[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13764-H13765]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RECOMMITTING THE VA-HUD APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT WILL ALLOW FOR 
               THE GREATER PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to see that the VA-HUD 
appropriations conference report, which, of course, includes funding 
for the Environmental Protection Agency, was recommitted to conference 
today, primarily because of two provisions related to the Environmental 
Protection Agency. One is that the amount of money that is appropriated 
to the EPA is probably one of the lowest amounts for any agency, and 
specifically with regard to enforcement, there is a 25-percent cut in 
terms of the EPA's enforcement.
  Already we know that the EPA has cut back significantly on 
inspections and on enforcement because of the level of funding that 
they have received pursuant to the continuing resolution. In other 
words, as we proceed in trying to put together an appropriations bill 
for the EPA, less money can be spent on a monthly basis since October 
1, because we have not had an appropriations bill signed into law.

  Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make is that this conference 
report, which fortunately was sent back to conference today, cuts back 
on EPA's enforcement ability by about 25 percent. Since we are already 
into fiscal year 1996 and we are operating on a continuing resolution 
which significantly cuts back the amount of money available to the EPA, 
already inspections and other enforcement actions have been reduced at 
the Environmental Protection Agency. This 25-percent cut in enforcement 
will simply magnify that problem.
  What it means essentially is that, although we have good 
environmental laws on the books, they cannot be enforced. Polluters 
will go free, and there will not be the ability for the EPA to go in 
and even know exactly what is going on, whether someone, for example, 
is violating their discharge permit into waters.
  In addition to the problem with enforcement, this House has several 
times, at least on two occasions now, voted to take out riders that 
were in the EPA appropriations bill which I characterize as anti-
environment, because they prohibit the agency from actually enforcing 
certain actions pursuant to the current law. Yet, we know that of the 
17 House riders that were in the EPA appropriations bill, two of them 
remain in the conference report, and at least half of them have been 
placed into what we call report language. They are not actually in the 
law, but they are placed in the conference report, and normally Federal 
agencies have some sort of requirement to try to go along with what the 
report, what the conference report language says.
  Specifically, there are two provisions, two of the riders that are 
still in the bill and I hope will be taken out when this bill goes back 
to conference. One of the two would essentially say that the EPA has no 
ability to enforce wetlands protection. Right now the EPA has the 
authority under certain circumstances to permit the filing in of 
wetlands where the agency feels there has been substantial or will be 
substantial detriment to the environment. That has been taken out; that 
rider is still in the bill, but that prohibits the agency from 
providing any kind of wetlands protection.
  The other rider that still is in the bill is one that would prohibit 
the designation of new Superfund sites. Again, if we are supposed to 
use a scientific basis, which we traditionally have, for deciding 
whether or not a hazardous waste site would be put on the national 
priority list for Superfund status, then there is no reason why an 
appropriations bill, or a conference report in this case, should 
specifically say that no new Superfund site can be designated.
  In addition, through, Mr. Speaker, there are at least another eight 
or nine riders that are put into what we call report language. These 
are essentially loopholes that are created to provide 

[[Page H 13765]]
special treatment; for example, utilities and other industries seeking 
to prevent the EPA from expanding its disclosure program under the 
Community Right To Know Act, refineries facing compliance with air 
toxic emission standards, cement kilns that burn hazardous waste, air 
permitting programs for the State of Virginia, bioengineering plants, 
State audit shields for polluters, natural gas processors. In each case 
there is conference language requesting the EPA to create loopholes or 
other special treatment in these various categories.
  Essentially, Mr. Speaker, I believe very strongly that since agencies 
are supposed to follow the dictates of the appropriators, this shift to 
report language, taking the riders out of the statute but putting in 
the report language, really means that a lot of the damage will still 
be done to the environment. I hope that the conferees, when this bill 
goes back to committee, will make some additional changes so we have 
more money for environmental protection.

                          ____________________