Date: 1999-02-10
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Waxman amendment. It is an important amendment. and I think it is very consistent with the underlying debate before us concerning unfunded mandates. Congress should be required to pay close attention to the effect of legislation on the environment and on public health just as it should be required to pay close attention to the impacts of its decisions on the private sector or the public sector as required in the previous legislation and the legislation before us today. This amendment is here because time and again we have seen matters of the environment and public health come before the Congress with little or no debate. in some instances with no underlying hearings. Legislative riders that deal with the fundamental and basic underlying environmental laws of this country are sneaked into the appropriations bill. With no debate at all attempt is made to weaken these laws concerning clean water. clean air. toxic waste. brown fields. forests. safeguards and food safety. Time and again these matters have been brought to the floor with no provisions in their rules for debate. Very often we find that they are hidden away in the report language so we cannot get to therh when we debate them on the floor of the House of Representatives and we cannot vote on these matters directly. We very often find that we are limited in the time in which we can discuss them. and they have huge impacts on our natural environment and our publfc health and on taxpayers. That is why we need. the Waxman amendment. so we will have the opportunity to discuss these critical issues in the light of day. There are two reasons why these changes in environmental laws are often not brought before the Congress in freestanding bills under the legislative rules that would allow free and open debate on the provisions. One is that the antienvironmental legislation would fail if it stood on its own in the light of day as a freestanding legislation. Yet it is that the majority party does not want to openly be seen as trying to repeal Environmental Health Protection Act. so rather than put up with the debate. put up with that characterization. put up with the facts of the debate. they put this into appropriations bill where the opportunities to debate are sometimes none and sometimes very limited. Instead the majority party tucks these into the largest bill. with the mustpass appropriation bills. into bills at the end of the session. with total disregard for the impact on the environment. and those are colleagues here in the House of Representatives. Very often again these legislative riders are sent over to us in legislation that comes from the Senate where again the opportunity is not debated. We may have debated these riders openly here on the floor of the House. we may have knocked out a number of these riders in the various appropriation bills. and then in the omnibus bill at the end of the year these riders are reinserted into that legislation. we are not given an opportunity to debate them. and the legislation is passed because it is an upordown vote. This is not a contest between unfunded mandates and the environment. In many instances these two situations rise separate of one another. But this is about whether or not. as we do the peoples business here. we will have the opportunity to raise these environmental .and public health issues and have free and fair debate on those issues. Over the last several years this has simply not been the case. Last year the omnibus appropriation bill was riddled with antienvironmental riders. preventing the tightening of the fuel economy stands. opening the coastal barriers to development. increasing logging and enabling oil and gas industries to escape paying what they owe the government. The Waxman amendment is also critical because many of times in the committee in which I serve. the Committee on Resources. legislation is passed regarding the actions to be taken by the Federal Government or private party. and the committee simply declares that those acts are sufficient under the Endangered Species Act or sufficient under the National Environmental Protection Act. The majority party in that case has made no showing that they are in fact sufficient under either of those acts. They simply declare without any debate. without discussion. without any vote that those actions are sufficient. and that is why we need the Waxman amendment. Historically. when we have taken these kinds of actions. when we added these kinds of riders. we usually have gone back and had to spend millions of dollars to try to make up for those mistakes and the errors that were caused because those riders were offered with no ability to debate them. The Waxman amendment is an opportunity to give the environment the kind of priority that the American people attach to the subject. to give it the .same kind of priority that the proponents of this legislation wish to give to unfunded mandates. another very important consideration when this Congress legislates. These are not inconsistent. they are not at odds with one another. We are simply saying that the same kind of opportunity should be given for this kind of debate. In poll after poll we see that the American people self identify themselves as strong environmentalists deeply concerned about the environment. Even when we pit them against a tradeoff for jobs in a local area. they want the environment protected. they do not want national laws weakened. And yet we see contrary to those actions and those desires by the American people the efforts to slide in riders that are not open to the debate. and that is why I would encourage my colleagues to support the Waxman amendment.