Volume 142, No. 90 covering the 2nd Session of the 104th Congress (1995 - 1996) was published by the Congressional Record.
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“OUR NATURAL RESOURCES” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H6429-H6430 on June 18, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
OUR NATURAL RESOURCES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 12, 1995, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some good news today. Over the last 20 years, we in this country have made measurable good progress in protecting our natural resources. Our air and our water are cleaner than they were in the 1970's, and we have reversed the decline of several of the endangered species. This is a good record. It is an admirable record. We all know there are still many areas where Federal attention is required today, but we also know that you cannot write thousands and thousands of pages of Federal regulations without some problems developing along the way. It is just common sense to take a look at current regulations and decide what works and what does not and look for ways to make a cleaner, safer, healthier environment for everyone and at the same time, of course, excise those unworkable and unfair regulations we have come to identify.
This 104th Congress has been perceived by some as being antiregulation. Perhaps the truth is that the 104th has opposed overregulation. I think to his very great credit, the Speaker has taken the lead and formed a task force on the environment. I am pleased with the Speaker's determination to pass responsible environmental legislation. I am, frankly, personally happy to be part of his effort. Although it is often lost in the rhetoric surrounding today's environmental debates, the Republican Party has a long tradition of conservation from Teddy Roosevelt, who created the first national wildlife refuge, to Richard Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency. Many people have forgotten that.
Unfortunately, what often passes for debate on environmental issues in Congress and around the country is little more than a shouting match full of symbolism but actually lacking any real substance; sort of litmus test wars, as it were. If we are to make any real progress in resolving some of the difficulties associated with environmental protection, we need to set politics aside and have a reasoned discussion on the real issues. The Speaker's environmental task force has successfully identified several principles for such a debate in my view, principles that I think make good sense, we will all agree.
The first of these is that environmental decisions should be consensus based, made in consultation with the people whose homes, businesses, communities are directly affected. Bringing the opposing interests to the table early in the process provides us the opportunity to find a solution before the two sides become deadlocked in a meaningless fight. Environmental disputes routinely focus on health, public safety, and environmental protection against the question of jobs, economy, and private property rights. Obviously all of those things are important. If we get the parties talking to each other early, I believe we can make substantial progress in removing some of the conflict we see today.
Mr. Speaker, the second principle is greater. It is greater in a way that it involves State and local, our sister branches of government in the lower tiers. Having served as a mayor and a county commissioner before coming to Congress a few years ago, I know that the lower tiers mean the front lines where the people are, where what matters in our daily lives goes on. I know the importance of giving States and localities a real role in setting and enforcing environmental standards in their communities. The perspectives of local and State officials who are the people who make everyday land use decision, who deal with problems every day are invaluable in crafting environmental policies that actually work on the ground.
The time has come to end sort of the one-size-fits-all directives from Washington that really fail to recognize the obvious often overlooked fact that different communities have different needs. Alaska is different than Florida.
The last principle I will mention is providing positive incentives to encourage responsible stewardship of our natural resources. Whether we provide rewards such as tax credits, grant flexibility, and complying with regulations or offer marketing incentives, we should move away from the idea that environmental legislation always creates winners and losers. The simple fact is that we can achieve a balance that allows all sides to come away with something positive. All America and all Americans benefit when we do that.
I will end on what I hope is a high note and that is this. These principles are not just talk but are geared toward providing results, results that will help Florida, for instance, restore our Everglades, restore our beaches. Under the Interior appropriations bill, which just happens to be coming to the floor this week, Congress in fact is going to be taking responsible steps in both of these critical areas.
I believe in the end all parties to the environmental debate agree on the importance of safeguarding our natural resources. Hopefully we will see reasonable people from all sides embrace the principles we have laid out and help us in a bipartisan way achieve our goals.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up