[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 52 (Monday, April 22, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3762-S3766]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EARTH DAY, 1996: A DIFFERENT SHADE OF GREEN
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, on a day set aside to recognize the
importance of protecting our environment and preserving our natural
resources, I am pleased to join with my colleagues in this frank
discussion of the substantial progress we have made and the steps we
have yet to take.
But first, it is important to recognize that environmental protection
is not a partisan matter. It is not about Republicans or Democrats.
This is one issue which should bring us together, because on this
issue, we share the same goal: We all want a clean America, where our
children can breathe clean air and drink clean water. And there is not
a man or woman in this Congress who would demand anything less for
their families.
I am so proud, Mr. President, that over the past 20 years, we have
made such great strides toward achieving that goal.
Our urban landscapes are no longer polluted by the thick, black smoke
of industrial smokestacks. Our lakes and rivers are no longer the
dumping ground for toxic sludge. We are recycling newspapers, glass,
and plastics in record numbers. Through efforts such as the
Conservation Reserve Program, Congress is working in partnership with
the American people to ensure our generation leaves behind a cleaner
Earth than the one we inherited.
We acknowledge that government at all levels can and should play a
strong role in protecting our environment. Maybe that is why the United
States spends more per capita on environmental protection than any
other Western, industrialized nation.
The question is no longer whether or not we want to protect the
environment--we all do. The question is, How do we achieve it?
It is an interesting coincidence that just a week ago, the American
people were filing their Federal income tax returns and thinking about
Government and how it impacts the family finances.
Today, exactly 1 week after Tax Day, we are marking Earth Day. And
once again, the American people have an opportunity to think about
Government--this time, its impact on the environment. But in the 26
years since Earth Day was first celebrated, Americans have grown
concerned with Washington's environmental activism: What it is doing to
jobs and salaries, and the bite it takes out of the family checkbook.
What they are telling us is yes, government ought to protect the
environment. But they are also saying it can do better by the
taxpayers, too. And so they have asked this Congress to find a better
balance, a ``different shade of green'' for Earth Day, 1996.
Over the past two decades, the Federal Government has worked toward
better environmental protection by passing new legislation and imposing
necessary new regulations. But in our zeal to protect the environment,
we have often neglected to consider the serious, unintended
consequences of the actions we are taking here in Washington.
We have cleaned up neighborhoods by clamping down on pollution, but
we have handcuffed job-providers from finding better ways to achieve
the same results.
We have sought out and protected wetlands and other unique
environmental areas, but we have often commandeered people's land,
without compensation, to do it.
We have demanded a great deal of the American people through our
environmental regulations, but we have forgotten about the burdensome
costs and confusing bureaucracies our vigilance have imposed on
everybody.
It is hard to measure the benefits of our well-intentioned,
environmental safeguards when these Federal regulations come at such a
high cost.
The American people are telling us that Washington has gone too far,
especially given the estimates that complying with environmental
regulations cost an estimated $850 billion every year. That is $850
billion no longer available to pay higher wages and better benefits,
and creating new jobs.
Is it possible that the environmental policies of the past have a
cost that can be measured in terms greater than just dollars? Could
they be costing human lives as well? According to researchers at
Harvard University, the answer is yes. Because the government has
increasingly focused its precious resources guarding the public against
minuscule, theoretical risks, they are ignoring much greater dangers--a
situation Dr. John Graham of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
labels ``statistical murder.'' It is a policy, say researchers, that
costs 60,000 lives every year.
In other words, we have spent a lot of our taxpayers' hard-earned
money on wasteful and nonproductive programs, rather than spending
those dollars on finding a cure for, say, cancer, leukemia, or heart
disease.
That kind of micromanagement, undertaken at such a horrible cost, is
the wrong approach. No wonder so many average Americans feel they are
being victimized by oppressive environmental legislation. In many
cases, the Government has caused more damage than it has improved, and
our goal should be to balance environmental protection with the need
for economic growth as well. We always talk about the best welfare
program being a job, but we have unnecessarily lost thousands of jobs
because we have ignored
[[Page S3763]]
the end result of bad policy. If we are ever going to achieve balance,
the solutions will not be dictated from Washington, DC, where layers of
bureaucracy and waste cloud every decision. Sensible relief will only
be found outside the beltway, by reining in the Federal regulators and
giving our constituents the freedom to achieve the environmental goals
everyone shares.
The Government can set goals or limits, but we should then step back
and let the creative genius of Americans work on the solution in less
costly, innovative ways. Expensive, one-size-fits-all dictates from
Washington are not the answer, nor is using old technology to treat new
problems. If experience has taught us anything over the past 26 years,
it is that wisdom and compassion does not flow from the Federal
Government.
That has clearly been the lesson of the Superfund program, a classic
example of Washington-knows-best gone wrong.
Let us look at the facts.
Mr. President, 25 billion taxpayer dollars have been spent over the
past 15 years cleaning up toxic waste sites on Superfund's National
Priorities List. Yet as of today, only 12 percent of these sites have
actually been cleaned up. Excessive administrative costs and a bloated
bureaucracy have eaten away a lot of the money, while billions of
dollars have gone to line the pockets of trial lawyers, who continue to
delay Superfund's important work. The lawyers are benefiting while the
American taxpayers get burned.
The end result? Fewer hazardous sites are being cleaned up and more
Americans are being put at risk.
Clearly, the Superfund program is broken. Congress has an opportunity
this year to reform Superfund and redirect the taxpayers' dollars away
from the bureaucrats and lawyers, and toward meeting the original
intent of the law: and that was cleaning up the environment.
The Endangered Species Act is another well-intentioned, but
problematic, piece of legislation.
I have always believed the Federal Government can assist landowners
in being the best stewards of their lands. But the Endangered Species
Act provides an incentive for them to actually harm endangered species.
Under the act, if a landowner is told by the Government that their
property is home to an endangered species, they are stripped of their
ability to use their own land. Not only are they deprived of that
land--and the enjoyment and revenue it might generate--but they are
also denied any compensation from the Federal Government.
While that is obviously not the intent of the Endangered Species Act,
it has become an unfortunate, perverse byproduct of the legislation.
One way Congress could improve the endangered species legislation is
to provide incentives for property owners that would enable them to
protect the environment, instead of forcing them into desperate actions
when they've been threatened by Federal bureaucrats.
Mr. President, what is most often lacking in Washington's attempts to
improve the environment through regulation is an effort to get the big
picture--a scientific approach to assess the various risks, and then
direct resources where they can do the most good. Risk assessment and
cost-benefit analyses are commonsense approaches undertaken out in the
real world, but sorely missing in the Federal Government.
When businesses or individuals make important decisions, they usually
perform their own version of a risk assessment. To best serve the
taxpayers--who deserve to know what kind of bang their getting for
their bucks--Federal agencies ought to be targeting their resources in
the same way, eliminating overzealous regulation by asking the
Environmental Protection Agency to focus on real solutions to real
problems. This will not only free up more funds for financially
strapped Federal agencies, but also provide a higher level of
environmental and public health protection.
Giving our job creators more flexibility in meeting national
standards is another way to eliminate the pervasive command and control
approach that has infected many Federal programs. A pilot program
called Project XL is proof that these efforts do work.
I have been working on Project XL with the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency, Minnesota-based 3M, and the EPA. This popular program
allows participating companies to come up with their own methods to go
beyond minimum environmental compliance. Allowing business to best
determine how to meet all Federal standards is an innovative idea that
should be expanded. As long as those standards are met, the path
traveled to reach compliance should be open to experimentation.
And finally, the Federal Government needs to promote a better
partnership between all levels of government, job providers,
environmental interest groups, and the taxpayers. The most effective
way for the Federal Government to play a strong role in protecting the
environment is to do it in concert with those closest to the problems.
Local solutions, not Washington domination.
That means setting reasonable national standards and giving technical
advice to State and local governments and businesses. I have always
believed that Minnesota taxpayers and our elected officials in St. Paul
are much more aware of local problems and how to solve them than
Washington will ever be.
``It is not easy being green,'' went the lyrics of a popular song
from the 1980's. Maybe not, if being green in the 1990's means
promoting an environmental agenda that flies in the face of common
sense and treats the taxpayers with contempt.
Americans are looking for a different shade of green, Mr. President,
an approach to the environment that strengthens the protection of our
precious natural resources, promotes better health and safety measures,
and helps rein in the exploding regulatory costs that are threatening
people's paychecks.
Government does have an important role in ensuring a strong
environmental safety net. But we can do better. In closing, Mr.
President, by reforming the system and providing balance, we will
enhance environmental cleanup and preservation while we protect
landowners from undue Government interference, reduce costly, arbitrary
regulations, and ultimately, save more lives.
So, Mr. President, on Earth Day, 1996, that is the shade of green
this Congress is working to deliver.
I yield the floor.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank my colleague from Minnesota. I yield up to 10
minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair. And I thank the Senator from Georgia for
his effort to organize this group of conversations regarding the
protection of our environment.
I noticed from some of the comments that certain Democrats, anyway, I
should say, have appeared to take offense that Republicans are actually
working to protect the environment, apparently under the belief that
Earth Day is a special day for them to demagog and politicize
environmental issues. The real purpose of Earth Day is to recognize
important work being done to protect our environment.
Today I want to discuss briefly two specific projects undertaken by a
broad group of interests in my home State of Arizona that do exactly
that.
The first has to do with ranchers in southeast Arizona who are acting
as true stewards of the lands for the purpose of protecting the
grasslands on which they currently are grazing. Many ranchers are
working in harmony with nature not only to earn a living but also to
protect the environment upon which they are earning that living. They
are using their natural resources in a way that it is meant to be used.
In his forward to Dan Dagget's book called ``Beyond the Rangeland
Conflict--Toward a West That Works,'' David Getches, who is chairman of
the board of trustees of the Grand Canyon Trust, said of ranchers on
the Colorado Plateau--I am quoting--
It's not hard to find ranchers on the plateau who share
some of our most heartfelt values. Most want their
grandchildren to know a region with a healthy ecosystem and
places of wonder, beauty and solitude. And most can
understand that economic stability and permanence of
communities are intertwined with the permanent health of the
surrounding land, water, and wildlife.
Certainly Professor Getches is correct because some of the people who
[[Page S3764]]
care the most about the land are those ranchers. I speak specifically
of a new group called the Malpai Borderlands Group which is the essence
of this commitment for protection. I met with representatives of the
Malpai Group over the Easter recess when I was in Douglas, AZ. I was
very impressed with the work they are doing as a combined group of
ranchers, representatives of environmental groups, Federal agencies,
and other people in the community.
The area in which they are working together is an area of thousands
of acres in both New Mexico and Arizona which is the home of a great
many endangered species and an environment that needs help. The land
ownership is about half private and half Federal agency, the Federal
lands being the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service as
well as some State trust land.
But in 1990 this group got together to begin discussing ways of
dealing with what they thought was a deteriorating situation, an attack
on ranching generally, and also a deteriorating environment. The
grasslands, with some shrubs, were moving inexorably to shrub lands
with some grass. And this occurred for many reasons. But the principal
one was the absence of a very natural element--fire.
For years fire used to sweep through this area every decade or so
and, in effect, cleanse it of all of the woody shrubby plants which
then promoted very shortly thereafter fresh new grass for the wildlife
then to thrive on. But because of the fire suppression that has not
occurred in the last 100 years or so, the result is that the grasslands
have gradually now become woods where there are shrubby lands that
cannot support grazing.
So the agenda of this group was to address both the threat of
fragmentation of the landscape--selling off smaller parcels for
development--and the decreasing productivity and loss of biological
diversity accompanying the encroachment of these woody species on the
grasslands.
What they did is form the 501(c)3 organization called the Malpai
Borderlands Group with 45 rancher members. And its 19-member board
includes local ranchers, a scientist, and a businessman, and, as I
said, representatives of various environmental groups. It has a 5-year
plan for ecosystem management that targets three key concerns.
First, conservation and land protection, including such things as on-
the-ground projects, use of fire, and holding of conservation
easements; second, sustaining rural livelihoods, including innovative
approaches to grazing, possibly the cooperative marketing of beef, and
exploring other opportunities with low impact to the environment; and,
third, science and education, including a comprehensive resource
inventory of the area.
The Malpai Group has taken an evolutionary, if not revolutionary,
approach to ranching, working with biologists, soil conservation
specialists, BLM and Forest Service representatives, and the Nature
Conservancy to find ways to keep this area literally a working
wilderness.
As I alluded to, reintroducing fire is a crucial element of the
Malpai group's plan to restore the range. As a result, they have worked
in several experimental areas restoring that element of fire and
bringing back the grasslands.
The success of this group, as I said, is really due to a commitment
of the landowners. Participation is purely voluntary. The enthusiasm of
this group of land stewards is clearly a shining example to those who
would like to create such organizations and protect their own areas,
working together.
As Bill McDonald, Malpai Borderlands Group president, says of the
group: ``In a political climate where the traditional position on the
issue of land use is usually to be at one end of the spectrum or the
other, we find ourselves in the `radical center.' We invite you to join
us right there.''
Mr. President, I joined that group just a couple of weeks ago to try
to help them clear away some of the bureaucratic underbrush that might
prevent them from moving forward with their very important, innovative
experimentation.
Now, the second key thing relates to the forests in the arid
Southwest. Natural fire is not just a friend of the grasslands but has
also helped to maintain the health of our forests over the years. Once
again, because of fire suppression and other problems, our forest
health has deteriorated because that natural phenomena that used to
keep it healthy is no longer part of our management process. Instead,
what happens is that because we suppress fire, the fuel in the forests
builds up and the growth begins to become very concentrated, with the
result that when the fire comes, it burns not only the underbrush as it
used to do, thus clearing the forest of the smaller, scrubbier kind of
plants, but quickly crowns to the top of the trees and literally jumps
from tree to tree, devastating entire forests.
The other problem with the forests is the health condition today. Too
many trees are crowding into too small an area which then sucks all of
the nutrients and the moisture from that area, thus providing a more
disease-prone forest. Rather than the open and rather park-like
environment that existed 100 years ago, tree densities now make a very
unattractive and unhealthy forest. Mr. President, 100 years ago the
tree density was typically 20 trees per acre, with most trees of a
relatively large diameter. By contrast, the present forest averages
about 850 trees per acre, with an average diameter of less than 4
inches. I have three cross sections of trees in my office. One is about
this big, one this big, and one is this big. All three trees are 60
years old, but the big tree exists in the open park-like environment,
and the little tree exists in a cramped environment with 850 or 1,000
trees per acre. Obviously, all are competing for the same nutrients and
water.
What we need to do is open the forests up. Two professors from
Northern Arizona University have begun an ambitious program to do
precisely that. Professors Wally Covington and Margaret Moore have
begun to use what they call adaptive management techniques to restore
the southwestern ponderosa forests to their natural presettlement
conditions. Their partners are the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S.
Forest Service, and Northern Arizona University. Their work is being
supported by Secretary Bruce Babbitt, Secretary Glickman, and others in
the region who understand the importance of bringing environmental
groups and other persons interested in forest health together to
reintroduce some of the natural methods of forest management that have
been lacking in recent years, including both the thinning of the small,
unhealthy trees and the use of fire to get rid of the brush and the
fuel which could, of course, create the fire danger.
In October 1995, these scientists initiated the Southwest forest
ecosystem restoration project near Mount Trumbull, AZ. This is roughly
a 5,000-acre pilot project in which these new management techniques
will be utilized to determine whether or not they can truly restore the
health of the forest and whether these management techniques would then
be useful throughout the arid Southwest. They will remove the dense,
young growth to restore the open forests of large older trees and hope
to do ecological sampling that include overstory trees, understory
trees, understory shrubs, grasses, wildflowers, and forest floor fuels.
Sampling will also extend to birds, mammals, and insect communities.
I saw a pilot project just west of Flagstaff which had only been
under experimentation for 2 years, but it is amazing that sap contents
of the trees--which did not mean anything to me before I heard about
it--had grown by an order of magnitude in just 2 years, thus making the
tree almost impervious to bark beetles.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, we worked with the other side. We have
another speaker. I ask unanimous consent our time be expanded by 7
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I yield 2 additional minutes to the
Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I see the majority leader is here.
Just increasing the sap content of the trees makes them more
impervious to beetles, and thus disease, thereby creating more
nutrients in the grasses because the forest has opened up. Wildlife
needs less grass because the protein
[[Page S3765]]
content has quadrupled. There are so many benefits to this kind of
management that it is clear we need to expand it to broader sectors of
our forest environment.
The point is there are innovative things being done to protect our
fragile environment, with land stewards and environment groups and
others all working together. These two examples I have discussed today
show that through this kind of cooperation and innovation, we can truly
protect the environment in a very bipartisan and cooperative way.
I commend these two experiments to my colleagues.
Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Arizona
on his remarks.
I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia for
yielding.
As we celebrate the 26th anniversary of Earth Day, Americans will
again have an opportunity to reflect on many of our past environment
successes and, frankly, some shortcomings, which I hope we will be able
to address. We should also take this opportunity to set a course to
correct any past failures regarding the protection and restoration of
our precious environment, as well as dwelling and focusing on those
that have been successful.
Let me, as many of my colleagues before me have done, set the record
straight once again, Mr. President. We are all environmentalists here
in the Senate. I think most of us would call ourselves
environmentalists in the United States of America as citizens. This is
a beautiful country. It is home to all of us. The environment is not a
Democratic issue. It is not a Republican issue. It should be a
bipartisan issue. I very frankly and honestly, as one who has worked
for the past 2 years on the Superfund bill, take great issue with those
who would somehow accuse me or anyone else in my party of being
antienvironment. Yet that is happening.
Unfortunately, the political environment has become so partisan
during this Congress that it is almost outrageous. My children, I
think, would like to drink clean water. I certainly recognize the fact
that President Clinton's daughter might like to drink clean water. I
hope you will recognize that my two sons and my daughter would like to
drink clean water as well.
My family breathes the same air as Vice President Gore and his family
and the President and his family. I have enjoyed fishing and hiking in
the trails and ponds and lakes and streams of New Hampshire, probably
some of the same lakes and streams that some of the people in the
administration have. We are very proud of the fact that in northern New
Hampshire we have the great northern forests which are protected by
landowners, as well as the Federal Government. But landowners take good
care of that land and have been good stewards. We are very proud of
what they have done to protect that land.
I think most of the environmental laws on the books today were
initiated--not just signed; were not vetoed, certainly--but were
initiated by Republican Presidents--Theodore Roosevelt, George Bush,
Richard Nixon, to name just a few. They have very strong environmental
protection records. Our National Park System was started under
President Theodore Roosevelt. The EPA was started under Richard Nixon.
The Clean Air Act amendments and the Oil Pollution Act were under
George Bush. They were all initiated under Republican administrations.
Yes, the Congress, many Democrats in Congress, sent those bills to the
President's desk. My point is it is a bipartisan matter, and these
bills were signed.
One statute, though, I have been involved in stands out as one of the
least effective. That is a bill called Superfund. Mr. President, $30
billion has been spent over 15 years to clean up 50 sites. If you do
the math on that, it does not work out very well. I have devoted many
hours on developing appropriate reforms to this failed program. Our
goal is to change this program from one of litigation and wasted
resources and delay to one that actually cleans up hazardous sites
expeditiously.
While Republicans and Democrats agree on the need for reform, there
is still some disagreement on how to get there. One of the basic
problems with the current Superfund Program is that it is more focused
on process than results, more focused on litigation and arguing than on
getting results.
I issue a challenge now to my Democrat colleagues on the other side
of the aisle and say that we are ready--Majority Leader Dole is ready,
I am ready, and Senator Chafee is ready to get a bipartisan Superfund
bill and put it on the President's desk. I challenge my colleagues not
to play politics with this bill and help us get it there.
A number of environmental laws are long overdue. For 3 years, I have
been involved in efforts to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act as
was Senators Chafee, Kempthorne, and others. The vote was 99 to 0. I
find it hard to believe that we can be accused of being
antienvironment.
There is no doubt that the environmental movement in the 1970's
served an important purpose. Our air and water are cleaner today and
continue to improve. Now is the time to reflect on the successes and
build upon them and address some of the failures, so that we can get
more bang for the buck. Let us face it, many of the things that have
been done to clean up the environment have been done, but pollution
controls from this point forward will be very expensive. We need to be
able to pick and choose the best technology and be up to speed on that.
Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator, said, ``We need to develop
better, smarter, cheaper regulations.''
I could not agree more. Is the environment getting cleaner? Yes,
thanks to a lot of bipartisan leadership over a lot of years. Are there
less expensive efforts to achieve the same or higher level of
protection? I think the answer is yes. I think we have an obligation to
look at those least expensive methods, and one condition is that it
does not detract in any way from the pace of cleanup of the
environment.
To what degree should the Federal Government mandate regulations on
States and local communities without providing adequate resources to
comply? That is another question we need to ask. But there are a number
of themes that my Republican colleagues and I believe should be the
foundation for effective improvements in current environmental law. One
should be that we ought to promote sound, effective market-based
environmental regulations, because when you bring the market in, you
save the taxpayers money and you bring the businesses in as a
partnership. Therefore, since they are responsible for some of the
problems, they are willing to help us clean them up. We must recognize
that States and local communities often do a better job of protecting
the environment within their borders than the Federal Government can.
So, partners, not enemies.
We must incorporate better risk management and cost-benefit analysis
in our environmental regulations that will enable us to prioritize our
goals. We must base our environmental decisions on the highest quality,
peer-reviewed science, not questionable, unreliable data and unfair
politics. Finally, and most important, our goal is to enhance, not
detract from, a cleaner environment, to enhance it. That is our goal,
not just to save dollars for the sake of saving dollars. If it detracts
from our environment, then we spend the money. And if we can spend less
and do more and accelerate the pace, why not do it? We have an
obligation to do that.
I ask my colleagues to take a look at that and realize that just
because we say we can do it better, not less efficiently, that does not
necessarily mean it is negative. We all want a clean, healthy
environment to pass on to future generations. It is one of our most
important responsibilities.
However, the American people also believe we need to reduce
Government waste and bureaucracy, to update environmental programs, to
address problems more effectively and allow American business to remain
more competitive. If we can do all of those things and enhance the
environment, we ought to do it.
My Republican colleagues and I are trying to accomplish these goals.
We consider such things as cost benefits and risks and rewards not as
trivial, but as very important. We must strive to prioritize risk
reduction and get the biggest bang for the buck in every American
program. That is just common sense.
[[Page S3766]]
Environmental policy is at a crossroads, Mr. President. We have a
historic opportunity to improve our environmental laws so that they
better serve the American people. That is not to say that we have
failed in the past. We have many, many, many successes, including the
Merrimack River in my State, which is now beginning to see fish and
recreation again. It should not be controversial. We all live on this
planet, and we should be working together on this. If there is anything
we ought not to be partisan about, it ought to be the environment.
I will close on this point. This week, as Earth Day commences, the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee begins hearings on a
Superfund bill. During the Earth Day festivities, Americans will be
presented with a number of conflicting images of what is good for the
environment and what is not. It is my hope that the President and
Members of Congress, as I said earlier, will rise above the urge to
exploit this event for short-term political gain and join our efforts
to inject common sense and fairness into the Nation's Superfund
Program, which is the one program which I happen to be involved in
because I chair the subcommittee.
So, Mr. President, at this point, I yield the floor and thank my
colleagues, and I thank the Senator from Georgia for the opportunity to
speak on this very important issue.
Mr. COVERDELL. How much time remains, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute remains.
Mr. COVERDELL. I thank all of the Senators who came to the floor to
honor Earth Day and to talk in very meaningful terms about how to
manage our environment. This legislation, wherever it falls in the
environment, should be guided by a working relationship between the
Government and the stewards of the land. In too many cases, recently,
we are seeing the Government taking on the form of arrogance. We have
threatened the constitutional rights of personal property. That is a
very high law, the Constitution. If it becomes public policy to take
interests of private property owners, the public will have to assume
the responsibility for that. That has to be a working partnership. We
have to protect our constitutional rights. We must learn to work
together on this legislation. We have heard words like partnership,
balance, working together, common ground, nonpartisan. This is the
answer to our modern environment.
I appreciate the Senate's time this afternoon, and I yield back
whatever seconds are remaining.
Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, is leader time reserved?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The leader time has been reserved.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished Senator
from Georgia for his efforts this morning on Earth Day and on the
environment. I will be making a statement later on that.
I thank Senator Smith for his efforts on Superfund. He has been
working on this, I know, month after month after month, and we have
been trying to come together with a bipartisan bill. Hopefully, that
will be accomplished and we can pass Superfund legislation in the next
30 to 60 days.
____________________