[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 172 (Thursday, November 2, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11692-H11704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2099, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 
      AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table 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, with the Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the 
Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.


                Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Stokes

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Stokes moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2099, be instructed to agree to the 
     amendment of the Senate numbered 66 insofar as it strikes 17 
     provisions limiting the use of funds appropriated to the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will be 
recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes of my time to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], and I ask unanimous consent 
that he be permitted to control that time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 months ago, on July 28, 1995, this body voted 
to strip the VA-HUD appropriations bill of nearly 20 legislative 
riders. These riders were added by the Republican leadership for the 
sole purpose of reversing this Nation's progress toward clean streams, 
lakes, clean air, safe drinking water, and other national environmental 
goals.
  Like many other provisions the majority party has adopted this year, 
there were no hearings on the legislative riders, no negotiations with 
the minority, and no public give or take. Instead, these riders showed 
up in the chairman's mark of this bill at the time of the subcommittee 
markup.
  Mr. Speaker, we now know plenty about these riders. We know the 
secrecy that surrounds them was designed by the proponents for a very 
good reason. They knew that when the public learned of the 
unprecedented rollbacks in environmental protection, of the special 
interest deals, of the complete disregard for public health, they would 
be furious. Now, because of the debate and vote last July, the people 
did learn of the surprises in the fine print of this bill, and they are 
furious. They are furious because this bill rolls back and cuts back 
and sweetheart special interest deals simply go too far.
  These riders go too far when they totally stop any and all 
development or implementation of water quality standards for the Great 
Lakes, which supply drinking water for 23 million Americans.

[[Page H 11693]]

  These riders to too far when they totally stop any development of new 
emission standards for industrial water pollution, thus allowing 
pharmaceutical manufacturers, the pulp and paper industry, and metal 
producers, to continue to pour millions of pounds of toxic pollutants 
into the Nation's waterways.
  These riders go too far when they repeal this Nation's wetlands 
protections, thus allowing developers to destroy thousands of acres of 
marshes and streams that would be protected even under the radical 
revisions to the Clean Water Act that the Republicans passed earlier 
this session.
  These riders go too far in prohibiting EPA from doing anything to 
keep radon and arsenic out of the Nation's drinking water.
  These riders go too far in saying to EPA, ``Don't you dare ask 
industry to disclose more about their use and release of toxic 
chemicals to local health officials,'' to local fire departments, to 
citizens who live in the shadows of polluting smokestacks.
  These riders go too far in carving out special interest exemptions 
and protections for oil refineries and hazardous-waste-burning cement 
kilns.
  Mr. Speaker, now we have a third chance, once and for all, to rid 
this bill of these poisonous riders on this bill which President 
Clinton has described as the Polluters Protection Act. My motion at the 
table instructs the conferees to agree with the Senate amendments 
deleting the House riders.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to ask a question of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Stokes], the ranking member.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] points with some 
alarm to a series of riders that are connected with EPA and riders that 
would impact the way they exercise their regulatory authority and 
sometimes, in my judgment, go beyond their regulatory authority.
  As I understand the gentleman's motion, it would essentially instruct 
us to remove all of those riders, and that would be the position of the 
House as we go to conference; is that correct?
  Mr. STOKES. If the gentleman would yield, my chairman is absolutely 
correct. My motion would strike all 17 of these riders from the bill.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. That would mean that if a Member of the 
body, for example, is very concerned with the way EPA is implementing 
inspection and maintenance of vehicle programs connected with clean air 
across the country, that we would be unable to address the way we do 
address that question in these riders. In other words, we would not be 
able to move forward with a rider that would essentially limit the way 
EPA is exercising that questionable authority; is that correct?
  Mr. STOKES. If the gentleman would yield further, I want to be able 
to respond accurately to him.
  As my distinguished chairman of the subcommittee knows, there is a 
Senate rider that bars centralized testing, using language previously 
adopted when we were in conference previously on the rescissions bill.
  That language, as my chairman knows, states as follows: That the 
House-Senate conferees on the rescission bill adopted straightforward 
language barring EPA from mandating centralized testing or applying any 
automatic discounts or alternatives adopted by States. Similar language 
is in the Senate version of H.R. 2099, the bill which we are on here on 
the floor today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, the point I would make is that 
I do know there is a rider like that on the Senate side sponsored by 
the Senate. But my colleague is striking all the language that we would 
have and essentially saying I should not be taking action and moving 
forward relative to inspection and maintenance and other items.
  Under those circumstances, Members should know that if the House 
votes with the ranking member, I intend to go to the conference and 
fully express the role of the House, and actions on inspection and 
maintenance will have to be opposed. Indeed, it could undermine the 
House position and the House concern regarding that matter. The same 
point applies to any number of other riders.
  Really, my point here, Mr. Speaker, is that to have the House suggest 
that we go to conference with the Senate and strike all of this 
consideration when there is another option available is highly 
questionable policy, and I think it deserves the attention of the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very important for our colleagues to know that 
there is a great deal of interest in a number of these riders. We will 
be dissuaded from acting in connection with them. Later in the day, we 
will have an opportunity, perhaps, to consider another approach, which 
would instruct our conferees to go to the conference and to consider 
each and every one of these riders separately and individually and 
consider them based upon their impact on the economy, upon jobs, upon 
the environment. That could only occur if, at the end of this 
discussion, we essentially procedurally open the door to allow us to 
consider that alternative. So we are going to be urging my colleagues 
to vote no on the previous question to allow that process to go 
forward.
  It is not fair for us to tie the hands of the Members in connection 
with these very important regulatory areas, and the motion by my 
colleague would specifically do that. We would not be able to represent 
Members well regarding these issues in conference if this motion 
passes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Saxton].
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, these riders are a terrible idea. The riders 
dramatically change, in a very damaging way, laws which have been 
subject to the legislative process, were fully and extensively debated 
and gained the support of Members from both sides of the aisle.
  We have a legislative process through which we amend existing law. It 
involves committees and subcommittees where Members have devoted much 
of their careers to understanding complicated important issues and to 
knowing how to deal with them.
  In this case, the Committee on Appropriations decided to authorize, 
or better, to deauthorize in this appropriations bill certain 
established laws. This is a bad idea.
  Let me demonstrate why by asking four questions:
  Do Members really want to stop enforcement of wetlands protection?
  Do Members really want to stop enforcement of permits on raw sewage 
overflow?
  Do Members really want to stop enforcement of programs addressing 
stormwater runoff?

                              {time}  1115

  Do Members really want to stop implementation of the Great Lakes 
initiative? These only deal with the Clean Water Act. There are 15 
other issues that are of equal importance.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I think it is important for me to respond to the statement made by 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. I think the Members 
should know and understand that Amendment 81, which I made reference 
to, is in the Senate bill, and there is no reason why in conference, 
notwithstanding any action taken here, if the Stokes motion wins, we 
can still agree to that motion in conference. There is no reason why, 
as conferees, we cannot.
  What every State should understand is that no State faces a loss of 
Federal highway funds if they do not adopt a decentralized or test-only 
inspection program. That Members should understand.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, of all the words that appear in the Contract 
With America, the word ``environment'' never appears once.
  They never told us they were going to repeal the Clean Water Act.
  They never told us that they were going to sell off public lands, 
make it easier to pollute the Great Lakes, or cut funds we need to keep 
our drinking water safe. But over the past 10 

[[Page H 11694]]

months, Gingrich Republicans have trashed the environment at every 
single turn. It is not just what they have tried to do, but how they've 
tried to do it.
  They knew they could not pass a bill to allow oil drilling in the 
Alaskan wilderness. So they snuck a provision into the reconciliation 
bill that allows drilling in Alaska.
  They knew they could not just repeal the Clean Water Act. So we have 
a bill before us today that uses legislative riders to gut the Clean 
Water Act in 17 different ways.
  This is environmental destruction by stealth, pure and simple.
  Now does anybody really think it is a good idea to let arsenic in our 
drinking water?
  Does anybody really think it is a good idea to exempt industrial 
plants from water pollution control? Read the fine print--that is 
exactly what these riders do.
  All over America, local communities need help with sewage problems. 
This bill freezes all new wastewater treatment projects dead in their 
tracks.
  All over America, local communities are trying to make their drinking 
water safe. This bill makes it impossible for safe drinking water 
permits to be enforced.
  This bill may be a bonanza for polluters but it is going to damage 
our environment, poison our water, and hurt local communities all over 
America.
  For more than two decades, this country has had a bipartisan 
commitment to protecting our environment. Any way you look at it, this 
bill rolls back 25 years of progress on clean water.
  The VA-HUD bill is a disaster from the word go. The least we can do 
is instruct conferees to get rid of these destructive riders once and 
for all.
  I urge my colleagues: Vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote 
``yes'' on the motion to instruct, and help keep our environment clean.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  (Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, in their zeal for 
reform, to refrain from the wholesale repeal of fundamental 
environmental safeguards. Repeal is exactly what we are being asked to 
do in voting for a funding bill that has 17 legislative riders attached 
to it.
  Whole sections of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the 
Safe Drinking Water Act are rendered meaningless by these riders. For 
example, one rider completely halts EPA enforcement of wetlands 
protection. We cannot afford the widespread destruction of the Nation's 
remaining wetlands that would occur if this rider is signed into law. 
As documented in the National Research Council's report--a report done 
at the request of Congress--wetlands provide an indispensable natural 
filtration system and habitat essential to commercial and recreational 
fishing supplies. My State for one cannot afford the economic 
devastation that would occur from further pollution to its waterways, 
particularly the Chesapeake Bay.
  This is just 1 of the 17 riders to the EPA bill. Others block 
implementation of tap water standards for arsenic and radon in our 
drinking water supplies; prohibit further cleanup of Superfund sites 
after the end of the year; carve out special exemptions for petroleum 
refineries from critical air toxic standards; and shield polluters who 
admit (but do not necessarily correct) their wrongdoing.
  These changes undercut the foundation of environmental protection 
that both Republicans and Democrats have worked hard to build over the 
past 25 years. We should not be making such changes in an 
appropriations bill, with no hearings and little debate.
  Let us instead make any revisions in the appropriate authorizing 
committees where Members are working hard to review and improve various 
environmental laws. All of the riders in this bill are inappropriate. 
While some of them concern important issues that should be addressed, 
none of them should be attached to this bill.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Obey-Stokes motion and a ``yes'' vote on 
the previous question.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, my friends, the distinguished minority whip 
represents a party that used to be the only thing to fear is fear 
itself; now, all they have to offer is fear itself.
  I rise in very, very strong opposition to this motion to instruct. Do 
not be fooled. . . . 
  And what do they do? They prevent----
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand the gentleman's words be taken down. 
The gentleman's words go to the motives of the sponsor of this 
amendment. They are outrageous. They ought to be withdrawn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The Clerk will report the words.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
offending words.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. OBEY. I will not object if the gentleman understands that I 
raised the objection because what he essentially said is that the 
sponsors of the amendment were not interested in a clean environment, 
they were interested in spreading misleading words on the floor of the 
House. That is my objection. If he is willing to withdraw that, I have 
no objection to their being withdrawn.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the words are withdrawn.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] may 
proceed in order.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, do I get to start over with my time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Time was not taken away from the gentleman. 
The gentleman may start over.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, maybe I mischaracterized personally the 
authors of this motion. Let me restate it this way: Those on the 
outside of this Chamber that support this motion are not interested in 
good environmental policy or public health. They are interested in the 
status quo, in regulatory excess, and in spreading misleading and 
distorted information on what these environmental riders do.
  And what do they do? They prevent the EPA from going beyond its 
statutory authority so we do not have unelected, overzealous 
bureaucrats implementing their own agendas at the expense of our 
environment and the American public. They require EPA to use the most 
up-to-date data when making regulatory decisions.
  Do the opponents of the riders believe the EPA should be allowed to 
develop a refinery MACT rule, using data that is 15 years old when data 
exists from 1993? Is that protecting the public health?
  They direct EPA to use real world data instead of bureaucratic 
computer models based on faulty assumptions. EPA is trying to force our 
constituents into centralized emissions testing, claiming this system 
works the best, but just a few weeks ago, 12 cars rigged to fail passed 
by a Colorado centralized testing facility. Is that effective 
environmental policy? None of these riders change present law, not one. 
Not one of these riders repeal present law.

  Chanting right along with the effort to scare and mislead the public 
on what this Congress is doing, our Vice President accused this 
Congress of prohibiting the EPA from taking arsenic out of drinking 
water. But who is asking for a delay in the rulemaking? In a letter 
dated this February, the EPA stated it has decided to seek to delay 
rulemaking on the arsenic regulations in order to conduct further 
research.
  Needless to say, the Vice President's office later said he misspoke.
  Mr. Speaker, these riders are about common sense, sound science and 
flexibility. They are about making sure that we get real benefits out 
of our regulatory requirements, so that the burden we have placed on 
Americans and on our businesses makes sense, and for those who claim 
that this appropriations bill is no place for these legislative riders, 
get real. Every bill is the 

[[Page H 11695]]

right place to deal with government fraud, abuse of process and 
misspent resources.
  Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the full Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, 1 month into the fiscal year, only 8 percent 
of the appropriations in the budget are done for the fiscal year. At 
that rate, it will take an entire year to finish 100 percent of the 
appropriation items.
  Eighty-five percent of the appropriated dollars in the budget, in 
defense, in labor, HEW, in the EPA appropriation bill, are all tied up 
in very large measure because of extraneous legislative language added 
to what is supposed to be budget bills.
  In this bill before us today, these 17 riders would, among other 
things, exempt oil refineries from air toxic standards under the Clean 
Air Act. They would allow 1 million tons of hazardous waste from cement 
kilns to be exempted from air toxic requirements. They would stop 
enforcement of the law with respect to the dumping of raw sewage into 
our rivers. They would stop enforcement of the arsenic standards.
  These 17 rules, in my view, are a lobbyist's dream, and I would 
simply suggest that the idea that we ought to try to consider each of 
them separately on an appropriation bill, simply the effect of that 
gives lobbyists 17 different opportunities to pick off enough people on 
this floor to win 1 or 2 or 3 of those items, because of special 
sectional pressures.
  In my view, these do not belong in a budget bill. We ought to deal 
with budget issues clean.
  I want to say one other item, or I want to make one other point. I 
want to say to my Republican friends on this side of the aisle, we have 
not made a single bit of environmental progress through the years 
without bipartisan cooperation because the two parties.

                              {time}  1130

  Do not let that cooperation stop now. Do not walk away from the 
tradition of Teddy Roosevelt. The Republican Party and the Democratic 
Party jointly have fine bipartisan traditions of moving environmental 
protections forward. Let us keep those traditions moving forward today 
by supporting the Stokes motion.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
Stokes motion to instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, if you listened only to the supporters of the motion, 
you would think its defeat will result in the wholesale environmental 
destruction of our lands, waterways, and air quality.
  Folks, this is nothing more than good, old-fashioned scare tactics, 
dressed up in a pretty green wrapper.
  It's not the environment that's at stake here--it is the power of the 
House.
  Every Member knows that many of these riders will never make it out 
of conference--and those that do survive will represent sound, 
environmentally neutral policy.
  But every Member also needs to know that these riders represent 
bargaining power for the House.
  The riders are leverage we can use to achieve meaningful spending 
cuts--protect important veterans programs--and pare back some of the 
other body's ill-advised housing language.
  Yes, this may well be the feel-good environmental vote of the year, 
but I ask you: is it really worth it to sell out the House conferees 
for a press release?
  Mr. Speaker, we need to stick together as a team on this one. We need 
to reject the easy vote, and cast the right vote.
  Defeat the previous question--vote for the substitute motion.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stokes 
motion.
  This is the third time that we have voted on these riders. First 
during the Committee of the Whole, Members voted 212 to 206 to delete 
these special interest provisions. Not satisfied with that result, a 
separate vote in the House was demanded and by a vote of 210 to 210 the 
provisions were retained. Lets put this issue to bed once and for all 
today, by sending a strong message to the members of the House and 
Senate conference that the appropriations process is no place to make 
environmental policy.
  The Appropriations Committee should not have included the 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.
  In addition to my strong opposition to this process, I strongly 
disagree with the underlying policy objectives of these legislative 
riders.
  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.
  Despite that fact, the VA-HUD appropriations bill includes an 
unprecedented number of legislative riders which will severely restrict 
or 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 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 businesses trying to plan 
the future and make appropriate investments.
  These ill-advised riders would wreak havoc with public health and 
safety. They are penny wise and pound foolish and go for beyond 
reforms. They gut legislations. Listen to this extreme legislation: 
Stopping enforcement of existing programs addressing storm runoff, 
wetlands protection, and raw sewage overflow, as my colleague Mr. 
Saxton has outlined; prohibiting EPA from issuing a tap water standard 
for arsenic--a known carcinogen--radon, and other radionucleides; 
threatening communities right-to-know about toxic emissions; 
prohibiting action to avoid childhood lead poisoning; and allowing 
cement kilns to burn hazardous waste without regard to environmental 
and health effects.
  And these are just some of the 17 objectionable riders that have been 
included in this bill. Have we lost our senses?
  These provisions will drastically reshape or nullify the key laws 
protecting water and air quality. They 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.
  For those that want to reform the regulations and 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.
  Finally, my colleagues, this summer I received a letter from my 
grandson Jimmy Kuhns' kindergarten class expressing their support for 
the Clean Water Act, and I quote, ``Dirty water can hurt you too, 
Congresswoman.''
  Out of the mouths of babes. Those 5 year olds were writing to me, but 
speaking to all of us, my colleagues. Health and safety first. 
Remember--dirty water and environmental poisons can hurt you, too.
  Support the Stokes motion to instruct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page H 11696]]

  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, ``I hate clean air. I do not want to breathe 
clean air. I want the dirtiest possible air possible for me and my 
household and my constituents.''
  That is what the supporters of this motion want people to believe 
about our position on these riders. You know that is absolutely 
untenable. I voted for the Clean Air Act. I want clean air for my 
people and for myself and for my household, and I voted for it. But I 
did not vote for the EPA, in trying to enforce the Clean Air Act, to 
arbitrarily, with a strong right arm, unheeding to the popular will or 
to even common sense, to mandate certain procedures on auto emissions 
testing that are going to be costly to the individual automobile owner, 
costly to the citizens of the States that are affected, and ineffective 
in what they are trying to do, and that is to purify the air.
  If I am convinced that is true, that the EPA is going about it in the 
wrong business, should I not do something about it as a representative 
of my people?
  I resent any implication that I am against clean air. I am for the 
EPA doing their job properly. They have taken steps to mandate 16 
States, to put them under sanctions, California being one, Delaware, 
the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, 
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 
Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, and I think Texas has been 
added to that list, mandatory types of centralized testing or sanctions 
will be visited upon those States.
  That is arbitrary, in view of the fact that the standards that they 
want to employ are obsolete and have been proved in independent testing 
not to work on the purity of the air. Therefore, we are saying in this 
rider, no repeal, no destruction of the EPA, no harboring of ill 
against any of the administration people in the EPA; but, rather, hold 
back. Look what you are doing. We say pause and allow a new grade of 
testing to occur at your own hands, if you want, in which we will take 
sampling of the air for the next period of time until we can develop 
together, with you, EPA, a standard that everybody can live with and 
accept with confidence. That is what this rider is about.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know about lead poisoning and all of these 
other fear things that have been posed on the floor. But I do know that 
I want to support that one rider at least on auto emissions.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, because I feel 
compelled to respond immediately to my colleague from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that no State faces sanctions for 
failure to implement centralized inspection and maintenance programs. I 
want to provide for the Record a copy of an October 30 letter from the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Ms. Browner, 
which states those States face a loss of Federal highway funds if they 
do not adopt a centralized or test-only inspection program.
  Further, let me point out, one does not have to be a Democrat. Just 
as Governor Pete Wilson of California, Christine Todd Wittman of New 
Jersey, two Republicans, they worked it out.
  Mr. Speaker, the letter referred to follows:

                                                U.S. Environmental


                                            Protection Agency,

                                 Washington, DC, October 30, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House, U.S. House of 
       Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: I am writing to correct information in a 
     recently distributed ``Dear Colleague'' letter about the 
     Clean Air Act's motor vehicle emissions inspection program. 
     Unlike the claims of the ``Dear Colleague'' letter, no state 
     faces a loss of federal highway funds if they do not adopt a 
     centralized or test-only inspection program.
       First it is important to note that inspection and 
     maintenance programs are one of the most cost-effective ways 
     to control urban smog and protect public health. These 
     programs provide significant protections of public health and 
     the environment which is why Congress required them as part 
     of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
       EPA's inspection and maintenance regulations provide states 
     with a great deal of flexibility to design automobile 
     emissions testing programs that make economic and 
     environmental sense for their citizens. States can, and have, 
     chosen programs where the emissions tests are done at service 
     stations and auto dealerships. Also, states that have had 
     test-only programs for many years are choosing to continue 
     them because they work. All but two states have submitted 
     complete inspection and maintenance plans and are under to 
     threat of sanctions. The remaining two states have failed to 
     submit any plan at all.
       States have a wide range of choices in program design, but 
     scientific data from over 15 years of inspection programs in 
     states around the country shows that some programs lower auto 
     emissions more effectively than others. Contrary to the 
     letter's contention, this conclusion is not based on 
     theoretical models, but on actual tailpipe tests of thousands 
     of vehicles in the field. I am sure you would agree that the 
     most sensible approach is to use real world data from each 
     state and base credit on the actual performance of the local 
     programs--that is the approach that EPA is taking.
       I hope that the House of Representatives will consider this 
     accurate information before it votes on the riders in the VA-
     HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation bill--not the mistakes 
     propounded by those who would weaken important public health 
     protections.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner.

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, just to also 
reply to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. Speaker, only 2 of the 16 States listed are under a sanctions 
threat, that in Pennsylvania and Vermont, for failure to submit plans, 
not for failure to implement centralized. So the statements are 
inaccurate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, these riders were wrong back in July when a 
majority of the House voted against them, and they are still very wrong 
today. I heard the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Delay] say earlier the 
riders do not change the current law; but in fact they do. They would 
severely cripple the enforcement and implementation of the laws that 
are the very backbone of our environmental protection. What good is 
having good environmental laws on the books if you cannot enforce them? 
That is basically what this bill does with the riders. It says you 
cannot enforce the existing law.
  By allowing the riders to remain in the bill, we are also once again 
creating an unlevel playing field in terms of the environmental 
standards states are being required to uphold. The message to the 
States is wait it out. If enough of us hold out, the standards will 
eventually come down or be removed altogether.
  We must remember that pollution recognizes no State boundaries. 
Unless all States are held up to the same standards , then States that 
are not in compliance are putting a larger burden on the States that 
making an effort to preserve our natural resources for future 
generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the Congress not to make enforcement a moving 
target, and to support this motion to instruct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], a member of the committee.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion and urge 
that we support the gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, on this 
important issue. These riders can and should be dealt with one by one. 
I think the chairman needs to have that discretion. There may be some 
that are good, there may be some that are bad, but I think he needs 
that discretion.
  Let me just talk about a couple of these riders. One, on the Delaney 
clause, everybody in this room knows that the Delaney clause is 
unenforceable. EPA even sued because they knew they could not enforce 
this law. Let us get it off the books.
  The second one, regarding testing, small towns all over New York 
State have to test for arsenic that does not occur naturally within 
1,000 miles of those towns, but they are forced to test for those heavy 
metals because the EPA has a nationwide policy. It is very expensive 
for the towns to do that testing.
  Let us get this burdensome regulation cleared up as quickly as 
possible. This bill is the only vehicle we have.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to my 
colleague from New York.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a matter of principle here, and I would like to 
point this out to my colleagues: For 40 years, the Republicans have 
been in the minority. For 40 years we have been 

[[Page H 11697]]

bitterly complaining about the heavy-handedness of the then Democrat 
majority legislating in an appropriations bill without the benefit of 
full and open hearings.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell my colleagues this: A number of these riders 
are meritorious in terms of their objective. They should go through the 
full and open public hearing process, and not be put in appropriations 
bills without the benefit of full and open and public hearings.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, 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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this motion to instruct the conferees on H.R. 
2099 to drop these riders which will cripple our program to protect our 
air and water.
  I know there is special concern in Pennsylvania that the loss of the 
rider on centralized emission testing may open the State to the 
possibility of highway funding sanctions.
  EPA Administrator Carol Browner is committed to solving the 
centralized testing problem in Pennsylvania, as she has in every other 
State, including California and New Jersey.
  No State has been sanctioned and there is no reason to believe that 
Pennsylvania will lose highway funds simply because the law allows 
sanctions. It does not require sanctions and it is unlikely that any 
penalty will be imposed while EPA and the State are making a good-faith 
effort to develop an alternative system.
  The issue before us, however, is that the overall impact of these 17 
riders would be so devastating to our efforts to protect our air and 
water that they should be struck from the bill.
  These 17 riders don't make the practical, commonsense reforms that 
will improve the implementation of the environmental programs while 
protecting our Nation's air and water.
  The riders are a sledge hammer that will bring our environmental 
programs to a screeching halt.
  These environmental riders will mean dirtier water for all Americans.
  The riders simply say stop protecting the air and water that are so 
important to the health of the American people.
  The rider on stormwater discharges would halt efforts to control acid 
and metal runoff pollution from abandoned mines, the number one source 
of water pollution in the State of Pennsylvania.
  We are likely to see more threats of contamination to drinking water 
sources and lower water quality.
  With these riders, pollution would continue to pour into the Nation's 
waters. There is special danger for the beaches and fishing areas that 
are located near the older urban areas of the Northeast.
  The riders would allow millions of pounds of toxic chemicals to pour 
into our Nation's waters.
  These riders are a backdoor method of gutting the Clean Water Act 
when we should be working to make Government enforce the protections 
that are already on the books.
  The American people want us to continue the cleanup of our rivers, 
lakes, and streams.
  The riders give the American people the last thing they want: less 
cleanup of air and water pollution.
  These 17 riders will do serious harm to the Clean Water Act Program. 
They are a special deal for special interests at the expense of the 
health of the American taxpayer.
  I urge support of the motion offered by the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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. Speaker, those speaking in favor of the 
Stokes motion to instruct conferees seem to believe that the 
appropriations process is not the proper forum for discussing 
environmental priorities. As chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee of 
the House Commerce Committee, I can assure you that many of the 
important issues covered by these riders were the subject of extensive 
hearings and review before our subcommittee and many others. Through 
coordination of effort between the appropriations and authorizers, we 
were able to craft positions that advance the cause of regulatory 
reform in this Nation while maintaining our strong commitment to 
protecting the environment.
  The appropriations riders have been subject to harsh, unyielding, and 
unfair disinformation campaign by environmental organizations that 
often devote 10 times the resources to political advocacy than their 
business opponents. Let me address a few of the more shrill criticisms 
I have heard:
  The language dealing with combustion of hazardous waste as an 
alternative fuel in cement kilns does not reduce the regulation of that 
activity. On the contrary, these cement kilns are already highly 
regulated and EPA region 7 stated this month that the regulations are 
more comprehensive than those currently in place for commercial 
incinerators. The riders merely force EPA to follow the letter of the 
law and process we established under the Clean Air Act, the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. 
EPA has nothing to fear from the law.
  I would also point out for the record the recent statement of Barry 
McBee, the head of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission--
our State's EPA--regarding the use of waste fuels in the cement kilns 
in my district. Chairman McBee noted that the kilns in Midlothian had 
been subject to ``the most extensive monitoring operation'' ever 
undertaken by the TNRCC. The result: ``Because our research was so 
thorough, the TNRCC is confident that the emissions from these plants 
present no discernible long-term of short-term health threat.'' Mr. 
Speaker, this study was based upon several thousand air and soil 
samples testing for hundreds of contaminants. That is the kind of sound 
science the riders are based upon!

  The language dealing with title V operating permits allows the States 
to move forward with their programs without the heavy hand of Federal 
regulation stifling innovation or creating confusion among members of 
the regulated community.
  The language dealing with the clean air standards for refiners forces 
EPA to consider the most up-to-date information. Before my 
subcommittee, EPA frequently expressed the desire to embrace sound 
science and the best data. Supporting the refining appropriations 
provision is an opportunity for EPA to demonstrate their actual 
commitment to this principle.
  But Mr. Speaker, we have reviewed the substance of these riders time 
and again. The point is that we should let our conferees be conferees. 
They should be able to negotiate in good faith with the Senate and to 
produce the best bill possible under the circumstances. Simplistically 
treating all the riders the same does no one any good.
  Please vote against the Stokes motion to instruct.

     Response to Administrator Browner's Letter to Speaker Gingrich

       1. ``No state faces a loss of federal highway funds if they 
     do not adopt a centralized or test-only inspection program.''
       I/M State Implementation Plans were due this year. Because 
     many states were in turmoil over I/M, EPA decided that they 
     would require a two step process in approving a I/M state 
     program. First, a determination of completeness, and second a 
     determination of whether the plan was satisfactory. The 
     completeness showing has a very low threshold (one State 
     commented that the plan need only pass the laugh test). To my 
     knowledge, every state has submitted I/M plans that have been 
     determined complete. Therefore, there are no sanction clocks 
     currently running.
       EPA has not made determinations as to whether state I/M 
     plans are sufficient. In fact, EPA could determine at any 
     moment that a States program is not sufficient. After this 
     finding, sanctions would automatically kick in after 18 
     months, however, if the Administrator determines the State 
     has acted in bad faith, EPA could apply the sanctions 
     immediately.
       As an example of EPA's bad faith on this issue please see 
     attachment 1. This is a fax from Gene Tierney of EPA to the 
     State lobbyist, of Envirotest, the centralized testing 
     contractor for that state, stating that if a Pennsylvania 
     Senate amendment adopting decentralized testing was passed, 
     EPA would disapprove their State Implementation Plan and 
     Pennsylvania would lose its highway funds. The fax was 
     circulated by the Envirotest lobbyist in an attempt to kill 
     the amendment. The Amendment ultimately passed anyway.
       2. ``Inspection and maintenance programs are one of the 
     most cost effective ways to control urban smog'' . . .
       We do not disagree with this, although their is scant 
     evidence that a command and control I/M program will be more 
     effective than allowing States, as laboratories, to find more 
     effective ways to operate I/M programs, such as the adoption 
     of remote sensing.
       3. ``EPA's inspection and maintenance regulations provide 
     States with a great deal of 

[[Page H 11698]]

     flexibility to design automobile emissions testing programs'' 
     . . .
       That is not what states are telling Congress. In a hearing 
     before the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the 
     House Commerce Committee, republican and democratic state 
     representatives complained about the lack of flexibility.
       Here are some quotes from their testimony:
       Mr. Mike Evans (R-28th), Georgia State Representative:
       For over a year now we have been hearing about EPA's new 
     flexibility. It seems that recently there have been small 
     advances in the direction, due in large part to the 
     November elections and EPA's hopes that they can preempt 
     Congress from revisiting the Clean Air Act. However, EPA's 
     assertion that they have been more flexible is simply not 
     so. We have not seen it in Georgia, and I do not believe 
     other states have seen it either. The only thing we have 
     heard from EPA is sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. It has 
     been EPA's way or the highway, I mean no highway--as-- in 
     --no highway transportation funds.''
       State Governor Gerald LaValle of Pennsylvania a democrat 
     stated that when he attempted to offer an amendment changing 
     the State of Pennsylvania's program from centralized to 
     decentralized:
       ``. . . EPA's response at that time was that no changes in 
     EPA policy would be forthcoming and that any move by 
     Pennsylvania to delay or alter its program would be met by 
     sanctions. In other words, Mr. Chairman, there were no 
     options.''
       4. ``Also, States that have had test-only programs for many 
     years are choosing to continue them because they work''
       States that have had centralized programs do not keep them 
     because they work, but because EPA gives the States 100 
     percent credits for operating such a system.
       States that have attempted to go to centralized testing in 
     the last several years have been nearly run out of town by 
     motorists. Programs started in Maine are now on hold, as well 
     as Maryland. Pennsylvania which had contracted to go 
     centralized has now announced it will go decentralized plan, 
     and Texas has backed away from its centralized testing plan 
     as well.
       5. ``. . . scientific data over the last 15 years of 
     inspection programs in States around the country shows that 
     some programs in States around the country lower auto 
     emissions more effectively than others.''
       That may be true, but it does apparently depend on whether 
     the program is centralized or decentralized.
       For instance a RAND report in October 1994 finds ``[i]n 
     terms of program effectiveness, our research finds no 
     empirical evidence to require the separation of test and 
     repair.'' (centralized)
       A February 1995 report that the California Inspection and 
     Maintenance Review Committee concluded ``[w]hether an I/M 
     program is centralized or decentralized has not been an 
     important factor in determining historical I/M program 
     effectiveness.''
       Other studies call into question whether EPA has the 
     evidence needed to support a 50 percent discount for 
     decentralized programs. The General Accounting Office before 
     the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee in 1992 that 
     while some of the audit and tampering data EPA refers to 
     shows ``test-and-repair is less effective, it does not 
     provide quantifiable support for the 50 percent reduction.''
       6. ``Contrary to the letters contention, this conclusion is 
     not based on theoretical models but not on tailpipe tests of 
     thousands of vehicles in the field.''
       The fact is that EPA has never been able to prove enhanced 
     centralized testing achieves the emission reductions they 
     claim.
       When asked by Senator Faircloth if the centralized I/M240 
     achieves its own performance standard, EPA responded ``There 
     are two IM240 programs currently in operation. Both have been 
     operating for less than a year and, hence, are too new to 
     have had a complete evaluation.''
       In other words EPA does not have this proof.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of the Stokes 
motion and I want to commend my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who are courageously speaking out against this outrageous assault 
on public health and the environment.
  This bill's 33 percent cut in the EPA's budget is bad enough, but 
loading it with an array of legislative riders requested by industrial 
polluters and other special interests that will prevent the EPA from 
doing its job is an outrage. And shame on those who would sacrifice 
public health and environmental stewardship to the highest bidder. 
Shame on those individuals. The vast majority of all of their 
constituents, all of our constituents, regardless of whether they are 
Democrat or Republican, want clean air, clean water, and food free of 
deadly pesticides, and they recognize that the Government  has  a  role 
 in  ensuring  these  most  basic  guarantees.  This  bill rejects all 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, where I come from in New York these riders will allow 
more sewage in Long Island Sound, more contamination of the New York 
City watershed, more pollution in our air, and more risk from 
pesticides in our food.
  To the supporters of these riders, take note: The American people are 
watching. They have had enough of your assaults on health and 
environmental safeguards.
  Let us make sure we pass the Stokes motion.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], another of the many Republican leaders 
sensitive to the environment.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding me time.
  I want to make a comment, Mr. Speaker, on the gentleman from Texas. I 
think he made the argument for a yes vote on the previous question 
because he is dealing with these issues in a committee. There is a 
tremendous amount of confusion, really, if we think about it, on both 
sides of the aisle, among most of the Members, as to exactly what does 
the repeal of the enforcement provisions for these 17 riders do. What 
exactly happens if we zero out enforcement.
  Well, we do not all exactly know. We have fears and we have 
reservations. There is ambiguity here and there is certainly confusion 
here. So I think the most intelligent thing to do as a result of that 
confusion is vote yes on the previous question, let us move forward 
with these hearings so that we have some understanding about what is 
going on.
  What we are virtually doing here is changing the Clean Water Act. We 
are. Do we want to do that without hearings? We are virtually changing 
the Clean Water Act and do we want to do that without hearings? I do 
not think so. Vote yes on the previous question.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] 
has 5 minutes, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has 8\1/2\ minutes, 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and 
I wanted to address this issue. I served on the committee that oversaw 
EPA and tried to bring some common sense in my first 2 years in this 
body to the mass of regulations that are pumped out by EPA and other 
Federal regulatory agencies.
  This debate is really all about bringing power and central control 
here in Washington, and that is what all the last election was about. 
People are rebelling about this. It is about how many people we have in 
EPA. In the last 10, 12 years we have gone from 11,000 to 18,000 
Federal employees in EPA; 8,000 of them are here in the city of 
Washington regulating and mandating.
  These riders sent a message and that message needs to be heard. And 
if we were not listening, we did not get the message here. The other 
body cut EPA 20 percent. This body recommended 30 percent cuts. Why? 
Because of the regulations. These riders each address an abuse by these 
agencies and this Congress who have not gotten the message.
  Cement kilns. If we want to look at cement kiln regulations, we were 
on our way until we found out the President's biggest contributor had a 
big investment in cement kiln regulation. It is not these riders, it is 
the politics that is stopping this process. And until we stop 
regulating and mandating from this city in an arbitrary and 
unreasonable fashion, without common sense, we will see these riders 
come back and more appeals for less regulation in this city that wants 
to maintain that power and that oppression on the States and local 
governments and the citizens of this country.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

[[Page H 11699]]

  (Mrs. KENNELLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman].
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this motion to instruct. 
This is one of the worst pieces of environmental legislation I have 
ever seen. It slashes the EPA overall operational budget by one-third 
and its environmental enforcement by one-half. What this will mean is 
that EPA will not have the ability to implement and enforce the law. 
But it does not stop there. It is loaded with riders that are a radical 
attack on our environmental laws.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to pass environmental legislation. 
In 1990 we passed the Clean Air Act where 400 Members supported it and 
President Bush signed it. We worked through long hearings. We tried to 
reach a consensus. If we need to fix a problem in that Clean Air Act, 
let us fix it. Let us deal with an inspection and maintenance problem.
  There was a grain elevator problem that the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. 
Nussle] and I worked together to resolve. Let us work together in a 
bipartisan and genuine way, otherwise we will get awful policy or 
gridlock. I support the motion to instruct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to say that I could not help but recall, as I listened to 
my colleague from California, Mr. Waxman, speak that he and I have 
worked for years in California in the clean air field. As he knows, I 
was very much involved in the politics as well as the policy dealing 
with clean air in California when we were in the State legislature 
together.
  Clearly, one of the most important things that has happened in my 
lifetime in public affairs is the fact that in the late 1970's the 
public discovered the word ``environment.'' We did not know much about 
this whole subject area before that point. Indeed, many of us expressed 
great concern about what was happening in the environment, including 
our air, and involved ourselves in changing the policy in positive ways 
within our State.
  But, Mr. Speaker, over time, there is little question in the mind's 
eye of most Americans that one way or another Uncle Sam has gone much 
too far with burdensome regulations that do little to actually improve 
the environment. Indeed, a concern about the environment led to the 
creation of the EPA. The EPA is now an agency of over 18,000 employees 
and those employees seem to spend most of their time creating 
regulations on top of regulations. This has become so overwhelming that 
now in the West, people are talking about the war on the West, where 
regulatory efforts are undermining our economies and impacting jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, these regulations are impacting people's ability to make 
sense out of their economy or their economic circumstance in the name 
of protecting the environment. Indeed, we have gone far too far.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] has the 
right to close.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this is the most important and closely 
watched environmental vote of the year. The old bipartisan coalition 
that protected the environment over the years is slowly coming back 
today and today it should make the difference. Moderate Republicans 
deserve credit for bucking their leadership.
  The 17 riders that roll back environmental protections for streams, 
lakes, soil, air, food, and drinking water constitute the most 
devastating attack on the environment since Earth Day in 1970. When we 
combine that with cuts in EPA's budget, 32 percent overall, and 50 
percent for enforcement, we can count on the most important 
environmental vote of the year.
  Mr. Speaker, protecting the environment should not be a Republican or 
Democratic issue. It should be an American issue, and today we should 
make a start in reversing that trend.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, it is astounding we are even having this 
debate. The facts seem so clear. The rules of the House clearly 
discourage legislating in appropriations bills, and for good reason. 
Because we do not set policy in a committee that does not have full and 
open hearings on the subject matter. We want that to be in the 
authorizing process. The public clearly opposes the rollback of 
environmental protections. The supporters of these 17 riders are 
expecting us to blithely ignore these two essential facts.
  Has any Member of this body received a letter from an individual, not 
a special interest, but an individual pleading to push through 
environmental changes with no time for adequate debate and with no 
regard for standard procedure? I doubt it. Has any Member of this body 
received a letter from an individual, not from a special interest, but 
an individual pleading to be exposed to lead or arsenic or pleading for 
Congress to exonerate polluters or any of the other goals these riders 
would accomplish? I doubt it.
  The public does not support these riders which are a motley 
collection of some good ideas being pushed in the wrong context, good 
ideas being moved forward with the wrong language, and just plain bad 
ideas. None of them belongs in an appropriation.
  The chairman, the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, constantly reminds us of the fact that we should not be 
legislating in an appropriations measure. The substitute that will be 
offered does nothing to allay the public's fears and support for it 
will be scored as an antienvironment vote.
  The substitute allows the conferees to do anything they want on the 
riders. What kind of instruction is that? They say to the conferees, go 
forth and be good citizens. That is their job. We want to be specific.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the key votes of this Congress 
and it is going to come on a procedural question. Vote ``yes'' on the 
previous question. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct the 
conferees. Vote to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink and 
the food we eat. Vote for the American people.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 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.)

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the 
gentleman from New York pointing out my own admonition that we might be 
better off in the appropriations process had we not bridged the gap 
with so many authorization riders.
  The fact is, he is absolutely right. We have slowed down the process 
to a significant degree. Had I had my druthers, we probably would have 
addressed all of these meaningful, substantive issues in the 
authorization process. But there is so much to be done, so much to be 
done after 40 years of constant, steadfast movement toward increased 
regulation and centralized government that, frankly, the appropriations 
bills are the only bills in town that are available to address this 
situation.
  Our membership is anxious to change the course of America; and if we 
cannot change it on the appropriations bills, frankly, we cannot change 
it at all under the current circumstances with the political 
environment we have. So this is an opportunity to address many of the 
issues that have arisen in this bill.
  The riders that we are talking about deal with the environment, which 
as the gentleman from New York admits, some are good, some are bad, are 
important to everyone who has sponsored them.
  The issues should be addressed. If they are swept aside, if the 
previous question is adopted, they will not be considered; and it may 
be another year, 2 years, 5 years before they are addressed.

[[Page H 11700]]

  The fact is, I come from Louisiana; and we have many areas in my 
district and all throughout the State of Louisiana that have been 
declared wetlands. Some of those are valuable, meaningful estuaries 
that provide breeding grounds for all sorts of wildlife and fish. They 
have to be protected and, frankly, we are not doing enough overtly to 
protect them. Others have been declared wetlands that are surrounded by 
urban areas and levees, borders and other high ground that are simply 
declared wetlands because they are damp or because they have certain 
vegetation that, under current interpretation, says that they are 
wetlands.
  I believe very strongly that the interpretation from Washington has 
been misguided, it has been too broad, and it has dictated what is a 
wetland or what is not a wetland in Louisiana without any foresight, 
without any knowledge, without any understanding of the real wetlands 
in Louisiana. As a result, I would like to see some of these 
regulations released.
  I do not think that it is too much to ask that we not simply say all 
of these riders should come off with this vote, that we send these 
issues to the conference. It will not be over. Some of the riders will 
be abolished. Some of them will be simply ignored or eliminated. But 
some that are really worthwhile and meaningful will be retained by the 
conferees.
  Give the conferees the flexibility to determine the good from the 
bad, to make a decision, and vote no on the previous question so that 
we do not simply say everything, all of the riders, are bad for the 
future of America. They are needed. Some of them are needed, and the 
only way we can get to them is to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked since November 8, 1994, the 
Republicans have the majority in the House. We chair every single 
committee. We chair every single subcommittee. We can move with 
dispatch through the authorizing process which permits full, open and 
public hearings.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-
Boehlert motion to instruct conferees.
  The restrictions and riders in this legislation would allow backdoor 
repeal of protection from raw sewage overflows, would reduce protection 
of wetlands, would stop many State clean water programs in the tracks. 
That is now what the American people want or expect.
  Every Member who voted to rid this bill of the riders has put himself 
or herself on record as opposed to backdoor, closed-door, back-room 
efforts to roll back environmental protection.
  The vote to delete the riders was reversed at a time when many 
Members were absent, many of the Members who would have voted to keep 
the bill clean of those riders, and even then the reversal came only on 
a tie vote. So if you voted right last time, you need to vote right 
this time, and this time let us do what is right for the American 
people, what is right for the environment, what is right for future 
generations. Let us vote to rid this bill of the waivers, loopholes, 
and rollbacks that are included in these riders.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Delaware [Mr. Castle], another Republican leader in the environmental 
movement and former Governor of Delaware.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Delaware.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Delaware is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me the 
time.
   Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the inclusion of the 17 legislative 
riders contained in the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I have looked at 
this from the perspective of my own State, and I think if you magnify 
that by 435, because my State is, after all, a congressional district, 
you get some idea of the problems in this bill and with these riders.
  For example, in clean water, we would lose $1.8 million to treat 
wastewater pollution, and this means that we would have raw sewage 
potentially pour into our local waters reaching our beaches, and we 
depend upon the tourism industry, from the outdated treatment systems 
at 38 locations around Delaware. It would also affect recreational and 
commercial fishing.
  We are going to have next Monday a celebration of a cleanup of a 
Superfund site in the State of Delaware. We would not be able to start 
a new one next year if these riders pass.
  We have a problem with an oil refinery. We tried to work with them. 
But this rider would halt efforts to protect the health of communities 
living near that refinery in Delaware which emitted more than 100,000 
pounds of toxic air in 1993, obviously affecting, potentially, the 
health of a lot of people in the State of Delaware. These riders 
essentially prevent a lot of things from happening in the environmental 
area that should go ahead.
  Every American should be concerned by the fact that these riders will 
specifically benefit certain special interests. In fact, there are 
winners in this, clear winners, the cement kiln industry, the oil 
industry, the paper and pulp industries, and there are losers. The 
losers, as far as I can ascertain, are practically everybody else in 
America, individuals and some corporations. These riders undermine laws 
that prevent harmful exposure to lead, arsenic, and other toxins and 
can literally affect the quality of our air and our water.
  The bottom line is that, as written, these are not reasonable reforms 
but special breaks to a few industries. The antienvironmental riders 
are bad policy, bad politics and bad for the health and safety of the 
American people, and they should be dropped from this bill.
  If the riders are allowed, the bill will be an environmental disaster 
and a special-interest bonanza. I would encourage all of us to vote 
``yes'' on the previous question to support the Stokes motion to 
instruct.

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me mention one more time, these riders have been 
described incorrectly in many a fora. In the case that my colleague 
just mentioned regarding clean water programs, the problem with those 
programs is they have not been reauthorized. Those who controlled the 
committees in the past Congresses have failed to reauthorize them, so 
we are kind of in a bind and there is a need to have mechanisms for 
moving forward. In part, we are attempting to affect EPA in this 
connection by way of these riders.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, let me tell Members what this debate is all 
about. It is about this glass of drinking water and others like it 
across America. When you pour a glass of drinking water for your 
children, you can be confident that it is safe for them to drink it. 
The confidence, of course, is based on sensible government monitoring 
and regulation.
  This appropriation bill has 17 different environmental protection 
laws repealed without 1 day of hearing, 17 different protections for 
American families so that there is not arsenic in this water, benzene, 
dioxin, lead, and known carcinogens.
  Why in the world would some of the extreme Republicans, unlike the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], want to repeal this protection? 
Because the special interests demand it. They are in the corridors of 
this Congress right now watching this debate. They want to see this 
bill go through. They want these provisions that protect our families 
repealed, because they can make more money.
  What is more important? If this Government cannot protect the water 
that we drink, then we have lost our soul.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] to respond to those outrageous 
comments.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, let me tell Members about this water and this 
debate. Under this water, the citizens died and got sick in Milwaukee 
under our current rules and great regulations. Under this water, you 
could not drink the water in Washington for several days under the 
current rules and regulations. That is what this debate is about.

[[Page H 11701]]

  This debate is about the inflexibility, because this Congress 
mandates 53 water contaminants, that you must look at, because this 
Congress is unreasonable, because this Congress in every one of its 
environmental programs has gone off the deep end.
  There is no one on this side who does not want to have clean water 
and clean air. They spend billions of dollars on Superfund. Eighty-five 
percent of the money goes to attorneys' fees and studies. And what do 
we get? We do not get the sites cleaned up. We are forced to drink 
crummy water.
  Most of these Members who are telling you about the special 
interests, that is a lot of baloney. The special interest is the people 
of this country who are paying the taxes and should have clean water 
and fresh air to drink and to breathe.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida for pointing this out. This water is very 
important and precious to all Americans.
  I would suggest to you that in December 1993, when 104 people in 
Milwaukee died because cryptosporidium was in the water supply, it was 
not because the Government was doing too much. It was because the 
Government was doing too little to protect the American people.
  Ladies and gentlemen, I can count, and I know what elections are 
about. Let me tell you what the last election was about. The American 
people were sending us a very clear message. They want smaller 
government, less costly government, less intrusive government, and yet 
more efficient government.
  I have yet to find the first American who wanted to vote to dismantle 
the Government. I have yet to find the first American who does not 
agree that we need regulations to control toxic emissions from oil 
refineries. I have yet to find the first American who does not agree 
that we need regulations controlling arsenic in our drinking water. I 
have yet to find the first American who does not agree that it poses a 
very serious public health problem if we cannot regulate sewer overflow 
into America's streets. The American public is watching this debate 
very clearly.
  The Republicans are getting very high marks in dealing with issues 
involving our economy. Quite frankly, our score cared is getting low 
marks with respect to the manner in which we deal with the environment.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a Republican versus a Democrat 
issue. You have witnessed Republican after Republican coming before us 
to say vote ``yes'' on the previous question, vote ``yes'' on the 
instructions to the conferees to protect the air we breathe, the water 
was drink, and the food we eat.
  We did not inherit the earth from our ancestors. We are borrowing 
from our children, and we have to give an accounting of our 
stewardship. Today is the day to do it.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Levin].
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1215

  Here is the October 5 headline from the Washington Post: ``Experts 
are at a loss how to stem toxic flow into Great Lakes.'' Tucked into 
this bill is a provision that would gut the Great Lakes Water Quality 
Initiative.
  The GLI is a product of 9 years, 9 years of work to reduce the flow 
of toxic chemicals being dumped into the Great Lakes.
  Look, I do not want to leave it to the conferees to bargain away the 
future of the Great Lakes. There is a plea here, leave it to the 
conferees. No, do not leave the Great Lakes at the mercy of those who 
want to continue to dump mercury, lead, and dioxin into our Great 
Lakes.
  Support the Stokes motion and strip these 17 antienvironmental riders 
from this bill.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, these EPA riders restrict or eliminate the 
ability to set environmental standards and enforce regulations that are 
designed to protect the public health. The riders prohibit regulations 
controlling the amount of arsenic and radon in our drinking water, 
prevent the reduction of toxic air pollutants from hazardous waste 
incinerators, restrict citizens' right to know about the toxic 
substances that are released in their communities, and limit the 
reduction of toxic air pollutants from oil refineries.
  In fact, in my district in Connecticut, in the third district, this 
would allow for the influx of raw sewage into the Long Island Sound.
  The American people need to know that the public interest is being 
sold to the highest bidder here in the people's House. These riders are 
a direct result of the political culture that allows the pollution 
lobby undue influence to ramrod special interest legislation through 
this House. This is an auction.
  Reject the appeals of the special interest pollution lobbyists and 
vote for the Stokes-Boehlert motion to instruct.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself this time by way of essentially saying to 
my colleagues, and also to the public that might be listening, that it 
is very important to note that opposition to this effort on our part to 
eliminate these riders has been carried to the extreme in many a forum, 
and to suggest that those who are against striking the riders are 
obviously somehow against the entire environment, illustrated by the 
last several speakers who have referred to arsenic in drinking water 
and radon in drinking water.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the House know, that the 
people know that across the country there are trace elements in 
drinking water everywhere of this kind. What the EPA is proposing, they 
are proposing regulations that are so extreme in their form to control 
harmless traces, harmless traces, that it is going to escalate the cost 
of drinking water in districts across the country. Water districts 
responsible for drinking water across the country are calling for our 
effort to impact the EPA's work in this field.
  It is very, very important that we know that the EPA is at fault 
here, not our effort to include these regulations.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Hinchey].
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this vote today is probably the most 
important environmental vote that will be taken in the 104th Congress.
  The riders in the bill that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] is 
trying to strike would prohibit the EPA from regulating or setting 
standards for a number of different sources of toxic contamination of 
air and water.
  Safe drinking water in America can no longer be taken for granted. 
EPA is under court order to set standards for arsenic and radon in 
drinking water. Both are known carcinogens.
  The bill would prohibit EPA from complying with these court orders, 
thus subjecting millions of Americans to carcinogenic substances in 
their drinking water, not tracer elements, but elements of sufficient 
quantity to cause cancer.
  The number of people subjected would be 35 million for arsenic, 45 
million for radon, exposed to these carcinogenic chemicals. This comes 
on the heels of recent scientific findings that exposure of children to 
hazardous chemicals can be much more dangerous for them than previously 
thought, because they are smaller, obviously; nevertheless they consume 
the same quantity of water.
  Let us protect our children. Let us protect the health of Americans. 
Let us defeat these riders. Let us pass the Stokes amendment.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to what the time situation 
is now with reference to each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Stokes] has 1\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Lewis] has 3\1/2\ minutes. The time of the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert] has expired.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, do I understand I have the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  
[[Page H 11702]]

  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is with no small amount of discomfort that I rise on 
the floor and oppose so very strongly the motion by my ranking member, 
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes]. Indeed, if we had had the 
opportunity to discuss what these riders were about before he decided 
to go forward with this motion, I think we might have relieved the 
House of all of this debate time. Clearly, a thorough discussion of the 
excesses of EPA might have made a difference in the decision to go 
forward with this notion.
  Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to know that this Member and the 
Members who are joining me in opposition to the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] are not Members who are opposed to 
strengthening the quality of our environment. We are committed to 
making sure that we are doing all that is necessary to assure clean air 
and clean water across the country. Indeed, one of the better things 
that has happened in the whole processes of public affairs was the fact 
that a couple of decades ago we began really working to improve the 
environment.
  But in the meantime, the EPA's excesses have raised enough serious 
questions that it is time for those who really care about the 
environment to stand together and take action. I have communicated to 
the House that in the past much of my political work in public affairs 
involved concerns about clean air. In California I was the chairman of 
an air quality committee that dealt specifically with that problem that 
is impacting my district like no other district in the country.
  That work led to the creation of the toughest air quality management 
district in the country. A district that itself has extended 
regulations that are, to say the least, very difficult regulations to 
meet. Nonetheless, their work is causing us to see serious progress in 
the direction of clean air.
  There is no doubt that government has a role to play, but excessive 
regulation upon regulation is undermining the public support for 
environmental concerns.
  Indeed, the credibility of this effort is threatened by these 
excesses. For that reason, our subcommittee and the full House have 
reviewed where the EPA has taken us in the past, and where they would 
take us in the future.

  These riders on the EPA portion of my bill are designed to begin that 
point of rethinking the process and give a clear direction to the EPA 
that the Congress is more than concerned. We are absolutely insisting 
that they rethink where they have been regarding some of these 
regulations. The EPA is an agency that has grown like Topsy. Currently, 
the EPA is designed simply for regulatory purposes. This is not 
necessarily helpful to that effort of improving the environment. 
Because of this pattern, I urge my colleagues to do the following: 
First, recognize that the Stokes motion would strike all of these 
riders and impact very significantly our ability to begin this process 
of review. Second, at the end of this time, the previous question will 
be asked. At that point, when a vote is requested, a ``no'' vote will 
allow us to consider an alternative, another approach, that will cause 
our conferees to consider each of these riders separately and 
individually, measure how they impact the economy and, in turn, make 
recommendations of the full House to the conference.
  I will be urging the Members at the time of the previous question to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks].
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stokes-
Boehlert instruction and urge my colleagues do as well.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, let me in closing stress my appreciation to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and to the other Members on 
the other side of the aisle who have supported the Stokes motion to 
instruct.
  Mr. Speaker, the last time this issue was on the floor--the day my 
amendment to strike failed as a result of a tie vote--I said to the 
House that this is an issue that is not going away. I've been true to 
my word, ladies and gentleman; here it is again.
  I also said to you on that occasion that, by virtue of that tie vote 
which meant that the motion lost, that I didn't lose--the American 
people lost. This is the third chance to protect the American people.
  These riders are poisonous. They restrict or eliminate EPA's ability 
to set environmental standards or enforce regulations designed to 
protect public health. These riders prevent reduction of toxic air 
pollutants from hazardous waste incinerators, limit citizens' right to 
know about toxic substances released in their communities, and limit 
protection against toxic air pollutants from oil refineries.
  This is a critical and visible vote. This is the environmental vote 
of the year. The right vote for the American people is ``yes'' on the 
previous question and ``yes'' to the Stokes motion to instruct.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the Stokes motion to 
instruct conferees on the fiscal year 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill. 
These so-called riders are commonsense reforms to prevent Federal 
agencies from promulgating ineffective and expensive regulations and 
should therefore remain in the bill. Supporters of the motion to 
instruct argue that these riders will wreak havoc with public health 
and safety. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
  One such rider will prohibit EPA from issuing regulations under the 
Delaney clause. My colleagues with farms in their districts are very 
familiar with this clause. This clause bans any additive in processed 
food that has been shown--in any amount--to cause cancer in humans or 
laboratory animals.
  ``What is wrong with that,'' you may ask. Well I will tell you--this 
clause was enacted in 1958 when technology allowed scientists to test 
for chemical traces in quantities of about one in a million. Current 
technology now allows us to test for these chemicals in quantities of 
about one in a quadrillion--a million billion, which means that one 
person could be harmed by the substance every 10,000 years or so.
  Even EPA Administrator Carol Browner has called for a change in this 
law, but the EPA's strict interpretation of the Delaney clause means 
that it will continue to be an enormous drain on our agriculture 
economy.
  It is ridiculous regulations such as these that put a stranglehold on 
our economy. I urge my colleagues to support commonsense regulatory 
reforms by opposing the Stokes motion to instruct.
  Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to 
instruct conferees on the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  If we pass this bill with its 17 riders, we will make it easier for 
harmful pollutants to poison our air and water.
  We will make it easier for pesticides and radon to threaten our 
constituents.
  And we will make it easier for polluters to get off scot-free without 
paying for their accidents.
  Worst of all, we will do so not through the appropriate legislative 
process, but with a congressional shell game. A must-pass funding bill 
is no place to attach unpopular and unnecessary special interest 
legislation. This bill leaves us with a Hobson's choice--either swallow 
these propolluting riders whole, or deny an array of agencies and 
programs the funding they need to operate.
  We know these riders cannot survive in the cold, harsh light of day.
  I urge my colleagues to support the motion to instruct conferees.
  Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Stokes motion. 
However, I do so with one serious reservation.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, the 1996 VA-HUD appropriations bill has 
been controversial. It has been controversial because of significant 
spending cuts. But has also been controversial because of the riders 
that were included.
  Mr. Speaker, I originally voted for these riders when first presented 
to the House because I believed--and continue to believe--that they 
represent one of the few approaches available to Congress to halt 
regulatory abuses by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Therefore I must oppose the motion to instruct the conferees to drop 
all of the riders.
  However, Mr. Speaker, subsequent to those votes new scientific 
evidence has been brought to my attention which has caused me to alter 
my position on two of the riders. I have concluded that serious 
questions exist about the cement kiln method of disposal of high-level 
hazardous waste, and thus the riders which affect that industry.
  In addition to scientific evidence, there have been recent televised 
news reports which detail shockingly high rates of mental and physical 
birth defects in the vicinity of cement kilns. These kilns have 
unacceptably high emission 

[[Page H 11703]]

levels of some of the most hazardous substances know.
  The EPA has noted that cement kilns burning hazardous waste produce 
dust--a by-product of burning hazardous waste--that contains 70 to 700 
times more dioxins than kilns which do not burn hazardous waste.
  According to the EPA, cement kilns are the second largest source of 
toxic mercury emissions. Annually over 2,400 newborns and infants will 
be exposed to, and subsequently poisoned by, mercury emissions from 
cement kilns.
  The EPA points out that cement kilns are the third highest source of 
toxic and cancer-causing emissions right behind medical waste 
incinerators and municipal waste incinerators. None of the 24 hazardous 
waste burning cement kilns operates under final permits subject to 
public review, although EPA is beginning the process at some of the 
kilns.
  Most citizens surrounding these plants do not even know that the 
kilns are burning the same hazardous wastes that commercial hazardous 
waste that commercial hazardous waste incinerators must manage under 
very restrictive conditions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, while I must oppose the motion to instruct the 
conferees to disregard all of the riders, it is my hope that they will 
be made thoroughly aware of all of the scientific evidence in this 
matter--not just that of one side--and that they will drop the two 
riders pertaining to the cement kiln method of hazardous waste 
disposal.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to 
instruct the conferees.
  As all of you who have served with me know, I was a strong critic of 
EPA long before it became fashionable. And even though I believe that 
poor judgment and overzealous regulation continue there--such as with 
the so-called combustion strategy--I cannot support the majority's 
efforts to make major changes in this Nation's environmental laws 
through legislative riders.
  As all of you are aware, I have also long fought any attempts to have 
the Appropriation Committee engage in legislative actions. And today we 
are presented with a measure that contains a plethora of half-baked 
legislative amendments to the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and our other environmental statutes. Nearly every 
one of these riders is poorly drafted and will lead to consequences 
well beyond the intentions of the proponents.
  Why is this so? For the simple reason that in their haste to 
circumvent committee debate, to hide the interests that are behind the 
riders, to avoid the glare of the public spotlight, to shield these 
riders from the normal pulls and pushes of the legislative process, the 
proponents have created bad legislation.
  By comparison, during consideration of the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990, my committee heard testimony and solicited views from all 
sides--from the Bush administration and EPA, from Governors and mayors, 
from industry and unions, from environmental groups and ordinary 
citizens, and from Republicans and Democrats. Every word of that 
measure was exhaustively debated at subcommittee, at full committee, 
and on the floor of the House. As a result, I am proud to say that the 
measure had strong bipartisan support throughout every step of its 
journey through the House of Representatives, and, indeed, through the 
Senate and conference committee as well. Similar public debate and 
bipartisan participation marked passage of the Water Quality Act of 
1987 and other environmental statutes.
  But these riders have not undergone this kind of scrutiny. There has 
been no authorizing committee consideration of the environmental roll 
backs and special interest contentions. There has been no fair and full 
debate on the best way to implement any changes the majority may wish 
to make.
  One additional point, Mr. Speaker. This motion to instruct will not 
cure what ails this bill.
  Even if we pass this motion, this bill still slashes EPA's budget by 
one-third and cripples enforcement of the Nation's environmental laws 
through a targeted 50-percent cut in EPA's enforcement budget.
  Even if we pass this motion, this bill will still stand as the worst 
assault on this Nation's duty to house its people since the new deal.
  Even if we pass this motion, this bill will still shrink health 
services for this Nation's veterans. Indeed, according to Veterans 
Secretary Jesse Brown, the cuts mandated by the Republican budget plan 
will require 41 veterans hospitals to close their doors and will mean 
that more than 1 million veterans will be denied health care. The 
Republican plan will also force the elimination of roughly 60,000 
health care positions and the cancellation of 40 construction projects.
  Even if we pass this motion, my conscience will not allow me to vote 
for this bill.
  However, the motion is a strong first step toward rehabilitation and 
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the motion 
to instruction.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 195, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No 761]

                               YEAS--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--195

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)

[[Page H 11704]]

     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     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--6

     Chenoweth
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Tucker
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1247

  Messrs. BUNN of Oregon, ROBERTS, BURR, NUSSLE, CLINGER, BONO, and 
McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. THOMPSON, TAYLOR of Mississippi, MATSUI, and KINGSTON changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the motion to 
instruct offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
  The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 194, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 762]

                               YEAS--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cunningham
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Shaw
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     White
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--194

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     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
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Goodlatte
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Royce
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Zeliff

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Clement
     Conyers
     de la Garza
     Duncan
     Fields (LA)
     Hunter
     Serrano
     Smith (WA)
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1256

  Mr. ROYCE and Mr. BROWNBACK changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay''.
  Mr. FARR changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea''.
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees: Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. DeLay, Mrs. 
Vucanovich, and Messrs. Walsh, Hobson, Knollenberg, Frelinghuysen, 
Neumann, Livingston, Stokes, Mollohan, Chapman, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. 
Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________