Environment - Appropriations Bill Riders

Defense of the Environment amendment
February 10, 1999

Statement of Henry A. Waxman

"Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk and rise to offer the "Defense of the Environment Amendment."

This amendment is based on H.R. 525, the "Defense of the Environment Act" which is supported by every major environmental group and the AFL-CIO. I introduced this legislation last week with Minority Leader Gephardt and Representative George Miller and it is now cosponsored by over 90 members.

H.R. 350 extends the procedural hurdles contained in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to future legislation that would impose new mandates on the private sector. The bill's sponsors argue that their additional procedural protections are needed to ensure that Congress is absolutely sure of all the impacts of legislation before a vote is taken.

Although I have reservations about creating new procedural obstacles, my amendment doesn't weaken H.R. 350 in any way. I want to repeat that so there is no confusion about my amendment–the Defense of the Environment Amendment doesn't change any of the procedural provisions in the Condit-Portman bill and does not affect how the bill would work for new private sector mandates.

Instead, my amendment merely extends the protections in H.R. 350 to other issues of great importance to the American people--requirements established to protect public health, safety, and the environment.

This amendment would ensure that if the House repealed current environmental and public health protections, it would do so only with full information and adequate consideration.

This is just commonsense and addresses a serious problem with the way environmental policy has been determined over the last four years.

During the last two Congresses, anti-environmental riders have been repeatedly attached to appropriations bills or other "must-pass" pieces of legislation. Often this happens with absolutely no debate or consideration by the Committee of jurisdiction.

These anti-environmental riders have increased clearcut logging in our National Forests.

They have crippled protection of endangered species and stalled the Superfund program.

They have hindered our ability to ensure that groundwater is protected from contamination from old nuclear facilities.

They have blocked the regulation of radioactive contaminants in drinking water and delayed our efforts to clean up air pollution in national parks.

The Defense of the Environment Amendment wouldn't prohibit the House from passing any of these measures, but it would guarantee that we at least have the option of having an informed debate and a separate vote on these proposals. It would at least give us an opportunity to protect our clean air laws, our clean water laws, our toxic waste laws, and all our laws that protect the health and safety of workers and our families.

I was surprised when this amendment was narrowly defeated last year, because it simply takes the Unfunded Mandates philosophy for economic considerations and applies it to other equally important values.

I want to emphasize again that this amendment would not prohibit Congress from repealing or amending any environmental law. It places no new burdens on any business, State, individual, or federal agency. It would simply bring an informed debate and accountability to the process.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the American people want Congress to protect public health and the environment. The environment and our nation's public health are just as important to them as unfunded mandates.

Over the years we have seen that when Congress legislates in a deliberate, collegial, bipartisan fashion, we are able to enact public health and environmental protections that work well and are supported by both environmental groups and by business. I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment and guarantee that Congress doesn't unknowingly jeopardize America's public health and environment."