[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1471-E1472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         CLUSTER RULE STATEMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. GERALD B.H. SOLOMON

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, August 2, 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today, along with many 
of my colleagues, regarding the cluster rule for the pulp and paper 
industry and specifically the EPA's July 15 Federal Register notice.
  America's forest and paper industry ranges from state-of-the-art 
paper mills to small family-owned saw mills. In New York State, the 
industry plays an integral role in keeping and creating jobs. This 
industry ranks in the top half of manufacturing industries in the 
State, representing over 5 percent of the work force. Employing 62,300 
workers, the timber business carries a payroll of $1.9 billion and will 
expend a total of $263 million for upgrading operations.
  The original cluster rule, as proposed in 1993, would have 
jeopardized over 33 mills nationwide, the loss of 21,500 direct mill 
jobs and 86,000 additional jobs, for a total of 107,500 American jobs 
lost. This was clearly unacceptable.
  Over the past 3 years since the cluster rule was proposed, many of us 
have closely monitored its development. I have always urged creation of 
an alternative approach that will not destroy jobs or the economic 
well-being of the vital timber industry. With the recognition of the 
need for this approach, I commend the EPA for the work which has been 
done to present a more balanced option of the cluster rule and urge 
quick approval of this alternative approach.
  We must continue to support the pulp and paper industry in this 
country by encouraging the implementation of this fair cluster rule. 
Specifically, I support the option that allows the complete 
substitution of elemental chlorine with chlorine dioxide. This 
alternative, known as best available technology option A, will provide 
virtually the same level of environmental and health protection as the 
original approach the Environmental Protection Agency introduced in 
1993.
  The EPA's own research demonstrates that the main difference between 
these two options is the exorbitant costs associated with the earlier 
approach. Improving the environment remains an immediate concern. 
However, the original cluster rule proposal goes beyond what is 
necessary to protect the environment and the public. We must be careful 
not to endanger workers and their families. Option A protects both jobs 
and our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support option A and encourage using this 
opportunity to rectify the unnecessary costs associated with the 
original cluster rule proposal. This Government, with this Congress' 
support, must put forward a final regulation which will assure a more 
responsible approach to environmental health

[[Page E1472]]

and continued growth in the pulp and paper industry.

                          ____________________