[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 46 (Thursday, April 17, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1689-H1692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EARTH DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House tonight 
on the subject of Earth Day. Since the House is going out of session 
this evening and will not be returning because of the Passover holidays 
until Wednesday for any legislative action, this is the only 
opportunity before Earth Day, which is next Tuesday, April 22, to talk 
about the significance of that occasion, not only to Congress but to 
the American people.
  Next Tuesday, April 22, is in fact Earth Day. I believe it is the 
26th Earth Day. Earth Day has always been a day to celebrate the 
environment and our natural heritage. It has also served to raise 
people's awareness about the quality of their environment and the

[[Page H1690]]

importance of environmental protection and responsible living.
  In more recent years, however, Earth Day has become a time for people 
to grandstand on the environment, particularly politicians, and 
although it is very popular, it is not always easy to be green. We 
cannot simply feign interest, particularly politicians, in 
environmental quality, we actually have to do something about it here 
in the Congress.
  Even though the quality of the environment has substantially improved 
over the last 20 years, the environment is still high on people's 
lists. If you do poll or talk to your constituents, they always tell 
you they are very concerned about the environment. That is because, in 
my opinion, they understand the connection between the environment and 
public health.
  People want their representatives in Washington to be working to 
protect their families from environmental health hazards, and people 
want us to help them protect themselves by providing them with the 
information that they need to formulate their own decisions about the 
environment.
  Finally, people also want to know that their children and their 
grandchildren will be able to enjoy the same outdoor experiences that 
they had the opportunity to experience. This also happens to be the 
Week of the Young Child, and I do not think it is any surprise, if you 
will, that Earth Day follows on that, because I think in many ways one 
of the major reasons why adults are concerned about the environment is 
because they worry about their children and their grandchildren and 
their future here on this planet.

  Mr. Speaker, I have to say, though, that in the last Congress, the 
Republican majority really launched a relentless attack on the basic 
environmental protections that ensure the safety of the water that our 
children drink and the air that they breathe.
  In fact, the Earth Day founder, Gaylord Nelson, declared that the 
104th Congress had the worst environmental record in history. I think 
that is very fair to say. Republicans basically showed their 
antienvironmental hand in the last Congress, but I think that what they 
found out is that as the election in November 1996 approached, that 
bashing the environment really was not a very good thing to do 
politically, and so all of a sudden we saw less bashing of the 
environment, and I think this year we are not seeing it much at all.
  I think there is fear, really, on the part of the majority of further 
reprisals from the voters if they try to weaken environmental 
legislation, and so essentially the Republican leadership is trying to 
avoid openly bashing the environment this year. But as the Los Angeles 
Times observed on April 7, and I quote, ``Their language masks a 
reality. Behind these gentler words, the Republican majority is still 
working hard to relax or abolish many environmental regulations.''
  Just to give the Members an idea in terms of the antienvironmental 
battle this year, the House Republican whip, the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. DeLAY], who last year said he did not believe that acid rain or 
global warming existed, this year told the House committee that 
drinking mouthwash or milk is more likely to give you cancer than air 
pollution is to be damaging to a person's health.
  Mr. Speaker, fortunately we see the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLAY] 
making these comments because he is at least openly expressing some of 
his antienvironmental views, but we do not see as much of it on the 
floor, and I think what we are seeing is that the effort to weaken 
environmental laws in many ways is now taking place in the back rooms, 
or as part of some action that may come later in committee.
  Democrats, however, still feel it is very important to move ahead 
with a proenvironmental agenda, and Democrats will continue to put 
forward environmental initiatives this year, and will press the 
Republican majority for action on these bills. I think that we can 
often get Republican Members to join us, even if the leadership does 
not necessarily support us with this proenvironmental agenda.
  Today, in anticipation of Earth Day next Tuesday, leading House 
Democrats announced a 5-point environmental challenge to the Republican 
majority. We issued a special report detailing that challenge. 
Democrats are basically challenging the Republicans to enact 
legislation to protect the health and safety of American children and 
put the Republicans essentially on notice that Democrats will oppose 
any attempts to roll back environmental protections.
  I just wanted to describe, if I could, for a brief time during this 
hour these five legislative challenges that the Democrats put forward 
today. The first, and I think a very important one, is the challenge to 
enact the Defense of the Environment Act by July 4. The Defense of the 
Environment Act basically allows for a separate debate and vote on any 
legislative provision that would weaken environmental protection.
  Some may say, why do you need something like that? Well, there are a 
lot of reasons for that. Congress needs to act, I think, as a steward 
of the Nation's environment and natural resources. We owe that to our 
children and grandchildren. A critical step we can take for them is to 
ensure that there is full and open debate on any provisions that would 
weaken the protection of the environment.
  The Defense of the Environment Act will put a spotlight on backroom 
attempts to weaken our environmental laws. This was a bill that was 
introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Waxman] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Gephardt].
  Basically what it does is allows for a separate debate and vote on 
these legislative provisions. Mr. Speaker, again, we might say why is 
that necessary? Well, to be honest, it is necessary because of what we 
saw happen in the last Congress with the Republicans in the majority.
  In early 1995, Congress adopted procedural steps that ensured that 
unfunded mandates and tax increases cannot be enacted unless 
specifically considered and approved by the House. The Defense of the 
Environment Act simply extends this protection to provisions that 
weaken environmental protection.
  The need is clear. When Republicans took control in 1995, they 
compiled the worst environmental record in history. What we essentially 
saw was an effort to do this weakening of environmental legislation 
either in committee or on the floor, but articulating a position that 
was totally to the contrary.
  So what we are saying with the Defense of the Environment Act is that 
we do not want to let the industry lobbyists rewrite legislation; we do 
not want, with regard, for example, to toxic waste, to let Republicans 
turn polluter pays into pay the polluter. We want to be able to bring 
these provisions, these weakening provisions, to the floor for a 
separate vote whenever possible, when legislation comes up that might 
impact the environment.
  The second challenge that the Democrats, again, are making to our 
Republican colleagues is that the Republicans drop the attack on the 
basic protections of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, Republicans need 
to abandon their version of regulatory reform that would undermine the 
fundamental principles of the Clean Air Act, including health-based 
standards.
  I have to say that I believe that the Clean Air Act has been a 
tremendous success. Nothing, really, has been more important in 
protecting the health of American children than both the clean air act 
that was initially enacted in 1970 and the Clean Air Amendments of 
1990. If we look at these two and we look at the statistics, they show 
that the air our children breathe is dramatically cleaner as a result 
of these two measures.
  The EPA recently put out a report entitled ``The Benefits and Costs 
of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990.'' That just documents some figures 
that I think are really important; first, that in that 20-year period 
airborne lead emissions were reduced by 99 percent, carbon monoxide 
emissions were reduced by 50 percent, and sulfur dioxide emissions were 
reduced by 40 percent.
  If we look specifically at the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, just 
to give some of the results of that, over 50 percent of the cities that 
did not meet the air quality standard for urban smog in 1990 now meet 
that standard. Over 75 percent of the cities that did not meet the air 
quality standard for carbon monoxide in 1990 now meet the standard.
  So clearly we have had success. But the Republican regulatory reform 
bills

[[Page H1691]]

would roll back basic clean air protections. During the last Congress, 
House Republicans used these regulatory reform bills to make backdoor 
attacks on America's most important environmental laws, but most 
important, the Clean Air Act.
  One such GOP proposal was their risk assessment bill, H.R. 1022, a 
key part of the Republican Contract With America. This passed on 
February 28, 1995. The risk assessment bill had a supermandate that 
supplemented all the public health standards of existing environmental 
laws, requiring, in effect, that the EPA design all standards to 
minimize the compliance costs for polluters first.
  The bill would have undercut the Clean Air Act standards that are now 
set solely in the best interests of protecting public health. The EPA 
would have been compelled to select the cheapest pollution reduction 
option, rather than the most effective option for protecting America's 
children at a time when childhood asthma rates are rising very sharply.
  The GOP bill would also have added additional roadblocks by 
dramatically expanding the cost-benefit analyses needed to justify new 
public health standards and giving polluters broad new rights to sue 
the EPA to block improvements in clean air rules.
  This Republican risk assessment bill would also have allowed parties 
with a financial interest in weakening clean air requirements to sit on 
mandatory peer review groups that would assess EPA's proposed air 
standards.

                              {time}  1900

  Fortunately, the House and the Senate GOP regulatory reform bills did 
not get to conference and therefore died at the end of the Congress, 
but we expect that they will come up again in some form and we are 
saying today, do not do it. We are tired of these, the use of these 
regulatory reform bills as a method of trying to weaken the Clean Air 
Act and other environmental legislation.
  Our third challenge in our report, our third challenge to the 
Republicans, is to pass the brownfields initiative by July 4. This is 
linked to the cleanup of hazardous waste material primarily in urban 
areas but also in suburban areas, old industrial sites, hence the term 
``brownfield.''
  Again, it is linked to children and children's health needs. Kids 
need cleaner cities. They need a strong economy. Democrats have been 
offering to work with Republicans to promptly move the brownfields 
legislation, but so far Republicans have refused. They have been saying 
and insisting on a broader Superfund bill or Superfund reauthorization 
that would transfer cleanup costs from polluters to taxpayers. And each 
day of delay, again, on the brownfields measure basically denies 
funding for another cleanup.
  Currently there are about, there are actually several million 
children who live within 5 miles of these polluted sites, the so-called 
brownfields. If you clean up the sites, they can be replaced with 
different kind of businesses or commercial activities that actually 
would create jobs in the cities.
  Just a little discussion, if I could, about what the brownfields 
initiative does. It basically provides for the establishment of a new 
partnership of the Federal Government with States and local governments 
and the private sector to undertake cleanups.
  Two broad purposes: One is to significantly increase the pace of 
cleanup at the sites by promoting and encouraging the creation, 
development, and enhancement of State voluntary cleanup programs; and 
second, to benefit the public health, welfare, and the environment by 
cleaning up and returning these sites to economically productive or 
other beneficiary uses.
  Essentially, what we are doing is trying to recognize the key role 
that States have played in cleanup and will continue to play in 
identifying, assessing and cleaning up brownfields. A lot of people 
think that the Superfund Program, which is the Federal program for the 
cleanup of hazardous waste sites, covers all the sites.
  Actually, it only covers, I think, certainly less than 50 percent. In 
my home State of New Jersey, we have about 6,000 hazardous waste sites 
but we only have less than 150 Superfund sites. So you can see it is 
only a very small portion of the number of hazardous waste sites.
  So to the extent that the Federal Government can expand the Superfund 
program to provide for more cleanup of sites that are not on the 
national priority or Superfund list, it actually would help 
significantly in the State efforts, in the overall effort to clean up a 
lot of these toxic waste sites.
  Under the Democrats brownfields bill, the EPA would give flexibility 
to the States so that they can get the job done. The bill calls for 
specific funding for State grants, $15 million per year for 5 years to 
develop and enhance State clean-up programs.
  It also contains $45 million per year for 3 years to local 
governments to inventory and cleanup brownfields where local officials, 
developers and purchasers and citizens believe that these redeveloped 
sites have the most chance of creating new jobs and new opportunities.
  A lot of my colleagues on the Republican side have expressed support 
for the brownfields initiative. It has broad bipartisan support. 
However, what is happening is that the Republican leadership is 
insisting that the brownfields initiative be tied to much more 
controversial legislation; that is, the GOP version of Superfund 
reform.
  And, of course, we cannot support that because essentially it is like 
the Superfund bill that the Republicans tried to push through in the 
last Congress that would weaken the Superfund law, that would allow 
cleanup to be temporary rather than permanent, that would cap the 
number of sites that can be put on the Superfund list, that would 
essentially rather than requiring those who caused the pollution, the 
toxic waste, to bear most of the cost of the cleanup, would in fact put 
most of the cost of the cleanup on the Federal Government and 
essentially let a lot of polluters get off.
  So what we are really calling upon the GOP leadership is to say, 
look, pass the brownfields initiative that can expand the Superfund 
Program in a very effective way by giving money back to States, which 
is something that many Republicans say is part of their ideology, but 
at the same time let us get that bill passed. That would be a very 
proenvironment bill that would help a lot with toxic waste cleanup. Do 
not link it to this overall effort to weaken the Superfund Program, 
because all that means is that nothing is going to pass and nothing 
progressive to move on an environmental agenda will occur here in the 
Congress.
  The fourth challenge that Democrats are making again to the 
Republicans for Earth Day this year is to increase funding for national 
parks and to reform unjustified natural resource subsidies. Right now 
we know that, I should say that we know that beginning with President 
Teddy Roosevelt, who was a Republican, preserving our natural resources 
has been a bipartisan enterprise. But unfortunately that was not the 
case in the last Congress.
  We need a bipartisan effort in this 105th Congress in the tradition 
of someone like Teddy Roosevelt. With regard to the need for funding 
for national parks, the inadequate funding for national parks is 
highlighted by a statistic, if I could just quote, that says in 
constant dollars the total National Park Service's appropriation has 
declined by more than $200 million between fiscal year 1983 and fiscal 
year 1997.
  In the 104th Congress, the last Congress, the Republicans constantly 
voted to cut the funding for the National Park Service many times. I do 
not want to get into all the details but there were actually park 
shutdowns, the Republicans actually shut down and closed every park for 
the first time since the National Park Service was created in 1916. At 
that time, when the Government was shut down because of certain actions 
that were taken here, we actually had about 725,000 visitors that were 
turned away at the park gates.
  There are also a number of tax subsidies, if you will, unjustified 
subsidies to natural resource companies that also need to be addressed 
in this Congress. Part of our challenge with regard to natural 
resources also affects these subsidies. The most egregious example of 
the need for reform is with regard to an 1872 mining law. Many people 
are familiar with this but not everyone. It is an anachronism, 
basically, from the 19th century that allows the

[[Page H1692]]

mining of gold, silver, and other valuable minerals on public lands 
without payments of royalties to the Treasury.
  The 1997 annual report of the Council of Economic Advisors points out 
that between May 1994 and September 1996, the Interior Department was 
forced, by this 1872 mining law, to give away over $15.3 billion worth 
of minerals in return for which the taxpayers received only $19,190. 
This is probably the most egregious example of a government subsidy. 
Imagine, $15.3 billion in revenue lost, and we received only $19,190.

  I could go on with some of the other subsidies, but there are a 
number of natural resources subsidies that are just totally unjustified 
and need to be reformed and should be addressed as part of this 
environmental challenge.
  The last Democratic challenge to our Republican colleagues is, some 
may say that is not very significant, but I think it is, because one of 
the things that is so important is that Congress set an example and 
apply the laws that it passes to itself.
  We actually have a rule or provision that was passed in the last 
Congress that says that you have to do that. But it is, nonetheless not 
always followed in practice, even if it is theoretically the law.
  So our fifth challenge refers to the House of Representatives 
recycling program. We are calling upon the Republicans to repair the 
House of Representatives recycling program. We know millions of kids 
carefully recycle their glass bottles and paper but not the Congress. 
If you talk to your children or your grandchildren, you know that most 
of them are very concerned about recycling. It is the way for an 
individual to interact and get involved in environmental protection. So 
all the kids around the country or certainly a good portion of them are 
out there recycling their glass bottles and paper but not the Congress. 
Sam Gejdenson, a Democratic Congressman from Connecticut, has 
introduced a resolution that will ensure that Congress plays by the 
same rules that our kids do with regard to recycling.
  Specifically, he has introduced a resolution that provides for a 
mandatory recycling program in the House of Representatives. And we 
challenge the Republican Congress to adopt this resolution over the 
next few months and get the House back on the right track on recycling.
  Just to give you some example of how recycling has declined under the 
Gingrich Congress, I think it is very important that we set an example. 
Under the leadership of the Speaker, it has declined.
  I just want to give you some statistics, because I really think it is 
interesting. Since the Republicans took over, the percentage of House 
offices participating in recycling programs has declined, dropped from 
90 percent in the 103d Congress to about 50 to 60 percent in the 105th 
Congress.
  With regard to bottles, since the Republicans took over, the tonnage 
of bottles that are recycled has fallen by 83 percent. Specifically, 
the tonnage of recycled bottles has fallen from 109.76 tons in 1994 to 
18.15 tons in 1996.
  Let me give you some statistics with regard to recycled cans. Since 
the Republicans took over, the tonnage of recycled cans has fallen by 
74 percent. Specifically, the tonnage of recycled cans has fallen from 
10.76 tons in 1994, to 2.83 tons in 1996.
  Now, specifically, what Congressman Gejdenson's resolution does is 
mandatory implementation. It provides in the resolution that each 
Member and each employing authority of the House of Representatives 
shall participate in the office waste recycling program. The Architect 
of the Capitol has to ensure that all employees of the House of 
Representatives whose responsibilities include custodial duties are 
adequately trained in the implementation of the office waste recycling 
program. The Architect of the Capitol shall require any contractor 
under a contract with the House of Representatives for carrying out the 
office waste recycling program has to ensure that all personnel are 
adequately trained in the implementation of the program. And finally 
the architect has to submit semiannually to the Committee on House 
Oversight a progress report on compliance with the office waste 
recycling program.
  Again, I think this is important. Democrats are calling upon the 
Republicans to adopt this resolution and work with us to turn the House 
into a model for recycling for the country, rather than an 
embarrassment, which I think in many cases we have become with regard 
to this recycling program.
  Again, before I conclude, I just want to say that I think that we 
need to all join together on this anniversary of Earth Day. And I am 
pleased with the fact that at least on the floor so far this session, 
we have not seen any overt efforts to turn back the clock on 
environmental protection, but I believe very strongly that there is 
certainly momentum out there on the Republican side with the Republican 
leadership to start moving towards some of the same measures last year 
with regard to the Clean Water Act, with regard to the Superfund 
program, with regard to the Endangered Species Act that would seek to 
bring up legislation that would weaken some of these very important 
environmental provisions. And rather than even have the status quo, I 
think we need to move forward on progressive legislation such as some 
of the things that I mentioned as part of this Democratic 5 point 
challenge.
  The bottom line is that although the environment has been 
significantly cleaned up, there is still a lot that needs to be done. 
The health and safety of our children and our grandchildren depend upon 
our taking action in a positive way towards cleaning up the environment 
and setting an example, if you will, for the House of Representatives 
in that regard.
  I wanted to talk a little bit more, if I could, about the brownfields 
program, because I think that that is something that right now we could 
move on a bipartisan basis and that there is essentially a consensus to 
get it accomplished.
  Just to give you a little more information about the brownfields 
program, essentially what it consists of, it is called the Community 
Revitalization and Brownfield Cleanup Act of 1997. And I think I 
mentioned before the specific amounts of money that are dedicated, both 
for inventory, doing an inventory of sites that would be potential 
cleanup sites for this program and also the amount of money that the 
Federal Government would provide.
  But it also allows a State to request the EPA to make a determination 
that the State's program is a qualified program, if it provides, one, 
for response actions that are protective of human health and the 
environment; two, opportunities for technical assistance; three, 
meaningful opportunities for public participation. And let me stress 
that. One of the best aspects of the Superfund program now has been 
community involvement.
  I know that in my own district in New Jersey, the sixth district of 
New Jersey that I represent, many of the local community organizations, 
citizens action organizations, if you will, have become directly 
involved in proposing cleanup and the way to go about cleaning up a 
Superfund site.

                              {time}  1915

  So we are asking that the same thing be done with the Brownfields 
Program, that basically the community be involved in the decisions 
about how to go about the cleanup.
  That is really a very important part of any environmental initiative. 
Anything that we pass in Congress should contain a community 
involvement program, a citizen action program, because that basically 
gets the initiative from the grassroots and at the same time teaches 
local citizens, if you will, about how they can become involved in 
environmental protection.
  I think that is a very important aspect of Earth Day, and part of the 
lesson of Earth Day is getting people involved on an individual basis 
as well as on a community basis. But ultimately we in Congress have to 
make the decisions, we have to move forward on a positive environmental 
agenda and hopefully this Earth Day next Tuesday will be our 
opportunity to launch that and to get our Republican colleagues 
involved as well in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________