[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H14144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1945
                        OUR ENVIRONMENTAL BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ensign). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of people here this 
evening who are concerned about the environment, and I will speak out 
in a special order concerning environmental issues. I want to address 
my remarks to the Clean Water Act.
  Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act was one of the great victories of 
the past 25 years--a bipartisan success. It is often said it was 
enacted after the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire and the 
country saw how far the quality of our waterways had fallen. But smell 
also played a part. Waterfront property was no longer considered a plus 
in many cities: Rivers were open sewers. Parks were abandoned and 
beaches were closed. Lakes and rivers--like Lake Erie--were declared 
dead: pollution killed nearly all the fish.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act was another bipartisan victory. The idea 
was simple: that everyone would be able to trust the quality of 
municipal water, and would not have to fear that their health would be 
threatened if they moved to a different community. No public health law 
was more important than protecting water safety. People recognized that 
Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act were also some of the best 
property rights protection laws around. No one wants the value of their 
property to decline because of someone else's unhealthy or unattractive 
pollution.
  This year, both laws are under attack. We're told the Clean Water Act 
is too strict, that it makes our lakes and rivers too clean. We are 
told that the Safe Drinking Water Act makes our water too healthy. Can 
we not all live with weaker standards, dirtier water?
  The advocates of weaker laws are confident their rights will still be 
protected. They can afford better quality waterfront property. They can 
afford to vacation in the best places. They can afford bottled water 
for their children. And they do not want to pay to protect the common 
good, to protect the drinking water and the waterways that ordinary 
people, ordinary families will use.
  We saw the Clean Water Act under attack in the amendments that the 
House approved in May that would weaken the law. Of course, the Senate 
has not acted on that bill, and we know that if it ever reached the 
President, it would face a veto. We saw the Safe Drinking Water Act 
under attack in the riders on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. The rider 
that would have prohibited EPA from tightening standards in lead in 
drinking water--so important to children's health--was the most 
egregious example. But that attempt was thwarted too.

  Does that mean everything will be fine? No. Money is at the heart of 
this debate, and the strategy now to attack clean water and safe 
drinking water is to cut off their money supply. If the EPA does not 
have the money to enforce the Clean Water Act, it will start to die a 
slow death. It will bring back the open sewers and flammable streams of 
long ago.
  Let us get down to specifics. The VA-HUD appropriations bill makes 
sharp cuts in funding for the EPA. It would cut funding for enforcement 
of public health standards--including clean water and safe drinking 
water--by 17 percent.
  We hear these days about the importance of letting States do the job. 
Fine--but this bill would cut funding for State loans to improve 
drinking water quality by 45 percent.
  Do you like to see sludge in your rivers and on your beaches? Then 
you will love to see these cuts. The bill would cut 30 percent from the 
request for funding for waste treatment plants. Once again, this is 
money that would go to the States. The bill will make it more difficult 
for them to help themselves and to help their people.
  We have still got some of those notorious riders in here too. It is 
nice to know the bill no longer prohibits EPA from reducing lead levels 
in water. But it does prohibit EPA from setting a standard for radon in 
water--even though radon is linked to lung cancer. It does prohibit EPA 
from vetoing use of fill containing toxic waste in rivers and lakes.
  The VA-HUD appropriations bill covers only 1 year. So it is easy to 
say these cuts merely delay action a little bit. But put these cuts in 
the context of the 7-year budget plans that are dominating the news 
these days. Would enforcement funding increase during the course of 
those 7 years? Would States get more money to address their water 
problems later in the course of those 7 years? No. The budget envisions 
7 lean years for environmental cleanup and enforcement.
  They say Marie Antoinette said of the ordinary people of her time 
:Let them eat cake'' if they cannot buy bread. The cuts in the EPA 
budget effectively say if they want clean water, let them drink 
Perrier.
  Should we be willing to pay the relatively small amount extra to buy 
our constituents--all of our constituents, not just the Perrier 
drinkers--the safest water available? We should. Should we be willing 
to spend the small amount extra to keep making progress on cleaner 
rivers, lakes, and beaches? We should. I think the average family wants 
to know that the children will have safe, healthy water to drink, and 
clean beaches to play on. I think they expect their government to give 
them that assurance. I do not think they want to see these laws allowed 
to wither away for lack of funding. I do not think they want to make 
that sacrifice so that some people will have a little more money to 
spend on designer water or on airfare to a clean beach.

                          ____________________