Volume 142, No. 139 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.
“ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 104TH CONGRESS” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the Senate section on pages S12123-S12124 on Oct. 1, 1996.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
ENVIRONMENTAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE 104TH CONGRESS
Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, for the past 2 years, our critics have accused Republicans of rolling back environmental standards. Just suggest that an environmental law can be improved, and the critics quickly label you as ``anti-environment.'' When we look back on this Congress, though, I believe that the newly enacted safe drinking water law stands as the true testament to what we're all about. It's not just empty rhetoric; it's real reform that improves the environment, protects public health and reduces unnecessary costs so that all Americans can enjoy clean, safe, and affordable drinking water.
To our critics, I would like to offer three comments.
First, Republicans are committed to protecting and improving our environment. We demonstrated this commitment throughout the Safe Drinking Water Act. We directed the Environmental Protection Agency to target those contaminants that are actually present in drinking water and are found to present a real health risk to humans. We authorized, for the first time, $1 billion annually for a State revolving loan fund so that local communities can construct and upgrade their treatment systems. We provided, also for the first time, tens of millions of dollars for important research on the health effects of contaminants, like cryptosporidium; and we created a new voluntary source water partnership program to encourage communities and landowners to work together to prevent contamination of drinking water before it occurs.
Second, Republicans are committed to making our environmental laws work better. Certainly, our current framework of environmental laws has gone a long way toward addressing the major environmental problems of the 1970's and 1980's, but the problems have evolved and our laws need to evolve with them. Our laws must be more flexible to address the multitude of situations that States and communities face every day. We must work with our partners in State and local governments, not against them. And we must provide more incentives to achieve environmental excellence--more carrots and fewer sticks.
The Safe Drinking Water Act proves that these principles can indeed make our laws better for the environment and reduce unnecessary costs. The Congressional Budget Office reviewed our legislation and confirmed that it ``would change the Federal drinking water program in ways that would lower the costs to public water systems of complying with existing and future requirements. On balance, CBO estimates that the bill would likely result in significant net savings to State and local governments.''
In signing the Safe Drinking Water Act, President Clinton called the new law, ``a model for responsible reinvention of regulations,'' that
``will provide the American people with much greater protection for the drinking water on which we all rely every day of our lives.'' He's right; and it was a Republican initiative.
And, finally, I would like to emphasize that Republicans are committed to working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle on the responsible reform of our environmental laws. The environment is not a partisan issue. Our environment is our lifeline and, if we are to preserve it for our children and their children, we must work together. The Safe Drinking Water Act was written with the advice of many public health experts, State and local government officials, and water providers. Republicans and Democrats alike were instrumental in the crafting of all of its provisions. And ultimately, it had the support of every Member of the Senate, virtually every Member of the House of Representatives, the administration, the regulated community and the public. To my mind, that's the model for future environmental legislation.
As this Session and this Congress winds to a close over the next few days, we should pause to look back. We have much to be proud of. Among other things, we reauthorized and significantly improved a major environmental law, the Safe Drinking Water Act. But, looking forward, we have much work yet to do.
Many of you know that I have been working hard this past year on legislation to reauthorize the Endangered Species Act. I had hoped to complete our work on that legislation this year as well, but political and practical obstacles got in the way. So, while we were able to make significant progress this year in resolving many of the problems underlying the Endangered Species Act, final resolution will have to wait until next year and the new Congress. I believe, though, that our efforts this year will pave the way for a bill next year.
There is no single environmental law that is in greater need of fundamental reform now than the Endangered Species Act. More than any other law, the Endangered Species Act truly pits humans against their environment. Loggers in the Pacific Northwest fear that they will lose their jobs--and many have--because of the spotted owl; farmers in Idaho fear that they won't be able to water their crops because of the salmon; and communities in Texas fear that they will lose their sole drinking water supply because of a salamander.
And all to no end. Since it was first passed, the Endangered Species Act has failed to recover a single species to the point that it could be removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. The fact is, we're spending millions of dollars now, putting communities at risk all in the name of protecting endangered species, but we have no clear policy, priorities, game plan, or even ability to measure results. We need to do better--both for the species and for our fellow Americans.
So, when we come back next January, I will pick up where we left off and introduce comprehensive legislation to significantly improve the Endangered Species Act.
It's time that the Endangered Species Act actually saved species from extinction. It's time that the Endangered Species Act treated property owners fairly and with consideration. It's time that the Endangered Species Act minimized the social and economic impacts on the lives of citizens. And it's time that the Endangered Species Act provided incentives to conserve rare and unique species. I believe that we can draft legislation that accomplishes those goals.
Over the next few months, I plan to continue negotiations with my colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senators Chafee, Baucus, and Reid, other Senators, and the administration. I will work with them, officials of State and local governments, the regulated community, and others to achieve meaningful Endangered Species Act reform. But, let me emphasize that it must be real reform.
We must ensure that decisions made under the Endangered Species Act are based on good science. All too frequently, species are listed and restrictions imposed on landowners as a result of junk science or no science. That must change.
We must streamline the consultation process under section 7. In just one case in Idaho, for example, a simple bridge was held up for over a year while the National Marine Fisheries Service reviewed a proposed construction plan that had already been approved by four State and Federal agencies. The bridge ended up costing over four times as much as the original approved design because of the National Marine and Fisheries Service. That must change.
We must strengthen the recovery planning process so that the emphasis is not just on listing a species, but also on bringing it back from the brink of extinction. We all agree that recovering species is the primary purpose of the Endangered Species Act, but the Fish and Wildlife Service has only developed recovery plans for about half of the species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and many of those plans are inadequate or have never been implemented. We must establish rigorous standards for recovery plans and require that they be implemented.
We must provide incentives for private landowners to help conserve endangered and rare species. Authorizing low effect conservation plans and multiple species conservation plans is just one way that we can encourage small and large landowners to voluntarily preserve habitat and take other measures to protect species.
And finally, we must be willing to commit more public resources to the cause of protecting endangered species and be creative in our search for funding sources. The Endangered Species Act benefits us all; its costs must not be borne only by a few.
Our job over the next few months and next year won't be easy. These are difficult and emotional issues. But the stakes are too high--the survival of our native wildlife--for us not to succeed.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to making the Endangered Species Act really work.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up