[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.




                          ____________________