[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 45 (Wednesday, April 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3407-S3408]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EARTH DAY 1998
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, today, across our country, Americans are
commemorating Earth Day, a day that is vitally important to all who
serve in this chamber.
As my colleagues know, Earth Day was first observed on April 22,
1970. Its purpose was--and remains--to make people across the country
and internationally reflect on the splendor of our world, an
opportunity to get people to think about the earth's many gifts we
often take for granted. Earth Day is a day for us to sit in the grass,
take a walk, listen to the birds, and observe wildlife. Earth Day is a
day for all of us to reflect on our dependence on our natural resources
and recognize the care with which we must respect and use our natural
resources, recycling and replenishing them where possible.
The New York Times, on the original Earth Day, ran a story which in
part read,
Conservatives were for it. Liberals were for it. Democrats,
Republicans and independents were for it. So were the ins,
the outs, the Executives and Legislative branches of
government.
The goals of Earth Day 1970 were goals upon which all of us agree.
They're goals still shared across our country, regardless of age,
gender, race, economic status, or religious background.
They're shared by this Senator, as well. I consider myself a
conservationist and an environmentalist. I think everyone who serves in
the Senate does. No one among us is willing to accept the proposition
that our children or grandchildren will ever have to endure dirty water
or filthy skies. Our children deserve to live in a world that affords
them the same, or better, environmental opportunities their parents
enjoy today.
Mr. President, I believe today, on Earth Day 1998, we must speak of
our responsibilities--our responsibilities to the Earth, to one
another, and to our nation. It is clearly our responsibility to protect
our earth and ensure its health. Congress has a duty to see to it that
we are cautious and conscientious stewards of our natural resources.
Since the late 1960s, Congress has met this challenge by enacting what
has amounted to a ``war on pollution.'' By
[[Page S3408]]
engaging in this battle, Congress and an increasingly large federal
bureaucracy have been successful in centralizing power, expanding
regulations, saddling taxpayers with more debt, and leaving states and
localities without the power to meet local environmental challenges
with local environmental solutions. Local governments have the best
ability to improve the environment--and the most incentive to protect
their people as well.
To be sure, this war on pollution has had its successes. The Clean
Air Act and Clean Water Act have improved our environment in countless
ways. This Congress, and many before it, have spent billions upon
billions of dollars in environmental protection plans, conservation
plans, superfund clean-ups, endangered species act protections,
wetlands protections, and wildlife refuges just to name a few. Our
urban landscapes are no longer polluted by the thick, black smoke of
industrial smokestacks. Our lakes and rivers are no longer the dumping
ground for toxic sludge. We're recycling newspapers, glass, and
plastics in record numbers--this, in fact, is a priority in many Senate
offices, including my own. Through efforts such as the Conservation
Reserve Program, Congress is working in partnership with the American
people to ensure our generation leaves behind a cleaner Earth than the
one we inherited.
Over the past few years, however, issues of environmental concern
have moved away from the consensus required of prudent public policy
making and increasingly toward the margins. Americans have enabled this
shift because even though we've become more environmentally aware, in
many cases we've failed to become more environmentally educated,
resulting in extremes on both sides of many issues. This past year, a
14-year old student in Idaho used a simple experiment to prove this
observation.
In a story reported across the country, young Nathan Zohner entered a
project in a local science fair warning people of the dangers of
dihydrogen monoxide, or DHMO. He described DHMO as a substance potent
enough to prompt sweating and vomiting, cause severe burns in its
gaseous state, or even kill if accidentally inhaled. Further, he
claimed, DHMO contributes to erosion, decreases the effectiveness of
automobile brakes, and can be found in acid rain and cancerous tumors.
Nathan then asked roughly 50 people to sign a petition demanding
strict control or a complete banning of the chemical. Not surprisingly,
43 said yes, while five would not sign and two were neutral. What's
surprising to many who hear of this story is that dihydrogen monoxide
is merely water--a substance, Mr. President, we all know is completely
safe when handled and consumed properly.
Sadly, it took the efforts of a 14-year-old boy to point out the
drastic lengths to which our society has taken the rhetoric of
environmental protection. Americans today fear everything from drinking
water to beef--and are spurred on by leaders who are often masters of
fiction, whipping up doomsday scenarios prompted by our supposedly
careless treatment of Mother Earth.
Mr. President, Nathan Zohner's experiment only scratched the surface
of the insanity of over-zealous regulation. Regulations today cost
Americans over $700 billion each year. That amounts to almost $7,000
per household. Let me repeat that--regulations in our country cost
every American household nearly $7,000 per year.
That is outrageous and it ultimately has nothing to do with
protecting the earth or being good stewards. It is the result of a
centralized federal bureaucracy which must not only justify its
existence, but expand its purpose and scope in order to feed its
insatiable appetite for power.
Let's review the process. Congress enacts legislation and the
President signs it into law. Simple enough, but what happens next?
Well, Executive Agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency
interpret what Congress meant and go on a rampage of issuing and
enforcing regulations that often fly in the face of Congressional
intent. In Congress, we protest that we didn't mean for that to happen,
but rarely, if ever, are we able to reverse the process or rescind the
regulation. We fail in our most basic role of oversight. And far too
many times Congressional intent is thrown aside by these growing
federal bureauracies and their own desires are then enforced.
American businesses, workers, farmers, states, and localities are
then forced to comply with the goals of the EPA's regulations and
ordered to achieve those goals at the direction of the EPA as well. Too
often, those being regulated aren't allowed to find unique and
innovative means of compliance.
They aren't allowed to tap into the same American ingenuity which,
for the span of our nation's history, has provided workable solutions
to achievable goals.
They are approached by the federal government as adversaries, not as
partners--and are therefore given a one-size-fits-all dictate by a
government that most often either doesn't care or doesn't know any
better. And millions of dollars are spent to do $10 worth of good.
We all come to the floor and regularly recite polls and studies and
intricate, numerical details. We often forget that real people and real
jobs and real families mean a whole lot more than just the numbers
behind the latest study. But one thing is certain: Americans do not
expect that they should have to chose between environmental protections
and their jobs or standard of living. When we do both, we can ensure a
healthy environment and a strong economy and strong economic growth.
According to a Wirthlin Worldwide Study conducted last August, only
11% of Americans consider themselves active environmentalists while 57%
are sympathetic to environmental concerns. The same study found that
70% of Americans believe they should not have to choose between
environmental quality and economic growth.
Clearly, Americans want their leaders to work pro-actively towards a
clean and healthy environment, but not to the extreme and certainly not
at the cost of their safety, their jobs, or their individual freedoms.
Mr. President, I suggest that on Earth Day we pledge to come together
to improve our environment and strengthen our natural resources. I also
suggest that we recognize both our failures and successes of the past.
We must recognize that today, compliance with regulations is the
rule--and that blatant attempts to pollute and circumvent regulations
are the exception. With this in mind, I believe we must renew our
nation's commitment to pragmatism.
Government, on all levels, must do its part as watchdog while
empowering those being regulated to develop unique and innovative means
of compliance.
At the same time, we must promote ideas that create public/private
partnerships and encourage companies and individuals to take voluntary
steps to protect our natural resources. Through education and
awareness, we'll be able to approach environmental issues in a way that
fosters compromises and ensures public policy is pursued in the best
interests of all.
It is time, Mr. President, that we commit ourselves to achieving real
results through environmental initiatives. We must make sure that
Superfund dollars go to clean-up, not to lawyers. We must actually
restore endangered species and remove them from protections, rather
than cordon off large areas of our Nation with little or no results. We
must base our decisions on clear science with stated goals and flexible
solutions. We must give our job creators more flexibility in meeting
national standards as a means of eliminating the pervasive ``command
and control'' approach that has infected so many Federal programs. And
finally, the Federal Government needs to promote a better partnership
between all levels of government, job-providers, environmental interest
groups, and the taxpayers.
With this in mind I believe that on this Earth Day we must collect
the extremist rhetoric found on both sides of the environmental debate
and flush it down the toilet--remember to flush twice, though, if it's
a new, EPA-mandated low-flow toilet, or it might not be gone for good.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. The
Senator from Georgia.
____________________