[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1290-H1296]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STILL VERY MUCH ON THE MINDS OF THE AMERICAN 
                                 PEOPLE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone], is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I will use the entire 
time, but I did want to seek recognition today to talk about 
environmental concerns, and particularly to point out some of the 
results of a hearing that our Democratic Environmental Task Force held 
yesterday on February 26. We had a full, I guess, 2 or 3 hours of 
hearings. We heard from not only the Secretary of the Interior, Mr. 
Babbitt; the EPA Administrator, Ms. Browner; and also Assistant 
Attorney General Schiffer, but also from a distinguished panel of 
citizens from around the country who are concerned about environmental 
protection.
  The reason for the task force existence and the reason for the 
hearing yesterday was because of our concern, Democrats' concern, that 
the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has 
essentially used 1995, our previous year, in order to try to turn back 
the clock on 25 years of environmental protection in the United States.
  For more than a quarter of a century, there has been a consensus, a 
bipartisan consensus in Congress, as well as with the President, 
largely with Democratic Congresses and mostly with Republican 
Presidents, or sometimes Democratic Presidents, but in any case on a 
bipartisan basis for 25 years this Congress has tried to protect the 
environment, improve the laws, improve enforcement, improve 
inspections, so that polluters, whether they be polluters of the air, 
the water, or our natural resources, would have to stop their efforts 
to continue the degradation of the environment, and if they did not, 
they would be penalized severely, hopefully, for their activities that 
were detrimental to the environment.
  In fact, in many ways we can hark back to the days in the 1970's, in 
the early 1970's, when the Environmental Protection Agency was created 
under then President Richard Nixon. It was a Democratic Congress, but a 
Republican President in 1970 who created the Environmental Protection 
Agency. In fact, when the first Earth Day was organized back in 1970, 
President Nixon and the Republicans in Congress were very supportive of 
the efforts to move forward on environmental protection.
  But this 25-year consensus, this 25 years, if you will, prior to 
1995, when every year stronger environmental protection laws were 
passed and money was made available for enforcement and inspections for 
our environmental laws, all of a sudden in 1995 this consensus was 
broken and we saw the effort on the part of Speaker Gingrich and the 
House Republican leadership to roll back environmental protection. And 
whether it was through authorizing bills or cutbacks in the budgets for 
these various environmental agencies, all of a sudden there was an 
effort by the Republican leadership to change this 25-year consensus.
  The reason for that I believe very strongly is because of special 
interests. In other words, corporate interests, the polluters, if you 
will, were very much behind the Republican leadership in saying look, 
the time has come to turn back the clock and we expect you to come down 
to Washington and help us to make it easier, if you will, or less 
stringent, with regard to pollution, and less stringent regulations and 
less stringent statutes and less money available for these agencies to 
do their work was essentially the order of the day.
  I feel that it is an obligation, not only of the Democrats but also 
of moderate Republicans who support the environmental protection 
agenda, to point out what is happening and how extremist this 
Republican leadership agenda is that seeks to essentially turn back the 
clock on environmental protection, because we know that the American 
people consistently support strong environmental laws and strong 
enforcement of those environmental laws. In fact, a survey was recently 
done, which I would like to point to, by American Viewpoint. It pointed 
out that by greater than a 2.1 margin, voters have more confidence in 
the Democrats than Republicans as the party they trust most to protect 
the environment. In fact, it even pointed out that 55 percent of all 
Republicans surveyed do not trust their party when it comes to 
protecting the environment, while 72 percent of the Democrats do trust 
their party to protect the environment.
  So the bottom line is that environmental protection is very much 
still in the forefront of the minds of the American people. They did 
not elect a Congress in 1994, whether it be under the Republican 
majority or Democrats in the minority, they did not elect a Congress 
with the idea that the leadership of the Congress was going to come 
down here and try to turn back the clock on environmental protection.
  What I think has been happening though is that in 1995, while this 
effort was going on on the part of Speaker Gingrich and the Republican 
leadership, more and more they began to become aware of the fact that, 
particularly toward the end of the year, that this was not a popular 
agenda, that destroying environmental laws and turning back the clock 
was not something 

[[Page H1291]]
the public was responding to in a favorable way. What we see now is an 
effort in some ways by the Republican leadership to suggest to their 
Members that perhaps they should go slow on this agenda, or maybe they 
should vote for the antienvironmental agenda, but not give the 
impression back at home that is what they are doing.
  A memo was put out in fact to the Republican membership by one of my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Texas. Tom DeLay, who is in the 
Republican leadership, on September 29, 1995, and what he says 
essentially is that Members, when they go back to their districts, and 
we just finished a district work period, about 3 weeks when we were not 
in session and we were back in our districts and States and 
congressional districts, what this memo says that Republicans when they 
go home should try to at least give the impression to the public and 
the media that they are trying to protect the environment, even while 
they come back here and vote very differently.

  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], suggests certain action items 
like tree planting. He suggests that Republicans should sponsor tree 
planting programs in their districts or participate in ongoing tree 
planting programs that would provide Members with earned media 
opportunities.
  He also suggests that perhaps they get involved in local schools and 
meet with students to talk about recycling, or that perhaps they give 
out conservation awards. He talks about the Teddy Roosevelt 
Conservation Award, because as you know, President Teddy Roosevelt was 
known very much as an environmentalist and was a Republican. It says in 
the memo, using his name, consider establishing a yearly Teddy 
Roosevelt Conservation Award for someone in your district whose 
achievements exemplify President Roosevelt's conservation commitment. 
You can even recognize several award winners by establishing a youth 
award, a senior award, or a local business conservation award.
  He goes on to suggest that perhaps the Republican Members could go 
door-to-door and hand out tree saplings or get involved in park 
cleanups or become active in their local zoo.
  I am not saying any of these things are bad. I think it is great. I 
think it is great to participate in Arbor Day and clean up the local 
park and certainly good to recognize students or seniors in the 
community that are involved in conservation efforts and give out the 
Teddy Roosevelt Award. I greatly admire President Roosevelt.
  Again it points out that historically conservationism, 
environmentalism, has been bipartisan. But I would venture to suggest 
that the suggestions of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], here are 
really primarily cosmetic in an effort to try to give the impression 
that Republican Members when they are in their districts are 
environmentalists or conservationists, but then they come back here and 
vote very much the other way. They vote for measures that break down 
environmental protection, that turn the clock back on the environmental 
protection that we have had for 25 years on a bipartisan basis.
  All of us want more efficient Government. I would venture to say that 
every Member of this House of Representatives would like to see the 
deficit reduced and like to see a balanced budget, or almost every 
Member, certainly both Democrats and Republicans. Certainly I share 
that point of view. But I do not believe that in an effort to tighten 
the budget belt, if you will, or an effort to reduce the deficit and 
eliminate the deficit and balance the budget, that you have to 
sacrifice environmental protection. I would venture to say that 
environmental protection more than any other issue, and EPA and the 
agencies and programs involved in environmental protection, more than 
any other agencies have suffered severely by the Republican budget cuts 
or Republican budget suggestions. And if you look at the continuing 
resolution, the stopgap spending bill that we are now operating under, 
at least until March 15, you will notice that environmental protection, 
those agencies, those programs involved in environmental protection, 
are cut much more severely than almost any other agency or any other 
Federal program, again part of the effort to turn back the clock on 
environmental protection, if not through outright repeal of our laws, 
then certainly by cutting back on the amount of personnel or the money 
that is available to the agencies to do investigations, to do 
enforcement, to bring the polluters to justice, so-to-speak, and 
penalize them.
  As you all know, if you have laws on the books that are very 
stringent in terms of protecting the environment, it does not do much 
good if you do not have personnel to go out and check on the polluters, 
bring them to justice, if you do not have the enforcement and 
investigation. There is almost no point in having the laws on the books 
at all.

                              {time}  1715

  What I wanted to do in some of the time that I have allotted to me, I 
wanted to at least initially give some idea in my home State of New 
Jersey of the impact of the Republican budget cuts. Then, if I could, I 
will go through some of the data that was provided by some of the 
speakers at our task force hearing on Monday that indicates exactly how 
these Republican budget cuts are impacting various environmental 
agencies.
  As far as my home State of New Jersey is concerned, one of the major 
concerns is the Superfund program. The Superfund program is the 
national hazardous waste cleanup program. My home State of New Jersey 
has 107 active Superfund sites, which is more than any other State. 
Twelve sites have been slated for significant new construction, in 
other words, remedial and major removal actions will be shut down by 
the budget cuts that have been proposed.
  I am not going to get into all the list of the sites. I would like to 
submit them for the Record. But the bottom line is that we have at 
least 12 sites that would see no remedial action, no restoration at 
all, even though they are on the national priority list.
  There are 30 other sites in New Jersey with ongoing work that will 
experience shutdowns or slowdowns as a result of the budget cuts, with 
various impacts. So for these other 30, all the work will not stop 
completely but it will be significantly slowed down. For example, at 
the Montclair, Glen Ridge, West Orange radium site, the EPA will have 
to stop cleaning up radium contaminated soil in a residential 
neighborhood. In disposal sites, buried waste containers would continue 
to leach contaminants into groundwater. In addition, 34 sites where 
responsible parties are performing cleanups could be stopped if the 
region is not provided with funds to oversee those cleanups.
  What I am talking about here is the fact that under the Superfund 
program, it is only if you cannot find a responsible party, in other 
words, a polluter that we know caused the pollution to take place, that 
the Superfund or the Federal dollars have to be used. In most cases, 
the sites are being cleaned up by the polluter, the responsible 
parties. And in 34 cases in New Jersey alone, where responsible parties 
are performing the cleanups, there will not be any kind of Federal 
oversight of the cleanups, which means that essentially they could be 
stopped. If the Federal Government cannot go in and see what they are 
doing, they may not, the polluters may not actually be able to perform 
the cleanup.
  Separate from the Superfund program, there is an impact of these cuts 
on leaking underground storage tanks. This is another Federal program 
with Federal dollars involved. There is a reduction from fiscal year 
1995 of about $500,000, a half a million dollars, in that program which 
means 278 cleanups will not be initiated and 303 cleanups will not be 
completed. So here again an important program, underground storage 
tanks, leakage from that, again toxic waste, hazardous waste sites that 
are not going to be cleaned up.
  Very important to the State of New Jersey also is the safe drinking 
water program, not just to New Jersey, this is important nationally. 
The EPA estimates that more than 6 million residents of New Jersey are 
served by drinking water systems that violated public health standards 
last year. Budget cuts, again the Republican budget cuts, will reduce 
the funding available to these communities to improve their drinking 
water systems by about $5 million.
  Now, an area that I am personally very committed to, and it is very 
important to my district, is clean water. 

[[Page H1292]]
New Jersey historically has taken a major interest in efforts to 
improve our water quality. Historically many of its waterways were 
severely polluted. According to the EPA, about 85 percent of New 
Jersey's rivers and streams are too polluted for basic uses like 
swimming. The goal of the Clean Water Act is fishable, swimmable 
waters. If you cannot achieve those goals, then you are not doing your 
job here in Congress.
  So we have to try to at least move forward in achieving those goals. 
But under the fiscal year 1996 conference report, again, the Republican 
proposal, New Jersey stands to lose $52.05 million in clean water 
funding that would help stop pollution from getting into the State's 
waters, lakes, and streams as well as in the Atlantic Ocean. This 
represents a 53 percent cut from the fiscal year 1995 enacted funding 
level.
  Also, huge cuts in New York's waste water treatment loans and other 
clean water funding threatens New jersey beaches through washups of 
untreated sewage and wastewater. Again, I was elected to Congress for 
the first time in 1988, after a summer when most of our beaches in New 
Jersey were closed because of pollution problems, basically debris, 
medical waste, water quality problems that generated primarily from 
north Jersey as well as New York City.
  If grants and loans are not available to both New Jersey and New 
York, particularly in the northern part of the State or the New York 
metropolitan area, then those same pollution problems will continue to 
exist or get worse. The consequence of that is that maybe not this 
summer certainly but in a few years if the funding is not available to 
upgrade wastewater treatment to prevent problems related to combined 
sewage overflow, where it rains and your storm water and debris from 
your streets get in to basically bypass the sewage treatment plant and 
end up into the Hudson and then eventually come down to the coast of 
New Jersey, if those problems now begin to be aggravated again because 
there is not enough Federal dollars going back to the States for 
wastewater treatment, then we could easily see in a few years down the 
road a repeat of some of the beach closings and similar type problems 
that we had in the late 1980's in the State of New Jersey.
  These clean water efforts are not just water quality issues. They are 
obviously economic issues because so many jobs in the State of New 
Jersey are dependent upon clean water for tourism during the summer 
season. In New Jersey now, tourism is one of the most significant 
industries in the State. So it has a major economic impact, meaning 
dollars will be lost. The tax dollars will not be coming from the 
Federal Government if we do not continue our effort to constantly 
upgrade our sewage treatment systems and effectuate clean water.
  The last thing I wanted to talk about is enforcement. In New Jersey, 
essentially with these Republican budget cuts, the environmental cop 
will be off the beat as inspections and enforcement efforts will be 
severely curtailed on the Republican budget proposal which represents a 
cut of 25 percent below the President's budget request. So with regard 
to enforcement alone, we are talking about a 25 percent cut.
  Decreased inspections due to cuts create public health threats that 
would have to be addressed by a staff much smaller by the budget cuts. 
And in region 2--region 2 for the EPA includes New Jersey as well as 
New York--there are reports that as a result of the ongoing budget 
problems there is a growing backlog of permits which they have been 
unable to process.

  In other words, again, we will not even get to the issue of proper 
enforcement or inspection because they would not even be able to review 
the whole question of permits, discharge permits for clean water or 
permits for any other kind of environmental activity.
  I see that one of my colleagues from Minnesota is here, Mr. Vento. I 
am glad that he is joining us here today. I would yield to the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
commend him for his order talking about the environment and the effects 
of the curtailment of funding that has persisted this fiscal year, the 
fiscal year that began October 1. And for 4 weeks of that period of 
time the programs that affect the environment, the EPA, the Department 
of Interior, and numerous other programs that through the Department of 
Commerce, such as NOAA and so forth were in shutdown. There is no 
funding for them. That was a contest because there was a difference in 
priorities, sometimes between the House and the Senate, sometimes 
within the Senate and the Senate and the House and the House, and 
sometimes even with the President that did not agree with the actions 
of this Republican-led Congress. So for 4 weeks, 20 percent of the 
time, we end up spending $1.4 billion in terms of employees' wages that 
could not work. But more importantly than that is that the cost of that 
goes well beyond, well beyond the dollars spent on the employees and 
the work not accomplished, because as we learned on Monday, yesterday, 
the fact was that the EPA director, the Secretary of the Interior, the 
Justice Department is unable to do its job. It is unable to collect the 
information and the data that they need to, for instance, enforce laws 
that deal with clean air, that deal with clean water, that deal with 
toxic substances that might be and do occur regularly in the 
environment.
  The fact is that if you have a shortfall without funding in the 
collection of the database of information on what is happening, that is 
the first thing that will raise reasonable doubt in a court of law. I 
am not an attorney, but I do not think it takes an attorney to 
understand the fact that when you have holes in your body of knowledge 
and information, that it is impossible to bring an action, legally, a 
legal action to in fact enforce these very, very important laws.
  Now, I think that it seems like it is almost a prerequisite of all 
the Members of Congress to attest that they are, as a condition of 
their employment, as a condition of their service in this body, that 
they are all avowed environmentalists. But there are environmentalists 
and there are environmentalists. There are those that I am not so 
interested in what the nomenclature is that they claim or the identity 
that they claim for themselves as I am in what the actions have been in 
this Congress and what the consequences are. So I think we ought to 
understand that when we defund various types of investigatory work, 
various types of legal work that affects the environment, that we are 
actually, we are actually in a way repealing the very effect of those 
laws that are so important to the protection of our health, to our 
safety, and to the environment.
  This morning I had the opportunity to listen to some of the technical 
experts from the Department of the Interior, from the Fish and Wildlife 
Service. And last year what happened, in 1995, is the Congress, through 
a rescission bill, repealed or forbid, put a moratorium on the listing 
of threatened or endangered species.
  I do not know if the gentleman from New Jersey had mentioned that 
because I was on my way to the floor, but today we have 243 endangered 
species of plants and animals that are unable to be listed. We have 
done all the work on them. We have cooperated with the States. We have 
gone through the scientific evidence. We have explored all the 
ramifications of it, that is to say, that the Fish and Wildlife Service 
has, who are legally charged with this, but they cannot list these 
particular species as to their protection.

  The general policy, the law signed by Richard Nixon in the early 
1970s, the Endangered Species Act, said that we were, as a community, 
as a Nation, as a policy were going to try and protect these threatened 
and endangered species. In addition to that, there are 180 some other, 
182 other candidates species that would be listed. So here we have a 
collection of some 425 species that are probable for listing under the 
Endangered Species Act. And by action of this Congress, we have 
unilaterally, without a vote on this floor necessarily or any other 
action, just cut off the funding so no one can do any listing, put a 
moratorium on it, no funding, no listing, put a moratorium on it.
  And the fact is the problems with this grew out of the same sort of 
attitude in the past administration. The then Bush administration had a 
lawsuit that was filed on the part of various groups that he was not in 
fact, they were not, under then Secretary of 

[[Page H1293]]
Interior Manuel Lujan, actually proceeding properly with the listing of 
endangered species. They agreed, prior to the new administration taking 
power, incidentally, that they would accelerate the rate of listing of 
endangered species.
  So when President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt took on the 
responsibility of the administration in 1993, they already had problems 
in the sense that there was a significant number of species that had 
not been listed, plants and animals, that actually, of course, caused 
some degree of acrimony, because it was the sort of fits and starts 
type of effort with people taking their own, that is to say, an 
administration taking its political view, its own personal view and 
superimposing it over what the normal law should be in terms of listing 
this.
  I think the American people have spoken loud and clear with regards 
to their views and the polls, as we read them, concerning the 
environmental policies and laws that have been enacted over the past 25 
years. I think it is patently ridiculous for this Congress to try to 
hide behind the spending bills, to fold into them all sorts of changes, 
dramatic changes. They have overreached in terms of the environment. A 
lot of people want to get up and proclaim, as I said, that they are 
environmentalists. But when they vote for spending measures and policy 
changes inherent in those spending measures, or shortfalls, I mean we 
keep saying that most of the damage has not been done to the 
environment. That is not correct. If you do not fund these, you stop 
the proper flow of lawsuits. In fact, you destroy the database which is 
necessary for the prosecution of lawsuits for a long time into the 
future.

                              {time}  1730

  So tremendous damage is being done by this lack of funding. Of course 
there are some direct policy implications, as I said, with the 
Endangered Species Act. I think on another occasion we might want to 
talk about the so-called timber salvage in the clear cutting of old 
growth forests in the Pacific Northwest and the types of policies that 
are flowing from that particular law and the lack of consideration of 
forest health. I mean, we may want to talk about that, but there is 
enormous damage that is being done and has been done by this Congress 
because the President cannot spend money that he is not provided. He 
cannot move forward on legislation when there is not funding. The 
Congress is absolutely responsible. Congress has a tremendous amount of 
power in terms of the purse strings, and my problem with this Congress 
is that it is conducting itself in an irresponsible way by not funding 
properly the laws that are in place. If you want to change the policy, 
let us have a vote on this floor and vote it up or down. But to 
undercut it by not funding these particular policies and hiding behind 
that particular artifice I think is wrong, I think it is irresponsible, 
and I think it is inconsistent with the sound policy making that should 
characterize this body. We ought to be looking at what the impact is on 
the economy, we ought to be looking at what the scientific evidence is, 
we ought to be looking at what is morally right or wrong with regards 
to these issues, and we ought to be looking at what the people we 
represent think, what their views are. All of that ought to be 
considered.
  But that is not what is being considered in this instance. What is 
being considered and what is dominating this Congress on the 
environment is an overreach, an extremism and anti-environmentalism, an 
attitude of policy making by anecdote, by not considering properly the 
issues and how they will effect us, and we are having and this Congress 
itself is having an adverse effect, a very negative effect, on what the 
future or what our role is as stewards and what the legacy is that is 
going to be left for future generations by destroying our clean water.
  The progress we have made I might say has been very grudging, it has 
been expensive, it has been inconvenient. We have caused great anxiety 
because we have taken on and tackled these problems in past decades, 
and it was not me. I have not been here as long as many that came 
before us, and it has been bipartisan, but that is not the case in this 
particular Congress. This Congress is ideologically hell bent to 
undercut the environmental progress and to serve the needs of special 
interests.
  That is how it adds up, that is the bottom line. Look where the money 
goes, look who benefits from these particular changes. They are not 
measures to fight the deficit, they are creating an environmental 
deficit in this country that our grandchildren and children will be 
paying for a long, long time. I think these arguments of balancing the 
budget and claiming that they are doing that on less government--you 
want less Government, you want dirty air, do you want dirty water, do 
you want to destroy the pristine resources that we have in this Nation? 
I think the American public would answer that very loudly with a no, in 
the negative, and I think that, I hope, this Congress can wake up and 
stop some of the damage that they are causing by these shortfalls in 
terms of funding that have persisted and persist right now.
  If we do not stop it, we are going to see a defunded and a much 
reduced ability of the EPA and the Justice Department and the others 
that we charge with the responsibility, a much reduced ability to carry 
out that particular responsibility, and I thank the gentleman from New 
Jersey for asking for this special order and for the work he is doing 
on the Task Force on the Environment.

  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota for the 
statement and the comments that he made. One of the things that the 
gentleman pointed to was the fact that in many cases the ideology, if 
you will, that the Republican leadership is articulating really is not 
true in terms of what the actual effect is. I mean one of the things 
that they keep stressing is how they have to cut the budget for 
environmental protection in order to save money, that somehow that is 
going to, you know, lead to serious deficit reduction. and in fact when 
we look at some of the cuts and some of the changes that they are 
proposing, it has just the opposite effect. I thought some of the 
strongest testimony at our hearing yesterday was by the assistant 
attorney general and also by Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator, 
where they were pointing out that because of the Government shutdowns, 
because of the cutbacks in funding for personnel, that they have not 
been able to basically prosecute polluters and collect penalties that 
come back as a result of successful prosecution, and they have not been 
able to find those who violate their permits, and so are actually 
losing a tremendous amount of money that comes back from the penalties 
and the loss of income that results from not getting the penalties and 
the fees from that during this process.
  So I think again one of the purposes of our task force is to sort of 
be a truth squad and say, here, look, you are articulating this 
ideology that you are going to save money, but you are really not 
because actually we are getting fewer dollars in here, we are not 
prosecuting, we are not enforcing the law.
  Mr. VENTO. If the gentleman would yield, we are losing the data base 
in order to successfully prosecute in these particular instances, so 
the $1.4 billion lost for 4 weeks, the underfunding; for instance, they 
cannot even send people in the field because they do not know if they 
will be able to come back.
  We heard from a third grade student yesterday that had asthma that 
was effected by the smog and the other types of problems that are 
occurring in the air, and obviously I think that many could benefit 
from listening to that child, that kid, that was in fact very much 
affected by the fact that our clean air laws are not being permitted to 
function, and it is actually causing an adverse effect on his health 
and his ability to in fact participate in sports and do a variety of 
other things.
  So it is not just the technical aspect, it is a very human aspect of 
this, and yet there is a sort of a head in the sand attitude with 
regards to this Republican leadership of extremism and serving the 
needs of special interests at the same time they are undercutting the 
very fundamental basic trust to the people we represent.
  Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding and 
thank him also for his strong leadership on this issue. I am pleased to 
join 

[[Page H1294]]
our colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, [Mr. Vento], and the 
gentleman from New Jersey, [Mr. Pallone] in this special order.
  It is very interesting. I recently just had an environment town 
meeting in San Francisco, and it was environment and health, and we 
addressed very directly the proposals that are being made in this House 
of Representatives that effect the environment and just the subject you 
were talking about and how it effects individual health.

  The public is on to this. They are very, very interested in what is 
happening here in this House of Representatives, and they are very 
concerned about the riders that were placed on the VA-HUD bill, 
obviously making that complete veto bait for the President.
  But it is not enough for us just to defeat those riders, however 
important that was, and it took a bipartisan effort for us to have a 
majority vote to defeat them. However, many of the same Members of this 
House who voted against the riders then went on to support the bill, 
which had huge cuts in the EPA budget, thereby tying the hands of the 
EPA to do its job. Now certainly if there is any alteration that we 
want to make in regulations, et cetera, governing EPA, everything is up 
for discussion, but not serious defunding, which says to the EPA, well, 
we would not have the riders but you would not have money either to 
enforce it. Right now we are planning another meeting about breast 
cancer and the environment and the relationship of not having clean 
air, clean water, whatever else.
  I think it is a very explosive issue. As I say, the public is very 
concerned about it. It is an environmental issue that is distinct from 
saving certain endangered species that some think is not necessarily 
important in their lives, although we see the connection in nature 
among all of us.
  But these issues of environment and health, the EPA budget 
restrictions on enforcement, are issues that are important to our 
children, and in a Congress that talks about values and in a Congress 
that talks about our children's future two things are for sure: If we 
want our children to lead healthy lives we must make sure they live in 
a healthy environment, and second is we are never going to reduce the 
deficit as long as we would allow our environment to be polluted, 
causing illnesses, causing cost, and of course reducing quality of 
life.
  One of the reasons many of us are in politics is to extend the 
protection that we give our own children as parents beyond the home, 
but there is only so much we can do, and protecting the environment is 
one thing the American people look to government to do. It never 
happened under the honor system, and it requires the government role, 
government regulation, and it calls for a Federal Government role so 
that our entire country is safeguarded.
  With that, I once again want to thank the gentleman for his 
leadership on this as well as for holding the hearings yesterday and 
his ongoing leadership on the issue of protecting the environment, and 
if the gentleman is not using all of his time, I would like to be 
yielded to again toward the end of his remarks.
  Mr. PALLONE. Absolutely, and I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi] for those remarks, and you know it is 
interesting, because when we had the hearing yesterday Carol Browner, 
who is the Administrator of the EPA, pointed out what difficult choices 
we are going to face over the next few months or the next year if the 
level of spending or the budget levels that we are operating under now, 
if this continuing resolution were to continue through the end of the 
fiscal year, and she specifically said we are talking about the public 
health.
  Again, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] talked about 
endangered species, and there are obviously a lot of natural resource 
issues that we are concerned about, but we are specifically talking 
about public health and how it is going to be impacted, and if I can 
just briefly mention, because it really did not get a full hearing 
yesterday, but Browner specifically pointed out that under the budget 
proposed by the Republican leaders the American people will be faced 
with terrible choices with regard to public health issues. She 
mentioned will the EPA set effective standards to control 
Cryptosporidium and disinfection by-products in our drinking water, or 
will we set standards that will remove 1 billion tons of toxics and 
other pollutants each year from rivers and lakes, standards to control 
water pollution from the pulp and paper industry? Will we strengthen 
our standards for protecting the public from smog and smoke particles 
of air pollution or will we issue new standards for industrial toxic 
air pollutants?

  These are standards that they were about to embark on in this fiscal 
year. In other words, if they had this level of funding that was 
requested by the administration the EPA would be able to move ahead and 
regulate these industries in that fashion and meet those standards for 
public health reasons, and she pointed out, for example, that with the 
drinking water standards for the Cryptosporidium and disinfection by-
products you have associated health risk like severe gastrointestinal 
illnesses and increased incidences of cancer with the industrial water 
pollution standards for metal products, industrial laundries, landfills 
and incinerators, pollution reduction goals where so many millions of 
pounds per year would not be taken out of the environment if we do not 
have the level of funding that was requested.
  She talked about with air pollution the need to strengthen small 
particle standards. She talked about burning diesel fuel, burning 
garbage, standards that were going to be in place for those this year, 
and you have associated health risks of eyes, nose and throat 
irritation, respiratory illnesses, increases in mortality.
  Obviously, I could go on and on with this and I would not, but my 
point is, and I think you made the point very well, is that we are 
talking about health risks, and that is what this is all about. You 
know the last 25 years, when on a bipartisan basis the Congress and 
President sought to improve and strengthen our environmental protection 
laws and to increase enforcement, were based primarily on the need to 
protect public health and is certainly one of the reasons why life 
expectancy is longer, and now there was an article that was in today's 
paper that said even though people are living longer they are also 
leading healthier lives, even when they are senior citizens, that they, 
you know, lead much healthier lives and are able to function in much 
better ways.
  I am very concerned about the fact that what the Republican 
leadership is proposing here in turning back the clock on environmental 
protection is really going to have ultimately, if we let it happen, a 
terrible impact on the Nation's health, but hopefully you and I and the 
rest of us will make the point over the next few months so that we can 
prevent this turning back of the clock and maybe even get to some 
progressive environmental legislation that will improve the public 
health.
  I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] 
now for the additional time that she may consume. I know she has 
something about former Governor Brown that she would like to say.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and once again want 
to commend him for his leadership on this.
  We have talked about the environment for many years in the Congress. 
The expression ``environment and health'' now go hand in hand, as they 
have for a long time, but, as I say, in the public's mind, and I think 
that if the public is mobilized and understands what is at risk here, 
then maybe the environment will once again become an issue which has 
bipartisan support, protecting the environment has bipartisan support, 
and is no longer an issue of controversy on the floor of the House, and 
if that is so, it will be in due measure, large measure, to your hard 
work on this, Mr. Pallone, and I once again commend you.

                              {time}  1745


                   tribute to edmund g. ``pat'' brown

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone] for yielding time to me this evening, as I was not 
on the floor when my 5 minutes came up.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the former Governor of 
California, ``Pat'' Brown. The life of Governor 

[[Page H1295]]
``Pat'' Brown spanned nearly the entire 20th century, and made an 
indelible mark on the history of California.
  Born in San Francisco before the great quake, Edmund G. ``Pat'' Brown 
was one of our city's finest citizens, and a leading advocate for 
progress for California. His death last week at the age of 90 was 
eulogized at a San Francisco funeral Mass at St. Cecilia with the 
archbishop present, attended by Government officials, civic leaders and 
citizens who never ceased to admire his awesome tenacity. As a public 
figure in San Francisco, Governor Brown's legendary optimism and energy 
characterized the spirit of his hometown, San Francisco.
  Mourners, thousands of mourners, joined four generations of the Brown 
family, the Governor's wife of 65 years, Bernice Brown, their four 
children, 10 grandchildren, and many of their 13 great grandchildren in 
remembering the personal qualities that distinguished Pat Brown 
throughout his political career and in his later years as a private 
man. All of these people had many stories to tell. In the interest of 
time, I will not go into those stories right now, but they will be 
stories that will be heard over and over about this legendary man and 
his great heart.
  Governor Brown's generosity and warmth emanated from his devotion to 
family. He thrived on the closeness of his growing family, champion 
their ambitions, proudly cheered their successes. From the 1970's to 
the 1990's, he campaigned for the two children who followed in his 
political footsteps to hold statewide office: his son, as you know, 
Jerry Brown, who served as Secretary of State and as California 
Governor, and daughter Kathleen Brown, who served as California 
Treasurer, and who won the Democratic nomination for the Governor in 
1994.
  At the funeral services, though, even though ``Pat'' Brown was a very 
public man, Governor Brown's grandchildren ruled the day. They 
affectionately recalled that he loved to do whatever the children 
wanted to do. ``He loved us, he loved politics, he loved California, 
and he loved the law,'' granddaughter Kathleen Kelly said. She told the 
crowd that her grandfather cried with joy with learning that she had 
passed her bar exam to join the profession he so respected.
  Though 30 years have passed since he led our State in the Governor's 
office, Californians are still reaping the benefits of his bold 
achievements. His accomplishments were many during his years as San 
Francisco's district attorney, California's attorney general, and the 
State's Governor for 8 years of tremendous growth. Californians are 
particularly grateful for the lasting foundation he built to ensure the 
excellence of California's public system of higher education. Former 
Governor Jerry Brown described his father's contribution to education 
as a powerful legacy. His death has generated an outpouring of 
condolences and expressions of gratitude from people who credit 
Governor ```Pat'' Brown for the chance to earn a diploma.
  Governor ``Pat'' Brown set a standard for educational opportunity 
that we, his benefactors, must strive to maintain. The State's 
universities and colleges were a model for the Nation and a cornerstone 
of the economic prosperity that California enjoyed for decades. 
Governor Brown created this enduring legacy of access to higher 
learning by enjoining all Californians to share his enthusiasm for 
investing in the future. The people of our State made that commitment 
under the Governor's leadership. Now we can pay tribute to his public 
service by renewing a commitment to today's generation of aspiring 
students.
  No tribute to Governor ``Pat'' Brown could overlook his dedication to 
the Democratic Party and its principles, that is democratic with a 
capital D. An outspoken partisan, he build party loyalty, articulated 
Democratic values, and fully participated in the political battles to 
determine Democratic leadership. He was a politician in the most 
admirable sense of the term, believing that the true leaders must 
activate the citizenry in order to achieve their goals.
  Democrats will miss Governor Brown's presence at State and national 
party gatherings and his abundance of options on the pressing issues of 
the day, but the education and economic infrastructure for he built for 
all Californians will live long beyond his time among us, and the 
intangible monuments to his greatness will always be present in his 
wisdom and vision, inspired by his genuine love of family.

  As his daughter Kathleen described her father, he was a man who, for 
all his accomplishments, was a man of a singular inexhaustible spirit 
of love. We all will love and long remember and respect and admire with 
great affection the legacy and the person that was California Governor 
``Pat'' Brown.


             the national campaign to reduce teen pregnancy

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, since I have a few minutes remaining on my 
time, I believe I have a few minutes remaining on my time, I wanted to 
associate myself with the time being taken by our colleague, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina, [Mrs. Clayton], to talk about the 
promise and potential of our young girls growing up in our Nation 
today. These young women should have enormous promise and opportunity 
to succeed and make great and positive change in our world. That 
opportunity should not be denied or deterred because of the alarming 
problem of teen pregnancy. There are many ways to combat the rising 
rate of teen pregnancy. One is to educate State and community 
decisionmakers about adolescent pregnancy and its causes. Another is to 
educate youth about their options and possibilities. It is possible 
that many teens would think twice about engaging in unsafe sexual 
activity if they were able to gain clear awareness of the personal cost 
and responsibilities associated with becoming pregnant and raising a 
child.
  In that spirit, I applaud the efforts of the National Campaign to 
Reduce Teen Pregnancy. We should all join with the campaign in its goal 
to take a clear stand against teen pregnancy and to reduce the teen 
pregnancy rate by one-third by the year 2005. I was proud to be one of 
a large group of Members who signed the letter of the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] to President Clinton in support of this 
campaign.
  In the interest of time, Mr. Speaker, I will submit the rest of my 
statement for the Record, because I took this time because it was the 
time that was available, but the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. 
Clayton], is our leader on this issue. If there is any time remaining, 
I would like to yield some of it to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina, in addition to the time that she will have on this subject, 
commend her for her leadership, and thank her for calling us to the 
floor on this subject today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about promise and potential. Young 
girls growing up in our Nation today should have enormous promise and 
opportunity to succeed and make great and positive change in our world. 
That opportunity should not be denied or deterred because of the 
alarming problem of teen pregnancy.
  There are many ways to combat the rising rates of teen pregnancy. One 
is to educate State and community decisionmakers about adolescent 
pregnancy and its causes.
  Another is to educate youth about their options and possibilities. It 
is possible that many teens would think twice about engaging in unsafe 
sexual activity if they were able to gain clear awareness of the 
personal costs and responsibilities associated with becoming pregnant 
and raising a child.
  I applaud the efforts of the national campaign to reduce teen 
pregnancy. We all should join with the campaign in its goal to take a 
clear stand against teen pregnancy and to reduce the teen pregnancy 
rate by one-third by the year 2005. I was proud to be one of the large 
group of Members who signed Representative Clayton's letter to 
President Clinton in support of this campaign.
  I believe that for this campaign to be successful we need to do much 
more than take a firm stand against teen pregnancy. to succeed in 
reducing teen pregnancy, we must succeed in fostering the self-esteem 
of young girls and boys. We are responsible to let each of them know 
that there are people who love and support them. that love and support 
does not have to come from a child of their own. That love is something 
they can give to themselves--a feeling of self-worth that will allow 
teens to say no in the face of difficult decisions or pressures to be 
sexually active. That sense of self-worth comes from family, from 
school and from the community.
  Funding for the title X Family Planning Program is also a key 
component in our fight 

[[Page H1296]]
against rising rates of teen pregnancy. Preventing unintended 
pregnancies among sexually active teens through counseling and 
education is the highest priority of Federal family planning programs.
  Community based teen pregnancy prevention programs place a strong 
emphasis on avoidance of unprotected sex, or avoidance of sex 
completely during the teen years. The community level is where we all 
need to get involved to assist young people through the difficult 
prospect of growing up in this uncertain world we have made for them.
  We can offer teens activities like summer youth employment, like 
school-to-work programs, like after school programs and activities. We 
can encourage them to become involved in their communities--to 
volunteer their services to help the lives of others, rather than 
creating a life in a difficult environment.
  And we can definitely help by refusing to make out-of-wedlock 
childbirth and pregnancy the scapegoat in the welfare reform debate. 
Denial of AFDC benefits to unwed adolescent mothers is cruel. This is 
not the way to deter teen pregnancy. This is the way to increase the 
number of poor women and children in this Nation.
  We can achieve a significant reduction in teen pregnancy the same way 
we can achieve real welfare reform--by offering positive, long-term 
solutions.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the gentlewoman for 
joining me. I will have the opportunity to address the House for 5 
minutes, but I think your approach is correct, that to indeed approach 
the community and raise their awareness as to their opportunity to 
encouraging young people to be positive, and at the same time, we 
provide the young people with the option of development skills and life 
skills that they would elect to go forward with their lives and 
develop, and would not, perhaps, engage in destructive behavior.
  I would say part of this is economic, and the other is social. All of 
us have the responsibility. Finally, to the extent I do have a moment, 
I would say this is not something that Congress itself can do, this is 
something that all society has to be part of. I would encourage my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle that this is an opportunity where 
we work can work together. It does not make any difference of party 
affiliation or politics or philosophy. I think all of us would rather 
see young people develop their skills and be mature when they became 
parents. It would give an opportunity for our society to be better. 
Thank you for allowing me to participate as well.
  Ms. PELOSI. It is under your leadership that we are here today.
  In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in addition to what 
the gentlewoman is saying, we must do all we can in succeeding to 
foster the self-esteem of our young women and actually our young men 
today. We are responsible to let each of them know there are people who 
love and support them, that love and support does not have to come from 
a child of their own, and that love is something they can give to 
themselves, a feeling of self-worth that will allow teens to say no in 
the face of great decisions or pressures. That sense of self-worth 
comes from the family, from school, and from the community.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, unless the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
would like this time, I would like to yield back the balance of my 
time. I have spoken on three issues: Supporting the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone] on the subject of the environment and the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] on the importance of the 
environment to the health of the American people; and on the subject of 
teen pregnancy.
  In my close, I would like to say, once again, thank you to Edmond G. 
Brown, Junior, for the--Edmond G. Brown, ``Pat,'' Senior, for his 
contribution. I know I speak for every member of the California 
delegation when I say to the Brown family that we are grateful for 
their unselfishness with ``Pat'' Brown in making him part of our 
State's history, and his great legacy is one that will live for a long 
time to come, and extend on behalf of our delegation condolences and 
deepest sympathy to Mrs. ``Pat'' Brown.

                          ____________________