[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.

                          ____________________