Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 52 (Monday, April 22, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 52 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3755-S3762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EARTH DAY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, as we all know now, today is Earth Day,
a day dedicated to remembering our commitment to the environment, to
the future, a commitment on the part of every generation of Americans
to assure that those who come behind us will not be jeopardized by
contemporary actions and, better, that those who follow us will have
the opportunities to enjoy a healthy environment--an environment in
which recreation can be pursued, an environment in which future
generations will not be troubled by the water they drink, by the air
they breathe, by the environment in which they live.
There has been a lot of rhetoric in this 104th Congress, finger
pointing about who is for the environment and who is not for the
environment. I do not know anybody who is not for an improved
environment; at least I have not met them.
In all the discussion, though, a little-told story is that this
Congress has passed one of the most historic pieces of environmental
legislation in the history of our country. I will quote from F. Graham
Liles, Jr., who is executive director of the Georgia Soil and Water
Conservation Commission. It is a letter addressed to me dated April 11,
1996. He says:

With regard to the new Farm Bill, I feel this is probably
the strongest conservation legislation to have been signed in
decades.

I do not believe that, when we were considering the farm bill, it was
generally acknowledged that that legislation is monumental
environmental legislation that this Congress can take credit for, that
it will be a legacy of the 104th Congress. Yes, the farm bill

[[Page S3756]]

does bring about monumental change in marketing reforms, in flexibility
in terms of farmer planning, vast savings in these Government programs.
But the untold story is the environmental effect of the legislation.
Another general thought--I am going to describe some of these
achievements, but this is the kind of environmental legislation that is
logical, that in my judgment creates the appropriate balance between
the stewards of the land and public policy. It is characterized by a
word called ``partnership.'' I do not think we can say this is the case
in each of our environmental laws. But here in this new farm bill the
concept of partnering, shared responsibility, working together to
produce a positive result is well rooted in the legislation. Therefore,
it can become a benchmark, a guide, something to point to in terms of
the manner in which we should design future legislation designed to
protect the environment.
Under the farm bill conservation title, as I said, the bill is hailed
by many, including the American Farm Bureau, as ``the most
environmentally responsible farm legislation in history.'' In the State
of Georgia, the soil and water conservation commission, as I just
quoted, calls it the strongest conservation legislation to have been
signed in decades.
Under the conservation title, it reauthorizes the following programs:
The Conservation Reserve Program. Under this program landowners idle
highly erodible farmland in exchange for payments--partnership. This is
the Government working with the stewards of the land. Under this
program soil erosion rates in my State of Georgia have dropped 50
percent. The Speaker often refers to producing effect more than effort.
This is effect--reducing erosion rates in Georgia by 50 percent. And
36.5 million acres of sensitive farmland nationwide is being protected
under the Conservation Reserve Program.

We hear a lot of discussion about wetlands and our desire to protect
them. This new farm bill focuses on wetlands. Under this provision of
the bill, farmers enter into cooperative easement arrangements with the
Government. Once again, Mr. President, partnership. Generally,
permanent or 30-year easements are arranged and a farmer is
compensated. It is a cooperative arrangement. Under these provisions,
we will protect nearly 1 million acres of wetlands nationwide.
Fish and Wildlife Service oversight is replaced by State technical
committees. We are moving the decisions to the States.
The Forestry Incentive Program. Farmers are provided with cost share
agreements with the Department of Agriculture designed to plant trees
on private land. The program is simple--incentives to plant more trees.
In my State, we have over 800 participants. We have planted over 10,000
acres of new trees. That is just Georgia alone; 10,000 acres of new
trees. This program has put trees on land that would have ordinarily
been used for other purposes.
New programs that were authorized in this bill:
The Environmental Quality Incentive Program, the EQIP program. This
is the cornerstone of the conservation title for soil and water quality
restoration and enhancement. Its highlights are: The program targets
$1.2 billion over 7 years to assist crop and livestock producers in
building environmental improvements on the farm, including animal waste
facilities, grass waterways, filterstrips, and other practices geared
toward land preservation.
Mr. President, partnership. Here, again, in each one of these titles
we see a new roadmap to the work on the environment, working with, as
partners and facilitators, stewards of the land itself.
Farms for the Future Program. This program will provide $35 million
to buy easements on prime American farmland in areas where they are
threatened. Some of the best farmland is being swallowed by
development. This program understands that and tries to ease the burden
of the development. This money will protect our country's best farmland
from urban sprawl and will preserve it for future generations, as I
said a moment ago, trying to preserve and keep for our future
generations historical and environmentally sound areas for them to
visit and study and review.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Program, the WHEP Program. You have to
have an acronym for everything here. The WHEP Program will provide $10
million per year for cost-share payments to farmers who improve their
wildlife habitat for upland and wetland wildlife. Again, partnership,
Mr. President, working with the stewards of the land. This is
especially important for States like mine with extensive bird and
riparian populations. This is a win-win for naturalists and sportsmen
alike.
The Florida Everglades restoration. Congress has resolved to clean up
the Florida Everglades by providing $200 million for acquisition,
easements, and other restoration activities. Congress here, instead of
talking, has taken action by cleaning up the Everglades. This method of
cleanup will allow farmers to survive and will repair the land in a
unique partnership.
So, Mr. President, I reiterate that we have created in this historic
piece of legislation conservation efforts, efforts to protect wetlands
and include wetlands in the reserve. Forestry, the planting of new
trees, the protection of environmental quality, the Farms for the
Future Program, wildlife habitat and the Everglades--all of these
environmental programs are encompassed in the new farm bill. This is a
new historic piece of legislation, not only with regard to the farm
programs, but with regard and with the intent to partner with the
stewards of the land, these great protectors of the land, because no
one has a greater interest in protecting the environment than our
farming and agricultural community.
This is the stamp that demonstrates that very fact.
Mr. President, in the debate with regard to environmental
legislation, as I said when I made an opening statement, there is a lot
of rhetoric that follows the environment. It is often politicized
extensively. We do, as I said in scoping out the word ``partnership''
have to be conscious of a balance between protecting the environment
and protecting the fundamental rights of the owners of our land, of
securing an appropriate balance in terms of the burden and costs of the
environmental legislation. We cannot ignore the fact that some of our
work in the environment has posed great questions for us with regard to
cost and logic.
Some of the bureaucrats, some of the regulators, in my judgment, have
forgotten this concept we call partnership. They are in the business of
imparting a word that was more reminiscent of arrogance, bossism,
pushiness. Let me just give a couple of examples of the kind of thing
that I think most Americans find illogical.
There is a gentleman by the name of Junior Childress. He is from
Alabama. He has a radiator repair store. He thought he could be
environmentally correct and start a nest egg at the same time when he
took a load of car batteries to Interstate Lead Co. for recycling in
1985. Here we have a radiator repairman. He took several batteries to
the Interstate Lead Co. in 1985 and sold them to this other company for
the monumental sum of $337.50. I repeat, he sold a handful of batteries
to this other company for $337.50--an absolutely legal transaction,
normally.
Subsequently--and by subsequently, I mean 9 years later; 9; a decade
later--this company, Interstate Lead Co. was determined to be a
Superfund site which alleged that they had not managed toxic material
appropriately. They came under the scope of the Superfund cleanup. The
problem is that the owner of Interstate Lead Co. had left the country
in the decade and was residing somewhere in Germany. So under our new
regulatory system they go through the transaction records and find
everybody who has ever done business with this outfit and put them on a
liability list. If the person responsible for it does not have the
resources or has disappeared or died then we start going through the
records and seeing anybody that ever did business with this Interstate
Lead Co.
Lo and behold, 9 years ago, Junior Childress sold them $337.50 worth
of batteries, and because of that, 9 years later, finds himself and his
family liable--liable--for the full responsibility, which is $90
million. That is not a very good financial transaction--$337.50; now he
is on the hook for $90 million--

[[Page S3757]]

he and 900 other people who were interacting and selling goods to this
company.

This is the kind of illogical conclusion that, in my judgment, has
done so much damage to the environment, because it makes people
cynical. It makes them lose faith. Everybody who reads this story is
going to say, ``My heavens, what logic could there be in this? How in
the world will we go back and unload on this man who sold a handful of
batteries to this company 9 years ago,'' and wrap the arms of the
Government around him and cause him to bear the burden of this
liability?
I happen to know an individual in my own State who is in the business
of recycling, recycling metal, recycling other goods, who has
experienced this same threat. This company, no need to name it, is 100
years old. It is 100 years old. That family has been doing business in
Atlanta, GA, for 100 years. They are as good a public citizen as you
will ever meet. They are committed at every level of the community.
They are good citizens. They are good stewards. They are good business
people. Their company, after a century of operation, is at risk, all of
their savings, all that they have built, all that they have stored, all
of their work is at risk, for an incident just like this.
It is this kind of illogical behavior that is at the core of people
asking us to change some of the way we manage our pursuit of a sound
environment. This man, Junior Childress, my friend in Atlanta, GA,
should not be staring down a double-barreled shotgun called the U.S.
Government. They simply do not have any liability here. They have been
good stewards. They did things the way they thought they should be
done. Yet they are at risk.
It is this kind of illogical behavior--this does not help our pursuit
of cleaning the environment, Mr. President. This hurts. I just
described the farm bill and the logical flow of events between stewards
and the Government. That helps. That produces a better environment.
This hurts.
Mr. President, I see I have been joined by my good colleague from the
State of Wyoming. I am going to yield up to 10 minutes to my colleague,
the Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate our colleague bringing us to
the floor to talk today about the environment. Certainly, this is Earth
Day, and we ought to talk about it.
We just have one Earth and one planet. There is more and more of us
and we have the same amount of space. Clearly, we will have to pick up
after ourselves. I suspect there is no one in this body, and indeed,
very few anywhere, who would not agree with that.
There are differing views of the best way to do it, of course, to
provide a healthy environment. There are questions of who should do it.
Should it be left entirely to the central Government, to the Federal
Government? Should we take advantage of the State and local expertise?
Should there be incentives for the private sector to perform? Those are
the kinds of questions that I think we need to be asking.

There should be questions about the balance between use and the
economy and the environment, and how we have jobs and how we protect
the environment at the same time. There is reason to disagree on those
kinds of things. There is a question of whether or not there should be
congressional oversight of the statutes of laws that have been passed.
Many of them--indeed most of them--passed 20 years ago. Or whether or
not there should be opposition to every effort to restructure some of
these laws and, indeed, to sort of demonize every effort as if it is
going to be gutted or rolled back when, in fact, the effort is to take
a look at a bill that has been in place for 20 years and see if there
are better ways to do it, to see if it could be done more efficiently.
That is what it is about.
I am sorry there has been this sort of politicizing of this issue in
this Congress. I think it is appropriate that we use Earth Day not just
to look at the past environmental successes but to look to the future
as well. The successes have been numerous, to say the least. You would
not know it by the kind of ``Chicken Little'' rhetoric that comes from,
I think, environmental extremists who would rather scare folks than
deal with the facts. I hope we can stick with the facts. We do not do
enough of that here. There is too much overstatement about ``gutting''
and ``rolling back'' when that is really not what is happening.
Look how far we have come since Earth Day in 1970. Our rivers, lakes
and streams are vastly improved. The Potomac is a good example. It was
a wasteland 20 years ago, and now families fish there on the weekends.
I suppose we all come from a little different life experience. I grew
up in Wapiti, WY, which I am sure you all have heard of. It is just a
post office and a school halfway between Yellowstone Park and Cody. It
is called by some the ``most scenic 50 miles in the world.'' And it
could be. In fact, we had the last place next to the forest, and all
around us were wilderness areas. I do not think there is anybody who
has a stronger feeling or a caring for the environment than I do coming
from there.
On the other hand, you may have come from a city where there was
excessive pollution, and that is your experience. But now our air is
cleaner, according to EPA. Particulate matter emissions have been
reduced 60 percent. VOC's have been reduced 25 percent. Carbon monoxide
has been reduced 40 percent. Lead emissions have been reduced by 96
percent. All emissions have been reduced by a third. That is great.
Wildlife populations are increasing, such as the bald eagle, white-
tailed deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and wild turkey. Simply put,
the environment is cleaner now than at any time in the last 50 years.
Americans are living longer and healthier because of that. We can be
very proud of that. Both Democrats and Republicans have been a big part
of this success during the 26 years since the first Earth Day. For 18
of those years, there was a Republican President in the White House. So
we can all share in this movement forward on a nonpartisan issue.
However, despite all that we have done, we still have some things to
address, certainly. Unfortunately, we are now trying to solve 21st
century environmental problems with laws designed a quarter of a
century ago. One of the areas in which I happen to be involved is
endangered species. I do not know of anybody that does not want to
protect endangered species. Certainly, I do, and everybody I know on
our committee wants to do that. It has been up for reauthorization now
for 3 years. It has not been reauthorized. It is not doing as well as
it might be. It is not doing as well because we need to do something
about peer review for science.
I went to a hearing out west, and we had scientists from both sides
of the issue, from lumber people to environmentalist scientists, and
you would never know they were talking about the same thing. If you
want science to be the basis, we need to change that. We need peer
review. We need to set priorities. There is a finite amount of money,
so which of these endangered species do we put our money into. Are they
all equally valuable? I do not know.

We have to do something to encourage private landowners to be more
interested in endangered species. Now, frankly, in my State, if someone
discovers an endangered species on their ranch or property, they are
hesitant to know about it, because it might mean you cannot use your
property for anything else. We need to find a way so that private
owners can say, ``Let us work on that.''
So we have to update these things. That is what we are seeking to do.
But this year, unfortunately, every time we take a look at how we might
change it and make it more effective and efficient, then we are
confronted with this ``we are going to save you'' idea. Frankly, the
administration has led that. Regarding everything that has happened,
the President is going to ``save you'' from those crazies in the
Congress.
We have to start using some facts and we have to start really dealing
with what the issues are. And I hope that this Earth Day will cause us
to help do that. I think we can utilize the vast expertise local people
have. All of these efforts will help us. I think there has to be,
obviously, some balance. There are different kinds of environmental
places, of course--parks and wilderness and forests--and many of those
things should be set aside for single use. But the vast majority of
Federal lands should be managed for multiple use. I am thinking about
the

[[Page S3758]]

West, particularly, because that is where I am from. Those are multiple
use lands and we can find a balance between jobs, the economy, and
protecting the environment; I am confident of that. It does not have to
be one or the other. That is what we are seeking to do.
Superfund legislation. I am, frankly, disappointed. It is designed,
of course, to clean up sites that have hazardous waste. We have spent
billions of dollars, mostly that comes from a tax, to do that job. Do
you know what most of it has gone for? Litigation. Lawyers and
courtrooms. That is where the money has gone. A great deal of it comes
from insurance policies for people involved. Someone said that nearly
90 percent of that money has gone to legal activities, not cleaning up
the sites. That is what we really need to do.
So there has been a status quo opposition almost at every turn. I
hope we get by that. I think there has been some deliberate misleading
of people. This idea of somehow we are going to poison the children is
silly. I am just as interested in my children as Carol Browner is or as
Vice President Gore is. So we ought not to be talking about that. Some
of that stuff is downright misleading.
The idea that one political party cares more about the environment
than the other is laughable. We all live here together. We need to make
some changes. I hope we can upgrade the Superfund in the next few
months and that we can do something about the Endangered Species Act,
Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. We are ready to do
that. We need to get the bogeyman out of the closet and quit talking
about the sky is falling and take a real factual approach to making
these things work better. We, indeed, can do that.
So, Mr. President, thanks to the efforts of lots of folks in this
country, thanks to the efforts of people who care about the
environment, the sky is not falling, it is in pretty good shape. We
need to take care of it. We have some responsibility. Every citizen has
some responsibility and we can do that. I am glad it is Earth Day. I
look forward to this country being in even better shape next Earth Day,
and all of us need to contribute to do that.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and
I appreciate his remarks. The exact figure on the Superfund is $25
billion that has been spent, and we have corrected 12 percent of the
problem. So that is an issue in and of itself.
At this point, I yield up to 5 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise with great pleasure on Earth Day.
Environmental legislation has been one of the most enjoyable areas of
legislation in the 16 years I have had in Congress and the 4 years that
I served in the Colorado State Senate.
I was a sponsor of Colorado's conservation trust fund, a measure that
set money aside to be used to purchase open space, preserving it for
future generations. We, in Colorado, prize our environment and our open
space and are determined to make sure we do not repeat the mistakes of
the east coast and west coast, as they have seen cities grow together
without adequate open space. It could only be done through a positive
program. That is why the Colorado trust fund was such a monumental
effort--not because the money is as great as we would like--it is not,
but it is growing. It represents a positive step for the environment.
Instead of saying ``no,'' we can say ``yes.''
I am convinced that real environmental progress is going to be a
product of saying ``yes,'' of thoughtful and assertive action that does
positive things, not just negative things. I am a sponsor of the
minimum stream flow statute, sought to recognize minimum stream flow as
a proper use of water and recognize it as a property right in the
State. It is a fundamental step toward adding minimum stream flow to
all of our streams.

Mr. President, on the national level, one of the most enjoyable
things I have done are three additions to the Rocky Mountain National
Park. The Rocky Mountain National Park is perhaps one of the most
beautiful areas in the entire world, and it attracts literally millions
of visitors every year.
Tragically, in recent years, Democratic Congresses have dramatically
increased the cost of entering the park so that it becomes a preserve
for only those who can afford to enter it rather than the poor. It has
been a tragic mistake, in my view, because Democratic Congresses'
actions have served to restrict young people who may not be wealthy
from having an opportunity to visit that park. Our natural wonders of
beauty, I believe, should be available to all Americans.
Mr. President, I am the sponsor in Colorado of the only wild and
scenic river, the Cache La Poudre River. It was with great pride that
we put it together. It was a compromise between those who use the river
and those who enjoy it from an environmental and scenic point of view.
It set aside areas where water storage can be added, which is important
for preserving our water quality and our water flow in the State. But
it also set aside specific large portions of the river for wild,
recreational, and scenic uses.
Mr. President, I am the sponsor of three studies on the Cache La
Poudre River examining a portion of the river to be included as a
national heritage area. Before this Congress right now is a bill that I
have worked on for more than a decade. The Cache La Poudre River
National Water Heritage Area bill is one that will set aside the flood
plain of the Cache La Poudre River as it flows down from the mountains
through Fort Collins and through Greeley just below the areas that are
designated as wild and scenic.
It is a wonderful opportunity because through land exchanges--that
is, taking land that is declared surplus in the State owned by the
Federal Government and exchanging it for ownership in the flood plain--
we can preserve the area in the flood plain along an important stretch
of river that, if no action is taken, will become city within two to
three decades. Literally, we have the chance to do what they wished
they had done in New York or what they wished they had done in San
Francisco or what they wished they had done in Los Angeles--leave open
space and beauty.
Mr. President, I have been shocked at the very partisan nature of
some of the attacks by Democratic Members on this floor upon
Republicans. I cannot help but reflect that this bill, which has
unanimous support at home from both Democrats and Republicans, appears
to be in jeopardy of dying simply because of the actions of the
Democratic Senator from New Jersey, who put a hold on the bill for
months and months, and may well have achieved killing it. It is an
environmental bill. I must say I cannot understand the action of that
Democratic Senator and why he would want to kill it. But to claim that
interest in the environment falls along partisan lines is just silly.
It is widely shared by all Americans, and it is why we honor this day.
I am convinced that we have to take strong, bold, affirmative action
if we are to do our part. Simply saying no is not enough.
Mr. President, most important of all, refusing to look at the
statutes that have been passed with an eye to improving them is not
enough either. No one can look at the Superfund and not be ashamed of
what has happened. Ninety percent of the money that was spent on the
Superfund, money designed to clean up our environment, is spent for
lawyers and process costs. That is a disgrace. Anyone who comes to this
floor and decries the efforts to reform Superfund simply has not taken
the time to look at it or does not genuinely care about the
environment, and I know that cannot be true.
The reality is we need to use that money in the Superfund to clean up
the environment--not simply pay lawyers. The actions with regard to
environmental reform should not be dictated by trial lawyers who donate
large amounts of money to political campaigns. They ought to be
dedicated in our interest and our need to reform and improve the
environment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
[Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will note that no demonstrations are
allowed from the galleries.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from
Utah.

[[Page S3759]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.

Holistic Resource Management, Earth Day 1996

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my colleagues
in commenting on Earth Day and, I hope, adding some information and
perspective to the debate on Earth Day that will move in the direction
that will be good for our country as a whole.
Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this 26th
anniversary celebration of Earth Day. Many natural factors influence
grazing on western public lands, with precipitation or the lack thereof
probably being the single most important one. Without moisture, and
specifically, moisture falling at the correct time, the amount of
potential forage can be severely impacted. We can try but there is
usually little, outside of asking for divine intervention, that humans
can do to influence natural events. But we can change perceptions about
public land grazing. We can manage the conflict that arises based on
these perceptions. Never before in the history of this country has
there been an issue so divisive, emotional and surrounded by
perception, myth and hysteria as the issue of western public land
grazing. Yet there are solutions; solutions that can solve conflict
through planning, science, consensus, and shifting from traditional
paradigms.
I speak to you today about a solution that has my support. It blends
new ideas about natural resource management, planning and science with
a healthy dose of old-fashioned hard work and common sense. Coordinated
resource management is not about the management of grazing; any issue
that has polarized western public land managers, public land users and
lawmakers. CRM is a process that offers solutions to natural resource
problems, requiring the cooperation of landowners, Government agencies,
and other interested individuals and groups. Coordinated resource
management is a voluntary and cooperative solution to natural resource
management issues. CRM is based on the work of many, but notably the
work of Allan Savory culminated in his book ``Holistic Resource
Management.''
Conflict about management and use of western public lands has
festered for years especially over multiple uses on lands managed by
the Bureau of Land Management. This low profile agency, often
overlooked by most Americans, has become the focus of intensive battles
over the variety of uses it manages. Western public lands have gone
from being the lands that no one wanted, to lands targeted by special
interest groups for designation or special uses. This has been done
without regard for traditional uses of the land and the families and
industries that have adapted to the use of these lands. Conflict
between users perceptions about management and the future of western
public land agencies are the issues. These can be resolved by careful
implementation of coordinated resource management.
Using the best efforts of local people, private landowners,
interested Federal, State, local and State agencies, CRM integrates and
coordinates resource uses to accomplish specific goals. The process is
designed to achieve comparability between land and resources uses.
There are a number of success stories world wide where CRM has been
used to solve resource management issues. In my State, one of the
notable examples is the Desert Ranch in northeastern Utah. Once a ranch
troubled by apparent downward trends in forage production, conflicts
with wildlife, incidents of extreme erosion, and degraded riparian
areas, it is now a model of natural resource management efficiency.
After implementing a holistic or coordinated resource Management plan,
the ranch now graze more livestock than it has traditionally and
produces some of the finest big game hunting in the West. Cattle have
been used at such intensities as to make traditional private and public
land range managers blanch. In most instances several hundred more
cattle than normal graze pastures, which rebound with dramatic
increases in forage production. Riparian areas have improved
significantly, after being grazed at such intensities, to the point
that streams are stocked by naturally breeding populations of trout
instead of the Utah Division of Wildlife resources. Compare this to
adjacent public and private lands where decreases in the numbers of
livestock are almost annual, and where erosion and over grazing impact
riparian areas and their value. Why this dramatic difference? Hard
work, vision and a coordinated resource management plan. There are many
other successes, especially tied to grazing. But the value of CRM is
that the process can be applied to almost any resource management issue
including the designation of wilderness.
CRM addresses the dilemma of managing areas with multiple use
ownership, conflicting management objectives and requirements,
conflicting land-use demands and off-site impacts. The overall goal of
coordinated resource management is to serve as a vehicle to reach
agreement on natural resources issues that will improve natural
resources values for all users and to promote quality natural resource
management through collaborative efforts. In other words, if people
come to the table with the goal of reaching consensus, regardless of
the diversity of agendas, many natural resource conflicts can be solved
and perceptions changed. I support the concepts of CRM and encourage
the use of the process to solve natural resource problems. We can set a
goal to use the coordinated resource management process as a dynamic,
long-term tribute to Earth Day 1996.
I remember as a freshman Member of this body sitting on the Energy
and Natural Resources Committee when someone came before that committee
for confirmation. I will not identify him because I do not want to
embarrass him. The exchange that occurred between him and the then
chairman of the committee, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Johnston],
speaks for itself and does not need to necessarily be personalized.
In the process of the confirmation hearing, Chairman Johnston said to
this man, somewhat startling me, ``When you make your decisions on the
environment, will you make those decisions on the basis of sound
science or superstition?'' Well, I sat there as a new member of the
committee and thought this is a very easy question to answer. I
wondered why the chairman raised it. Then I heard the response from the
witness. He started to give all kinds of discussions about
considerations that had to be examined and constituencies that should
be heard from, and so on. Chairman Johnston interrupted him. He said,
``You are not answering my question. When it comes to issues of the
environment, will you make your decisions on the basis of sound science
or superstition?'' The answer came back in the same mode, that there
are many constituencies of the Department of Energy and the
constituencies have to be heard. A third time Chairman Johnston stopped
him and asked the question. ``Do not evade it. Give me a direct answer.
Will you make your decisions on the basis of sound science or
superstition?'' For the third time the answer started to come out, and
the chairman cut him off, and said, ``It is clear that you do not want
to answer the question, and we will move on.''
I was sufficiently disturbed by that. But when it finally came my
turn to question the witness, I said to him, ``Do you realize what this
Record says as it currently stands? You have been asked three times by
the chairman of this committee, a senior member of the Democratic
Party, a major figure in the party that controls both Houses of
Congress, and the administration, that, `Will you make your decisions
on the basis of sound science or superstition?' and each time you have
failed to answer. Unless you do answer that, the Record is going to
stand quoting you as saying you do not believe that sound science
should rule over superstition when it comes to the environment. Do you
really want the Record to show that?'' At that point he said to me,
``Well, no, Senator, I do not want the Record to show that. Of course
we will pay attention to science.'' I said, ``That is the point that
gets lost in all of this debate about the environment. We have a number
of misconceptions about the environment to make us feel good, and I am
delighted that you have finally made it clear that at least in your
area under your jurisdiction environmental decisions will be based on
sound science instead of response to the superstitions that are going
around.''

[[Page S3760]]

That particular exchange, long since passed into history, has stuck
in my mind. I repeat it here on Earth Day because I think that is the
crux of the various controversies that we are involved in when we talk
about the environment.
Let me address one of the misconceptions that I find as I go around
and talk to people about the environment. That is the notion that
Nature is perfect, human beings are despoilers, Nature does things in
an orderly way, and human beings just mess things up. That, I think, is
the misconception that surrounds this whole environmental debate.
I sat in the chair one evening during the debate on the grazing bill,
and the senior Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson, showed us some
photographs. I was sufficiently impressed by that. I think we ought to
take a look at them again. I brought them along.
It so happens that over 100 years ago, in 1870, a photographer went
out in Wyoming and started to take pictures of the magnificent scenery
that is available in Wyoming.
Here is the photograph taken on August 12, 1870, of a particular
vista in Wyoming. In 1976, a photographer went back to the same spot
and took a picture from the same location.
If you will examine the difference, you will see that under wise
management by human beings, the grasses are much healthier, the area
and vegetation is much lusher. Human beings, instead of despoiling the
ground, have in fact improved it.
The Senator from Wyoming had a number of such pictures. I have
brought along two of them. Here is another one. Here is the 1870
photograph--pretty barren, pretty bleak. Here is the 1976 photograph,
100 years later--much healthier vegetation, much healthier conditions.
In the debate on the Utah wilderness bill, I produced this photograph
for our colleagues to see. This is not 100 years. This is only 50
years. The Escalante River in 1949. You can see how barren this is.
After 50 years of wise management in the area, you can see now that
this area is revegetated.
I showed this in Utah during the Easter break, and I was attacked by
some people who said, ``Senator, just because its pretty doesn't mean
its wilderness.''
They pointed to the lower photograph and said, ``That's a violation
of nature because,'' Senator, ``you're not smart enough to know this.
We are. Some of that vegetation down there is not indigenous to Utah.
These trees that ended up here came from outside of Utah. It's a
violation of the purity of this wilderness to have Asian species in
that area.''
I went back to some land managers to ask them about that, and they
said, ``Yes, there is some tamarisk there. Some of the green vegetation
around the river area--you see no vegetation whatever here--some of the
green vegetation is tamarisk, but most of the vegetation is cottonwood,
shrubs, and grasses indigenous to Utah. Tamarisk is not a weed. It is a
tree that was imported ironically for soil conservation reasons. The
tamarisk was planted to prevent erosion.
Now, if we adopt the notion that everything nature does is perfect
and everything we need to do should be geared toward preserving things
in their absolutely natural state, we run into a very serious problem.
That problem is this: Nature is not constant. Nature changes the face
of the land all the time.
Secretary Babbitt has just spent 4 days walking along the C&O Canal
to try to raise our awareness of Earth Day. Why the C&O Canal? Because
with one storm, nature devastated the C&O Canal. It was all scenic,
protected, and preserved, but nature came along and after one storm,
with the winter floods the C&O Canal was devastated.
If you go back to my home State of Utah and say we want our land to
remain in the condition that nature decreed that it should be, the
argument could be made that the entire State should be under water.
There was a time--and it can be demonstrated by the geologic features
along the benches around the Salt Lake Valley, and throughout the
mountains, that Lake Bonneville, as we call it, once covered most of
the State of Utah and southern Idaho. It was bigger than any of the
Great Lakes--bigger than Lake Michigan or Lake Huron or Lake Superior--
it was a huge body of inland water.
Is it not wonderful that nature has created this magnificent, inland,
freshwater sea? And then something happened. Nature changed it. One
day, in southern Idaho, up by Lone Rock, the lake burst its banks and
an outlet to that freshwater sea was created. It started, over the many
millennia, to disappear.
What we have remaining in Utah now is another magnificent gift of
nature. It is the Great Salt Lake. The salt flats to the west of the
lake are the remnants of Lake Bonneville which over the millennia. In
that area now you have this unique natural phenomenon called the
Bonneville Salt Flats created by nature. If we are going to say that in
the name of the environment we must preserve nature as it was, we have
to go back to the boundaries of Lake Bonneville and try to find some
way to fill it all up with water again because that is what nature once
had.
The fact of the matter is--and this is sound science, Mr. President--
nature changes. It changes daily. It changes over the years. It changes
in ways that are good, and, as the C&O Canal, it changes in ways that
are bad.
Our responsibility as proper, sound stewards of the land and
environment is to make intelligent decisions and not get carried away
with superstition, nor rely on misconceptions as fact.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator
from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gregg). The Senator from Wyoming is
recognized.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I thank the Chair. I wish to thank the Senator from
Georgia very much for his leadership as we debate this issue.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, today, as we celebrate Earth Day, we
should stop to consider our air, the quality of life, and the world we
will leave our children. And because of the lessons that he taught that
we should pass on to our children, this is the right occasion to look
back on the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt, a great Republican, a true
conservative, who first taught America the importance of conservation.
Under President Roosevelt's stewardship, America first endorsed the
wise use of our natural resources, established the National Park
System, and preserved for all time the great Yellowstone National Park.
In a message to Congress on December 3, 1907, President Roosevelt
said:

To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and
exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase its
usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our
children the very prosperity which we ought--by right--to
hand down to them amplified and developed.

President Roosevelt's words are as true today as when spoken 90 years
ago. We Republicans can be proud of President Roosevelt's heritage, but
as a nation we must implement President Roosevelt's vision of leaving
our children an environment and an economy better than that which we
inherited.
We are all environmentalists. We have to be. Who can be against our
life support system? Our own personal experiences make the environment
an emotional issue. All of us have great stories of the outdoors.
Being from Idaho, I can tell you that I have had some tremendous
trips down the white-water rapids where, as you begin to hear the first
roar of the rapids, you are filled with anticipation, and then when you
make it through those rapids the exhilaration that you feel camping
under the majesty of the canopy of ponderosa pines, with the full moon
above.
I know the great splendor of Idaho's Sawtooth Mountains, and I wish
to leave my children a legacy of conservation of which they can be
proud.
Before coming to the Senate, I served as mayor of Boise, ID. Boise is
graced with the Boise River. This river serves many uses. It provides
about a third of our drinking water. It serves as a major recreational
and fishing amenity, and it provides habitat to many diverse species.
How many cities in America can boast of bald eagles and blue heron
just 5 minutes from the center of downtown? Boise is fortunate, but
Boise is not unique. From the Puget Sound to the Everglades, this
country is blessed with some of the most magnificent natural and scenic
treasures on the planet. We are also blessed with the largest

[[Page S3761]]

and most vibrant economy on the planet. We must preserve these gifts of
economy and environment.

If you have a high-paying job but you live in a community where the
air and the water is polluted, weeds and trash have overrun your parks,
you do not have quality of life. But conversely, if your community
enjoys clean air, clean water, beautiful open spaces, but you do not
have a job and you cannot provide for your children, then you do not
have quality of life either. So, our challenge is to reach that balance
between a clean environment and a sound economy. I believe that we can.
In fact, this Senate has already taken major steps to make that happen.
I am proud of the work that we did on the Safe Drinking Water Act
reauthorization. Working in a bipartisan way, we passed a bill that is
strong on public health protection; in fact, we ought to call it the
``safer'' drinking water act. It takes into consideration the costs of
providing clean and safe water.
The Safe Drinking Water Act should serve as a model for accomplishing
sound environmental law. Everyone had a seat at the table and a say in
drafting the legislation. The environmental and public health
advocates, water utilities, States, cities, counties, businesses, all
worked cooperatively on the bill. Republicans and Democrats put aside
partisan politics for the good of the Nation.
As a result, the Senate passed the Safe Drinking Water Act 99 to 0,
and everyone in this Chamber can be proud of that legislation. That is
an example of a bill that improves public health and safety and leads
to good quality of life. It is good for the environment, and it is good
for our communities.
There were lessons learned during the 10 months we negotiated that
bill, and those lessons will serve us well as we look at other
environmental issues. One key was the active participation of State and
local governments. Who knows better what each community needs, a local
leader or a Washington bureaucrat, who quite often has never been to
your State or your community? Believe me, as a former local official, I
had much more confidence in my city's ability to meet its needs than
any orders from Washington, DC.
True, Congress must set national standards, but we should allow local
and State governments the flexibility to let those standards work in
their specific situations. The only way to do this efficiently and
economically is by bringing the local leaders and the State leaders
into the process. We should also let local communities solve their
problems without the burden of Government redtape.

One example is the Henry's Fork Watershed Council in northeastern
Idaho. The council grew out of years of conflict between fly fishermen
and irrigators. Each group had what they believed to be legitimate
claims to the waters of Henry's Fork system. The river is a blue-ribbon
trout fishery, revered by fly fishermen from across the world for is
crystal clear water and trophy rainbow and brown trout. But the farmers
in Fremont and Madison Counties need the water from the Island Park
Reservoir also. They need the water to irrigate their acres of potatoes
and barley. A great number of Idaho's famous potatoes are grown in this
region, and those crops help sustain the economy of that part of Idaho.
Finally, after years of fighting, the Fremont-Madison Irrigation
District and the Henry's Fork Foundation fly fishermen realized that
while they argued, the quality of the resource that they both so
desperately needed was deteriorating. So they put aside their
differences and they started working together for the common good.
It has worked. Last summer, for example, when the water temperatures
soared and threatened the fish, the irrigators voluntarily agreed to
release the water from the dam, filling the streambeds with cold water
and saving the fish. Before this cooperative agreement, it might have
taken weeks of negotiations and miles of redtape before anything was
done.
I will add that the Federal Government is a partner in this sort of
situation--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the
Bureau of Reclamation, the Natural Resources Conservation Service. But
the key is it was the local parties that got together and found the
solution--local people, local solutions.
In another pristine part of Idaho, industry has taken the lead in
environmental protection and restoration. Potlach Corp. has voluntarily
set aside valuable forest land along Mica Creek. I have been to that
location. I took with me the chairman of the full Environment and
Public Works Committee, Senator John Chafee. The goal of the Mica Creek
project is to establish baseline management data surrounding natural
events and conditions. The project is proof that there are so many,
many businesses in this great land of ours who want to do the best
possible job that they can to protect and even enhance the environment.
And just as in the case of Mica Creek, they did not need Government to
tell them to do this. They did this on their own, because they know it
is the right thing to do.

Local people, local solutions--they can also help with other
monumental tasks facing Congress, tasks such as the Endangered Species
Act.
There is a growing recognition in this country that the Endangered
Species Act must be reformed. Last year I introduced legislation to
improve the Endangered Species Act, to make it more effective in
recovering species and to make it more fair. Last month I began
bipartisan discussion with my colleagues on the Environment and Public
Works Committee and the administration with the goal of developing a
bill over the next few weeks that will actually preserve endangered
species, improve their habitat while recognizing the legitimate needs
of people and making the act work. This is a goal that we can all
share.
My view is that too often the interpretation and the implementation
of the Endangered Species Act has gone far beyond the original intent.
The Endangered Species Act should not be a tool that places entire
communities at risk by threatening their economic survival. At the same
time, we cannot turn our backs on the efforts to save endangered
species.
For now, though, this Endangered Species Act, on its present course
of heavy regulation, putting people at risk, is not working. To single
out individual communities to carry the full brunt of recovery of an
endangered species when the entire national community is the
beneficiary is wrong. But to say that the extinction of a species is no
big deal and just the luck of the draw of that particular species is
also wrong. The extreme entities that would advocate both positions, in
all honesty, probably deserve one another, on some remote desert island
where the only way they will survive is to help each other.
So, what is right? Should we make concerted efforts to save species?
Absolutely. Can we prioritize which species we should make greater
efforts towards? We must. Can we do this without undermining private
property rights and putting whole communities at risk? We had better,
or the outcry against the act will kill it.
Reauthorization of the Endangered Species Act is, without question,
one of the most politically polarized issues that we will ever deal
with. It may also be one of the most important environmental issues for
us and for our children. As lawmakers, we have a duty to rise above the
rhetoric. So, let us get real and let us get practical.
A lot has changed since the Endangered Species Act was enacted in
1973. For one thing, scientists have made tremendous advances in every
discipline. Biology, botany, genetics, and other sciences are much more
sophisticated than they were 23 years ago. But the rules and the
regulations of the Endangered Species Act have not changed to keep up
with the science. So we need to acknowledge the advances and use them
to balance an improved Endangered Species Act.
Untold millions of dollars have been spent to save species with very
few results. Of the more than 1,500 species of plants and animals that
have been qualified for protection in the 23 years the law has been in
effect, only 20 have been removed from the list, either because they
have gone extinct or were placed on the list by mistake. Only six can
be claimed as successes under the Endangered Species Act, and even they
were largely recovered due to the efforts of private conservation
groups.
One such group is the Peregrine Fund at the World Center for Birds of
Prey in Boise, ID.

[[Page S3762]]

The efforts of this private group has led to a proposed delisting of
the peregrine falcon. Just 20 years ago, there were only 39 known pairs
of peregrine falcons in the lower 48 States. Today, recovery and
reintroduction efforts have produced nearly 1,000 pairs. More than 81
percent of the falcons released have reached independence. The success
of the Peregrine Fund should be a model for reforming the Endangered
Species Act. If at all possible, we want to avoid putting species on
the endangered list. We would like to take them off, and the only
acceptable way is through recovery. This cooperative effort shows that
we can use good science and manage a species early in its decline and
bring about these kinds of results. We can recover species, and the
work of the Peregrine Fund shows that if Government will provide
incentives and then get out of the way, that we can, through innovation
and good science, achieve the very results that all of us applaud.
I envision an Endangered Species Act that uses good science,
innovation, incentives, and, where necessary, public financial
resources to do what we, the stewards of this wonderful land, can do to
benefit not only other species but ourselves as well.
I envision an Endangered Species Act that encourages all of us to
participate willingly to conserve rare and unique species.
I envision an Endangered Species Act that treats property owners
fairly and with consideration and that minimizes the social and
economic impact of this law on the lives of citizens.
Working together, we can draft legislation that takes that important
step in that direction. We can make the act smarter, and we can make
that act better.
I believe that Congress has abdicated its responsibility by not
dealing with the Endangered Species Act sooner. I can see why. Advocate
change and you are immediately labeled as antienvironmentalist.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
Mr. COVERDELL. I grant the Senator from Idaho 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, this should not be a contest to see
who is more for the environment. We should all be in favor of a
cleaner, safer, healthier America for our children and their children.
I have called myself a probusiness environmentalist. We have been
able to strike a balance between development and the environment. A
good environment makes good business and, therefore, good business will
invest in protecting the environment. Economic growth and quality
environment are not mutually exclusive. They, in fact, can and should
and must support one another.
With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, at this time, I yield up to 10 minutes
to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

____________________