[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 124 (Friday, July 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H7924-H7963]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0950
DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
            INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1996

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-
Zimmer amendment to bring the space station to a halt. We need to be 
realistic about this project.
  Let us look at the commitment that we are asking the American people 
to make. Through the year 2012, the space station will cost $94 
billion. Yes, $94 billion with a ``b.'' The operational life of the 
station is only 10 years.
  Mr. Chairman, in my district, the southern portion of the State of 
New Jersey, I go to the church halls and the fire halls, and I look at 
my constituents and I hear them say that they were working harder than 
they have ever worked before and they do not feel they are getting 
ahead. I listen to them say how many of them are working two and three 
jobs and their spouse is working two and three jobs, and they want the 
U.S. Government, they want this Congress, to recognize the efforts that 
they are making and the sacrifices that they are making.
  This is a priority that we cannot afford at this time. We are being 
asked to make many difficult choices. We are running through that 
process. We are committed to balancing the budget by the year 2002. But 
these are Federal dollars that we cannot afford. Maybe sometime in the 
future. Maybe after the budget is balanced. But to those hardworking 
citizens who are doing their best, who are doing their part to make 
this democracy work, I do not think we can look them in the eye and 
tell them that we are willing to spend $94 billion on a program like 
this when we are asking them to make the sacrifices that we are.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
  (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment and for the space station.
  Mr. Roemer is a very fine and valued Member of this House and of the 
Science Committee where we serve together. But in this amendment I 
believe he is incorrect.
  This amendment was also offered in the Science Committee 
authorization process, where it was defeated. During our discussion 
various members suggested specific benefits that may flow from the 
space station, including advances in the cure for cancer and the 
understanding of tumor growth.
  These benefits may very well flow from the space station, but in 
speaking for the space station in committee I advanced this view: The 

[[Page H 7925]]
truth is that we don't know all of the innovations, discoveries and 
prosperity the space station will bring to us.
  And that is the most compelling reason to enthusiastically support 
our space program and in particular the space station.
  I remember well the first flight of humans into space by Yuri 
Gagarin. As a young girl in elementary school my imagination was 
stretched by the new horizons available to human kind. Our Nation 
rallied in a national effort to go to space. A young President told us 
that if we had the national will, we could go to the Moon. And so we 
did, exciting a generation about a new kind of future.
  The daring men and women in the space program have served as models 
and heroes for our country's young. As a nation, we learned that we 
could accomplish what we intended to do. In the process, we saw side 
benefits such as the advancement of computer technology and countless 
other technological innovations that have transformed our world.
  What will our space station bring us? We don't know, and that is 
good. If we knew, our dreams and horizons would be too limited.
  We have problems here in our country. We have a need to attend to 
many of them and, quite frankly, I am opposed to the retrenchment from 
domestic problems that has characterized the 104th Congress. Having 
said that, the answer to these problems is not cutting the space 
station Freedom. Our country will not be stronger, greater, braver or 
more prosperous if we pull back and retrench from human space 
exploration.
  There is a difference between spending money and investing money. The 
space station is an investment in our future and one that I urge our 
country to make. We owe it to ourselves and our children to keep faith 
with those who came before us, to continue to venture beyond the 
confines of this planet and to the great frontier of space before us.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the chairman of the 
subcommittee dealing with NASA's budget.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer-
Zimmer amendment to cancel the space station. This has become an annual 
exercise for these gentlemen. While I admire them for their tenacity, I 
do not admire them for their judgment. The space station is NASA's No. 
1 priority to bring us into the next millennium. It is now on time and 
on budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not deny that NASA has had serious problems with 
the space station in the past. Not that long ago, I was prepared to 
vote against the station as well, not because I thought it was a bad 
idea but because NASA did not have a plan to deal with possible Russian 
withdrawal from the program. I am pleased to say that the agency has 
made substantial progress in addressing my concerns.
  The station program NASA has under way today bears little resemblance 
to the program that the gentleman who would kill it describe. NASA has 
moved to a single prime contractor and has placed the station on a 
responsible management plan. It will live within an annual $2.1 billion 
cap and not exceed total costs of $13.1 billion for operation and 
assembly through completion, a far cry from the figures bandied about 
by the folks on the other side.
  Mr. Chairman, this is less than 15 percent of the NASA budget and 
less than one-seventh of 1 percent of the total Federal budget. This is 
not the two-headed budget monster that opponents make it out to be.
  I have made a career of cutting the Federal budget. The reason I came 
to Washington was to get the Government's hands off of the taxpayer's 
wallet. In the last Congress, no Member had a better voting record for 
spending reductions and according to the National Taxpayers Union only 
eight Members have voted for more spending cuts so far in this 
Congress.
  The space station is a question about the future. It will be the 
focus of human space flight for the next two decades that enable us to 
conduct cutting-edge research in microgravity science. Numerous 
organizations support it because of the potential for the development 
of breakthroughs in medicine.
  Everyone here knows that NASA's budget is $700 million smaller in 
fiscal year 1996 and it is going to decline in the coming years. We 
should also acknowledge that we can accommodate these cuts, keep the 
space station and bring the benefits to the taxpayer of the cutting-
edge research possible only in space. The Committee on the Budget 
recognized the merits of this program when it included the station in 
developing the plan to balance the Federal budget in 7 years. In short, 
a vote for the space station is a vote for tomorrow. It is both 
technologically and scientifically advanced and fiscally responsible. I 
urge defeat of the Roemer-Zimmer amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of 
the Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank my friend for yielding me the time. He is 
doing an outstanding job as chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Roemer amendment to 
kill the space station project. I heard the argument about lack of jobs 
in this country.
  The fact is the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], chairman of 
the Committee on Science, says killing the space station will kill 
approximately 40,000 high-tech jobs. Despite what the critics say, this 
is a critical investment in our Nation's future and it results in 
technology transfers and spinoffs to the private sector that creates 
more jobs. This is seed corn for real productivity in this Nation for 
the next century--power generation, electrical power systems, robotics, 
air and water quality sensors, advanced waste processing, and recycling 
technology. The impact on improving health care will be tremendous.
  Just since July 1992, NASA and the National Institutes of Health have 
signed 18 cooperative agreements for research in critical areas like 
neurology, cardiovascular, and cancer research. The space station will 
work. It is on schedule and within budget now. It has been redesignated 
and costs $20 billion less in development and operations than 
originally planned.
  And, it is a real program already. It is not just a paper program. 
International and U.S. companies have produced over 100,000 pounds of 
hardware related to the station that are ready for deployment. It is a 
good program. We ought to abandon this amendment, not this program.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] who has worked on this 
amendment in the past.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment missed by one vote last 
year, in the last Congress, and it is kind of interesting. This 
Congress was going to be the one to balance the budget. We would make 
more progress on deficit reduction. In fact, over 300 Members of this 
House voted for a balanced budget amendment.
  What have we done since then? Well, we have increased defense 
spending by $10 billion more than what the Pentagon wanted. We have 
left untouched about $100 billion in corporate subsidies. We have 
passed a tax cut that will provide $357 billion in lost revenue. This 
is the balanced-budget Congress. This is an easy decision.
  I understand it is difficult to cut a program where in some districts 
it means a cut in contracts. But you do not balance the budget by not 
making these decisions. The Space Station is something that is long 
overdue to be cut. The cost overruns have been outrageous. There may be 
another point in time in our history where we can afford it, but we 
cannot afford it now. We are spending $221 billion on interest on the 
national debt this year alone. It is the third largest Government 
program. Before Members go back to their districts and talk about how 
they are going to balance the budget, let them look at this amendment 
where you really have an opportunity to cut spending and not talk about 
the fact that we cut student loans or we cut school lunches or we cut 
these trivial things.
  This amendment should be a very easy vote for Members of Congress. I 
cannot believe that after coming within one vote in the last session 
and getting new Members elected to Congress committed to a balanced 
budget that we could lose it this year.

[[Page H 7926]]


                              {time}  1000

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
international space station and in very strong opposition to this 
amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. Chairman, we have given at the office. There is no one more 
committed than myself to the deficit reduction effort, to cost-
effectiveness, to the prudent use of taxpayer dollars and the outright 
stinginess in Federal spending. But NASA has done its part for deficit 
reduction.
  In the past 3 years, NASA has reduced its multiyear budget plan by 35 
percent, over $40 billion, and for 3 consecutive years, its annual 
budget has been reduced.
  But even in a time of extremely tight budget allocations and with a 
commitment to balance the budget by the year 2002, the space station 
remains a top funding priority, and that is what we are talking about 
here, spending priorities.
  The budget resolution that we passed just a month ago includes the 
space station because of its significance to our Nation's future, 
because of the exploration of space that touches the core of American 
identity as pioneering adventurers; and the success of the space 
station bears directly on how our future here on Earth, in the United 
States, in our schools and hospitals, offices and factories will be 
shaped.
  I understand the gentleman from New Jersey's approach; I just 
disagree with it. The bottom line here, cutting through all the 
rhetoric, is if we want a space program, we have to put man in space. 
We cannot do a space program on Earth. So, Mr. Chairman, what we have 
to do is put man in space in a space lab to do the kinds of wonderful 
experiments and scientific breakthroughs that come from that.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people support this critical program. I 
believe today, as it has been for the past several years, the space 
station will receive the support of the majority of my colleagues.
  Vote ``no'' on the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Chairman, it would be interesting to go back and read 
some of the history of this Nation. When this House argued about going 
on the Louisiana Purchase and going to the West, the big argument was, 
``Why do we want to go out there? All there is are coyotes and 
rattlesnakes. Who, in their right mind, would want to go there? That is 
not a sensible thing to do.''
  But because of that pioneer spirit that was there, we moved on to the 
West; and out of that is where the great minerals of this country came 
from and the lumber and the water and the technology came from, those 
particular areas.
  As a member of the House Committee on National Security, I remember 
distinctly meeting in room 2118, and our former chairman of that 
committee, Les Aspin, invited generals and admirals from the Soviet 
Union. Now, we were friends and we were buddies, and we sat down and 
talked as to what happened and why did they lose and why did we win the 
cold war? The whole conversation came down to one thing: technology. 
They could not run with the United States; they did not have the 
technology.
  I think it is interesting as we talk to people from the 
pharmaceutical community and they talk about in a gravity-free 
environment how they can make medicines that will help mankind. We have 
always had this pioneer spirit to move ahead, to get things done.
  Mr. Chairman, the space station is the frontier for America today. 
This is where the pioneers will go and this will bring us a lot of 
money. Or we can sit back like other nations, lose this technology, 
lose this pioneer spirit, lose the 8-to-1 advantage that we will have 
and find ourselves a second-rate nation sitting here worrying about 
social programs, when we can look at things that will create money, 
create jobs, and create what our universities around America are doing. 
Look at the many, many universities that are putting some type of 
experiment on the space station.
  In the little place of Logan, UT, Utah State University has put more 
experiments on that space station, and out of that has created many 
jobs. Let us not be pound foolish and let us defeat this amendment and 
do what is right for America.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, a generation ago, it was the 
dream of every child to see a man walk on the Moon. We fulfilled that 
dream and that was the right dream for that generation. Today's 
children, though, do not have a dream like that. Instead, they have a 
nightmare of a national debt of close to $5 trillion, and that is a 
debt that is not going away.
  Right now is not the time to move on the space station. Right now is 
the time to move on the deficit and the debt. The only way we can do 
that is by making the difficult choices.
  We hear people argue that this is a great investment, but we have 
already spent $12 billion on it, and we have nothing from it. It is 
going to cost us $94 billion in total when this is done.
  That is a black hole, Mr. Chairman, and it is a black hole that this 
generation and, more importantly, our children's generation cannot 
afford. Let us stop the waste of money right now. Do the right thing. 
End the space station.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen].
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer 
amendment and in support of the space station.
  The space station is an investment in exploration and science, an 
investment in jobs and economic growth, an investment in international 
cooperation, and most of all, an investment in improving life for all 
of us here on Earth.
  The American space program has already made remarkable contributions 
to technology and medical research during its 35-year history. The 
space station is the next logical step. A permanent orbiting laboratory 
capable of long-duration research.
  In medicine alone, space station researchers will be able to use the 
low-gravity environment to expand our understanding of cell culture, 
which will revolutionize treatment for joint diseases and injuries. It 
will provide a unique environment for research on the growth of protein 
crystals, with consequences for designing new drugs and treating 
diseases from cancer to diabetes.
  We're already seeing the benefits of the space station even before it 
is built. A cell culturing device developed for the station is being 
used to grow ovarian tumor samples so they can be studied outside the 
body. Similar study is being conducted on brain tumors. This is but a 
hint of the work that will be done in space.
  Some have argued that it would be fiscally prudent
   to eliminate the space station. Nothing could be further from the 
truth. In fact, it would be terribly imprudent to kill the program. We 
have already invested more than $12 billion in the space station. Our 
12 international partners have spent more than $4 billion. Actual 
hardware is being built. To eliminate the program now, after so much of 
the investment has been made, would be the height of irresponsibility 
by allowing our investment to be wasted.

  But most of all, canceling the space station now would waste a 
historic opportunity to forge a partnership with Russia, our former 
competitor in space and our former adversary. Who would have thought as 
we raced to the Moon during the height of the cold war that one day an 
American space shuttle and a Russian space station would be linked in 
space. Three weeks ago, NASA and the Russian space agency showed that 
the international space station is not only good science, but the 
technology sound. Again, this recent linkup of the shuttle Discovery 
and the Russian Mir is but a taste of the benefits the international 
space station will make possible.
  We have come too far and there is too much to lose if we turn our 
back now. 

[[Page H 7927]]
What a waste for the United States, which has led the world through the 
Industrial Revolution, the Jet Age, the Information Revolution, and the 
Space Age, to bury its head in the sand as we enter the 21st century. I 
urge support for the space station and opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, no one but no one loves what NASA has 
done for America and the world in advancing the limitless boundaries of 
our imaginations more than I do.
  Mr. Chairman, as a youngster I dreamed of the day I would ride a 
spacecraft into the heavens, maybe even walking on a planet. Surely Dan 
Goldin, director of NASA, is an American hero. His service to our 
country is proven and unprecedented. But, Mr. Chairman, we have a 
greater experiment to carry out here; an experiment that involves the 
life and death, economically, of the American people and, yes, it is 
our Federal debt.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not need to remind this body that we borrow nearly 
a billion dollars a day; that a newborn born today owes $187,000 in 
interest payments just on our Nation's debt. Yes, the space station 
would be nice, but can we really afford $94 billion, the cost to 
launch, maintain, and build, for the next 10 years?
  Mr. Chairman, remember the B-2 bomber debate we had just a couple of 
weeks ago? Heck, that was only $20 billion, and I say that facetiously. 
This is $94 billion. I truly believe that when we look at the
 Federal debt and look at the children and look at what it is costing 
this country economically, we have to reexamine. Yes, it is a good 
program; unfortunately, we cannot afford it at this time.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the annual 
Roemer-Zimmer amendment effort to kill the space station.
  Mr. Chairman, I admire both of those gentlemen and have worked on the 
subcommittee with them for many years, I just disagree with their 
annual effort to knock out the space station, and I really do not 
understand speakers who say as a youngster they dreamed, but as an 
oldster they do not want other youngsters to have that same dream.
  We cannot afford to lose this space station. And Mr. Chairman, we did 
not lose it by 1 vote. That was 2 years ago when they were going 
through redesign. The vote was 123-vote difference just a year ago.
  I think it is obvious that we do need to cut back, and I think Mr. 
Goldin has cut NASA back in the last 3 years some 35 percent. I know of 
no other entity that has taken that same cut, and then another $5 
billion.
  We have taken enough hits in the NASA program. I think our Nation has 
weathered a lot of storms militarily, financially, politically, 
socially, and culturally, and throughout the rich history it has always 
been the American people and its leaders who have a deep and abiding 
belief in our future, a belief that we can and will accomplish great 
feats and make great discoveries.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] spoke earlier 
about placing the needs of our senior citizens above the needs of our 
space station. The gentleman is right to be concerned about our 
seniors, but what the gentleman did not point out is that our seniors 
are in favor of the space station.
  The Seniors Coalition, a group of 2 million members, has given its 
support to this station. This group, like myself, is supportive of a 
balanced budget and fiscal responsibility, but also recognizes the 
dividends that such a project will likely realize for older Americans.
  The Seniors Coalition notes that research on the space station could 
potentially lead to medical breakthroughs in cancer, arthritis, 
diabetes, osteoporosis, balance disorders, Alzheimer's, cardiopulmonary 
disease, and other afflictions that threaten senior citizens.
  The coalition notes that NASA space research has already resulted in 
products that improved seniors' quality of life, such as instruments 
that measure bone density, osteoporosis, cardiac pacemakers, computer 
readers for the vision impaired, and on and on. I oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Ward], a talented new freshman.
  Mr. WARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a previous speaker say that this is about 
exploring brave new worlds and strange new worlds. Well, I submit to my 
colleagues that I would not have come to Congress in 1995, if I was not 
interested in exploring strange new worlds.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a strange world. It is a world where we can see 
cuts in every program that help our children, where we can see the 
threat of cuts in programs that help our seniors, and at the same time 
support billions for a project which is purely, purely speculative 
benefits. When we hear of the notions that NASA puts forward of what 
this project will achieve, we hear speculation.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand next to none in my support of NASA and the 
basic space program. We need it. I am one of those young people who can 
remember as if it was yesterday sitting in a classroom watching John 
Glenn and Alan Shepherd. These things stirred me. These things told me 
that there were opportunities for America to explore, to expand.
  But, Mr. Chairman, the space station, just the notion of putting 
people in space does not justify this expenditure.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  (Mr. CRAMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
urge Members to oppose it.
  I rise in strong opposition to the termination of the International 
space station.
  There have been seven votes in the House to terminate the space 
station since I came to Congress in 1991. The space station has 
survived every vote. We've had a fair fight on this issue every year.
  The space station is a critical investment in America's future. The 
Station is about life on earth.
  If we give up on space station--we give up on Human Space Year.
  The station will be a permanent, orbiting laboratory in low earth 
orbit that will provide important contributions to medical research, 
microgravity materials and life sciences research, and advanced 
technologies research.
  The space program has already proven how important it is to life here 
on earth during its 35-year history. The space station is the next 
logical step in our exploration and utilization of outer space.
  The space station is the largest international science project ever 
undertaken. The Station draws on the resources and expertise of 13 
nations, including our old cold war adversary--Russia.
  As the world redefines itself in this era following the end of the 
cold war, international cooperative projects like the space station 
become powerful symbols for what can be accomplished through peaceful 
cooperation among nations.
  The United States is falling far behind the rest of the 
industrialized world in long-term investment in research and 
development.
  We as a nation cannot afford to fall further behind in science and 
technology if we expect to be the world's technology leader into the 
next century.
  NASA's R&D efforts provide one of the few Federal investments in our 
economy of 10, 20 or even 30 years from now.
  These R&D investments are being made in the space station, 
aeronautics, high-speed computing, environmentally clean technologies, 
remote sensing, and miniaturization.
  The investments being made in the science and technology now, will 
make long-term economic growth possible and provide long-term 
opportunities for future generations.
  The space station is a critical element in this long-term investment 
that will ensure our Nation's future.
  The station will be a testbed for a wide variety of future 
technologies and a unique science platform for research on advanced 
industrial materials, communications technologies, and medical 
research.
                The Space Station, Too Late to Turn Back

  The space station was redesigned in 1993 to incorporate Russian 
participation, to be cheaper, and to be more capable. These goals were 
accomplished.
  The new design saves $5 billion in development costs, reduced annual 
operating costs by half, and expands the station's research 
capabilities. 

[[Page H 7928]]

  The redesigned station has nearly twice the power, double the volume, 
twice the number of laboratory modules, and 50 percent more crew than 
the earlier design.
  The new cooperative effort with Russia enables the station to be 
completed 15 months sooner and will save the United States almost $2 
billion in development costs.
  Since the redesign in 1993, the station program has proceeded 
smoothly and with stability.
  All program cost, technical and program milestones have been met. The 
station is on time and on budget.
  We are now less than 30 months from the launch of the first element 
of the space station in November 1997.
  NASA has manufactured more than 42,000 pounds of actual flight 
hardware in 1994 and early 1995. A total of 75,000 pounds will be built 
by the end of 1995.
  The first phase of the station program is well underway. We are 
gaining valuable experience with the Russian space station that reduces 
our technical risk.
  This past February, the space shuttle flew within 37 feet of the 
Russian Mir Space Station and in March a U.S. astronaut began a 90-day 
stay aboard Mir.
  On July 7, the shuttle Atlantis completed the historic docking with 
the Mir Station.
  Several more missions to the Mir Station are planned in the next 2 
years. The era of close cooperations with the Russians is well 
underway.
  We have committed too much time and money in the space station and 
are too close to assembly of the station to turn our backs on this 
project.
  I believe strongly that the space station is too important a program 
to abandon. I believe it is crucial to our Nation's future and to the 
future of our children.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment to terminate the space 
station.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert].
  (Mr. CALVERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer 
amendment and in strong support for the international space station.
  We have already spent billions of dollars over the years on this 
necessary program and I find it amazing that we are now discussing 
terminating funding at a time when mission launches begin next year.
  The space station is needed to develop new materials and processes in 
industry.
  This space station will accelerate breakthroughs in technology and 
engineering that will have immediate, practical applications for life 
on Earth--and will create jobs and economic opportunities today and in 
the decades to come.
  It would maintain U.S. leadership in space and in global 
competitiveness, and serve as a driving force for emerging 
technologies.
  The space station will force new partnerships with the nations of the 
world.
  It would inspire our children, foster the next generation of 
scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs, and satisfy humanity's 
ancient need to explore and achieve.
  We need the space station to invest for today and tomorrow.
  Every dollar spent on space programs returns at least $2 in direct 
and indirect benefits.
  And finally, the space station will help sustain and strengthen the 
United States' strongest export sector--aerospace technology--which in 
1993 exceeded $39 billion.
  We need the space station, for the present and for the future.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the 
international space station. Our Nation's human flight space program 
represents the American ideal of exploration and leadership, and the 
international space station carries on that tradition.
  Space station opponents argue that space station funding is a 
fiscally irresponsible program. I believe the space station funding is 
a fiscally responsible and essential investment in America's future, 
and the dollars requested for the program will be more than returned in 
the coming years.
  The budget for the space station is less than 15 percent of NASA's 
budget, and only one-seventh of 1 percent of the Federal budget. The 
redesigned space station is better managed under a single prime 
contractor and has more lab space, more power, a larger crew, and costs 
$20 billion less in development and operations than the previous 
design. The space station is on schedule and within budget and NASA's 
fiscal year 1996 budget authorization and appropriation meet House 
budget resolution targets--in line with achieving a balanced budget by 
fiscal year 2002.
  Mr. Speaker, the space station is a vital part of America's role in 
shaping the future. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, achievements in space set 
the United States apart from other nations with greater distinction 
than any other endeavor. Indeed, our space program has become the very 
symbol of American ingenuity, daring, and innovation. It has been more 
than three decades since Americans walked on the Moon, and no other 
nation today is even remotely close to duplicating that feat.
  The space station will be a symbol of U.S. international leadership 
and preeminence in space science. It brings together many nations to 
work on this single project, who have, to date, invested billions of 
dollars. Russia, Canada, the European Space Agency--whose participation 
includes 9 of its 15 member nations, and Japan are all contributing 
partners.
  I would not argue that our agreements with these international 
partners are, in and of themselves, a compelling reason to proceed with 
the program. I would, however, emphasize that this is an unprecedented 
level of international cooperation, undertaken at our initiative, and 
its abandonment would say nothing positive about our willingness to 
live up to our commitments.
  A decision to terminate the space station program will likely put a 
period at the end of this Nation's manned space program--there will be 
nowhere else to go, and we will have missed our one opportunity to 
impel mankind toward a better future. If we continue to move forward, 
however, we will keep alive our Nation's hope for a better, greater 
future.
  Yes, we have social and economic problems all around us. But the 
problems of the future will surely be worse. For our children and 
grandchildren, and subsequent generations of Americans to prosper, they 
will require new ideas, new knowledge, new technology, new products, 
new jobs, and new worlds to conquer. Your vote for space station is a 
vote for a stronger America and a better world.
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am starting to feel like a broken record player. It 
seems as if nearly every time I make a trip to the floor this Congress 
I have the same message. Apparently, however, I need to say it one more 
time.
  Simply put, good public policy means looking farther ahead than the 
next election.
  Mr. Chairman, the international space station is all about long-term 
vision. It is about a vision of national unity. It is about a vision of 
U.S. competitiveness. And, it is about a vision of international 
cooperation.
  There is no question that the space station has a high price tag in 
the near future. But, Mr. Chairman, this is the U.S. House of 
Representatives, not some for-profit corporation. It is, in fact, our 
job to consolidate public resources and invest them for the future.
  The space station offers huge dividends. Our Nation's gains from 
space flight in the areas of general technological capability and 
specific spinoff inventions is well documented. The lives of thousands 
of Americans have been improved and in fact saved by technologies 
discovered during manned space flight.
  And, Mr. Chairman, manned space flight bring this Nation together. 
One need only see ``Apollo 13,'' or hear the roar of a shuttle launch, 
or listen to the old tapes of man's first walk on the Moon to 
understand this phenomenon.
  Finally, we must consider the long-term value of working toward 
common goals with members of the international community. Mr. Chairman, 
I ask you what the dollar value is of a strong working relationship 
with our friends in Russia? How much money do we save by avoiding 
another cold war?
  Mr. Chairman, I do not understand how anyone claiming to be a 
policymaker can ignore these benefits in favor of short term political 
gain. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stockman], whose district makes a great 
contribution to space station.
  (Mr. STOCKMAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Mr. Chairman, speaker after speaker will get up here 
and say, ``I remember as a child, I remember as a child the great 
things that astronauts used to do.''

                              {time}  1015

  But do you know what they are saying? ``We want to kill the dream for 
the next generation so they cannot stand up here a generation from now 
and say, `I remember space station, I remember how it thrilled me.' ''
  They want to rob that. We are going to rob the next generation of 
that.
  They say, ``Well, what is it going to produce?'' I have never heard a 
scientist predict what he is going to find in space. I never knew so 
many scientists were in Congress. My wife 

[[Page H 7929]]

worked on it, and time after time again they would say, ``Redesign 
it.''
  I ask: How many rocket scientists do we have here? I have not heard 
them speak. I have not heard a thing.
  You know, when we were discussing Alaska, it was an icebox, and on 
this very floor they denigrated it. Why get Alaska? There is nothing in 
Alaska. Where are those voices today? They are gone.
  Where are the voices for science? The doctors, the naysayers? They 
are all out here robbing our children of the future. ``No, we cannot 
have a space station. No, we cannot have a future.'' It is because we 
do not have a vision in this country anymore that we are willing to 
kill the space station. We cannot allow that to happen.
  Queen Isabella, she had lots of problems. I am sure she had potholes 
and social problems, but she went forth, spent the money, and it was 
expensive and found this country. That was probably a waste, in many of 
my colleagues' eyes.
  I think it is wrong and shortsighted what we are doing here today, or 
trying to do, and this annual amendment is shortsighted.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer], the distinguished cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My friend from Texas talks about the thrill of having a space station 
in orbit. Just think about it. Will our children really be thrilled 30 
years after a man walked on the Moon to have a space station in low 
Earth orbit, something the Russians have been doing for 10 years, at a 
cost of our entire space program, including plans to get us back to the 
Moon and on to Mars? I think not.
  Simply put, the space station is not worth the money, whether you 
agree with NASA's unrealistic $37.5 billion sticker price or the far 
more realistic General Accounting Office $94 billion estimate. The 
National Taxpayers' Union strongly supports the Roemer-Zimmer 
amendment. So does Citizens Against Government Waste. Citizens Against 
Government Waste has scored this vote year after year, as well they 
should. The Office of Technology Assessment has said placing the 
Russian contribution in the critical path to completion poses 
unprecedented programmatic and political risks. The Congressional 
Research Service points out the many, many challenges and threats to 
the budget and the timetable of the space station: Huge increases in 
the number of space walks, having to launch 73 missions exactly on 
time, some of them within a 5-minute launch window.
  We may be technically within budget and on time at this point. I 
predict and I assure you that next year we will not be.
  Let us cut our losses and the losses of our foreign partners and 
terminate this program now.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would conclude with summing our position up on this amendment by 
saying that this amendment is about the dreams of America. It is about 
the hopes of Americans. It is about new frontiers, but it is more 
complicated than saying that these new frontiers are only limited to a 
space station in space.
  Our dreams and our hopes and our new frontiers are also on Earth. 
They are about a $4.8 trillion debt that is killing our children's 
futures and dreams. They are about programs that are being offered in 
this Congress to kick children off of Head Start.
  Our dreams from Alabama to Indiana, from California to New Jersey are 
about Congressmen and women making the difficult decisions at times 
based on the merits of programs, not on the movies and theaters. We are 
not assessing the merits of a space station based upon Tom Hanks' 
performance in ``Apollo 13''. If we were, I think you have a 435-to-0 
vote in favor of Tom Hanks.
  What we are assessing today is a space station that has gone from $8 
billion in costs to $94 billion. What we are assessing today is a space 
station that has gone from eight scientific nations to one. What we are 
assessing today is a Congress. Does it have the will and the tenacity 
and the courage to start moving toward a balanced budget for the hopes 
and the dreams of all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, all science is not successful. I wish it was. Thank 
goodness Christopher Columbus was successful. Thank goodness Charles 
Lindbergh and thank goodness Jim Lovell were, but the space station is 
not the same kind of science or merit that those previous programs 
were.
  Vote to cut the space station now before it eats up the rest of the 
seed corn for a precious NASA budget and science budget.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Roemer amendment, and I just wanted to make one thing very, very 
clear to our fellow Members here. There are a lot of figures being 
thrown around about the space station, some claiming that it is going 
to cost $94 billion, a GAO study that claims that that is for the full 
cost of the station. Well, there are $8 billion spent on redesigns that 
were commissioned by this Congress in redesigning this program over and 
over again, and now you have the program finalized, you have 
international partners in it, it is on budget, it is on time, it is 
good science.
  There are 14 different programs from NIH that are going up on this 
space station. There are seven different pharmaceutical companies 
interested in doing significant research in areas like diabetes, 
osteoporosis, that are going to go up on this space station. Included 
in that supposed $94 billion is $47 billion in shuttle operations over 
the next 15 years.
  The supporters of this amendment, are they claiming they want to 
ground the shuttle, that they want to completely end our manned space 
program? I think the American people say no, and they have said no 
consistently for the past 5 years. Repeatedly this body has voted in 
support of this program.
  Now we are about the business of trying to kill it one more time. Now 
while we have the Japanese investing $1 billion in their part of the 
program, we have our European partners investing $2 billion in their 
part of the program, while we are in the process of bending metal and 
finalizing this and ready to put it up in the air, the dream is about 
to become a reality, one more time the naysayers are coming forward and 
saying no, no, no, we cannot have a space station, we cannot afford it.
  Well, I submit to my colleagues that if that type of attitude had 
existed in the past, Jefferson would never have purchased the Louisiana 
Purchase.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, there was a lot of conversation yesterday and today 
about whether man should be in space. There are those on the floor who 
really do not believe in our manned space mission, as well as a great 
deal of discussion regarding the role of NASA and the impact it might 
have upon our economy.
  I have done some calculating here this morning. We have a $1.4 
trillion national budget. NASA's entire budget represents .01 percent 
of our national commitment to a variety of domestic programs. Within 
the NASA budget only 15 percent goes to station, and yet station is the 
centerpiece of all of NASA's work.
  Without a doubt, the American people have expressed themselves. They 
support strongly man's work in space and our future in space.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, July 
27, 1995, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] will be postponed.
  The point of order of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.

[[Page H 7930]]

  Mr. Chairman, I ask the Chairman's indulgence to engage in a colloquy 
with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. Lewis, I want to applaud your efforts in agreeing to work to 
provide funding for an outpatient clinic to help meet the critical 
medical needs of the 450,000 northern California veterans. I strongly 
support this proposal and I appreciate the fact that you have gone out 
of your way to try and accommodate the concerns of Mr. Riggs and myself 
on this issue.
  The problem still remains, however, that we are still in dire need of 
inpatient services for these veterans north of San Francisco as a 
result of the closure of the Martinez Veterans Hospital damaged in the 
Loma Prieta earthquake. I want to ask the Chairman's further assurances 
to continue to work with the northern California delegation in pursuing 
more low-cost alternatives to providing this needed inpatient hospital 
care. Would the Chairman be willing to work with myself and Mr. Riggs 
to find solutions to this ongoing problem?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from 
California [Mr. Fazio] raising this question.
  We did discuss it to some extent yesterday on the floor. There is no 
question about the need in northern California for advanced services 
available to the veterans who live in that region. You and I know, 
serving on the Committee on Appropriations, the difficulties that we 
face.
  I am not only pleased with the level of contact and communication I 
have had from all of your delegation regarding this matter, I certainly 
look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. I appreciate the help the gentleman may be 
able to offer us.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I had an amendment, No. 48, that I was intending on 
offering this morning. It is an amendment dealing with the community 
development financial institutions. But as a result of conversations 
that took place initially between the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Flake] and the distinguished chairman of the full Housing Committee, 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], last evening and then further 
conversation that I was able to have with the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] this morning, it appears as though we can avoid 
the timely debate on this issue and go to, I hope, a commitment to try 
to find some funding for the important community development financial 
institutions as we move this bill through the process.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York, 
who has done a tremendous job leading the community development 
institutions through the last couple of Congresses. He does tremendous 
work on the Housing Committee and other issues pertaining to investment 
in low income communities.
                              {time}  1030

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Kennedy], and certainly we want to thank him for having been one 
of the most vocal of individuals as it relates to the development of 
the communities, particularly these urban communities where we have had 
a great deal of stress as it relates to trying to make sure that we 
turn these communities around.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with my colleague 
from Long Island, NY [Mr. Lazio], who has worked diligently both as a 
member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity and now 
as the chairperson of housing as it relates to our concerns about 
community development financial institutions, and in our discussion, 
Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns that the gentleman knows that is 
passionately a part of my responsibility here and my work in New York 
has been to try to assure that we find means by which we get funds into 
communities where we cannot invest the funds, investment funds that 
allows for us to have an opportunity to generate jobs, to generate the 
means by which we rebuild those commercial strips.
  As the gentleman knows, Tom Ridge and I started out in 1991 with the 
Bank Enterprise Act which we got passed by this body. The Bank 
Enterprise Act sort of served as a foundation for the community 
development financial institutions where we would give banks an 
opportunity to be able to participate in communities that they had 
ignored and then by helping to put resources in those communities to 
turn them around, and, Mr. Chairman, what I am asking of the gentleman 
is that, as we move forward and understand these distressed communities 
still have needs and yet in this particular budget the $104 million 
that was originally asked for CDFI is zeroed out, I am asking the 
gentleman's support, if he will, to allow us in understanding what the 
need is, and understand that America can never be strong if a part of 
America is still distressed, if a part of America does not have an 
opportunity to create means by which we can create jobs, if a part of 
America does not have the means by which it can build its commercial 
strips and on those commercial strips be able to turn them around and 
generate opportunities for those young people who may otherwise end up 
in jail.
  I would like the gentleman's support in assuring that, when we get 
this bill together, when we move into the conference stages, that he 
will assist us because I know that he and I in our discussions 
understand that this is a reality of a need for America.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I would like to respond to my friend, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake], and say first of all that no 
Member of this body has done more for his district than the gentleman 
has in fostering partnerships and leveraging public funds and private 
funds together to make life better, and this Member also believes that, 
as the gentleman does, that access to credit and an increase in 
entrepreneurship is one of the foundations of turning some of our most 
underserved communities around and that we do need to do more and 
commit ourselves to do more in terms of access to capital for young, 
budding entrepreneurs, especially in our underserved areas, and the 
gentleman has the commitment from this chairman, from this Member, that 
I will work with him to find ways both through CDFI and other means to 
ensure that we have better access to capital in some of our most 
underserved areas.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I want to say to all the gentlemen involved 
that I have the deepest respect for the work that they are involved 
with here. If we can provide opportunity to enter our marketplace in a 
way that allows for growth and job opportunity----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Kennedy] has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Lewis of California and by unanimous consent, Mr. 
Kennedy of Massachusetts was allowed to proceed for 2 additional 
minutes.)
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Access to capital is very fundamental to the 
success of the kind that the gentleman is talking about. I want all of 
my colleagues to know that, while the committee did zero CDFI by way of 
$104 million, that this was in no small part because there is in the 
bill the President signed yesterday a $50 million pool for this 
activity that is to be run through the Department of the Treasury. 
Frankly, I am scratching my head about whether that is the right 
approach. As we go toward the Senate for a conference, I want to be 
discussing this in depth with the gentleman and very much appreciate 
the commitment that all the gentlemen have to this very important work.

[[Page H 7931]]

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate both 
gentlemen's commitment to this program, and I just want to say I talked 
with the Treasury Department earlier this morning. They are looking 
forward to entering into a dialog with the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lewis] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio] with regard to 
exactly what funds should be utilized for the purposes, but I am glad 
to hear that both chairmen have committed themselves to making certain 
that community development financial institutions maintains the level 
of funding going into the next year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Let me add just one more thing, if I may.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy] have a deep commitment to this work, as my 
chairman from the committee does here as well. We have time pressures 
today. We are going to have an extended debate, but we will have that 
discussion in the months ahead, and hopefully it will be very fruitful. 
I appreciate very much my colleagues' cooperation with the Members' 
problem on the floor today as we make this very important point.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. I appreciate very much the gentleman's 
cooperation, and I want to just tell the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Lazio] that I look forward to working with him on this and a number of 
other issues. We had some differences on the floor yesterday, but I 
look very much forward to working with him in the future.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit my remarks in strong opposition to the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and in 
support of the space station.
          SEQUENTIAL VOTES POSTPONED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of July 27, 1995, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: On unprinted 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur]; amendment 
No. 34 offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio]; amendment 
No. 57 offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MS. KAPTUR

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] 
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Kaptur: Page 20, line 25, after 
     the dollar amount insert the following: ``(increased by 
     $234,000,000)''.
       Page 21, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $234,000,000)''.
       Page 64, line 16, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $234,000,000)''.


                             RECORDED VOTE

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192, 
noes 222, not voting 20, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 596]

                               AYES--192

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hunter
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weller
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--222

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Bateman
     Berman
     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Crane
     Filner
     Hall (OH)
     Hilliard
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Largent
     McKinney
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1055

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Largent against.

  Mr. BENTSEN and Mrs. ROUKEMA changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota, Mr. MANZULLO, and Mrs. MORELLA changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. TUCKER. Mr. chairman, earlier this morning there were three 
votes. I missed two. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes'' on 
the Kaptur 

[[Page H 7932]]

amendment, rollcall 596, and ``yes'' on the DeFazio amendment, rollcall 
597.
                    amendment offered by mr. defazio

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the request for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio] on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
nays prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Amendment No. 34: Page 8, line 9, strike 
     ``$16,713,521,000'' and insert ``$16, 725,521,000''.
       Page 79, line 23, strike ``$22,930,000'' and insert 
     ``$6,000,000''.
                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 175, 
noes 242, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 597]

                               AYES--175

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bilbray
     Blute
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunn
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Coburn
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Cox
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hutchinson
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tauzin
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Williams
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--242

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mica
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bateman
     Berman
     Clement
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Filner
     Hall (OH)
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Largent
     McKinney
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Tucker
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1104

  Mr. FAZIO of California and Mr. RUSH changed their vote from ``aye'' 
to ``no.''
  Messrs. COYNE, ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, WATTS of Oklahoma, and FOX of 
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                    amendment offered by mr. roemer

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 132, 
noes 287, not voting 15, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 598]

                               AYES--132

     Ackerman
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Blute
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cremeans
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Evans
     Fattah
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Montgomery
     Myers
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Studds
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waxman
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Yates
     Zimmer

                               NOES--287

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chapman

[[Page H 7933]]

     Chenoweth
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek
     Metcalf
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Peterson (FL)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Stump
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Visclosky
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Bateman
     Berman
     Collins (MI)
     Crane
     Filner
     Hall (OH)
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Johnston
     Largent
     McKinney
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Reynolds
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1113

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Largent for, with Mr. Johnston of Florida against.

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall 
No. 597 on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio]. I would like the Record to indicate that I would have voted 
``no.''
                              {time}  1115

  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would ask the gentleman from California if he would be kind enough 
to yield time to me for a little informal discussion here?
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say to the gentleman that something 
happened in my office, and I wanted to ask if this is happening to 
other Members, as far as he knew. My Washington office staff got a call 
late last night from one of the regional EPA staffers from my area 
saying they had done a quick and dirty study of the bill, and that was 
their words, quick and dirty study of the bill, in the superfund 
section of it, and they thought if the bill passed they would not be 
able to do cleanup on a site in my district.
  This is the night before the vote on the bill. I took it, at best, as 
an attempt to lobby me, and, at worst, an attempt to threaten me, and I 
wanted to know if this had been happening to any other Members, as far 
as you know, and what is going on about it?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, 
is he suggesting that EPA staff called his office last night 
essentially to imply that unless they got all the money they wanted 
that in some way they would not deal with a cleanup problem at a 
Superfund site in his district; is that what he is saying?
  Mr. TALENT. That is right. The site they mentioned, as far as I know, 
is not listed as a site yet, but the staffer said this was done on the 
basis of a quick and dirt study. When my staff pressed her on it, she 
said she is a foot soldier and that this is headquarters telling them 
to do this.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would yield further, I must 
say to my colleague, Mr. Talent, that such a phone call does not 
surprise this Member. I have had similar calls in my own district which 
suggested that if work at a Superfund site that is ongoing, it might be 
in trouble if they do not get the kind of funding that they would 
expect.
  This bill provides for over $6 billion of funding for ongoing work at 
Superfund sites. Those sorts of phone calls do not surprise me. I 
consider the EPA to be a regulatory agency out of control.
  Mr. TALENT. I have had other bad experiences with them. It is kind of 
ironic they are moving forward on another site in my area, and I do not 
want them to, and now they say they will not move forward on something 
that is not even a site yet.
  I would say to the chairman, and I am sure he would share this, an 
objective study with a written analysis that is documented and 
circulated to the Members, I want to know the facts. I want to know 
what their opinion is on the outcome of legislation, however, a last 
minute phone call based on an admittedly ``quick and dirty study'' is 
out of bounds. I do not react well to that.
  I hear the gentleman, and I just wanted to let him know about it and 
to see if other people were subject to the same thing.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman would yield further, I 
certainly would not want to overstate the case, but it is very apparent 
that a number of Members have been suggesting we need further 
legislation relative to agencies that would use federal funds for 
lobbying purposes. I am not sure how I could exactly describe this one, 
but it is very apparent that this is an agency that believes it should 
do whatever is necessary to have its view be reflected in our law and 
our work regardless of how the Members may feel.
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his fine work in 
this area.
                 amendment no. 66 offered by mr. stokes

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment No. 66.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 66 offered by Mr. Stokes:
       Page 53, line 18, strike ``: Provided'' and all that 
     follows through ``appropriate'' on page 55, line 9.
       Page 55, line 19, strike ``: Provided'' and all that 
     follows through ``concerns'' on page 59, line 3.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Thursday, 
July 27, 1995, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will be recognized 
for 45 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 45 minutes.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 20 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to express my appreciation to a 
distinguished Member on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Boehlert, for 
being the coauthor of this amendment. I welcome Chairman Boehlert's 
cosponsorship since he is chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction 
over this subject.
  Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed with regard to other titles of 
this bill, we are today considering a bill that does create 
revolutionary harm to our veterans and to the poorest of the poor. Now 
we are considering another series of radical changes, this time to the 
Nation's environmental laws.

[[Page H 7934]]

  It is no exaggeration to say, Mr. Chairman, that title III of this 
bill represents the biggest step backward in environmental protection 
that this body has considered since the original Earth Day, 25 years 
ago. Let there be no mistake about what this bill is about, this bill 
rolls back environmental protections.
  The bill does this through a one-third reduction in the funds 
available to the Environmental Protection Agency for implementing the 
laws that protect our waters, lands, and air. Environmental enforcement 
is slashed by more than 50 percent. Reductions in the superfund program 
total more than $550 million.
  But besides these environmental disasters that stem from a frontal 
assault on EPA's budget, the bill also contains page upon page of fine 
print that amount to a second, sneak attack on the Nation's 
environment. These are what we in Washington call legislative riders. 
These riders have been crafted by an Appropriations Subcommittee to 
take legislative action that has not been considered by authorizing 
committees, that has not been the subject of full debate, that really 
has not seen the light of day. And when our constituents find out how 
radical, how extreme, how special-interest-oriented these riders are, 
they will certainly hold us accountable.
  Among the legislative provisions that have been tacked onto this 
bill, Mr. Chairman, are measures that stop implementation and 
enforcement of this Nation's clean water laws--as Mr. Boehlert the 
cosponsor of this bill and chairman of the subcommittee with 
jurisdiction over this issue--will describe more fully. Also included 
are more than a dozen other environmental insults including:
  A rider which creates an exemption for a single special interest, the 
refinery industry, from a toxic emissions standard due out shortly for 
that industry. Unfortunately, while efforts to control refinery toxic 
emissions go into suspended animation, the lungs of our citizens will 
not--the many citizens of this country that live near refineries, 
including many urban citizens, will continue to breath refinery 
emissions that include known carcinogens and other hazardous 
substances.
  Another rider creates a special exemption for the oil and gas 
exploration and production industry. This time the exemption is from 
EPA's rules on the prevention of accidental releases of hazardous 
substances. Unfortunately for our citizens, some of the worst 
industrial accidents are associated with gas processing facilities and 
over 700 of these facilities will be exempted from this accident 
prevention program.
  A fourth provision bars EPA from promulgating, implementing or 
enforcing a title V operating permit program for large stationary 
sources in any State ``involved in litigation regarding provisions of 
title V.'' These operating permits are vital for implementing other 
parts of the Clean Air Act such as the air toxics, acid rain and 
nonattainment programs, yet the filing in any state of any suit 
involving any part of title V, no matter how meritless, will block 
EPA's ability to implement this program in that State.
  Yet another rider mandates specific statutory interpretations and 
procedural hoops all designed to prevent EPA from creating protective 
toxic emissions standards for cement kilns that burn hazardous waste.
  Another rider strips EPA of its ability to gather additional 
information from chemical manufacturers and other industrial sites 
under the Community-Right-to-Know Act and other statutes. What is 
especially ironic here is that the information that the EPA was after 
is vital for the development of risk analyses for these source 
categories.
  Finally, another rider guts enforcement of any environmental 
provisions left standing by allowing polluters to hide behind a new 
``environmental audit'' privilege. This provision allows states to 
shield polluters from civil actions and even criminal enforcement, 
regardless of how egregious their conduct and regardless of whether the 
privilege is relevant to their environmental wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, we can probably debate for many hours the exact scope 
and impact of these riders and the numerous others that clutter this 
bill. But there is no doubt that they make significant changes in the 
implementation of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other 
environmental statutes. Yet they will be adopted without full public 
consideration and debate by the legislative committee and with only a 
few minutes of debate on the House floor.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the issue we are debating right now comes down to this: 
Should we be undermining the Nation's most fundamental environmental 
statutes as part of an appropriation process that robs the public of a 
chance to weigh in on vital issues affecting their health and safety?
  Should we be weakening environmental safeguards as part of an 
appropriations process that prevents Members from having the time to 
adequately understand and review the implications of their actions? 
Should we be subjecting the public to environmental dangers as part of 
an appropriations process that limits the ability of Members to fully 
debate these issues and to vote their conscience?
  The answer is clearly ``no.''
  The House rules discourage legislating on an appropriations bill, and 
for good reason. Appropriation bills are a back-door tactic that is 
chosen when the direct, healthy, open approach is likely to fail. That 
is why for 40 years, two generations, the Republican Party has 
complained bitterly about the use of appropriations bills in this 
manner.
  So what do we do now that we are in power? We place more riders on an 
appropriation than anyone remembers seeing in recent history. Why do we 
not just append volumes of the United States Code to future 
appropriations?
  I am incensed about this violation of the process, and the process is 
the issue. Do not misunderstand that. If is the process here that is 
the issue.
  I would vote for a number of these riders if they came up through the 
correct process. But I cannot sanction handling environmental issues in 
such a cavalier manner.
  A Member of Congress who is a very diligent, hardworking, responsible 
colleague came up to me and had just learned that one of these riders 
could have a disastrous consequence on his congressional district. He 
just learned about it. Had no idea. That is a prime example of why we 
should not be operating in this manner. These riders block regulations, 
effectively repeal basic statutes, and create all manner of mischief. 
It would be hard to think of legislation that is more deserving of full 
and open debate and investigation. Presumably that is precisely why 
some people are trying to circumvent the process.
  I urge my colleagues in the interest of their constituents and their 
families and their kids and future generations to support Stokes-
Boehlert.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me just say, before 
I reserve the balance of my time, that I agree totally with the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. Chairman, this process betrays the exhaustive discussions and 
debates that led to the bipartisan passage of the 1990 clean air 
amendments and the other environmental statutes at issue. These drastic 
changes have no place in this appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues 
to support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment to strike them.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized 
for 45 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest opposition to this amendment. 
Make no mistake about it. As chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, I tell you today this is one of the 
most important votes that we will cast in this Congress. This amendment 
should be defeated.

[[Page H 7935]]

  The effect of this amendment will simply be to kill the clean water 
and the wetlands reforms that this House has already passed, and passed 
by a comfortable margin of 55 votes. Make no mistake about it, this is 
a back-door strategy to undo the reform to clean water and wetlands.
  Some of the liberal Members of the other body who do not want to see 
reform have made it clear that what they would like to do is not have 
an authorization this year. They would like to not take up an 
authorization, and then simply appropriate funds against the old clean 
water bill, and by doing that, there would be no reform. But the money 
would continue to be spent to overregulate, the money would continue to 
be spent under the old law. That is the strategy here today, to undo 
what this House has already done.
  Further evidence of this is the way EPA has been lobbying, and yes, I 
use the word ``lobbying,'' and we heard from the gentleman from 
Missouri just a few moments ago, how they are lobbying. I say this is a 
violation of the law that should be looked into and will be looked into 
by our investigators. EPA over the past several weeks has spent 
countless hours, if not days, time, taxpayers' money in putting 
together a scare package which they claim purports to show all the 
terrible things that will happen if the clean water bill that already 
passed this House is enacted into law.
  Interestingly, they have blatantly delivered this package only to the 
opponents of this legislation. This is one quote of their political 
rhetoric:

       The appropriations proposal dismisses the critical role 
     that clean water plays in every aspect of life. By choosing 
     to disinvest in the protection of our most vital resource, 
     the committee gambles with the well-being and the economic 
     prosperity of the entire Nation for generations to come.

  That is our EPA speaking, lobbying against legislation that already 
passed this House by a comfortable margin.
  Indeed, I have informed our counterparts in the other body that we 
are quite prepared to go to the table to compromise. We recognize there 
has got to be compromise with the other body from the legislation that 
passed this House. We want to sit down at the table and negotiate in 
good faith a compromise. But what is being attempted here today is to 
block us from being able to do that. By saying that we lift the 
requirement that there can be no appropriations without an 
authorization, we are saying that the same old unreformed bill will be 
in place.

                              {time}  1130

  Many of my colleagues have come to me and talked about the hypocrisy 
of this amendment. I will not use the word ``hypocrisy''; I will let my 
colleagues decide what word they want to use.
  Last year on June 29, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], my good 
friend, took the floor in an appropriations bill and stood and offered 
an amendment requiring that provisions be made subject to an 
authorization, the same approach that we are taking here today.
  Not only did the gentleman last year offer an amendment saying that 
the appropriations bill should be subject to an authorization, my other 
good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] said, ``I rise 
in support of the amendment by Mr. Stokes.''
  My other good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], 
took the floor and said, ``Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Stokes amendment,'' adding what a refreshing change it is from last 
year.
  So last year, we had these distinguished Members of Congress taking 
the floor and arguing in favor of authorization on an appropriations 
bill; not just any appropriations bill, but the clean water bill. I do 
not call that hypocrisy. My colleagues will have to decide what to call 
that.
  This should be defeated, or all our reforms simply go down the tube.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman, Mr. Shuster, would 
agree that when he makes reference to where I said, subject to 
authorization, I was talking about money. I was not changing 
substantive law in an appropriations bill, that what we are moving to 
strike here is substantive changes in the law.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, that is not what the gentleman's amendment 
does.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, that is what this language is about.
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, perhaps the gentleman would like to 
restructure his amendment and provide that the Clean Water bill is 
subject to an authorization. If that is what the gentleman wants to do, 
I will be happy to support that, but that is not what this gentleman's 
language does. This is subject to authorization.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York [Mrs. Kelly], a tireless champion of the environment.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by my colleagues, Mr. Stokes of Ohio and Mr. Boehlert of New York.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike 17 provisions in the bill 
which would prohibit the funding of important environmental programs.
  I voted for the Clean Water Act but, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned 
over the prospect of holding funding for programs that protect our air 
and water hostage to the appropriations process.
  As we work to enact authorizing legislation, we must not jeopardize 
the flow of Federal funds for important environmental programs that 
control combined sewer overflows, protect important wetlands, or clean 
our drinking water. Unfortunately, this legislation may do just that.
  In the event that a clean water reauthorization bill, or superfund 
reform legislation, is not enacted this year, the funding for several 
crucial programs will be cut off. We can improve our environmental 
laws, but let's do it responsibly. Environmental policy should not be 
set through the appropriations process. Vote in favor of the Stokes-
Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Commerce.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us establishes a very bad 
precedent. One of the ancient rules of this body is that we should 
legislate in the legislative committees and appropriate in the 
appropriation committees.
  The bill makes a series of decisions that are unwise. It has more 
than 20 riders affecting different clean air, clean water, safe 
drinking water, and other environmental statutes. It removes a number 
of capabilities of EPA to protect the environment and the health of the 
people under a series of laws written and supported overwhelmingly on 
the floor of this House by the legislative committees and by the House 
itself.
  It has provisions in these riders that are so badly written, that it 
is impossible to tell what they mean.
  For example, in its provision for protection of whole agricultural 
plants, the provision is so badly written that it protects either a 
stalk of wheat or a grain miller from action by EPA. It protects a 
sugar beet or a sugar processor. Clearly that is not good and that is 
not right.
  It goes further. It says if there is some kind of an audit involving 
production of information, that the environmental actions by EPA are 
either severely impaired or made impossible.
  It goes to another point. Any State which is in litigation under 
title V, Operating Permits, is literally assured that there can be no 
Federal enforcement action, even if it involves matters on that point 
other than those which are involved in the enforcement action, thus 
stripping EPA of the ability to protect the American people and 
stripping the American people of very important enforcement actions.
  The amendment is a good one; the bill is a bad one. Legislative 
riders on Committee on Appropriations work should be avoided at all 
costs.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce.

[[Page H 7936]]

  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just a moment to 
address the allegations that this bill contains legislative provisions 
and other spending limitations that are somehow illegitimate or 
unnecessary.
  First of all, let me say that under ordinary circumstances, I would 
not choose to attach legislative provisions and other types of spending 
limitations to appropriations bills. One of the reasons we have 
authorizing committees in the House is to focus on complicated policy 
issues, to make informed policy decisions, and to understand the 
consequences of our policy choices.
  Unfortunately, these are not normal times. During the past 6 months, 
we have found numerous instances in which the regulatory agencies, 
especially EPA, have been exercising their authority beyond what is 
appropriate. Let me give just one example.
  Over the past 6 months, the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations, chaired by Congressman Joe Barton, has 
conducted an extensive series of hearings on EPA's implementation of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
  The committee has held hearings on the employee commute mandate in 
the Clean Air Act and also on the auto emissions inspection program. 
The committee has held hearings on EPA's operating permit program and 
also on the provisions of the Clean Air Act that require reductions in 
emissions of toxic air pollutants.
  These hearings have given the committee an understanding of a number 
of problems with the Clean Air Act, several of them very serious. For 
example, States and businesses are required by the Clean Air Act to 
begin to implement employee commute programs. But our hearings have 
shown that these programs have minimal environmental benefits and 
impose significant costs on employers.
  As another example, EPA is under a court-ordered deadline to impose 
new regulations for hazardous air emissions from refineries by the end 
of this month. In our
 hearings, however, we have discovered that there are serious problems 
with the information EPA has used to develop these regulations. If this 
regulation goes forward, several small refineries could be forced to 
shut down.

  So by virtue of problems with the Clean Air Act itself, and with 
EPA's implementation of the act, there are situations that need 
immediate attention. That's why I did not object to the provisions in 
the bill. I can assure the Members that there were many, many other 
proposed riders that did not make it into this bill. While almost all 
of these provisions were well-considered and identified real problems, 
they are problems that the Commerce Committee can deal with through its 
normal procedures and so I could not agree to include them in the bill.
  I share the hope of the chairman of the VA, HUD Appropriations 
Subcommittee that we will not have to do legislation and spending 
limitations on this appropriations bill in the future. The Commerce 
Committee will work hard to address problems that develop with the 
implementation of the various environmental laws within its 
jurisdiction. But I must say that the possibility of future riders will 
depend in large part on whether EPA takes a more responsible approach 
to the way it implements the laws within its jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the previous speaker in the 
well, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], did not object to a 
rider that is in this bill dealing with CAFE. I find that, in fact, he 
supported it very vigorously.
  Mr. Chairman, I say this amendment should be defeated, and I hope 
that it will be.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], chairman of the Committee on 
Resources.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
this amendment. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] mentions 
that he would have voted if it went through the due process. He did not 
vote for the Clean Water Act that passed out of our committee. That is 
a true process.
  If my colleagues realize what is occurring here, if we accept this 
amendment today, any reform that we seek to have in the wetlands for 
this Nation will not occur. If we cut off the money, it will occur. It 
gives us the leverage that is necessary.
  Why do I believe so strongly in wetlands reform? My State is about 90 
percent wetlands, according to Bill Riley and George Bush; yes, another 
administration, and implemented by the EPA today, and their tactics and 
their regulations are destroying my State and the ability of my people 
to progress and be economically sound.
  Two cases: Nome, AK, my daughter is in Alaska today, was built by 
mining. It is a mining community. It has always been. We have an Eskimo 
lady up there that the ground is seeping away underneath her house. Her 
house. An elderly lady that cannot fill the ground under her house 
because the EPA says it is wetlands. That is our Government in action.
  It is the most illogical group of individuals I have ever seen. They 
have told me we cannot build a school on the side of a mountain for the 
children of Juneau, because it has been declared wetlands. This is pure 
nonsense.
  Mr. Chairman, the Stokes-Boehlert amendment today would continue 
those programs, because they finance those programs. If you want true 
reform as we pass through this House, we should, in fact turn down this 
amendment overwhelmingly.
  We have followed the process. We have done the process correctly for 
this House. We, in fact, are doing what is right for this House. We 
must not let another body stop the progress we have made. We must use 
this for leverage. We must say, There will be no longer unrealistic 
application of wetlands as seen through the eyes of the EPA.
  A sound ``no'' vote is so important for this body today, I think, for 
very truly if we do not vote no, we have set back the intent of this 
House concerning the reform of wetlands.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on the Boehlert-Stokes 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-
Stokes amendment, which seeks to eliminate a multitude of legislative 
provisions which prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from 
enforcing current Federal law, and in doing so, preserving and 
protecting our Nation's environment.
  I support this amendment for two reasons: H.R. 2099 abuses the 
legislative process, and seeks to achieve harmful policy objectives.
  With respect to my concerns about the process, the manner in which 
some of EPA's opponents are seeking to handcuff the agency is flat-out 
wrong.
  The Appropriations Committee should not be including some legislative 
language regarding EPA in its HUD-VA bill. These issues must be left to 
the authorizing committees, who have the responsibility to devise 
environmental protection policy under the standing rules of the House.
  Second, I strongly disagree with the underlying policy objectives of 
these legislative provisions.
  In years gone by the Republican Party has been a leader in 
environmental protection. In fact, it was President Nixon who created 
the EPA in the first place.
  And the American people have come to agree overwhelmingly. They want 
a healthy environment for the children and their grandchildren.
  And speaking of grandchildren--there's that old adage ``out of the 
mouths of babes.'' My grandson Jimmy Kuhn and his kindergarten class in 
Littleton, CO, were so concerned about changes in the Clean Water Act 
that they wrote to me and President Clinton. One line says it all: 
``Congresswoman, dirty water can hurt you too.''
  This bill includes an unprecedented number of legislative riders 
which will severely restrict or even eviscerate the ability of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to implement key provisions of 
environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water 
Pollution Control Act, and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 
Many of 

[[Page H 7937]]

these riders have been included in the bill even though there have been 
no hearings, little public discussion, and no congressional debate on 
the issues. This is a terrible way to make law and creates enormous 
uncertainty for business trying to plan the future and make appropriate 
investments. H.R. 2099 includes riders that:
  Stops enforcement of existing programs addressing stormwater runoff. 
The effect on my State alone would be that raw sewage would continue to 
pour into local waters from outdated or inadequate sewage treatment and 
collection systems at 281 locations in New Jersey. Stormwater controls 
would be eliminated for many urban areas. The result would be 
widespread degradation of water quality, which would threaten the 
State's $96.3 million commercial fishing and shellfishing industry and 
$12.1 billion coastal tourism industry.
  Stops enforcement of the wetlands protection program. My State has 
worked hard to develop the special area management plan that would 
provide new developers streamlined wetlands permit procedures in 
exchange for environmental improvements. Permits to develop these 
wetlands will be required with or without this budget provision. 
However, this bill would jeopardize the whole project. Without the 
project, permits would be piecemeal and subject to many more 
administrative transactions hurting both environmental and 
developmental interests.
  Blocks enforcement of permits to prevent raw sewage overflow. The 
need for continued sewer overflows enforcement is strongly evidenced in 
the New Jersey-New York metropolitan area where there are over 780 
discharge points which directly convey untreated overflows to the New 
York-New Jersey Harbor.
  Threatens community's-right-to-know about toxic emissions. This rider 
would stop efforts by EPA to make the toxics release inventory--a 
nonregulatory program which requires public disclosure of toxic 
discharges to the environment--more comprehensive, by including 
chemical mass balance information which would promote source reduction 
of toxic chemicals.
  Prohibits action to avoid childhood lead poisoning: This effectively 
will prohibit EPA from issuing rules under recent Housing Act 
provisions intended to reduce the likelihood of childhood lead 
poisoning by requiring certain notices and disclosures to be provided 
to prospective purchases and renters by imposing certification and 
training standards for lead removal contractors, and by controlling 
lead levels in dust, paint, and soil.
  Prohibits EPA from issuing a tap water standard for arsenic--a known 
carcinogen--and radon and other radionucleides.
  Have we lost our senses? Unbridled zeal. Health and safety first.
  Remember--arsenic poisons can hurt you, too.
  These are just some of the 17 objectionable riders that have been 
included in this bill. These provisions represent a serious threat to 
the hard-fought, but well-deserved, progress that we have made in 
cleaning up our environment in the last 25 years. In New Jersey alone, 
many of these riders would prevent or delay progress in solving some of 
our highest priority problems.
  In conclusion: This amendment does not involve the expenditure of any 
additional funds. It simply allows the EPA to enforce the laws that 
have been enacted. For those who want to change the laws, let's go 
through the normal authorizing process. The quality of our water, air, 
and food is far too important to decide in this type of piecemeal 
approach. Moving too quickly on something as important as the 
environment is the best way to make mistakes--mistakes that could be 
devastating to the health and safety of the public.
  Again, my colleagues, in the words of my grandson's kindergarten 
class--in a letter to me in support for clean water--``Dirty water can 
hurt you too, Congresswoman.''
  Those 6-year-olds were writing to me, but speaking to all of us, my 
colleagues.
  Support the Boehlert amendment.
                              {time}  1145

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Mineta], the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support for the 
amendment offered by the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, Mr. Stokes, and the 
Republican Chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment 
of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Mr. 
Boehlert of New York.
  This amendment would eliminate the riders and restrictions which 
permeate this bill and which would assure less environmental protection 
and increased risk to the health and safety of our constituents.
  The restrictions and riders which this amendment would eliminate have 
no business in this bill. The restrictions and riders serve as a 
backdoor attempt to circumvent the Nation's environmental laws.
  While I clearly did not agree with large parts of the substance of 
H.R. 961, the Clean Water Amendments of 1995, when it was considered on 
the floor of the House, opponents were allowed to fully consider and 
debate that bill. Now, with little public input, and without the 
opportunity for the authorizing committees to consider the issues, H.R. 
2099 will enact restrictions upon EPA which gut large portions of the 
Clean Water Act. And, it does so in a way far beyond what was 
contemplated in H.R. 961.
  This bill does not tread lightly upon the programs of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, it stomps on them--even some of the 
more successful aspects of programs. And, it does so indiscriminately.
  Without the Stokes-Boehlert amendment, EPA would be prohibited from 
conducting research on or developing new effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards, pretreatment standards or new source 
performance standards. Yet it is these very provisions which have led 
to the large degree of success over the past 20 years in addressing 
water pollution. Without EPA's assistance, the States will be unable to 
move forward on their programs should they choose to do so. This 
restriction abandons the States and the commitment to clean water. This 
restriction, as currently written, demonstrates contempt for the 
desires of the public and the needs of the States for the wastewater 
program.
  Without the Stokes-Boehlert amendment, upstream property owners will 
be able to drain or fill wetlands with little fear of enforcement. 
These property owners will be able to cause flooding downstream, to 
destroy wildlife habitat, and degrade water quality, knowing that EPA 
is powerless to affect their actions. I agree that the wetlands program 
needs reform, but we cannot abandon our 20-year commitment to 
protecting water quality for ourselves and for our children.
  With these restrictions and riders the Clean Water Program would be 
stopped dead in its tracks, and for what? To put pressure on the Senate 
so that special interests would have the time to pursue additional 
special interest legislation to create permanent waivers, loopholes, 
and rollbacks in water pollution control programs.
  And how does this bill go about creating an environment for the 
enactment of the waivers, loopholes, and rollbacks? It provides that 
none of the funds which the cities and States need for their clean 
water programs are to be available until the Clean Water Act is 
reauthorized, presumably through enactment of H.R. 961.
  Mr. Chairman, when one examines H.R. 961 for its essence, you find 
that cities and States were supportive of the bill because of increased 
funding amounts and an increase in State flexibility in addressing 
water quality issues. Industrial dischargers were supportive of the 
bill because it contained numerous opportunities for polluters to 
obtain waivers, loopholes, and rollbacks.
  Here we are in this bill, holding back funding for cities and States 
so that industrial dischargers can receive the special treatment which 
they received in H.R. 961. The result is that the cities and States 
continue to have their responsibilities as partners with the Federal 
Government in protecting water quality, yet it is the interests of the 
industrial dischargers which are causing cities and States to not 
receive any 

[[Page H 7938]]

funding. It appears to me as though the monetary gun is pointed in the 
wrong direction. Those who stand to gain the least in H.R. 961, cities 
and States, are the very ones who are being made to suffer for the 
desires of the industrial polluters.
   Mr. Chairman, just 2 months ago we were on the floor of this House 
debating proposed changes to the Clean Water Act. The special interests 
which did so well in the House version of clean water reform are now 
trying to circumvent the regular process, and avoid close public 
scrutiny of their amendments.
  The Stokes-Boehlert amendment is about getting the House on the 
correct side of an environmental issue for a change. It is about 
allowing the authorizers the opportunity to carefully consider and make 
necessary changes to environmental laws. It is about fair and open 
Government.
  If Stokes-Boehlert is defeated, we will be saying that the 
authorizing committees might as well close up shop and go home. We have 
not been represented at the Appropriations Committee, and we will not 
be represented at the House-Senate conference.
  We should adopt the Stokes-Boehlert amendment to preserve the role of 
the authorizing committees, and to preserve the protection of human 
health and the environment.
  Support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I agree totally with the assessment of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] this is a back door strategy to undo the 
work that this Congress has done not only in the Clean Water Act but in 
the regulatory moratorium and the Regulatory Relief Act that we passed 
as part of the Contract With America.
  EPA is led by a team of individuals who, in the name of their 
ideology, are pushing forward these regulations that actually in some 
ways harm the environment and certainly cost us jobs throughout this 
Nation.
  Let me give an example from my home district in Indiana. In Dunkirk, 
there is a glass factory that wanted to rebuild the ovens; they wanted 
to make an environmentally cleaner glass oven that would reduce the 
amount of emissions they put into the air. But EPA and their local 
enforcement agents came in and said, ``You cannot do this unless you 
meet every single new requirement that we have.'' The result was it was 
extremely cost prohibitive. The company nearly decided to shut down the 
factory.
  Who would have lost if they had decided to do that? The workers in 
that factory in Dunkirk and the environment, because they would never 
have gotten a cleaner, more efficient oven built.
  We need to oppose this amendment in order to keep these restrictions 
on regulations that do not make any sense. There are regulations that 
EPA is trying to require us to enter into car pooling. There are 
regulations on States, forcing them to have inspection and maintenance 
operations that most States have rejected and said they do not want, 
they do not see the environmental benefits.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would undo all of the good work that 
this Congress has done to fight needless, senseless regulations. We 
have a better way of protecting the environment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  The EPA funding plan represents a significant step toward improving 
its efficiency and proper management. Moreover, this budget plan makes 
urgent the need for reallocating limited resources through fundamental 
regulatory reform.
  The EPA rulemakings that this bill targets are costly and 
unnecessary. This bill sends a strong signal that Congress is serious 
about dealing with burdensome and cost-ineffective regulations that can 
impede economic growth and less global competitiveness. In the current 
budget climate, we cannot afford to expend limited resources without 
achieving commensurate environmental or public health gains.
  This bill calls upon EPA to reevaluate its rulemaking activities in 
order to set priorities for the expenditure of public funds--to limit 
regulations only to those that serve a compelling public need, are 
based on sound science, and are cost effective.
  This bill will prompt much-needed regulatory reform by necessitating 
the allocation of limited resources in the most cost-effective and 
productive manner. The bill is a clarion call for rational and 
realistic regulations--regulations that are based on sound science and 
subjected to risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis; regulations 
that are tailored to the magnitude of the problem addressed; and 
regulations that not only seek to achieve worthwhile goals, but also 
allow regulated sources to pursue the most effective means to those 
ends.
  Finally, this bill will enhance the role of State and local 
governments in developing and implementing regulations.


                             refinery mact

  Opponents of the riders in this bill have variously maintained that 
these funding limitations create special interest exemptions; 
eviscerate the environmental statutes that currently protect our lands, 
waters, and air; roll back existing environmental requirements; and 
threaten public health and safety.
  Quite the contrary, the rulemakings that are targeted in this bill 
represent wasteful expenditures of public resources given the 
environmental and health benefits that they promise to achieve. One 
excellent illustration is the refinery MACT rulemaking which has been 
going on for almost 2 years.
  Far from offering effective protection from the toxic air emissions 
of oil refineries, EPA's proposed maximum achievable control technology 
standards would result in negligible environmental and health benefits, 
but entail high compliance costs. Specifically, EPA's ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis'' indicated that benefits from this proposal would be 
minimal, and projected annual compliance costs of up to $110 million. 
In fact, EPA estimates that up to seven refineries could shut down as a 
result of this rule.
  Moreover, the health risk that this rulemaking is intended to 
reduce--that is, the baseline cancer incidence--is stated to be one-
third of a cancer case per year.
  These disclosures by EPA essentially reveal that refineries are 
already heavily regulated and pose no significant risk without the 
proposed MACT controls.
  In addition, EPA's risk assessment of the proposal relied on worst-
case scenarios, while the proposal is based on emissions estimates that 
are significantly outdated and inaccurate.
  Finally, the Agency justifies this rulemaking not on the basis of 
benefits to be derived from regulating hazardous air pollutants from 
refineries, but on the basis of secondary benefits from reduced 
emissions of volatile organic compounds.
  In its comments in response to this proposal, the Department of 
Energy observed that, ``[w]hen the benefits of a proposal are 
overwhelmingly due to ancillary effects, the regulatory should instead 
use an alternative regulatory pathway to achieve those benefits 
directly.'' The Department advised that it would be more efficient to 
address VOC reductions under title I of the Clean Air Act, because a 
``title I approach * * * would lead to VOC reductions where they are 
needed rather than everywhere,'' and ``States could select specific VOC 
reduction measures on the basis of marginal cost effectiveness.''
  On the basis of its review of the proposal, the Department of Energy 
recommended that EPA postpone finalization of the petroleum refinery 
MACT rulemaking and also urged the Agency to examine its approach to 
MACT standard development for opportunities to consider cost 
effectiveness and risk/benefit.
  In summation, I do not believe that defunding this rulemaking 
constitutes reckless action, threatening public health and the 
environment, but instead, represents a responsible course of action in 
light of our limited resources.
                   great lakes water quality guidance

  I strongly support the restriction in this bill on using funds to 
implement or enforce the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance until 
reauthorizing legislation is enacted to amend section 118 of the 
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
  Despite its name, EPA's Final Water Quality Guidance for the Great 
Lakes System is a binding rule that takes an unnecessarily stringent 
and costly approach to establishing and implementing water quality 
standards in that region. In a study conducted for the Council of Great 
Lakes Governors, DRI/McGraw Hill estimated that it would cost from $710 
million to $2 billion per year and would result in up to 33,000 jobs 
lost. Also, that report concluded that this guidance is not a cost-
effective program for cleaning up the Great Lakes.
  Among other things, this guidance adopts overly restrictive standards 
and criteria that are not necessary, that are unsupported by sound 
scientific data, that in some cases may not be achievable at any price, 
and that yield modest benefits.
  For example, the guidance contains numeric water quality criteria 
that, in some cases, are actually below the quantitation levels of 
EPA's own analytical methods, and in some cases 

[[Page H 7939]]

below current, and even in certain instances preindustrial, levels in 
rainfall. This strongly suggests that these levels are not attainable, 
and that they need not be attained to protect human health or the 
aquatic environment.
  Moreover, the guidance leaves the Great Lakes States little or no 
flexibility in designing water quality standards programs to suit their 
individual needs.
  Recognizing that EPA has fundamentally misinterpreted section 118, by 
applying the guidance as a binding rule, the House has approved, as 
part of H.R. 961, an amendment that clarifies that section. The 
amendment makes clear that standards adopted by a State will be 
considered to be consistent with the Guidance, if they are based on 
sound science and provide a level of protection comparable to that in 
the guidance, taking into account site-specific circumstances.
  This limitation on EPA's budget authority is a short-term remedy 
until legislative action takes place. In the meantime, this restriction 
will not reduce the protection afforded the Great Lakes by the Clean 
Water Act--sources will still be subject to all of the substantive 
requirements with which they must now comply. This limitation will only 
prevent EPA from imposing further, far more stringent requirements that 
are not justified by the costs involved, or the scientific data upon 
which they are based.


               toxics release inventory of chemical uses

  Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right To 
Know Act [EPCRA], the Environmental Protection Agency requires 
facilities to report their releases of certain types of chemicals. 
These releases are publicly available on the so-called toxics release 
inventory or TRI.
  EPA is now working on regulations to expand TRI reporting to include 
chemical usage, which will potentially double the current TRI reporting 
burden. This initiative will add materials accounting information to 
the TRI and is beyond EPA's existing statutory authority to require 
information on chemical releases.
  For each of the 600 chemicals and chemical categories reported on the 
TRI, EPA is planning to add the data elements to quantify chemical 
inventories throughout the manufacturing process, including starting 
inventory, quantities received, made, and consumed, and the quantity in 
product. This is an extremely difficult, burdensome, and costly data 
collection exercise. The additional cost to a single facility to report 
this information has been estimated at $1.5 million the first year and 
$800,000 for following years.
  Citing, ``what get measured gets done,'' EPA claims that chemical use 
reporting will lead to a reduction in chemical use. This is toxics use 
reduction [TUR]. TUR refers to reductions in material or chemical use 
without consideration of emissions and risks posed by the substance. 
TUR is based on the false assumption that use is a good indicator of 
risk and that all chemical use is harmful and should be eliminated.
  TUR is contrary to the basic objective of the manufacturing process, 
which is to harness reactive and toxic materials for useful and 
beneficial purposes. While product reformulation and substitution of 
less toxic substances do have a vital place in pollution prevention, 
the key to efficiently reducing pollution is to allow industry the 
flexibility to use many tools to achieve emissions reductions.
  TUR reporting is objectionable for two primary reasons: First, public 
reporting for chemical use information threatens to disclose 
confidential information to foreign and U.S. competitors. Second, use 
information has not been shown to reduce risks to human health and the 
environment. Risk is a function of hazard and exposure. Chemical use is 
not a good indicator of exposure; chemical releases are.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly support this bill's limitation 
on the use of funds to require under section 313 the submission of 
materials accounting, mass balance, or other chemical use data.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella] who is a leader in the fight for environmental 
quality and sensitivity in America.
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-
Boehlert amendment that will strike all 17 legislative provisions that 
have been attached to this appropriations bill.
  Mr. Chairman, these riders are an affront to the legislative 
process--quite frankly, the most blatant example of circumventing the 
process that I have ever witnessed.
  These 17 riders, cover such major programs as the Clean Water Act, 
the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and five other general 
EPA programs.
  Just one example. Issue: Regulations designed to control arsenic, a 
well documented source of human health problems, will not be 
implemented if this rider goes forward. EPA will be prevented from 
enforcing regulations that control discharges of fecal coliform, human 
waste--raw sewage, that enters drinking water supplies through combined 
sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows.
  Results: The American people will be exposed to dangerous levels of 
arsenic in their drinking water. When the citizens of this country turn 
on the tap for a cold glass of water, they should not be exposed to 
unsafe levels of known toxics.
  Human waste is a known source cryptosporidium, one of the most lethal 
water-borne pathogens. If we back away from 20 years of successful 
efforts to control discharges of human waste we will be jeopardizing 
the drinking water supplies for millions of Americans. Tell the people 
of Milwaukee that we should be doing less to control cryptosporidium; 
104 people died and 400,000 people became ill from drinking the water 
in one of America's premier cities.
  Combined sewer overflows and sanitary sewer overflows are responsible 
for tons of raw sewage entering our waters everyday. We cannot afford 
to let greater amounts of raw sewage enter the waters that we all 
depend on. We must always remember that one city's discharge is another 
city's drinking water.
  If changes need to be made in any of these programs, then let us take 
them one by one, holding hearings and following the normal legislative 
process. I am outraged that issues of such importance to our health and 
the well-being of our environment are so cavalierly superimposed on a 
bill that is vital to our veterans, to our housing needs, and many 
other Government activities. Let us get a clean bill--just the 
funding--and consider major programmatic changes in their proper place.
  I urge your support for the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. Cast the right 
vote to protect our environment and the legislative process.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin], a member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, 17 riders in this appropriation bill are a 
bitter vetch of environmental poison concocted by special interest 
groups and served up by the majority party. The Republican proposals 
will weaken environmental protection. They will endanger public health 
and safety. They will reward irresponsible polluting businesses and 
penalize the responsible businesses which have cleaned up their 
smokestacks and the water they discharge into our lakes and streams.
  We in America have made real progress in cleaning up pollution, but 
if we let this Republican proposal pass, we will return to the polluted 
air and water we used to have.
  Who wants these Republican environmental loopholes? Big business, 
foreign-owned cement kilns which release toxic pollution into the 
atmosphere, oil and gas refineries which will be allowed to spew air 
polluted with benzenes and dioxins into the air that we breathe.
  America has come so far in cleaning up the environment. We cannot 
sell out to the special interests with these 17 riders today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, even as we speak, 16 States or more are directly 
underneath the sword of the EPA which is dangling over them with the 
threatened sanctions that could ruin economies, cost jobs and impact 
our economy generally. The 16 States that are suffering this terrible 
tremor of waiting to see what the EPA does with sanctions has to do 
with the Clean Air Act. New York, my own State, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
the State of the gentlewoman who just spoke, Illinois, the State from 
which the gentleman who just spoke on the other side, New Jersey where 
the other gentlewoman spoke, those States with thousands of people who 
drive automobiles are set for a big surprise and shock if the EPA is 
able to impose sanctions on their States, because of the failure, so-
called failure, on the part of the EPA, of these States to rev up 
automobile 

[[Page H 7940]]

emissions standards and central kinds of testing.
  What this bill does is give us some time to work with the EPA. It 
does not obliterate the program, but it gives us some time to work with 
the EPA and to put off the heavy impact of these sanctions until we can 
work something out, with the idea that the standards which are now 
being applied are so weak and so cumbersome and so confusing that no 
State in its right mind can comply.
  What this amendment would do is to sweep away this little timetable 
that we begged to have so we can work with the EPA.
  And allowing EPA to impose these sanctions, you wait until the people 
of New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, 
and the other 15 or 16 States rise up in pure horror when they find 
that the EPA has imposed sanctions and cost jobs because we were unable 
to defeat this amendment.
  Defeat the amendment so that it will not happen.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski].
  (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment to strike these 
riders that will cripple the Nation's environmental program.
  These riders, an unwarranted intrusion into policymaking by the 
Appropriations Committee, are simply designed to ensure that the 
Environmental Protection Agency cannot enforce the law of the land in 
selected, critical areas.
  These riders will hamstring EPA with the sole purpose of making it 
easier to pollute.
  The authors of this bill simply cannot wait for the authorizing 
process to work its will to make it easier to pollute.
  These riders, if they were ever to become law, would destroy the 
Clean Water Act, our Nation's most successful environmental law.
  When the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, fewer than one-third of 
our Nation's waters met the test for fishing and swimming.
  After 20 years of Clean Water Act enforcement, more than 60 percent 
of our rivers meet that test for fishing and swimming.
  There is no question the Clean Water Act could use some fine tuning--
especially in the area of wetlands--but that is no reason to reverse 20 
years of progress as H.R. 2099 would do.
  The environmental riders in this bill will not fine tune, fix, or 
mend--they will destroy the Clean Water Act.
  First, EPA will be prevented from doing anything at all to control, 
limit, or reduce the discharge of polluted stormwater from industrial 
sites.
  Control of acid and metal runoff from abandoned mines--the No. 1 
source of water pollution in the State of Pennsylvania--would stop.
  More than 2,500 stream miles in Pennsylvania are impaired by acid 
mine drainage.
  There are health advisories on the Ohio, Monogahela and Allegheny 
Rivers because of stormwater discharge.
  This bill will make sure the health advisories remain and the rivers 
will not be used for boating, swimming, or fishing.
  Second, EPA will be prevented from doing anything to limit or reduce 
pollution from combined sewer overflows or sanitary sewer overflows.
  EPA's control policy for CSO's, a consensus policy endorsed by all 
the major parties will be halted.
  EPA's work to reduce the discharge of raw sewage from more than 100 
sites would be halted.
  Third, EPA will be prevented from doing anything at all to limit 
damage or loss of our Nation's valuable wetlands.
  These restrictions will have a major impact on wetlands initiatives 
throughout the Nation.
  Fourth, EPA will be barred from moving forward with any new 
guidelines or standards to limit or reduce pollution from different 
categories of industry.
  EPA has already issued standards for 50 major categories of industry.
  EPA could not go forward with other categories, including metal 
products and machinery, pharmaceutical manufacturing and pulp and 
paper.
  There are six categories of industry scheduled for final regulation 
in 1996 that would have no guidelines or standards.
  These six categories dump 15 million pounds of toxic chemicals into 
our Nation's waters.
  H.R. 2099 would make sure that there were no rules for these 
industries.
  Fifth, EPA will be prevented from doing anything at all to develop a 
coordinated, area-wide program to reduce pollution in the Great Lakes.
  Pollution control in the Great Lakes, including the control of toxic 
chemicals, will be left to the separate and often conflicting 
strategies of the States.
  This strategy has resulted in fish consumption advisories in all five 
Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, these environmental riders are bad policy that will set 
our environmental protection policies back by decades.
  I urge strong support of the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], the chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  It is obvious in this debate the high road of environmental humility 
and common sense is not bothered by heavy traffic on this floor.
  This is a rehash of the debate we had during the clean water debate 
of several months ago. It is a clear-cut issue.
  I want to talk about the permit activity of section 404. That is the 
way that our wetlands program is being administered. It is a classic 
example of regulatory overkill.
  Nobody wants to stand in the was of protecting the Nation's true 
wetlands. We reformed it during the consideration of H.R. 961, and we 
defeated several amendments, including an amendment by the gentleman 
from New York who gives new meaning to perseverance.
  The gentleman talks about cavalier treatment. The cavalier treatment 
comes from Federal enforcement trivializing the rights of ordinary 
citizens and farmers and ranchers in my district and all across this 
country.

                              {time}  1200

  I am talking about the taking of private property for no 
environmentally sound purpose or reason, or public need. We have got at 
least four Federal agencies in the wetland regulatory soup. We have low 
spots in the field throughout farm country being designated a wetland. 
No self-respecting duck would ever land there. This is ridiculous.
  Later in September the House Committee on Agriculture will bring to 
this floor a farm bill that will rely less on Federal spending, it will 
get the Government out of agriculture, but we made a deal to the 
Nation's farmers and ranchers we will move to a more market-oriented 
farm policy, but please, please, we must have regulatory reform. Rid us 
of the cost burdens that are unnecessary, and costly, and drowning us 
in red tape and intrusion.
  Defeat the Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to my distinguished colleague from Dodge 
City, the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], I would point out this 
is not a repeal of the Clean Water Act, which went through the 
authorization process. This is a back-door attempt to undermine 
legislation.
  Make no mistake about it. If these riders are approved, regulations 
dealing with arsenic in our drinking water will be prohibited. Remember 
that. We are talking about the clean water supply for the American 
people.
  Every single Member of this body that travels anyplace in America is 
not reluctant to drink water out of the tap, nor to go to a drinking 
fountain. Why? Because we have an agency and dedicated Federal 
employees operating under Federal law with Federal regulations 
protecting our water supply.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to protect our water supply. The American 
people demand it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Waxman], the ranking minority member of the 
Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
 
[[Page H 7941]]

  (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, it is bad enough this 
appropriations bill would cut the EPA budget overall expenditures by a 
third and its enforcement ability by one-half. It is clear they will 
not be able to enforce the laws adequately with that budget, but just 
be sure they do not really enforce the laws, there are riders on this 
bill which are extraordinary to keep EPA from using its resources to 
make sure we do not have radioactive substances in our drinking water 
or toxic emissions into the air. These proposals undermine existing 
laws that were put in place to protect the environment and public 
health. Toxic pollutants, for example, cause cancer and birth defects. 
I ask, ``Why shouldn't we have the law enforced to make sure we don't 
have those diseases that can be prevented?''
  Mr. Chairman, there were no hearings on these riders. Usually it goes 
through a committee that has jurisdiction. They are all being put on 
this bill in order to move them through very quickly.
  Our constituents are not asking for these riders. Special interests 
are asking for them, and I think they are going to do a disservice to 
the American people and the progress that we have made to protect
 the environment, improve public health, and avoid the tragedies that 
occur when people suffer from these diseases.

  I urge support for these amendents. Let us strike the riders. Let us 
do an appropriations bill that does not pass laws to undermine what we 
have already enacted into law.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] 
just reminded me that the speaker of the Louisiana House of 
Representatives, Mr. Laureo, once began a session of the House by 
bowing his head and giving this prayer. He said: ``Dear Lord, may our 
words today be sweet, for tomorrow we may have to eat them.''
  I had not thought about that until someone handed me the 
Congressional Record of June 29, 1994, which has the Stokes amendment, 
and I am reading from the Record, that requires the money earmarked for 
EPA nonpoint-source pollution and certain moneys appropriated for EPA 
water infrastructure and wastewater treatment grants may not be spent 
until authorized.
  The leading advocates of that fine amendment, which by the way was 
not opposed by the then Republican minority, but accepted without even 
having a vote, leading advocates were the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Mineta], who spoke earlier on behalf of a Stokes amendment today, 
and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], who spoke earlier on 
behalf of a Stokes amendment today. But the words extraordinarily have 
changed from June 29 of last year. Last year the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert] said the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] to his 
credit had crafted an amendment that makes the appropriation of the 
Clean Water Act funding contingent upon an authorization, and today the 
now chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], is trying 
to do nothing more and nothing less than say, ``Let's authorize, and 
then let's appropriate, and let's force the Senate of the United States 
of America to deliberate, and then in its wisdom craft authorizing 
legislation as well.''
  Now there may be a better way to do it, but the opponents of this 
legislation do not want a better way to do it. The fact of the matter 
is we do not want to do it at all because the light of day forced by 
debate will result in changes that are long overdue that are supported 
by a majority of elected officials.
  It was a mistake in my opinion for the leadership of the minority 
minority in the last Congress not to take the admonition of refraining 
from oiling up and pent-up hostilities by not voting. Not one of my 
colleagues got elected on a platform to come here to not deliberate, 
not vote, and not express their opinions. If they continue that view, I 
assure them in the next election those who will cast their ballots will 
cast the ballots for someone who will vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, America is watching this Congress to see if 
its deeds match its promises. It has had a very good record so far but 
a critical promise we made to the American people was to get Government 
off their backs. And the EPA, pure and simply, has been one of the 
major clawholds that Government has maintained on the backs of our 
constituents.
  These riders are about changing EPA's behavior in a way that reducing 
their funding doesn't. Overall, the question on these riders is: Do you 
believe the EPA's behavior needs to be changed?
  One of the riders this amendment would strike is one that my State 
and my constituents are very angry about.
  The enhanced-emissions testing program, or centralized testing, that 
EPA has been trying to force feed to our constituents has caused 
rebellion in the streets. Despite the risk of sanctions and losing 
millions of dollars in Federal highway funds, many States have taken 
actions against the complicated, centralized testing scheme because the 
requirement is misplaced, unworkable, and has little to do with clean 
air.
  But States are in a bind--unless they implement the failed EPA 
design, EPA will not give full credit to States in their implementation 
plans.
  EPA insists that their centralized design is flawless and that, 
therefore, credits for the decentralized system must be arbitrarily 
discounted.
  But study after study has confirmed that the EPA is way off the mark 
in their assertion that the centralized program is any more effective 
in cleaning the air than a decentralized system: The California 
Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee concluded that ``whether an 
I/M program is centralized or decentralized has not been an important 
factor in determining historical I/M program effectiveness''; the Rand 
Corp. found that, ``In terms of program effectiveness, our research 
finds no empirical evidence to require the separation of test and 
repair''; the Rand report further found that ``a well safeguarded 
decentralized system, with rigorous State supervision, can be highly 
effective.''
  The language in this bill provides nothing more than that--it simply 
gives States a 2-year test period to demonstrate that their program 
deserves full credit based on actual emissions reductions, not a 
computer model that has no relation to real world data.
  And let's be clear--including this language here is no backdoor 
maneuver--the authorizing committee has held extensive hearings on this 
issue. Sixteen States face sanctions in the next few months. About 30 
Members of this House--both Republican and Democrat--have written to 
the Appropriations Committee urging support for this provision. The 
relief provided by this language is desperately needed.
  It's true that we're cutting EPA's funding and that's important. But 
these riders send a different message about EPA's behavior and one that 
I submit is every bit as important.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds because I would 
like to respond to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], whose 
remarks were amusing, but hardly enlightening, because he pointed out 
what he termed hypocrisy.
  Let me point out that neither the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] 
nor I object to the provisions in the bill to which he referred, the 
exact provision of the bill of last year on page 63 of this bill. It 
says, quote, that appropriations made available under this heading to 
carry out the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended, shall be available only upon enactment of legislation which 
reauthorizes said act. We know that. We have no problem with it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. 
Gilchrest].
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment about who 
the special interests are that want an ``aye'' on this vote. They are 
seniors, they are children, and everybody else in between, that wants 
safe drinking water, clean water, and clean air to 

[[Page H 7942]]

alleviate the problems of asthma or allergies and all those other 
things. So those are the special interests that want an ``aye'' on this 
vote.
  Earlier, Mr. Chairman, someone said this is a back-door strategy to 
end reform. Well, my colleagues, this amendment is a front-door 
strategy to continue environmental progress. This amendment is a front-
door strategy to separate the problems in the regulatory bureaucracy 
from clean water and clean air that we accumulated in the last 20 
years.
  Mr. Chairman, I guess that the members of the Committee on 
Appropriations are saying to themselves, ``Boy, we showed the EPA a 
thing or two.'' Under the language in this bill EPA would pretty much 
be prohibited from enforcing much, if not all, of its laws. It seems 
that we began in an effort to scale back even reasonable environmental 
restrictions, and this has turned out to be an all-out huge scare war 
against environmental protection, and I think that just simply cannot 
happen.
  I guess the great secret of the 1994 election was this. The great 
secret of the 1994 rollover election was this: Our constituents are 
furious about clean water. They do not want clean water. They are 
furious that some of the asthma problems are being relieved by clean 
air.
  We all seem to pay lip service to EPA. We pay lip service to clean 
water. We all want clean water. But the fact is, where the rubber hits 
the road, it takes a little more rigorous mental effort to untangle the 
tangled web of regulations without denying the American public, those 
interest groups that want clean water. Let us put forth a little more 
rigorous mental effort.
  One other thing. I hate to hammer this point home about how many 
times we talk about whether or not we should appropriate, use the 
Committee on Appropriations, to legislate. That is what the authorizing 
committees are for. All of my colleagues out there that are on an 
authorizing committee, they are simply giving away their 
responsibility, totally giving away their responsibility, and to my 
friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on
 Agriculture, who I work with all the time to preserve agriculture in 
the United States, I say, ``How many farmers have children with asthma? 
How many farmers have children with allergies? How many people out 
there depend on good environmental laws to protect their livelihood?'' 
To a large extent we are pitting one job against another job, and we 
should not do that as Members of Congress.

  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing seriously and vote for the 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], a member of the committee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and my good friend from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] just talked about special interests. The 
special interests who are looking for some help from this Congress are 
30-acre onion farmers, and apple farmers, and grape growers in upstate 
New York and throughout the Nation. One of these riders would preclude 
the EPA from enforcing the Delaney clause. The Delaney clause says, and 
it is a 50-year-old, 40-year-old law, that we cannot have any, zero 
tolerance, zero chemical residues on our food. It is unenforceable. 
Director Kessler from the FDA says it is unenforceable. Director 
Browner sued because she said it was unenforceable. Mr. Espy and Mr. 
Glickman also agreed on the record that the Delaney clause is 
unenforceable. What we are saying is do not enforce the Delaney clause.

                              {time}  1215

  The Supreme Court upheld a circuit court that says, just because this 
is in the law you have to enforce it, whether it is unenforceable or 
not.
  There is another issue here. Authorizing committees are supposed to 
authorize; appropriators are supposed to appropriate. The authorizing 
committee, the Committee on Agriculture, the committee of jurisdiction, 
has already marked up a bill. The Committee on Commerce soon will 
markup a bill. This issue has been held up for years. It should have 
been resolved years ago.
  Now, what does all this mean? What it means is, if a farmer in the 
district of my good friend and neighbor and colleague, the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Boehlert], from Canastota is growing onions right 
now, and they are, and the EPA delicenses a pesticide that it licensed 
2 years ago under the same standard, it is now going to delicense that 
pesticide, same pesticide, same minimal negligible risk.
  If that farmer cannot use that pesticide on his onions, growing in 
organic soil, and there is only one chemical application for that 
disease, he cannot use that pesticide, that disease can wipe out his 
crop, and he loses everything.
  There is no agriculture support program for onions. There is no other 
course for that farmer than to use that pesticide. This is important. 
It will be authorized, but in the meantime we have got to respect the 
growing season, too. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, to respond to my colleague and friend and neighbor from 
New York, he is absolutely right with respect to the Delaney clause. 
That is why through the orderly, open process of the authorizing 
committee we are going to make the changes he calls for and which I 
want and are in the best interest of American agriculture.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  (Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, Americans do not want to return to the days 
of dirty, unsafe water. I rise in strong support of the Boehlert 
amendment.
  In the Portland metropolitan area, which I represent, clean water 
consistently and overwhelmingly ranks as the top environmental concern 
of area residents. So important is clean water to Oregonians, they have 
agreed to spend more than $750 million to prevent Portland's combined 
sewer overflows from dumping raw sewage into the nearby waterways.
  Oregonians remember the days when the Willamette River, which flows 
through the heart of Portland, was one of the most polluted rivers in 
the country. The waters of the Willamette were so choked with pollution 
that when live fish were put in a basket and lowered into the river to 
check the water quality, it took only a minute and a half for the fish 
to die. Oregonians remember the phrase they used as youngsters to 
describe swimming in the river--the ``Willamette River stroke''--a 
phrase which refers to the fact that they would have to clear a path 
through the floating sewage debris in the water before they could swim.
  Oregonians do not want to go back to those days of polluted waters. 
And neither do the American people. Americans do not want to see raw 
sewage floating in the surf when they visit the beach. Americans do not 
want to worry about their children getting sick from swimming in the 
neighborhood stream. Americans do not want the fish they catch at their 
favorite fishing holes to be too toxic to eat. Americans do not want to 
turn back the clock to the days when polluted rivers would catch fire. 
And when they got to the sink to get a drink of water, Americans do not 
want to choke on what comes out of the tap.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert-Stokes 
amendment and in opposition to this bill which is an environmental 
disaster.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is an environmental disaster. In one broad 
sweep, it strips the EPA of its authority to enforce environmental 
laws--important laws that ensure our right to clean water and clean 
air.
  Americans have fought long and hard for these sensible and much 
needed laws. The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act are vital to 
protecting public health. But they mean nothing if they cannot be 
enforced.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot, in a single day, turn our backs on decades 
of fighting for the public good. We must stand together today and give 
meaning to environmental protection. We must let all Americans know 
that this fight is worthwhile. We cannot go backward when we need so 
desperately to continue forward.
  Vote ``yes'' on the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].

[[Page H 7943]]

  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
to one of most fundamentally flawed pieces of legislation that this 
body has considered in the 7 years I have been privileged to serve.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill before us today is by far one of the worst--
indeed one of the most fundamentally flawed--pieces of legislation that 
this body has considered in the 7 years I have been privileged to 
serve.
  Make no mistake about it. This bill will mean more sewage in our 
waterways, more pollution in our air, and more risks from pesticides in 
our food.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a partisan issue. I commend those on the 
other side of the aisle who are speaking out against the bill, who--to 
their great credit--cannot hold their nose and toe the party line. Why 
are they doing this? Because their constituents, like mine--regardless 
of party identification--want clean air, clean water, and food free of 
deadly pesticides. This bill severely hampers the Government's historic 
role in ensuring these most basic guarantees.
  A 33-percent cut in the EPA's budget is bad enough. But this bill 
adds insult to injury by loading it up with an array of legislative 
riders--requested by industrial polluters and other special interests--
that will prevent the Agency from doing its job.
  I hope the American people are tuned in to this debate. If anyone was 
still unconvinced of the new majority's assault on health and 
environmental safeguards, this bill will assuredly dispel them of any 
lingering doubts.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Had the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] yielded to me, what I 
would have been able to say to him was I respected the authorizing 
process. When I brought my bill to the floor and they had not yet 
acted, I made my appropriation subject to authorization. The difference 
is they are legislating and then making the legislation subject to 
further authorization. There is a real difference there.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  (Mr. WILSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLay], my friend, said that the American people wanted us to know 
they are voting to get Government off their backs.
  I submit to you that the American people might have been voting to 
get Government off their backs, but they were not voting to get arsenic 
in their drinking water or benzene in the air that they breathe.
  If we do not adopt the Stokes amendment, what the effect of the 
legislation will do will be to stop the EPA from issuing regulations on 
cement kilns. Some of the more interesting byproducts of cement kilns, 
as they operate without EPA regulations and without EPA standards, are 
the production of arsenic and lead.
  For instance, the EPA standard for arsenic is .4 parts per million. 
The LaFarge Corp., which is a cement kiln, manages to produce 3,300 
parts of lead per million. I would point out that it only takes one 
one-millionth of a pound of lead to seriously impair the health of a 
child.
  I would say, finally, that of the cement kilns in the United States, 
65 percent of them are foreign-owned. They are owned in Switzerland. 
They are owned in Germany. They are owned in France and they are owned 
in England. I would point out to my colleagues that in none of those 
countries do they allow the burning of toxic waste in cement kilns. 
Only in the United States do they allow it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].
  (Mr. KIM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stokes amendment because it 
undermines the authorization process.
  For over 200 years, the Congress has authorized programs and then 
appropriated funds.
  Congress follows this process because it works. And that's what we 
should do here.
  The Chairman of my committee--Transportation and Infrastructure--was 
right to insist on authorizations.
  If we don't require authorizations, then why do we have authorizing 
committees?
  Do we really want to make the authorizing committees irrelevant?
  That's exactly what this amendment will do?
  I take the work of my committee very seriously.
  We should have the opportunity to reauthorize these programs.
  If this amendment passes, reauthorization will be put off another 
year.
  Make no mistake--if we don't require authorizations--we'll never do 
it.
  We'll just keep appropriating money and ignoring the authorization 
committees.
  I urge my colleagues to support the process and vote no on the Stokes 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  I want to say that I really do agree with one of the proponents of 
this amendment that this is about process. The problem is that the 
processes over at EPA are out of control. The truth of the matter is no 
one here is for dirty air or dirty water. The truth of the matter is 
that we all want clean air to breathe, clean water to drink. We all 
want a healthy environment for our kids and our grandkids.
  The problem is though that the EPA in many instances has gone so far 
beyond either their legal authorization or, in many cases, as far as 
cement kilns are concerned, their own regulations. They are, in my 
judgment, an agency out of control.
  We talk in terms of process and should not the authorizing committees 
have a say in this. I think I have heard the chairman of the Committee 
on Commerce, the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I know the chairman of the Committee on Resources has 
spoken against this amendment. The chairman of the Committee on 
Agriculture has spoken against this amendment, and other committee 
chairmen or subcommittee chairmen will speak against this amendment. 
There have been hearings on these matters in our subcommittee on 
appropriations with EPA. There have been hearings in the Committee on 
Commerce.
  There was debate during markup in subcommittee and full committee, 
and there is obviously a healthy debate going on on the floor of the 
House today. In a word, what has happened here is, in the EPA, they are 
an agency whose regulations stifle and throttle American business and 
who in the name of the Clean Air Act do so much damage to all of us.
  I want to address the comments specifically about my friend and 
colleague from Texas who said incredibly, in my judgment, that cement 
kilns are not regulated. That, my friends, is just not true. In fact, 
cement kilns are more stringently regulated in America today than the 
commercial incineration facilities.
  What we are trying to do, at least as part of this regulation, is to 
make EPA follow the law, the Clean Air Act, and follow their own 
regulations, nothing more.
  Defeat the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Frelinghuysen], a member of our 
subcommittee.
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the current provision in title III 
that deals with the regulation of combustion of hazardous waste and in 
opposition to the Stokes-Boehlert amendment that would allow EPA to 
ignore the combustion language.
  EPA's activities under the so-called Combustion Strategy have made 
unfair demands on the regulated community without the proper legal 
authority to do so. Title III of this bill restricts EPA from spending 
taxpayer money on requirements that we, as Members of Congress, have 
not authorized. The language in the bill is designed to ensure fair and 
effective environmental regulations, which benefit the environment, 
industry and American workers.

[[Page H 7944]]

  In my district, chemical manufacturers have worked hard to comply 
with EPA's regulation, but the regulations have been expanded above and 
beyond what the law demands and requires. The result is increased 
prices for all Americans without corresponding environmental benefits. 
Let me reiterate that the language in the bill does not change the law 
governing the disposal of hazardous waste, but instead it requires EPA 
to act under the statutory scheme duly authorized by law. It merely 
demands that EPA follow the rules.
  It is no surprise that the language in this bill is supported by a 
broad-based coalition of chemical manufacturers, fuel processors, 
industrial boiler owners, building material companies, and labor 
unions. This bipartisan measure stops the EPA from preselecting 
outcomes before all of the facts are in. We must demand EPA comply with 
existing procedures.
  By contrast, the Stokes-Boehlert amendment is an attempt to keep the 
status quo and let bureaucrats run the agency without the consent of 
Congress. It would render all limitations in the bill meaningless by 
allowing some environmental groups merely to inform EPA of their 
opposition in order to defeat the intent of Congress expressed in title 
III.
  Mr. Chairman, the measure in this bill is a good provision and 
requires that EPA follow the law as intended by Congress. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment and require EPA to follow the law.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-Boehlert 
amendment. I oppose the addition of these legislative provisions we 
have talked about, these 17 dealing with important and complex 
environmental issues to the spending bill.
  Let me point out one thing which I really have not heard in this 
argument today. That is that we are reducing the funding for EPA by 34 
percent on top of everything else that we are doing in this 
legislation. When you combine that with the 17 limitations on 
enforcement which are the subject matter of discussion of this 
amendment, you find that EPA is being rendered almost wholly 
ineffective in the areas of fighting the environmental problems of the 
United States of America.
  This is not regulatory reform but basically an abrogation of our 
responsibility.
  I think back over my experiences as the Governor of the State of 
Delaware and the various things that we dealt with. One of those was 
our only oil refinery. We had problems with that oil refinery almost 
monthly, sometimes several times in the course of months, with 
emissions standards for toxic air pollution. Yet that is one of the 
prohibitions; any Federal help with enforcement of those particular 
problems would be included in this legislation.
  I think about Rehoboth Beach where many people from Washington have 
gone to vacation, when we actually had to close the beaches because of 
the storm sewer overflows which occurred there. We also remember 
another time when we had to almost close the beaches because of 
sanitary sewer overflows in States to the north of us and having to go 
along our beaches to do that.
  We have been able to cure those problems with the help of the Federal 
Government. I think about Superfund, the Army landfill in the State of 
Delaware, the second largest of the landfill problems in the country, 
which needs to be addressed, which is cut dramatically by what happens 
in these particular provisions, or the Clean Water Act.
  I remember when the Delaware River up near Philadelphia actually 
caught on fire. We always think of Pittsburgh, but it happened in 
Philadelphia as well. We had the exact same problem. We have cleaned 
that river up. In fact, President Bush, when he was campaigning, used 
that river to demonstrate how you can actually use the Clean Water Act 
to clean up a river.
  I worry about drinking water. Our water in Wilmington, DE, comes down 
from the Brandwine. It comes down from Pennsylvania, and I remember 
fighting with towns in Pennsylvania which wanted to build different 
areas that could pollute and we had to overcome that.
  I would suggest to every single Member of this body who is paying any 
attention to this, which may be the most important amendment that is 
going to be offered in many a day here in this Congress, to do 
something right now. Call home. Call your environmental secretaries. 
Call your Governors. Call your constituents, if you have time to do 
that before this vote. Find out from them exactly what their 
understanding of each of these 17 is.
  At least read the legislation and understand what these restrictions 
are. You will understand what I am saying here today. That for the good 
of America, we must support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. For the good 
of America, we must make sure that this is not disguised as regulatory 
reform but is pointed out for
 what it is. It is a destruction of our ability to be able to enforce 
the environmental laws in a proper way of the United States of America.

  I agree that EPA needs to be fixed in some ways. But I think just 
removing all of their ability to carry out any of their 
responsibilities is the wrong way to go. I would encourage everybody to 
support this amendment in a few minutes.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Stokes-Boehlert. If 
Members do not need any reason other than this, look at the headline 
from the Macomb Daily a few days ago: Consumers of Great Lakes Fish at 
Medical Risk. They are talking about a Centers for Disease Control 
study showing children who eat Great Lakes fish have four times the 
amount of PCB's and three times more DDT in their bodies, and other 
factors.
  There has been an effort to counteract this in the Great Lakes water 
quality initiative, to cut the amount of mercury, to cut discharges of 
lead, to cut dioxin levels. Now we have, tucked in this bill, a plan to 
begin throwing all that out the window, leaving the Great Lakes at the 
mercy of those who dump mercury and lead and dioxin into drinking 
water.
  The Great Lakes are an irreplaceable treasure that should be 
protected. Let us not roll back a decade of progress. Support the Great 
Lakes. Support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
  (Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Stokes-
Boehlert amendment which would specifically delete clean water reform 
provisions in this bill that are entirely consistent with the 
legislation and that has already passed the House of Representatives. 
The Stokes-Boehlert amendment is an attempt to get the reform that has 
occurred.
  Supporters of the amendment claim the clean water provisions are a 
``back door attempt to alter environmental policy in appropriations.'' 
Nothing could be further from the truth. The House has already passed 
these provisions--with bipartisan support--through the Clean Water 
Reform Act. And, this legislation is on track in the other body.
  There is nothing ``sneaky'' in these clean water provisions. They 
simply restrain the EPA's ability to ``sneak through''new guidelines 
and second-guess operations.
  If my colleagues agree that the current regulatory system is a mess 
and that the Clean Water Act needs to be reformed, the only way to vote 
is ``no'' on the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  (Mr. LATHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me. 

[[Page H 7945]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stokes-Boehlert 
amendment. This should be a very easy amendment for members of this 
House who voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Clean Water Act of 1995 
to oppose.
  This amendment is about the House giving away its leverage to 
influence the other body and the President.
  This amendment is about letting those who are intent on preserving 
the status quo by inaction have their way.
  Adopting this amendment would be a statement by this House that when 
we voted for risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis we weren't 
serious.
  Adopting this amendment would be a statement that when we voted for 
wetlands reform we weren't serious.
  This amendment is not about protecting against overreach by 
appropriators. In fact, just the opposite is true.
  The limiting provisions in this bill are here at the request of the 
authorizing chairman and with support of the majority of members of the 
committees.
  If we vote for this amendment, we are taking away power from our 
authorizing committees, and more importantly we are taking away our own 
ability to write laws.
  If we support this amendment, we make it more likely that unelected 
bureaucrats downtown will be setting environmental policy in the vacuum 
that we will create.
  Let me say this, even if you didn't support the exact product of H.R. 
961, every member of this House should oppose this amendment.
  If you believe we need to reform the existing storm water permitting 
program, vote against this amendment.
  If you believe we need sensible wetlands reform, then vote against 
this amendment.
  This amendment empowers Washington bureaucrats at the expense of 
Congress and the American people.
  This amendment maintains federal control so that the ``War on the 
West'' can continue.
  This amendment rolls back the key reforms that so many of my 
colleagues in the freshman class came here to make.
  To sum up, you can vote for this amendment and give away the House's 
power to shape regulatory policy.
  Or, you can vote against this amendment and remain consistent with 
out positions on risk assessment, cost-benefit analysis, wetlands 
reform and private property rights where virtually every member of this 
House agrees on the need for reform.
  Move forward on Clean Water Act reform. Move forward on wetlands 
reform. Keep this House's ability to write legislation. Vote ``no'' on 
the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Democrat on the full 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, there is no question that some of our 
environmental laws need adjustments, but the fact is this bill is 
supposed to be a budget bill; yet it contains some 30 pages of riders, 
legislative riders, slipped into this bill, which represents little 
more than a wish list of corporate polluters all across this country.
  This bill, if it is not changed, will stop regulation of raw sewage. 
It will turn polluters loose to pump toxic chemicals into the air in 
American neighborhoods. It is a vivid example of the lock hold that 
corporate special interests have taken on this new Congress.
  I would simply suggest to the authorizing chairs that if the 
gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], from the Committee on Natural 
Resources, or the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], of the 
Committee on Commerce, or any other person wants to change basic law on 
environmental questions, then have the courage to bring that to the 
floor in their own committee bill, face their own committee members 
who, after all, have the jurisdiction over it, debate it out in the 
open, and cut the American people in on the deal, instead of slipping 
it in in an almost undercover fashion in an appropriation bill, which 
is supposed to decide other questions.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what we have here, very simply, is, not just in 
this bill but in Labor-HEW, in a lot of other appropriation bills, 
authorizing chairs who do not, apparently, have the courage to bring 
their changes in law to the floor in their own bills. They are instead 
trying to slip it into the appropriations process, so they can avoid 
hearings, avoid public comment, and avoid some opportunity for the 
public to know what is going on. I do not think that is the way we 
ought to do business.
  I would just urge my friends on this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, 
do not abandon the bipartisan commitment that this Congress has had for 
years to advance environmental protection. Do not abandon that 
bipartisan commitment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to pick up on a point my friend, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], made. For 40 years, for two 
generations, the Republicans were in the minority. All during that time 
we chastised the then majority for legislating on appropriations bills. 
We complained about the process.
  Now we are in charge, and we are doing the very same thing. It was 
wrong when we were in the minority, it was wrong when the Democrats 
were in the majority, it is wrong now that we are in the majority. It 
is simply wrong to deny the people for full and open hearings.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island [Mr. Reed].
  Mr. REED. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-
Boehlert amendment. These riders are an all-out assault on 
environmental law. It is not to be considered simply reform, but 
rather, in toto, these would eviscerate environmental enforcement 
throughout the United States. It is also an abuse of the legislative 
process.
  In my Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, we are beginning to consider one of the 
provisions contained herein, and that is recognizing State 
environmental audit legislation. We have not proceeded to any 
conclusion. We have more questions and comments. In fact, the only 
consistent element we have found in considering this environmental 
audit language is the opposition, almost a total opposition, of law 
enforcement officers throughout the United States. The National 
District Attorneys Association is against it, the attorney generals of 
New Mexico, Minnesota, California, Massachusetts, Arizona, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, the New Jersey State Attorney 
General, the New York District Attorneys Association, all these law 
enforcement officials condemn a rider which is included in this 
legislation. This is not the way to reform environmental laws in the 
United States. This is the way to destroy environmental laws in the 
United States.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
  (Mr. TAUZIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. 
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman] said it. Bureaucrats at EPA are 
out of control. We have not been in control, either, for many years. 
The bureaucrats and their environmental lobby friends have controlled 
this agenda for too long. They have seen to it that for years we could 
not bring reforms to ESA, reforms to clean water, wetlands regulation, 
cost-benefit analysis, property rights issues. They and their friends 
have dictated the agenda in this body for too long, and let me surprise 
the Members, we are not yet in control.
  If Members want to see property rights passed into law, then Members 
had better defeat this amendment. If they want to see cost-benefit 
analysis become law, they had better defeat this amendment. If they 
want to see revisions of wetlands regulations in the clean water, the 
litigation mess we have created in Superfund reform, if they want to 
see a decent ESA Act passed, Endangered Species Act passed, reform; if 
they want to see any of these laws, they had better vote against this 
amendment. This bill is our only chance to control the bureaucrats out 
of control.
  Why? Because if we do not control their money, they control the veto 
pen. The President has promised a veto on 

[[Page H 7946]]

property rights. He has threatened a veto on clean water. He has 
already, and his friends, delayed consideration of cost-benefit 
analysis regulatory reform. I urge Members to vote against this 
amendment if they want any of these things done. It is our only chance 
to control the agenda.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-
Boehlert amendment, which strikes provisions in the bill that restrict 
or eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing 
guidelines that are authorized under existing environmental laws, like 
the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. This bill limits the EPA's 
ability to enforce important provisions of the Clean Water Act. It 
inhibits the EPA's ability to address critical stormwater runoff and 
raw sewage overflow problems. It halts the agency's advantage to 
control industrial pollution.
  In Connecticut, this bill would allow raw sewage to continue to pour 
into local waters from outdated or inadequate sewage treatment and 
collection systems. Stormwater controls would be eliminated for many 
urban areas. The result would be widespread degradation of water 
quality, which would threaten our State's commercial and shellfish 
industry.
  This bill is an environmental travesty. It is a special interest and 
a polluter's dream. As a result, there will be less environmental 
protection and increased risk to public health in communities all 
across this great Nation of ours. Support the Stokes-Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and 
this attack on the clean water revisions. I want to say that the 
revisions that we came out with were really done in a bipartisan 
fashion. The bill was introduced on an eight to eight basis, eight 
Democrats and eight Republicans. What this debate is really about is 
the question of whether Washington will continue to dictate, Washington 
will continue to regulate.
  There have been many misstatements about what we do in the bill. I 
want to say also that the people that are on this side of the issue 
care about the environment. We want clean water. We want clean air. 
However, after 20 years, we have seen mistakes. Let me give an example 
of what we do. Under current law, we classify dry riverbeds in the West 
as fishable-swimmable. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] pointed 
out a parking lot in the Sands Hotel in Las Vegas which required 
wetland permitting. We require in Alaska and Anchorage fish guts dumped 
in to comply with ridiculous regulations.
  We are asking for, No. 1, flexibility, No. 2, common sense, and No. 
3, for reasonableness. We keep Federal standards, we allow local and 
State flexibility and responsibility, and we say we can do a better job 
with less. Our reforms are endorsed by almost every State and local 
group.
  Finally, we are only asking that we bring reasonable, again, common 
sense to a process that has really grown out of control. Let me say 
also, I served on the committee that oversaw the question of cement 
kilns and regulation. We had folks come to us who could have made those 
changes a long time ago.
                              {time}  1245

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], a leader in the environmental movement in the 
Congress and in the Nation.
  (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. I 
think the way this bill is written simply stated, plays Russian 
roulette with our country's future, with both the health of our 
economy, and, as has been pointed out here several times, the health of 
our people as well.
  Let me talk for just a minute about the relationship that I see and 
that many other Americans see between the health of our environment and 
the health of our economy because I think it is very important.
  In March of this year the Times-Mirror magazine did a national survey 
of 1,003 people, and the second question they asked was this: ``Most of 
the time do you think environmental protection and economic development 
can go hand-in-hand, or that we must choose between environmental 
protection and economic development?'' Sixty-nine percent of those 
people responded that economic development and environmental protection 
go hand-in-hand.
  That is because there is a very close relationship, because the way 
people perceive the environment and the economic activities they are 
willing to partake in that environment are very closely related. In 
other words, if it is bad for my health, I will avoid that area that is 
polluted.
  That makes perfect sense to me, and, therefore, we need the 
provisions that exist in current law without this bill in order to 
continue to protect the environment and provide for an environment in 
which economic growth will take place.
  I speak from some experience. As all of you know, I represent a large 
section of the New Jersey shore. In 1987 and 1988 we had an historic 
economic slump that was directly a result of bad ecological policy. We 
had algae buildup not just in New Jersey but on the shores of Long 
Island as well. We had red tides and blue tides and green tides. We had 
sewer sludge dumped offshore. We had medical waste on our beach. We had 
all kinds of wood burning offshore. People did not visit the shore. It 
was just that simple. Our economy went into the basket with the 
environment.
  I listened to the gentleman from Syracuse here a few minutes ago, who 
is a good friend, and it reminded me of when I was a young boy and I 
used to go to the Finger Lakes to visit my uncle. One summer I went up 
there and he said, ``You cannot eat the fish or go in the water.'' I 
said, ``Why not?'' He said, ``Because the farmers who grow grapes on 
the hills surrounding these lakes have used too much DDT over the years 
and it has washed into the lakes and the fish are contaminated and they 
are trying to determine whether or not it is safe to go in the water.''
  Do you think that caused degradation to the economy of the area? You 
bet it did.
  In the Chesapeake Bay a few years ago we determined that in the upper 
reaches of the Susquehanna River, in both Maryland and Pennsylvania, 
there was a large amount of runoff that came from overuse of 
fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides by farmers. When the 
crustaceans and the rockfish and the oysters went away in Chesapeake 
Bay, do you think that degraded the economy? You bet it did.
  This is a close relationship. My Republican friends care about the 
environment and care about the economy as well.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I rise in strong opposition to the Stokes amendment. We simply should 
not undo and undermine our Clean Water Act, H.R. 961, by adopting this 
amendment. We passed it by a large bipartisan majority, 240 to 185. We 
beat down weakening amendments time and time again. It was openly and 
publicly debated at length, and this amendment would destroy those 
reforms.
  Let there be no doubt it will destroy the reforms that this House 
adopted in our Clean Water Act. We should not fund unauthorized 
programs, but we especially should not fund unauthorized programs that 
do not work, that are broken.
  The current Clean Water Act does not work. One example: The wetlands 
provisions, which started in 1972, is a very narrow regulatory program, 
now regulates over 75 million acres of privately owned property.
  Mr. Chairman, there is precedent for what we are doing. In the last 
Congress we included similar language to fence in funds until the Clean 
Water Act was reauthorized. We are doing that again and we should do 
it.
  We can and we should, by rejection of this amendment and passage of 
the VA-HUD appropriations, nudge, drive, push the Senate and this 
Congress to a responsible reauthorization of the 

[[Page H 7947]]

Clean Water Act. So let us reject regulatory excesses by rejecting this 
amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, it is a privilege to serve in Congress. I 
get up every morning praising the Lord that I have this opportunity. I 
thought when I was in the majority I would feel even more special about 
it, because I thought we would not do it the way Democrats did it, 
legislate in appropriations bills and do a number of other things that 
I have been critical of for so long that Democrats have done. We are 
doing it. We are no better. I know it because I see it here.
  It is one thing to say that we want clean air and we want clean 
water, but we just cannot say we want it, we have to have legislation 
that makes it happen. We cannot say in this bill it is reform. We are 
not reforming it, we are eliminating it.
  What I find particularly immoral is we have laws on the books that 
people have to abide by, but we are saying that EPA cannot enforce 
them. I have trouble with legislation that is cutting 25 percent from 
HUD, which we have rectified in some way, at least rescued part of it. 
We are cutting 34 percent from EPA. We are being gentle, in my 
judgment, with NASA. We are saying the veterans do not have to weigh in 
in any way to help get the financial house in order.
  We are gutting EPA and gutting environmental laws, and let us not 
call it any different than that. I am looking at Republicans because 
that is where it is at. We are doing it, and we are going to be held 
accountable, and it is not going to be pretty the next election on this 
issue.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is chock full of the most egregious 
overreaching legislative provisions we have ever seen around here, that 
would gut clean air, gut clean water, gut wetlands enforcement, and 
many, many other things that are essential to the protection of our 
environment, our air and public health.
  This amendment which I strongly support would take this bill and the 
many pages of legislation affecting these important environmental 
protections and tear it out. That is exactly what we ought to be doing. 
They have no place in this bill, and they run absolutely counter to the 
opinions and the will of the American people who have not said do less 
to protect our air and our water and environment but to do more.
  What do we get from the new majority party? An absolut;e grinding to 
a halt of the essential protections for the American people and their 
concerns about their air, their water and the state of health of our 
environment.
  It is a travesty, it should not be permitted, we should vote for the 
Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment, which would remove 
from the bill the numerous restrictions on the Environmental Protection 
Agency's ability to do its job.
  The provisions that this amendment would remove represent an 
outrageous abuse of the legislative process, including the rule against 
legislating on appropriations bills. The intent and effect of there 
provisions are to undermine enforcement of the Clean Air Act, the Clean 
Water Act, and other laws for the protection of our environment, our 
lands, and our health.
  One of these restrictions even goes so far as to prohibit any action 
by EPA to protect any wetlands. I recognize that there is considerable 
controversy and debate about wetlands protection--which lands should be 
counted as wetlands, and what level of protection they should receive. 
But I don't think there is any serious support for the idea that no 
wetlands should receive any protection. Yet that is what will happen if 
this language remains in the bill and becomes law.
  That's just one example, but it makes the point. If we leave these 
restrictions in the bill, we will be telling the American people that 
the opponents of this amendment are ready to sacrifice all protection 
of wetlands just to score a political
 point, and ready to abuse the legislative process in an attempt to 
influence debate on authorizing legislation.

  Mr. Chairman, the pattern could not be clearer. Just take a look at 
these restrictions--page after page of regressive, anti-environmental 
and underhanded provisions. It's no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that Carol 
Browner, the EPA Administrator, has concluded that this represents ``an 
organized, concrete effort to undermine public health and safety and 
the environment.''
  If anything, Mr. Chairman, that understates things. The American 
people need to know what is going on. They need to know that this new 
Republican majority is determined to undermine the progress we have 
made in the last several decades in protecting our environment, 
progress that the American people are proud of and want to see 
continued.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people know that we need to do more, not 
less, in this area. For instance, two new studies this year tell us 
that 53 million Americans are drinking tap water that is below 
standards. What is the response of the new majority in this Congress to 
this? To do more to clean up the Nation's water? No. The Republican 
response is to come up with eight different legislative riders to 
undermine the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Hard to 
imagine.
  This Republican sneak attack on the environment should not and will 
not go unopposed. The American people did not vote last November to 
roll back 25 years of environmental progress. They did not vote for 
more pollution, or for backhanded legislative shenanigans to undercut 
environmental standards just to satisfy the greed and the access paid 
for with campaign contributions from many industrial polluters.
  Unless this amendment is adopted, and these offensive and improper 
provisions removed, and the bill otherwise substantially improved, it 
should not be passed by the House and, if it reaches his desk, it 
should be vetoed by the President.
  Mr. Chairman, at my request the Environmental Protection Agency has 
provided me with information about the effects of this bill on EPA's 
activities in Colorado. I will submit that information for inclusion in 
the Record, for the information of our colleagues and especially for 
the information of the people of our State. In summary, EPA states that 
this bill as it now stands ``would result in serious public health, 
environmental, and economic impacts for Colorado and other States.''
  Of particular concern to me in the possible adverse impact of the 
proposed reduction in funding for implementing the superfund law 
[CERCLA] as it applies to the Rocky Flats site, in my congressional 
district. Regarding that, EPA says:

       A cut in CERCLA would cripple EPA's current efforts with 
     DOE and the State to negotiate the new cleanup agreement, 
     further delaying the stabilization and cleanup of plutonium 
     and other hazardous materials at the site.

  This is very disturbing to me, Mr. Chairman, and I submit it should 
be equally disturbing to all other Members whose districts include 
sites or facilities covered by Superfund.
  The information from EPA is as follows:
        Information Provided by Environmental Protection Agency


                                colorado

       The massive budget cuts proposed for EPA's enforcement and 
     compliance assurance program will have drastic across-the-
     board effects on the Agency's ability to address real risks 
     to the people and environment of Colorado through traditional 
     enforcement actions, and through our efforts to expand 
     compliance assistance-related activities to those business 
     sectors who have the greatest need, and whose non-compliance 
     poses the greatest problems.
       Compliance Assurance Builds Capacity for Compliance by the 
     Regulated Community:
       EPA's compliance program includes inspections, assistance 
     to the regulated community through workshops, training, and 
     new initiatives such as industry-based compliance service 
     centers and incentives for voluntary auditing, data systems 
     that help set priorities based on risk and patterns of 
     noncompliance, and support for state programs.
       In FY 94, 803 facilities were inspected in Colorado, and 
     222 enforcement actions taken. These inspections and actions 
     are necessary to ensure that the people of Colorado are 
     protected from the dangers of pollution. Major budget cuts in 
     EPA's compliance assurance program will severely undercut the 
     number of federal and state inspections conducted annually 
     and creates a substantial risk to public health and the 
     environment from unchecked violators. In addition, a vigilant 
     compliance monitoring presence serves as a strong deterrent 
     to possible violations which disappears when the monitoring 
     program is severely curtailed.
       The substantial reduction of funding for compliance 
     assistance and outreach activities places a far greater 
     economic burden on industry and businesses to acquire the 
     necessary information on their own to achieve regulatory 
     compliance. The vast majority of all monitoring and 
     inspection activities are conducted by state programs made 
     possible through federal funding. Such massive funding cuts 
     mean that state programs will have to absorb these functions 
     into their own limited budgets or eliminate them altogether.

[[Page H 7948]]

       Enforcement Actions address Significant Risks:
       EPA's civil, administrative, and criminal enforcement 
     program also targets those polluters which pose significant 
     risks to the
       people of Colorado and its environment. The proposed cuts 
     of over 50% to EPA's enforcement and compliance assurance 
     program will essentially dismantle its ability to provide 
     the protections that citizens expect and deserve from the 
     environmental laws. The following are examples of actions 
     that the EPA brought in Colorado which would have been 
     severely impacted by the proposed budget cuts:
       In Parker, Colorado, Metrex Research Corporation produced 
     and sold sterilants for invasive medical equipment. EPA tests 
     showed that these sterilants were ineffective. Ineffective 
     sterilants can cause infections to be passed from one patient 
     to another. As a result of EPA's action, two of the Metrex 
     sterilants have been removed from the market, and 
     instructions provided with the others advise purchasers to 
     use them for longer periods of time and at higher 
     temperatures. As a result of this action, people undergoing 
     medical treatment are no longer exposed to potential sources 
     of infection from medical equipment treated with these 
     ineffective sterilants.
       The ENRON Corporation, a petroleum refinery in Colorado, 
     exceeded lead standards for gasoline which they produced, 
     potentially increasing airborne lead levels. Airborne lead 
     causes neurological, reproductive, kidney, and 
     gastrointestinal damage, as well as brain disease, colic 
     palsy, and anemia. As a result of EPA's action, ENRON has 
     reduced the level of lead in their gasoline, and worked with 
     EPA to develop nationally significant research studies 
     involving the causes of air pollution.
       Federal Facilities Need Attention in Colorado:
        Federal facilities in Colorado are also significant 
     sources of pollution, and EPA's enforcement and compliance 
     assurance program will not be able to ensure that they are 
     fully inspected, and that their pollution is safely cleaned 
     up, with the proposed budget cuts.
       EPA and delegated States are statutorily required to 
     conduct annual compliance evaluation inspections the all 
     major Federal facilities which treat, store or dispose of 
     hazardous waste pursuant to the Resource Conservation and 
     Recovery Act as amended by the Federal Facility Compliance 
     Act of 1992. In the State of Colorado, there are 
     approximately 4 Federal TSD facilities which receive these 
     annual inspections. EPA and the states' capacity to conduct 
     these important inspections would be severely limited
      by the proposed cuts to our compliance and enforcement 
     program and this could have an adverse impact on human 
     health and environment in your state. Some major Federal 
     facilities in your state which may not receive these 
     hazardous waste compliance inspections include US DOE 
     Rocky Flats Plant, US Army Fort Carson, and US Army Pueblo 
     Army Depot.
       Superfund Cleanup in Colorado would be Negatively Affected:
       The Superfund sites on the National Priority List in 
     Colorado include: Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Air Force Plant 
     PJKS, and DOE's Rocky Flats Facility.
       DOE's Rocky Flats Site began operation in 1952. The site's 
     primary mission until 1992 was the production of plutonium 
     triggers and other components for nuclear weapons. Located 
     about 16 miles from downtown Denver and Boulder directly 
     upstream from two major drinking water supplies; Rocky Flats 
     has the nation's two most vulnerable buildings due to the 
     improper storage of over 14 tons of plutonium. Manufacturing 
     operations and disposal practices have resulted in extensive 
     environmental contamination from the release of hazardous and 
     radioactive wastes. As a result of numerous criminal 
     environmental violations, FBI and EPA agents raided the site 
     in 1989 and later assessed the site's contractor with $18.5 
     million in fines.
       In 1989, the site was listed on the NPL and in 1991 EPA, 
     DOE, and the State of Colorado signed a CERCLA IAG. In 1992, 
     the site mission changed from production to waste management 
     and cleanup. EPA and the State of Colorado are in the midst 
     of negotiating a new CERCLA IAG to promote stabilization of 
     the plutonium and cleanup of the site, reduce costs through 
     improved project management, and avoid litigation. In light 
     of the close proximity of this site to the Denver-Boulder 
     metropolitan areas, cleanup of the site is crucial. 
     Currently, CERCLA is the only law that provides for external 
     regulation of the cleanup of radionuclides at DOE sites. A 
     cut in CERCLA would cripple EPA's current efforts with DOE 
     and the State to negotiate the new cleanup agreement further 
     delaying the stabilization and cleanup of plutonium and other 
     hazardous materials at the site. In effect, DOE would become 
     self-regulating regarding cleanup of radioactive wastes at 
     the site.
       Established in 1942, the 6,500 acre Rocky Mountain Arsenal 
     site has been used by both the Army and private industry to 
     manufacture, test, package, and dispose of chemical products, 
     warfare agents, and munitions including rocket fuels, 
     pesticides, nerve gases, mustards, and incendiary munitions. 
     The site is located in Adams County, 10 miles northeast of 
     downtown Denver. The site has been described by courts as 
     ``one of the worst hazardous waste pollution sites in the 
     country'' due to extensive soil and groundwater contamination 
     from over 750 different hazardous wastes spilled or 
     improperly disposed of in several areas. Three plumes of 
     contaminated groundwater migrated offsite before intercept 
     systems were installed contaminating local wells and forcing 
     EPA and local authorities to provide residents with bottled 
     water.
       The site was listed on the NPL in 1987, and in 1989 a 
     CERCLA IAG was signed between EPA, the Army, and other 
     stakeholders. The State is a regulator under its State RCRA 
     authority. Under the proposed CERCLA and EPA budget cuts, EPA 
     would no longer be able to provide adequate technical and 
     regulatory oversight or coordinate with the Army, the State, 
     and the public to establish site priorities and initiatives 
     to streamline and reduce cleanup costs. Ultimately, cleanup 
     efforts would have to be drastically curtailed or halted to 
     take into account EPA's diminished regulatory role.
                 implications for the state of colorado

       In its present form, the 1996 House Appropriations bill for 
     the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would result in 
     serious public health, environmental, and economic impacts 
     for Colorado and other States. This bill would reduce overall 
     Agency funding by more than one-third, crippling State and 
     EPA programs that help to ensure public health and 
     environmental protection. The State/EPA partnership would be 
     further damaged by riders which would prevent or delay 
     progress in solving some of our highest priority problems. 
     Specifically, the bill would have the following impacts for 
     Colorado communities:
       Colorado communities would lose: $2.9 million compared to 
     the President's proposal to help finance wastewater projects; 
     $1.3 million to help address polluted runoff--the State's 
     most serious source of water pollution; $24 million for low-
     interest loans to help provide safe drinking water (the bill 
     in combination with the 1995 rescission bill completely 
     eliminates the President's $1.8 billion investment for safe 
     drinking water projects)
       In total, millions of dollars that would help finance clean 
     water infrastructure, manage essential water programs, and 
     protect the overall quality of life for the State's citizens 
     would be lost.
       Funding for monitoring and standards programs would be 
     eliminated or severely curtailed, limiting the State's 
     ability to assess local conditions for public and ecological 
     uses, issue wastewater permits to local governments and 
     industries, and move towards more site-specific and flexible 
     watershed protection approaches.
       Currently, 12% of assessed rivers and 8% of assessed lakes 
     fail to meet State designated standards for fishing, 
     swimming, and other uses. Budget cuts and programmatic 
     restrictions would increase the number of waters unable to 
     meet these standards.
       Colorado examples:
       The Colorado Water and Power Authority has taken the 
     necessary steps to establish a Drinking Water State Revolving 
     Fund to make low interest loans to communities which need to 
     improve their safe drinking water systems. The loss of the 
     drinking water loan program will force a number of 
     communities to seek other--more costly--financing. Higher 
     costs will be passed on to their customers.
       The proposed bill would eliminate the state's ability to 
     use EPA funding to fund wetland studies to protect wetland 
     resources despite local support for such protective measures. 
     For example, San Miguel County used EPA funds to identify 
     important wetlands. Because the County believed that further 
     wetlands losses were unacceptable, they then increased 
     protection of wetlands in the County. The County ordinance 
     has served as a model to many counties who are pursuing 
     similar goals for wetland protection. Also, Park and Summit 
     Counties have expressed interest in pursuing wetlands 
     measures, but could not use EPA funding. Several other 
     counties are currently using wetland grant funding from EPA 
     to inventory wetlands, and these funds would not be available 
     if the House Appropriations bill is enacted.
       Colorado may lose federal funding for water quality 
     monitoring. State officials use this data for determining 
     when fish are safe to eat and when swimming can be allowed 
     without danger.
                      colorado--superfund impacts

       The House mark does not provide funds to begin any new 
     projects, either Fund or Responsible Party lead. At least 1 
     construction project slated to begin in Colorado in FY 96 
     would have to be delayed. A synopsis of these projects 
     follows:


                     summitville--summitville mine

       The Summitville mine site is located in the mountains of 
     southern Colorado. Bankruptcy and abandonment by the gold 
     mining and gold recovery operators resulted in potential 
     release of catastrophic amounts of heavy metals and cyanide 
     to the nearby stream. EPA emergency actions have prevented 
     those dire consequences. Fish kills have been reported from 
     Wightman Fork, the receiving stream, to the Terrace 
     Reservoir, approximately 20 miles downstream from the site. 
     Terrace Reservoir water is used for irrigation by San Luis 
     Valley farmers. Current plans call for consolidation and 
     capping, biological treatment, and reclamation. Some of this 
     work will be done using existing available funds. If the 
     remaining work is not funded and the significant water 
     treatment that continues to be needed in the long-term 
     ceases, the contaminated water will be released, severely 
     impacting stream-life and agricultural uses.

[[Page H 7949]]



                  colorado--refinery air toxics impact

       The refinery air toxics rider creates a unique ``loophole'' 
     for a single industry, undermining the air toxics program 
     Congress established in the 1990 Clean Air Amendments. 
     Nationally, the health and environmental impacts of this 
     action will be significant--4.5 million people face elevated 
     risks of cancer and other health probelms from these 
     facilites. In Colorado, there are two refineries which 
     emitted 193,319 pounds of toxic air pollution, according to 
     information submitted by the facilities themselves to EPA's 
     Toxic Release Inventory.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the strong bipartisan 
majority which has brought, finally, some reform to this area of clean 
water and tried to rein in the gross abuses of bureaucratic agencies 
like the EPA. This amendment is a direct assault on that effort to 
bring reform. Many of the people who are supporting this amendment 
opposed us tooth and nail when we tried and successfully did pass the 
Clean Water Act off the floor of the House.
  We have been attacked as being special interests. I chaired a task 
force, the wetlands task force of the Committee on Resources. I invite 
the Members to get its report. This is full of the so-called special 
interests, and who are they? They are the property owners, the farmers, 
the ranchers, the business people, the church people, all of whom have 
been negatively and unfairly impacted by agencies such as the EPA.
  Let me just cite one example of the so-called special interests that 
we heard from. Nancy Klein, mother of five. She and her husband bought 
a farm in Sonoma County, 350 acres. For the crime of farming, they came 
under criminal scrutiny of the EPA.
  Let me just quote from her so Members can get the flavor of this:

       The FBI and the EPA interrogated our neighbors, 
     acquaintances, strangers. They asked if we were intelligent. 
     They asked about our religion. They asked if we had tempers. 
     They asked how we treated our children. For 11 months, the 
     squeeze continued. Our property was flown over by military 
     helicopters, Federal cars monitored our home, and our 
     children's schools.

  The EPA is abusing its authority. Oppose the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
  Mr. WHITFIELD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not a debate about protecting the environment, 
because we are all concerned about protecting the environment of this 
great country. But this is a debate about the aggressive tactics of EPA 
relating to new regulations and enforcement of those regulations with 
little regard to the cost or the benefit of the regulation.
  Wenever I go back to western Kentucky in my district and visit with 
small farmers, coal operators, businessmen, large and small, all of 
them plead to get EPA off their back and for EPA to be more balanced in 
its approach.
  Last July, EPA proposed additional standards to control emissions of 
air pollutants for refineries. The industry went in and tried to work 
with them to reach an agreed regulation and standard at a reasonable 
cost. EPA was not satisfied and decided to proceed with maximum 
achievable control technologies.
  I want to talk for a moment about the facts of that technology. First 
of all it is based on emissions data that is 15 years old. It will cost 
the refineries in this country between $77 million and
 $110 million a year. EPA's own regulatory impact analysis 
characterized the benefits of this technology as minimal. Even the 
Department of Energy is saying, if you introduce these new standards, 
the benefits will be minimal.

  I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and adopt a more 
reasonable approach for EPA.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Pombo].
  Mr. POMBO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it quite interesting that the same people who 
are proposing this amendment were not down on this floor just a few 
days ago yelling and screaming about legislating on an appropriations 
bill when we appropriated money for the Endangered Species Act which 
ceased to exist in 1992 and has been kept alive solely by the 
appropriations process.
  Nor were they on this floor yesterday complaining about the Coastal 
Zone Management Act which has expired and is being kept alive by the 
appropriations process.
  Again I think what we are witnessing here today is exactly what led 
us into this problem to begin with. That anytime that a Federal agency 
wants to do something, when an out-of-control bureaucracy like the 
Environmental Protection Agency, which in my district has decided it 
would be a great idea to tell people they can only drive to work 4 out 
of 5 days----
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Stokes-
Boehlert amendment.
                              {time}  1300
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the bipartisan 
Boehlert-Stokes amendment and against those provisions in H.R. 2099 
which threaten human health and the environment.
  I support the goal of reforming our regulatory system and voted for 
many of the regulatory reform provisions contained in the Contract With 
America. Today, however, we considered an appropriations bill loaded 
with far-reaching legislative riders that prohibit the EPA from 
enforcing key environmental laws like the Clean Water Act.
  One of the most onerous riders will prohibit EPA from spending funds 
to enforce its stormwater permitting program. In southern California, 
stormwater or nonpoint source pollution is now recognized as the major 
threat to Santa Monica Bay. Without effective enforcement, stormwater 
will continue to pollute the bay--resulting in harm to the coastal 
environment and to the local economy by keeping tourists away from our 
beaches.
  Additionally, the bill prohibits EPA from implementing and enforcing 
its wetlands permitting program. Over 90 percent of California's 
wetlands have already been lost--we cannot afford to let those 
remaining--like the Ballona wetlands in Playa del Rey--slip away as 
well.
  We must be able to get together on a bipartisan basis to craft fair 
regulatory reform. We need hearings, authorizing legislation and good, 
healthy public debate on the issues. Legislative riders on 
appropriations bill were not part of the voters' mandate last November.
  We can always do regulation better, but we can't afford to turn our 
backs on human health and the environment. I urge my colleagues to 
adopt the Boehlert-Stokes bipartisan amendment--our future depends on 
it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about one rider that would 
be stricken by the Stokes-Boehlert amendment, the inspection and 
maintenance rider.
  Mr. Chairman, right now, EPA wants to institute for northern Virginia 
a State-run-test-only regime for auto emissions inspections. Currently, 
we have 900,000 auto emissions tests conducted annually in northern 
Virginia at 375 service stations.
  What does the EPA want to do? They want to take these 900,000 tests 
and, instead of 375 privately run inspection stations, move them to as 
few as 12 State-run inspection stations. It means long lines, 
inconvenience, small service station workers out of work; but more 
importantly, what happens if during these inspections there is 
something wrong? Seventy-five thousand motorists failed last year. They 
will have to drive that dirty car to another place, get it repaired and 
drive it back again. How in the world does this help clean air?

[[Page H 7950]]

  The Commonwealth of Virginia has been working with the EPA for the 
last 2 years to try to work out this agreement, and EPA remains 
inflexible on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I would love to wait for the authorization. We cannot 
wait; they are threatening to take away our highway money. This rider 
needs to stay in.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise to reluctantly 
oppose the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis], but to enthusiastically 
endorse the amendment being offered here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I consider myself a pragmatist and someone who tries to 
look for the middle ground on issues, whether it is environmental 
safety versus job creation, or worker rights versus the rights of the 
company management. In this case, I ask my colleagues on the Republican 
side to look carefully at what we are doing here.
  Mr. Chairman, some of these riders may, in fact, be very valid. I am 
not here to speak against all of the provisions, but I can tell my 
colleagues that some of them, to me, on the surface and substantively 
are very egregious. We should move very carefully on this amendment.
  I say to my colleagues on the Republican side, everyone is watching 
this vote, their Governors, their local officials. In my State, it is 
going to devastate some positive impacts being made on clean water, on 
sewage discharge.
  I would urge my Republican colleagues, please look carefully at this 
vote, and support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am the chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on 
Commerce. I have held 8 hearings in my subcommittee this year alone on 
the Clean Air Act amendments of 1991. That is an average of over one 
hearing a month on that one act which has six titles.
  There is one title in that act that has, in one section, over 27 
subsections that we are holding hearings on. All of the amendments that 
are in the appropriation language that the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 
Stokes] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] are attempting 
to strike have been reviewed at staff level by the Committee on 
Commerce staff and we do support that these amendments be in this bill.
  We know that the authorizing committee needs to act, and we fully 
intend to act, but we simply yet have not had time to go through the 
complete record on just for example the Clean Air Act alone.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues might be interested to know that one of 
the things that the language in the bill of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Lewis] is attempting to delay implementation of is a 
maximum achievable control technology standard for refineries that the 
EPA is under court order to have ready to release today, July 28, 1995.
  Mr. Chairman, they have to release it today, because they got a 60-
day extension back in May. They are not going to be ready. They have 
said they are not going to be ready. My colleagues may be interested to 
know that there is an arsenic and a radon standard that EPA is supposed 
to implement this year that they are not going to be able to implement.
  This language simply gives us time to review the act to make these 
changes possible. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Commerce 
Committee, which I chair, has held a series of hearings on EPA's 
implementation of the Clean Air Act amendments. In our examination of 
the act, we have covered many of the issues that are the subject of 
discussion today. For instance, on March 16 of this year, a hearing was 
held on employee commute options. On March 23 and 24, hearings were 
held on inspection and maintenance programs. A hearing was held on the 
operating permits program on May 18. And hearings on the hazardous air 
pollution program were held on June 29 and July 21.
  In every one of these cases, witnesses testied that either changes 
were needed to the Clean Air Act itself, or changes were needed in the 
implementation of the act by EPA. For instance, in the area of 
inspection and maintenance, the subcommittee heard scientific evidence 
questioning the validity of the so-called 50-percent discount for 
decentralized programs. In addition, State representatives from Texas, 
Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia criticized EPA's heavy handed 
approach in pushing centralized testing. A State representative from 
Georgia testified that for States, it is EPA's way, or the highway, 
that is, no highway transportation funds if States do not adopt 
centralized testing.
  Likewise, a hearing on hazardous air pollutants, indicated 
overstepping by EPA in the development of the hazardous waste 
combustion MACT. In that hearing, EPA testified before the subcommittee 
that maximum achievable control technologies are to be established 
based on control technologies from existing sources. Yet testimony 
established that EPA is not developing MACT standards for hazardous 
waste combustion from existing sources.
  At other hearings, testimony was heard concerning how inflexible the 
act and EPA has been in regards to the operating permit program, 
employee commute options, refinery MACT and other issues. Therefore, I 
believe a solid record has been established that these changes need to 
made.
  Unfortunately, because of deadlines imposed both by the Clean Air Act 
and by EPA, some of which are even now beginning to fall, we do not 
have the luxury of year-long deliberations over legislation. Let me add 
that I intend to address these issues and others that are just as 
important but not as time sensitive in legislation this fall.
  However, because the MACT for refineries has a court ordered deadline 
of July 28, action later this year may not be timely. Similarly, the 
MACT for hazardous waste combustion is scheduled to be proposed in 
September of this year. Companies may begin to comply with these 
standards before changes can be made. As for inspection and 
maintenance, even today, many States are potentially subject to 
sanctions. In the next several months, many will be forced to make 
decisions on the types of inspection and maintenance programs they 
intend to implement. The proposed provision in the bill will help clear 
up confusion States have over what type of inspection and maintenance 
program they can propose, and allow States to begin to move forward.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I also provide the following additional comments.
   Explanation of Riders and Legislative Language Affecting Commerce 
Committee Jurisdiction in VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations 
                                  Bill


                 i. radon and arsenic in drinking water

       The appropriations language provides that none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be used by the 
     Administrator or the Administrator's designee for signing and 
     publishing a national primary drinking water regulation for 
     radon and other radionuclei: Provided further, That none of 
     the funds appropriated under this heading may be used by the 
     Administrator or the Administrator's designee for signing and 
     publishing any proposed national primary drinking water 
     regulation for arsenic.
     Background
       Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, EPA 
     was required to regulate 83 specific contaminants in drinking 
     water, including radon and arsenic, by June 1989. EPA has 
     issued regulations for nearly all of the specified 
     contaminants, but not for radon or arsenic. As described 
     below, these contaminants have presented particular problems 
     for the regulators.
       Radon.--While radon can enter a home through drinking 
     water, most radon in homes comes from the soil beneath the 
     foundation of the dwelling. Nonetheless, the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act requires EPA to regulate radon in drinking water. 
     The costs of controlling radon in drinking water are high; 
     each source of groundwater must be equipped with an aeration 
     device that separates the radon from the drinking water. The 
     benefits, however, are usually considerably lower than the 
     costs because most radon in homes comes from sources other 
     than drinking water.
       Congress has adopted appropriations language prohibiting 
     EPA from issuing a radon regulation for the past three years. 
     It is appropriate to continue this prohibition for another 
     year while the Commerce Committee takes a careful look at 
     this issue in the context of reauthorization of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act.
       Arsenic.--EPA's existing standard for arsenic in drinking 
     water is 50 parts per billion. However, EPA is required by 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 to revise this 
     standard. In fact, EPA is under a 

[[Page H 7951]]

     November 1995 court-ordered deadline to issue such a proposed 
     standard.
       There are, however, a number of uncertainties in our 
     understanding of the health effects of arsenic. EPA has 
     concluded that there is a need for additional time to gather 
     additional information on the potential health benefits of 
     regulating arsenic and on potential treatment technologies 
     before proceeding further with these regulations.
       Indeed, in the bill to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act which passed the House last year, both Republicans and 
     Democrats agreed to extend the statutory deadline for 
     revisions to EPA's arsenic standard to give EPA more time to 
     understand the health effects of arsenic.
       Therefore, it is appropriate to use the VA, HUD 
     appropriations bill to prohibit EPA from revising its arsenic 
     standard until the Commerce Committee has had an opportunity 
     to review this issue in the context of reauthorization of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act.
                      ii. employee trip reduction

       The appropriations bill provides that: none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be used by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to impose or enforce any 
     requirement that a State implement trip reduction measures to 
     reduce vehicular emissions. Section 304 of the Clean Air Act, 
     as amended, shall not apply with respect to any such 
     requirement.
     background
       The Employee Trip Reduction Program (ETRP or ECO 
     (``employee commute option'')) is required by the 1990 Clean 
     Air Act Amendments. The law applies to the nine smoggiest 
     cities in the United States and requires employers with more 
     than 100 employees in those areas to develop plans that will 
     reduce employee's average vehicle occupancy (AVO) during 
     commuting time by 25 percent.
       On March 18, 1995, the Oversight and Investigations 
     Subcommittee held a hearing on ECO. The Subcommittee received 
     testimony from employers and States which are subject to the 
     requirement. Most of the testimony was critical of the 
     requirement; several witnesses testified that the costs of 
     developing and maintaining such programs far exceeded the 
     benefits, i.e., reduced air pollution.
       EPA defended the program as necessary to reduce total 
     ``vehicle miles traveled'' (and hence, air pollution) but 
     said that it would require States and employers to make only 
     a ``good faith effort'' for compliance. EPA's commitment to 
     use prosecutorial discretion, however, would not protect a 
     State or employer from a citizens' suit under Section 304 of 
     the Clean Air Act. Chairman Barton asked EPA to consider 
     whether legislative changes to the ECO program are required.
       As a direct result of the March 18, 1995, hearing, EPA 
     convened a ``working Group'' to assess ECO. This group met 
     twice and then issued a report to the Clean Air Act Advisory 
     Committee (CAAAC). The report was largely accepted by the 
     CAAAC and then referred to EPA for action. The report called 
     for several efforts to increase the ``flexibility'' of the 
     ECO program but did not address whether the ECO program 
     requires legislative changes.
       On July 11, 1995, EPA wrote to Chairman Barton to announce 
     its implementation of the CAAAC recommendations. EPA agreed 
     to allow ``regionalization'' of the program at the behest of 
     a State, to only require good faith efforts for compliance, 
     to allow more flexible credits and too allow seasonal rather 
     than full year ECO plans. Additionally, EPA accepted an 
     ``emission equivalency'' proposal (albeit with some important 
     distinctions discussed below).
       Appropriations bill language.--The FY96 VA, HUD 
     appropriations bill contains language that prohibits EPA from 
     spending any money to ``impose or enforce any requirement'' 
     that a State implement ECO. The appropriations bill also 
     provides that Section 304--which authorizes citizens' suits--
     shall not apply to the ECO program. Thus, the language seeks 
     to bar EPA from enforcing trip reduction requirements against 
     a state (through an applicable State Implementation Plan or 
     through the sanctions afforded under the CAA) and against an 
     employer (for violation of an employer's duties to implement 
     the program under the CAA). Additionally, the language seeks 
     to insulate States or employers form being sued for non-
     compliance with ECO requirements under the citizen suit 
     provisions of the CAA. The citizen suit provisions allow 
     ``any person'' to bring a civil action against ``any person'' 
     in violation of an emission standard or limitation under the 
     Act.
       Explanation of the appropriations bill language.--This 
     language is based on several considerations:
       (1) EPA's efforts to ``reform'' the program 
     administratively have come up short. Despite EPA's proposed 
     reforms, affected States and employers will still be required 
     to develop the required plans, or risk lawsuits by citizens 
     groups.
       (2) It appears unlikely that EPA will use its 
     administrative authority to make the program workable. 
     Indeed, EPA remains committed to the statutory language of 
     ECO. In a June 29, 1995, memorandum, EPA stated ``we want to 
     emphasize our continued support for the numerous trip 
     reduction strategies that are currently available within the 
     program. We believe it is important to preserve the overall 
     trip reduction focus of ECO programs.''
       (3) EPA has shown no interest at all in statutory reforms 
     of the ECO program. During its ``Working Group'' effort to 
     define alternatives to ECO, the Agency tried to rule out any 
     statutory approaches. Although several members of the Working 
     Group supported such changes, these recommendations were not 
     accepted by the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. 
     Additionally, EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and 
     Radiation, Mary Nichols, has been quoted recently as opposing 
     any attempts to reopen the Clean Air Act, including even 
     minor revisions. Thus, even though EPA does not have 
     sufficient legal authority to fix the program 
     administratively, it continues to oppose efforts by Congress 
     to give it that authority.
       (4) Time is of the essence. States were required to file 
     ECO revisions to their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in 
     1992. Some States now have approved ECO SIPs;, some are 
     pending EPA approval. In either event, the program continues 
     to be mandatory and States and employers are subject to 
     citizens suits. The appropriations rider--a 12-month fix--
     will give the Commerce Committee time to consider whether 
     legislative changes to the program are needed, and if so, how 
     best to obtain those changes.
                iii. enhanced inspection and maintenance

       The appropriations bill provides that: ``none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be used to assign less 
     than full credit for automobile emissions inspection programs 
     required under 182 (c), (d), or (e) of the Clean Air Act, as 
     amended, on the basis of network design equipment unless the 
     Administrator determines, based on data collected from at 
     least two full cycles of the program, that less than full 
     credit is appropriate''.
       The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 require ozone 
     nonattainment areas designated as ``serious,'' ``severe,'' 
     and ``extreme'' to implement a program of ``enhanced'' 
     inspection and maintenance (I&M). A number of such 
     nonattainment areas have attempted to comply with the law by 
     ``enhancing'' their existing decentralized ``test and 
     repair'' programs. A ``test and repair'' program is one in 
     which a car can be tested and repaired at the same location, 
     typically at a service station. However, EPA has concluded 
     that such ``test and repair'' programs are not as effective 
     as ``centralized'' programs, i.e., programs in which cars are 
     tested at one facility and repaired at another facility. In 
     its regulations implementing the enhanced I&M program, EPA 
     has said that it will give ``test and repair'' programs only 
     50 percent of the credit that ``centralized'' programs 
     receive.
       Appropriations language.--The FY96 VA, HUD appropriations 
     bill contains language that prohibits EPA from using funds to 
     assign less than full credit for automobile emissions 
     inspection programs unless EPA determines, based on data 
     collected from at least two full cycles of the program, that 
     less than full credit is appropriate.
       Explanation of the appropriations language.--In testimony 
     before the Commerce Committee, GAO has questioned the 
     quantitive basis for EPA's assumption that ``test and 
     repair'' I&M programs should receive only 50 percent of the 
     credit awarded to centralized programs. The appropriations 
     language would prohibit EPA from assigning less than full 
     credit unless less than full credit is justified by actual 
     data from the operation of a ``test and repair'' system.


                           IV. refinery mact

       The appropriations bill provides that ``none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be used to develop, 
     propose, promulgate, issue, enforce, or to set or enforce 
     compliance deadlines or issuance schedules for maximum 
     achievable control technology standards pursuant to section 
     112(d) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, for the category 
     proposed to be regulated at Vol. 59, Federal Register, No. 
     135, page 36130, dated July 15, 1994, and for purposes of 
     this provision, section 304 of the Clean Air Act shall not 
     apply''.
       The Clean Air Act requires EPA to identify and enforce 
     ``maximum achievable control technology'' (MACT) standards 
     for a number of industries, including refineries. MACT 
     standards are designed to limit the emission of Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants (HAPs). For existing sources, the standards are to 
     be no less stringent than ``the average emission limitation 
     achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing 
     sources.'' For new sources, the MACT standards are based on 
     ``best controlled similar source.''
       EPA is under a court-ordered deadline to issue MACT for 
     refineries by July 28, 1995. EPA is preparing to adopt a 
     definition of MACT for refineries which would, according to 
     the National Petroleum Refiners Association (NPRA), result in 
     the shutdown of seven small refineries. This language would 
     prevent EPA from finalizing a MACT standard for refineries 
     for one year, thereby giving the Commerce Committee time to 
     assess whether EPA is exercising its authority properly and 
     whether there are statutory problems with Title III of the 
     1990 Clean Air Act Amendments which need to be corrected.
       At a June 29, 1995 hearing of the Oversight and 
     Investigations Subcommittee, the NPRA argued that the 
     Refinery MACT standard was flawed because:
       EPA relied on data from the early 1980's, instead of 
     available 1993 data on industry equipment leaks. This data 
     was used to estimate the benefits that would be expected from 
     the regulation.
       In designing its regulation, EPA used a ``worst case 
     scenario'' which assumed that some population lives within 
     150 feet from the center of every refinery in the country. 

[[Page H 7952]]

     This assumption served to skew risk assessments.
       Even with flawed data and risk assessments, NPRA argued 
     that EPA's own analysis of the rule demonstrated that up to 7 
     refineries would close due to the regulation and that the 
     regulation would cost $800 million over five years while 
     reducing baseline cancer incidence by 0.33 persons per year. 
     NPRA argued that such a risk approached zero and was not cost 
     effective as compared to other risks facing society ($31,000/
     yr cost effectiveness for death averted for improved traffic 
     signs, $101,000/yr. For upgraded guard rails versus 
     $333,300,000/yr for the Refinery MACT rule).
         v. risk management plans for the oil and gas industry

       The appropriations bill provides that: none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading shall be obligated or 
     expended to take any action to extend the risk management 
     plan requirements under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, 
     as amended, to the domestic oil and gas exploration and 
     production and natural gas processing industry.
       Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act requires certain 
     sources of toxic air emissions to prepare a risk management 
     plan to prevent accidental releases of such emissions. This 
     section of the Clean Air Act was added by the 1990 Clean Air 
     Act Amendments and was intended to address ``Bhopal-type'' 
     releases where human health and the environment are 
     threatened.
       EPA issued a list of substances subject to 112(r) 
     regulations in January, 1994. On March 13, 1995, EPA issued a 
     supplemental notice to the regulation which discussed several 
     different approaches, including a ``tiered'' regulation of 
     sources which essentially varies the level of effort 
     depending on the level of risk. At present, these regulations 
     have not been issued in final form.
       EPA is interpreting certain provisions to require risk 
     management plans for separate oil and gas wells, instead of 
     for groups of oil and gas wells. Oil and gas producers 
     contend that this could result in costly equipment being 
     mandated for remote exploration and production facilities. 
     Oil and gas producers estimate that 112(r) requirements could 
     cost the oil and gas exploration industry $7 to $12 billion 
     in the first year.
     Effect of Appropriations Language
       The language is intended to prevent any application of risk 
     management plan requirements to the oil and gas exploration, 
     processing and natural gas production industry. The key 
     element of this amendment is the definition of ``oil and gas 
     exploration and production and natural gas processing 
     industry.'' This language was altered between the 
     subcommittee and full Appropriations Committee consideration. 
     At the subcommittee level, the language read, ``oil and gas 
     exploration, processing and production industry.'' Mr. Lewis 
     offered an amendment at the full Appropriations Committee to 
     alter the language to its current form.
       ``Oil and gas exploration and production'' involves such 
     things as rigs and test equipment, usually found in remote 
     locations. The definition also appears to cover the 
     ``Christmas tree'' constructed to remove oil and gas for 
     production. While there is some uncertainty, field plants for 
     production may additionally fall under the definition; while 
     major production plants may not.
       With the specification of ``gas processing industry,'' 
     however, some have argued that refineries now may be included 
     within the prohibition on funds. That is, some may argue that 
     the appropriations language prevents requiring 112(r) plans 
     not only for remotely located exploration and production 
     activities, but larger plants which can be located in 
     industrial and more populated areas.
       According to the Appropriations Committee report, this 
     language is necessary ``so that Congress will have the 
     opportunity to determine if the Agency has overstepped their 
     regulatory bounds with respect to this action.''
                  vi. hazardous waste combustion mact

       The appropriations language provides that: ``none of the 
     funds appropriated under this heading may be used to issue or 
     enforce any requirement not otherwise authorized under 
     existing law or regulation with respect to combustion of 
     hazardous waste prior to promulgation of final regulations 
     pursuant to a rulemaking proceeding under the Administrative 
     Procedure Act or to impose or enforce any requirement or 
     condition of a permit, including the use of an indirect risk 
     assessment, or to deny a permit pursuant to section 
     3005(c)(3) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as 
     amended, unless the Environmental Protection Agency follows 
     the procedures governing the use of authority under such 
     section which it has set forth at 56 Fed. Reg. 7154, note 8, 
     February 21, 1991: Provide further, That none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be used to issue or 
     enforce any regulatory standard for maximum achievable 
     control technology (MACT) for hazardous waste combustion 
     under any statute other than the Clean Air Act, as amended, 
     issue any such standard without first determining that in 
     calculating the MACT floor emission levels for existing 
     sources under section 112(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act, as 
     amended, one-half of the currently operating facilities in 
     the group of sources that make up the floor pool for that 
     category or subcategory actually achieve the MACT floor 
     levels for all of the hazardous air pollutants to be 
     regulated''.
       After the Love Canal crisis, Congress made the 
     determination to discourage the further land disposal of 
     certain kinds of hazardous waste. EPA made the determination 
     that combustion of hazardous waste was the best alternative 
     for the disposal of most organic hazardous waste. Hazardous 
     waste combustion occurs by two basic methods: (1) as input to 
     hazardous waste incinerators; and (2) as fuel substitutes for 
     boilers and industrial furnaces, including cement kilns.
       Hazardous waste combustion units are already stringently 
     regulated by two different but similar sets of regulations 
     under RCRA. (Subpart O regulates incinerators: boilers and 
     industrial furnaces (BIFs) are regulated under the BIF rule. 
     Both sets of rules impose stringent emission limitations and 
     other requirements ``as necessary to protect human health and 
     the environment.'' In addition, hazardous waste combustion 
     units are subject to regulation under Section 112 of the 
     Clean Air Act dealing with Hazardous Air Pollutants. That 
     section requires EPA to propose a Maximum Achievable Control 
     Technology (MACT) for major sources of certain hazardous air 
     pollutants. EPA is required to make its RCRA and Air Act 
     limits for these units consistent to the extent practicable. 
     This has been generally referred to as the ``combustion 
     strategy''.
     Problem
       Congress was very specific about how EPA was to determine 
     the floor for MACT standards. EPA was to set the floor at the 
     average of the top twelve percent of existing source 
     facilities. EPA appears to be setting a standard that is not 
     based on existing sources, even though in recent testimony 
     before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, Ms. 
     Nichols stated that such standards were to be based on 
     existing facilities. EPA also appears to be setting a MACT 
     standard for hazardous waste combustion that improperly 
     commingles authority between Clean Air Act and RCRA 
     authority.
       In addition, EPA has been conditioning RCRA permits on 
     requirements that have not been subject to the full notice 
     and rulemaking under the terms of the Administrative 
     Procedure Act. Thus, EPA has used its permitting authority to 
     achieve what it refuses to subject to actual regulatory 
     development.
     Appropriations language
       Arguably, the language requires that EPA do only what it is 
     already required to do. The language prohibits EPA from: (1) 
     the use of permit conditions without site specific findings; 
     (2) the setting of MACT standards under any authority other 
     than the Clean Air Act; (3) the setting of a MACT standard 
     without making the required finding that certain facilities 
     are achieving the standard.
                         vii. operating permits

       The appropriations bill provides that ``none of the funds 
     appropriated under this heading may be used to promulgate, 
     implement, or enforce sections 502(d)(2), 502(d)(3), or 
     502(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, against a State 
     which is involved in litigation regarding provisions of Title 
     V of the Clean Air Act, as amended.''
       This language would prohibit EPA from promulgating, 
     implementing or enforcing the operating permits requirements 
     against any State which is involved in litigation regarding 
     provisions of operating permits title. This prohibition in 
     intended to apply in Virginia--and in any other State--where 
     deadlines have not been met for submittal of an operating 
     permits program, approval of a state operating permits 
     program by EPA, or imposition of a federal operating permits 
     program (upon failure of a state to submit or gain approval 
     of its own program).
       The Commonwealth of Virginia submitted its operating 
     permits program to EPA for approval on November 19, 1993. EPA 
     disapproved the Commonwealth's proposed program on December 
     5, 1994 because of one alleged deficiency: EPA said the 
     Commonwealth's ``citizen suit'' provision was not broad 
     enough. Virginia has sued EPA over this assertion.
       Because Virginia does not have an approved operating 
     permits program, the Commonwealth will become subject to 
     sanctions (withholding of highway funds and offsets) on 
     November 15, 1995. In addition, EPA would be required to 
     implement an operating permits program for Virginia by 
     November 15, 1995. This means that after November 15, 1995, 
     Virginia businesses could be required to apply for permits 
     from EPA's Regional Office in Philadelphia.
       The appropriations language prohibits EPA from imposing 
     sanctions on Virginia and from promulgating, implementing or 
     enforcing a federal operating permits program in Virginia and 
     in any other State which is currently involved in litigation 
     with EPA on operating permits issues. Currently, 14 States 
     (and 30 localities) have operating permit programs which have 
     been approved by EPA. Thus, a number of States are still 
     subject to uncertainties concerning what should be in their 
     operating permits program.
       In addition, EPA is presently proposing significant changes 
     to the Title V program. Although the Agency issued a final 
     rule to implement Title V in July, 1992, challenges to the 
     rule forced proposed modifications in August, 1994. These 
     modifications themselves were heavily criticized and resulted 
     in a January 25, 1995 decision to work a new proposal. Most 
     recently, the Agency issued a ``White Paper'' on Title V 
     (issued 7/10/95) which proposed further reforms. Thus, some 
     have referred to Title V as a regulatory ``moving target.'' 
     Although the general intent of revisions is to correct past 
     deficiencies, states 

[[Page H 7953]]

     and the regulated community are uncertain as to what the 
     final elements of the Title V permits program will be, 
     especially with regard to modifications made to a source 
     subject to a permit.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  (Mr. WATT of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the amendment under consideration.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
  (Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-
Stokes amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, many of us have observed, during the debate, that the 
American people value the environmental goals of clean water, clean 
air, and reductions in hazardous materials. The public support has been 
strong for many years and we fully expect it to continue.
  My colleagues should not be fooled by the rhetoric of the opposing 
side. There will be a price to pay for our actions today.
  Mr. Chairman, these riders in the life of the Clean Water Act put 
numerous special interest loopholes in the Clean Air Act and block 
efforts to keep poisons out of our drinking water. This is not what the 
Americans want or deserve. Let true reforms go forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Saxton] said it well. He said, ``My uncle used to tell us you cannot 
eat the fish and you cannot go in the water.''
  Mr. Chairman, I think all of us who have spoken today have had 
similar experiences in our district one time or another; certainly 
those of us from the Great Lakes and those along the Chesapeake. I have 
listened to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]; I have listened 
to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle]; the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin], on 
my side of the aisle; the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  Mr. Chairman, for more than two decades this country has had a 
bipartisan commitment to protecting the environment. We have done so 
because we recognize that as a nation, our economy, our jobs, our 
tourism, our health depend upon keeping our land safe and our water 
clean.
  But we have a bill before us today that rolls back environmental 
safeguards in 17 different ways. Let me give you an example.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a kid, I used to ride my bike and go 
swimming during the summer in Lake St. Clair. Last year the kids in my 
district could not swim in the lake because bacteria levels had reached 
dangerously high levels. Beaches closed. Businesses lost millions of 
dollars.
  When we looked into what caused the problem, we found that untreated 
raw sewage was being dumped directly into the water supply because 
aging sewer systems could not handle the demands of a larger 
population, permits were issued and they were not being enforced. In 
some cases, the State had to let permits actually lapse for as many as 
20 years.
  Mr. Chairman, we know our district is not alone in this. We have 
heard that today on the floor. All over America, local communities need 
help. But instead of helping local governments, this bill takes away 
the tools they need to do the job.
  It freezes all new wastewater treatment projects. It kills the loan 
funds set up to help local communities build safe drinking water 
facilities. It sets up a hollow permit process in which new sewage 
permits can be issued, but they cannot be enforced.
  This bill is the sewer equivalent of opening the prison door, 
throwing away the key and firing the guard. Raw sewage will be left to 
roam free through
 our water supply, and we may not even know that it is there until it 
is too late, like in Milwaukee where 104 people were killed as a result 
of the parasite Cryptosporidium.

  Mr. Chairman, it is time we returned some common sense and concern 
for our communities into this debate and that is why I am supporting 
the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. Even if we adopt this amendment, this 
will not cure what I think is a fatally flawed bill, because it will 
still cut funds. This bill will cut funds needed to keep raw sewage out 
of our water. It will still cut funds we need to keep our drinking 
water safe, and it will still cut funds we need to help our local 
communities keep our environment clean.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, but 
defeat this bill.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not disappointed in this process; I am offended by 
it. Do my colleagues know what this bill says, these 17 riders? Among 
other things, they say that none of the funds appropriated may be used 
for any proposed national primary drinking water regulation for 
arsenic. This bill prevents action to control raw sewage overflow in 
our urban areas. This bill would put a halt to regulation dealing with 
toxic emissions from oil refineries.
  Is it any wonder that every single group in America concerned about 
the environment, every single group in America concerned about our 
families is watching what we are doing here and they are going to 
remember what we do here?
  Mr. Chairman, many of my colleagues, for whom I have great respect, 
have defended these riders and they have argued that they are necessary 
to send a signal. They want to send a signal to the Senate to get 
moving on some of the legislation pending over there. They want to send 
a signal to the bureaucrats in the Environmental Protection Agency to 
maybe adjust the way they do business.
  Mr. Chairman, I think we ought to send a signal. I think we ought to 
send a signal to the American people that we care about the air they 
breathe; we care about the water they drink; we are concerned about 
their environment.
  Vote ``yes'' for America.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very significant vote. I would like to 
dispel the underlying assumption that those Members who have risen in 
opposition to this proposal are opposed to clean drinking water or they 
do not want the air to be clean.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most important things that ever happened in 
my life in public affairs was in the late 1960's when the country 
discovered the word ``environment.'' We began a movement to 
progressively move in the direction of improving our air and doing 
something about clean water.
  The EPA came out of some of that work. But the reality is, over the 
years this agency has gone to such excess that today we are losing 
public support for that important environmental movement.
  I was the chairman of an air quality committee in California. In that 
capacity I was the author of the toughest environmental laws in the 
country relating to air. I wrote the legislation that created what is 
recognized as the leading agency in terms of air quality in the 
country.
  At the same time, I had to deal with the EPA and its constant process 
of developing regulations beyond the law, its willingness to put 
regulation on top of regulation for the sake of it. It is now time for 
us to step back and insist that this agency get its act together and 
reflect the will of the people and the will of the Congress. Otherwise, 
Mr. Chairman, we are going to lose all of the support that we have 
developed over these years for significant and important environmental 
law.

                              {time}  1315

  That is why, ladies and gentlemen, we have this list of people and 
organizations strongly opposing this amendment today, the following 
groups: the National Federation of Independent Business, the National 
Association of Counties, the National Association of 

[[Page H 7954]]

Flood and Storm Water Managers, people who are concerned about flood 
and storm waters, the National League of Cities, the National 
Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the American Farm 
Bureau Federal Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Concerned 
Citizens for Property Rights, the National Association of Home 
Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the National Rural 
Electrical Cooperative Association. And the list goes on.
  But we have an agency, the EPA, out of control. Ladies and gentlemen, 
the language in this bill comes with the support of virtually all of 
the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction. Without any doubt, we 
are moving in the direction of attempting to send a clear message to 
EPA. It is time for us to redirect this agency so it makes sense, so 
the public can once again support this very important work.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, the five Great Lakes contain 95 percent of 
the fresh surface water in the United States.
  Fresh surface water for drinking, for fishing, and recreation for 
millions of Americans.
  And for the last 9 years, the States bordering the Great Lakes have 
worked together to find new ways to reduce toxic chemicals dumped into 
the lakes.
  Two years from now, the result of this work, this bipartisan eight-
State effort known as the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative, will be 
done. And we will actually begin to: cut the amount of mercury dumped 
into the Lakes; cut discharges of lead; and cut dioxin levels, and 
those of 19 other toxics in the five Great Lakes of the United States.
  But today, the majority party wants none of that. Tucked into their 
bill is a Republican plan to begin throwing all that work out the 
window, leaving the Great Lakes at the mercy of those who dump mercury, 
and lead, and dioxin, into drinking water.
  Mr. Speaker, these are dangerous chemicals. These chemicals pose a 
risk to human health. These chemicals will be controlled unless the 
majority kills this initiative.
  Let me give you an example.
  Today, the level of toxics like mercury and PCB's is so high in Lake 
Michigan that women of child-bearing age, pregnant women, and young 
children are advised not to eat more than one fish meal per month. 
Studies link even small amounts of these chemicals to increased risk of 
cancer in adults and birth defects in children.
  The Centers for Disease Control have just released a study showing 
that children who eat Great Lake fish have: four times the amount of 
PCB's and three times more DDT in their bodies; lower IQ's; and growth 
stunts and lingering development problems.
  Imagine the future if we continue to allow polluters to dump mercury 
and PCB's into the Great Lakes--with untold human toll, huge medical 
and educational costs--and yet, under the Republican proposal, the EPA 
would be barred from even providing advice to States as they develop 
their water quality programs.
  That's why I rise in support of the Stokes-Boehlert amendment. The 
amendment is needed to strike irresponsible provisions of this bill 
that would block the implementation and enforcement of our Nation's 
most important environmental laws.
  The Great Lakes are an irreplaceable treasure that should be 
protected. Let's not roll back a decade of progress. Support the Great 
Lakes. Support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-
Boehlert amendment to H.R. 2099, the VA-HUD-independent agencies 
appropriations for fiscal year 1996. The proposed riders cripple the 
ability of EPA to protect our environment. This is not just a problem 
for EPA. The effects of this legislation will fall mainly on our 
constituents.
  Exxon and Exxon Shipping paid $250 million in penalties for the 
Valdez spill. This was the most devastating environmental disaster of 
our Nation's history. How can we even consider legislation that would 
immunize those who may be responsible for future atrocities?
  Supporters of H.R. 2099 claim that the riders remove unnecessary 
costs on American industry, but industries such as fishing and tourism 
depend on clean, swimmable, and fishable waters.
  There is agreement on the need for environmental reform, but this 
bill is a back-door attempt to repeal environmental statutes against 
the public interests and all without adequate public discussion.
  I urge my colleagues' strong support of the Stokes-Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-
Boehlert amendment.
  If we pass this bill as is, we will make it easier for polluters to 
get away without paying for their accidents.
  We will make it easier for dangerous bacteria to infect our water, as 
it did in Milwaukee 2 years ago, killing over 100 people.
  We will make it easier for lead and arsenic to contaminate our 
drinking water, causing immeasurable harm to our children.
  We will make it easier for sewage to back up onto our streets.
  We will make it easier for carcinogenic pesticides to attach 
themselves to our food.
  And worst of all, we will make it easy for the forces of pollution to 
get their way without proper debate, and without hearings in the open 
light of day. The appropriations process is not the place to make major 
policy changes that the majority of Americans rightfully oppose.
  If you want to get our environmental protection laws, and if you want 
to make it easier for polluters to pollute, then let's have that debate 
out in the open, where it belongs. Let the American people know--in no 
uncertain terms--you oppose clean air and clean water. But for the sake 
of our
 families, our children and our communities, don't try to sneak these 
dangerous riders through.

  The Stokes-Boehlert amendment restores a little sanity to the 
process. It will let the American people know that their environmental 
laws will not be gutted in secret.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the amendment offered by 
my colleagues, Mr. Stokes and Mr. Boehlert.
  I am firmly opposed to the legislative riders provisions of H.R. 
2099. Prohibiting the EPA from enforcing or implementing regulations 
under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, as well as limiting the scope 
of the Delaney clause, is a direct threat to our environment, as well 
as the health and safety of the American people.
  These riders represent a backdoor attempt by the Republican majority 
to ease environmental protections in order to increase the profit 
margins of their big business friends. No hearings were held by the 
legislating committees, there was no public debate over these dramatic 
changes in environmental practices. By simply inserting these riders 
into appropriations legislation, which is blatantly against House 
tradition, the majority hopes to endanger our environment without 
informing the public of their intentions.
  I recognize that some changes must be made in the regulatory process. 
However, I believe that careful review of specific laws is needed--not 
neutralization of a whole spectrum of laws which protect human health, 
safety, and our fragile environment.
  If these provisions remain in this legislation, it will roll back 25 
years of environmental protections--laws which have made our water 
safe, our air and water cleaner, saved the natural habitats of hundreds 
of plants and animals, preserved our wetlands, and made our food safe 
and free from harmful pesticides.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 206, not voting 16, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 599]

                               AYES--212

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     LaTourette

[[Page H 7955]]

     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NOES--206

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bateman
     Berman
     Collins (MI)
     Filner
     Hall (OH)
     Istook
     Johnston
     Largent
     McKinney
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Norwood
     Reynolds
     Skelton
     Tanner
     Volkmer

                              {time}  1336

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mrs. Myers of Kansas for, with Mr. Skelton against.
       Mr. Filner for, with Mr. Largent against.
       Mr. Johnston of Florida for, with Mr. Istook against.

  Mr. BLUTE changed his vote for ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. GREENWOOD changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably absent from voting on 
rollcall Nos. 596, 597, 598, and 599. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on all of them.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of the Stokes-Boehlert amendment and in strong opposition to 
the attempts to insert 17 unauthorized legislative provisions into the 
VA-HUD and independent agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 
1996.
  I am deeply concerned about the attacks being waged on the 
legislative process. This amendment is not only about preserving 
environmental, clean water and clean air laws but about safeguarding 
the integrity and proper functioning of the legislative process. None 
of the 17 legislative provisions in this bill has been reviewed or 
recommended by the authorizing committees with jurisdiction over those 
Federal programs.
  Historically, appropriations bills deal with money and do not include 
legislative provisions. However, this bill ignores this history and 
violates this process. It represents an outright attack on the 
integrity of the legislative process we normally follow in this House.
  There are good, compelling reasons that the House established 
authorizing committees and appropriating committees. The authorizing 
committees are charged with responsibility for taking the time to 
study, deliberate, review, and write laws which create and implemented 
Federal programs. The appropriating committees are charged with 
recommending levels of funding and appropriating funds to carry out 
programs. The legislative provisions in this bill represent a gross 
intrusion into the jurisdiction of the authorizing committees.
  This bill circumvents the process. The Stokes-Boehlert amendment 
helps correct this abuse and circumvention, I, therefore, encourage my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title III?
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter 
into a colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] at this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy regarding an 
issue that is vital to the interests of veterans in Florida and many 
other States. The Department of Veterans Affairs, as one of a series of 
reforms, was supposed to allocate funds to its facilities so that 
veterans have reasonably similar access to VA care without regard to 
the State in which they reside. The goal of this provision was to give 
veterans greater equity of access than they now have. Has the committee 
had a concern about this issue generally and about the amount of 
resources furnished to the State of Florida?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. THURMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentlewoman that 
the committee has long been concerned about the VA's resource 
methodologies, and knows that Florida's veterans have long been 
frustrated about uneven access to VA care, particularly in contrast to 
the ease with which they received VA care in other parts of the 
country.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I understand that the total VA health 
care expenditures in Florida--for fiscal year 1994--are approximately 
the same as total expenditure levels in Illinois and Pennsylvania, for 
example, even though Florida's veteran population is 620,000 greater 
than that of Illinois and 330,000 greater than Pennsylvania's.
  I understand that the VA health care system underwent a 
reorganization several years ago to reduce the number of regional 
offices from seven to four and that one of the perceived benefits of 
the proposed reorganization was that it would help achieve greater 
equity of access. Isn't it true that equity of access still remains an 
unmet goal even as VA moves to reorganize again?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Then I also understand that VA has acknowledged the 
problem and instituted a resource-allocation system that is intended to 
make adjustments to facilities based on their increases in work load. 
Am I correct in understanding, however, that that system still leaves 
States like Florida shortchanged because it simply makes marginal 
adjustments in prior-year funding levels?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. That is my understanding, and I very much 
appreciate the gentlewoman's raising these questions to this level of 
concern.


[[Page H 7956]]

  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, my reason for doing this also is to put 
the veterans, VA's, on notice that we are watching the allocation of 
these dollars, and we are concerned about these dollars and that it 
should be that the services are going to our veterans and there should 
be parity among States, not allocated on some outdated system.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I very much appreciate what the gentlewoman 
is trying to do.
                              {time}  1345

  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time to advise the distinguished 
subcommittee chairman that I follow up on the colloquy which he just 
had with the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida. I want to add that 
we have the exact same problem in Texas and particularly in south 
Texas, where we are 25 miles away from a VA hospital.
  Although we have a clinic that is doing its best, the allocations are 
not favorable because in the wintertime, we have an influx of veterans 
from the midwestern States. The allocation gives their States the 
amount but the services are rendered in another State.
  I would like to apprise the distinguished gentleman of that fact and 
would hope that he would work with us in trying to arrive at an 
equitable solution.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. de la GARZA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate my 
friend, Mr. de la Garza, for bringing his concerns to our attention. 
There is little doubt that inequitable distribution is a problem that 
we must work out. In the meantime, shortage of resources results in 
great pressure, but I think the point the gentleman makes is very 
important. And the southwest, of course, is of special importance to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate 
the work he has done within the constraints of the budget. But 
nonetheless, somehow we need to arrive at some equitable solution to 
these problems, and I thank him for his cooperation.
              amendment offered by mr. fields of louisiana

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Fields of Louisiana: Page 50, 
     strike line 16 and all that follows through page 51, line 2, 
     and insert the following:

            ``Corporation for National and Community Service


               ``national and community service programs

                          ``operating expenses

       ``For necessary expenses for the Corporation for National 
     and Community Service in carrying out the programs, 
     activities, and initiatives under the National and Community 
     Service Act of 1990 (Public Law 103-82), $817,476,000.


                     ``office of inspector general

       ``For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General 
     in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act 
     of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.), $2,000,000.''.
       Page 71, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $819,476,000)''.

  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I will not use the entire 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on 
the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The reservation is not timely. The gentleman from 
Louisiana had embarked upon debate.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I was trying to get the 
Chair's attention, but the Committee was not in order.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I am going to insist that the 
point of order is not timely. I will not proceed but for a few minutes, 
if the distinguished chairman would allow me.
  The CHAIRMAN. First, the Committee will be in order. The gentleman 
from California makes a good point about the Committee's not being in 
order. The Chair will maintain order.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] was on his feet. Only the 
disorder of the Committee prevented the Chair from noticing the 
gentleman.
  The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, what is the ruling of the 
Chair? It is my understanding that the ruling of the Chair was that the 
gentleman's point of order was not timely.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has ruled that due to the noise in the 
Chamber, the Chair did not notice the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] was on his feet seeking recognition. The reservation was timely. 
The gentleman raised a proper concern of the House not being in order.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am reserving that right. I 
do not wish to interfere with the gentleman's right to proceed.
  Mr. FIELDS of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring some 
attention to an issue that is very important to me as a young Member of 
this Congress and as a Member who had the opportunity to go to college 
and participate in various programs to pay my way and finance my 
education.
  This bill totally eliminates the national service program. I feel it 
is very important to the young people of this country to have a program 
like the national service program because this program actually goes at 
those individual students who are caught in the middle. Their parents 
are caught in the middle. They make a little bit too much money to 
qualify for government assistance to send their kids to college but do 
not make enough money to where they can afford to send their kids to 
college on their own.
  The year before last, the President came up with a unique idea. That 
idea was a program called national service that would give young people 
an opportunity to earn their way through college by participating in a 
nonprofit organization and not only during their college career but 
also give them an opportunity to pay for their college tuition or pay 
for their student loans even after they graduate from college. So I 
feel that this program is a very, very vital program. It is a good 
program.
  This amendment is a very simple amendment. All it does is to take 
$819 million from NASA. I do have a great deal of respect for the NASA 
program, but I could not find money anywhere else. This amendment had 
to be budget neutral in order for it to be in order.
  Therefore, I took $819 million out of the NASA budget and put this 
money into the national service program so that we will not turn our 
backs on the tens of thousands of young people all across this country 
who are dependent on this program to get their college education.
  This is a very simple amendment. That is all the amendment does. I am 
not going to insist on a vote on this amendment. But I would like to 
tender it to the Members because I do not think that this debate ought 
to end on a bill that does not include national service. At some point 
in this debate, it probably will not happen on this floor, but I would 
hope at some point, be it in conference committee or be it in the 
Senate, somebody put the young people of this country before us and not 
eliminate a program that is serving a very vital need to young people 
all across this country.
  I thank the chairman and members of the committee. I have no speakers 
because I do not request a recorded vote on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] insist 
on his point of order?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. No, Mr. Chairman.
  I withdraw my reservation of a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields].
  The amendment was rejected.
                    Amendment offered by Mr. Durbin

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Durbin: Page 59, line 3, insert 
     before the period the following: ``: Provided further, That 
     any limitation set forth under this heading on the use of 
     funds shall not apply when it is made known to the Federal 
     official having authority to obligate or expend such funds 
     that the limitation would restrict the ability of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to protect humans against 
     exposure to arsenic, benzene, dioxin, lead, or any known 
     carcinogen''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of Thursday, 

[[Page H 7957]]

July 27, on this amendment, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] 
will be recognized for 20 minutes, and a Member in opposition will be 
recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which is offered by myself, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. We will evenly 
divide the time on our side, the 20 minutes that has been allocated to 
us.
  Let me try to explain the simplicity of this amendment. We all know 
of the strength and indestructibility of the human body. But we also 
know that if we as humans are exposed--we are all aware of the 
indestructibility in many instances and strength of the human body. But 
we also know that there are certain substances which our bodies can be 
exposed to which can increase the risk of disease and death.
  One of the most dangerous categories is a category known as 
carcinogens, substances which when we are exposed to them over a period 
of time increase the likelihood that we will contract cancer or some 
other fatal disease.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, at the Federal level, takes a 
look at the thousands of substances which we were exposed to as 
Americans to
 investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency. They divide these 
substances into hundreds which they believe cause cancer. Then they 
subdivide those cancer-causing substances into three areas: known 
causes of cancer, probable causes of cancer, and suspected causes of 
cancer.

  This amendment only addresses known causes of cancer and lead, lead, 
of course, being particularly dangerous to young children. So what we 
are doing is to narrow the scope of this activity of the EPA, saying 
that under no circumstances will this bill in any of its provisions 
stop this agency from protecting Americans from the unseen hazards in 
our water and air, which can cause cancer to our families. To me, it is 
nothing short of incredible that we are having this debate today.
  Who in the last election stood up and said, I want less government, I 
want the EPA out of the business of protecting us from cancer-causing 
substances? I venture a guess, no one said that. We count on the EPA to 
make certain that we are not exposed to arsenic, benzene, dioxin, lead, 
and other known carcinogens.
  Yet it is necessary to offer this amendment. We just had an important 
vote on the floor on 17 riders to this bill which would have challenged 
the premise as to whether the EPA has the right to assert that 
jurisdiction. The purpose of this amendment, which the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Wilson] and I offer, is to state clearly and unequivocally 
the EPA has this authority, no matter what else is put in the bill.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman understands as I do that 
there are roughly 200 carcinogens that are suspected in the world. They 
are in three categories: known carcinogens, probable carcinogens, and 
suspected carcinogens. The smallest category are known carcinogens. 
That is only 10 percent of them.
  This amendment only directs itself to the known cancer-causing 
toxins.
  Mr. DURBIN. Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, that is why the amendment 
should be so clear and noncontroversial. If you want to stand for the 
proposition that the EPA should not protect our families from cancer-
causing substances, then vote ``no'' on this amendment. If you believe 
that they should protect us from these unseen dangers in water and air, 
vote ``yes.'' Simple and easy.
  So why is it complicated today? Because certain lobbyists and special 
interest groups want to play fast and loose with cancer-causing 
standards and lead contamination. They want to fudge a little. They 
want to change the standard. They can make more money if they do. 
Should we let them? I do not think so. That is why I am offering the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there a Member opposed to the amendment?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] is recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might 
consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
                              {time}  1400

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal today 
about what should and should not be in an appropriations bill. We have 
heard about the necessity for hearings and for slow deliberations and 
actions. This particular amendment that the gentleman from Texas and 
the gentleman from Illinois are offering should not be added to this 
bill.
  This is really a fight between waste incinerators and cement kilns 
that burn hazardous waste as part of the cement making process. I have 
some charts that I would like to show the committee. I want to walk you 
through very quickly and explain what we are talking about.
  A cement kiln typically burns at a Fahrenheit of over 3,500 degrees. 
A typical waste incinerator typically burns at a Fahrenheit of 2,500 
degrees. The time that it takes in the cement kiln is 6 to 10 seconds, 
and in the hazardous waste incinerator approximately 3 seconds.
  When you look at how much action is generated in the cement kiln, it 
is an order of magnitude of greater than 100,000 times. In the waste 
incinerator it is about 10,000 times. The cement kiln is much larger 
than the waste incinerator. The bottom line is if we put 5 percent of 
the fuel source as hazardous waste material into a cement kiln and burn 
it at 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit as opposed to 100 percent of the 
material being in a waste incinerator at 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the 
cement kiln totally destroys it.
  Now, let us look at the regulations on the two. Now, these are 
regulations under RCRA for cement kilns regulated by EPA under RCRA 
subpart H. Under waste incinerators, under subpart O. There is nothing 
that is regulated under RCRA for waste incinerators that is not 
regulated under cement kilns. In fact, cement kilns have more 
regulations than the waste incinerators do.
  If you will notice here the row on metals, cement kilns do have 
regulations on metals. Waste incinerators do not. You can go on down 
the list.
  I have in my congressional district a town named Midlothian, TX. This 
town has three cement kilns, and the State of Texas and the EPA, for 
the last 10 years, have been constantly in Midlothian, TX, attempting 
to find that something wrong has been done; that some of these cement 
kilns, and two of the three do burn hazardous waste, have somehow 
polluted the air or have polluted the atmosphere.
  They have held hearings in Midlothian, TX. They have done repeated 
studies. The State of Texas has done an animal study. EPA is now trying 
to recreate that animal study. They have yet to find any instance of 
any harm being done to man, woman, child or animal or the air in 
Midlothian, TX, because some of the cement kilns are burning this 
hazardous material.
  We need to vote ``no'' on this amendment. As you can tell by looking 
at this chart, there are more than sufficient regulations both on an 
interim status and, once EPA certifies, on a permanent status. There is 
no need for this particular amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois for a 
question.
  Mr. DURBIN. The question is this: Our amendment simply says if your 
cement kiln should emit arsenic, benzene, dioxin, lead or a known 
carcinogen, the EPA can regulate it. Now, which of those chemicals do 
you emit from your cement kiln that you do not want the EPA to 
regulate?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Under current regulations they are all being 
regulated today.
  Mr. DURBIN. Then why does the gentleman oppose the amendment?

[[Page H 7958]]

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Because there is no need for it. There is 
absolutely no need for it. It is very counterproductive.
  I see my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], smiling 
like the cat that ate the canary, so I am sure he is going to take 
issue with that.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague and 
friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], the cosponsor of the 
amendment.
  (Mr. WILSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to know where to start exactly 
here, but the first thing we need to understand is who does the 
regulating. Now, there are 24 or 25 cement kilns in the United States. 
There is not a single RCRA permit for any of these cement kilns. There 
is a RCRA permit for every commercial incinerator in the United States. 
Therefore, we are very concerned that these cement kilns emit an 
inordinate amount of, particularly, arsenic and lead.
  I have given an example of the Continental Cement Co. in Hanover, MO, 
in 1993, which the EPA standard for arsenic emission is .4 parts per 
million, and the actual emission of this plant is 97 parts per million. 
The EPA's standard for lead is 400 parts per million, and the actual 
emission is 2,700 parts per million. Now, those figures simply speak 
for themselves.
  The cement kilns are the only incinerators and, indeed, the only 
industry in the country that is exempt from the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act. What my opponents are trying to do is to have America 
step down from existing technology. The real proof of the pudding is 
that 66 percent of these companies are foreign owned. They are owned in 
France, they are owned in Switzerland, they are owned in Germany, and 
they are owned in England. In those countries of ownership, they do not 
allow toxic waste to be burned in cement kilns.
  In truth, they are treating the United States as a Third World 
country. They are making the profit and they are sending us the toxics. 
This is a simple amendment and I urge a ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to jut make a fundamental point regarding this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it is very appealing to have language in an amendment 
that says that the agency shall be able to protect humans against 
exposure to arsenic, benzene, dioxin, lead or any other carcinogen. The 
problem is while it is very simple and very straightforward and 
obviously not deceiving, there are trace minerals of that kind in any 
variety of materials that might be disposed of by a variety of 
technologies.
  This language says that when it becomes known to a Federal official, 
that there's a trace of arsenic, suddenly we give this agency leave to 
do anything they want to do in spite of Federal direction.
  It is a very, very serious amendment that goes way beyond what this 
simple language would suggest. It is a desire on the part of a few to 
give EPA a free hand in a subject area that could have dramatic effect 
upon our economy. Further, it is designed in no small part to give a 
bigger share of the marketplace to a certain kind of process relating 
to getting rid of some kind of toxic wastes versus another piece of the 
marketplace that has another technology. To say the least, this is a 
serious amendment. I want the whole House to have an opportunity to 
consider this amendment.
  At this point in time, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure we have enough 
time today to accomplish that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, the last comment made by the gentleman from 
California, chairman of the subcommittee, suggested that we would not 
bring this to closure and debate and vote today. It is my understanding 
with the time limitation that the chair announced that we can conclude 
this before 3 p.m. which I understood was the time when we wished to 
adjourn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would put the question in the ordinary course 
following the debate on the amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], a cosponsor of the amendment.
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say it has been sort of a strange 
day here today. We had an earlier amendment--and sometimes it is hard 
to separate the sides here--we had an exemption for oil with respect to 
air pollution but we did not for the chemical industry.
  Now we have a situation in which we are dealing with several 
competing industries, we are dealing with a hazardous waste 
incineration cement kiln industry but we also have another industry, 
the commercial hazardous waste incineration industry, which has to live 
under different standards. Essentially this amendment would allow the 
cement kiln industry to escape stringent dioxin emission standards that 
other hazardous waste combusters must comply with and do so willingly 
because they want to, of course, have safe environmental practices.
  It is very strange to me. I do not know why we are doing it. 
According to data suppled to the EPA by the cement kiln industry 
itself, in almost all cases the concentrations of heavy metals from 12 
hazardous waste burning cement kilns exceeded superfund site actions 
levels in soil. Thus the creation of more Superfund sites will be 
virtually guaranteed. This would not only add to Federal cleanup costs 
but would also unnecessarily increase air and ground water pollution 
imperiling public health.
  The commercial hazardous waste incineration industry, the other side 
of this, has been a leader in investing in advanced pollution control 
technologies. This will cease, if cement kilns, many of which are 
foreign owned, are provided regulatory relief that widens their 
competitive advantage over commercial incinerators. The United States 
would thus have to dispose of dangerous toxic and carcinogenic chemical 
wastes using antiquated highly polluting cement kiln technology.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, my good friend the gentleman from 
California earlier stated that of any of these carcinogens, that there 
were traces to be found, but I would like to ask the gentleman a 
question: If the Superfund standard for arsenic is .4 parts per 
million, would the gentleman consider 97 parts per million excessive or 
a trace?
  Mr. CASTLE. I would consider that excessive, sir.
  Mr. WILSON. If the gentleman will yield further, if the Superfund 
standard is 400 parts per million of lead, would the gentleman consider 
2,700 parts per million of lead to be excessive and not a trace?
  Mr. CASTLE. I would.
  Mr. WILSON. Well, it is consistent all down the line of the emissions 
of these products.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we know that Europe is 
moving away from using cement kilns to burn toxic waste. The hazardous 
waste cement kiln industry wants to move to the United States. That is 
incredible to me, that they are not allowing this in Europe now and now 
they want to move all of this to the United States. Then we in Congress 
are going to take the additional step of allowing them to be exempted 
from laws that others who do the same thing would not be exempted from. 
This will cost 6,000 jobs in the commercial hazardous waste industry 
because it will become economically nonviable. Obviously it has a huge 
impact on our economy as well as a huge environmental impact across the 
United States of America.
  It is for all these reasons that I support this amendment. I would 
urge everybody in Congress to join us in supporting the amendment.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Barton].

[[Page H 7959]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just feel compelled to correct 
the record. Under existing RCRA regulations, waste incinerators, 
according to the information I have, are not regulated at all for metal 
disposal. Under RCRA regulations, cement kilns are.
  The gentleman from Delaware just spoke about dioxin regulation. I 
want to read something from the EPA. It says:

       According to EPA combustion emissions technical resource 
     document, dioxin emissions from commercial hazardous waste 
     incinerators are 2.2 times more toxic than those from cement 
     kilns. All cement kilns are in compliance with stringent 
     dioxin emission standards found in the EPA's BIF regulation, 
     which is boiler, industrial and furnace regulation. Hazardous 
     waste incinerators have no similar regulations.

  I want to read something else from EPA Section Chief Paul Godholdt. 
It says:

       Some people say that incinerators are more highly regulated 
     than cement kilns, but in most cases that's not true. Cement 
     kilns are more highly regulated.

  That was on July 3, 1994.

       EPA has defended the boiler, industrial furnace rules in 
     Federal court as protective of human health and the 
     environment.

  This is an inside-baseball argument between two industries, one that 
uses waste totally in its furnaces, the incineration industry, and the 
other uses 5 percent of its fuel source from hazardous waste material 
and destroys it 99.99 percent.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
                             {time}   1515

  Mr. WILSON. My colleague from Texas stated that the cement kilns were 
regulated by RCRA.
  Mr. Chairman, I did not know until we got into this debate what RCRA 
was, but RCRA is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I think it will come as a surprise to the 
gentleman to know that there is not a single cement kiln that has an 
RCRA license. All commercial incinerators have RCRA licenses.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, that is because they are operating 
under interim regulations. As soon as the EPA certifies the permanent 
regulations, they will get those permits. That is my information.
  Mr. WILSON. They might and they might not. But if the riders that 
were put on the bill earlier, that were knocked out by a very narrow 
vote, were allowed to stand, then it would be extremely difficult for 
the EPA to go through the permit process.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. My sources are from the EPA, and I just read 
them, and I can quote you page numbers, dates, chapter, and verse.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would respond by saying that if I said my 
sources were from the EPA, the gentleman would say, there they go 
again, lying to the Congress.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I think there are some who 
question the EPA as a source, but in this particular debate, I think 
they are relevant.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Chapman].
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to make two points here. One is 
what I think this amendment is trying to do.
  Mr. Chairman, we talk in terms of special interests that unbelievably 
overload the incineration of toxic wastes in favor of commercial 
incinerators, who, I may say, have been in the business longer than 
those that burn toxic waste in the making of cement and in other boiler 
activities.
  Mr. Chairman, the other thing that is important to understand, 
though, I think, is by moving forward with this amendment, what the 
proponents of the amendment are doing is allowing EPA to overstep its 
legal authority, violate the terms of the Clean Air Act, and allow them 
not to follow their own regulations.
  Mr. Chairman, this is about an agency, as I said earlier, which has 
decided it does not have to follow the law Congress has set down, nor 
does it have to follow its own regulations.
  In promulgating the processes by which they propose to license these 
combustion facilities, EPA is changing the law and violating its own 
rules. That is what this is about.
  We can talk about cement kilns versus commercial incineration, and if 
we talk about that, we can talk about who burns what, and how bad is it 
and what happens to it.
  The truth is that both facilities, both kinds of facilities, must 
meet stringent EPA regulation and must destroy these toxins to 99.99-
percent efficiency.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I might say to the gentleman, this is an 
important debate and relates to a rider, which has now been removed 
from the bill, on cement kilns. But the amendment that we are debating 
does not mention cement kilns. The amendment that we are debating says, 
``The EPA shall have the authority to protect us against arsenic, 
benzene, dioxin, lead, and known carcinogens.''
  Does the gentleman object to that premise?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. The amendment addresses a restrictive rider that has now 
been removed. The gentleman's amendment we both know is moot. I do not 
know why we are engaged in this debate, other than to engage in this 
discussion, but the House has passed an amendment that makes your 
amendment moot.
  Here we find ourselves as proponents, going forward on an amendment 
that is already going to have no force and effect because it releases 
limitations which have been previously released by the last vote in 
this House.
  Let us be honest, the issue here is about giving the commercial 
incineration industry a market advantage over the cement industry. That 
is what this issue is about. If the gentleman will be forthright, the 
gentleman will have to acknowledge that the truth is, the cement 
industry is more highly regulated than the commercial incinerator 
industry. The cement industry has standards they must meet that the 
commercial incineration industry does not meet, and the cement industry 
has to follow more stringent regulations than does the other.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, was the gentleman on the floor when we 
discussed the fact that not a single cement kiln in the country is 
licensed by RCRA, by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and 
that all of the commercial incinerators are?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, every single cement plant in America is 
operating under a permit issued by the EPA.
  Mr. WILSON. But not by RCRA.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Of course they are licensed. It is difficult for me to 
understand why the gentleman, who until a few minutes ago did not know 
what RCRA was, would come in here now and suggest to me that you are 
some kind of an environmentalist.
  Mr. WILSON. I am a fast study.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I see that you are.
  Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is a fast study, 
the gentleman knows that every cement plant in America is operating 
under a permit from the EPA more stringent than any commercial 
incineration facility. That is what this debate is really all about.
  The debate is about the EPA following its own rules, following its 
own guidelines. What it is about is telling EPA to follow the law. 
Nothing more; nothing less. It is about EPA following their own 
regulations. Nothing more; nothing less.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I know there is confusion, and the 
body hates to see Texans confused among each other. We are all from 
Texas, and I know it is discombobulating, but I want to try to clarify 
this one more time: The standard that cement kilns are currently 
regulated under is an interim standard under RCRA, promulgated by EPA, 
and it is a tough standard.
  The distinguished gentleman from Lufkin did not like me using the 
EPA 

[[Page H 7960]]

as a source. Well, I am chastised by that. I am now going to use the 
Congressional Research Service, which should have more repute in this 
body.
  This is CRS environmental policy analyst, Linda Schreio, S-C-H-R-E-I-
O. She has found that the BIF rule under RCRA includes identical 
standards to the incinerator rule in terms of the efficiency required 
for pollution removal. She says,

       The BIF rule is more protective than the incinerator rule 
     in 3 key areas: Total hydrocarbon emissions, specific 
     emission standards for 12 metals of concern, and additional 
     dioxin requirements including the requirement to conduct 
     site-specific risk assessments for dioxin.

  She further states,

       The commercial incinerator rules contain no similar 
     standards, even for dioxin.

  And then she says,

       The interim status under the BIF rule is a tough standard.

  Now, I hope that puts to rest that cement kilns are not regulated. 
And if they are, they are regulated less stringently. I am quoting in 
this case the Congressional Research Service.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the 
gentleman, because if there is an insinuation here that cement kilns 
somehow have been getting a free ride from EPA, from CRS, and the 
honest facts are that is just not the case.
  They are not only regulated; they are regulated more stringently than 
the commercial incineration industry. They do a better job of 
destroying the toxins that law requires be destroyed and they do so in 
a way that is saving industry, the taxpayers, and consumers in this 
country money, and they are doing it in a way that makes our 
environment cleaner.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, I would ask the 
gentleman simply, since 65 percent of these kilns are owned in Europe, 
why do the Europeans not allow this practice to occur?
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am glad the gentleman brings that 
because the Europeans do allow it.
  I say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] that the technology 
was developed in Germany and they are in Germany, they are in France, 
and they are in England. In fact, there is a consortium in Europe 
working as we speak today, probably to put in place the same kinds of 
standards that we have through our EPA here.
  But the truth is that there has been a misstatement that this is a 
technology that does not exist. It does exist. It is in existence in 
Europe and there are European incinerators, European kilns, that are 
doing this technology just as we do it here and with just as safe 
results.
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that my information is 
that that is not correct.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. The gentleman's information is incorrect.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues are struggling to follow this debate 
between the cement kiln industry and the industrial incinerator 
industry, what they are doing is burning toxic waste, and they want to 
know how much they can emit from their smokestacks and there is a 
battle within these two industries.
  I do not have a horse in this race, and this amendment really does 
not address that issue. This amendment gets down to what I think people 
in the gallery watching, and Members I hope, believe is the bottom 
line. When it is all said and done, no matter who wins or who 
regulates, is my family at risk or not? Is something coming out of that 
smokestack which can hurt me and my children? That is all we want to 
know.
  The Durbin-Wilson amendment says the bottom line is the EPA should 
use one standard: Protect Americans from exposure to arsenic, benzene, 
dioxin, lead, and known cancer-causing substances. What is the debate 
here? Do we want to say they should not protect us? Why, of course they 
should.
  These industries can work it out somewhere else. The Durbin-Wilson 
amendment is the bottom line as to what we expect from any agency which 
is dedicated to protecting public health.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Visclosky].
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of the Wilson-
Durbin amendment. The EPA should have a clear mandate from Congress in 
cases where human health is at stake.
  Mr. Chairman, I was especially concerned about the refinery air 
toxins rider that was included in the underlying legislation. I 
recognize this rider has been stripped out of the bill, but I think it 
is important for the House to take a clear stand on the issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I remain concerned about carcinogens from the petroleum 
refinery industry. Petroleum refineries are one of the largest sources 
of cancer-causing emissions, primarily benzene, which causes leukemia.
  It may not mean much to some Members, but the people of the 1st 
District of Indiana must continue to live under a cloud of over 1 
million pounds of toxic refinery emissions per year.
  In the 1980's the people of northwest Indiana watched as the Clean 
Air Act took effect; our skies lost the steady red glow of the old 
steel mills. We continue to make progress, but we have a long way to 
go. However, my constituents appreciate the progress made under the 
Clean Air Act, and their lives are better because of it.
  Mr. Chairman, we still have a long way to go to make sure that the 
air is truly safe for our citizens, and I ask my colleagues not to turn 
the clock back.
  Do not leave any doubt about EPA's mandate to protect the people of 
Indiana's 1st District or the people of this Nation from cancer-causing 
pollutants. Please support the Wilson-Durbin amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] yields back 
30 seconds.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I have been on the floor quite a bit 
today, so I do not need to repeat all of what I have said, but I am a 
concerned legislator; I am a concerned family man; I am a concerned 
citizen; and I am proud to be a Republican.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people who share those same 
characteristics on our side of the aisle, deeply committed to doing 
what is right by the American family with respect to environmental 
legislation. There are a number of my colleagues on the Democratic side 
who are equally concerned about the American family and sensitive 
environmental issues.
  Do I want my constituents, the people I care for, do I want my 
family, the people I love, too, exposed to lead and arsenic and dioxin 
and benzene and known carcinogens? The answer is clearly ``no.''

                              {time}  1430

  I think this is a sensible amendment. I think it has earned our 
support.
  we have had a spirited debate today on a high level, a high plane. I 
want to commend all of my colleagues for their participation. I want to 
thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] for allowing me the 
opportunity to participate with him, my colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Wilson], my colleague, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
Castle] in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The EPA, at the end of the Bush administration, ruled that tobacco 
secondhand smoke was a class A carcinogen, just as dangerous as 
chlorine and benzene. Would this amendment now give the EPA the right 
to control secondhand tobacco smoke all the way down to zero tolerance?
  Mr. DURBIN. No. This amendment does not seek to impose any new or 
expanded standard, but to establish the continuing jurisdiction of the 
EPA even in terms of protecting us against the chemicals that are 
enumerated.

[[Page H 7961]]

  Mr. ROSE. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton].
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman 
from Illinois a question about his amendment, and I would like the 
gentleman's attention, the gentleman from Illinois.
  In the amendment, as I read it, it says that any limitation set forth 
under this heading on the use of funds shall not apply when it is made 
known to the Federal official having authority to obligate or expend 
such funds that the limitation would restrict the ability of the EPA to 
protect humans against exposure to arsenic, benzene, dioxin, lead, or 
any known carcinogen.
  My question is: When it is made known, who makes it known? How do 
they make it known? At what level do they have to make it known? If my 
13-year-old daughter, Kristin, sends a letter to the administrator of 
the EPA, does that give them authority to violate existing Federal law?
  This sets no standards. If I read this correctly, if we pass this 
amendment, the EPA, if anybody on the street says they have got a 
concern, they can violate the existing standards in existence and go 
out and regulate to the nth degree.
  Would the gentleman from Illinois answer that question?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Unless the children of the gentleman from Texas are 
chemists and can detect levels of arsenic in water and want to report 
it to a Federal agency, I do not think he has to worry about that.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It does not say. It just says ``if made known.''
  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will yield, this is language which we 
are now using every day in appropriations bills. I think the gentleman 
is aware of the fact that the EPA is not going to take a rumor or a 
suspicion and act on it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. At what level? I mean, there needs to be a 
standard. My suggestion would be, and I hope it does not pass, in 
report language we need to definitely define that because you have got 
an open-ended standard there.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the gentleman will yield further, we are using the 
same standard currently available. We are not expanding the 
jurisdiction nor changing the standards of the EPA. We are saying that 
as to these specific dangerous chemicals and carcinogenic substances, 
they have the right to protect us.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Reclaiming my time, with all due respect to the 
distinguished authors of the amendment, that is not what it says.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Let me make sure Members of the House understand what 
this amendment says, because I misunderstood, I guess, either the 
gentleman from North Carolina or the gentleman from Illinois when he 
said this would not affect the regulation of secondhand smoke, which 
has been called a known carcinogen.
  The gentleman correctly points out, and it is true, that we have used 
this ``when it is made known'' standard in the Committee on 
Appropriations, and I will say to the gentleman from Texas, it is so 
your 13-year-old daughter can write a letter to EPA and make it known 
to them her concerns and under this amendment that would trigger EPA's 
authority to do what this says, and what this says is that they can use 
all of their abilities to protect against human exposure to, among 
other things, known carcinogens.
  I would ask the gentleman from Illinois if he drafted this amendment, 
is he aware that, in fact, it would authorize and expand EPA's 
jurisdiction to manage these risks down to a zero tolerance, a zero 
tolerance? That is chemically impossible to do.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. That is exactly right.
  Mr. CHAPMAN. Chemically impossible to do in direct violation of all 
environmental laws of the country.
  I would ask the gentleman from Illinois, does he disagree that is the 
clear language in his amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 1 minute 
remaining, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the 
amendment offered by Congressmen Durbin and Wilson. This amendment will 
ensure that the EPA continue to protect Americans from exposure to 
numerous toxins, including arsenic, benzene, and dioxin lead. These 
chemicals pose serious health problems to Americans of all ages.
  Just this week, the Washington Post reported the results of a study 
which indicated that carcinogens, neurotoxins, and other chemicals were 
found in various name brand baby foods selected at random from across 
the country.
  This study underscores the need for us to remain vigilant when it 
comes to protecting our environment and the health of our youngest 
citizens. We need to maintain the critical safety net which protects 
the health and safety of all our citizens.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Durbin-Wilson amendment 
protecting our children and families against toxic substances.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of community 
development banks which are left unfunded in this VA, HUD and 
Independent Agency appropriations bill. I have a long history with the 
creation of the Community Development Financial Institutions program. I 
want to commend my colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, and the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lewis, who agreed to work toward a 
continued funding level for CDFI's during the House and Senate 
conference on appropriations.
  I am proud to support these types of community investment programs as 
I did during passage of the Community Development Banking and Financial 
Institutions Act of 1993. I was pleased that November, to be a part of 
a comprehensive community development banking effort that can truly 
make a difference between stagnation and salvation for thousands of 
disinvested urban, rural and suburban communities across our Nation.
  CDFI programs do make a difference. They help increase the confidence 
of the residents, business owners and workers in targeted communities 
that their own fortunes and opportunities are on the rise. Equally as 
important is the need to convince outside investors that low-income 
communities merit their consideration as a solid investment for their 
money.
  Those who benefit from the CDFI fund will be left in the lurch 
without this program. Without this funding, many of the benefits for 
underserved people, such as minorities and women, would not be felt. 
Lack of access to capital is the No. 1 reason these individuals 
struggle. The fund will also target the working class and middle-income 
neighborhoods threatened by decline. Without the fund, traditionally 
underserved and middle-class communities will fall further behind.
  Currently, there are more than 300 CDFI's in 45 States that manage 
over $1 billion in capital. Many of these CDFI's specialize in small 
business start-up assistance, providing very small micro loans for low-
income people seeking to become self-employed. This new approach is 
vital to creating economic opportunity.
  We need innovative long-term solution to help our communities 
survive. The CDFI's have a comprehensive strategy that will empower 
local communities and increase access to credit and investment capital, 
these are the seeds needed to grow an economically healthy nation.
  It is my hope that CDFI's will receive strong consideration for 
complete funding during the House and Senate conference on 
appropriations.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
Kennedy amendment to strike the language in the bill that prohibits HUD 
from developing rules relating to the application of the Fair Housing 
Act to the business of property insurance.
  As many in this Chamber know, I have devoted considerable efforts 
over the past two Congresses to bring an end to the terrible practice 
of insurance redlining. As the chairwoman of a subcommittee with 
jurisdiction over insurance, I have worked with the industry to bring 
an end to these practices.
  In the last Congress, the House of Representatives voted 
overwhelmingly in favor of my bill to develop a database on insurance 
sales practices in large cities. I was pleased by the support of 
Members on both sides of the aisle, as well as the insurance industry.
  This bill unfortunately takes a tremendous step backwards in the area 
of fair housing. The bill prohibits HUD from taking any action to 
implement the Fair Housing Act with respect to homeowners' insurance. 
HUD is currently working to develop proposed rules to clarify what 
property insurance practices constitute illegal discrimination.
  HUD has been trying to work with the insurance industry on these 
proposed rules and 

[[Page H 7962]]

has even suggested doing a negotiated rulemaking. This amendment stops 
this activity in its tracks. It assumes that the rules will be 
unreasonable, or perhaps that there is no concern over insurance 
redlining in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
  In the last Congress I strongly supported giving Commerce, not HUD, 
the responsibility to gather data. However, I have always believed that 
HUD has the responsibility to enforce fair housing laws, including 
redlining. With the current efforts to dismantle the Department of 
Commerce, it is even more important not to disarm HUD in its 
responsibility to prevent redlining.
  We know that there are unprecedented efforts in this Congress to 
attack affirmative action. This bill goes one step further by attacking 
antidiscrimination laws. There has always been a consensus in this 
House that there should be no discrimination in housing. This bill says 
that the House of Representatives no longer cares about discrimination.
  We must remove this offensive provision and reaffirm our support for 
fair housing laws and an end to insurance redlining. Vote ``yes'' on 
the Kennedy amendment.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
to restore funding for the Small Business Administration's Office of 
Advocacy. I congratulate Chairman Meyers and ranking Member LaFalce of 
the Small Business Committee for offering this amendment. This is a 
bipartisan, pro-small business amendment that deserves the support of 
this House.
  The Office of Advocacy is Congress' insurance policy to guarantee 
that our small business policy accomplishes two things: it encourages 
entrepreneurship and small business creation and it does not impose 
unreasonable regulatory burdens on those entrepreneurs. This office 
performs these functions through regulatory intervention, research, 
information gathering, and serving as a grass root network for small 
business owners.
  Virtually all small business trade organizations have high praise for 
the office, especially under the leadership of the current director, 
Jere Glover. The delegates of the recent White House Conference on 
Small Business were so impressed with the Office of Advocacy that they 
recommended to the President that this office be made permanent. They 
also recommended that it be given the additional responsibility of 
tracking and reporting on progress made on the Conference 
recommendations. Small business owners trust and value the Office of 
Advocacy--that is the best endorsement for the Meyers-LaFalce 
amendment.
  Small businesses don't have big bucks to spend in powerful law firms 
to represent their interests before government regulators. The Office 
of Advocacy provides that service for small businesses across this 
Nation.
  Jere Glover and the Office of Advocacy has been effective champions 
for small business interests, even when this has meant disagreeing with 
the administration or opposing actions and policies of other Federal 
agencies. The Office of Advocacy is the small business owner's best 
friend in Government. We hear a lot of talk about the need to make 
government more business-friendly. Today we can turn that talk into 
action by voting for the Meyers-LaFalce amendment. I urge support for 
this amendment.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the 
Appropriations Committee for completing action on the VA/HUD 
appropriations package.
  In particular, I am pleased that one of the legislative provisos 
contained in the appropriations bill gives the Housing and Community 
Opportunity Subcommittee, of which I am the chair, the tools to enact 
legislation which will restructure HUD's insured multifamily rental 
housing programs. The combination of report language and $4.9 billion 
in funding enables HUD to begin the process of assisting families in a 
cost-effective manner that stays within the confines of the budget 
resolution adopted this year.
  It is important to note that without major reforms, this program 
could end up consuming virtually all of HUD's $19.4 billion budget. 
Other programs like Community Development Block Grants, HOME, housing 
for vulnerable populations, and public housing will be swallowed up. 
Given the importance of these other programs to building and sustaining 
strong communities and neighborhoods, I view the reform of the 
multifamily program as a major step towards changing the mission of 
this Department. Restructuring this portfolio must occur soon before 
the costs to the Federal Government become even larger.
  Currently, I am working on a comprehensive housing bill which will 
provide HUD with the authority it needs to lower the long-term costs of 
restructuring this portfolio. What has surprised me during this 
drafting process is the magnitude, complexity, and duplication of 
housing laws in general. The laws are filled with redtape and 
burdensome regulations written during the last 40 years. These laws 
must be completely and comprehensively overhauled--a process which I 
will not undertake in a frivolous manner despite the rhetoric of 
yesterday. My legislation will enhance the health, safety, and economic 
well-being of families, neighborhoods, and rural areas. It will 
encourage innovative uses of resources which are now rendered useless 
because of bureaucracy and legislative micromanagement. I look forward 
to sharing my efforts very soon.
  Once again, I would like to congratulate the chairmen of the full 
committee and subcommittee for setting in motion this much needed 
reform to HUD.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in very reluctant opposition 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. 
Foglietta].
  I am troubled by the deep cut this bill makes in mass transit 
operating assistance. However, I am unable to support the Foglietta 
amendment to restore $135 million for mass transit because the 
amendment is paid for with funds taken from the Airport and Airway 
Trust.
  The Airport and Airway Trust Fund is a dedicated trust fund supported 
by the flying public for investment in our aviation infrastructure. I 
am a cosponsor of legislation to take the aviation and other 
transportation trust funds off-budget to ensure that they are used for 
their intended purpose. I cannot support an amendment that would divert 
aviation trust funds for non-aviation use.
  However, I remain sincerely committed to restoring funds for mass 
transit operating assistance. I am hopeful that the Senate will support 
the President's budget request for mass transit, and I will work to 
sustain a higher level of funding in conference. In addition, I intend 
to work with the authorizing committee to seek greater flexibility in 
the use of mass transit grants--allowing smaller cities and towns to 
use a greater proportion of their transit funding for operating 
expenses.
  I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose the Foglietta amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the VA-HUD appropriations 
bill we have before us today has to be one of the cruelest, most 
disturbing, misguided, and callous pieces of legislation that has ever 
been considered by this House. I strongly oppose it and vigorously urge 
its defeat.
  Nowhere is the real agenda of the Republican Party, or the skewed 
philosophy driving the ``Contract on America,'' made clearer than in 
H.R. 2099--stick it to struggling, disempowered poor and lower-income 
citizens in order to pay for massive tax breaks for rich folks and 
corporate fat cats. Make no bones about it Mr. Chairman, this bill is 
not about balancing the budget or cutting so-called waste from any 
department or agency. It is about hurting the most vulnerable in our 
society, about taking the most from those with the least, about 
redistributing vital and necessary Federal support from the poor, the 
children, the elderly, and the veterans to the rich and privileged. 
Nothing could be more despicable, illogical, extreme, or unfair.
  At a critical time in our country when reports show that the demand 
for decent, affordable housing for both individuals and families 
continues to grow while the supply of such units is dropping, the 
Appropriations Committee turns its back, closes its eyes, and covers 
its ears to the problem. H.R. 2099 guts the HUD budget by 25 percent, 
nearly $6 billion. While some will come to this floor today to praise 
these foolish cuts, let me tell you that my constituents and I see 
little to smile about.
  To begin with, the committee's decision to slash homeless assistance 
grants by 50 percent will result in a $20 million loss to my city of 
Chicago in fiscal year 1996, leaving 3,325 fewer persons with the day 
care and job training services that would provide them an opportunity 
to get off the streets and into employment. In addition, these 
reductions translate into 320 fewer units of transitional and permanent 
housing for the homeless. But as I said, this is just the beginning, 
Mr. Chairman.
  Believe it or not, H.R. 2099 sees fit to raise rents on the poorest 
public and assisted housing residents in order to pay for $1.6 billion 
in cuts to HUD operating and modernization subsidies also included in 
this legislation. Talk about a double whammy. Not only will rents 
increase, but tenants will get nothing for it.
  Under this bill the vast majority of public housing and section 8 
residents in Illinois will be forced to pay on average $828 more in 
rent annually. A struggling AFDC family of three will have to cough up 
$552 more. Where will this money magically come from? How will these 
cuts not result in more women and kids on the streets scrambling to 
survive, especially given other planned Gingrich Republican cuts to 
education, Head Start, child nutrition and school lunches, and the 
like?
  On top of all this nonsense, the development of affordable rental 
housing for individuals with special needs, such as older Americans, 
persons with disabilities, and those with HIV and AIDS will be severely 
undermined. The Appropriations Committees decision to rip nearly $500 
million away from initiatives designed to assist those with special 
concerns 

[[Page H 7963]]

leaves 95 fewer seniors in Chicago with access to elderly housing and 
493 fewer individuals suffering from HIV or AIDS with a roof over their 
heads. Where is the logic?
  Mr. Chairman, my city of Chicago and HUD are wrestling with how best 
to tackle certain pressing problems which beset the Chicago Housing 
Authority. This situation calls for greater attention to and respect 
for the rights and needs of public housing residents. Unfortunately, 
H.R. 2099 greatly imperils these efforts.
  However, the draconian cuts to the HUD budget are not the only 
reasons to oppose this drastic bill. Incredibly, H.R. 2099 goes further 
in slicing the EPA budget by 32 percent, or $2.3 billion, and includes 
legislative riders to strictly limit or prohibit the EPA from enforcing 
or implementing provisions of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts as 
well as food pesticide, toxic emissions, and water quality standards. 
In so doing, the health and safety of all Americans are immediately 
threatened. But what's new Mr. Chairman, these 200 plus days of the 
104th Congress have been punctuated by GOP special interests winning 
out over the public well-being.
  Finally, H.R. 2099 decimates veterans' health by slashing VA medical 
care by $250 million, deletes funding for community development banks 
which provide desperately needed financial support to underserved 
communities, and eliminates the President's community service program 
which provides thousands of young Americans with an opportunity to 
attend college and secure their futures. At the same time H.R. 2099 
provides over $2 billion to fully fund the space station. Apparently, 
the Gingrich Republicans would rather float taxpayer dollars into a 
black hole above the earth than deal with the needs and concerns of the 
real people down here on the ground.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this ill-conceived legislation.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DURBIN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, we have an agreement as 
to the length of debate on this amendment and the written understanding 
which was given to both sides says we shall continue to take amendments 
and vote until 3 p.m. today. It is 2:35. Why are you trying to stop us 
from taking that rollcall on this amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would state that the gentleman is not asking 
a parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Let me ask it in parliamentary terms.
  Did the Chair not rule it would continue the business of the house 
under the ordinary rules until 3 p.m.?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair must entertain a privileged motion.
  The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Armey].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 258, 
noes 148, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 600]

                               YEAS--258

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--148

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Clement
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bateman
     Berman
     Brewster
     Calvert
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Cremeans
     Dornan
     Filner
     Hall (OH)
     Istook
     Johnston
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Longley
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meyers
     Moakley
     Pickett
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Skelton
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Yates

                              {time}  1501

  Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. WATT of North Carolina, Ms. FURSE, Mr. SCHUMER, 
and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Combest, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2099) 
making appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, 
boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________