[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 177 (Thursday, November 9, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2155]
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

                                 ______


                               speech of

                         HON. J. DENNIS HASTERT

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, November 2, 1995

  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the motion to 
instruct offered by the gentleman from Ohio and urge Members to defeat 
the previous question so we can substitute his amendment with a 
superior one.
  Mr. Speaker, the Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency 
in the 1970's to ensure a safe, clean, and healthy environment for our 
country. I wholeheartedly support those important goals--every American 
needs clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, and a healthy 
environment free of toxic pollutants. However, when Congress crated the 
EPA, it did not make the agency infallible. Over the years, we have all 
seen that there are many ways that the EPA can do a better, more 
efficient, and more cost effective job. It is our duty as a Congress to 
the American people to see to it that this happens.
  Mr. Speaker, the Members of this body, in approving H.R. 2099 earlier 
this year, sought to address several specific issues of EPA regulation. 
By narrowly restricting a specific use of EPA funds, the Congress is 
saying, give us a chance to stop and look at what the EPA has been 
doing. As a Congress, it is our duty to evaluate the effectiveness of 
Government regulatory policy.
  The gentleman from Ohio offers us an all-or-nothing proposal. His 
motion would have us instruct our conferees to drop every one of these 
riders, regardless of their merits. Although the gentleman and his 
supporters would have us believe that his is the only way for us to 
proceed, I believe that the House should not be limited in choosing 
only all of the riders or none of the riders. Instead, we should 
instruct conferees to review each proposal on its merits.
  Mr. Speaker, if we vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question, it 
will give us an opportunity to consider another, superior motion, that 
will instruct our conferees to consider each one of these riders on 
their merits as they rightfully should.
  To support the gentleman from Ohio's all or nothing approach, I would 
be encouraging Conferees to drop a provision that forces the EPA to 
rethink its silly, forced carpooling system. This is a program which 
even the EPA admits is a failure in helping us clean up our air. It 
would cost employers in Illinois hundreds of millions of dollars to 
implement and unnecessarily inconvenience one out of four commuters. 
How can I support the EPA spending money to administer this foolish 
program when serious environmental problems like the clean-up of 
radioactive thorium in West Chicago really need the attention of EPA 
officials.

                          ____________________