THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Monday, March 6, 1995 TAG: 9503020016
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 42 lines
A bill that would make virtually impossible the protection of public health and drinking water from manufactured poisons is being steamrolled through the U.S. House of Representatives. In the name of ``government reform,'' this measure, HR9, would give corporate profits greater priority than human health.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, if HR9 had been law, the EPA could not have required the phasing out of lead in gasoline or the elimination of DDT.
Lead exposure causes learning disabilities in children; DDT is a potent poison to birds and can harm humans. (You might recall that the symbol of our nation, the American bald eagle, has made a comeback in the lower 48 states only since the DDT ban took effect.)
HR9 would allow affected industries (or anyone else who had an ax to grind) to challenge exiting standards for protecting health, safety and the environment and put them to a new test that would require giving the highest priority to reducing costs to industry. Thus, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of harm to children from lead, and harm to birds from DDT, HR9 would have forced government to help corporate balance sheets first and foremost.
I want government to work better, but HR9 has little to do with reform or fairness. HR9 aims to roll back health, safety and environmental safeguards and permanently tie the regulatory agencies in knots. I am not ready for this kind of ``government reform.''
When I turn on the tap for a drink of water, I want to know that the highest priority was given to providing my family safe, clean water, not making it as cheap as possible for some chemical plant upstream. I don't want HR9 to force government to decide that it costs too much to protect our children from lead poisoning. Do you?
MARK A. YATROFSKY
Norfolk, Feb. 24, 1995 by CNB