[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7448-7460]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                               EARTH DAY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here this evening 
on the 34th anniversary of Earth Day. Now, the pollsters tell us that 
the environment may not be the very first thing that springs to 
people's minds when asked about the most important issues of the day, 
but we find that when you probe just a little bit, it is clear that 
that really does not give the whole picture, because the environment is 
more than just an issue, it is an umbrella, it is an overview, it is a 
prism through which Americans see the things that touch their lives 
most intimately.
  When you get those Americans starting to talk about what matters to 
them most, we hear things like clean air and clean water, a secure 
energy future, a quality of life for their families. In dealing with 
the children, one in four admissions, we know in urban areas, are for 
children with respiratory problems to emergency rooms. When you start 
Americans down that path, they do not stop talking about it.
  If we look at the hundreds of millions of dollars that State and 
local communities have voted to increase their money spent on water 
quality and open space, in community after community we see 
demonstrated concern and action at the local level.
  One of the things that characterized the first Earth Day and the 
activities that followed it was a bipartisan spirit of commitment to 
improving environmental quality overall and in very specific terms in 
communities across the country.
  I am proud to spring from an Oregon tradition that was decidedly 
bipartisan and environmental. My first governmental position was an 
appointment by then-Governor Tom McCall, a legendary Republican in our 
State, to the Livable Oregon Committee. I was privileged to serve in 
the Oregon Legislature a third of a century ago when we enacted the 
first comprehensive land use planning legislation of any State in the 
Union, and it was the product of bipartisan leadership and concern. On 
the Federal level, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were 
enacted during Republican administrations with bipartisan leadership.
  Unfortunately for our success in protecting the environment, on this 
Earth Day we are seeing that the bipartisan tradition of environmental 
leadership is being abandoned for short-term political advantage 
catering to powerful special interests. We can take, for example, the 
sad saga of President Bush's efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act, 
documented in a fascinating article in The New York Times Magazine 3 
weeks ago.
  But it is something that Members of this Congress are familiar with, 
as we have struggled with this administration under the New Source 
Review Program, which was requiring old power plants to install 
pollution controls. Instead, this administration has radically 
transformed the Nation's Clean Air Act quietly, trying to do it under 
the radar screen by way of regulatory changes and bureaucratic 
detectives. And now, older polluting power plants that should have been 
cleaned up decades ago have been given essentially a free pass, allowed 
to continue to spew forth harmful pollution and global-warming gases 
into the air.
  Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to the extreme to see what is 
happening in terms of global climate change. The administration has 
been challenged just 2 weeks ago by the Union of Concerned Scientists, 
a group of 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, who are 
concerned about how this administration is turning science on its head, 
shifting, changing, and obscuring, when, in fact, the role of science 
should be one that is a constructive one to help us promote 
environmental protection.
  We are seeing at this point the situation where these environmental 
threats are increasing on the global scale, in terms of global climate 
change, global warming. We have a generation of Americans today who may 
be the first generation where there will be no glaciers in Glacier 
Park, and who may witness the eradication of polar bears in their 
natural habitat.
  But it is not an obscure activity that is going to occur in remote 
reaches of wilderness or in the Arctic netherland. No American is 
immune to the deadly

[[Page 7449]]

consequences of the actions of the last 100 years of assaulting our 
environment and our government's inaction in some of the simplest 
common-sense steps.

                              {time}  1730

  No one in America will be immune from global warming. It is not just 
the disappearance of permafrost in areas of the Arctic tundra, the 
buckling of roads and the erosion of coastline we are seeing in our 
49th State, it is the increasing temperatures, rising ocean levels, 
extreme weather events, and storm surges in coastal areas put all 
Americans at risk.
  We are a rich country, and much of our territory is in temperate 
areas. Imagine what will happen in poor countries around the world 
already prone to drought, or to tens of millions of poor people in 
Bangladesh that will be threatened with drowning by rising sea levels 
and storm surges.
  But there is good news for us to consider on this Earth Day, and a 
growing consensus of Americans across the country, contrary to the 
approaches of this administration. They want us to take simple, common-
sense steps today to clean up the air, slow global warming and protect 
our public lands. One simple step is simply to keep in place the Clean 
Air Act and Clean Water Act and other landmark legislation. We have 
hundreds of Federal rules, regulations and efforts at rollback that 
demonstrate that we are actually having initiatives by the leadership 
in this Congress and by the administration for environmental activities 
that, rather than making the air cleaner, the water more pure, will 
actually put us at risk.
  Today we need to stick to some of the fundamental underlying 
environmental legislation we have got. It will be a cleaner America, a 
healthier environment than if we were to follow some of the so-called 
reforms of this administration.
  Another critical step is to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. 
The reality is now that our best estimates are that U.S. production of 
oil is going to peak in 2008, and there will be a decline of 18 percent 
over 20 years. It is not happening because of environmental 
protections, it is because we simply do not have enough oil. However, 
according to the Energy Information Agency, we are going to be 
skyrocketing in terms of demand, over 40 percent in the next 20 years, 
which will increase our demand on foreign oil. Under the current 
situation, placing our reliance on unstable areas is simply not a good 
strategic undertaking.
  I am pleased that the likely standard-bearer for our party, Senator 
John Kerry, has put on the table a wide range of environmental 
initiatives, including fuel efficiency for automobiles, one that could 
be good for the American consumer, for the environment, and indeed for 
our auto industry.
  Right now there are three alternatives for the American consumers who 
want hybrid vehicles, but they are, sadly, all Japanese. General Motors 
has announced it is bringing pickups on the market that will improve 
gas mileage, but that is the tip of the iceberg. There is far more we 
can do.
  I am pleased that I have been joined by a number of colleagues here 
who have ideas to lend to this discussion this afternoon, but I want to 
just put on the table the notion that the most important thing the 
Federal Government can do for new initiatives is to model the behavior 
it expects of other Americans. If the Federal Government would simply 
clean up after itself, establish high standards for the hundreds of 
millions of square feet it has in offices, the tens of millions of 
acres that it manages, its vast enterprises, it could have a 
transformational effect. There are opportunities to discuss this 
further, but I want to turn to some of my colleagues that are here.
  I note I have been joined by the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is charged with one of the most difficult 
tasks in Congress, and that is providing a representation for the 
people in the District of Columbia, who, although they are taxed, 
although they are under the control of the Federal Government more than 
citizens of any State in the Union, they have not been graced with the 
opportunity of a voting Member of Congress. I must say it is astounding 
the work that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) does in terms of providing leadership on a wide variety of 
areas, and not the least of which has to do with the environment.
  I have visited with the gentlewoman in areas around American 
University where we are still struggling 85 years after World War I 
with the consequence of failing to clean up after ourselves with the 
chemical weapons that were tested inside the District of Columbia. The 
gentlewoman is fighting for a wide variety of interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton) to discuss the impacts that she is facing in the District 
of Columbia and some of the noteworthy efforts she is leading.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) for his many interests here, in his district, and 
throughout the Nation. The fact is that people in the District are 
living with the aftermath of munitions that were buried after World War 
I, which is not very pleasant, particularly when they pay some of the 
highest taxes in the United States. I agree with the gentleman that if 
the Federal Government would simply set an example by cleaning up after 
itself, more of the rest of America would be likely to follow.
  One example I have been able to get into a recent bill which has 
passed the House is for the Federal Government to use solar energy in 
its own buildings. There is $60 million for 5 years for that to occur.
  I also see that the gentleman from Oregon has a bike pin in his 
lapel, and I must state what a wonderful steward of the environment the 
gentleman has been, how much his leadership is appreciated there, not 
only with his signature issue, livability, but the gentleman's across-
the-board leadership on environmental issues. It stands to reason that 
the gentleman from Oregon would be leading this Special Order today.
  This is Earth Day, and we come to the floor today, as many of us do 
on many other occasions. It may be Earth Day, but part of talking about 
the Earth is talking about water, so I want to talk about the Safe 
Drinking Act and the Clean Water Act at a time when Members may be 
imbibing lead as they drink the water at their workplace, the Congress 
of the United States. The water that we drink, and we are served water 
where we eat, when we go into committee, there is always water there, 
and we drink some of that, that water comes right out of the faucet, 
and we have to think about what that means. If it were only a District 
of Columbia matter, I would not be raising it on Earth Day, but the 
Safe Drinking Water Act is being violated all across the United States. 
I want to alert Members on this Earth Day to what it seems to me each 
of us should be doing to ensure that we have safe drinking water.
  One of the great dividing lines between developing and advanced 
societies is safe drinking water. When you come to the District of 
Columbia, you should not have to ask: Is the water safe to drink here? 
I suggest anyone who comes in fact asks that question, and that is a 
question that needs to be asked in your own jurisdiction as well when 
you consider what has happened to the District of Columbia and what it 
has exposed about safe drinking water.
  I am not sure what side our country is on when it comes to the 
dividing line between countries with safe drinking water and countries 
without, but it was surely a wake-up call when we learned that there 
was lead in the water of the Nation's Capital.
  The reason this is a matter of national concern is because two 
Federal agencies control the water here. The Environmental Protection 
Agency does the same for the District of Columbia as it does for the 
Nation. If we want to talk about stewards of the environment, the 
Environmental Protection Agency would not be included there. Of course, 
it does double duty here since it acts as our State EPA as well as the 
watchdog Federal EPA.
  It gets worse. The water here is purified by the Washington Aqueduct. 
That

[[Page 7450]]

is run by the Corps of Engineers, and that is because they built it 
more than 100 years ago. We have learned that the Environmental 
Protection Agency signed off on public notice that there was lead in 
the water a year after it was found, and so buried so nobody knew about 
it or could have discovered it. Can Members imagine how many pregnant 
women and small children at developmental ages have been drinking that 
water without knowing it? That is the kind of environmental crime that 
the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed to avoid.
  The EPA signed off on the public notice, or I should say the lack of 
public notice; but the problems are more fundamental. The problems are 
with the very basics themselves. All of the regulations that the EPA 
has us living under, any good on this Earth Day we should ask 
ourselves, and does the EPA enforce them? On the basic science, we do 
not know how much lead is harmful or not. Why are we this long in 
finding out? We know how much is harmful for young children, but public 
health officials tell us that lead is harmful for people as old as you 
and me, Mr. Speaker, but we do not know what the amount is, and nobody 
has funded the science to find out.
  When it comes to enforcement, what the Environmental Protection 
Agency tells us is they should test for lead, and if they find lead, 
they keep testing. So what they do is they keep testing until they 
dilute the findings, and then they do not have to clean up the water at 
all. This is a public health catastrophe. Every jurisdiction is 
supposed to be doing this. WASA kept testing, hoping to dilute the 
results it found so as not to have to remove lead pipes. It backfired 
on WASA because it found more, not less, lead.
  We are living with bad science, wrong assumptions. Even in the 19th 
century when the service pipes in the District of Columbia were built 
with lead, there was an outcry that it was unsafe to use lead service 
lines. That is more than 100 years ago. They knew that. That is what we 
have today.
  So we are told when you do find that there is lead in the water, you 
have to do partial replacement; that is to say replacement of the lead 
service lines in the public part of the area. We learned in hearings if 
you do this partial replacement, and the line on private property is 
left there, it can be worse because apparently the partial replacement 
acts as a battery to whatever remaining lead is there, and the problem 
worsens.
  They switched chemicals from chlorine to chloramine. We think that 
may have caused the corroding of lead into the water. Now, when we see 
problems like that, the people who purify the water may have made it 
worse by switching chemicals because they did not do the right tests, 
and the Environmental Protection Agency does not begin to know how much 
lead is bad or good and lets you keep testing until you do not have to, 
in fact, remove lead lines at all. I suggest that on this Earth Day we 
go back to basics when it comes to safe drinking water and start all 
over again and rebuild the regulatory basis of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act.
  Finally, let me say the Clean Water Act is another great achievement 
of this Congress. More than 30 years ago we cleaned up the Potomac, but 
there is another river that lies within 2,000 yards of the Capitol 
dome, the Anacostia River, which is utterly polluted. Some of that 
pollution comes from the fact that there was a naval gun factory; but 
today, more of it comes from underground sewage and storm water 
conveyance systems that are over 100 years old. I am trying to have 
that fixed. It will cost $1 billion, but if we get $100 million every 
year, we will clean up the Anacostia River, we will do a lot for the 
Chesapeake Bay, and do a lot for the drinking water here in this area.
  I am very pleased to name the cosponsors of this bill in this region. 
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), 
and others from this region are coming on, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), for example. Virtually all of the Senators 
from this region are on this bill. It is time we stepped up and did for 
the Anacostia River what we did for the Potomac River 30 years ago.

                              {time}  1745

  I appreciate the time the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has 
given me to discuss water on this Earth Day, for it reminds us that 
Earth Day is about the entire environment. And when we say the Earth, 
we mean the Earth, we mean the water, and we mean the air. I thank him 
very much for his leadership once again.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments 
and for her leadership. I hope that I will see the time here in 
Congress where the Anacostia becomes a model for the country in the 
backyard of Congress about how to do it right after, as she says, 
decades of abuse.
  I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), who has been 
one of the most forceful voices in his short time in Congress for 
speaking out for the preservation of the environment, somebody who is 
deeply concerned and has focused in on what is happening with the 
rollbacks and somebody who comes from a State that is facing some of 
the most unique environmental challenges that he has been a leader in 
long before he came to Congress.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for 
yielding. I appreciate the opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today on this Earth Day to comment that while our 
Nation is distracted by war and terrorism, the Bush administration has 
systematically and methodically been dismantling our most fundamental 
public health laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act; 
but the people of America and in my community, in addition to wanting 
peace and security in the world, also want a clean and healthy 
environment for themselves and for their children to live in.
  On this Earth Day we state clearly, and I want to repeat, we state 
clearly that Americans want and deserve clean air to breathe, clean 
water to drink, and natural places to experience. We want our most 
special lands like our national parks to be cared for so they can be 
enjoyed by future generations as we do today.
  But the test results are in, and it is official. The George W. Bush 
Presidency is the worst environmental Presidency in the history of this 
country. From our urban areas to our national forests, the Bush 
administration is sacrificing our health, our environment for the 
benefit of corporations. Communities of color continue to suffer 
disproportionately from Bush's policy to lower air and water quality 
standards and to gut funding for Super Fund cleanup programs, which 
impact communities across this country.
  Our constituents are eating mercury-tainted fish, drinking lead-
tainted water, living near toxic contamination sites. Our national 
parks are deteriorating. Our national forests and public lands are 
being opened up for polluting uses like oil and gas development, 
mining, and logging. Meanwhile, the administration disputes that global 
warming exists and refuses to take steps to address this growing and 
imminent threat.
  This administration is, to say the least, industry-friendly. But we 
also want one that is Earth friendly. We do not have to sacrifice our 
economic future for a healthy environment. We can have both a healthy 
economy and a healthy environment.
  We Democrats in Congress are fighting for our environment. My 
colleagues have fought to keep oil drilling out of the Arctic, to 
ensure that polluters clean up their messes, to prevent our forests 
from being clear cut for profit, to keep our air and water clean. We 
have called for comprehensive and sensible energy policy that does not 
reward the polluting industries with massive subsidies, but enhances 
opportunities for renewable energy sources.
  As we reflect on the Earth's environment on Earth Day, let us not 
forget that we have only one Earth to live on. Let us keep our 
environment and our

[[Page 7451]]

families healthy by fighting for the protection of our air, water, and 
land. America's environmental laws have succeeded in improving people's 
health and lives. Let us continue that legacy by protecting what we 
have gained and enhancing what we still need to gain.
  On this Earth Day, at stake for all Americans is the very essence of 
what makes us unique as a country and as a people: our land, our 
people, and our public places. At stake is our public health. At stake 
is the protection of our natural resources. At stake is a legacy that 
we all share in, a shared legacy and responsibility about protecting 
our environment and protecting the health of our people.
  The record of the Bush administration on rollbacks of protections and 
giveaways to special interests is a destruction of that very essence 
and that legacy. I think the people of America deserve much more. They 
deserve a country that values its people, protects its environment, and 
assures that we protect the very essence of what makes us different as 
a country.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Grijalva) for his statement, and I appreciate his eloquence in terms of 
looking at the big picture and the impacts that people are facing.
  The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), his fellow Southwestern 
colleague, has himself a rich family tradition dealing with these 
issues and continues that on the Committee on Resources today and being 
a vigilant spokesperson on a wide range of environmental issues.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico if he has some comments to 
share with us this evening.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
Oregon for yielding, and I thank him for leading this Special Order. I 
would like to say that his leadership in this Congress has been 
exceptional when it comes not only to sustainable communities and 
making sure we build up the quality of life in our communities but it 
is also, as we see by the bicycle on his lapel, a good solid balanced 
approach to transportation and transportation systems and realizing 
that bicycles and modes of transportation other than automobile traffic 
are very important to our communities. I thank him for that and thank 
him for his leadership.
  In hopes of keeping our public lands as beautiful and as productive 
as possible, I would like to offer a few thoughts concerning recent 
changes to our National Forest Management policies. National Forest 
Management plans were first conceived by Gifford Pinchot, the first 
United States chief of the Forest Service. He was a Republican like the 
President at the time, Teddy Roosevelt, who thought that we should 
organize the country's forests into a National Forest System that we 
now know today as our vast system of national forests.
  Pinchot was initially led by the utilitarian philosophy as of ``the 
greatest good for the greatest number.'' In guiding the management of 
the national forests, he later appended to that statement ``in the long 
run'': ``The greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.'' 
Because he recognized that forest management consists of long-term 
decisions in protecting the resources.
  By the end of 1910, at the end of Pinchot's term, there were 150 
national forests covering 170 million acres of land. And he wrote about 
the U.S. Forest Service and what he was trying to do, and he said ``not 
a single acre of the government, State, or private timberland was under 
systematic forest management anywhere on this most richly timbered of 
all continents . . . When the Gay Nineties began, the common word for 
our forests was `inexhaustible.' To waste timber was a virtue, not a 
crime. There would always be plenty of timber . . . The lumbermen . . . 
regarded forest devastation as normal and second growth as the delusion 
of fools . . . And as for sustained yield, no such idea had ever 
entered their heads.''
  He went on to say: ``Without natural resources,'' and this was when 
he was really talking about his idea of conservation and good 
stewardship, ``life itself is impossible. From birth to death, natural 
resources, transformed for human use, feed, clothe, shelter, and 
transport us. Upon them we depend for every material necessity, 
comfort, convenience, and protection in our lives. Without abundant 
resources prosperity is out of reach.''
  Such was the philosophy that guided the management of our national 
forests at the beginning of the 20th century.
  The beginning of the 21st century is a far different story 
altogether. Republicans are still in control, but they have abandoned 
bipartisanship, wise stewardship. Under the warm and fuzzy name ``The 
Healthy Forests Initiative,'' the Bush administration is proposing an 
agenda that includes sweeping changes to the management of our National 
Forests, cutting people out of the process of participating and 
commenting on forest plans. The first assault came only weeks after the 
Bush administration took office when they chose to put on hold all the 
proposed regulations that had been developed by the previous 
administration. Those regulations were the results of years of efforts 
by an independent committee of scientists. Those new regulations were 
science- and ecosystem-based. They reflected the state-of-the-art 
knowledge concerning the management of natural resources.
  One of the first things President Bush's new Assistant Secretary for 
Forests, Mark Rey, did was scrap all of these science-based, 
commonsense regulations. And in place of the science-based regulations 
encouraging conservation and protections, the new administration 
proposed regulations that reflect a wish list of the timber industry. 
Instead of ``the greatest good for the greatest number in the long 
run,'' the philosophy of this administration appears to be ``the 
greatest good for the special interests in the quickest time,'' using 
our forests for a few wealthy individuals.
  We have been expecting these new regulations for a while, but now it 
seems the administration might be holding back, afraid to show their 
cards in an election year. They know the American people will not stand 
for a President who time and again sells off our public lands, our 
public trust, to the highest bidder.
  The administration has succeeded in passing a law, the Healthy 
Forests Restoration Act, which has begun to codify some of their plans 
to sell, no, let me make that give away, our National Forests to the 
timber industry.
  Other sections of the act give timber companies the right to log big 
trees from the backcountry. Taxpayer dollars are going to be used to 
build roads that will take these timber industries into the 
backcountry, to take trees that pose no fire risk to people, all under 
the umbrella of this reckless piece of legislation.
  Healthy forests under this administration means healthy bank accounts 
for a fortunate few and barren hillsides for Americans and for the 
plants and animals and human beings that depend on truly healthy 
forests.
  On Earth Day we would do ourselves the biggest favor by looking back 
100 years and remembering the guiding philosophy of our country's first 
forester, ``the greatest good for the greatest number in the long 
run.''
  And I would suggest that Gifford Pinchot, our first forester, and 
Teddy Roosevelt would say to the Republicans, Why have you abandoned 
the time-tested bipartisan solutions?
  And with that I say once again to the gentleman from Oregon that he 
has been a great leader on these environmental issues, and I hope that 
we can continue to carry on these discussions and let the American 
people know that there are very important issues at stake on this Earth 
Day.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. 
We were just last night at the National Parks Conservation Association 
awards dinner, and we were reminded how these issues do not have 
partisan boundaries that are required, that it unites us as a country, 
that it spoke to opportunities that were different, hearkening back to 
the context that he offered up.
  I am hopeful that we can embrace the spirit of the history that he 
has given

[[Page 7452]]

us that will help guide and inform some of our decisions here, and I 
appreciate his leadership in trying to make that happen.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate, as we are 
referring to some history, we are joined by the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), someone I have been privileged to work with on 
issues dealing with water resources, the reform of some of the 
opportunities for the Corps of Engineers and how Congress works with 
the Corps of Engineers; and I note not only is he a leader in issues 
that deal with environment and uniting sports people of varied 
interests of his State but I think appropriate the legacy of that 
marvelous State of Wisconsin, and 34 years ago it was Senator Gaylord 
Nelson who helped launch us on this path.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for observations he might make 
that will help us focus on what we are celebrating here today.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Oregon 
for, first of all, taking time this evening for this Special Order to 
commemorate the 34th anniversary of Earth Day, and for the leadership 
he has shown on a variety of conservation and environmental measures 
that we have a chance to work on in the United States Congress.
  But I want to take a moment to pay a special tribute and give special 
thanks to a terrific statesman, a former Governor and former United 
States Senator from the great State of Wisconsin, the father of Earth 
Day, Senator Gaylord Nelson.
  It was his vision that led to the first Earth Day in our country over 
34 years ago. During his maiden speech in the United States Senate, he 
came out with 11 specific proposals on policy changes that we needed to 
pursue as a Nation in order to enhance the protection and the quality 
of our environment and our natural resources.
  He was one of the first public officials that recognized that 
economic growth and development could go hand in hand with the 
protection of our natural resources and the protection of our 
environment; that they did not have to be mutually exclusive.
  But he also recognized that public opinion was way ahead of public 
officials in this area; that it was the policymakers that needed to 
catch up with where the American people were; and recognizing the value 
of doing a better job, of being the stewards of our lands and our water 
and our air that we breathe, the environment in which we raise our 
children; and it is to him we owe a debt of gratitude that can never be 
repaid.
  This is a person who today if you talked to him, and he is still very 
active in the environmental field, working at the Wilderness Society 
here in Washington, delivering countless speeches every year, traveling 
extensively throughout the United States and parts of the world, who 
would probably be a little surprised to realize that last year, during 
the 33rd anniversary of Earth Day, there were hundreds of millions of 
people in over 180 countries all joining together to celebrate Earth 
Day, something that he gave birth to.
  He is also someone that recognizes that there is still so much more 
work that needs to be done. He has been invaluable to me personally 
with the conversations that I have had, the privilege of going to him 
for advice, whether it is on work and how better to preserve and 
protect the Mississippi River Basin, what we can do to guard against 
the global warming phenomena, which generations, unfortunately, will 
have to wrestle with today, and the unfinished business he left when he 
left the United States Senate many years ago, which is our calling 
today.
  There was a very good biography written about Senator Gaylord Nelson 
by a very talented former journalist and writer in Wisconsin, Bill 
Christopherson, entitled The Man From Clear Lake. That is the small 
town in which Gaylord Nelson was born and raised in. It is in 
northwestern Wisconsin, and it is small-town America. It is not too far 
from my wife's small town of Cumberland, where she was born and raised.
  But Gaylord Nelson is living testimony to the idea that one person 
with a great idea can have a profound change in the direction of our 
Nation and of the world. It was that idea of what we needed to do in 
working together, those of us in decision-making positions, but also 
all of us as citizens of this planet of ours, what we can do working 
together to better preserve and protect the natural resources so we 
leave a better legacy for our children to inherit.
  I come from a State with a very proud legacy of giants, like Gaylord 
Nelson, like Bill Proxmire, like Fighting Bob LaFollette, that gave 
birth to the progressive tradition in this country. But there is no one 
who I have idolized with greater esteem or have greater admiration for 
than that man from the small town of Clear Lake, Wisconsin, Gaylord 
Nelson, and the idea that he gave the Nation and the world 34 years ago 
today in envisioning the need for Earth Day celebrations, and the 
constant reminder to us that there is so much that we need to do to 
protect our environment, especially during challenging days like today 
when, unfortunately, there is an administration in power that seems 
quick to roll back much of the progress and much of the achievement 
that has been made over the last few decades, rolling back provisions 
of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts; releasing those 5 p.m. press 
releases from the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday afternoons 
when they think no one is paying attention or when people are starting 
their weekends or going to their Friday night dinners or whatever.
  But it is up to us to shed light on what is taking place, and it is 
up to us to try to foster the bipartisan atmosphere in which we have to 
work in order to make great strides in this area.
  So, again, I thank my colleague from Oregon for yielding me some time 
on this very special day and for the opportunity to pay tribute to a 
very special American, a great citizen, former Senator Gaylord Nelson.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. We appreciate your hard work and leadership in 
putting this spotlight on Senator Nelson.
  We have been joined by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who I 
note, no small note of irony, the President was celebrating Earth Day 
at a location that the gentleman and I have visited in the past in 
Wells, Maine, as we have been doing work environmentally. I did not 
know if the gentleman had any thoughts or observations based on that 
experience today in his district.
  I would be pleased to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership. It is true, the President is today visiting the Wells 
National Estuarine Research Reserve up at the Laudholm Farms. The 
gentleman and I went there 2 years ago. We also went up a mountain 
nearby that is part of a project that people are trying to save some 
land.
  Though we appreciate the President coming to Maine on Earth Day, it 
really cannot hide the fact that his record on the environment is one 
of probably the worst records of any President in my lifetime.
  Let me give a few examples. He went today to the Wells National 
Estuarine Research Reserve. It is very clear when you look at the 
budget that the President has proposed, in light of the need for more 
research funds for marine-related research, he came because his budget 
proposes to increase funding for this tiny $16 million National 
Estuarine Research System by 3 percent. That is a 3 percent increase. 
So, this small program gets a reasonable increase, but it is the 
exception.
  The reserve system is an important part of NOAA's Ocean and Coastal 
Management Program, which President Bush proposes to cut by 20 percent. 
The National Ocean Service is cut a whopping 35 percent. NOAA itself 
receives an overall 8 percent reduction.
  The President proposes to reduce the budget of the EPA, the Fish and 
Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service. He proposes to seriously 
underfund

[[Page 7453]]

the National Park Service. He proposes to slash the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund that purchases Federal land for facilities like the 
Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. As a result of Land and Water 
Conservation Fund cuts, the Fish and Wildlife Service received only $10 
million this year for lands nationwide.
  Maine, on the other hand, is investing more, renewing its commitment 
to bond funding for what we call the Land for Maine's Future Program.
  A couple of other points. Mercury contamination is now a huge issue 
in this country. The EPA recently announced that twice the number of 
infants are born with high levels of mercury in their blood than they 
thought before. Now, 600,000 infants are born each year. The Maine 
Bureau of Health has a warning, and it reads as follows: ``Pregnant and 
nursing women, women who may get pregnant, and children under 8 should 
not eat any freshwater fish from Maine's inland waters.''
  We have gone about the process of restricting emissions from our 
waste incinerators, and yet coal-fired power plants from across the 
country still emit 48 tons of mercury every year. It gets up in the 
air, it runs with the wind west to east, it comes down in the rain, it 
pollutes our waterways, it gets into our fish and is consumed by human 
beings.
  But what is the President's record on mercury? He has delayed full 
mercury regulation from 2008 to 2030, submitting another generation of 
Maine children and children around the country to fish they cannot 
safely consume. We believe that what he has done is illegal under the 
Clean Air Act.
  Really, Maine has taken the opposite approach, trying to regulate 
everything we can with respect to the mercury emissions that are within 
our control. It is just another contrast.
  I happen to feel he came to Maine because Maine has a record as an 
environmentally-conscious State. But it takes more than a visit to my 
State to make you an environmentalist.
  I will mention two other things quickly. Ozone pollution, Wells, 
Maine, where the President visited today has just been found to be out 
of compliance with the 8-hour ozone health-based standards under the 
Clean Air Act. Let me tell you, Wells, Maine, is not polluting the air. 
There is not enough manufacturing activity going on in Wells to pollute 
Wells or any surrounding communities. This is pollution that comes to 
our State from outside.
  The President's action in this regard with respect to ozone pollution 
has been to undermine the New Source Review court cases filed by the 
Clinton administration that would have led to the most significant 
reduction in air pollution in recent memory, and he has issued new New 
Source Review rules that allow the dirtiest power plants in the country 
to continue to pollute, even when they expand their capacity to produce 
electricity.
  I have always said he has what he calls his Clear Skies legislation, 
and if I have ever heard of legislation that is a triumph of marketing 
over substance, it is Clear Skies, because it does not clear the skies, 
it clouds them. It would not be as effective as the enforcement of 
existing law.
  Finally, climate change. Here is an issue, the President made a 
promise in the campaign. He walked away from it right after he was 
elected. In Wells, Maine, this estuarine area, this is the kind of area 
that is at risk from climate change and rising seas. It seems to me 
once again the rest of the world is concerned about this issue. The 
science is clear. The President denies the science and simply refuses 
to deal with one of the growing and potentially horrendous 
environmental challenges that lie in front of us.
  There is a better way. We can work together based on sound science 
with a commitment to improving the quality of our air and water for 
ourselves and our children for years to come. This administration will 
not do that, but I know others will.
  I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's illustrations. We were 
on this floor earlier this week talking about the long-term budget 
implications which will guarantee that these unfortunate, ill-advised 
and unacceptable cuts are the tip of the iceberg, and we are going to 
be looking at that for years to come unless we change the priorities of 
the administration or unless we change the administration.
  We are reaching a conclusion here. We have three more of my 
colleagues. I think we have at least 4 minutes each for them. I will 
not take more of my time.
  But I would turn, if I could, to my friend from California (Mr. 
Farr), who is here not just on Earth Day, but this week as a spokesman 
and a champion for ocean health and environment. It is a great 
juxtaposition, and I am happy to yield time for him to make some 
comments that would be appropriate.
  Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, my distinguished colleague from 
Portland, Oregon. I think but for your personal involvement in changing 
a city, we would not see the cities of America be as beautiful as 
Portland, Oregon, one of the most beautiful places to live now, and 
certainly the transportation system that the gentleman created there is 
the model for the country.
  I am proud to be here on this 34th anniversary of Earth Day with all 
my colleagues. As I heard the people before me, I could not help but 
think that some of my colleagues will someday be future U.S. Senators, 
Governors and members of the Cabinet. With what they have said, it is 
obvious that their hearts and minds are in the right place.
  I have a long statement, and I will submit it for the Record. I just 
wanted to say that today we launched, and this week, essentially a 
focus on how we should upgrade the oceans in America. We have ignored 
them. We paid attention to clean air, clean water, and we have 10 
different agencies, departments in the Federal Government, hundreds of 
laws, and the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
  We have had a private sector report by the Pew Commission, a public 
sector report that we in Congress authorized, the U.S. Oceans 
Commission. They made the report back to Congress on Tuesday of this 
week. Now it is our responsibility, the legislative branch of 
government, to come up with a new organization, new laws, that will 
essentially focus on the ocean. In essence, to put it in perspective, 
more than 1,500 people have successfully climbed Mount Everest; more 
than 300 people have journeyed into space; 12 people walked on the 
moon; but only 2 people have ever descended to the bottom of the ocean 
and returned.

                              {time}  1815

  They are about that. I mean, we just do not know about the ocean. We 
know more about the Moon than we know about the oceans on the planet.
  So we are going to spend the next few months here developing an 
oceans bill that I think will set the policy for this country, which 
will hopefully lead the policy of the world and the mechanism for 
ensuring that the oceans can be managed on an ecosystem basis and they 
can be cleaned up and made as the lungs of this Earth for children for 
generations to come.
  It is the responsibility of this generation. We have found it in bad 
shape, and we have got to leave it in better shape.
  I would just conclude on this Earth Day by inviting everybody to go 
out this weekend to celebrate Earth Day. There are all kinds of 
activities in your local community. I think the best quote about Earth 
Day and ourselves is what Teddy Roosevelt once reminded this country. 
He said: ``Do what you can with what you have where you are. Just do 
it.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) 
must feel no small sense of satisfaction. I know that he was the 
driving force behind the first ocean's conference with President 
Clinton in his beautiful district in Monterey, bringing home how 
important this is to all of us. And I extend my deep appreciation for 
his leadership, insight, and patience.
  Mr. FARR. Let us hope we can get some good legislation adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include my statement for the Record at this 
point.

[[Page 7454]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are holding this special order on the 
occasion of the 35th anniversary of Earth Day.
  It is important that we take the time to recognize the importance of 
environmental conservation efforts and renew our commitment to them 
until we make everyday Earth Day.
  We all must do our parts to be good stewards of our ocean, our land 
and our atmosphere. This is the only planet that we have after all.
  Earth Day was born at a time of great concern over the degradation of 
the environment and the effects of that degradation on all species, 
including humans.
  I like to think of Earth Day as an ecological version of New Year's 
Day--a time to reflect, take stock and make resolutions.
  With that in mind, I want to take my time in this special order to 
talk about our oceans--two thirds of the earth that we need to know a 
lot more about.
  Tuesday's release of the ``U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy's'' report 
marks a milestone for our oceans and for the way we view them. Their 
report is the result of almost 2 years of reflecting and taking stock 
of our current ocean management practices.
  For the first time in more than 30 years, we as a nation, have re-
considered our relationship with the sea. Unfortunately, the past 30 
years have not been kind to our oceans.
  Plain and simple our oceans are in a state of crisis--a crisis that 
affects each and every one of us.
  Today, between one third and one half of the world's population lives 
within 50 miles of the coast.
  We all depend on our oceans and coasts from the person who lives off 
the water to the person who visits once in a lifetime.
  The oceans provide food, jobs, vacation spots, scientific knowledge, 
and opportunities for reflection, our movies our art and music.
  In spite of this we tend to act with a great deal of ignorance about 
how our own activities actually threaten that economic value. In fact 
we have limited knowledge of how oceans work as an ecosystem.
  I have some interesting numbers that I want to share with you. More 
than 1,500 people have successfully climbed Mount Everest. More than 
300 people have journeyed to space. 12 people have walked on the moon. 
Yet, only two people have descended and returned in a single dive to 
the deepest part of the ocean.
  Think about it--we know more about the moon than oceans on earth.
  This morning I was testifying on the other side of the Capitol at the 
Senate Commerce Committee.
  I met with Bob Ballard who showed me the most recent edition of 
Oceanography. He showed me two pictures. The first was of Mars and the 
second was of the ocean floor. What caught my eye was, to date, our 
pictures of outer space are 250 times higher resolution than from the 
ocean's depths.
  Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned Earth Day was born at a time of great 
concern over the deprivation of our environment and out of this grass 
root effort we saw dramatic changes.
  We proved that if we put our minds and resources to the problem, as 
we did in putting a man on the moon, we could bring things right again. 
We made giant progress with the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act.
  Sadly, these land mark pieces of legislation have recently come under 
fire, administratively there has been a failure to investigate 
violations and enforce the laws on the books.
  Protection of our oceans will require a change of course, a 
commitment from Congress and the administration. This commitment must 
be in the form of a new ocean ethic; one that is ecosystem-based with a 
governance structure that protects, restores, and maintains healthy 
marine ecosystems.
  Regrettably, all too often we take our oceans for granted: We 
underestimate their value and we ignore the negative consequences 
human-related activities can have on them.
  Our oceans represent the largest public trust resource in the U.S. 
and cover an area nearly one and a half times the size of the 
continental United States.
  Americans expect the Government to safeguard this vast resource and I 
hope that the report just released will be the motivation for us to 
actually begin to do so.
  Simply put, our current ocean and coastal management system, created 
over thirty years ago, is archaic and incompatible with new knowledge 
about how the oceans and coastal waters function as a whole.
  Our policies are fragmented, both institutionally and geographically.
  For example, today we find ourselves with over ten federal 
departments involved in the implementation of more than 130 ocean-
related statutes.
  It is time to reconsider this incoherent and often times incompatible 
management situation and bring order to our ocean governance structure.
  The U.S. Commission's Report and last year's Pew Report offer some 
guidance on how to do just this.
  We now know the natural world functions as interdependent ecosystems, 
with each species intricately connected to the other parts that make up 
the whole.
  The U.S. Commission's Report, as well as the independent Pew Oceans 
Commission Report released last June, clearly states that we must adopt 
a new policy framework that is based on the concept of ``the whole,'' 
an ecosystem-based approach rather than one based on political 
boundaries.
  This approach will not be as easy or straight forward as our previous 
approaches, but we must pass the legislation necessary to make it a 
reality.
  Part of making it a reality is creating a strong regional governance 
structure. With a comprehensive national ocean policy explicitly 
written to maintain healthy ocean ecosystems, our oceans will be a 
bountiful resource in which we can all take pride.
  The Report also stresses the importance of instilling a new 
ecosystem-based stewardship ethic. Involved in instilling this ethic is 
increasing ocean-related education for all Americans at all levels, 
from first-graders learning how to read to graduate students 
investigating challenging scientific processes.
  The U.S. Commission details suggestions on how we can instill a new 
stewardship ethic by emphasizing and investing in greater marine 
science education.
  The Report released earlier this week is, technically, a Preliminary 
Report. It is being sent to the Governors for their comments. This 
comment period lasts until May 21, 2004. I urge all my colleagues to 
contact their Governors, let them know how important this issue is.
  I sincerely hope that all states will take this opportunity to 
acknowledge that the oceans provide value for every American, whether 
intrinsic worth or direct economic benefit, and provide the Commission 
with input before the comment period ends.
  Despite historic and geographic patterns suggesting otherwise, every 
state has a role to play in the management of our oceans.
  The bipartisan House Oceans Caucus leadership is drafting 
legislation--the BOB, or Big Oceans Bill--that sets our country on the 
right path--the path of protecting our oceans.
  Many of the details are still being worked out; however, the broad 
sections of BOB include national governance, regional governance, 
science and technology, and education.
  We will be introducing our legislation this session. We have high 
hopes that our comprehensive bill will receive hearings and be 
considered this year, thereby demonstrating the bipartisan nature of 
the importance of protecting the health of our oceans for future 
generations.
  It is up to each of us to not let this unprecedented opportunity pass 
us by. With the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy and The Pew Oceans 
Commission Reports in the last year, the Bush Administration has a 
prime opportunity to take the steps necessary to instill a new ocean 
ethic in our government.
  And, it's my earth day resolution to work with all my colleagues to 
make the decisions necessary to protect our largest public trust 
resource.
  The time for leadership is now.
  I will close with a quote from Commission's report:

       The responsibility of our generation is to reclaim and 
     renew the oceans for ourselves, for our children, and--if we 
     do the job right--for those whose footprints will make the 
     sands of beaches from Maine to Hawaii long after ours have 
     washed away.

  Don't forget to celebrate Earth Day, too. There are activities and 
festivities scheduled everywhere. Get out and participate, revel in the 
spring, and help build awareness just by being there. As Teddy 
Roosevelt once said: ``Do what you can with what you have where you 
can.''
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, next there is the opportunity to hear 
from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis). Although she has been 
a more recent arrival to Congress, she has distinguished herself as a 
Member of the California legislature, as a tireless champion of the 
environment, of dealing with the problems at home on the neighborhood 
level, and has carried that passion back here affecting Federal 
policies. I am happy to yield to her.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.

[[Page 7455]]

Blumenauer) for providing us with the opportunity to celebrate Earth 
Day. We do have much to celebrate, but we also have to reflect on what 
is happening here in our country and what policies are having effects 
in our communities.
  I appreciate the fact that so many of my colleagues spoke before me 
very eloquently about the status of the environment here in our 
country. I am happy to talk a little bit about a place that I 
represent, and I represent the 32nd Congressional District in Southern 
California, much viewed by people as probably the armpit of America in 
many ways. Smog levels are very high. I have ownership of three Super 
fund sites. There are 17 gravel pits, many that are abandoned.
  So we have various problems that exist in our district, many 
challenges, long before I was even born. But that does not mean that we 
give up the hope to fight to improve those conditions for the people 
that I represent. And I was very fortunate in the California 
legislature to work on environmental justice legislation, one of the 
first pieces of legislation in the entire country to be codified in the 
State of California. And as a result I believe there are close to 30 
States now in this Union that have done likewise and have followed 
suit.
  It is unfortunate, however, that this administration here does not 
believe in the true essence of environmental justice. And what 
environmental justice means for many Americans and for people that I 
represent is equal treatment under the law when placing projects in our 
districts. And, unfortunately, people have had blindfolds on their eyes 
when they come into our district because they place projects that have 
negative effects on our health in my district.
  We have higher rates of asthma than other parts of L.A. County. We 
have children that cannot go out and play on the playgrounds when the 
summer heat goes up and the smog levels go up. We have children that 
have to go to the emergency trauma units because they are suffering 
from asthmatic attacks, both children and our elderly. We see that our 
drinking water is also contaminated.
  For many years there were prior Congressmen, for example, Congressman 
Torres, who led the way to clean up our basin almost 20 years ago. We 
still have not found a solution to entirely clean up our local area. 
Perchloric contaminates our water. That is rocket fuel that was allowed 
to enter into our water table through Department of Defense 
contractors. Many have come to the table to try to clean that up, but 
we have not gone far enough.
  And just yesterday we had a hearing in the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce regarding DOD exemptions that this administration would like 
to see rip away at the protections that we have in our States such as 
California. I came out strongly opposed to those exemptions as did many 
attorneys general representing many States as well as many water 
agencies and purveyors that want to provide clean water to millions and 
millions of people who live in our country. We need to do the right 
thing. And I know that I can count on my colleagues here that have 
spoken this evening to help educate the public that, in fact, there are 
Members of this Congress who are willing to fight, willing to stay here 
late, to do the right thing, to make sure that we do not erode the 
protections that have been in place for the last 50 years.
  And, as a new Member of Congress, I would like to say that I am proud 
to represent the district that I come from, East Los Angeles, that many 
people forget about. People there are experiencing high levels of 
unemployment. Many of them have low skills, low educational levels; and 
they live in the dirtiest communities in our country, and it is not 
fair. That is why we need strong laws. That is why we need adequate 
funding to protect everybody on an equal and fair basis.
  And I applaud the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and all the 
Members that have come forward tonight to share with us that Earth Day, 
in fact, should be a celebration for the entire world.
  In Spanish we say ``para todo el mundo.'' That means the entire 
world. The entire world is looking at us right now to see that we do 
the right thing, to see that we address the issues of global warming, 
water pollution, clean air. Those are the things that my community is 
advocating for, and I am going to continue to fight for that.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear that there is very 
little likelihood that East Los Angeles will be forgotten with my 
colleague's eloquence, her insights, and her leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to turn to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee), who has represented several congressional districts. He has 
distinguished himself with the wilderness and with energy and with 
thinking about how these pieces fit together for the future. I am 
honored to yield to him this evening.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join this 
effort on Earth Day. I have two messages, one inspirational and one 
that desires, frankly, a good fight. Let me start with the 
inspirational message. I want to tell my colleague about a friend of 
mine, a Dennis Hayes, who as a young man the first Earth Day stood up 
and said, I am going to become personally committed to the environment 
of the globe. And he became, actually, the manager of the organization 
that conducted the first Earth Day. And Dennis Hayes is still fired 
with the vigor of dealing with these multiple environmental challenges, 
and he is working in Seattle now for the Bullet Foundation, which helps 
promote many great ideas and environmental agendas.
  I hope other people who are of his youth become inspired on multiple 
environmental challenges now, politically and otherwise, and stay 
working as long as Dennis has, who is still working on solar cell 
technology and a host of other efforts to deal with our energy.
  I appreciate this opportunity. We will have other opportunities next 
week to continue this discussion.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, the 34th annual 
Earth Day is a time to reflect on our stewardship of the environment: 
where we have been, and where we are going. We should use this 
opportunity to rethink our current direction. America's status-quo 
energy policy is untenable. Our dependence on fossil fuels is polluting 
our air and water, overheating our planet, and tying up our foreign 
policy. Yet a sustainable, energy-efficient future lies before us--if 
we are willing to reach for its.
  The consequences of fossil fuel use are everywhere. The Environmental 
Protection Agency determined that almost 500 counties across the 
country suffer from unhealthy levels of smog that must be reduced. Gas 
prices have hit record highs, which bites into the cost of living for 
ordinary Americans and threatens economic growth. Our dependence on oil 
limits our foreign policy and makes us rely on other nations for 
survival. And behind it all looms global warming.
  The biggest lost opportunity of the current Administration has been 
the failure to set a goal for this country of halving our dependence on 
fossil fuels in the next decade. I believe in the American entrepreneur 
and our ability to develop technologies that will dramatically reduce 
our dependence on fossil fuels. Many of those technologies already 
exist. Many are on our roads. But they must be nurtured if they are to 
develop further.
  The first step is to encourage the use of hybrid gas-electric cars. 
These cars have double the gas mileage of standard cars and 
dramatically lower emissions. Moreover, unlike other clean car 
technologies, they are also available now in meaningful numbers. With a 
small encouragement, we can bring about the widespread adoption of this 
exciting new technology.
  Hybrids are only the first step. We should draw on our technological 
prowess to solve our energy challenges with renewable sources of energy 
that reduce pollution, such as solar, geothermal, biomass, landfill 
gas, and fusion. I have great confidence in America's technological 
know-how in solving these challenges; our national public policy should 
aim to create research and development incentives for the public sector 
to partner with the private sector in bringing promising technologies 
to market. As a nation, we must reduce pollution and help leave a 
sustainable energy future for our children.

[[Page 7456]]

  Together, we can turn our country away from its current unhealthy 
practices and toward a cleaner, more sustainable tomorrow. It will not 
be easy, but it must be done.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, on this Earth Day, I think it is vital to 
point out the increasing need for this country and this Congress to put 
together a sensible, rational energy policy that lowers our dependence 
on fossil fuels and continues to stimulate our economy.
  Developing such a policy is not simply about protecting our 
environment. From a national security standpoint, our dependence on 
oil, especially in the transportation sector, is a continuing danger. 
You can look under every rock and drill in every inch of wilderness and 
coastline we have, and we will simply never be able to meet our current 
level of consumption. The sobering fact is that the Middle East 
contains a tremendous share of the world's oil supply--and the more we 
remain dependent on their oil, the more we expose ourselves and the 
world to violence and terrorism.
  From a public health standpoint, we can no longer rely so heavily on 
those energy sources that are poisoning us. Coal is cheap and abundant 
in the U.S.--but its emissions, including mercury and sulfur dioxide, 
cause thousands of premature deaths and diseases like emphysema and 
asthma every year. These are the very human costs that we must consider 
when we think about where we are getting our energy.
  Of course, the environmental impact of our dangerous addiction to 
fossil fuels is well known. Even as our cars get cleaner, their 
combined carbon dioxide emissions, along with those from power plants 
and other sources, are largely to blame for global warming. The 
emissions from burning coal foul the air, creating smog and acid rain, 
while mercury falls to the ground and pollutes our waterways.
  Equally troubling is the way we extract fossil fuels--to get coal, we 
rip off the tops of mountains and dump them into nearby streams; to get 
oil and natural gas, we drill extensively, often risking spillage. The 
oil and gas industries seem to have an insatiable appetite for opening 
and exploiting our most precious lands and our coastlines--yet even 
they must realize that we cannot drill our way to a better energy 
future.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation we passed in this House last year was 
not an energy policy. It was a grab bag of goodies for special 
interests. The bill reads as if every sector of the energy industry 
simply submitted their wish lists, translated nicely into legislative 
language--much like the development of the recommendations of the Vice 
President's Energy Task Force.
  What we really need is a rational energy policy that puts us on the 
road to a more secure energy future. We should invest in research into 
renewable and sustainable sources and energy efficiency. We should set 
intelligent goals for the future: ten, twenty, fifty years in the 
future, how much energy should we be producing from each source? How 
much should we be consuming in each sector--transportation, 
residential, industrial? How can we protect our environment and our 
health while meeting the energy needs of a growing economy? We should 
also get our hands around the growing demand across the country for gas 
for our cars, electricity for our lights and computers, and natural gas 
for our heat--and find out how to be efficient as possible with all of 
that consumption.
  I would like to lay out a challenge to all of my colleagues. Let's 
reject the stalled energy legislation. Let's move beyond the politics 
of squeezing every last bit of oil, gas, and coal out of this country 
and work on policies that envision a sustainable, secure energy future. 
A future where more of our energy needs are met by those sustainable 
sources like wind fusion, the sun, and biomass. A future where 
Americans don't have to sacrifice their own health just to keep using 
their air conditioners. A future where cartels like OPEC no longer hold 
us captive to the volatile world oil market and our energy needs no 
longer imperil national security. A future where protecting our 
environment and meeting our energy needs go hand in hand.
  To do so will take patience, research, and some innovative thinking. 
I plan to do all of these in the coming months and years, and I hope my 
colleagues will join with me.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, Earth Day is a great day to call attention to 
the many environmental and public health challenges that face everyone 
on the planet. It is also a great opportunity to reflect on the history 
of the Earth Day movement and to pay tribute to one of recent history's 
great statesmen and founding father of the movement, our former Senator 
from Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson.
  Today, people all around the nation are celebrating Earth Day. Local 
communities have organized events to, once again, bring to the public 
eye the importance of working together to improve our quality of life 
and to protect our natural heritage.
  However, without the leadership of a passionate public servant from 
Wisconsin, we would no be breathing air as clean. We would not be 
swimming in lakes, rivers and streams as safe. We would not be enjoying 
the beauty of public lands as special as those we were able to protect 
under laws he championed. We would not be holding Earth Day 
celebrations each year on April 22nd.
  Earth Day was ``born'' in September, 1969. Senator Gaylord Nelson was 
invited to give a speech at a conference held at the Seattle Science 
Center. In his speech, he suggested that, just as Americans had been 
involved in ``teach-ins'' to protest the Vietnam war, the country 
should also set aside a day to call attention to the environmental 
problems facing our planet and to demand that Congress address those 
important issues. He expressed his firm belief that the American people 
needed to put their leaders ``on notice,'' and he encouraged folks 
everywhere to explain to their elected officials that they were tired 
of empty promises. It was time for real action on the environment.
  At that same conference, he suggested that in the spring of 1970, 
there should be a nation-wide grassroots demonstration on behalf of the 
environment, and he encouraged the listening public to participate. 
Wire services carried the story from coast to coast, and as history 
showed, the response was overwhelmingly positive.
  Within hours of that Seattle speech, telegrams, letters and telephone 
inquiries from across the country poured into his Senate office. His 
phones in the Capitol were literally ringing off the hook, as people 
called in to say that they wanted to organize Earth Day celebrations in 
their own communities. It was obvious that Senator Nelson had struck a 
chord, and that this was an idea whose time had come. Over the next 
four months, the calls and letters increased in number until his Senate 
staff was overwhelmed by the response. At that point, he decided to 
hire several talented students to help organize and respond to peoples' 
calls to action.
  Senator Nelson himself has said that no one individual or group had 
either the time or the resources to organize and coordinate all of the 
activities of the 20 million people and thousands of schools, community 
groups and others who made the first Earth Day such a success. Instead, 
he credits the many dedicated people in communities across the country, 
that were sparked to organize at the local level in response by his 
speech, and send a loud and clear wake-up call to their elected 
officials on the issue of environmental health. While his speech had 
resonated with Americans everywhere, and was clearly a catalyst for 
change, he insists that no single individual was responsible for 
organizing the first Earth Day. Rather, Earth Day 1970 literally 
organized itself. It is, to this day, a stellar example of how 
individuals can make a difference and literally change history.
  In April 1970, twenty million people spoke out for the environmental 
health of the planet--rich people and poor people, young and old, 
farmers and city dwellers, Republicans and Democrats--stood together 
for the planet. A week-long series of Earth Day events in Philadelphia 
drew over 30,000 people to Independence Mall on April 21, 1970 and an 
estimated 75,000 people to Fairmount Park on Earth Day itself, April 
22. People came in droves to listen to the keynote speaker and author 
of the landmark 1970 Clean Air Act, Senator Edmund Muskie.
  Following that initial activism, thousands more attended events at 
every college in that region during that week. The organizers of those 
events accomplished this without having any contact with Senator 
Nelson, his staff, or any other national coordinating body. Like 
ripples in a pond, thousands of people in other communities across the 
country organized their own local Earth Day events in 1970 until the 
movement was 20 million strong. Today, local, ad hoc Earth Day groups 
continue to organize their own events on April 22, focusing on the 
local, regional, national or global issues that matter most to them. 
That was and continues to be the strength and power of Earth Day.
  As Senator Nelson is fond of pointing out, it is the activist 
students and folks in communities across the country, and their actions 
as a group rather than those of any one individual, who ensured the 
environment finally took its place as a priority issue on the national 
political agenda. They made possible the dramatic environmental gains 
of the past 34 years. We are all in debt to that generation of young 
people--grade school, high school, and college--who supplied the 
energy, enthusiasm, and idealism that made Earth Day such a spectacular 
success. Earth Day was and is

[[Page 7457]]

a pluralistic event in which every individual and every group that 
wants to be involved is able to do so, and claim ``ownership'' of the 
day.
  Twenty years later, Earth Day has gone global and more than 200 
million people from 141 countries participated in the last celebration. 
However, the millions who rallied on that first Earth Day are what gave 
Senator Nelson's simple idea its power. And in 1995, while celebrating 
the 25th anniversary of Earth Day, President Bill Clinton appropriately 
honored Senator Nelson's timely contribution to the movement by 
presenting him with the Medal of Freedom.
  We can all be proud and grateful for the contribution of one of 
Wisconsin's great statesmen, the thoughtful and provocative founding 
father of Earth Day, Senator Gaylord Nelson.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, with today's celebration of Earth Day marked 
locally by public anxiety over lead contamination in our area drinking 
water, I thought it fitting to commemorate the life of Clair Patterson, 
a scientist who worked singlehandedly to reduce our exposure to lead 
and, in the process, save millions of lives.
  As a scientist specializing in the environment, Clair Patterson's 
pioneering work stretched across an unusual number of sub-disciplines, 
including archaeology, meteorology, oceanography, chemistry and 
geology. Despite these many areas of expertise, he is best known for 
determining the age of the Earth.
  The son of a postal worker, Clair Patterson began a lifelong 
attraction to chemistry that began at an early age and ultimately led 
to a thesis in molecular spectroscopy. Besides working on the Manhattan 
Project, he continued his dissertation in 1951 and analyzed lead 
samples that gave lead isotopic compositions for minerals separated 
from a billion-year-old sample of Precambrian granite.
  Prompted by a visit to the U.S. Geological Survey in Washington DC, 
Mr. Clair Patterson began research that opened up a new field of dating 
for geologists. This led to hundreds of age determinations based on his 
methods and techniques and affirmed his predictions on the most 
accurate age of the planet.
  In 1962, he and other scientists observed that the lead concentration 
in the deeper parts of the Pacific Ocean were 3 to 10 times less than 
surface water. These observations provided new evidence that human 
industrial activity had disturbed the natural geochemical cycle for 
lead and raised concentrations levels.
  He could have stopped there and returned to his scientific and 
academic pursuits. He did not and for that we should all be grateful. 
He deserves recognition today for taking a different path. A path that 
invited controversy, derision from many of his peers and even threats 
from industries he challenged. When he found that the lead 
concentration in the blood of many Americans was over 100 times that of 
the natural level, and dangerously close to the accepted limit for 
symptoms of lead poisoning to occur, he began to track down the sources 
of lead contamination and take on the industries responsible for 
polluting the environment with lead and challenged governments, 
Federal, State and local to limit our exposure.
  He wrote to California Governor Pat Brown emphasizing the dangerously 
high levels of lead in aerosols, particularly in the Los Angeles area. 
In it he claimed that the California Department of Public Health was 
not doing all it should to protect the population from the dangers of 
lead poisoning. By 1966, Governor Brown signed a bill directing the 
State Department of Public Health to hold hearings and to establish air 
quality standards for California by February 1, 1967. Although that 
deadline was not met, Patterson clearly played a role in advancing 
concern over California air control standards.
  He testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water 
Pollution in 1966. Patterson believed it was wrong for public health 
agencies to work so closely with lead industries, whom he considered 
often biased in matters concerning public health.
  By 1970, Patterson and his colleagues had completed studies of snow 
strata from Greenland and Antarctica that showed clearly the increase 
in atmospheric lead began with the industrial revolution. Modern 
Greenland snow contained over 100 times the amount of lead in pre-
industrial snow, with most of the increase occurring over the last 100 
years.
  In 1971, he criticized a National Research Council report on the 
Environmental Protection Agency's policies on lead pollution as not 
being forceful enough in interpreting its data and being too heavily 
weighted toward industrial scientists. Although Patterson's work was 
initially ignored, by December 1973 the EPA announced a program to 
reduce lead in gasoline by 60-65 percent in phased steps. Thus was the 
beginning of the removal of lead from gasoline.
  In the late 1970s Patterson turned his attention to lead in food. He 
wrote to the commissioner of food and drugs at the Environmental 
Protection Agency asserting that his headquarters laboratory could not 
correctly analyze for lead in tuna fish and called for more accurate 
analysis. Patterson made several recommendations for improvements that 
were taken seriously and prompted EPA to conduct better lead analyses.
  In 1980, Patterson and a fellow researcher Dorothy M. Settle 
published a warning on the amount of lead entering the food chain due 
to lead solder used in sealing cans. By 1993 lead solder was removed 
from all food containers in the United States. Patterson's influence is 
again clearly evident.
  Patterson was appointed in 1978 to a 12 member National Research 
Council panel to evaluate the state of knowledge about environmental 
issues related to lead poisoning. The panel report cite the need to 
reduce lead hazards for urban children (a finding that demands renewed 
attention following the Washington area's lead scare) and called for 
further research on the relationship between lead ingestion and 
intellectual ability.
  In short, Patterson argued that the dangers of lead were already 
clear enough and that efforts should start immediately to drastically 
reduce or completely remove industrial lead from the everyday 
environment. That included gasoline, food containers, foils, paint, and 
glazes. He also cited water distribution systems and urged 
investigations into biochemical effects of lead at the cellular level.
  As we reflect on Patterson's lifelong commitment to environmental 
health, we must listen to today's unsung heroes who are calling for 
more vigilant protection of public health and an end to the assault on 
our Nation's environmental laws that jeopardize the health of our 
children and grandchildren.
  In a world increasingly marked by technological and scientific 
innovation, Clair Patterson's lifelong efforts demand renewed 
attention. On this Earth Day, as we see so many of our country's 
environmental laws being rolled back, let us honor Clair Patterson's 
lifelong commitment to finding that balance between modern technology 
and preserving the environmental and human health. We have a collective 
responsibility to preserve our natural surroundings for generations to 
come.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the 34th 
anniversary of Earth Day. Started in 1970 by Wisconsin's own Senator 
Gaylord Nelson, this annual celebration marks the birth of the modern 
environmental movement.
  For much of the 20th century, people accepted pollution as the 
inevitable price of progress. That began to change in the early 1960s. 
In 1970, when Senator Nelson saw that few U.S. leaders were paying 
attention to public concern about the environment, he announced a 
series of teach-ins across the country to be held on April 22. That 
year, 20 million people participated in the first Earth Day.
  Soon after, the Congress passed and President Nixon signed a series 
of unprecedented laws creating the Environmental Protection Agency, 
establishing national limits for air and water pollutants, and 
requiring environmental impact assessments before federally funded 
projects could begin.
  Sadly, the current administration seems to be doing all it can to 
reverse decades of bipartisan progress on the environment at the behest 
of large special interests. Landmark legislation that has successfully 
protected the public health such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, 
and the Safe Drinking Water Act are under assault.
  It would appear that Senator Nelson's visionary efforts to build a 
grassroots movement to demonstrate the public's insistence on a clean 
and healthy environment for themselves and future generations, is 
needed as much today as it was 34 years ago.
  And, in fact, Earth Day continues to be an event that unites people 
concerned about their environment, and who strive to protect it for our 
children's future. Last year, hundreds of millions of people in more 
than 180 countries around the world came together to celebrate the 
progress that has been made over the past 33 years.
  Today, the vast majority of Americans do not believe that pollution 
is a necessary price for our progress, and want clean air, clean water 
and pristine public lands for their children. People want their 
government to improve, rather than undermine our country's public 
health and environmental protections. Instead of taking steps 
backwards, I urge the President to engage in the bipartisan work needed 
to build on a positive environmental

[[Page 7458]]

agenda that Senator Gaylord Nelson envisioned when he started Earth 
Day.
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, Earth Day, to discuss the 
critical importance of investing in America's clean water 
infrastructure. As we begin the 21st century, investment in water 
infrastructure stands as one of the most important economic and 
environmental investments our government will make.
  Since 1972, our Nation has made important progress in improving the 
water quality of lakes, rivers and harbors across the land. However, we 
are at an important crossroad in the effort to make our Nation's waters 
fishable and swimmable. Recent studies by EPA, GAO and the Water 
Infrastructure Network all point to a water infrastructure funding 
crisis. According to EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water Gap Analysis, 
America is facing a $535 billion funding shortfall for water 
infrastructure over the next two decades. This analysis comes at a time 
when the Federal Government is committing less than $2 billion dollars 
a year to water and wastewater infrastructure.
  The most significant improvements in water quality have resulted from 
our investments in wastewater treatment--if we fail to replace and 
upgrade existing wastewater treatment facilities we could see the 
progress of the past 30 years reversed. As we enter the summer months, 
over 30 million fisherman will head to their favorite fishing holes, 
millions more Americans will head to beaches and lakes for a refreshing 
swim. These simple summer pleasures share one common element--clean 
water.
  Investing in clean water infrastructure also makes eminent economic 
sense. According to the American Public Works Association, over 40,000 
jobs are created for every billion dollars that is invested in 
wastewater infrastructure construction.
  As we reflect on the importance of clean water to our quality of 
life, I believe it is time to consider providing water infrastructure 
with the same funding priority we assign to highways and airports. 
Congress must begin considering long-term, dedicated funding for our 
Nation's water infrastructure.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Earth Day, it is important 
to reflect upon our environmental accomplishments and plan for the 
environmental challenges ahead. For over three decades investments in 
clean water infrastructure, wastewater treatment facilities, have been 
the linchpin of water quality improvements in lakes, rivers and bays. 
Today, over 30 million Americans enjoy fishing in waters that have been 
improved through wastewater treatment investments.
  Unfortunately, the future of clean water has become increasingly 
murky. According to analysis conducted by the Environmental Protection 
Agency and confirmed in studies by the Water Infrastructure Network and 
the Government Accounting Office, America is facing a water and 
wastewater infrastructure funding gap that will exceed $500 billion 
over the next 20 years. This infrastructure funding crisis, if not 
addressed, will have devastating economic and environmental 
consequences for our Nation.
  Historically, Congress has developed legislation providing long-term, 
dedicated sources of funding for massive infrastructure investment 
priorities. Our Nation's highway and aviation infrastructure needs are 
funded primarily through dedicated trust funds. I believe it is time to 
begin a constructive dialogue between State, local and Federal 
officials on how our Nation is going to ensure that needed investments 
in clean water infrastructure are going to be made in the future.
  Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the 34th 
anniversary of Earth Day, I rise to recognize the ongoing struggle to 
preserve and protect our environment for future generations. We have 
made significant progress since the first Earth Day in 1970, but recent 
funding cuts and policy changes are now jeopardizing vital 
environmental programs such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air 
Act. The Natural Resources Defense Council, a national organization 
that advocates environmental action, recently released a report, 
``Rewriting the Rules,'' which documents more than 150 assaults on our 
environmental safeguards between January 2003 and March 2004. Of 
particular concern is the rollback of environmental regulations that 
keep sewage out of our waterways and drinking water, protect our public 
lands, and limit mercury pollution in our air. As the principal sponsor 
of Missouri's Clean Air and Air Emissions Standards Acts during my 
tenure in the state legislature and as Chairwoman of the Missouri 
Commission on Global Climate Change and Ozone Depletion, I am alarmed 
and concerned by these weakened standards. Earth Day was created in 
1970 as a call to action after drastic environmental events such as the 
chemical emergency at Love Canal and the ``death'' of Lake Erie. This 
massive environmental protest drew attention to environmental problems 
plaguing communities across our country. Today, we must continue that 
commitment to preserve our planet not only on our continent, but around 
the world. As we honor the 34th anniversary of Earth Day, we 
acknowledge the achievements of some of our most conscientious global 
environmental leaders. On April 19, the Sierra Club awarded the 15th 
annual Goldman Environmental Prize to several grassroots activists who 
have worked to make our world a better place to live.
  These seven leaders, Rudolf Amenga-Etego of Ghana, Rashida Bee and 
Chama Devi Shukla of India, Manana Kochladze of Georgia, Demetrio Do 
Amaral de Carvalho of East Timor, Margie Eugene-Richard of the U.S., 
and Libia Grueson of Colombia, have made significant contributions to 
their communities: providing safe drinking water for the people, 
seeking justice for world disaster survivors, blocking the construction 
of environmentally damaging oil pipelines, leading reforestation and 
watershed management programs, fighting pollution and protecting 
rainforests. Yet as these global activists serve their communities and 
work to better their environment, here in the United States we are 
rolling back much of the progress our own leaders have made. We must 
reverse this direction and restore our commitment to the environment, 
to breathable air and drinkable water, and to preservation of wildlife 
and our quality of life.
  On the first Earth Day in 1970, I joined more than 20 million 
Americans in demonstrating for a healthy, sustainable environment. I 
have worked at the state and federal levels for landmark legislation 
such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species 
Act, Global Climate Change and the establishment of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, among other legislative initiatives.
  This Saturday, I join members of my community in celebrating our 
local progress at the Eighth Annual Bridging the Gap Earth Day Walk. 
Kansas City has developed a plan to restore and maintain our natural 
resources for current and future generations. I worked with the city to 
assure biodiesel as an alternative source of energy for our buses in 
order to maintain our air quality for the health of our citizens.
  There is much more we must do to ensure the protection of our 
environment. We must strengthen, not weaken, regulations that protect 
our natural resources. We must provide necessary funding for programs 
that ensure the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink. 
On this 34th anniversary of Earth Day, we must pledge to continue our 
commitment to protecting and preserving our environment.
  Mr. Speaker, please join me in recognizing this important anniversary 
of Earth Day and saluting organizations like the Sierra Club that act 
globally to honor those who work for sustaining our planet.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on Earth Day, to speak out in 
support of policies that protect our planet, promote energy security, 
and preserve human health. Unfortunately, in its 3 years in office, the 
Bush administration has launched an all-out assault on our environment 
in all three of these areas.
  Bush policies have weakened protections on air, water, and public 
lands, and these assaults pose a direct threat to public health now and 
in the future. The actions we take now to protect these vital resources 
and to reinvent our approach to energy will have enormous consequences 
for future generations. Global warming, perhaps the most catastrophic 
and far-reaching consequence of our current practices, will not wait; 
our efforts to tackle these problems can't wait either.
  We need to begin by preserving existing protections, from maintaining 
the well being of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by continuing to 
ban drilling in this precious wilderness to maintaining the well being 
of our children by halting the disastrous Bush administration rollbacks 
of our clean air and water regulations.
  Our next step must be enforcement of existing laws and regulations. 
The Republican budget cuts environmental programs by $39 billion. At 
those levels, we cannot enforce existing public health safeguards. To 
make matters worse, the administration has abandoned the ``polluter 
pays'' principle: taxpayers, not the polluters themselves, will now be 
responsible for the costs of cleaning up toxic Superfund sites. And one 
in every four people in this country live within 4 miles of a major 
toxic waste site on the Superfund list.
  For people of color, these numbers are even worse and so are the 
consequences. Life expectancy itself is an environmental justice issue. 
In this country, life expectancy projections are shaped as much by race 
as by gender. These disparities follow a cradle to grave cycle: 
beginning with infant mortality,

[[Page 7459]]

continuing with workplace hazards and increased exposure to pollution, 
and ending with disparate access to healthcare, diagnoses, and medical 
treatment.
  We see these forces clearly in diseases that strike most deeply into 
our cities and affect children most severely. Asthma rates among the 
urban poor are reaching alarming proportions. Death rates from asthma, 
and a host of other treatable diseases, are significantly higher among 
African Americans than any other ethnic group. Asthma rates in Oakland, 
in my district, are among the highest in the country. Children in West 
Oakland are seven times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma than 
children in the rest of California.
  On Earth Day, it is important that we recognize just what is at stake 
here: our air, our water, our lands, and our children's health. We need 
to stop the Bush administration's assault on existing protections, and 
we need to invest in new solutions, especially in the energy arena, 
that will increase our own security as well as protect the environment 
around us.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the world recognizes 
Earth Day, to express my strong concern with a recent proposal by the 
administration to weaken standards on mercury emissions from power 
plants.
  This administration seems to have forgotten that Earth Day is our 
special day to look at the planet and see what needs changing. We 
should be moving forward with environmental policy, as we have done for 
nearly 35 years. Unfortunately, I fear that this administration is set 
on reversing these decades of progress.
  My constituents and other Americans are being shortchanged by 
attempts to weaken clean water and clean air standards, particularly 
the mercury proposal. As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on 
Women's Issues, I am very concerned that women and children, the groups 
who are at most risk from mercury exposure, are hurt by this proposal. 
A recent analysis by the EPA indicates that 1 in 6 women of 
childbearing age have levels of mercury in their blood at unsafe 
levels; 1 in 12 women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her 
system to pose a potential threat to fetal health. This contamination 
results in more than 600,000 newborns at risk of neurological problems 
due to mercury exposure.
  We need to take immediate action to reduce women and children's 
exposure to mercury. Under the Clean Air Act, toxic substances like 
mercury must be controlled at each and every power plant by using the 
maximum achievable control technologies. Two years ago, EPA estimated 
that under this standard, existing technologies could reduce 90 percent 
of mercury pollution from power plants, bringing mercury emissions down 
to roughly 5 tons per year by 2008.
  Unfortunately, EPA's proposed mercury standards are not protective of 
public health. The emission limits proposed are 10-20 times higher than 
what some plants achieve today. In the end, EPA's proposal allows power 
plants to emit six to seven times more mercury into our airways for a 
decade longer compared what EPA has said is achievable. I call on the 
administration to significantly strengthen this approach so that as 
much mercury as possible is removed from the emissions of each and 
every power plant.
  It is sad that this administration has absolutely no environmental 
accomplishments on its record. The administration has repeatedly 
ignored the dangers that environmental toxins like mercury pose to 
women and children, and instead bends over backwards to cater to their 
friends in polluting industries. We cannot continue to play politics 
with human health, the environment and our children's futures.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as you know, Earth Day marks a day of 
reflection for the American public, an opportunity to evaluate our 
progress in the fight to protect our environment. This past year we 
have seen the Bush administration's blatant disregard for the 
environment. Each one of us has the responsibility to stand up for 
environmental protection irrespective of the wishes of special 
interests. However, my Republican colleagues have failed to keep our 
Nation's commitment to a healthy and secure environment.
  I have been here for a long time. I am proud of the role I played in 
many of our cornerstone environmental laws. In the 1970s, we recognized 
that we owe it to future generations to protect the environment, the 
laws we passed were not revolutionary, they were common sense. These 
laws were passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. One could even 
say that these environmental laws were so important that they were, in 
fact, nonpartisan.
  Sadly, the tide has turned.
  The Bush administration has shown, over and again, that they care 
more about their corporate buddies than the health and well-being of 
the American public. This has resulted in the weakening of some of our 
most fundamental environmental protections, including the Clean Water 
Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Producing profits for 
their fat cat friends has given rise to plans to open protected lands 
for oil and gas drilling. Commercial logging companies have been 
invited into our national forests and attempts to dredge and fill our 
wetlands. Mr. Speaker, this administration does not recognize that we 
can have, and we have had, both economic booms and environmental 
protection. The two are not mutually exclusive.
  One item on this extreme, anti-environment agenda is altering our 
current Superfund program. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have abandoned the ``polluter pays'' principle and have instead turned 
to the taxpayer to ``pay the polluter'' and shoulder the cost of toxic 
waste cleanups. In 1995, the Clinton administration paid for 82 percent 
of toxic waste clean-ups from the Superfund Trust Fund, funded by 
polluter-paid fees. The current administration, on the other hand, has 
emptied this fund and are handing the bill to the American taxpayer. 
Furthermore, the swiftness of cleanups has declined 45 percent from the 
average of 87 sites per year during President Clinton's second term to 
a mere 40 sites in 2003. Polluters need to be held responsible, which 
is why ``polluter pays'' should be restored.
  Furthermore, my Republican colleagues have undermined the safeguards 
put in place by the Clean Water Act. President Bush's guidance to 
federal agencies has left 20 million acres of wetlands and countless 
miles of streams unprotected. What's more, the administration is 
proposing to slash states' Clean Water revolving loan funds by $492 
million in 2005. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Water Act protects all waters 
of the United States, a fact this administration fails to see. Today, 
as a result of the Clean Water Act, our lakes, rivers, and streams are 
in considerably better condition than they were 30 years ago. But that 
progress can easily be lost. We cannot let these unprincipled rascals 
in the White House continue to roll back the Clean Water Act.
  An additional assault on our environmental laws appears in President 
Bush's forest policy. I am particularly concerned that President Bush's 
plan calls for overriding and ignoring many environmental rules, 
resulting in the stifling of public input and the reliance on private 
industry to do work on local forests. This outlandish plan attempts to 
justify destroying forests in the name of saving them. The roadless 
rule has opened pristine forests, such as the Tongass National Forest, 
to logging projects, threatening one of America's few remaining 
temperate rain forests. As the author of the National Environmental 
Policy Act, I believe the Federal Government must weigh the 
environmental consequences of an action before it is undertaken. This 
is a common sense law that needs to be enforced, not rolled back.
  When I first arrived in Congress, the United States had virtually no 
environmental protection statutes on the books. Businesses, governments 
and individuals could spew into the air, pump into the water, or dump 
onto the ground virtually anything--with impunity. Our Government has 
made strong environmental gains during the past generation and the 
current administration is a threat to that progress. Ultimately, it 
must be our goal as a nation to create and maintain a vibrant, thriving 
and healthy ecosystem.
  Mr. Speaker, we borrow the Earth from future generations, and we owe 
it to these future inhabitants to protect it to the best of our 
ability. We have serious environmental problems, but unfortunately, the 
Bush administration is making matters worse, not better.
  Mr. ACEVEDO-VILA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show strong support 
for Earth Day. It is a great opportunity to encourage citizens to be 
conscious and take action regarding their responsibility towards 
environmental protection.
  The first Earth Day was held in 1970 as an annual event to honor our 
planet and our responsibility for it. Earth Day's purpose is to educate 
our citizens of the importance of conserving the environment and to 
encourage them to restore their local community, improving quality of 
life and human health for all.
  The natural resources of Earth are the essential components of our 
environment and the development of life; therefore our dedication to 
its conservation is very important for sustaining future generations. 
Currently, Puerto Rico, as well as the rest of the world, is facing 
many environmental challenges due primarily to human development and 
environmental pollution. Essential resources such as water, air, soil 
and biodiversity are threatened by human activity. The existing 
population of Puerto Rico is almost 4 million people and this 
overpopulation results in limited available resources to support its 
residents. Water scarcity and contamination, air pollution and climate 
change, the destruction of natural habitats for construction, erosion 
causing water

[[Page 7460]]

shortage, and the endangerment of many species are among the main 
problems that our environment is facing.
  Pure water is essential for all life on Earth and provides habitat to 
many organisms. The human race is putting in serious danger this vital 
resource by the energy production, interruption of water flows, 
deforestation, and the wasting of water by those who overuse this 
resource. Air is an essential resource for life as well. Its pollution 
comes primarily from coal burning power plants, automobiles, and 
industrial operations. These activities affect not only human health 
but also the atmosphere that protects us from the sun's radiation. 
Human activities also destroy biodiversity through contamination, 
deforestation and destruction of natural habitats for construction and 
other developments. As humans, we are totally dependent on nature for 
survival and, instead of conserving, our actions negatively impact 
nature.
  In Puerto Rico, we are faced with immediate challenges in areas like 
Vieques, Culebra and Roosevelt Roads, where contamination threatens the 
health and well being of thousands of residents, water quality, and 
sustainable economic development. Residents of these regions deserve 
full and prompt clean up and decontamination of their lands. Another 
challenge for the Island is the protection and recovery of endangered 
species population. Endemic species' population such as the golden 
coqui (Eleutherodactylus jasperi), the Puerto Rican boa (Epricates 
inornatus), and the Puerto Rican parrot (Amazona vittata) that lives 
primarily at the Caribbean National Forest, El Yunque, have been 
significantly reduced due to encroachments of their habitats. The West 
Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) and the green sea turtle (Chelonia 
mydas) are other examples of endangered species as a result of marine 
contamination on coastal areas due to human development.
  In order to protect some of the natural environment of Puerto Rico, I 
have introduced legislation designating approximately 10,000 acres of 
land in the Caribbean National Forest in Puerto Rico as the El Toro 
Wilderness and as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation 
System. Through this legislation, the habitats within the El Toro 
Wilderness will be protected, as well as the forest's magnificent 
biodiversity.
  It is necessary to educate our citizens about the importance of 
environmental conservation and conservation practices to maintain the 
natural resources of Puerto Rico and the rest of the world for future 
generations. This can be better accomplished by providing information 
through schools, communication media, conservation programs, and 
volunteer or special activities. Earth Day is a perfect moment to put 
in practice these goals by instructing and encouraging citizens to 
contribute to environmental conservation. As responsible and dedicated 
citizens to the conservation of our environment, Earth Day should 
become an every day priority to ensure and increase the quality of life 
and human health. Earth Day is not only one day; it is every day 
because every day is a good time to consider our environment, and take 
action to protect the nature that surrounds us.

                          ____________________