[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E635-E637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                               EARTH DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOB SCHAFFER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 22, 1998

  Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, today is Earth Day, a day 
to celebrate environmental stewardship, care for the land, preserving 
America's scenic beauty, and responsibly managing our precious natural 
resources and values. Like most Americans, I am committed to achieving 
the highest standards of environmental protection and wise use of our 
resources.
  I know that we cannot have a strong, prosperous America if we do not 
preserve our natural resources. I also know that prosperity and a clean 
environment is not an ``either-or'' proposition. We can have both if we 
are true to a few core American values of: accountability for results, 
personal and community responsibility, honest dialogue and effective 
use of our entrepreneurial spirit through sound science and 
technological advances.
  It is clear that responsible values and stewardship lay the 
foundation for a better environment and a stronger economy. I am 
pleased to submit the remarks of Thomas J. Donohue, the President and 
CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Earth Day for the Record. I 
applaud Mr. Donohue and the U.S. Chamber for their efforts to promote a 
better environment through industry and innovation.

    A Business View of Earth Day '98: Time for a New Generation of 
                        Environmental Safeguards

       My very first day on the job as the new president and CEO 
     of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fell on September 1 of last 
     year, which just happened to be Labor Day. We marked that 
     occasion with a vigorous series of speeches, media interviews 
     and other activities. Some thought that was kind of curious. 
     They weren't used to seeing business step forward on Labor 
     Day to speak out about policies affecting workers.
       Now, as America prepares to observe Earth Day 1998 this 
     Wednesday, I suspect that again, many will wonder what 
     business has to offer on a day typically reserved for 
     reflections, predictions--and yes, accusations--by those 
     associated with environmental causes.
       In fact, business normally hides on Earth Day. It's an 
     understandable reaction, given the eagerness of some 
     environmentalists to vilify business as the malevolent, 
     profit-hungry force behind all our environmental problems.
       Well, I want Earth Day 1998 to be remembered as the 
     occasion when business came out of hiding and moved off the 
     defensive.
       We have progress to report and a good story to tell. We 
     also have a warning to sound and a constructive proposal to 
     make. Above all, as the institution that has brought 
     unparalleled prosperity to our country--and, which over the 
     last decade has spent at least one trillion dollars to clean 
     the air, water and land--we have earned the right to be 
     heard. And we will be.
       And so today, I would like to: First, report on the 
     tremendous environmental progress this nation has made and 
     why. Second, explain why new regulatory proposals pushed by 
     the EPA and the administration, as well as the global 
     environmental community, will stall further environmental 
     cleanup--and, hurt our society's ability to pay for it. And 
     third, discuss a new approach to environmental management 
     going forward.


                 I. THE STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT--1998

       To best determine how to move forward on environmental 
     policy, Americans need to fully understand just now far we've 
     come.
       The environment is much cleaner and safer than 30 years 
     ago. It is an impressive story. Let me give you the 
     highlights:
     Water
       Since the inception of the Clean Water Act in 1972, 93% of 
     businesses are in significant compliance with the law.
       Point source pollution has been reduced dramatically. More 
     than 1 billion pounds of toxic pollution have been prevented 
     from entering the nation's waters each year due to the 
     wastewater standards put in place over the past generation.
       More than 64,000 major industrial permits--agreements 
     between companies and the government--are now in place to 
     control discharges.
       As of 1996, the business community's annual investment in 
     clean water reached $50 billion.
     Air
       Air quality has also improved dramatically. Since 1970, 
     emissions of lead have virtually disappeared, emissions of 
     particulate matter have decreased by 78%, and total emissions 
     of six common air pollutants have declined by an average of 
     24%. Since 1980, sulfur dioxide emissions from electric power 
     plants have been cut in half.
       These improvements have occurred even as the U.S. economy, 
     as measured by GDP, grew by 104%, the population rose by 29%, 
     and the number of motor vehicle miles driven increased by 
     121%, according to EPA.
       The business community's annual contribution to cleaner air 
     as of 1994 is $25 billion.
     Land
       Prior to 1976, solid and hazardous waste in the United 
     States went literally unmanaged--other than private and 
     municipal haulers picking up household waste. It was 
     estimated that there were over 17,000 open dumps.
       Little attention was paid to hazardous waste either and the 
     health impacts were unknown. The first law that was enacted 
     to regulate the transportation, treatment, storage and 
     disposal of hazardous waste, the Resource Conservation and 
     Recovery Act (``RCRA''), was supported by industry, to 
     prevent any one state becoming a dumping ground for the waste 
     from other states.
       Today there are no known open dumps being allowed to 
     operate in the United States. As for hazardous waste, its 
     improper disposal is virtually non-existent.
       What accounts for such substantial progress in cleaning the 
     water, air and land? The simple, easy and wrong answer is 
     that government is responsible because it forced businesses, 
     consumers and communities to act. Speaking for business, 
     there were times

[[Page E636]]

     when companies had to be nudged or even pushed into action. 
     But on other occasions business led the way. And, in two 
     critical respects, it was business that gave our nation the 
     resources and the tools to succeed. I'm talking about 
     unparalleled economic prosperity and the world's best 
     technology.
       It is only because of the wealth created by our enterprise 
     that we have been able to invest at least a trillion dollars 
     into making the United States one of the cleanest 
     environments on earth. Without a strong economy and without 
     the advances in science and technology, we would have the 
     horrendous pollution problems of the developing world. 
     Clearly, the stronger the economy, the cleaner the 
     environment.
       You will not see this business organization asking the 
     American people to sacrifice environmental quality for the 
     sake of economic prosperity--our message is you cannot have 
     one without the other. A growing economy pays the bills for 
     environmental cleanup. And a clean, healthy environment 
     spawns profitable new industries and technologies--
     technologies we can export--adding immeasurably to the 
     health, productivity and quality of life of workers and 
     their families.
       With our technological base, it is business that developed 
     the tools to enhance environmental protection at less cost to 
     government, taxpayers and consumers. Environmental technology 
     is a key growth sector of the economy--nearly 1.3 million 
     Americans are employed by more than 50,000 private 
     environmental technology companies nationwide.


     II. THE WRONG APPROACH GOING FORWARD: NAAQS, GLOBAL WARMING, 
                         ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

       Cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner land--the existing 
     system of permits and controls has scored all of the easy 
     gains on each of these fronts. But now, the law of 
     diminishing returns has kicked-in. For example, although 90% 
     of gains achieved in water quality enhancement occurred 
     between 1972 and 1990, we are spending $50 billion annually 
     on pollution control investments and complying with thousands 
     of pages of new EPA regulations, to achieve little additional 
     protection of health and the environment.
       Some laws have never gotten off the ground. The Superfund 
     law is a prime example of a complicated law, lacking common 
     sense and designed solely to punish. That approach has never 
     worked and never will work.
       Let's just look at the facts. Superfund has been around 
     since 1980. Of the 1200 sites on the National Priority List, 
     only about 200 of them have been cleaned up and that was at a 
     cost of $32 billion. Depending on what study one relies on, 
     somewhere between 50% and 70% of the money expended on this 
     dysfunctional program has been spent on transactional costs--
     on lawsuits, lawyers and consultants.
       The regulatory trend has been toward more stringent 
     controls, more prescriptive standards of performance, and new 
     fines and penalties--even when compliance is high. The 
     concept of ``compliance'' has come to mean adherence to a 
     rigid process, rather than achieving environmental outcomes. 
     Clearly, this top down, command-and-control approach has 
     outlived its usefulness.
       Environmental regulators should be looking at new 
     approaches for scoring gains that are increasingly complex, 
     incremental and hard to come by. Unfortunately, they seem to 
     be leaping headlong in the opposite direction--toward more 
     bureaucratic control, even on a global scale. Where common 
     sense, cooperation and pragmatism should prevail, they seem 
     content to rely on the most provocative sound bite, the 
     scariest headline and the squishiest science.
       NAAQS--For example, EPA's new clean air rules clearly 
     illustrate just how far Washington regulators can stray from 
     reality and common sense. Just as businesses and communities 
     were working to reach the very ambitious clean air standards 
     set in 1990, EPA simply changed the definition of clean air 
     and moved the goalposts, throwing everyone's good faith plans 
     and programs into doubt. Many of EPA's own scientists have 
     questioned the basis for thee new rules which, through 
     regulatory sleight-of-hand, could well quadruple the number 
     of areas thrown out of clean air compliance, thus crippling 
     their economic development plans.
       On top of all that, EPA has proposed new haze regulations 
     that further complicate the ability of businesses and 
     communities to meet environmental mandates.
       Global Warming--Then there's the issue of global climate 
     change. Before we allow a group of nations under the banner 
     of the United Nations to impose what would be, in effect, a 
     $30,000 tax on each American household over the next twenty 
     years, we need to make sure that the sky is really falling 
     this time around. Let me explain.
       In the 1930's this nation experienced its first global 
     warming scare--that's right, I said the 1930s! Then, as now, 
     temperatures rose for several years in a row and artificial 
     gases were alleged to be the cause. Then, as now, there were 
     cries that human activity was destroying the earth.
       The only problem was that by 1940 it started getting 
     colder. By 1977 we experienced the coldest winter of the 
     century. Some environmentalists said we were entering a new 
     ``Ice Age.''--and Congress even held hearings to bemoan the 
     fact that the earth seemed to be getting colder and colder.
       By the mid-1980's the forecast had changed--the weather was 
     getting warmer and the cries of ``Global Warming'' were 
     renewed.
       Science is on both sides of the issue. To me that suggests 
     we need a reasoned debate--not the kind of approach taken by 
     Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt who when discussing global 
     warming, accused business of being ``un-American.'' \1\ 
     Nothing sells like fear, but this kind of scapegoating does 
     not exactly foster a positive dialogue.
       As a business leader I caution the United States not to 
     commit to actions that will sink our economy while doing 
     little to protect our environment. We should not allow the 
     United Nations to control our domestic policy or usurp our 
     national sovereignty. That is what Kyoto would do since much 
     of the developing world would be exempt from the treaty's 
     harsh edicts. Instead of dividing the world into winners and 
     losers, why not adopt a win-win approach with a strong 
     emphasis on the export of our environmental technologies to 
     dirtier developing nations?
       Environmental Justice--Now, let me also discuss a proposal 
     that ought to disturb all Americans who are interested in 
     creating a more broadly based prosperity that leaves no one 
     behind.
       On February 5, 1998, EPA issued an interim Guidance 
     Document on so-called Environmental Justice. Under EPA's 
     doctrine, the federal government establishes a new procedure 
     under which individuals, in low-income or minority areas, can 
     bring lawsuits against states and local governments and can 
     demand that these governmental agencies impose special 
     conditions on facilities operating in those areas. In fact, 
     EPA can even require that companies located in these areas 
     undertake actions to mitigate impacts of industry that may 
     have operated in the area for decades. This would add great 
     cost to companies that might not have even been there when 
     the land was polluted.
       For the last decade Congress has enacted laws to create 
     empowerment zones and enterprise communities to help 
     minorities and welfare recipients get into private sector 
     jobs. Congress has created tax benefits, job training, tax-
     exempt bond financing, loan guarantees, block grants, 
     technical assistance and help with locating private sources 
     of capital to encourage companies to locate in low income and 
     minority communities.
       Environmental Justice as proposed by the Administration is 
     not only contrary to these efforts to create new jobs in low 
     income and minority areas; it is a policy that will drive 
     existing good paying jobs out of those areas.
       The Administration ought to reexamine its policy. It is 
     already having a terrible effect on economic opportunity. For 
     example, EPA is trying to stop the Shinteck project in 
     Louisiana, a $700 million state of the art PVC plant. In 
     communities outside of Chicago and Philadelphia, under the 
     guise of environmental justice, surrounding residents are 
     trying to bankrupt facilities costing several hundred million 
     dollars apiece. Who wants this justice that deprives low-
     income workers and minorities good paying jobs, a solid tax 
     base in their communities, and investment?
       This is not justice--it's economic, social and 
     environmental insanity. Businesses will be left with no other 
     option than to move jobs and opportunities out of the areas 
     that need them the most. The only beneficiaries of this 
     misguided policy will be the plaintiff's attorneys who 
     will enjoy yet another windfall of lawsuits.


           III. A NEW GENERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

       The reality is that the major threat to environmental 
     progress is the tired laws and regulatory programs that have 
     brought us as far as they can but which will actually inhibit 
     future advances. Today we have a regulatory approach that no 
     longer provides the trust that is necessary for the proper 
     management of our environment. The regulated community and 
     many in the states do not trust EPA. EPA does not trust the 
     regulated community or the states. Business does not trust 
     the environmentalists and the environmentalists do not trust 
     anyone.
       And so American business is today asking the Clinton 
     administration to join us in honoring Earth Day 1998 in a 
     truly significant way--by embracing a new approach to 
     environmental management which expends resources on priority 
     health risks rather than perceived or unproven risks that 
     have emotional appeal. What are the key elements of this 
     approach?
       First, clear and realistic goals should be set--with the 
     emphasis on results, not paperwork and bureaucracy. Present 
     laws and regulations have us bogged down in minutiae--we 
     literally cannot see the forest for the trees. Setting goals 
     would help in allocating resources and would deliver a bigger 
     bang for the buck. It would also expose the confusing 
     patchwork of overlapping--even conflicting--laws, 
     regulations, and guidelines;
       Second, only the best science and most effective 
     technologies should be used when making decisions and 
     establishing action plans. The inflexible language of 
     environmental statutes and rules often prohibit agencies and 
     regulated businesses from taking advantage of new 
     technologies. For example, an experimental project at Amoco's 
     Yorktown, VA refinery found that EPA regulations made the 
     company spend $95 million on required cleanups when alternate 
     ways not only would have been more effective, but would also 
     have cost only 15% of that.
       Next, cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and other 
     analytical tools must be deployed to help us prioritize 
     environmental cleanup resources. EPA provided cost-benefit 
     estimates for fewer than half of its 430 planned major rules 
     for 1998.

[[Page E637]]

       Next, we need customized tools and strategies for 
     preventing pollution at specific sites. This is a case where 
     one size fits nobody. In order to do this, we need to break 
     down legal barriers that currently inhibit diverse approaches 
     to environmental management.
       Finally, federal regulators should view state and local 
     government and the private sector are allies, not 
     adversaries. Businesses, farmers, homeowners, and state and 
     local government should be enlisted in this effort as 
     partners, because those closest to the resource manage it the 
     best. This requires a shift in the Washington-knows-best 
     attitude.


                               CONCLUSION

       Going forward, we need an environmental policy that values 
     performance over paperwork. We need regulations based on hard 
     numbers, clear goals and sound science. We need realistic 
     targets and maximum flexibility as to how companies and 
     communities can reach these targets. We need a new spirit of 
     cooperation between EPA, the regulated community and the 
     states. And we must fully encourage and embrace the promise 
     of technology. Its role in future environmental progress 
     and U.S. economic leadership cannot be overstated.
       Adopt this program and business will continue to deliver a 
     cleaner environment, just as we have done for nearly three 
     decades.
       On Earth Day two years ago, EPA Administrator Carol Browner 
     said ``the past 25 years have left us with a complex and 
     unwieldy system of laws and regulations and increasing 
     conflict over how we achieve environmental protection. The 
     result of this history? An adversarial system of 
     environmental policy. A system built on distrust. And too 
     little environmental protection at too high a cost.''
       I couldn't agree more. And so I will seek the earliest 
     opportunity to meet with Ms. Browner, Vice President Al Gore 
     and his ``reinventing government'' team to give both the 
     regulators and the regulated a chance to put all their cards 
     on the table--to seriously and realistically discuss how we 
     can proceed in the future to build on the solid environmental 
     gains we've made in the past. And since the states play such 
     a key role in implementing environmental rules, I believe the 
     governors, through the National Governors Association, should 
     be involved in these discussions as well.
       Working together, we can fashion the tools needed for a new 
     millennium of environmental stewardship, one that won't 
     sacrifice our economy or our environment. A prosperous 
     economy pays the bills and develops the technologies for a 
     clean environment. A clean environment makes all the hard 
     work that goes into economic growth worthwhile--because it 
     affords us all a healthy and enjoyable quality of life. It's 
     time to bridge that gulf that has separated these two great 
     goals for so long. It's time to see economic opportunity and 
     environmental quality as indivisible parts of the same great 
     dream--the American dream.

  Mr. Speaker, environmentalism for the next century should focus on 
core American values and produce tangible results, rather than 
bureaucratic command-and-control regulation. As Thomas Donohue of the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce points out, personal responsibility is the key 
to the new environmental stewardship. It is the efforts that adequately 
involve local communities, stakeholders and the American public that 
promise a cleaner environment, a stronger economy, and a brighter 
future.

                          ____________________