[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H10792-H10798]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE STUPIDITY ISSUE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, we have reached the home stretch in
the Year 2000 elections, and I think it is safe to say that one of the
areas that is most critical to our voters deals with the environment. I
hope that in the remaining two weeks that we are dealing with this
election that it will be an opportunity for people to focus in on what
the candidates stand for, what they would do if they were elected to
our highest honor.
I think it is important to focus in on the environment, because it is
one of the areas where people do not really have to guess about the
differences between the two candidates. Somehow, in a number of areas
dealing with this election, we appear to have sort of given a free ride
on occasion dealing with the substance of these campaigns.
I found of great interest this morning the column that appeared in
this morning's Washington Post by Michael Kinsley entitled ``The
Stupidity Issue.'' Kinsley is the slate editor who writes a weekly
column for the Post, and he has done one of the best jobs I have seen
in capturing the problems of Governor Bush and the representations that
he has made in the course of his campaign.
Being delicate, either the Governor is having problems telling the
truth, or his capacity to understand some of these issues is truly at
question. It is illustrated, and Mr. Kinsley goes on at some length to
talk about the way that Governor Bush has talked about his partial
privatization of the Social Security program is going to be paid out of
surpluses in that program.
Now, since both candidates have pledged to protect the surplus,
including Governor Bush, it is quite clear that the Governor is going
to have to either renege on his promise that there will be no reduction
in benefits for the people for whom these surpluses have been dedicated
to be able to provide it, or they are not going to be able to provide
the transition to cover the costs of privatization. There is no two
ways about it.
Mr. Kinsley goes on at some length in the article. He had three
others that I thought were really rather noteworthy, and I quote.
``When he,'' Governor Bush, ``repeatedly attacks his opponent for
partisanship, does he get the joke? When Governor Bush blames the
absence of a Federal Patients' Bill of Rights law on a lot of bickering
in Washington, D.C., has he noticed that the bickering consists of his
own party, which controls Congress, blocking the legislation? When he
summarizes `it is kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people
issue,' does he mean to suggest anything in particular? Perhaps that
politicians, when acting politically, ignore the wishes of the people?
How does he figure, if at all?''
Mr. Kinsley goes on further about Governor Bush declaring in the
debate, ``I don't want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this
point forward. We shouldn't be using food. It hurts the farmers. It is
not the right thing to do. When just a few days later he,'' Governor
Bush, ``criticized legislation weakening the trade embargo on Cuba,
which covers food, along with everything else, has he rethought his
philosophy on the issue, or was there nothing to rethink?''
``Finally, when he,'' Governor Bush, ``says that local control of
schools is vital and criticizes his opponent for wanting to federalize
education, and promises as president to impose various requirements on
schools, when he complains that Federal money comes with too many
strings, and then turns around and calls for after school funds to be
used for character education, and then endorses a Federal law
forbidding state lawsuits against teachers and so on, does he have a
path through this maze of contradictions? When he,'' Governor Bush,
``promises a Federal school voucher program, and then deflects
criticism by saying vouchers are up to states, is he being dense, or
diabolically clever?''
Unfortunately, we have seen this sort of approach by Governor Bush
when we are dealing with issues in the Pacific Northwest, dealing with
things like the
[[Page H10793]]
salmon. We have a problem that currently we have a number of salmon
species that are threatened with extinction, and we have a requirement
to do something about it.
Governor Bush has traveled to the Pacific Northwest to declare that
he has ruled out one of the potential solutions, and that would be the
partial elimination of some of the dams in the Columbia River-Snake
system. He will not tear down those dams, ever.
Well, it begs the question. What if that is the only choice to comply
with the law of the land? Would he as president of the United States
turn his back on the responsibility of complying with the Endangered
Species Act?
What if the Federal courts rule that we have treaty obligations to
the Northwest Native Americans, a very strong case some feel that we
may have, an obligation, both moral and legal, to those native peoples
who have, frankly, been treated rather shabbily by the U.S. Government
over the course of the last two centuries.
What if the Native Americans get tired of the behavior of the Federal
Government and a lack of action and see that their treaty rights will
be violated and they take us to court? And what if the Federal courts
rule that we have an obligation to the Native Americans that entails
partial dam removal? Is the Governor simply going to rule out
compliance with the obligation to the Native Americans?
What if the alternatives that we have in complying with either our
treaty obligations to Native Americans or to the Endangered Species Act
under law, what if the alternatives place a far greater burden on the
citizens of not just the Pacific Northwest, but on the United States
Treasury? It would seem foolhardy to rule out consideration of an
option that may in fact be legally required.
It also begs the question of when the Governor is in the process of
ruling out potential action that may be mandated, what is his plan? I
have listened as he has come to the Pacific Northwest, had a photo op
out in the wilderness reading off a teleprompter. What is his plan? The
silence is deafening. Who is going to be responsible, and how much will
it cost?
Given the Bush record, I find no small irony that also in this
election we are finding that Ralph Nader and some apologists for the
Green Party are urging people to send a message by voting for Mr. Nader
for president. It gives me pause, as somebody who cares deeply about
the environment, as to what precisely might that message be? To turn
your back on the most environmentally active and effective vice
president since Teddy Roosevelt raises significant questions. To
mislead the American public about both the Gore environmental record
and the consequences seems to me to be sad.
Now, I have respected much of what Ralph Nader has stood for in past
years. I had an opportunity to first meet him after I had recently
graduated from college. Actually my first job out of college was
working as an assistant to the President of Portland State University,
and I had a chance to work with Mr. Nader and some of his associates
and Portland State University students in setting up the Oregon Student
Public Interest Research Group.
{time} 2145
They did a lot of good work, and I continue to work with them. But
somehow for Mr. Nader and his apologists, to declare that there is no
difference between Vice President Gore and George Bush is I think a
similar stretch of credibility, similar to Governor Bush and his
problems with his Social Security plan. There is, in fact, a huge
difference between George Bush and Al Gore; and Ralph Nader knows it or
he is completely out of touch with the last 5 years' battle in
Washington D.C.
There is no difference between drilling in the Arctic Natural
Wilderness reserve as is proposed by Governor Bush as a stopgap
approach to some of our energy problems? Stopgap approach, by the way,
which would take 10 years to come on line and provide only a few
months' worth of energy supply for this country or Vice President
Gore's staunch protection commitment to protect the ANWR and keep it
off limits for drilling.
There is no difference between improving and enforcing the clean air
standards and Governor Bush's advocacy and performance in Texas? Does
not Mr. Nader know who is fighting the antienvironmental riders that
have plagued this Congress since the Republicans assumed control?
I recall very little help, if any, from Mr. Nader here in the
trenches for the 5 years that I have been in Congress as we have been
resisting these destructive proposals to legislate via the
appropriations process. But there is no difference between appointment
of justices in the mode of Justice Thomas and Scalia to the Supreme
Court that are the model that is cited by Governor Bush? Gentlemen who
have a very distinguished, and I would argue limited, indeed, negative
view of the opportunity for the Federal Government to protect
environmental values. And contrast that with the appointees of the
Clinton-Gore administration to the Judiciary, those few appointees
further down in the judicial ranks sadly, because I am afraid our
Republican friends in control of the United States Senate have been, I
think, sadly deficient in allowing a bipartisan review in consideration
of qualified, well-qualified, appointees to fill important vacancies in
the lower Federal courts.
There is a clear, clear record, however, between the appointees of
the Clinton-Gore administration and those cited as the model by
Governor Bush. A court full of people in the mode of Justice Thomas and
Scalia would make a huge difference in the enforcement of our
environmental laws for a generation.
The dead hand of Richard Nixon lives on a generation later in the
person of Justice Rehnquist who was his appointee as chief justice. So
the next President of the United States will have an impact on a whole
generation of legal decisions with the appointments up and down the
Federal bench.
It is important to note that as far as the Supreme Court is
concerned, we have gone longer than at any period in our history, 177
years without a Supreme Court appointment, and we may be looking at 2,
3, 4 appointees just in the next term of the President of the United
States.
Madam Speaker, it is, in fact, a major difference, and that in and of
itself would justify support for Vice President Gore over a wasted vote
for Ralph Nader or sitting home alone and not voting at all.
Having watched this administration struggle to push back the forces
that are in control in this Congress, it seems to me that it would be
an opportunity to set us back for years to come if we are not doing
justice to the people, because either Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore is going to
be elected President of the United States, even Mr. Nader agrees with
that.
I think it is important that people consider how their vote for
President is going to affect that outcome. And in that connection, I
think it would be important to take a few minutes to look at that
record between the Vice President and Governor Bush in a little greater
detail.
I have referenced in the past some issues that relate to air quality.
Governor Bush was asked in May of 1999 the impact on clean air since he
became governor. Governor Bush said, when asked the question is the air
cleaner since I became governor? The answer, according to Governor
Bush, is yes.
Well, I invite people to take a close look at the record of the Bush
administration in dealing with the clean air problems of the State of
Texas under the Bush administration. Smog problems in Texas cities have
increased under the Bush administration.
Texas ranks first in the Nation in toxic air emissions from
industrial facilities, discharging over 100 million pounds of cancer-
causing pollutants and other contaminants in the air annually. Of the
50 largest industrial companies in Texas, 28 violate the Clean Air Act.
Currently, the areas of Houston-Galveston, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso
and Beaumont-Port Arthur are in violation of Federal clean air
standards for ozone pollution.
Madam Speaker, during the years that Governor Bush has been in
office, Houston has surpassed Los Angeles as the city with the highest
levels of smog in the United States, capturing that position sadly for
the second year in a row.
[[Page H10794]]
Governor-elect Bush in 1994 opposed a new vehicle emissions testing
program that had been designed and contracted by the State to implement
the 1990 Clean Air Act calling it onerous and inconvenient. After he
became governor in 1995, he and the legislature cooperated in
overturning the centralized inspections on the ground that it would be
too inconvenient for motorists. And instead they installed a
decentralized system similar to the old system, except it costs more,
tests less accurately, and is easier to evade.
He urged the EPA to, rather than help Texas solve the problem by
being tough on polluters, he suggested that EPA measure pollution
differently. He would not throw Dallas out of compliance because one
monitor goes over unacceptable levels for an hour next summer. He wants
the EPA to measure air quality over the longer period, over an average.
Well, now Texas faces EPA penalties, the potential of losing Federal
highway funds for failing to implement an air pollution plan for
Dallas-Fort Worth in the face of a severe violation of clean air
standards.
It is important to note that this is not some esoteric matter to
quibble over. These air quality standards have an effect on people's
lives. Just this last week, there was a report from the University of
Southern California that had reviewed the impact of the smog in the Los
Angeles Basin. Remember, Los Angeles has smog that is now not as
serious as Houston's. In Los Angeles, they found that that impact on
the children, and they monitored them from the 4th grade to the 7th
grade to the 10th grade, they found a 10 percent loss in the growth of
lung capacity, this is not something that appears to be reversible.
With a 10 percent reduction, it made people much more likely to be
hospitalized, for instance, with an asthma attack. These are serious
issues that affect the lives of people at risk, particularly children,
senior citizens, people with delicate health, but the Texas
environmental legacy under Governor Bush continues sadly to be one that
I do not think Americans would be proud of, and it is not something
that they would like as a standard by our chief executive.
Texas ranks number one in the number of chemicals polluting its air.
It ranks number one for the amount of toxics released in the
atmosphere. In 1997, which was the most recent year that I could obtain
statistics, over 260 million pounds of toxic pollution was released.
Since Governor Bush took office, the number of days when Texas cities
have exceeded Federal ozone standards has doubled. Governor Bush often
cites his leadership as Governor of Texas as a qualification to be
President of the United States. Well, there is a lot of give and take
about how much power it has and how he has used the power and whether
he simply is claiming credit for things that his predecessor's put in
place.
For instance, the education reforms have not been initiated by
Governor Bush but were those that were initiated by his predecessors
and the Texas legislature. But if Texas were a country, one area that
it is big in, it would be the seventh biggest emitter of carbon dioxide
of any Nation in the world.
We can take a step back, not just looking at clean air; although,
that is one of the most graphic areas of failure of leadership, but
look at what Texas has done in other areas of the environment. Look at
aggregate spending on protecting the environment. Some people say,
well, these comparisons really are not fair to Texas, because Texas has
more industries, for example, that deal with petroleum, for instance.
What would be a fairer measure? Let us look at per capita spending on
environmental cleanup, for instance. In fact, if Texas has all of these
huge industries, all of these huge problems, these massive threats to
the environment, we would expect that a fair way of measuring
commitment to the overall environment would be looking at per capita
spending. It is a big State. Let us not compare it necessarily just to
the State of California.
How much are they spending to solve the problem? Not that that is the
entire test at all. They are spending, according to The Los Angeles
Times of April 4 of this year, 44th in per capita spending on all
environmental programs in the country. That is 44th from the top to the
bottom.
There are only 5 States that spend less on cleaning up their
environment, and given the fact that there is probably no State with
greater environmental challenges, that is rather depressing, to say the
very least.
Madam Speaker, it is of some interest that Governor Bush talks about
his voluntary emissions cleanup to allow people to voluntarily decide
in the area of the grandfathered plants that have been emitting harmful
pollution. They were grandfathered in. The Senate bill 766 that
Governor Bush is so proud of and touts as part of his approach has
reduced harmful air pollution from these grandfathered plants in Texas,
470 of them, there are only a handful, less than three dozen actually
complying. It has ended up in reducing harmful air pollution by less
than 1/3 of 1 percent.
{time} 2200
Well, what about water quality? In 1999, Texas was the third worst in
the country for toxic water pollution. Now, this is 5 years after he
assumed office, the third worst in dumping chemicals into its own water
supply. Texas also ranked second worst for emitting known and suspected
carcinogens into water in the country. It had the river with the third
most pollution in the country and ranked third in emitting reproductive
toxins into the waterway, and ranked second worst in dumping nitric
compounds into the waterways.
I note that adding former Secretary Cheney to the ticket did not
really do much in terms of balancing, because Secretary Cheney has a
record as a Member of this Chamber where he could show what his passion
and belief was in terms of protecting the environment. The League of
Conservation Voters has assessed the records, the voting records of
Members of this body for the last 25 or 30 years. During the time that
Secretary Cheney served in this Chamber, he had amassed a lifetime
voting record of 13 percent, according to the League of Conservation
Voters. Cheney voted seven times against authorizing clean water
programs, often as one of only a small minority of Members who voted
against the authorization.
For example, in 1986, Cheney was one of only 21 Members to vote
against the appropriations to carry out the Safe Drinking Water Act.
One year later, in 1987, Secretary Cheney was one of only 26 Members to
vote against overriding the Reagan veto of the reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act.
Think about it. Mr. Speaker, 435 Members of this Chamber, almost 400,
including in the neighborhood of 150 Republicans, voted against their
own President on the veto of the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act, but not Dick Cheney.
In contrast, Al Gore has fought for clean water as a United States
Senator and as Vice President. As Senator, he was an original cosponsor
of the Water Quality Act of 1987, the same time that Secretary Cheney
was one of only 26 Members of this body to vote against the outrageous
veto, the override of the veto of the reauthorization of the Clean
Water Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have been joined by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), with whom I have been privileged to work
extensively in this Congress on issues that deal with water quality and
the environment. I commend the gentleman for his vision and foresight
in being the author of legislation that I was privileged to cosponsor
to deal, for instance, with areas to make the Corps of Engineers more
transparent in its operations, to allow more environmental and citizen
input into its decisions, to allow independent review, independent
scientific review to make sure those projects are meeting the mark, and
he did not need a week-long series of articles in the Washington Post
to alert him to the problem or to motivate him to action.
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oregon for yielding me
this time this evening.
I saw that he was talking about some very important issues dealing
with the environment and conservation measures, and I do appreciate his
support on the Corps reform bill that we introduced earlier this year,
and we are happy to report that at least on a limited basis, a lot of
the provisions that
[[Page H10795]]
were contained in the reform bill that we offered are now adopted as
pilot projects in the recent passage of the Water Resources Development
Act. I think it is a very positive step forward in letting the sunshine
in on the Corps planning process by having outside expert review panels
taking a look at projects up front to determine whether or not there
would be a sufficient mitigation for any type of environmental damage
that is done involving Corps projects, and whether it is cost-
effective. This is not an anti-Corps bill that we introduced; rather
one that would hopefully lift the cloud over what has become an
embattled agency.
Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that I wanted to touch upon
briefly this evening, one that I think there is a clear difference on
as far as the agenda between Al Gore and George Bush. I represent
western Wisconsin. It is a district that is still one of the largest
dairy-producing districts in the entire Nation. However, our family
farmers are under a crisis right now. There is a crisis in rural
America that is sweeping the country, affecting all family farmers,
with low commodity prices, low milk prices, and some of us here in
Congress have been thinking of ways of what we can do as policymakers
to assist our family farmers to survive. I know it is true for the
family farmers that I represent in western Wisconsin that they are some
of the best land stewards in the entire Nation. They understand the
importance of conservation measures, sustainable farming practices, the
effect it has on watershed areas.
In fact, there are a lot of good land conservation programs coming
out of the Department of Agriculture that many of our farmers
participate in. They are very popular, and they are a win-win for
everyone involved. Farmers get direct cash assistance for participating
in the programs which allows them to implement voluntary and incentive-
based conservation practices right on their own land. Just to name a
few, there is a wetlands reserve program that a lot of outdoor
recreationists especially appreciate because of the water fowl and the
benefit it brings to the water fowl species. There is Equip and there
is also something called CRP, the Conservation Reserve Program. These
are very popular programs for the farmers back in Wisconsin, and I know
it is true for farmers throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, this is a way to provide some cash flow to what has
become a very difficult economic time for our family farmers. They
participate in land conservation programs on a voluntary basis, they
get cash assistance, and the communities around them benefit with
cleaner watershed areas and less runoff that is occurring with
sedimentation and nutrients from the farmland.
I have had many conversations with Vice President Gore in this
regard, because we have another farm bill that is going to be coming up
for reauthorization in the next session of Congress, and Vice President
Gore is a strong supporter of sound land conservation practices that
can benefit farmers, but which will also benefit the communities in
which they are operating. This is a huge difference between what Al
Gore is proposing in regards to agriculture and farm policy and what
Governor Bush is talking about.
In fact, it was striking in the last debate when we listened to the
question that was raised in St. Louis in regards to agriculture policy;
and I, for one, was very happy that it was finally raised as a question
during these presidential debates, the striking difference between the
answers, between Al Gore and George Bush. Al Gore recognized that there
is a crisis right now in rural America, that family farmers are going
out in droves because of low commodity prices. We are losing about
three or four a day every day in the State of Wisconsin alone, and I
know this is true in other parts of the country. Al Gore pledged to
open up the farm bill as soon as possible, before it is too late for
many, many more family farmers, and get to work on various programs.
I have introduced the National Dairy Reform bill that is receiving
some support from other representatives in other regions. This has been
an area of agriculture policy that has typically pitted farmer against
farmer in region against region with no consensus being developed. But
I have introduced a bill that representatives in the Northeast and
Southeast recognize could be very helpful in order to level the income
stream for family farmers and enable them to survive during very tough
market conditions. It is countercyclical in nature in that it would
offer countercyclical payments to farmers when the market price drops
below a certain level.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is important, because family farmers do
bring diversification in the agriculture sector as well as more
sustainable farming operations, which has a direct impact on the
environment and conservation practices in which they are operating.
George Bush, on the other hand, has already stated as part of his
agricultural agenda that he would completely eliminate the Conservation
Reserve Program, CRP, which is one of the most effective conservation
measures that is working for our family farmers today. He would just as
soon get rid of the entire program, which I find quite astounding. His
only response during the debate when it came to the farmers' question,
what will you do to help farmers survive in what are some of the
toughest market conditions they have faced in the last 30 years, his
only response was, well, I will work hard to open up market access
overseas. Well, on a theoretical and conceptual plane, that is fine,
and Al Gore too is a big believer in being able to export more of our
agricultural products abroad.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, was the gentleman
concerned that on one hand, Governor Bush allegedly talks about opening
these up overseas, and yet, turns around and criticizes the recent
initiatives that were taken by this body on a bipartisan basis to open
up the opportunity of having food to be traded with Cuba? Does that
seem a little bizarre to the gentleman?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, it was entirely inconsistent with what he was
saying during the debate and with what he was actually advocating
during the legislative process and what we were actually working on
here. But what is even more astounding is that the crisis is real and
it is today. When we are losing four or five family farms a day, we
cannot sit around waiting for these utopian markets to open up overseas
and to be exporting a lot of products. We do not export much dairy
products to begin with. I mean there just is not a great export market
today for them.
So I think the farmers are really looking for a new administration
that is willing to roll up their sleeves and work on farm policy that
can start having an impact as soon as possible. Otherwise, if we wait
around for these theoretical markets to open up overseas, it may be way
too late for our farmers.
Mr. Speaker, another important part that we will have a chance to
look at and discuss and debate and hopefully adopt as a part of the
farm bill are these land conservation bills, something that Al Gore has
consistently supported in his career in both the House and Senate and
now in his career as Vice President of the United States, something he
has pledged to support again in the future. I am highly confident that
if it is his administration that we are dealing with when we are
creating the next farm bill, that land conservation programs that are
voluntary and incentive-based, that do provide income assistance to
farmers who want to be able to do this, but when they are looking at
low commodity prices and it is their very survival that is on the line
right now, they do not have the extra cash reserves to implement some
of the conservation programs that they know would work and work well on
their own land. So it could be a wonderful partnership that is formed
with already existing programs, with more creative thinking in regards
to conservation measures that will help our farmers; and ultimately, it
is going to benefit the water quality and the watershed area all around
these producers.
I think it is a very important distinction. I think it is a very
important difference between what Al Gore has been talking about during
the course of the campaign, the type of conservation agenda he would
pursue as it relates to family farmers in the country and what Governor
Bush either does not support or perhaps just does not realize
[[Page H10796]]
the importance of these programs that he is advocating to eliminate
right now.
So I just wanted to come down and share that point in particular,
given what we are experiencing back home in Wisconsin, with the plight
of our family farmers, and really the difference in vision that is
being offered by Al Gore on the one hand, who recognizes the crisis,
has pledged to open up the farm bill right away, rather than waiting
for another 2 years or maybe 3 years to implement some new farm policy,
but also his strong support for land conservation measures that are
going to make sense for those individual farmers.
I also wanted to just quickly commend the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Minge) and also Senator Harkin from Iowa for taking the initiative
in introducing legislation last week called the Conservation Security
Act. What this will do is again, in line with the voluntary incentive
basis for land conservation programs and cash assistance to farmers who
develop and implement a comprehensive conservation plan for their land.
What is interesting with this legislative proposal is that it will be
unique to each of the individual producers. It will not be: this is the
program; now, see if we can fit it into your land. It will be: what do
we have to work with, and then with technical assistance that will be
provided, those farmers will be able to develop a conservation plan for
their particular tract of land that they are producing on. It is a
novel approach in that it provides an incredible amount of flexibility
for the farmers to really accentuate the positive on their own land,
rather than taking some round circle and trying to fit it into a square
challenge that might be affecting their particular land.
{time} 2215
I am hoping that this legislative initiative that I am co-sponsoring
with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge) on the House side, along
with some bipartisan support from the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr.
Thune), the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) and others that
this, too, will receive very serious attention.
But when one looks at farm policy, there are not any easy answers. If
there were, they would have been found a long time ago. I think this is
one area where we can do a better job of being able to provide an
answer to family farmers in the area of environment and conservation
measures that many of the farmers are doing, and they do very well but
needs some assistance, some financial resources in order to accomplish
the commonly shared objective of being good land stewards on the land.
So with that point, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) for the time this evening.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's input in
framing these issues as it relates to the environment, the difference
between Governor Bush and Vice President Gore, and what it would mean
for the agricultural industry. I did appreciate the gentleman's
reference to the bipartisanship in both the legislation that he is
cosponsoring and he referenced the progress that we made in the
recently approved VAWA. That is something that I think bears some
consideration.
I must confess, when I came to this Chamber, the partisanship really
was sort of off putting. I note the presence in the Chamber this
evening of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I, too, am
saddened at the prospect of his leaving. I have appreciated his
thoughtful approach in a bipartisan fashion with the important work of
the Committee on Appropriations and in other areas as well. There is no
one I respect more, and I appreciate in my short tenure here what he
has added in an element of bipartisanship.
I guess that is what concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker, about what
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) is talking about, because when
it comes to America's environment, we should be working on a bipartisan
basis.
The gentleman from Wisconsin and I have been working with people like
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter). We have had the leadership on our Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure where the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) time and
time again have actually fashioned this fascinating environmental
legislation, ISTEA, the VAWA bill, where we have been able to put some
of these provisions in.
I guess this is one of the concerns that I have because I do not want
to have mistaken what we are talking about this evening that somehow
just attempting to be mindlessly partisan.
All the legislation that the gentleman from Wisconsin and I have been
working on, there has been an effort to make it bipartisan in nature.
Regardless of who controls this Chamber in the next Congress, it is
going to be important to fashion bipartisan agreements to move
legislation forward.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I just want to
also commend the gentleman from Oregon for the leadership that he has
provided this Congress in regards to livable communities. In fact, he
established the Livable Communities Caucus, a working group of
Representatives who get together and discuss a lot of sustainable
development ideas, things that all of our communities are wrestling
with day in and day out back home in regards to how they want to see
their neighborhoods, their cities, their communities look in the next
20, 30, 50 years from now.
There is a lot of planning, development planning taking place back
home. But there is also a lot of things that are being done here in the
United States Congress, policy being made that can work to the
detriment of this planning process back at the local level.
The gentleman from Oregon is raising that issue where it has never
been raised before in the United States Congress. I appreciate his
insight, his expertise on that, the fact that he has been able to reach
out, bring in other Representatives from across the aisle in a
bipartisan fashion again to have these discussions and to get everyone
here thinking about what the implications are and policy that we pass
and adopt in this body and how that is going to affect either to the
benefit or the detriment of local communities and their planning
process, development process of back home.
So I commend the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer). I look
forward to working with him some more in the future on what is perhaps
one of the more important issues that is sweeping the country right now
when it comes to sustainable development issues. I thank him.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the
gentleman's words. I guess that is one of the things that disappoints
me about the nature of the current Presidential campaign.
Last year, I worked on a bipartisan basis putting together a group of
people to try and help both parties deal with these issues at the
Graduate School of Design at Harvard with the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Bereuter), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand) where we had a bipartisan
group to try and frame these issues. Because it sadly does not need to
be partisan.
The point I wanted to make was that we actually reached out at
Harvard University developing a bipartisan opportunity for people in
both parties to fashion approaches for the environment and livable
communities with a notion that it would play a larger role in this
election.
I note with interest, and again I am sad about it, I am not happy to
deal with the record of Governor Bush as it relates to local government
and dealing with problems of sprawl. I was disappointed, because I had
worked for years with people in the capital city of Austin, Texas who
have tried repeatedly to figure out initiatives that they could take to
help them get control of some very serious situations that they have,
trying to manage growth and pollution and sprawl in the capital city of
Texas.
Sadly, Governor Bush has supported legislation that took away the
ability of the City of Austin to creatively solve their own problems.
Now, the Governor has no national policy. The State of Texas does not
have anything to help them. He would even support
[[Page H10797]]
legislation that takes away the creative approaches that were taken by
the capital city of Austin. I think it is a sad legacy.
As I say, it is not something that needs to be partisan. I am the
first to point out that it was a Republican Vice President who
subsequently became president, Teddy Roosevelt, who set aside the land
for the impressive national monuments, one of the first and great
conservationists.
But it was this administration over the objections, sadly, of some of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and apparently over the
objections of the Republican ticket of Bush and Cheney for extending
monument protection. In fact, they have already announced that these
are some of the first things they will review in the event that they
are elected this November.
Vice President Gore has been involved in this administration being
point person on some of the more creative partnerships to protect, for
example, habitat. Seventy percent of the continental United States is
in private hands. Successful efforts to maintain and restore the
Nation's wildlife must include private land owners.
One of the most valuable tools has been the Habitat Conservation
Plan, which is a long-term agreement between government and a land
owner that helps ensure the survival of threatened wildlife while
allows productive use of the land. Prior to 1993, only 14 such plans
existed. Throughout 12 years of Reagan-Bush, 14 plans existed. This
administration has forged another 250 plans protecting more than 20,000
acres and 200 threatened or endangered species.
The Vice President has been part of the effort to protect and expand
national parks and monuments and has already announced that he will
fight to block efforts to roll back the environment progress that we
have made.
The Vice President has been active seeking full funding of the Lands
Legacy Initiative, one of the more creative parts through the Land and
Water Conservation fund.
The Vice President has long been on record to reform the antiquated
mining law and use that reform to help pay for conservation. The Mining
Act of 1872 is on the books effective identical today as it was signed
by President Ulysses S. Grant. This allows patents for hard rock
minerals on public lands to be mined for $2.50 an acre or $5 an acre.
Since taking office in January of 1993, the 1872 Mining law has
required the Department of Interior to sign 40 mining patents, some of
which have been granted to foreign hard rock company, mining companies,
deeding away publicly owned resources valued at more than $15 billion
to individuals and private mining companies. In return, the taxpayers
received a little more than $24,000. This is an outrage.
The last Republican administration vetoed efforts of Democratic
Congresses to reform it. Vice President Gore would use the money from
mining royalties to pay incentives to protect open space and help
communities support local parks.
I have already referenced earlier in my remarks this evening the
rather bizarre position of Governor Bush who rules out some of the
initiatives in saving the salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest who
has no plan himself. The Vice President has committed to saving the
salmon stocks and is willing to consider all the options that would be
required under our treaty obligations and under U.S. law.
Well, as I look at the record of Governor Bush, it gives me pause.
Looking at the area of public lands, one is hard-pressed to find what
Governor Bush did in his stewardship in the last 6 years to deal with
Texas parks or public land.
Again, this is not a partisan issue. I have been on the floor of this
Chamber commending Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Governor Pataki for
his and her initiatives, respectively, dealing with the preservation of
open space in the States of New Jersey and New York.
They do not have to be partisan issues. In fact, when governors,
Republican or Democrat, take the lead, the public supports them, and
legislators fall in place. Well, what is Texas doing to take advantage
of the massive public support for improving park and open space?
Texas, the second largest State in the union, running substantial
budget surpluses, where does it rank, where in the ranking of the
States on the money it spends on State parks? A 1998 State audit found
that Texas had a funding backlog of $186 million just for the
maintenance of existing parks.
{time} 2230
In 1999, the Texas Parks Commission tried to remove the cap on a
sporting goods tax to increase its revenue. Governor Bush could not see
his way clear to either provide money in his budget or to support the
increase in the revenues. The measure died. Governor Bush did appoint a
tax force to find a solution, perhaps a good start. But then when his
parks commission made a recommendation, did the governor embrace it?
Did he come forward challenging the legislature to meet the needs?
Sadly not. He created this task force on conservation which he charged
with finding ways to ensure that Texas leaves a legacy for our children
and grandchildren, a legacy of unwavering commitment to preserve and
conserve our treasured lands. And then he ignored the request for
initial funding for the commission.
A year ago on the campaign trail, one of the most important pieces of
conservation legislation, and again I point out it was bipartisan
legislation, it cannot be more bipartisan than when you have the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young), the chair and ranking member respectively of the
Committee on Resources, which passes this Chamber with over 300 votes,
Governor Bush, when asked last year about his support for the Federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund, did not even know how to answer the
question. He would increase logging on public lands. He would reverse
the roadless area protections that have been a part of this
administration's roadless area initiative. I have already referenced
that they have indicated they might well try and reopen lands to
development that have been protected by this administration. I think it
is something that is exceedingly frustrating for people who care about
the environment to take a step back and look at the nature of this
sorry legacy where the governor has dealt with the environment in the
State of Texas.
It did not have to be that way. It was not that way with Governor
Engler in Michigan, Christie Todd Whitman, Governor Pataki; it is not
the way with Democratic governors across the country, but Governor Bush
seemingly does not set a priority on the environment other than photo
ops when he comes to the Pacific Northwest. Where is the passion, the
commitment, the outrage that under his watch Houston has become the
smoggiest city in the United States?
In the area of energy, which is important in terms of both American
policy and its environmental consequences, here again is another stark
difference between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush. Vice
President Gore has supported conservation, is against drilling in the
ANWR, 95 percent of Alaska's north slope is already available for oil
and gas exploration and leasing. The wildlife preserve is the only 5
percent that is not available. And the estimate of the impact of the
ANWR in terms of our energy supply is that it would be at most a 6-
month supply of oil. And it would take 10 years to bring that energy
supply to market. This is opposed by three-quarters of the American
public. It is in fact even opposed by a majority of people in the State
of Alaska. But it is part of Governor Bush's proposal for dealing with
the energy problem.
Mr. Speaker, I am really troubled with this disconnect between
America's long-term environmental interests, with the wishes and needs
and interests of the American public, and what has been offered by
Governor Bush and the Republican ticket. It is my hope that in the
remaining 2 weeks of this campaign, that the American public will focus
on the difference between the two gentlemen who would offer themselves
up for President, one of whom will be elected President and use that in
guiding their votes accordingly.
[[Page H10798]]
____________________