May 10, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6425

I think the best science ought to be

used.

Now you come to the issue of whether or not you are going to have a recovery plan to try to save the species. And

here, only the species counts. If you

cannot come up with a recovery plan

under the present law, if you cannot

come up with a recovery plan that will

save the species, or, to put it the other

way around, if every recovery plan that

you can think of by the best scientific

evidence will lead to the extinction of

the species, then nothing else counts.

People do not count. Revenues to counties do not count. Whether or not the

schools have enough money to keep

going does not count. Nothing counts

but the species, and that is where this

act is not balanced.

So, Mr. President, I am glad to join a

number of my fellow Senators in introducing amendments to the Endangered

Species Act. We think these amendments are a balance. We are not getting rid of the act. We are not getting

rid of science. As a matter of fact, we

are asking for stronger science, for better science, for better review. But this

act finally allows people to be considered as much as bugs. And that has

been the failing of the present law.

I hope the Senate will favorably consider this. I am proud to join as a cosponsor.

I am pleased to join with my colleagues as an original cosponsor of the

Endangered Species Act Reform

Amendments of 1995.

This bill is the result of several

years’ work.

The bill represents the culmination

of broad grassroots efforts to bring balance to the Endangered Species Act.

This broad grassroots coalition consists of miners, ranchers, loggers, farmers, manufacturers, the fisheries industry, and organized labor.

PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT ENDANGERED SPECIES

ACT

The Endangered Species Act is an act

gone awry. The act is wreaking havoc

on our communities and economies,

particularly in the Pacific Northwest,

but increasingly nationwide. The act is

devastating entire industries and regions.

In the Pacific Northwest alone, since

the spotted owl was listed as threatened in 1990, millions of acres of Federal timberland and thousands of private acres have been set aside for owls.

The act has impacted tens of thousands of human beings and hundreds of

rural communities.

Estimates of the number of jobs lost

as a result of the listing range anywhere from 35,000 to 150,000.

The act was originally intended to

ensure the survival of species that were

threatened by site-specific projects,

such as roads, dams, and sewer systems

The act is now being used as a tool

by environmental groups to further

their agenda of locking up not only all

public land, but private land as well.

Private property owners are increasingly losing the right to use their property as they intended.

ECONOMIC COSTS OF ESA

Edward O. Wilson, a renowned entomologist at Harvard observes that

there may be something on the order of

100 million species.

Yet only 1.4 million have been

named.

How many billions of dollars are we

willing to spend attempting to save:

fungi, insects, and bacteria we’ve never

heard of, and species for which there

may be little or no chance of recovery

in any case.

SOCIAL COSTS OF ESA

While the economic costs of protecting species is great, the social impacts

are no less devastating.

Robert Lee, sociologist with the University of Washington College of Forest

Resources, has done extensive research

on the social trauma afflicting timber

towns. He points to the destruction of

families and long-lasting social fallout

in the form of suicide, homicide, divorce, juvenile delinquency, drug

abuse, and spousal and child abuse.

It is ironic that for years we considered the needs of humans as though

nothing else mattered.

Now, under the Endangered Species

Act, we are considering the needs of

fish, wildlife, and plants as though

nothing else matters.

Both policies are short-sighted and

flawed.

CURRENT EFFORTS

We need a process which not only

protects plants and animals, but one

which recognizes legitimate human

needs as well.

That is why, in the last Congress, I

joined with Senators GORTON, SHELBY

and others in introducing legislation to

bring balance to the Endangered Species Act.

This year, with even stronger bipartisan support, we have again introduced

legislation to require that the economic and social impacts of Federal efforts to protect species be fully considered.

SUMMARY OF BILL

Our bill contains several components

essential to meaningful reform.

The bill reforms the process by which

species are listed as threatened or endangered:

Requires independent scientific peer

review of the science;

Requires better data collection.

Provides for broader participation by

affected States and the public;

Requires judicial review of listing decisions;

In place of intensive Federal management, the bill includes incentives to

encourage private landowners to protect species, such as:

Encouraging the exchange of private

land for Federal land to provide habitat for affected species; and

Establishing a Federal cost-share

program for any direct costs imposed

on a private person.

Our bill requires the Secretary to set

a ‘‘conservation objective,’’ ranging

from full recovery of the species to

solely protecting the species from actions which would directly injure or

kill the species.

In other words, the Secretary could

decide to allow a species to go extinct.

Our bill requires that economic and

social impacts are fully considered in

the development of conservation measures.

Our bill changes the statutory definition of ‘‘harm’’ and ‘‘take’’ to mean the

actual injury or killing of a member of

a species.

‘‘Harm’’ will no longer apply to the

modification of a species’ habitat as

the courts have broadly interpreted

current law.

Our bill minimizes the impacts to

private property.

CONCLUSION

It is not our goal to abandon our national commitment to the protection

of endangered species; however, we cannot protect every imaginable species.

We can do a better job of balancing

jobs and economic opportunity with

species protection.

While this bill does not go as far as I

would like, it will begin the debate

which is long overdue.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the order

for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

THOMAS). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent I be allowed to

proceed for 5 minutes as if in morning

business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

PRESIDENT CLINTON BRINGS

HOME NOTHING

fMr. McCONNELL. Mr. President,

President Clinton has gone to Moscow,

and he has come home with nothing. I

repeat: President Clinton has gone to

Moscow, and he has come home with

nothing.

There has not been much coverage

yet of the summit over there in Russia,

but it is pretty clear that President

Clinton has in effect gone to Moscow,

given President Yeltsin an opportunity

to show that he can deliver the President of the United States for a celebration of the end of World War II, and we

have had no progress on stopping the

sale of nuclear material to Iran, no

apologies about the slaughter of 25,000

people in Chechnya.

In summary, Mr. President, very little, if anything, has been accomplished

at this summit that would benefit this

country.

Now, arguably, our President showing up over there has helped President
S6426 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 10, 1995

Yeltsin and the Russians, but typically

we think of these summits as producing something beneficial for our side.

It does not seem to me there has been

one single step in the direction that we

would like to see us go as a result of

this summit.

The issue, of course, is not whether

we have a relationship with Russia. We

all want to have a relationship with

Russia. The question is, What kind of

relationship is it going to be?

During the past 2 years, we have seen

a real change in the makeup of President Yeltsin’s inner cycle or kitchen

cabinet. He has fired reformers and replaced them with hard-line reactionary

advisers who are suspicious of free

market reforms and suspicious of democracy. Some observers have said

there is only one reformer left in the

cabinet and he is the one they sent

over here to the United States to talk

to people in the Senate.

In a recent hearing, I asked Deputy

Secretary Talbott to identify a single

voice of reason in the kitchen cabinet;

just one. Secretary Talbott changed

the subject.

Yeltsin’s decisions are making it

very difficult to sustain support for assistance to Russia.

In February, Secretary Christopher

said the President would not go to

Moscow for a summit if Chechnya were

unresolved. Well, the President is there

and Chechnya is unresolved. Almost as

soon as that line was drawn in the sand

by President Clinton, he backed down.

Current Russian policy test United

States interests and principles. In fact,

current Russian policy makes no sense

at all, Mr. President.

In Chechnya, basic principles of democracy and human rights are under

siege. It really begs the question: Does

a democratic government turn its guns

on its civilians, killing 25,000 men,

women, and children?

Preliminary indications are we have

accepted Yeltsin’s determination that

this is basically an internal matter and

is none of our business. Essentially,

that is what President Yeltsin said:

‘‘This is our affair. You butt out, President Clinton.’’

Both our security interests and our

allies are threatened by the pending

sale of nuclear technology to Iran. The

biggest current issue between ourselves

and the Russians is the pending sale of

nuclear technology to Iran. And the

President has said earlier in the year

he would not go to Moscow for this

celebration of V-E Day unless there

was progress on that issue. Well, there

has been no progress. The nuclear sale

continues to go forward.

This agreement that the administration has announced that there will be

no sale of the centrifuge technology is

simply not adequate. That is a figleaf

to allow President Clinton to claim

somehow that progress was made on

deterring the nuclear transfer to Iran

when, in fact, no real progress has been

made.

In addition to that, Mr. President,

nothing has changed on the issue of

NATO expansion and other European

security questions. Everyone was surprised by the Russian reversal last December when Yeltsin and Kozyrev denounced NATO plans to enlarge itself

and rejected the Partnership for Peace

program. Combined with recent statements that Moscow has the right to use

force to protect Russian minorities in

the Soviet Republics, leaders across

the region are justifiably concerned. It

should have been essential for the summit to produce a concrete commitment

by Yeltsin to respect the political, economic and territorial sovereignty of

those countries that used to make up

the Soviet Union.

In summary, Mr. President, what is

going on here is the Russians are saying, ‘‘We don’t want you to expand

NATO. And, oh, by the way, all the

countries that we used to dominate,

that used to be part of the Soviet

Union, are our business and none of

yours.’’

No progress has been made at this

summit on any of these issues; not a

single shred of evidence of any progress

whatsoever on any of these issues.

Mr. President, I, like many Members

of the Senate, want to get along with

the Russians. Obviously, we have a better relationship than we did during the

cold war, but some days I wonder

where this relationship is going. It

seems to me, by pursuing this Moscow

myopia, this view that whatever

Yeltsin wants Yeltsin gets, by pursuing

that particular point of view, we stand

no chance of having the opportunity to

build a genuinely constructive relationship with the Russians.

So let me just, in sum, Mr. President,

say that I think this summit has been

a disappointment. I am sorry that

President Yeltsin has been unable to

commit to any of the progress that we

had hoped for, but mostly I am sorry

that President Clinton chose to go.

Why is he there?

At virtually every summit in my

memory, something has been brought

back that was arguably in the interest

of the United States. President Clinton

has gone to Moscow, gone to Moscow at

President Yeltsin’s request, given

President Yeltsin an opportunity to

look good, made no progress on the nuclear sale to Iran, made no progress on

the expansion of NATO, and comes

home emptyhanded. So, by any standard, Mr. President, this summit is a

disappointment.

INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF

I yield the floor.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE ACT

fThe Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.

Mr. COATS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I am very

pleased that the Senate today has

turned its attention relatively early in

the session to a bill of primary importance to my State of Indiana and to

many other States in this Nation. It is

a bill that the Senate is very familiar

with, one to allow States to limit the

importation of out-of-State waste. We

have discussed it on numerous occasions.

I want to thank the chairman of the

subcommittee, Senator SMITH of New

Hampshire, and the chairman of the

full committee, Senator CHAFEE, for

bringing this bill to the floor, as well

as the ranking member, Senator BAUCUS, and, of course, Senator DOLE for

scheduling this legislation.

Early in my Senate career, which has

not been that long, I observed a phenomenon in Indiana as I was driving

through the State. All across the State

homemade signs posted on telephone

poles or stuck in the ground appeared

that said, ‘‘Don’t dump on us.’’

I began to inquire what the subject

was. We checked into that and found

that the citizens throughout Indiana,

many small towns in particular, found

that, instead of the local garbage dump

which received a truck or two of local

community waste, garbage, a day, suddenly they discovered that 18-wheelers

were lined up for blocks waiting to

enter the local dump to dump their

waste. And people said, ‘‘Where is all

this coming from?’’

You really cannot call these facilities landfills, because they were designed for receipt of small amounts of

everyday household trash, waste, that

was picked up maybe a couple of times

a week at most and delivered to the

local dump.

In a little more than a year, our

State saw negligible volumes of out-ofState trash that were coming into the

State explode to more than 20 percent

of our total waste disposal. Virtually

overnight, the State of Indiana became

a target for out-of-State trash.

The statistics do not begin to tell the

story. Because, as I said, the trash parade targeted many small communities

in rural areas in Indiana. So the magnitude of the change was dramatic for

the citizens of those communities.

Let me just tell you one story, the

story of Center Point. This small town

in Indiana, a town of 250 people, had a

local garbage dump. Not a landfill, it

was not certified as a big landfill. It

was just a place where the local citizens were able to dispose of their local

trash. A couple of trucks picked up the

trash in the community and surrounding areas and disposed of it in this

area.

In 1989, the local landfill was purchased by out-of-State investors, and

the site was doubled. Ads began appearing in national magazines that said:

‘‘Send us your trash.’’ Narrow country

lanes were clogged with 18-wheelers

loaded with trash and garbage from

other States. Local citizens, rightfully

so, I believe, began to keep a watch on

a daily basis, on a 24-hour-a-day basis.

They would log in the license plates of

the trucks coming to bring the trash,