorities. The science of risk assessment and its use by risk managers
to promote environmental quality is a complex and subtle issue which
has been a concern of this committee dating back to 1979. It is an
issue which deserves serious attention and should not be dealt with
cavalierly on the floor of the House. In another area, the Science
Committee has held hearings on the science needed to improve and
support both the Clean Water Act, and the Superfund program, as a basis
for developing a research and development title for both these
reauthorizations. I could cite other examples of the Science
Committee's activities in environmental policy, dealing with the role
of EPA's Science Advisory Board, peer review, etc.
The purpose for citing these examples is simply to reiterate my
earlier point that the House of Representatives has a committee
structure designed to provide a forum for rigorous examination and
substantive debate on important policy questions. The effort to elevate
EPA to cabinet-level status is not that forum. To call for changes in
environmental policy in this bill would usurp the responsibilities of
the members of these committees and abrogate our responsibilities to
our constituents and to the Members of Congress, to act in a
responsible manner.
Therefore, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this rule and to
support final passage of this bill at the appropriate time.
I wish to commend my colleagues Mr. Conyers, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Miller,
Mr. Mineta, and Mr. Studds for their efforts on H.R. 3425 and look
forward to working with them in the future on issues concerning
environmental science and research.
I believe that elevating EPA from an independent agency to a cabinet-
level department will strengthen our Government's focus on some of the
most crucial issues confronting the long-term sustainability of our
biosphere and with it the sustainability of life on this planet. I
express my strong support for the establishment of the Department of
Environmental Protection to ensure that issues of environmental quality
receive the attention they deserve and urge all my colleagues in
joining me, at the appropriate time, in voting for passage of this
bill.
Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Speaker, if I had been here I would like the record
to show I would have opposed the rule to H.R. 3425, the Department of
Environmental Protection Act. Unfortunately, due to illness I was
unable to travel to Washington, DC from my district for this important
issue. The recommended rule precluded this body from addressing the
issue of requiring future environmental regulations to be based on risk
assessment, therefore, I would have opposed the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Durbin). All time for debate has
expired.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 191,
nays 227, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 4]
YEAS--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews (ME)
Andrews (NJ)
Bacchus (FL)
Barcia
Barlow
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bevill
Blackwell
Boehlert
Bonior
Boucher
Brooks
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Byrne
Cantwell
Cardin
Carr
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Cooper
Coppersmith
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Derrick
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Durbin
Edwards (CA)
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford (MI)
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamburg
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hoagland
Hochbrueckner
Holden
Hoyer
Hughes
Inslee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klein
Kopetski
Kreidler
LaFalce
Lambert
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Maloney
Mann
Manton
Margolies-Mezvinsky
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
Mazzoli
McCloskey
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Natcher
Neal (MA)
Neal (NC)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Pickle
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rose
Rostenkowski
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sangmeister
Sawyer
Schenk
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Swett
Swift
Synar
Thompson
Thornton
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Unsoeld
Valentine
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Washington
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Wheat
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NAYS--227
Allard
Applegate
Archer
Armey
Bachus (AL)
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barca
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bateman
Bentley
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Brewster
Browder
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Clinger
Coble
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Darden
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Fingerhut
Fish
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Gallegly
Gallo
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrich
Glickman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Grams
Grandy
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hayes
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Houghton
Huffington
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hutto
Hyde
Inglis
Inhofe
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kyl
Lancaster
LaRocco
Lazio
Leach
Levy
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
Lloyd
Machtley
Manzullo
McCandless
McCollum
McCrery
McCurdy
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McMillan
Meyers
Mica
Michel
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Murphy
Myers
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Penny
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce (OH)
Quillen
Quinn
Ramstad
Ravenel
Regula
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Rowland
Royce
Santorum
Sarpalius
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Sharp
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slattery
Smith (IA)
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snowe
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sundquist
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas (CA)
Thomas (WY)
Thurman
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Weldon
Whitten
Williams
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Andrews (TX)
Borski
Chapman
de la Garza
Dornan
Ford (TN)
Hastings
Lehman
Lewis (FL)
Meek
Reynolds
Ridge
Shepherd
Smith (OR)
Wilson
{time} 1725
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this note:
Mr. ANDREWS of Texas for, with Mr. Lehman against.
Mr. BORSKI for, with Mr. DORNAN against.
Mr. SHEPHERD for, with Mr. LEWIS of Florida against.
Mr. GLICKMAN and Mr. CONDIT changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________