Environmental Bills in Congress

“Partisan Politics Swamps Environmentalists” (Oct. 17) contains several glaring errors which place an inaccurate--and partisan--spin on actions taken by Congress.

First, it is asserted that Safe Drinking Water legislation “foundered when House Republicans demanded amendments that would have diluted the bill.” A review of the facts show this to be completely false. With strong Republican support, H.R. 3392, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1993, was unanimously passed in subcommittee and reported by the full Energy and Commerce Committee by a vote of 43-1. H.R. 3392 was taken up on the floor, again with strong Republican support, under what is known as “suspension,” which is a motion to suspend the rules and pass the legislation. Under suspension, amendments are not in order unless they are made by the majority party member who called the bill up for consideration. Not only were there no amendments for the Republicans to demand, but the legislation was passed by a voice vote on Sept. 27.

Next, you state that “House leaders discontinued efforts to get a package to overhaul the Superfund program passed after Republicans insisted on floor debate and votes on amendments that would have splintered support.” Again, this is simply not the case.

Early in its tenure, the Clinton Administration established Superfund as one of its top environmental priorities, yet dragged its heels in drafting the actual language of the legislation. A Superfund reauthorization bill was not sent to the House until last February.

Despite the Administration’s tardiness, the bill was considered and approved by the House committees on Energy and Commerce, Public Works and Transportation and Ways and Means on a bipartisan basis. I believe the legislation would have also been approved on the House floor, but it never came to members for a vote. The Democratic-controlled Rules Committee never allowed the bill to be considered.

Why would the Rules Committee, with its 9-to-4 Democratic majority, fail to report the Administration’s Superfund bill?

The answer comes down to an inability by the Democratic Party to get its act together. Superfund died because of a conflict within the majority party. An amendment adopted by the Public Works Committee to extend the Davis-Bacon Act to private cleanup contracts at Superfund sites pleased organized labor, but many environmentalists opposed the measure as destroying all chances for reauthorization this year. The Democratic leadership spent six unproductive weeks at the end of the session trying to find ways to prevent their members from choosing between two of their strongest allies. In the end, the Democrats decided it was better to sacrifice Superfund reform rather than offend organized labor on the eve of the 1994 elections.

REP. CARLOS J. MOORHEAD

Ranking Republican Member,

Committee on Energy and Commerce

R-Glendale