[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H3392-H3393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE 104TH CONGRESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the travel 
and tourism legislation of our colleague from Wisconsin, Mr. Roth, and 
wish him much success with it. However, I do take issue with one 
comment that he made, and that is what he said about Earth Day, that it 
is a day we go have our press events, make some fuss about Earth Day, 
and then it is forgotten for the rest of the year.
  Maybe that is the approach that some of our colleagues on the 
Republican side of the aisle, and I am not including Mr. Roth in that, 
because I know that is not his attitude, but some of our more extreme 
Members on the Republican side of the aisle take to Earth Day, but that 
is not the appropriate approach.
  As our colleague mentioned Earth Day, we are preparing for Earth Day, 
the 26th anniversary of the first Earth Day, which will occur next 
Monday. I think it is important to make some observations about what 
has happened in this 104th Congress when it comes to the environment.
  The 104th Congress came to Washington with an aggressive anti-
environment agenda promoted largely by industry and special interest 
groups who are determined to turn back 25 years of progress to protect 
public health, safety and the environment.
  The budget cuts proposed by the Gingrich majority in Congress for the 
Department of Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency are 
aimed at the heart of our Nation's environmental protection. The two 
departments with the greatest environmental authority have become the 
prime targets in the current attack on the environment.
  The proposed cut in funding for the EPA is 21 percent below last 
year's level, and this would seriously affect EPA's enforcement of 
clean air, clean water, and safe drinking water laws. The Interior 
appropriations bill included provisions to open Alaska's Tongass 
National Forest to increased logging and to continue the moratorium on 
the listing of new endangered species.
  The funding for protection of our Nation's wetlands, endangered 
species, forests and the public lands, must not be sacrificed in favor 
of short-term profits for miners, grazers, and developers. Programs to 
protect our Nation's water and air should not be held hostage to budget 
antics that have left these primary environmental agencies limping 
through the 1996 fiscal year with only a fraction of the funding needed 
to function.

  Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of our colleagues once 
again some of the impacts of the extreme Republican cuts on the EPA. 
Weakened enforcement of environmental laws, including a 40-percent 
reduction in health and safety inspections of industrial facilities; 
delayed new standards to protect drinking water, including tap water 
standards; delayed new and ongoing cleanups at toxic waste sites; 
rolled-back community right-to-know information about toxic chemicals; 
created barriers to developing new controls to protect rivers and 
streams from industrial water pollutants. The Republican approaches 
have delayed approving pesticides with lower health risks as a safer 
alternative for farmers, delayed new standards for toxic industrial air 
pollutants, delayed review of air pollution standards to ensure 
adequate health protection, delayed studies on how toxic chemicals may 
impair reproductive development, and studies on how pollution affects 
high risk populations.
  I want to make two observations. The list goes on and on. I am just 
naming a few that affect EPA. There are others that affect the 
Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice's enforcement. 
I make two observations about that list.
  One is, Mr. Speaker, as you know, as a colleague on the Subcommittee 
on Health and Human Services of the Committee on Appropriations, 
scientists have come before our subcommittee and said that you cannot 
separate personal health from the health of our environment. Pollution 
prevention is disease prevention. That makes these cuts foolish cuts, 
because they are not cutting the budget, they are reducing an 
investment in public health as well as environmental health.
  I want to also call to the attention of our colleagues the release of 
a report by the California State Senate on environmental protection. 
The report says, ``Contrary to popular belief, environmental 
regulations are not a major cause of job losses and declining economic 
performance.'' The Senate report concludes that environmental laws are 
not a major cause for the relocation of businesses to other States or 
countries. According to the report, more jobs are lost from leveraged 
buy- outs and mergers than from controlling pollution.
  The American people have the answer: They want a safe and healthy 
environment. We should follow their lead

[[Page H3393]]

and we should live up to their expectations that the Federal Government 
will ensure their health and safety at all levels.
  Mr. Speaker, on that note, I would like to close by saying when we 
observe Earth Day this year, we should use it to make observations 
about how far we have come and what is at risk, and we should every day 
of every year work to protect the environment and health of the 
American people.

                          ____________________