[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 20 (Tuesday, March 1, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 1, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
         POST-STAR EDITORIAL HITS MARK IN EDITORIAL ON EPA VOTE

                                 ______


                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, March 1, 1994

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to read for you the key sentence 
of an excellent editorial from my hometown newspaper, the Post-Star of 
Glens Falls, NY. The subject was the recent House vote on Cabinet 
status for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

       Thus lawmakers appear to be discovering what ordinary 
     Americans long have known--the Nation can no longer afford 
     the unchecked expansion of environmental regulation.

  The editorial writers rightly pointed out that without insisting on 
cost-benefit analyses as the basis for EPA decisions, elevation of the 
Agency would have been unwise.
  But I'll let the editorial speak for itself. I proudly place the 
editorial in today's Record, and urge all Members to read it.

                  [From the Post-Star, Feb. 22, 1994]

                         Reason Hits the House

       Rebellious members of the U.S. House of Representatives 
     rattled the green lobby recently by refusing to consider 
     Cabinet status for the Environmental Protection Agency.
       They are insisting that cost-benefits analysis be 
     considered as a basis for EPA rule-making, something that is 
     very unpopular among environmental extremists.
       We hope this sudden attack of reason isn't a fluke.
       The EPA Cabinet bill passed the Senate last year with 
     overwhelming support for an amendment requiring that new 
     regulations must be shown to be cost-effective.
       Opponents of cost-benefit analysis in the House, unable to 
     muster a coherent case, could only prevail by preventing a 
     vote.
       The Rule Committee obliged, disallowing the amendment as 
     ``not germane.'' But 227 House members representing both 
     parties wisely disagreed, refusing to act on the bill.
       Thus lawmakers appear to be discovering what ordinary 
     Americans long have known--the nation can no longer afford 
     the unchecked expansion of environmental regulation.
       Unfunded mandates are crushing states and local 
     governments. And huge infusions of cash simply cannot be used 
     to support unproven or non-working policies. Congress can, 
     and should, quit funding them unless or until their work is 
     proven.
       Most Americans are willing to contribute their fair share 
     of environmental protection. By opposing a cost-benefit 
     approach, the Clinton administration and the Democratic 
     leadership prey like professional con artists on that 
     generous spirit.
       Along with action on the budget, Congress is scheduled this 
     session to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act, Superfund 
     and the Clean Water Act.
       And month by month, new bills are being introduced to stem 
     unfunded mandates and force EPA and other agencies to justify 
     regulatory costs.
       Lawmakers now have lots of opportunity to prove that they 
     are capable of more than one sensible action.

                          ____________________