[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 49 (Wednesday, April 23, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                               EARTH DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 23, 1997

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting my Washington Report for 
Wednesday, April 23, 1997, into the Congressional Record.

         Earth Day 1997: The Future of Environmental Protection

       On April 22 we celebrated the 27th Earth Day. We can take 
     great pride in the advances that have been made in 
     environmental protection. We have succeeded in reducing the 
     levels of lead and other dangerous pollutants from the air. 
     Lakes and rivers, once so contaminated they could catch on 
     fire, now support large fish populations. Forests are 
     rebounding. Endangered species, like the eagle, have been 
     saved from extinction and are now thriving.
       Hoosiers strongly support cleaning up our air, water, and 
     land, and want to leave the environment safe and clean for 
     the next generation. They overwhelmingly support sensible, 
     targeted and moderate laws necessary to keep the environment 
     clean. They also support the view that states and localities 
     have a greater role to play in the environment, and that 
     environmental laws should be based on sound science and a 
     careful balancing of costs, benefits and risks. I agree with 
     their common sense beliefs.
       As we celebrate the 27th Earth Day, it is helpful to see 
     how our approach to environmental protection has changed over 
     the last two decades, and how we can best meet the 
     environmental challenges of the 21st Century.


                           the federal system

       Much debate has focused in recent years on the various 
     roles that federal, state and local governments should play 
     in environmental and other areas of regulation. There has 
     been a strong push to devolve more responsibilities to the 
     state and local level, where officials are closer to problems 
     and can respond in a more flexible, cost-effective way. I 
     support that general trend.
       The federal government, however, is still the dominant 
     player in the environmental field. There are two primary 
     reasons for this arrangement. First, many environmental 
     problems are national in scope. Air pollution, for example, 
     generated in Louisville or Cincinnati can affect air quality 
     in southern Indiana. Likewise, an oil spill in Pittsburgh 
     will affect water quality throughout the Ohio River system. 
     States, acting alone, cannot effectively respond to 
     environmental problems which cross state boundaries.
       Second, the federal government has the resources and 
     expertise to determine what levels of pollution are safe for 
     public health. The federal government first set national 
     standards for air quality in the 1960s and has since adopted 
     similar standards for water quality, hazardous waste disposal 
     and the like. This regulation has come at a cost to industry 
     and local communities--and often the federal government has 
     failed to provide adequate financial resources to help state 
     and local governments meet federal standards--but, in 
     general, federal leadership has resulted in dramatic benefits 
     for public health and overall environmental quality.


                          regulatory approach

       The federal approach to environmental regulation has 
     changed over the last two decades. The first approach was 
     characterized by ``command and control.'' The government set 
     the rules and expected state and local governments as well as 
     industry to obey them. Under this approach, a factory would 
     be required to install a specific pollution control device.
       ``Command and control'' has worked, at some cost, in terms 
     of controlling large point sources of pollution, such as 
     industrial facilities, but has been less successful in 
     reducing pollution created by numerous smaller sources. For 
     example, storm runoff can wash pollutants from farms, 
     highways and city streets into the water system. Such diffuse 
     pollution sources are difficult to control.
       The federal government is now taking a more cooperative 
     approach in addressing environmental problems. Today, the 
     federal government takes the lead in setting standards for 
     the country, and assumes a substantial share of the 
     resources, but works closely with the states and the 
     regulated community to implement the laws and find cost-
     effective solutions which aim to strike a balance between 
     environmental protection and economic growth. Many farmers, 
     for example, have switched to low-till or even no-till 
     farming practices. Such methods not only reduce soil erosion 
     and help prevent water contamination, but also improve 
     overall efficiency of the farm operation.


                         The global perspective

       Environmental problems can be global. Scientists concluded 
     that use of CFCs (a group of chemicals commonly used in 
     aerosol spray cans and automobile air conditioners) was 
     depleting the ozone layer. Ozone in the upper levels of the 
     atmosphere acts as a shield against harmful ultraviolet 
     radiation from the sun. In response, the U.S. joined other 
     countries in approving a phaesout of CFCs, and U.S. companies 
     are now leading the way in developing safer substitutes.
       The U.S. is working with other countries on a host of 
     international environmental problems, such as maintaining 
     fish and other wildlife in our oceans and improving 
     environmental quality along our borders with Mexico and 
     Canada. The U.S. can and should participate in these efforts 
     because it is in our national interest to do so. If we take a 
     leading role, we can insist that other countries abide by 
     similar environmental standards.


                               Conclusion

       When I was first elected to Congress in 1964, there was 
     little or no discussion about the environment. That has, of 
     course, changed. Environmental protection now ranks as one of 
     the most important concerns of the American public, and 
     progress has certainly been made: substantial reductions in 
     most air and water pollution; international efforts to phase 
     out CFCs; reductions in children's blood lead levels; 
     improved industrial management practices to reduce emissions; 
     and, more broadly, a strengthened stewardship ethic to 
     minimize environmental damage.
       The challenge for the next century is building upon our 
     successes in more flexible, cost-effective ways. New 
     approaches will entail using innovative technologies, 
     increasing community participation, placing more emphasis on 
     prevention, streamlining government regulations, providing 
     economic incentives to business and industry, and urging 
     cooperation at all levels. As long as the population, 
     economy, and per capita income grow the pressure on the 
     environment will grow. Our challenge is finding the right 
     balance between environmental protection and economic growth.

                          ____________________