[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 188 (Tuesday, November 28, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H13665]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EPA APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized 
during morning business for 4 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this week, we will be addressing the 
remaining appropriations conference reports, including the VA-HUD 
appropriations conference report which provides funding for the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Unfortunately, our environmental laws have taken blow after blow in 
the 104th Congress as bills spiked with antienvironmental measures pass 
the House floor, both out in the open as in the Clean Water Act 
reauthorization or through more mischievous measures, as through 
appropriation and budget bills like the VA-HUD conference report that 
we will be voting on this week, most likely tomorrow.
  No other Government agency is facing the kind of cuts that are 
included in this bill for the EPA.
  The bill cuts funding for the EPA to set and enforce environmental 
and public health standards for air pollution, pesticides, and clean 
and safe water by 17 percent from what the President proposed.
  Hazardous waste site cleanup is being cut by 25 percent, slowing 
efforts to make the Superfund Program faster, fairer, and more 
efficient.
  And EPA's enforcement funding is being hit even harder, with a 27-
percent cut in enforcement of all environmental programs.
  On top of all the direct cuts to EPA's budget, this bill cuts by 30 
percent funds that go straight to the States to help keep raw sewage 
off beaches and out of waterways.
  And State loan funds for use in protecting community drinking water 
nationwide are reduced by 45 percent in this bill.
  Restricting the EPA's ability to implement environmental protection 
programs and reducing funding to the States, in my opinion, is nothing 
less than an unfunded mandate on the States to maintain environmental 
quality.
  In the majority of cases where adequate Federal funds are not made 
available, State funding just is not there.
  This means that a virtual environmental protection vacuum will be 
created by this bill, where polluters get off scot free at the expense 
of environmental quality, and human safety and health.
  One must ask why funding for environmental protection is being 
targeted or why after three votes to remove restrictive riders from the 
VA-HUD appropriations bill, the majority of the riders were simply 
moved to report language and several riders still remain as actual 
legislative language in the bill.
  For example, incorporated in this bill is a rider that prevents EPA 
from stopping dumping of potentially harmful fill into wetlands.
  EPA is by no means overly zealous in its use of this authority over 
wetlands, and only 11 times in the history of the wetlands program has 
it stepped in to veto this type of dumping.
  Even in New Jersey, a State with one of the most stringent wetlands 
programs in the country, 94 percent of all wetlands permit applications 
are approved. So why is it necessary to put a rider in this bill 
prohibiting the EPA from protecting wetlands?
  Another measure that does not belong in this bill is the prohibition 
of EPA's authority to add hazardous waste sites to the national 
priority list under Superfund.
  The Superfund listing process is strictly scientific now.
  There are those in this Congress, however, who seem determined to 
politicize the process by placing all sorts of restrictions on listing 
Superfund sites.
  My committee, the Committee on Commerce, is now reviewing the 
Superfund Program, and I maintain the legislative process should simply 
be allowed to run its course.
  If this conference report is passed in its current form, the EPA's 
hands will be tied and the quality of the air we breathe and the water 
we drink will suffer dramatically.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and send it back to 
conference in order to restore the EPA's ability to effectively protect 
the health and safety of our environment and our constituents.
  Essentially, if we send the bill back to conference again, those who 
represent the House and the Senate can get together and come up with a 
better bill that does not cut enforcement for environmental protection 
as much, that provides sufficient funding to the States so that they 
can continue to maintain a quality environment. This is what we should 
be doing in this Congress instead of passing this bill.

                          ____________________