[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 53 (Tuesday, April 23, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3886-S3888]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      OUR PRESIDENT AND EARTH DAY

  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I thank the Chair very much for recognizing 
me, and I will not belabor this issue very long. I know the Senate is 
leaving early this afternoon, and I do not want to delay the departure 
of our staff members who have been so loyal in helping us this 
afternoon and today. It has been an interesting day in the U.S. Senate.
  I just was listening to one of the monitors and watching one of the 
monitors. I happened to note my very, very good friend from Iowa, the 
Honorable Senator Charles Grassley, a wonderful long-time friend of 
mine, someone I have worked with very closely on the issues of 
oversight and overstepping of the Internal Revenue Service, of defense 
spending, which we thought at the time had gotten out of hand and was 
very unfair. We worked on several issues over these years together. I 
look forward to the remainder of my term in working with him further on 
various matters that affect our respective States and certainly our 
great country.
  But I was a little taken aback when my friend from Iowa got up and 
started talking about our President, Earth Day, and what happened 
yesterday nearby, just a few miles away, I think, on the upper reaches 
of the Potomac River. My friend from Iowa sort of took our President to 
task and the Vice President to task I guess for even appearing at an 
Earth Day event. I do not know what his concern was. But if in fact the 
President did mention that the other political party's proposals on 
some of our environmental concerns were in fact lacking, then, Mr. 
President, I am going to have to disagree with my friend from Iowa, and 
I am going to have to, yes, agree with our President. For example, 
legislation recently circulated to rewrite the Clean Air Act by our 
good friends on the other side of the aisle would repeal the toxic air 
pollution standards and would absolutely cripple the enforcement of the 
Clean Air Act.

  I do not think that is a piece of legislation we can go to future 
generations with and say we were very proud of ourselves when we 
attempted to cripple the enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
  I think our President was right when he said that there is a 
difference between the two political parties and the way that they look 
at the environment and legislation that would perhaps undo all of the 
progress that has been made in cleaning up the air we breathe under the 
Clean Air Act over the last 25 years.
  Some 25 years ago, when I first came to the House of Representatives 
as a young Member, as a new Member of that great body, I remember 
during that time I had three small sons, and from time to time on a 
Sunday afternoon or Saturday afternoon, perhaps, we would get a fishing 
pole or swimming suit and we would go down to the banks of the Potomac 
River, and I will never forget--and this was not long ago--there were 
signs up and down the banks of the Potomac River: no swimming allowed; 
do not eat any fish, the fish will be contaminated if caught in this 
river.
  Mr. President, in this quarter of a century what we have done as a 
body, Republicans and Democrats alike, has not only helped to clean up 
that river, but we are helping today to clean up our air, and we cannot 
make a retreat, especially in a political year when it might have a 
short-term appeal to

[[Page S3887]]

some local interests, maybe some local business interests that want to 
compromise and that want to sacrifice the environment we have to pass 
on to future generations.
  I think the President was right when he implied yesterday that some 
of the legislation as proposed--we call them riders--to the VA 
appropriations bill would delay the issuance of toxic standards, air 
standards, that is, and would allow for the exemption of industries, 
exempt industries--just say we are sorry; we are going to apply this to 
some industries, but the rest of you are going to get off; you do not 
have to comply with the law; you do not have to obey the law; there is 
no law that impacts you.
  As we speak today, Fort Smith and Van Buren, AR, Sebastian and 
Crawford Counties in Arkansas, 48 hours ago were hit with massive 
tornadoes, two dead, hundreds of homes damaged. At this very moment, as 
we stand in the Senate Chamber and talk about clean air and clean 
water, because of necessity we are dumping raw sewage into the Arkansas 
River. We have no other option. Senator Bumpers and I will be calling 
in the morning Carol Browner of the EPA to say that we have an 
emergency; we have to do something.

  We have emergencies all over this country not caused by a recent 
natural disaster but emergencies that are existing today where we are 
polluting our streams and our air and where we have to do something 
about it. This generation cannot back away. Our President yesterday was 
talking sincerely and earnestly about what we can do together as 
political parties.
  The Republicans, by the way, at that Earth Day event yesterday, 
several Republican Representatives from Congress were agreeing with our 
President. I hope that we can make this a nonpolitical issue and talk 
about the facts, those facts being we do have a difference of opinion, 
but we do need to join together and do what is right for the 
environment.
  Budget cuts--and I know the Presiding Officer realizes this--and the 
Government shutdowns, what have they done? What have they accomplished? 
Have they saved any money? Probably not much. What have they really 
done? They have delayed the EPA's issuance of new standards for toxic 
industrial air pollutants--new standards for toxic industrial air 
pollutants. Those standards are now on hold. Why? Because of Government 
shutdowns and budget cuts.
  The delay in the issuance of air toxic standards has resulted in the 
continued release of harmful chemicals--mercury, chromium, 
formaldehyde, and lead--into our air. More than 45 million people, Mr. 
President--the distinguished occupant of the chair realizes this--in 
our country still live in areas with unhealthy levels of ground level 
ozone or smog. I did not know this until just lately, but the EPA 
reports that the United States refineries alone, and I quote, ``emit 
more than 78,000 tons per year of established hazardous air pollutants, 
or 9 tons of toxics emitted into the air every hour nationwide.''
  How can we repeal some of these rules? How can we say that some 
companies and some industries are exempt and do not need to comply with 
making progress in eliminating this unclean air and unclean water.
  My good friend from Iowa also talked about another issue. I am going 
to come back to this issue of the environment in a moment. I was hoping 
that my friend from Iowa was going to be here because he made reference 
to not only the President of the United States, but he made reference 
to another gentleman, a gentleman who is very close to my heart. His 
name is Chris Jennings. He says, who is this man, Chris Jennings? He 
said that this Chris Jennings, whoever he is, said, and then he quoted 
something that Chris Jennings had said.

  First, Chris Jennings for many years worked for the Senate Special 
Committee on Aging, probably one of the finest staff people who ever 
worked for that particular committee or has ever worked in the Senate, 
and I would daresay that most of the Members on this side of the aisle 
at one time or the other have worked closely with this so-called man 
named Chris Jennings. I would say that Members on the other side of the 
aisle have worked closely with Chris Jennings. If I could only jog the 
memory of my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, who has been for years 
a loyal member of the Special Committee on Aging, I am sure that Mr. 
Jennings has not only worked for Senator Grassley in many capacities, 
has served him in many capacities, but also I am sure that should Mr. 
Grassley see Mr. Jennings and reacquaint himself with him, he would 
know him and would respect him, as all of us do in the Senate.
  Chris Jennings is a remarkable individual, a splendid and dedicated 
servant. But, somehow or another, I did not quite appreciate the tone 
of my friend from Iowa. I know he did not mean in any way to be 
disparaging of our friend, Mr. Jennings, I am sure, today. I hope our 
friend, Senator Grassley, will realize the dedication of this fine 
former member of our Senate Special Committee on Aging staff. I am sure 
he knows his great qualifications and his great commitment.
  Our friend from Iowa was talking, of course, about the Medicare 
funding. We think it is very important to point this out. Absolutely. 
We know what the dollars and cents are. I do not think we are arguing 
with those figures. But I think we also need to point out there remains 
today over $120 billion in the trust fund for Medicare. There is no 
imminent danger that claims are not going to be paid--absolutely none. 
There is no imminent danger that these claims are not going to be paid.
  The updated information should not be used to scare the 37 million 
elderly citizens in this country or people with disabilities. They 
should not be used for partisan political purposes. The trust fund will 
pay out the claims. I repeat, the trust fund will pay out the claims, 
at least through the turn of this century, no matter what, and much 
longer if the Congress would only enact the President's balanced budget 
proposal.
  We think it is very, very important to lay on the table the facts, as 
I have stated. We think there is equal importance not to intentionally 
scare the seniors of this country and to lead them to believe, or to 
imply, that their checks may not be paid and their claims will go 
unnoticed.
  We think, too, the information validates the President's position on 
Medicare that he has maintained during his Presidency. The latest 
information simply provides additional validation for the President's 
position that we should move forward and balance the budget to 
strengthen the trust fund. In fact, I have not talked to the President 
about this matter in a long time, but I would imagine, when the 
President read the Post or the New York Times or wherever this appeared 
this morning, about the trust fund, I imagine that the President said, 
``Those are not very pretty figures, but we think that those figures 
will put people to thinking and start people to believing that we have 
to do something about our budget.''
  The President has offered a proposal that achieves $124 billion in 
Medicare savings that would extend the life of the trust fund by at 
least 10 years from now. This proposal builds on the President's 
successes in strengthening the Medicare trust fund.
  Let me say this, and I hope I will not be accused of being too 
partisan. In 1993, let me remind my good friend from Iowa and the 
distinguished Members on the other side of the aisle that in 1993, 
without one Republican vote, not one, the President signed into law 
Medicare savings and other financing charges that extended the life of 
the trust fund from 2 to 3 years. That was a major accomplishment.
  So, as we enter now the real meat, I guess you would say, approaching 
a Presidential election, I think we should inform the citizenry of this 
wonderful country of ours that from time to time there will be 
skirmishes in this body because of necessity, because of beliefs, 
because of different ideologies. We will see those debates.
  I never thought this particular Chamber should become a political 
convention hall. I hope it does not. But I do think it can become the 
proper forum for us to discharge our obligations and certainly to 
debate the issues of our time and our generation.
  I would like to say I am sorry my friend from Iowa was not here. I do 
not mean in any way to be disparaging of him or question his sincerity. 
I just

[[Page S3888]]

wanted to sort of set the record straight, after I heard my good 
friend's remarks.
  I hope in the coming days, again, we will have ample opportunity to 
lay these issues out on the table, out in the public, let the sunshine 
shine among them, and let us, at that time, bring to the people what we 
consider important questions of today.
  Mr. President, I see no Senator seeking recognition. Therefore, I 
yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________