John Mica

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is it not true that this bill provides $6.8 million for land acquisition management, and so we have money for management and administration, and yet we do not have funds for this? Is it not also true that this does not provide any money or guarantee for my State, it provides an opportunity for every one of the 149 Members or whoever came and asked for this? Is it not true in fact that this set a priority and an obligation of this Congress to commit some of these funds for this purpose for the entire country?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, it is really a great honor and privilege to serve in Congress, but it is also an important responsibility. And tonight as we conclude our work on the Department of the Interior appropriations bill, we make a bunch of choices. We decide whether we are really going to do things because we are dealing with the people's moneys and expenditures of public funds. Tonight we decide whether we are going to spend money on administration. Tonight we decide whether we are going to spend money on studies. Tonight we decide whether we are going to spend money on various new programs. My amendment simply takes $15 million from the USGS, U.S. Geological Survey, which has an increase of $112 million in this budget over the previous years expenditures and says, we will put this into the State/ Federal land acquisition fund. Earlier tonight we had 177 votes for people who believed in a State and Federal acquisition land program. This is not a Federal land acquisition. This is the money when you come to the Department of the Interior and they say there are no funds. But let me tell you what you will have if we do not pass my amendment. You will have studies--and I have nothing against the U.S. Geological Survey and their responsibilities since 1879 to conduct studies, and if we expand it another $100 million. I am only taking a small amount of that money for a purpose that I think is reasonable. Let me ask you, what will we do, 10, 20 years from now? Will we take our children and grandchildren to Florida or to Nevada or to your State, California or wherever and say, my son, my daughter, my grandson, my granddaughter, look at this beautiful study. We set the priorities for this Congress. They have increased the studies and funding for studies by $112 million, whether it is biological survey, whether it is studies for the USGS. We could line up our children and say, look at the beautiful trucks. We made a decision on vehicles and airplanes tonight. We are making a decision on whether there will be resources. On the Republican side, the majority side, we have said, let us give responsibilities to State and local government, and let me tell you what this bill says. There are no funds provided for State grant programs. Read it. Get the bill. If all else fails, read the bill, page 39. I tell you, when your State and your local governments come to you or when you have a project and come to the Department of the Interior and they say there are no funds, this $15 million transfer, we are not cutting anything, it is a transfer, set some priorities. So we have an opportunity tonight and a responsibility to set those priorities. So my State does not have another five years. My state and my districts do not have another five years. Maybe you come from some of those areas. Out of the millions and billions of dollars that we are, if we cannot put $15 million in the priority of state funding for these projects, there is something wrong. This amendment will not deny access to anyone. This will not spend a penny on any lands that the people do not want or the State or localities do not want purchased. I am telling my colleagues that this provides a very limited resource and a very limited amount for a very noble purpose of which every one of you have an important interest. It will protect land for the future. I cannot change the priorities of the Congress in this bill and redirect money for foreign aid or agricultural subsidies. But tonight you and I can decide whether there are State funds and $15 million out of billions and billions of appropriations. Would it not be a sad commentary on this House of Representatives if we walked away from here and said that there is not one cent, according to this bill, and again read it, this is the language for state acquisition of public lands. So my colleagues, I urge the adoption of this amendment. I thank you for your consideration and the late hour.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. MICA. In fact, would not the gentleman view this as a pro- property-rights amendment because we have told so many people out there that we are going to pay for their land, and, if we deprive them of the right to use that land, that is fact that this is a pro-property-rights amendment, that the questions of access, the questions of takings and other issues that have been raised here--would not the gentleman say that they are in fact false issues because we are talking about whether or not we have any funds to acquire these lands?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. One of the things that concerns me is that we do not have funds available for land acquisition for Florida, for example, or for the situation that you have described. How would you propose that we get those funds? I share all of your concerns.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. Yes. I do not speak, sir, to the south Florida ecosystem. I am talking about the ecosystem of the United States and the investment that we are making. These are so few dollars compared to the whole budget and to the money that is spent on studies and surveys and administration. We will never get another chance, and what I would like to avoid is the mistakes that were made in south Florida that I saw as I grew up in south Florida. So again, I strongly urge my colleagues who talked about property rights, about preservation, about environment and being strong supporters, to come forward and to support this amendment. And I regret that I take a position in opposition to you and the committee.

Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, I rise in very strong support of the amendment by my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I think it would be a very sad mistake for this new majority to miss an opportunity, and that opportunity is really to provide the preservation of some of our natural lands in this country. You know, these bills that we are looking at provide, and this particular [[Page H 6974]] legislation provides, opportunity to spend money on surveys and studies and administration. But, really, what do we leave the next generation? I tell you that we cannot do anything that would be more lasting for the next generation than to invest this small amount of money on preservation of lands, many of them endangered, throughout the United States. Let me speak from a personal standpoint. I and my family lived, and I grew up, in Miami, and I saw what happened to the Everglades there, how they became neglected and how we did not take the time to preserve that area. I now have the opportunity to represent central Florida, a beautiful area that has natural bodies of water and hundreds of lakes, and that area is endangered. You know, we have the Ocala National Forest to the north. The State has preserved some land around the urban areas. This area is impacted by tremendous growth, and we have the opportunity to acquire some land in a Federal-State partnership, and that money is not available, and that is sad and that is tragic because the same thing I saw happen as I grew up as a young man now is taking hundreds of millions, billions, of dollars to restore the Everglades. And because we did not make the investment that we needed, we may never get another chance. I have a photo of the area that I am talking about, the St. John's River, in my district, $15 million from the State, $15 million from the Federal. But we do not have a penny in this bill for land acquisition, and that is wrong, and it is wrong for this side of the aisle to reject this amendment. Because this should be a priority, and we will not get another chance to save these lands. So I urge my colleagues to look at this. A lot of the things we say here will not make any difference, but something we do here will make a big difference, and that big difference is preserving this land and these natural preserves for the future. We should be investing in that. I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members in the entire House of Representatives, according to voting records, so I come here speaking not to spend money idly, not to spend money on pork projects, but to spend and make an investment in the future so we can leave a legacy for our children. So I strongly--I strongly advocate passage of this amendment. I had an amendment in here just to add a few more dollars to this, and I commend the gentleman for adding the many more dollars that can be well spent and well expended in the national interest, in the public interest and in the interest of our children.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Burton amendment and rise to also support the Mica amendment which is part of this package. Let me tell my colleagues, I have seen AID firsthand in dozens of countries around the world and AID is a wasteful and ineffective bureaucracy. It should be abolished as it exists or dramatically modified. AID represents a post-World War II mentality. It has become an international welfare system that creates dependency and fails to help our U.S. trade activities. It often does very little to assist countries in need to help themselves. Let me tell Members some examples. After spending billions of dollars to free Haiti with a military force and having spent over $1 billion in United States economic assistance, including $600,000 in AID grants, what has happened? Here is the AID plan for Haiti. The cornerstone of this AID plan is 25,000 Haitians collecting garbage, 2,400 feeding stations, millions for election supervision, millions for judicial training, and almost nothing, a couple of pages, for creating permanent jobs. Even teenagers with whom I met just recently in Port-au-Prince who serve in our military, these are teenage soldiers of our force. This is what one of them handed me, this note. He did not sign it but he says, ``Port-au-Prince is secured. There is no need for United States presence in Haiti. I believe a lot of the money spent here should go to problems in the United States. This is a waste of taxpayers' money.'' This is what our teenaged soldiers who observe the process there say. Last summer I went to Bratislava in Slovakia and found that we only had one part-time commercial officer from Vienna coming once a week to help our United States trade agencies in this emerging nation. On the other hand, the AID office in Bratislava--now get this--has more employees than our Embassy. We spend millions of taxpayer dollars in this country, for example, to set up a banking system and provide enterprise funds. Then we let other countries get the contracts for this business. The President, an American citizen, of the Slovak American Chamber of Commerce told me, and let me quote what he said. He said, ``We spend $200 to give away $1.'' My colleagues, we are the laughingstock of the emerging nations. When I visited recently our Embassy in Moscow, we had only four full- time commercial officers. In contrast, AID had an entire building with hundreds of employees. I took in the private sector one of the first trade missions to Lithuania and every Lithuanian from the lowest official to the highest said, ``Trade, not aid.'' Then I returned to the United States, turned on the TV and saw our transport delivering humanitarian aid to the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, Russia. A couple of nights later I turned on the same newscast and there was the largest trade show in the history of Moscow, sponsored by the Japanese. Counting full-time employees and individuals serving under personal service contracts, AID has over 9,000 employees, more than our Embassies. This amendment only cuts 25 percent from their funds. The entire U.S. foreign commercial service office only has 896 people working abroad. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars with few positive results. AID is an outdated, overrated giveaway program. We should be focusing our efforts on increasing and improving trade activities as I have in my amendment. Trade rather than temporary aid will raise the fortune and opportunities and jobs for all people. I do not oppose all foreign aid and I resent President Clinton's statement that we are isolationists. Let me tell Members, there are still billions in this bill for aid. Americans are the most compassionate people in the world. But let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they are not the dumbest. If the Clinton administration were around when they had outhouses, they would be opposed to bringing the plumbing inside. I do not oppose again all aid. Look at Japan. They tie trade to aid. Look at our successes where we provide trade and business opportunities rather than a temporary handout. Finally, look at even the earliest Biblical lessons that teach a man how to fish. People in Grenada may need sidewalks. I need sidewalks for the people in my district. People in Port-au-Prince may need their garbage collected, but, my colleagues, in my district, I only have the people in my district and the taxpayers to pay for their trash collections. Quite frankly, both I and my constituents believe there can be a better way. Let us revise AID.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman and my colleague, I just want to make a couple of points and rise in opposition to the amendment that has been offered here this afternoon. First of all, this does address the human rights violation question, and none of us favor any type of human rights violations anywhere in the world or by any of our allies, but the matter of fact is that this amendment is not a realistic amendment, and it is not a needed amendment. I say to my colleagues: First of all, if you want to look at human rights violations, just refer to--and I invite all my colleagues to do this, and other folks that are listening--read the Amnesty International human rights violation reports. You find actually one of the countries that is cited is the United States. Not only is the United States cited, but you also have Israel, Egypt, Turkey, and, if this amendment passed, I think you really would jeopardize the status of peace efforts in the Middle East if this was properly applied according to the language in the amendment, and again I think it serves no purpose. We must work against human rights violations wherever they occur, and human rights violations are not condoned by this Congress. Let me also point out that a major flaw in this amendment is the President already has the authority. Maybe the other side of the aisle or the sponsor does not trust the President of the United States, but in fact under current law the President of the United States is required to even notify Congress before there is an arms sale in the appropriate committee of Congress. So first of all, it is not a realistic amendment, and it is not an amendment that recognizes that there are human rights violations, whether it is in the United States or with our allies that are sometime recipients of these arms; and, second, the amendment has no purpose because the President really already has the authority, and the Congress is, in fact, notified when there are these arms sales pending. So it is not a needed amendment, and it is not a useful amendment, and I urge its defeat.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, this week I celebrate my son Clark's 16th birthday. I remember the joy and excitement years ago when he was born on May 16, and I felt the same excitement when our daughter D'Anne was born 20 years ago. I tell you about my two children, my colleagues, because for my wife Pat and I they are the most important things in our lives. When we made the decision to bring them into the world two decades ago, we were optimistic about their future. We had special dreams and hopes for our children. But those hopes for a better life and for a more promising future began to fade several years ago. That is why 3 years ago I decided to run for Congress. I believed then, and I believe now, that we must change the way this Congress is spending away their future. This week we have an opportunity to change the future direction of our Nation. During my 28 months in Congress I have learned firsthand of the dire straits that I only suspected were the condition of our national finances. Today, my colleagues, I can confirm that the very financial stability of our Nation is at stake. Every fund has been depleted. We have borrowed against every reserve. Even our Nation's Capital City is in receivership. Every cookie jar has been robbed; every dollar tucked under the mattress has been spent. For our senior citizens, I believe there is no greater threat to their Social Security or Medicare than to further ignore our responsibility to balance the budget. So now, my colleagues, I urge you to cast a courageous vote, to vote for the Republican alternative, and defeat this amendment, if we are to restore hope for our children and hope for our future.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House this morning to set the record straight, to provide you, Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, with correct information on statements that have been made about comments that I made on the floor in the regulatory reform debate which took place recently in the House of Representatives during our debate on the Contract With America, and specifically on the regulatory reform issues that came before this Congress. In this Congress and during the past Congress, I have been an outspoken critic of the manner and conduct of the regulatory process at the Federal level. Quite frankly, I came here several years ago believing that the regulatory edicts and mandates sent out by the Federal Government had overreached their bounds, had imposed undue burdens and costs on our citizens, on our local governments, on business and industry, and were eating at the very fabric of productivity and competitiveness in this country. During the debate on the question of regulatory reform, I stood at that podium and I talked about several instances of what I considered excess regulation and regulatory overkill. I used several examples, and two of the examples I used were actually from my local dentist, who when I was in his dental chair and in his dental office had told me several years ago about some of the excesses of certain Federal departments and agencies, and how he felt imposed upon by those agencies and how he was constricted by those agencies, and at least felt the pressures of those agencies on his practice and on his professional conduct. So I made those comments in the regulatory reform debate in the House, and shortly thereafter ``ABC News'' and Peter Jennings and company made a little series, and I wanted to report to the House on that series, and also on the response. The people of the United States and Congress tuned into the ``ABC News'' and heard a certain response, and I never got an opportunity. You know, they interview you for, in this case, about an hour of tape, and then they take little segments out, and then they put on the national news those segments. Interestingly enough, and as Paul Harvey said, there is a little bit more. Here is the rest of the story. I want to present that to the House this morning. Let me quote from the National Review, and I did not prompt their doing this piece or I did not ask them to look into this matter. It just appeared, and some of my constituents sent it to me. But let me quote exactly from it. I will read it. Hot on the heels of the GOP's capture of Congress, ABC World News Tonight has unveiled a new segment, ``For the Record,'' designed to ferret out congressmen who engage in exaggeration, false statistics, misleading anecdotes, and other evils. The inaugural segment focused on Representative John Mica (R., Fla.), who alleged that certain Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations forbid kids to take pulled teeth home from the dentist, and that others compel dentists to keep logs for possession and disposal of white-out. Wild congressional exaggeration, right? Actually, OSHA's Blood Borne Pathogen Standard labels bodily tissues as biohazards. Teeth are considered tissue, and technically must therefore be placed in a red bag and picked up by a licensed disposer. Furthermore, because certain brands of white-out contain toluene, OSHA requires that Manufacturers Safety Data Sheets be kept in office files. Dr. Edward Stein, a health scientist at OSHA, says that white-out's levels of toluene are far below those which concern OSHA and that the requirement does not pertain to offices with fewer than 10 people. However, he concedes that if an individual in an office with fewer than 10 people filed a complaint about white-out, OSHA would be free to investigate. As for the teeth? A dentist in the Northeast refused to return a tooth to a 6-year-old boy because he was concerned about the health regulation. OSHA's unofficial position is that this was unnecessary. However, the regulation does require such action. For the Record. In conclusion, this story by National Review does set the record straight, and that is, my colleagues, the rest of the story.

Mr. MICA

Mr. MICA. Reclaiming my time, if I may, again, I think feasibility is still defined under our legislation by the Environmental Protection Agency. They will be a participant in this process. Indeed, the gentleman from New York is offering an amendment that is in search of a problem that does not exist, that we have a broad base of support for this from the States, from governors, from counties and cities and local officials. What we are trying to do is take some of the unreasonable approaches, and I gave an example, swimmable-fishable in the desert, in an area that may have water in it a few days a year. This does not make sense. So we are just trying to take a common sense approach, look at this, and move forward.

Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the gentleman from New York has presented an amendment in search of a problem. States actually have asked for this flexibility, and States currently set these standards now. What we are looking at proposing in our legislation is to allow a reasonable change and a reasonable opportunity to make changes under reasonable circumstances. The amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] strikes the provisions of H.R. 961 that allow States to take costs and benefits into account in revising designated uses of water bodies. Let me point out that in 1975, the administrator required States to designate all navigable waters for which a use had not been designated as follows: They are either fishable, swimmable, and that is to use the quote, the designation by the administrator. They are designated as fishable-swimmable. As a result, many of the waters have received a designated fishable- swimmable category and an unrealistic designated use. For example, streams in the arid West that are dry most of the year have been designated as fishable and swimmable. The bill that we have proposed changes current regulations, the revision of designated uses, in two ways. Let me explain those two ways. First, current regulations allow a State to revise designated uses if it demonstrates to EPA that achieving the designated use is infeasible. The bill allows the State to make the determination of feasibility, but feasibility is still defined by EPA. Second, and let us look at the second point, under current law designated uses may be revised only if attaining the use will result in substantial economic dislocations. Certainly the author of this amendment is very familiar with economic dislocations. I had the opportunity to visit his district some time ago, and I saw the skyline of his district and the vacated factories, and I think he told how many hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been gone, how the piers are abandoned and how the housing tenements are abandoned. So we know about this question of substantial economic dislocation. I am sure the gentleman is familiar with that. Let me say that H.R. 961 allows States to revise a designated use that is not being attained if the cost of attainment is outweighed by the benefits. So what we are trying to do is something reasonable. This is a reasonable approach, and this is an approach that we think makes a lot of sense. So we are using costs and benefits here in a manner that will give flexibility to the States, and the States have requested this flexibility.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a couple of responses in response to some comments that were made by a previous speaker who came to the floor and said that he was only given the opportunity to be at budget hearings or to run to the floor and talk about this clean water legislation. Indeed, those are some of the choices that we have to face. We have to face the fact that literally for the last 40 years that we have, that this Congress has robbed every cookie jar in the country and that the cookie jars are all empty and we have busted the budget, and the country is in serious shape, financial shape, and facing a disaster. Those are the choices before us. The choice is not a question of just balancing the budget or going on in the means that we have done in the past. The choice is that we, in fact, address these serious financial problems and that the cookie jar has been raided for the last time, and we have to make those choices. The choice on the floor today that we run back and forth on relates to regulation and the regulatory process. We have so overregulated. We have had the experience of this law on the books and we know what it is doing. We know how it is driving people out of business, out of jobs, out of the open world competition market. We know, in fact, that he talked about bottled water and Perrier. Well, there are probably no Federal regulations except for possibly some fancy labeling regulations. That is a situation we find ourselves in, we are swatting at the flies and missing the elephants. So we have to make those choices and we have to decide. We have to bring into the regulatory process cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, which is only a commonsense approach. This is not anything lesser environment, have less pure water or air. It is to bring some reasonableness, some common sense to the process. So whether it is the physical condition of the United States or the regulatory conditions imposed by this Congress in years and years of overregulation, those are the questions before us. Now we have a chance with this amendment to defeat the progress we want to make in regulatory reform. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Mineta amendment. Let us go forward. Let us bring common sense to the process. Let us make this Congress work for the people and for business and for jobs and for competition rather than against folks and make some commonsense improvements in the process. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, let me say I appreciate the extension of time, and also the opportunity to talk about risk assessment, because this is probably the last frontal attack on risk assessment before the House of Representatives. As my colleagues know, this issue came before the House in the last Congress and we were denied an opportunity to bring this forth in the form of a complete piece of legislation. It was never voted on as far as affecting all regulatory items before the Congress. Now we have the first individual bill, a regulatory bill, a regulatory reform bill, and we have an opportunity to pass good cost- benefit risk assessment language. This is in fact going to be the last assault, I believe, on risk assessment. So many of the colleagues who have come here on many occasions to vote for risk assessment will have that opportunity today. Many of the people who have come here and asked for cost-benefit analysis in the way we pass regulations in this Congress and through the agencies, the Federal Government, will have an opportunity to vote today. And once and for all we can bring common sense to a process, a regulatory process, that has been out of control, out of hand, put people out of work, out of business, out of jobs. So I urge my colleagues to come to the floor this afternoon, defeat this final amendment that proposes a frontal assault on good risk assessment language and also on cost-benefit language that is so essential to have in this clean water bill. This is what this is all about, bringing common sense, bringing some light into an area of darkness in the regulatory processes of this country. I thank the gentleman for the additional time.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, again I rise in opposition to another amendment by the distinguished gentleman from California which, unfortunately, would also gut some of the provisions we have worked so hard to establish in this legislation dealing with risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis. I would like to also share with my colleagues the fact that this amendment, just like the other amendment offered, again by the distinguished gentleman, was soundly rejected by our committee. This amendment has really a grab bag of provisions in it and changes, some of which there is good news for and some bad news for. Unfortunately, most of the news presented in this amendment is bad news. Let me say, for instance, that the one good thing in this proposed amendment is that it would clarify that risk comparisons should include a discussion of differences between the nature of risks being compared. However, this is already addressed in section 324(b)(2)(C) on page 177, but it does not particular amendment has offered. Now, that is the good news. Now, my colleagues, let us look at the bad news, and there are a number of areas that fall into that category. Unfortunately, the majority of the changes proposed in the rest of this amendment are all undesirable, and I want to highlight a couple of these. First, the amendment would change the cost-benefit criterion for maximizing net benefits to a weaker standard. The benefits must be ``reasonably related to the cost.'' This is a standard that already exists under certain sections of the Clean Water Act, such as section 302(b)(2)(A), and would be less than vigorous at weeding out unnecessary and really inept rules. Further, this standard, since it does not address cost effectiveness, conflicts with the regulatory review criteria adopted by the House in H.R. 1022 this year that passed earlier by a wide margin. Second, the amendment would greatly restrict the risks that EPA could use for comparison purposes. Under the amendment, EPA could only compare risks if they have already been regulated by EPA and result from comparable activities and exposure pathways. This would greatly diminish the benefit of risk comparisons. For instance, part of the value of performing these comparisons is to see whether there may be other unregulated risks that deserve more immediate attention. This would not be possible under the amendment proposed by my good colleague. Finally, and unfortunately, this amendment would wipe out the modest retroactive provisions of this bill. Let me say, I would like to see much more retroactive attention to all of these regulatory matters, even in this legislation. For instance, the retroactive coverage has been described and misquoted, and let me give you one example here, by the National Wildlife Federation, as repealing ``23 years of existing major Clean Water Act standards by requiring extensive cost-benefit and risk assessment reviews for all major existing standards within an impossible deadline of 18 months.'' This is simply untrue and misleading. In fact, H.R. 961, our legislation, requires EPA to review only those regulatory requirements and guidelines issued after February 15, 1995, that would result in costs of $100 million or more per year. Such reviews must be completed within 18 months of enactment of this section. Thus far, only one requirement, the Great Lakes Initiative, issued in March 1995, would need to be reviewed under this subsection. Further, since rules costing $100 million or more already are required to be evaluated by EPA and the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866, the committee expects that the retroactive review required by sections 323 and 324 will place little or no additional burden on EPA, assuming EPA has complied with the Executive order. These are only three of the serious problems with the grab bag of changes proposed under this amendment, and any one of them is in fact enough for my colleagues to come forth and vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, on the basis of just these three points, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I greatly respect the gentleman from California and his leadership on many issues in the transportation and public works arena, but I rise this afternoon in strong opposition to the amendment he has proposed. Let me say first of all that this amendment was very soundly rejected in the committee by a very large and wide bipartisan majority of 38 to 18. Earlier in the debate, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], referred in his comments on the floor to the liberals big lie strategy to try and defeat this bill. This amendment is predicated on one of the small fibs that makes up the big lie strategy, I am afraid to say. This amendment is based on the fiction that risk assessments only apply when standards are being made stronger and do not apply if they are being made weaker. It masquerades as what is good for the goose is good for the gander in the form of an amendment. This is simply not true, and I will demonstrate that fact in just a minute. First, let me tell you why the bill distinguishes between generally applicable regulations and site-specific decisions. The reason for this distinction is already clear to the sponsor of this amendment. I might note that the dissenting views in the committee report support national affluent limitations over site-specific standards because they allow the regulator to implement the Clean Water Act without exhausting resources on complex resource-intensive scientific adjustments, such as those required under many of the waiver provisions of H.R. 961. I agree that the amount of risk assessment analysis necessary to make up a site-specific permit modification should be left up to the EPA or the State. Some site-specific modification will undoubtedly be needed, but others will not. As the report language warns, a mandatory risk assessment would unnecessarily exhaust precious resources in these cases. Let me tell the Members why this amendment is based on a fib. The fact is the bill already allows a what-is-good-for-the-goose-is- good-for-the-gander philosophy. There are simply two separate flocks of geese here. The first flock are local site-specific decisions. Site- specific permit modification, regardless of whether a limitation is being made more or less stringent, will not automatically trigger a risk assessment. For instance, under section 402, EPA can tighten the limitations in a facilities permit based on new site-specific information showing greater ecological harm than was previously expected. H.R. 961 does not require EPA to perform a risk assessment to make the permit more stringent. The second flock, using that analogy, are significant regulations, such as effluent limitation guidelines for a class of industry. They must be supported by sound risk assessment, regardless of whether they are raising or lowering regulatory requirements, because they can have potentially broad and important effects on a large number of people. For instance, any deregulation that may be necessary to refocus EPA's priorities will be subject to a risk assessment. What is particularly ironic about this amendment is that it actually does the opposite of its stated purpose. Far from treating all requirements equally, the list of waivers and permit modification it would subject to risk assessment do not include any modification that would tighten permit requirements. The Mineta amendment before us would not apply risk assessment when EPA wants to tighten requirements for a permittee, but magically, risk assessment would be necessary before a permittee would be granted any kind of variance, no matter how minor. This approach is a microcosm of a well-worn extreme environmentalist strategy: scream long, scream loud about any alleged advantage so-called polluters are getting, while you slip in your own fix that gives you the very advantage you were just condemning. The American people have really been turned off by this mixture of arrogance and hypocrisy that has been displayed in the past, and this is no place for this today. That is why Congress has overwhelmingly passed risk assessment in every consistent vote before this body by wider and wider margins. That is why we must defeat this amendment. It is an ill-conceived amendment. It does just the opposite of what we need to do. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment, and let us pass a good revision to our clean water legislation.