Volume 141, No. 199 covering the 1st Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S18601-S18602 on Dec. 14, 1995.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
VA, HUD, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, the reason I asked for morning business at this time was to bring my colleagues up to date and those who are very much interested in the appropriations process, particularly as it regards the Environmental Protection Agency, VA, and HUD, and what is happening here.
We have had a bill that has been passed by the Senate, passed by the House, and a conference report passed by the House that is waiting here. We have not passed it because the administration has promised clearly and unequivocally to veto it.
There are several things that are going to happen today. First, the majority leader has scheduled the measure to be passed later on after this bill, perhaps in wrapup tonight, and second, there is a major media effort to mischaracterize, I believe, what is going on with respect to the environment.
Some of my colleagues may have seen an article in today's Washington Post: ``Temporary Reductions Halt `Environmental Cop.' '' It relates to concerns expressed by EPA Administrator Carol Browner.
I am getting a little tired of the press conferences, press statements, and grandstanding from the White House regarding how the majority in the Congress is rolling back environmental protection and making deep cuts in the environment.
Ms. Browner is reported in the Post as saying, ``The environmental cop is not on the beat.'' She decries the fact that the temporary budget reductions resulting from the current continuing resolution are causing a reduction in inspections. I agree with her. I would like to see a bill passed and signed into law.
Let me set the record straight. The EPA appropriations bill which passed the Senate earlier this year funded EPA's operating programs at the fiscal year 1995 level, and the conference report on VA-HUD and independent agencies provides a total funding level for EPA which is
$48 million more than the Senate-passed bill, a reduction of only 4 percent below the postrescissions fiscal year 1995 funding level.
We have managed in a very, very tight budget to provide close to full funding for EPA at a time when constraints on discretionary spending are extraordinarily tight. This subcommittee received an allocation which was 12 percent below last year's level, yet we managed to hold EPA at close to current funding levels. Despite the rhetoric from downtown, this demonstrates, I believe, a Republican commitment to continue to improve the environment.
Now, I am the first to admit that the EPA has received some targeted budget cuts in the appropriations process but the reductions came from areas which the National Academy of Public Administration and others identified as being unnecessary, wasteful or duplicative. NAPA is a nonpartisan organization which was commissioned by my Democratic colleague and predecessor, Senator Mikulski, then chair of the committee, to undertake a report on reforming EPA 2 years ago.
In this bill and the conference report, we followed the NAPA recommendations presented to Congress almost a year ago to turn more responsibility over to the States that have developed an enormous capacity over the past 25 years to manage environmental programs, including inspections of facilities. According to NAPA, ``EPA should revise its approach to oversight, providing high performing States with grant flexibility, reduced oversight and greater autonomy.''
That is what we have tried to do for this appropriations bill, and we have included authority for EPA to begin issuing block grants for maximum flexibility. We have tried to focus on the areas of highest risk to human health and the environment and reduce those programs which do not get the most bang for the buck in terms of environmental protection.
But the administration and EPA, rather than spending time organizing press conferences and news events, should be following the recommendations of NAPA to get its own house in order. Despite EPA's claim to support NAPA's recommendations, we have seen little in terms of real change. And regarding today's article in the Post, let me point out to my colleagues that indeed EPA is operating under a constrained budget because of the continuing resolution, and I am fully prepared to send a bill to the President so they will not have to operate under a continuing resolution. The conference report on the EPA bill, that is, VA-HUD and independent agencies, would provide an increase of 11.5 percent over the current continuing resolution, yet the President wants to veto the bill. His agents have stated unequivocally that he will.
I have suggested to administration officials that I as chairman, the ranking member, Senator Mikulski, and our colleagues in similar positions in the House, are more than willing to sit down to find accommodations within the 602(b) allocation to negotiate a reasonable compromise.
Rather than negotiating with us, today I am told later on the Vice President will hold a press conference with Administrator Browner at a suburban Maryland wastewater treatment plant where they will continue to attack Republican reductions in environmental improvements. Rather than pointing to the successes achieved over the past years to improve our water quality, they will talk about how the budget will impair future water quality improvements.
Let me set the record straight, Mr. President. Funding for EPA wastewater treatment construction in this year's bill is $1.125 billion. In addition, the conference report stipulates that if legislation enacting a new drinking water State revolving fund is not authorized by June 1, 1996, an additional $500 million will be available for wastewater State revolving funds for a total of $1.625 billion.
Mr. President, this would represent an increase of about $400 million over last year's level.
Now, in the last 2 weeks or more, I have repeatedly requested of top administration officials that they tell us how they wish to reallocate spending within the 602(b) allocations. I have made that request among others to Administrator Browner, to CEQ director, Ms. McGinty, to OMB director Dr. Rivlin, to the Vice President himself. I put in a call to the President. Obviously, he has other things on his mind. But none of these people has responded.
As a result, it appears that when this bill goes down, if the President carries through on his threat to veto it, it will be vetoed and EPA will fall back to the level of the continuing resolution. The only word we have heard from the administration is they want to spend about $2 billion more.
The White House talks the language of reducing spending to balance the budget, but they do not have the music yet. They think the only way they can live is to spend more money. We have done the very best we can to establish priorities within the context of achieving a balanced budget in the year 2002.
I wish to say for the record that my ranking member, Senator Mikulski, has gone out of her way to be helpful, to work with us, to make as many accommodations and improvements in the bill as possible. She too has sought the involvement of the administration. And even though Senator Mikulski's top priority, national service, is not funded in this bill, other than for close-down, it cannot be funded unless and until the administration is willing to sit down with us and tell us where they wish to make cuts to generate the support to pass this bill in both Houses.
Senator Mikulski has been thoroughly cooperative throughout. I could not ask for anyone who has been more willing to put the needs of the environment, of veterans, of housing, of space, and other important agencies ahead of partisan bickering. It is with great regret that I tell my colleagues that we are likely to see the measure, which is scheduled for passage later on tonight, vetoed by the President because simply he wants to spend more money.
I make the point again for those interested in the environment that if the President were to sign this bill, or if the President were even to send his people to discuss with us how to make improvements to protect their priorities, we would be more than willing to negotiate with them. Absent any response--and there has been no response--this bill will be scheduled later on for passage this evening. I regret that we will not receive the funding for environmental actions that are included in this conference report if the President chooses to veto it. But make no mistake. If there is a reduction in funding for environmental efforts, it will be the President's decision. It will be the President's veto. He is going to get a bill that is very close to last year's funding, and it protects the top priority programs in EPA.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up