[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.

                          ____________________