[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 1, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12123-S12124]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 104TH CONGRESS

  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, for the past 2 years, our critics have 
accused Republicans of rolling back environmental standards. Just 
suggest that an environmental law can be improved, and the critics 
quickly label you as ``anti-environment.'' When we look back on this 
Congress, though, I believe that the newly enacted safe drinking water 
law stands as the true testament to what we're all about. It's not just 
empty rhetoric; it's real reform that improves the environment, 
protects public health and reduces unnecessary costs so that all 
Americans can enjoy clean, safe, and affordable drinking water.
  To our critics, I would like to offer three comments.
  First, Republicans are committed to protecting and improving our 
environment. We demonstrated this commitment throughout the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. We directed the Environmental Protection Agency to 
target those contaminants that are actually present in drinking water 
and are found to present a real health risk to humans. We authorized, 
for the first time, $1 billion annually for a State revolving loan fund 
so that local communities can construct and upgrade their treatment 
systems. We provided, also for the first time, tens of millions of 
dollars for important research on the health effects of contaminants, 
like cryptosporidium; and we created a new voluntary source water 
partnership program to encourage communities and landowners to work 
together to prevent contamination of drinking water before it occurs.

  Second, Republicans are committed to making our environmental laws 
work better. Certainly, our current framework of environmental laws has 
gone a long way toward addressing the major environmental problems of 
the 1970's and 1980's, but the problems have evolved and our laws need 
to evolve with them. Our laws must be more flexible to address the 
multitude of situations that States and communities face every day. We 
must work with our partners in State and local governments, not against 
them. And we must provide more incentives to achieve environmental 
excellence--more carrots and fewer sticks.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act proves that these principles can indeed 
make our laws better for the environment

[[Page S12124]]

and reduce unnecessary costs. The Congressional Budget Office reviewed 
our legislation and confirmed that it ``would change the Federal 
drinking water program in ways that would lower the costs to public 
water systems of complying with existing and future requirements. On 
balance, CBO estimates that the bill would likely result in significant 
net savings to State and local governments.''

  In signing the Safe Drinking Water Act, President Clinton called the 
new law, ``a model for responsible reinvention of regulations,'' that 
``will provide the American people with much greater protection for the 
drinking water on which we all rely every day of our lives.'' He's 
right; and it was a Republican initiative.
  And, finally, I would like to emphasize that Republicans are 
committed to working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
on the responsible reform of our environmental laws. The environment is 
not a partisan issue. Our environment is our lifeline and, if we are to 
preserve it for our children and their children, we must work together. 
The Safe Drinking Water Act was written with the advice of many public 
health experts, State and local government officials, and water 
providers. Republicans and Democrats alike were instrumental in the 
crafting of all of its provisions. And ultimately, it had the support 
of every Member of the Senate, virtually every Member of the House of 
Representatives, the administration, the regulated community and the 
public. To my mind, that's the model for future environmental 
legislation.
  As this Session and this Congress winds to a close over the next few 
days, we should pause to look back. We have much to be proud of. Among 
other things, we reauthorized and significantly improved a major 
environmental law, the Safe Drinking Water Act. But, looking forward, 
we have much work yet to do.

  Many of you know that I have been working hard this past year on 
legislation to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. I had hoped to 
complete our work on that legislation this year as well, but political 
and practical obstacles got in the way. So, while we were able to make 
significant progress this year in resolving many of the problems 
underlying the Endangered Species Act, final resolution will have to 
wait until next year and the new Congress. I believe, though, that our 
efforts this year will pave the way for a bill next year.
  There is no single environmental law that is in greater need of 
fundamental reform now than the Endangered Species Act. More than any 
other law, the Endangered Species Act truly pits humans against their 
environment. Loggers in the Pacific Northwest fear that they will lose 
their jobs--and many have--because of the spotted owl; farmers in Idaho 
fear that they won't be able to water their crops because of the 
salmon; and communities in Texas fear that they will lose their sole 
drinking water supply because of a salamander.
  And all to no end. Since it was first passed, the Endangered Species 
Act has failed to recover a single species to the point that it could 
be removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. The fact 
is, we're spending millions of dollars now, putting communities at risk 
all in the name of protecting endangered species, but we have no clear 
policy, priorities, game plan, or even ability to measure results. We 
need to do better--both for the species and for our fellow Americans.
  So, when we come back next January, I will pick up where we left off 
and introduce comprehensive legislation to significantly improve the 
Endangered Species Act.
  It's time that the Endangered Species Act actually saved species from 
extinction. It's time that the Endangered Species Act treated property 
owners fairly and with consideration. It's time that the Endangered 
Species Act minimized the social and economic impacts on the lives of 
citizens. And it's time that the Endangered Species Act provided 
incentives to conserve rare and unique species. I believe that we can 
draft legislation that accomplishes those goals.
  Over the next few months, I plan to continue negotiations with my 
colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators 
Chafee, Baucus, and Reid, other Senators, and the administration. I 
will work with them, officials of State and local governments, the 
regulated community, and others to achieve meaningful Endangered 
Species Act reform. But, let me emphasize that it must be real reform.

  We must ensure that decisions made under the Endangered Species Act 
are based on good science. All too frequently, species are listed and 
restrictions imposed on landowners as a result of junk science or no 
science. That must change.
  We must streamline the consultation process under section 7. In just 
one case in Idaho, for example, a simple bridge was held up for over a 
year while the National Marine Fisheries Service reviewed a proposed 
construction plan that had already been approved by four State and 
Federal agencies. The bridge ended up costing over four times as much 
as the original approved design because of the National Marine and 
Fisheries Service. That must change.
  We must strengthen the recovery planning process so that the emphasis 
is not just on listing a species, but also on bringing it back from the 
brink of extinction. We all agree that recovering species is the 
primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act, but the Fish and 
Wildlife Service has only developed recovery plans for about half of 
the species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and many of those 
plans are inadequate or have never been implemented. We must establish 
rigorous standards for recovery plans and require that they be 
implemented.

  We must provide incentives for private landowners to help conserve 
endangered and rare species. Authorizing low effect conservation plans 
and multiple species conservation plans is just one way that we can 
encourage small and large landowners to voluntarily preserve habitat 
and take other measures to protect species.
  And finally, we must be willing to commit more public resources to 
the cause of protecting endangered species and be creative in our 
search for funding sources. The Endangered Species Act benefits us all; 
its costs must not be borne only by a few.
  Our job over the next few months and next year won't be easy. These 
are difficult and emotional issues. But the stakes are too high--the 
survival of our native wildlife--for us not to succeed.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration 
to making the Endangered Species Act really work.

                          ____________________