[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15767-15768]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       INTRODUCTION OF DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, recently I introduced legislation, H.R. 2694, 
to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to a permanent 
Cabinet-level position. It has been 31 years since the EPA was first 
established, and I would suggest to my colleagues that this legislation 
is long overdue.
  This is not the first time the House of Representatives has been 
asked to consider this legislation, and indeed it is not even the first 
bill on the subject this year. But in many respects, it is a better 
bill than its predecessors, and I hope it will move swiftly through the 
legislative process.
  On December 2, 1970, our Nation marked its first major environmental 
milestone by establishing the Environmental Protection Agency. In so 
doing, then President Richard Nixon stated, ``I am making an exception 
to one of my own principles: that, as a matter of effective and orderly 
administration, additional new independent agencies normally should not 
be created. Because environmental protection cuts across so many 
jurisdictions and because environmental deterioration is of great 
importance to the quality of life in our country and the world, I 
believe that in this case a strong, independent agency is needed.''
  President Nixon's overriding concern to be addressed by the 
establishment of the EPA was that although numerous parts of the 
Government may have been sympathetic to protecting environmental 
quality, no one distinct department existed to focus solely on our 
environment. Moreover, the mission statements and purposes across 
departments necessarily affect how each department views environmental 
protection, leading to inconsistent and varying ideas of real 
protection.
  Thus, the EPA was organized. Since 1970, we have made a number of 
important strides to improve our environment, including such historic 
legislative achievements as the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Today, 
the administrator of the EPA is a member of President Bush's Cabinet. 
But, the Administrator serves in that capacity at the pleasure of the 
country's chief executive officer. If we are truly serious about 
maintaining our commitment to environmental protection, Cabinet-level 
status must be made permanent by elevating the EPA to a full 
department.
  In each of the past several Congresses, my colleagues and I have 
attempted to elevate the EPA to a Cabinet-level department. The closest 
that we came to achieving this principle occurred in 1993. The base 
legislation at that time was developed by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), then chairman of the House Committee on Government 
Operations. This bill, in turn, was similar to legislation crafted by 
Senator Glenn and considered by the Senate. That bill passed the Senate 
by a wide margin, 79-15.
  The reason to introduce the bill remains as pressing today as it was 
in

[[Page 15768]]

1993 and certainly as it was in 1970. Protecting our environment is a 
priority for all Americans. To give this function the attention it 
deserves really necessitates elevating the EPA to the Department of 
Environmental Protection. H.R. 2694 does precisely this. In no small 
part, this commitment and elevation of the EPA signals to our world 
partners and to our own citizens that environmental protection and 
restoration is at the top of our policy priorities.
  Besides elevating the EPA to a full department, we should look upon 
this as an opportunity to fix long overdue procedural challenges. In 
particular, we have an opportunity to ensure that in addressing 
environmental regulations, the Department utilizes the best science 
that is currently available and that sound public health priorities 
will actually be addressed by the proposal. It is worth noting that in 
passing their version of the legislation, the Senate included this very 
proposal and passed it by a vote of 95-3. It is refreshing to see that 
sometimes policy considerations can prevail over partisanship.
  We face serious challenges to prevent global warming, to reduce toxic 
emissions, to assure quality air and to prevent other harmful 
discharges to ensure that we have clean sources of drinking water. 
These are large challenges with which we cannot afford to play 
politics. Evaluating the Environmental Protection Agency allows us the 
opportunity to take politics out of the equation, but we need to do it 
correctly. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the 
administration to move forward on this important bill.

                          ____________________