[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6429-H6430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         OUR NATURAL RESOURCES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized during 
morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some good news today. 
Over the last 20 years, we in this country have made measurable good 
progress in protecting our natural resources. Our air and our water are 
cleaner than they were in the 1970's, and we have reversed the decline 
of several of the endangered species. This is a good record. It is an 
admirable record. We all know there are still many areas where Federal 
attention is required today, but we also know that you cannot write 
thousands and thousands of pages of Federal regulations without some 
problems developing along the way. It is just common sense to take a 
look at current regulations and decide what works and what does not and 
look for ways to make a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for 
everyone and at the same time, of course, excise those unworkable and

[[Page H6430]]

unfair regulations we have come to identify.
  This 104th Congress has been perceived by some as being 
antiregulation. Perhaps the truth is that the 104th has opposed 
overregulation. I think to his very great credit, the Speaker has taken 
the lead and formed a task force on the environment. I am pleased with 
the Speaker's determination to pass responsible environmental 
legislation. I am, frankly, personally happy to be part of his effort. 
Although it is often lost in the rhetoric surrounding today's 
environmental debates, the Republican Party has a long tradition of 
conservation from Teddy Roosevelt, who created the first national 
wildlife refuge, to Richard Nixon, who created the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Many people have forgotten that.
  Unfortunately, what often passes for debate on environmental issues 
in Congress and around the country is little more than a shouting match 
full of symbolism but actually lacking any real substance; sort of 
litmus test wars, as it were. If we are to make any real progress in 
resolving some of the difficulties associated with environmental 
protection, we need to set politics aside and have a reasoned 
discussion on the real issues. The Speaker's environmental task force 
has successfully identified several principles for such a debate in my 
view, principles that I think make good sense, we will all agree.
  The first of these is that environmental decisions should be 
consensus based, made in consultation with the people whose homes, 
businesses, communities are directly affected. Bringing the opposing 
interests to the table early in the process provides us the opportunity 
to find a solution before the two sides become deadlocked in a 
meaningless fight. Environmental disputes routinely focus on health, 
public safety, and environmental protection against the question of 
jobs, economy, and private property rights. Obviously all of those 
things are important. If we get the parties talking to each other 
early, I believe we can make substantial progress in removing some of 
the conflict we see today.
  Mr. Speaker, the second principle is greater. It is greater in a way 
that it involves State and local, our sister branches of government in 
the lower tiers. Having served as a mayor and a county commissioner 
before coming to Congress a few years ago, I know that the lower tiers 
mean the front lines where the people are, where what matters in our 
daily lives goes on. I know the importance of giving States and 
localities a real role in setting and enforcing environmental standards 
in their communities. The perspectives of local and State officials who 
are the people who make everyday land use decision, who deal with 
problems every day are invaluable in crafting environmental policies 
that actually work on the ground.
  The time has come to end sort of the one-size-fits-all directives 
from Washington that really fail to recognize the obvious often 
overlooked fact that different communities have different needs. Alaska 
is different than Florida.
  The last principle I will mention is providing positive incentives to 
encourage responsible stewardship of our natural resources. Whether we 
provide rewards such as tax credits, grant flexibility, and complying 
with regulations or offer marketing incentives, we should move away 
from the idea that environmental legislation always creates winners and 
losers. The simple fact is that we can achieve a balance that allows 
all sides to come away with something positive. All America and all 
Americans benefit when we do that.
  I will end on what I hope is a high note and that is this. These 
principles are not just talk but are geared toward providing results, 
results that will help Florida, for instance, restore our Everglades, 
restore our beaches. Under the Interior appropriations bill, which just 
happens to be coming to the floor this week, Congress in fact is going 
to be taking responsible steps in both of these critical areas.
  I believe in the end all parties to the environmental debate agree on 
the importance of safeguarding our natural resources. Hopefully we will 
see reasonable people from all sides embrace the principles we have 
laid out and help us in a bipartisan way achieve our goals.

                          ____________________