[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E705-E706]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EARTH DAY

______

HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, April 29, 1998

Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington
Report for Wednesday, April 29, 1998 into the Congressional Record.

Earth Day 1998: The State of Our Environment

Twenty eight years ago, on the very first Earth Day, I
stood on the lawn of the Indiana University commons and
talked with students about a wide variety of environmental
issues, from pulling tires out of rivers to marching in
Washington for a better environment. Those of us who
celebrated the first Earth Day were convinced of two things:
the environment was a mess, and a lot of work was needed to
do something about it.
What began as a teach-in in Bloomington and other
communities has grown into a national event involving tens of
millions of people across the country. The environmental
movement has transformed our environment and our national
politics. Environmental issues come up all the time in my
work with constituents--from students talking about global
warming and the future of the planet to public officials
talking about upgrading water and sewer facilities in their
communities. Environmentalism has firmly taken root in our
political system.
On this, the 28th anniversary of Earth Day, we can take
great pride in the advances that have been made in
environmental protection. We have succeeded in reducing the
levels of lead and other dangerous pollutants from the air.
Lakes and rivers, once so contaminated they could catch on
fire, now support large fish populations. Forests are
rebounding. Endangered species, like the eagle and the
buffalo, have been saved from extinction and are now
thriving.
Hoosiers strongly support cleaning up our air, water, and
land, and they want to leave the environment safe and clean
for the next generation. They do not want to cut back on our
environmental investment. Hoosiers do not say to me that we
have too many parks, or that the air and water are too clean.
They recognize, however, that we face new environmental
challenges as we head into the 21st Century and need to adopt
new strategies to build on our successes.

The environmental record

This country has achieved substantial gains in
environmental protection over the last three decades. The
Clean Air Act, passed in 1970, has dramatically reduced air
pollution levels even though we drive twice as many cars
twice as many miles. In the last decade, emissions of lead
declined by 89%, particulates by 20%, sulfur dioxides by 26%,
and carbon monoxide by 37%. Congress revised this law in 1990
to strengthen the ability of the Environmental Protection
Agency, states and the private sector to work cooperatively
to improve air quality, particularly in cities with
significant pollution problems. The new law also aims to
reduce pollutants which cause acid rain and contribute to
global environmental problems, including ozone depletion and
global warming.
We have also made gains in water quality. The Clean Water
and Safe Drinking Water Acts have succeeded in sharply
reducing pollution in our rivers, lakes and streams while
improving the quality of drinking water. Since 1972 the
number of people served by modern sewage treatment facilities
has almost doubled and the level of pollution discharged by
municipal treatment plants has declined by 36%.
Our record on conserving critical lands and wildlife
habitat is noteworthy. Many of our forested areas have been
expanding, not contracting. The national forest system
encompasses about 192 million acres, including the Hoosier
National Forest in southern Indiana. We have also protected
endangered species from extinction, and have largely curbed
the dumping of hazardous materials.

Challenges

Despite our achievements, we face daunting environmental
challenges. First, a growing population and expanding economy
continue to put stresses on our environment. Species continue
to disappear; the tall-growth forests in the Northwest
continue to decline; fishery stocks in our rivers and coastal
areas are shrinking; and the list goes on. The challenge will
be to continue our economic gains without jeopardizing the
environment and public health.
Second, the environmental challenges are more complicated.
For example, controlling the run-off of chemicals from
thousands of farms and city streets, which is necessary to
improve water quality, is difficult. Furthermore, many
environmental problems, like global warming, ozone depletion,
and threats to our fisheries, are global in nature, but
achieving global consensus on any issue is not easy.
Third, our environmental laws need updating. Most
environmental programs are of a ``command and control''
variety. The federal government sets regulations which the
public and private sectors must follow. This approach made
sense when we needed to make substantial gains in
environmental quality. Now that we have achieved those
improvements, the question is whether we should stay with the
current system, which can be costly and cumbersome, or take a
more flexible approach.

New approach

I believe we need to rethink how we regulate the
environment. This does not mean repealing current standards.
The American public firmly rejected efforts in Congress a few
years ago to weaken key environmental laws. Rather, they want
a sensible role for government, one which includes less
regulation while improving environmental protection.
I believe the following principles should, where
appropriate, guide future policy on environmental regulation
with the objective of making such regulation more flexible,
less costly and less complex:
First, we should find market-based solutions to
environmental problems. Such an approach might entail
providing incentives to private business or local governments
to meet or exceed environmental standards; or it might
involve creating a system of marketable pollution permits.
Second, we should encourage cooperation between the federal
government and the regulated community. Environmental
regulation will always involve some tension between the two,
but the federal government can take steps to minimize such
conflict by working cooperatively with businesses, land-
owners and other private interests to find solutions.
Third, we should give more discretion to state and local
governments in managing environmental problems because they
are often closer to the problems, and may have better ideas
about solving them in innovative, cost-effective ways.
Fourth, we should allocate federal resources to the most
pressing environmental problems, particularly in an era of
tight federal budgets. Too many federal dollars are wasted on
programs of marginal social or economic benefit. Federal
agencies

[[Page E706]]

should conduct risk assessment, based on scientific evidence,
and cost-benefit analysis before implementing new
regulations.

____________________