[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H6724-H6725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2158, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2158) making appropriations for
the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development,
and for sundry independent agencies, commissions, corporations, and
offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and other
purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Stokes
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Stokes moves that the managers on the part of the House
be instructed to insist on the position of the House
regarding the total funding level provided for the
Environmental Protection Agency's `Hazardous Substance
Superfund' account.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes] will be
recognized for 30 minutes and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]
will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, nearly one person in four in this country lives close to
a Superfund site. We know all too well what the result of that fact is:
too many reported cases of cancer and other diseases caused by
breathing, eating, and drinking too many hazardous contaminants.
This motion is pretty simple. If you want to be on record for doing
as much as possible to clean up Superfund sites around the country and
reduce the amounts of hazardous pollutants to which your constituents
are exposed, you vote for this motion.
Supporting this motion does not bust the budget. Although the budget
resolution assumed funding for the Superfund program at the enhanced
level of $2.1 billion, the level called for by the administration as
part of the so-called Kalamazoo initiative, the House level is still
$600 million below that.
The total Superfund spending in the House-passed bill is $1.5
billion, compared with $1.4 billion in the Senate. The House amount is
definitely superior to the Senate's recommendation in several ways: The
House version provides $28 million, or 14 percent more,
[[Page H6725]]
for Superfund enhancement activities, $5 million more for research
activities, and $12 million more for the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry.
Mr. Speaker, much criticism has been lodged against the operation of
the Superfund program since its inception. I think most Members would
agree that reforms are needed. However, until the authorization
committees are able to reach agreement on what these reforms should be,
we should still be trying to do all we can to get Superfund sites
cleaned up.
This administration has made good progress in getting Superfund
appropriations spent on actual cleanup and not on litigation and
administrative costs.
I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote to keep Superfund moneys flowing at
as high a level as possible to clean up as many sites as quickly as we
can.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not going to object to this suggestion by
my colleague. By way of commentary, however, I must say that it was at
least 15 years ago as a member of this committee I traveled to the
northern part of the State of New York, and during that trip I visited
a place called Love Canal. At that point in time we knew that the
Superfund program had many a problem. The new Administrator indicated
to us that this was a program and project that was very, very important
but which was broken.
I certainly do hope that between now and the time we go to conference
that my colleague will join with me one more time in asking the
administration for their suggestion as to how we fix this program, for
she has been talking about it publicly a lot, but I have seen no
recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snowbarger). Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes].
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the
following conferees: Messrs. Lewis of California, DeLay, Walsh, Hobson,
Knollenberg, Frelinghuysen, Neumann, Wicker, Livingston, Stokes,
Mollohan, Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Meek of Florida, Mr. Price of North
Carolina, and Mr. Obey.
There was no objection.
____________________