[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H1535-H1540]
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 3, 2001, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as one who came to Congress committed 
to having the Federal Government be a better partner in making our 
communities more livable, making our families safe, healthy and 
economically secure, this last weekend in the celebration of Earth Day 
was a special time.
  Every April 22, around the world, there is recognition of the Earth 
Day celebrations. This was an undertaking that was founded in 1970 by 
then U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson, who proposed a nationwide 
environmental protest to, quote, shake up the political establishment 
and force this issue on to the national agenda.
  Well, Senator Nelson succeeded, I think, even beyond his 
expectations, as he was able to encourage this recognition 
internationally. I think it was appropriate that he was awarded the 
Presidential Medal of Freedom for his role as the founder of Earth Day.
  This year, as we reviewed the news accounts, there was a great deal 
of energy, excitement and indeed some good news for the environment 
around the world. Part of it was the environmental activism itself. 
There were over 800 rallies held across the United States, and 
internationally there were more than 100. In honor of Earth Day, the 
Wilderness Society named the White House as an object of their future 
concerns about national parks and monuments.
  There was in Washington, D.C. a forum on solar energy held to 
celebrate the advances made in the technology, economics and prospects 
for the use of solar energy. There was a massive Trees Are My Friends 
campaign that helped to educate urban residents about the value of 
street trees in the urban forest canopy, helping residents connect with 
tree care and planning activities in their community.
  This last weekend, I joined with people in my community in Portland, 
Oregon, to celebrate a successful tree-planting undertaking. They have 
successfully planted now 207,000 trees. During the month of April, 
citizens in a variety of cities in the West, including Portland, 
Seattle and Denver, were engaged in races and walks to raise the 
awareness of climate change, to help stop global climate warming.

                              {time}  2015

  There were rallies in India by cycling organizations to push for the 
creation of no vehicle zones in major cities. Additionally, there were 
events to protest deforestation in Mexico, children rallying for the 
protection of endangered species in Estonia and Russia; and there were 
tree plantings in Burmese refugee camps in Thailand.
  There was good news on the State level. One in particular that caught 
my attention was in the State of California where the Department of 
Fish and Game has issued draft regulations to protect sea otters and 
other marine mammals from deadly gill nets. These regulations are going 
to make a huge difference in the protection of marine mammals.
  In Massachusetts, that State will become the first on a State level 
to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under their own 
clean air rules. The new standard, which will go into effect in June, 
will also limit mercury emissions, acid rain causing sulfur dioxide, 
and smog-causing nitrogen oxide. It will apply to the State's dirtiest 
power plants that are contributing to global warming.
  There were very significant developments in the Pacific Northwest, 
including in British Columbia where the government of that province, in 
coordination with environmental groups, logging companies and the first 
nations of Canada announced the plan to prohibit or defer logging on 
3.5 million acres of the Great Bear Rain Forest, an area 4 times the 
size of Rhode Island.
  This is one of the largest rain forest conservation efforts in North 
American history and will protect the only home of the white Spirit 
Bear, a rare subspecies of the black bear.
  Madam Speaker, on occasion I have taken to this floor because I have 
taken offense with some of the activities of this administration as it 
relates to the environment. Admittedly, I was more than a little 
concerned when some of our predictions were borne out with the release 
of President Bush's recommended budget. He has decided to recommend 
major cuts in the EPA enforcement budget and to slash by 87 percent a 
global tropical forest program which he had endorsed on the campaign 
trail, I believe pledging $100 million.
  The budget also shows that the President has a mixed reaction to what 
is proposed as an energy crisis by recommending that the Department of 
Energy research on renewables be slashed by nearly 50 percent and that 
energy efficiency funding be cut by 23 percent. It simply, from where I 
stand, is a little disappointing to say the least; but I must confess 
that there have been a number of announcements and activities from this 
administration in the course of Earth Day, Earth Week activities that 
do, I think, bear commendation; and I think we should come forward and 
express appreciation for steps that are, in fact, positive.
  The President announced that he will sign the international agreement 
on persistent organic pollutants to halt the worldwide spread of these 
dangerous chemicals, such as dioxins. I think that is a positive step.
  On Saturday, April 21, the day before Earth Day, at a meeting on free 
trade in Quebec, the President promised to link trade with a strong 
commitment to protect our environment, a movement that reinforces the 
work done by his trade representative, Ambassador Zoellick, who is 
working hard to see if we can reach some bipartisan accord to protect 
environmental values in the area of trade, and I commend them.
  The administration has at least agreed to attend the next round of 
international talks on global climate change, even though they continue 
their opposition to the Kyoto protocol and have not expressed a 
willingness to compromise and a willingness to move forward. I hope 
cooler heads hopefully will prevail because it is inappropriate for the 
United States to abrogate leadership in the international arena.
  I appreciated the fact that the President has decided to allow a ban 
on snowmobiles in Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Park to take 
effect. It was my pleasure recently to meet with Mike Finley, the 
outgoing superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, who has done an 
outstanding job for the Park Service. This ban was an important part of 
Mike's legacy and will phase out snowmobiles in these critical parks in 
the next 3 years.
  The administration has also decided to uphold a Clinton 
administration rule to dramatically expand reporting requirements for 
the emissions of lead. This is a step in the right direction to deal 
with a serious toxic metal which is linked to learning and behavior 
problems.
  In the area of wetlands, the administration announced last week that 
it will uphold a wetlands development regulation that requires 
developers to get an Army Corps of Engineer's permit for various 
activities that would modify the wetlands.
  And in the area of home appliances, the White House will keep Clinton 
administration energy conservation rules on washing machines and water 
heaters, measures which will make clothes washers become 22 percent 
more efficient by 2004, 35 percent more efficient by 2007, and will 
make a big difference in terms of saving energy and conserving water.
  While I was disappointed that the administration is weakening the air 
conditioning rule by some 50 percent, nonetheless it still represents a 
substantial improvement and a move in the right direction.
  Madam Speaker, I notice that I have been joined by my colleague, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a gentleman known for his zeal 
and concern for protecting the environment and his environmentally 
sensitive State, and I would yield to the gentleman for some comments.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon 
who has always played such a

[[Page H1536]]

 leadership role on environmental issues for organizing this special 
order this evening. It is 2 days after Earth Day, but this is the first 
day that we have been back and can talk about Earth Day.
  I want to express my disappointment with the Bush administration and 
what has been happening for the last 3 or 4 months since President Bush 
took office with regard to environmental issues. Sunday was the 31st 
anniversary of Earth Day, and I took part in those first Earth Day 
celebrations when I was in college at that time in Vermont.
  I have watched pretty much over the 30 or 31 years since the first 
Earth Day, we have seen significant progress on environmental concerns. 
I know in my own district we have done a lot to clean up the ocean 
along the Jersey shore. We have seen the Clean Air Act and the Clean 
Water Act, Endangered Species Act, all of these major pieces of 
legislation which have made significant progress in cleaning up the 
environment.
  So it is very disappointing to see President Bush in the actions that 
he has taken in the last few months basically, I think, try to reverse 
that trend in very negative ways. I am joining the gentleman from 
Oregon tonight in saying that not because I am looking to attack 
President Bush and just say the Republicans are bad and be partisan 
about it, that is not my goal.
  Madam Speaker, what I want to do is see this administration change 
course and basically recognize that the environment is a major concern 
of the American people and that these problems are not going to go away 
and we need to take progressive steps to improve the quality of our 
environment.
  But it is disappointing, and I want to outline if I could maybe in 5 
minutes or so where I see major problems in what the President has done 
in the last few months, but at the same time kind of show a bit of 
optimism about what I think we can do to change it so that he does not 
continue on this course. And I want to talk about energy policy first 
and then talk about some other environmental issues.
  With regard to energy policy, and you already mentioned it, this 
signal about not really caring about global climate change, scrapping 
the Kyoto treaty and maybe suggesting that we not talk about it much in 
the future, I think is a grave concern.
  Also the President's switch on carbon dioxide, to say that is not one 
of the air emission controls that we are going to put in place. And 
although we have not really received the report, I guess, of Vice 
President Cheney's energy task force, that is going to come around mid-
May, we keep hearing that the energy goals of this administration are 
more production of fossil fuels rather than conservation, and they do 
not talk about increased technological efficiency or much about the use 
of renewables.
  Much attention has been focused on ANWR, that we should start 
drilling in ANWR and possibly other offshore areas around the United 
States.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. Speaker, I find it particularly unfortunate, because we keep 
seeing signals at the same time that President Bush is saying these 
things and doing these things, these negative things, we keep seeing 
signals that the consensus, not only the American people, but the 
Congress I think, is very much to the contrary of most of his public 
pronouncements.
  I got a little whiff of that again, if you will, this weekend when my 
former governor, now the EPA Administrator, Christie Whitman, suggested 
that the Bush administration may be backing off from drilling in ANWR. 
But as has been the case so often with Mrs. Whitman, the White House 
came back after she made those statements and sort of scolded her for 
her comments and said that they are going to continue the effort to try 
to drill in ANWR and to get congressional authorization to do so.
  I think that Whitman was really basically commenting on the political 
reality, that the votes are really not there for ANWR in the Senate and 
probably not in the House as well. Basically, I think she was 
indicating that there really is a consensus in the Congress, I believe 
in both Houses, not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  I see so many things like that, when we think about every one of 
Bush's major pronouncements that I have been critical of: the Kyoto 
Treaty, the CO2 emissions. We have to realize that over the last 6 
months or over the last year, there has really been a bipartisan 
consensus of most Democrats and some pro-environment Republicans, who 
have expressed support for the global climate change talks. We have 
recognized that this is an issue that we have to deal with.
  With regard to CO2 emissions, we have had a number of pieces of 
legislation introduced in this House on a bipartisan basis that would 
address the CO2 emissions through market trading legislation. I have 
introduced a bill like that. I think also, if we look around at some of 
the utilities in various parts of the country, including in my home 
State of New Jersey, we have seen them start to implement new 
technologies that would actually cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. 
So it is just very unfortunate.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that these positive forces, these pro-
environmental forces here in the Congress, have not gone away, and 
maybe they are underground right now; but hopefully, over the next few 
months or certainly this session of Congress, we will see them come 
forward with the support of the American people and demand that we 
address global climate change, demand that we address CO2 emissions, 
and not allow drilling in the ANWR.
  I just wanted to express to my colleague with regard to those energy 
issues that I really am a lot more optimistic about what is going to 
happen here, even though I keep hearing these negative pronouncements 
on the environment from the Bush administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to talk about a couple of other areas that 
are not energy-related, but fall within the rubric of my subcommittee. 
I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Commerce, Environment 
and Hazardous Materials, and we have jurisdiction over Superfund, over 
Brownfields, over safe drinking water, and if I could just comment 
briefly on some of those issues. It was very disappointing to me to see 
President Bush's efforts to tear down the environment and the good 
legislation and the good initiatives that we have had in the past also 
translated into his budget. I mean, if we look at the budget, it is a 
cutback in the Department of Energy, it is also a cutback in the EPA, 
the Environmental Protection Agency. In my home State, we have more 
Superfund sites than any other State in the country, so we really care 
about Superfund and whether the funding is going to be there to 
actually do cleanup.
  What President Bush proposed in his budget is that for the next 
fiscal year, we could clean up only 65 Superfund sites as opposed to 
the 85 sites on the average that we have cleaned up in the last 4 years 
under the last administration. But even more important, he did not 
include the Superfund corporate tax in the budget as a method of paying 
for cleanup.
  Now, that may have been okay in the last few years when the 
Republicans cut it out of the budget that President Clinton submitted, 
because we still have money in the trust fund to pay for a significant 
portion of Superfund cleanups. But if we do not reauthorize the 
corporate tax this year or even next year, we are simply going to run 
out of money in 2003. There will not be any money from the Superfund 
Trust Fund to pay for cleanups. I do not see us going ahead and 
allocating money out of general revenue sources to pay for it. So that 
program is also seriously threatened.
  Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman from Oregon mentioned our problem 
with safe drinking water. Again, I could talk about what this 
administration is doing not only with standards with regard to arsenic, 
but also with the infrastructure. We have heard about the way he 
just threw out the arsenic standard and basically was not willing to 
change the status quo down to the 10 parts per billion that was 
recommended by President Clinton and also by the National Academy of 
Sciences. Well, again, I guess in part because the President and this 
administration realize that this is a problem that the American people 
do not like to ingest arsenic, over the last week or so we have seen 
the EPA Administrator, Mrs. Whitman, come out again

[[Page H1537]]

and say, oh, no, we are going to set up a new rule, we are going to 
take a year and study this, but I promise that by the next year, we 
will impose a rule that cuts back at least 60 percent on the existing 
standard.

  Well, I can figure out what 60 percent is of 50 parts per billion, 
but I know it does not get down to the 10 parts per billion that 
President Clinton proposed. So, again, they are playing games.
  She came out and said that she has convened this new panel at the 
National Academy of Sciences and asked them to look at the arsenic 
standards, but again, I get the impression from what I read and from 
what people tell me that this panel is somewhat rigged and that it is 
not inclined to adopt a more strict standard.
  In the same way, I saw Mrs. Whitman come before our subcommittee a 
couple of weeks ago and talk about the tremendous need for resources, 
Federal or otherwise, to address the backlog of infrastructure needs 
for clean water in various States and various communities around the 
country. There was a report that she mentioned actually that came out 
in February that identified $102.5 billion in infrastructure needs for 
safe drinking water. But when we looked at the Bush budget and when it 
came out a couple of weeks ago while we were back in our districts, it 
actually level-funded the amount of money that would be available for 
these infrastructure needs. So we have $102.5 billion in needs and 
authorization in Congress for $1 billion, and Bush's budget comes in at 
$823 million.
  So needless to say, there is a real gap between what the Bush 
administration has said in the past or during the campaign about 
environmental issues and what the EPA Administrator continues to say 
about concerns that she has for environmental issues, and what this 
administration actually does and its actions to address those issues.
  I am also concerned about the fact that we have reduced the amount of 
funding at the EPA. We are not going to see enforcement of a lot of the 
good environmental laws that are on the books. However, again, I do not 
think the public is going to stand for this.
  I really believe that ultimately this Congress will heed the public's 
wishes and not go along with a lot of these pronouncements that are 
coming out of the White House. But I know that we have to continue to 
identify all of these different negative actions that are being taken 
by this administration against the environment, and we have to speak 
out and we have to tell people over and over again what they mean, 
because a lot of them are not easily explainable and they are happening 
so quickly over the last 3 or 4 months of this administration that it 
is even hard to keep track of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon again for his 
part and what he is doing to try to bring attention to this. I think we 
have an obligation not only today in remembering Earth Day, but 
throughout the next 2 years of this session, to constantly focus on 
what this administration is doing to gut environmental concerns.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's 
observations, the hard work that he has done in protecting the 
environment, and the admonition that we need to be vigilant not just on 
Earth Day, but this is an ongoing effort. I must confess that I share 
the gentleman's observation. My assessment is that our commitment is to 
protect the environment. I have deep concerns about some of the 
administration's policies, as the gentleman mentioned. I hope, however, 
that we can on this floor reach common cause across party lines, 
geographic and philosophical divides, because the American public 
desires that we are able to move forward and be productive in this 
fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, I came from a very environmentally aware State. I think 
we both share that kinship and that consensus. In our State, in Oregon, 
much of the environmental leadership transcended party politics. It 
came from an era, particularly in the 1970s, where half the time there 
was a Republican governor who was working with Democrats in the 
legislature; and when the Democrats took control of the State house, 
the governorship, it continued on.
  Most of the major pieces of legislation that we are working on 
actually have bipartisan support, and if we could ever get them to the 
floor of this chamber, I think we would find that there would be strong 
votes, including significant Republican support.
  I think it is important for us to walk that line, to fight back when 
there are items that are at odds with what the American public wants. 
As the gentleman pointed out with the budget, we need to acknowledge 
some of the positive things that are not where that takes place, and 
Congress must be willing to step up and lead by example in terms of 
walking the walk.
  I had a couple of other observations that were positive in nature 
that I wanted to share, because I thought they were very significant. 
Joe Albaugh, the new director of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, FEMA, maybe created some waves the last couple of days when 
there was high water around Davenport, Iowa, but I think he raised an 
important issue about the responsibility of the Federal Government to 
help, but not to continue to step in and subsidize areas where it 
appears as though people are not moving out of harm's way. There are in 
this country over 8,000 properties that have a history of repeated loss 
claims from floods. Over the last 8 years, we have lost over $89 
billion of damage as a result of flooding. We have lost over 800 lives. 
And there are still a number of people who live with Federal subsidy in 
places where God has repeatedly shown that he does not want them to 
live.
  I appreciate that this administration is willing to raise the issue. 
In the budget there are some budget savings that have been claimed as a 
result of modifying and reforming the Federal flood insurance program. 
The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have legislation that 
we have introduced, the ``Two Floods and You're Out of the Taxpayer 
Pocket,'' which would help provide a mechanism to claim the savings 
that the administration is interested in; and I appreciate what the 
FEMA Director is doing, and I know there will be support in Congress to 
come forward to try and make that important reform.
  Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure earlier this week to share a platform 
with General Robert Flowers, the head of the Corps of Engineers, who 
made, I thought, an extraordinary, extraordinary statement. I commend 
people to perhaps go to the Web site, to the Corps of Engineers, look 
at General Flowers' statement. It was one that I think any Member of 
the House of Representatives would have been proud to make. The General 
committed to environmental sustainability, that all Corps of Engineers 
work will be based on the need for people and nature to coexist in a 
healthy, supportive, diverse and sustainable condition; to recognize 
the interdependence of activities, that we will recognize 
interdependence with nature, we will consider the possibility of 
second- and third-order effects on his projects; that the Corps would 
be responsible for cumulative impacts.
  The Corps would accept responsibility for the consequences of 
planning, design, and construction decisions upon the continued 
viability of natural systems and human life. The Corps would be 
committed to long-term public safety, creating engineered objects of 
long-term value; that it would support a systems approach in all 
aspects of design and construction.
  The Corps will evaluate and optimize the life cycle of products and 
processes so that as much as possible, we approach the natural state of 
systems in which there is no waste; to understand and utilize the 
dynamic nature of the environment. Their products will continue to rely 
to the fullest extent possible on renewable energy sources and 
recyclable products, and to seek continuous improvements, seeking 
constant improvements by sharing, promoting, collaborating and 
integrating knowledge.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought it was an outstanding statement by General 
Flowers, and I, for one, am standing willing to help him achieve that 
with the Corps of Engineers in terms of policy and budget and to make 
sure that Congress is supporting, rather than interfering.

                              {time}  2045

  I wanted to acknowledge that as, I thought, one of the most important

[[Page H1538]]

statements that I had heard in the course of the week of Earth Day 
celebrations.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
he is bringing up, I think, a very important issue. In sort of a 
general sense, when we talk about the environment, there are a lot of 
new technologies and new ways of doing things that really can make a 
difference.
  That is one of the reasons I find what I have been seeing from this 
administration so disappointing, because I really believe that the 
environment and industry or business can work together, and that there 
is no reason why a pro-environment position cannot be also a pro-jobs 
creation, or a pro-economic development position.
  Certainly, when we talk about new technologies, that is so true. Last 
week during the congressional recess we did a bus tour, I guess it was 
last Wednesday, where myself and the gentlemen from New Jersey, Mr. 
Holt and Mr. Pascrell, went to various parts of the State to highlight 
some of the concerns we had with what the Bush administration was 
doing.
  One of the stops was in Linden, New Jersey, which is a town that has 
a number of utilities and also refineries. We were there with Public 
Service Electric and Gas, which is one of our major utilities in the 
State. They were actually building a new plant that was going to be 
gas-fired, natural gas-fired, and that was replacing some older oil-
burning plants to generate electricity. They estimated that the new 
plants would cut down on the amount of carbon dioxide by one-third.
  I just could not help it, I am standing there and talking to these 
business leaders, people representing the utility, who by no means 
would be perceived as Democrats or liberals or anything like that, and 
they are just explaining why this can be done and how easy it is to do, 
how it saves money and cuts down on carbon dioxide.
  For the life of me, I do not understand the theory of this 
administration. The gentleman talked about the energy efficiency of air 
conditioners, as the gentleman mentioned before. We can talk about so 
many ways. In fact, the United States really is taking the leadership 
in terms of new technologies that would cut down on air emissions, and 
make it so that not only us but other countries would not continue to 
contribute so much to the problem of global climate change.
  These are new technologies that we can sell to other parts of the 
world that would create jobs here at home because they are high-tech. 
There is absolutely no reason to perceive that environmental 
initiatives are somehow going to be too expensive or lose jobs or hurt 
industry. I think it is just the opposite. It is just another reason 
why I am very concerned about what is happening with this 
administration.
  We talked about the budget. I think the gentleman mentioned 
renewables. I believe that with regard to research on renewable 
resources, solar power, wind power, that the budget the President came 
in with cuts the amount of research money in half.
  This morning I was down with the group of American Indians that are 
concerned about the environment, I think it is called the National 
Tribal Environmental Council. I spoke with them. It is amazing to me, 
they were talking about how, with wind resources in the Great Plains 
area, we would actually be able to generate enough power through wind 
on the Great Plains to produce enough electricity for the whole 
continental United States, the 48 States outside of Alaska and Hawaii, 
if we were to take that initiative.
  The ability and the will is there if only this administration would 
wake up. I do not want to keep harping on it, but the gentleman said it 
when he pointed out that historically these issues, these environmental 
concerns, have been bipartisan.

  The great conservationist leader was Teddy Roosevelt. It was Richard 
Nixon who signed so many of the environmental laws that we are talked 
about tonight in the seventies.
  I think what happened, and frankly I am going to be partisan, now, 
when we had the changeover in the Congress from Democrat to Republican 
and we had Newt Gingrich come in as the Speaker, all of a sudden there 
was this great interest on the part of the Republican leadership to do 
the bidding of big business, big oil, big mining companies.
  That is what we are seeing with President Bush as well. Most of the 
decisions that he is making seem to be contrary to a lot of the 
Republicans in his own party, but he is catering to the big oil and the 
big mining and these other special interests that are very shortsighted 
about the future and what can be done.
  So again, I know we have to keep up the effort here, but I think 
there is good reason to feel that we can change things, because what is 
being done by this administration is not only not in the best interests 
of the country, but it does not even make sense from an economic 
development point of view or a money point of view, ultimately, I do 
not think.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman, Madam Speaker.
  I was particularly taken by a comment the gentleman made about the 
opportunities to build the environment, to create jobs, to build the 
economy; that these are things that can be done concurrently and 
actually add value, being able to help make our families safe, healthy, 
and economically secure.
  I had an opportunity this last week to tour a location where actually 
what the gentleman is talking about could have a tremendous effect. In 
the metropolitan Portland area, across the river, it is not in my 
district or in my State but it is a very short journey, there is a 
large formerly-used defense facility called Camp Bonneville, 3,800 
acres that has been used for the better part of this last century for 
military purposes.
  The community has a plan where they would like to take this area that 
has been off limits, that has not been subjected to development. It has 
a potential for wildlife, for recreation, that is almost unsurpassed, 
just a few minutes from the core of a major metropolitan area, but it 
is going to require that the Department of Defense step up and provide 
the resources to decontaminate the area.
  We do not know what is on the 3,800 acres. There is not money 
budgeted, although we recently had a reversal of a decision by the 
Department of Defense to go in and help us with that survey. It is 
critical that we examine areas like this.
  When they first went in, there were 105-millimeter shells on the 
ground that they could find. These are items of high explosives, 7\1/2\ 
pounds of blasting powder, that could do tremendous damage. Now we have 
an opportunity perhaps, if the Department of Defense, the Corps of 
Engineers, and this Congress steps forward, to be able to make a 
difference for the people in the metropolitan area of Portland-
Vancouver-Washington. But it is an example of what we can do to balance 
the environment, provide jobs, and give back precious resources in 
terms of open space and redevelopment possibilities.
  But while we were on recess this last week, there was finally the 
long-awaited report from the General Accounting Office that deals with 
the environmental liabilities of just training range cleanup costs. The 
report was rather startling. It indicated that while the Department of 
Defense thought that its liability for the cleanup of training ranges 
was about $14 billion, they find that other estimates show that 
liability could well exceed $100 billion just for training range 
cleanup. Without complete and accurate data, it is impossible to 
determine whether these amounts represent a reasonable estimate, or 
what the implications are.
  We have not performed a complete inventory of the ranges, identifying 
the types and extent of the unexploded ordnance and the associated 
contamination. We have a long list of areas that are formerly-used 
defense sites, training sites, base closures. We do not have the top 
management focus and leadership necessary even to get reliable report 
estimates at this point, and sadly, there is no specific program for 
unexploded ordnance remediation policy, goals, or program.
  Now, we have been writing as Members of Congress, bringing this to 
the attention of the appropriators, to our fellow Members of Congress. 
This is a situation that affects not just metropolitan Portland, but it 
is something that touches people all across the country.

[[Page H1539]]

  Two weeks ago, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) and I led a trip to the American University campus and Spring 
Valley residential development here in the District of Columbia, where 
they are still excavating the hillside, removing arsenic. There is a 
child care center on the campus of American University that was closed 
because of intolerably high arsenic levels.
  In our Nation's Capitol, from coast-to-coast, border to border, we 
have over 1,000 of these sites that need to be addressed that represent 
a threat to the public safety and health, and if done properly, 
represent an opportunity to have a transformational effect on 
communities in terms of the economic activities associated with cleanup 
and then the reuse of these facilities.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, in 
my State, of course, we have so many opportunities like that. The list 
is endless.
  I mentioned that we have more Superfund sites than any other State. I 
think we have over 6,000 hazardous waste sites that have been 
identified by the State of New Jersey outside of Superfund, most of 
which would be eligible for a brownfields initiative. Obviously, the 
Federal government needs to do more in that respect, as well.
  I would like to think of ways, as the gentleman is pointing out, to 
do progressive things on Superfund, on brownfields, on other hazardous 
waste and other types of environmental cleanup. That is really what I 
hope that the gentleman and I and others who are concerned about the 
environment would be concentrating on. We do not want to spend our time 
trying to prevent good laws from being gutted, which is essentially 
what we have been doing for the last couple of months.
  My district, I think the gentleman knows, a significant part of it is 
along the Jersey shore, along the ocean. When I was first elected in 
1988, I was really elected on an environmental platform, because that 
was the year when all of the beaches were closed. The tourism industry 
is number one in New Jersey. People think of New Jersey as the 
petrochemical State, but we actually earn more dollars in New Jersey 
from tourism than even from the petrochemical industry. I think we were 
losing $5 billion that summer because the beaches were closed.
  A number of initiatives have been taken since then in Congress on a 
bipartisan basis, as well as in the State legislature. When the current 
EPA administrator, Ms. Whitman, was the Governor of New Jersey, she 
presided over a lot of these initiatives to clean up the ocean. Yet now 
we see the opposite happening here on the Federal level.
  One of the things that happened in New Jersey that was used as an 
example nationally, and now faces a budget cut, was the Beaches Act. 
New Jersey was the first State in the country that passed a law that 
said that we had to do testing on a regular basis during the summer 
months when people can swim at the Jersey shore. We have to test the 
beaches, and if they do not meet a certain Federal standard, then the 
beach has to be closed. Rather, we have to test the water, and if it 
does not meet a certain standard, the beach has to be closed and it has 
to be posted that one cannot bathe. This was a result of the wash-up of 
all the debris in 1988.
  We put this into effect, and I and some Republicans on the other 
side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) was a sponsor with 
me, we actually moved a bill in the last session of Congress called the 
Beaches Act that implemented that nationally. It was signed by 
President Clinton I guess in October, before the end of the last 
session.
  That said that now every State would be mandated to do the same type 
of testing for water quality, and close beaches and post signs and 
publicly announce if the water quality was not up to snuff.
  We authorized $30 million under that legislation that was signed last 
fall to implement that program. Again, our EPA administrator, Ms. 
Whitman, was touting that program early in this administration, about 
how it was a great program and it was modeled after New Jersey. Then 
when I saw the budget a couple of weeks ago, I saw that the President's 
budget, instead of appropriating $30 million, it appropriated something 
like $2 million or $3 million, which would not even allow more than a 
handful of States to implement the program.
  So again, it just seems so unfortunate. I do not want to keep harping 
and being so partisan about it, but it just seems so unfortunate that 
at a time when there are a lot of progressive things that could be 
done, proactive things that could be done around here, like what the 
gentleman just described, we still have to talk about just trying to 
make sure that things do not get worse.
  I do not want to be pessimistic because I am still optimistic, but it 
is unfortunate to see what we have had to contend with in the last few 
months.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's somber 
reflections because we need to look at this in a balanced and objective 
fashion. I would just conclude my remarks this evening on a note of 
optimism and hoping that we will be able to work in a bipartisan 
fashion to do something about having the Federal Government step up and 
lead by example.
  The United States Government is the largest Superfund polluter in the 
United States, the government itself. The military waste, the toxics 
and explosives that we have littering the landscape constitute a battle 
right here on American soil 26 years after the Vietnam war, 56 years 
after the conclusion of World War II, 83 years after World War I. It 
involves mines and nerve gases and toxics and explosive shells. It has 
claimed at least 65 lives that we know of, most of them since World War 
II.
  There is a strong likelihood, I am told, that there are more people 
who have lost their lives that we just as yet do not know about, and 
there are many more who have been maimed and injured.
  What, I guess, shocked me the most were two young boys who were 
killed as a result of an explosive shell that they found in a field in 
a subdivision in their hometown of San Diego that was a formerly used 
military defense site. Three boys found the shell. They were playing 
with it. They detonated it, and two of them were killed. This danger 
continues every day. If we are not careful, at the rate we are going, 
it could last for another 500 or 1,000 years.
  Now, this toxic waste of military activities in the United States 
could potentially contaminate 20 to 25 million acres, and some 
estimates are as high as 50 million acres. As I pointed out, we do not 
have a good inventory. We do not know. But what we do know is, at the 
current rate of spending in a budget that is not yet adequate, it will 
take centuries, potentially 1,000 years or more to return the land to 
safe and productive use and to protect children who may be playing, 
wildlife.
  Fire fighters in the forests who were a couple of summers ago in a 
forest fire in New York State, all of a sudden they were out in the 
forest, and there were huge explosions because buried shells from 
artillery practice that did not explode were suddenly being detonated 
by the forest fire.
  Congress needs to report for duty. It needs to provide the 
administrative and financial tools that are necessary. What I am 
talking about here is not going to affect active ranges and readiness. 
My concern is for closed, transferred, and transferring ranges where 
the public is already exposed or soon will be.
  I hope that we can make every Member of Congress, every aspect of the 
Department of Defense, the Corps of Engineers understand what is going 
on in each and every one of our States, because every State is at risk.
  We can make sure that somebody is in charge, that there is enough 
funding, and that we get the job done so that no child will be at risk 
of death, dismemberment or serious illness as a result of the United 
States Government not cleaning up after itself.
  In the course of our conversation this evening, we have talked about 
some positive elements and some that were perhaps a little 
disconcerting, but I

[[Page H1540]]

think this is an area that we can commit ourselves to working in a 
bipartisan way. I can think of no more positive aspect for claiming the 
true purpose and spirit of Earth Day than acting to make sure that the 
Federal Government is doing all it can in this important area.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman will yield a little 
time, I would say this. The gentleman from Oregon talked about 
optimism. I am going to be optimistic in the last thing that I say here 
this evening. When I mentioned over the weekend to my children who are 
fairly young, I have a daughter who is 7 and a son who just turned 6 
and another daughter who is 3, and when I mentioned to them that it was 
Earth Day on Sunday, of course they got all excited about it.
  But it really dawned on me that they are all in school in some way, 
either school or preschool at this point. I have watched over the last 
few years that they just have an incredible sort of environmental 
consciousness, more so than I do. I do not think it comes from me. I 
think it mostly comes from what they learn in school and what they see 
on TV. They remind me that one has to recycle this or that. They talk 
about the ocean and how it has got to be kept clean. They participated 
in a couple of cleanups that we have at this time of year, either along 
the beach or in some of the wooded areas.
  So I mean there are many things that came out of Earth Day since 
1970, the last 31 years, but I think maybe the most important thing is 
the education aspect that people, particularly the younger generation, 
younger than me, are very environmentally conscious. We talk about how 
younger people maybe are not as conscious or politically conscious, but 
I definitely believe that they are environmentally conscious.
  So I just think that any effort to try to turn back the clock on the 
environmental movement is ultimately doomed to failure. So that is my 
optimism, and I know that we are here to make sure it is not doomed to 
failure, and we are going to keep it up.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Indeed.

                          ____________________