[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 33 (Tuesday, March 12, 1996)]
[House]
[Page H2036]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         REVERSE THE PROCESS OF SPENDING MORE AND GETTING LESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to articles in today's 
newspapers, not only here in Washington, but also across the country, 
in which the President recently traveled to New Jersey. He has 
continued his campaign, both to scare the American people and seniors, 
and also those concerned about the environment.
  I think it is important that we set the record straight. In fact, the 
President said, and let me quote, ``The GOP-controlled Congress is 
cutting Federal safeguards to cater to corporate interests. A small 
army of very powerful lobbyists literally have descended on Capitol 
Hill, as if they own the place.'' It makes good campaign rhetoric, but 
it just ``ain't'' the truth, Mr. Speaker.
  The fact is that the people who represent cities and towns and States 
have descended on this new Congress. Let me quote the New York Times 
again, the New York Times of March 24, 1994: ``In January, 1994, mayors 
from 114 cities and 49 States urged the White House to focus on how 
environmental policy-making had gone awry.'' That is the true story. 
``Mississippi and Vermont were among the first to appoint panels of 
citizens and scientists to examine our environmental policy. In 
published reports both State panels concluded that the largest sums of 
monies were being spent on the least threatening environmental 
problems.''
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell the Members, the story goes on and on. Let 
me tell you what the mayor of Columbus said. This is his quote: ``What 
bothers me is that new rules coming out of Washington are taking money 
from decent programs and making me waste them on less important 
problems. It kills you as a city official to see this kind of money 
being spent for nothing.''
  Let me tell the Members, Mr. Speaker, what this debate is all about. 
This debate is about command and control in Washington, DC. We would 
think there are a lot of Federal EPA officials working in the States 
and trying to improve the environment. Wrong. Let me show the figures 
of what we have done. First of all, there are nearly 7,850 Federal EPA 
employees. Of that, there are 5,924 in Washington, DC, within 50 miles 
of where I am speaking right now. There are almost 6,000, just under 
6,000. In fact, a dozen years ago there were not that many in the 
entire EPA program. In Atlanta, in a regional office, one of 10 
regional offices, there are 1,287 bureaucrats.
  This whole debate is about this bureaucracy that we have built up. 
EPA was a Republican idea. The department creating an agency of 
environmental protection was a Republican idea in 1972, to set some 
national standards. We should do that. We can do that without this huge 
bureaucracy. These folks are not in our States. For example, there are 
only 67 EPA Federal employees in the State of Florida, out of this mass 
of Federal bureaucrats.
  Then the President talked about Superfund. Let me tell you, there is 
no greater example of a failure of a government program than Superfund. 
It does not clean up the sites. There are thousands of sites. They have 
only cleaned up a handful. Over 80 percent of the money goes for 
attorney's fees and studies. Then what do they do? Does the polluter 
pay? Here is a headline: ``EPA lets polluters off the hook.''
  Right now they let people off the hook. They do not pay under current 
law. That is what we think needs to be changed here. So Republicans 
have a better idea. We think that we are spending more and getting 
less, and we should reverse that process.
  Then, are we cleaning up the riskiest sites to human health, safety, 
and our children? The fact is, no. I have here a GAO study of 1994. It 
is absolutely appalling that we are not cleaning up the sites that pose 
the most risk to human health, safety, and welfare. This report says, 
in fact, and let me quote: ``Although one of EPA's key policy 
objectives is to address the worst sites first, relative risk plays 
little role in the agency's determination of priorities.''
  Do Members know what does determine their priorities? Political 
pressure. That is what this report says. So a program that was 
originally, according to this report, going to cost $1.6 billion has 
grown to $75 billion. It is not cleaning up the sites and it is letting 
polluters off the hook. We think that is wrong.

                          ____________________