[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 22404-22410]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 22404]]

      URGING ENVIRONMENTAL DEBATE BETWEEN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

  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. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend this time this evening 
dealing with an issue that I hope will get the attention that it 
deserves yet in this election. We just had the second Presidential 
debate last night. I still hold out hope for an environmental debate 
between the candidates for President as well as leaders in both parties 
up and down the ticket.
  The significance of the environment to the American public is not 
just a matter of public opinion polls, although I note with interest 
recently a publication of the Clean Air Trust where they had conducted 
a survey of voters that indicated that 4 in 10 suggested that they 
would shun a Presidential candidate who opposed tougher new clean air 
standards, according to their national poll by the nonprofit Clean Air 
Trust. They were conducting this survey to determine the impact of just 
this one key environmental issue, clean air.
  At the same time, nearly 6 in 10 voters say they would reward a 
Presidential candidate who fought to support clean air standards. These 
are entirely consistent with results of a separate Clean Air Trust 
survey of likely voters in the battleground State of Michigan. But we 
do not have to just look at public opinion polls.
  I note with interest that, when we open up the newspapers in our 
communities from coast to coast, border to border, they are filled with 
issues of environmental concern to our citizens. A lot of the work that 
I do in Congress focuses on livable communities and what the Federal 
Government can do to be a better partner in promoting an environment 
where our families are safe, healthy, and economically secure.
  I am pleased that the Vice President has been a champion of the 
Federal partnership in promoting livable communities. His activity on 
behalf of the President's Council for Sustainable Development, indeed, 
he has been pushing and probing across the board in the Federal 
Government for each and every agency to have their program of 
sustainable development, of livable communities, of ways to promote 
environmental enhancement.
  The contrast with Governor Bush I think could not be more stark. 
There is no comprehensive State program in the State of Texas dealing 
with environmental quality and livability. Indeed, there is no 
indication that Governor Bush has chosen this as an area that he wants 
to promote Federal involvement and partnership.
  When we look at the response to local communities in the State of 
Texas to try and deal with those problems, it appears that he does not 
really look with favor at initiatives at the local level.
  I would quote from a recent column by Neal Peirce, one of the 
national journalistic experts in this arena who has been following 
livability environment and what happens in our metropolitan areas for 
several decades. He had indicated that the question about Governor Bush 
is why he seems oh so indifferent to America's growth quandaries. He 
constantly stresses local control.
  But The Austin American-Statesman reports that, when the growth-
deluged city of Austin, the capital, moved to regulate development and 
water quality, Governor Bush approved State legislation to negate all 
its efforts.
  So it appears that he does not have a comprehensive program in the 
State of Texas. He does not support a comprehensive approach on the 
part of the Federal Government. He is willing to cut active local 
governments like the capital city of Austin off at the knees.
  This, I think, speaks volumes to the American public about the most 
important challenge that we are going to be facing in terms of 
enhancing and maintaining our quality of life.
  I think a further elaboration of the difference between the record of 
the Vice President and the Governor of Texas is enlightening.
  The State of Texas ranks near the bottom in spending on the 
environment, 44th out of the 50 States in per capita spending on 
environmental programs, according to The Los Angeles Times last April. 
Texas is the third worst in the country for toxic water pollution last 
year. It was ranked third worst in terms of dumping chemicals into the 
water supply. It also ranked second worst for omitting known and 
suspected carcinogens to water in the country.
  In 1998, Texas also had the record with the third most pollution in 
the country and ranked third in omitting reproductive toxins into the 
waterways, and second worst in dumping nitrate compounds into that 
State's waterways.
  Governor Bush selected as his Vice Presidential nominee Dick Cheney, 
a gentleman, a former colleague of many in this Chamber where he served 
for some dozen years in the 1980s and 1990s. Secretary Cheney, as a 
Member of this body, voted seven times against authorizing clean water 
programs, often as one of a small minority of Members who voted against 
the authorization.
  In 1986, Secretary Cheney was one of only 21 Members to vote against 
the appropriations to carry out the Safe Drinking Water Act. In 1987, 
he was one of only 26 Members who voted against overriding President 
Reagan's veto of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
  The contrast here with Vice President Gore is stark. As a Senator, 
Gore fought for cleaner water. He was an original cosponsor of the 
Water Quality Act of 1987. He has been part of an administration that 
has set aside more lands for Federal protection than any administration 
since the man who got the ball rolling, Republican President Teddy 
Roosevelt almost a century ago.
  He has been an active promoter of critical partnerships to protect 
habitat. As my colleagues know, 70 percent of the continental United 
States is in private hands, and any successful effort to maintain and 
restore the Nation's wildlife must include these private landowners.
  One of the most valuable tools that has evolved is the habitat 
conservation plan, which is a long-term agreement between government 
and land owners that helps ensure the survival of threatened wildlife, 
while still allowing productive use of the land.
  Prior to 1993, only 14 such plans existed. This administration, with 
the Vice President as the point person on the environment, has since 
forged another 250 plans, protecting more than 20 million acres and 200 
threatened species, voluntary programs with private landowners to 
protect wildlife.
  I think it is also clear that the Vice President would continue to 
protect and perhaps even expand national parks and monuments. This has 
been an item of some modest concern on the floor of this House, and we 
have had an opportunity to discuss it. I think the Vice President is 
clear that he would be supportive of those efforts, and he would seek 
full funding of the land legacy initiative that the administration, Mr. 
Gore, proposed.
  They have supported full and permanent funding for the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. As part of the 2001 budget proposal, the President 
and Vice President requested $1.4 billion for the Land Legacy 
Initiative. I have every confidence that, as President, Al Gore would 
continue to insist that the Land and Water Conservation Fund be fully 
funded.

                              {time}  1745

  The Vice President is also on record to support reform of the 
antiquated mining law to help pay for conservation. Currently, the 
Mining Act of 1872 remains on the books exactly as it was signed by 
President Ulysses S. Grant more than a century and a quarter ago. It 
grants, effective today, allowing patents for hard rock minerals on 
public lands to be mined for $2.50 or $5 per acre.
  Since taking office in 1993, just in the course of the last two 
administrations, the 1872 Mining Law has required the Department of the 
Interior to sign 40 mining patents that deeded away publicly owned 
resources valued in the billions of dollars, one estimate is more than 
$15 billion, to individuals and private mining companies. No guarantee 
that those private mining companies are even American companies. In 
return, the taxpayers have received a little more than $24,000.
  The Vice President supports modernization of this law to take 
advantage of changed circumstances. We are

[[Page 22405]]

no longer needing to bribe people to exploit the wilderness and settle 
the West. We can use the money from any mining royalties that we ought 
to grant to help pay for incentives to protect open space and help 
communities support local parks.
  Again, as I look back and reflect on the difference that there would 
have between the Vice President and Governor Bush, I think this record 
is stark. If one reviews the record of Governor Bush, who cites his 
stewardship, now in his second term as governor of our country's second 
largest State, and look at what he has done for parks or public land in 
the State of Texas, I think any objective review of that record would 
find that it is indeed sparse.
  Texas ranks number 49 out of all the States in the amount of money it 
spends on State parks. That is number 49, I might add, from the top to 
the bottom. It is next to the last. A 1998 State audit found that Texas 
had a funding backlog of $186 million just for maintenance of its 
existing parks. In 1999, the Texas Parks Commission tried to remove a 
cap on the sporting goods tax to increase its revenues so it could do 
something to help this desperate situation in the State of Texas. The 
governor, sadly, did not support the proposal and the measure died.
  There was at least some lip service that was given by the 
administration of Governor Bush when he appointed a task force to find 
solutions to these problems. He created a 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 protect and preserve our treasured lands.'' Sounded good. 
But when he had an opportunity to translate this into action, the 
governor ignored the request for additional funding from the Texas 
Parks Commission.
  One of the most exciting proposals that has developed in this 
Congress, and something that has excited the attention of Americans 
across the country, has been fully funding the Land and Water 
Conservation Act, the CARA legislation, which passed this Chamber with 
an overwhelming bipartisan vote under the leadership of the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources, and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). 
That was really an artful piece of legislation that would have the 
opportunity of really transforming the use of our public land. It had 
resources for urban parks, for nature areas, for habitat restoration, 
conservation, purchase and maintenance, and historic activities. There 
was something here that excited, I think, the attention of 
environmentalists, conservationists, and citizens all across the 
country.
  According to the San Antonio Express News last year, when asked if he 
would support the legislation, the governor did not know. I quote: ``I 
do not know how to answer your question.'' And to the best of my 
knowledge, I have not seen him adding his voice to try and pry this 
legislation out of the death grip that it has with the Senate 
leadership where it has not been permitted to move.
  It is clear that Governor Bush would increase logging on public 
lands, but it is less clear what that environmental impact would be. He 
would reverse the roadless area protections that are encountered in the 
administration's roadless areas initiative, and this came out of his 
visit to Seattle, as quoted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 
26 of this year.
  The vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party has been clear 
that a Bush-Cheney administration would be very interested in reopening 
the issue of the lands that have been protected from development by 
this administration.
  Another issue of great concern to those of us in the Pacific 
Northwest, where we are struggling with how to balance the variety of 
interests dealing with the problems of the Columbia River System, with 
the issue of endangered species, with salmon, treaty rights to Native 
Americans, where there are conflicts in terms of barge traffic on the 
rivers, recreational users, and power, this is not an easy issue; and 
one of the things that has been clear is that this administration is 
willing to explore all options, and even some that are going to be very 
difficult. Vice President Gore has reiterated the fact that he feels 
that until we have a plan in place, that we need to keep all these 
options on the table.
  Unfortunately, Governor Bush has stepped into a difficult situation, 
one that does not have an obvious solution, and is willing publicly, I 
think sadly for political purposes, to rule out some options without 
having anything in the alternative. For him, evidently, not complying 
with the Endangered Species Act, not dealing with our commitments under 
treaty obligations to Native Americans, the extinction of salmon runs 
is, in fact, an option.
  The area of clean air is another one that is of great concern, I 
think, to all Americans; but I want to pause at this point because I 
have been joined by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). I am 
going to begin a somewhat lengthy piece, but the gentleman from New 
York, who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a tireless 
champion for environmental interests in his district, in his State of 
New York, and throughout the country, I know has been deeply involved 
in a number of these issues. He is a member of the Subcommittee on 
Interior of the Committee on Appropriations as well, and I would yield 
to him if he has some observations or thoughts at this point as we have 
been discussing these issues as it relates to the Vice President, 
Governor Bush and the choices before us.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, 
and I particularly thank the gentleman for taking this time to discuss 
an important issue, which has not gotten the attention that I think it 
deserves in the context of this particular Congress.
  In fact, as a member of this Congress, I have often felt that we are 
fighting a defensive action here, where we are taking actions that are 
designed to prevent harm from being done rather than moving forward in 
a positive direction on a number of environmental issues that really 
need to be addressed. The Endangered Species Act is one, and I know 
that the gentleman just referenced it, that deserves a great deal of 
attention.
  The issue of CARA, a piece of legislation which is designed to 
protect public lands and open space, and provide also recreational 
opportunities both in rural and urban settings, is a critically 
important piece of legislation. A good portion of that was advanced in 
the context of the interior bill, which we passed here just recently 
and which was signed by the President just the other day.
  Now, the reason that that provision advanced in the interior bill was 
in large measure a result of the leadership provided by the 
administration, both the President and Vice President Gore. That 
interior bill contained a landmark preservation, if I am not mistaken 
the amount was $12 billion, over a period of time for open space 
protection, preservation, and also for recreational activities, again 
in rural but also in urban settings in association with urban parks and 
things of that nature.
  One of the issues that I think that we really need to address, and 
which has not gotten enough attention, is the issue of water resources, 
particularly fresh water resources. It is true, and many people have 
observed fairly recently, that fresh water resources around the world, 
including those fresh water resources here in the United States, are 
being depleted, particularly those resources that lie in aquifers 
underground. We know that, for example, in the great Midwestern section 
of our country there is a huge underground reservoir known as the 
Ogallala, which runs from northern Texas up to the Dakotas, and covers 
a huge vast area, or at least underlies a huge vast area of the central 
plains.
  That water resource contained in that Ogallala underground reservoir 
is being depleted at a rather alarming rate. This is fossil water. In 
other words, it is water that has lain underground for centuries and 
there is no visible source of rejuvenation for this aquifer. The fact 
that we are depleting

[[Page 22406]]

it at such a rapid rate is something that ought to be of increasing 
concern.
  Now, the depletion is primarily for agricultural purposes, for 
applications of an agricultural nature throughout that area, and, of 
course, good purpose. But the idea that we can continue to drain a 
resource in the belief that that resource is always going to be there 
and will not be depleted is a false notion. It is a basic fallacy, and 
it is one with which we have to come to grips.
  So I think that this issue of fresh water resources is an issue that 
is going to require a great deal of attention from this Congress in the 
future and from the next administration. And that, of course, raises 
the question of what kind of administration do we want to have in place 
here to succeed the Clinton administration which will husband these 
resources in a reasonable way; in a logical and rational and 
intelligent way. I think the answer to that question becomes quite 
apparent when we look at the choices that we have before us.
  We have on the one hand Governor Bush, who has a record of depletion 
and deterioration of resources in the State in which he is the 
executive; and, on the other hand, we have Vice President Gore, who has 
a very deep and long record of environmental protection and husbanding 
of resources going back to the time when he served in this House, and 
then later in the Senate, and all of which he brought to his position 
as Vice President of the United States.
  So I think as people make decisions with regard to this upcoming 
election, and I think it is easy to lose track of time around here, but 
I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 weeks now until 
November 7, as people begin to think more closely about the decision 
they are going to make with regard to who is going to be the leader of 
our country for the next 4 years, I think one of the issues that they 
ought to factor into their decision-making is the issue of the 
environment and who among those who are holding themselves out for this 
office for President of the United States is best equipped and has the 
knowledge and the sensitivity and the ability to care about this issue. 
Who is best equipped, then, in that regard, to assume the 
responsibility of President of the United States.

                              {time}  1800

  So this is one of the issues that is of concern to me as I think 
about the upcoming election and I think about the kind of leadership 
that we are going to need to carry us forward into the 21st century at 
a time when environmental resources are going to be increasingly under 
adverse pressure and forced into adverse circumstances.
  So that is a question which I hope people will be thinking closely 
about as they make their decision about the President and Members of 
the Congress and Members of the Senate as they cast their vote on 
November 7.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like if I 
could, with the indulgence of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), yield to our colleague, the gentleman from the State of 
Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has a long and distinguished record as a 
State legislator, as a private citizen, and as a Member of this 
Congress for focusing in on many of these concerns that I know my 
colleague shares.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding to me 
and thank him for bringing this issue before this body.
  As he pointed out, in last night's debate, we had a little bit of a 
discussion about the environment, not enough of a discussion on the 
environment. There is a clear difference between the Vice President and 
the Governor on the environmental issues.
  The Vice President, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has 
pointed out, throughout his entire career has been one of the real 
leaders on sensible environmental policies, policies that not only help 
preserve our environment but also deal with economic expansion but not 
at the cost of destroying our woods or our airs. He understands the 
importance of smart growth. He understands the issues of being 
sensitive to our environment.
  I particularly appreciate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
taking this time. Because when we contrast that to the record of 
Governor Bush and the State of Texas, which has one of the worst 
environmental records of any State in this Nation, and the Vice 
President mentioned some statistics yesterday as related to health 
care, it is very clear that the State of Texas has been at the bottom 
of our Nation in providing health benefits for its citizens, but it is 
also at the bottom of our Nation on its record on environment.
  They have literally destroyed much of their environment at the cost 
of trying to do certain types of growth when it was not necessary to do 
that. It is certainly not the model of leadership that we need in this 
nation.
  This issue is particularly important to the people of Maryland, 
important to all the States. But the quality of life in Maryland is 
very much dependent upon the quality of our environment. We pride 
ourselves on the Chesapeake Bay, the most important natural resource in 
our State.
  I must tell my colleagues, when I was speaker of our State 
legislature, we took on the challenge to try to reclaim the Chesapeake 
Bay. Because it was becoming unsafe in many areas for people to swim or 
for people to use for recreational purposes. If they fell into our 
harbor, they did not have to worry about drowning, they would worry 
about whether they could survive the pollution that was coming in from 
all sectors, from the industrial use, from the farming use, from just 
not paying attention to our environment.
  We made a commitment 25 years ago to do something about it. And we 
have. We have done a pretty good job in helping to clean up the 
Chesapeake Bay. But I must tell my colleagues, we need a clean air 
policy because that affects the quality of the Bay and acid rain. We 
need a smart growth policy because that affects the quality of the 
waters leading into the Chesapeake Bay. We need a national policy on 
environment. We need leadership in the executive branch that will be 
sensitive to these environmental issues.
  Mr. Speaker, there is such a contrast between the two candidates for 
President on this issue. And I hope that in the remaining 3-plus weeks, 
less than 4 weeks, before the election that we will focus as a Nation 
on the environmental issues.
  Look at the record of the Vice President and the Governor on the 
issues that we have been talking about this evening. They are very much 
related to the quality of life in our community, very much related to 
our commitment to try to improve the quality of life in each of the 
districts that we represent.
  So I hope that we will take the time to compare the candidates who 
want to be President of this great Nation as to where do they stand on 
smart growth, that is placing people near where they work and where 
they live so that we can put less stress on the commute times in this 
country, less time on our energy dependency.
  We are too dependent upon imported oil. We all know that. Part of the 
solution, as the Vice President has said, is less use of fossil fuels 
in our community, more smart growth in our community. That will help 
the quality of life for people who live in my district and every 
district in the Nation, and it will also help preserve the Chesapeake 
Bay and the other great bodies of water in our Nation and our air that 
we breathe.
  I have been disappointed by what we have done in this session not 
because of the administration but because we have been spending more 
time trying to beat down some bad action by our colleagues, 
particularly on the other side of the aisle, when we should be looking 
at building a record that we can look back at with pride.
  I very much hope that as we get into the last weeks of this campaign 
that we will challenge the leadership of our candidates running for 
President as to how they stand on these issues. I think there is no 
comparison here between the Vice President, who in his entire career in 
Government has shown leadership and sensitivity to the 
interrelationship between all the environmental issues, and the 
Governor, who

[[Page 22407]]

has a record that none of us want to emulate from the State of Texas.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments.
  Two observations. One, I appreciate his reference to growing smarter 
in terms of wiser use of our resources and avoiding unplanned growth 
and sprawl.
  The State of Maryland has recently been cited as another national 
model for experimenting with this. And I think it is important that, 
unlike what some of the people who are attempting to be critical of 
this, there is no effort with smart growth to deny choices to the 
American public. The notion here is to give them more opportunities in 
terms of where they live, how they move.
  If the only way somebody can get their children to a soccer game or 
to school is to drive them, if they cannot walk, if they cannot cycle, 
if they cannot get there on their own, if they have no access to 
transit, it narrows their choices. If there are neighborhoods that are 
disposable, hollowed out, it narrows the choices.
  One of the things that I am, I guess, most appreciative of for the 
Vice President is taking the risk that some people will try and turn 
these concepts on their head and suggest that somehow this is a war on 
the suburbs or it is trying to deny choices, when nothing could be 
further from the truth than trying to promote more opportunity.
  I am prepared to talk a little further on clean air, but I notice we 
have been joined by my colleague the gentleman from Southern California 
(Mr. Sherman).
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the 
comments of my colleagues. I could speak a minute on this issue, but I 
think I would simply repeat what the rest of them have said. I have 
some comments about some of the fiscal issues and if the gentleman has 
time at the end and wants to yield time to me to discuss that point, I 
will. Otherwise, I thank the gentleman on the other side for agreeing 
to allow me to have 5 minutes at the end of his remarks.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make an observation, if I may, in 
connection with the comments that were made just a moment ago by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  I think that occasionally, if we look at these issues superficially, 
we fail to recognize the co-relationship between issues that sometimes 
are taken separately and distinctly and not joined together.
  The gentleman mentioned the relationship, for example, between the 
environment and energy. And there is a clear nexus there, obviously, 
that needs to be dealt with. And in that regard, it gives another 
opportunity to talk a little bit about the initiatives of Vice 
President Gore and his leadership on both environmental and energy 
issues in a way that addresses the complexities of both.
  For example, we know that we are increasingly dependent upon foreign 
oil. I think we are importing now something in the neighborhood of 56 
percent of the oil that we consume here in the United States from 
outside of our borders. This becomes, at that level, an issue even of 
national security. We are far too dependent upon outside sources for 
the fossil fuel that we depend upon for transportation, for heating, 
and for a variety of other uses.
  Now, that is something that we have to deal with. We have to gain 
energy independence to a greater degree. We have to reduce our reliance 
on foreign oil. How do we do that? One of the ways in which we do it is 
to develop alternative sources of energy. And this is an issue on which 
Vice President Gore has taken a leadership position that in fact was 
far ahead of its time. He was talking about these things when it was 
not apparent to most people that it would be necessary to take any 
action in this area.
  For example, he was talking about the need to develop photovoltaic 
cells, for example, and direct solar energy for the creation of less 
electricity and, by the way, in so doing, creating a vast new industry 
for America which will enable us to address other issues, such as our 
balance of trade, balance of trade deficit.
  If we are developing new sources of energy for a world that is going 
to be crying out for new sources of energy, that enables us to deal 
with our own energy situation more intelligently, reduce our dependence 
upon fossil fuel, create energy alternatively, and at the same time 
produce a product that will be desired by virtually every other country 
in the world.
  We have an opportunity, in other words, to take a leadership position 
here in a new industrial venture that will enable us to accomplish a 
variety of objectives in a very concise and particular way. And for 
that I think Vice President Gore deserves a great deal of credit for 
stepping out in front on this issue and directing the way toward its 
solutions.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman 
yield?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding. I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) that I 
could not agree with him more.
  It is rather tragic at a time now when we see the great peril that 
the Middle East is again embroiled in as the peace negotiations falter 
and the acts of violence are currently playing themselves out, and we 
think that if at the end of the Iraqi war if we had made a commitment 
that we would not ever again put ourselves in a position where we had 
to send American soldiers in the pursuit of oil or to protect the 
Kuwaiti fields or to protect the Saudi Arabia fields, or what have you, 
that we would have pursued this vast array of alternatives that the 
Vice President has been talking about almost his entire public life, 
that we could have, in fact, pursued alternatives in energy 
consumption, in conservation, in technologies that would have, in fact, 
really made us independent and insulated us in these kinds of 
situations.
  But, in fact, we chose to go another route. And that was massive 
increases in consumption, the failure to go for the efficiencies, the 
failure to recognize what was readily available on the market and use 
that here domestically or to sell it overseas. And yet, even now we 
continue to see the other side of the aisle and Governor Bush 
suggesting, if we just had one more drilling of oil.
  The fact is we have increased the production of oil in America over 
the last 10 years rather dramatically. The hottest oil play in the 
world is the Gulf of Mexico. Oil companies have spent tens of billions 
of dollars to be able to go in and to drill there, and it has obviously 
been worth their while. It is a fantastic find because of new 
technologies in that field. But it has not made us any more 
independent. It has not made us any more independent. It has continued 
the addiction that we have had to foreign oil.
  And so, rather than get our house in shape here and get our country 
in shape as the gentleman has suggested and as the Vice President has 
suggested over the last decade, we have done just the opposite, we have 
made ourselves more dependent. And like any other addiction, it is very 
difficult to break. But we ought to stop it at this point and recognize 
the peril it places us in internationally, the peril it places our 
economy in, and the unneeded expenditures by Americans for energy that 
is not necessarily simply because of the waste that is involved.

                              {time}  1815

  That was clearly one of the choices that was presented in the debate 
last night about whether or not we embrace this in terms of the future 
and in terms of the knowledge that we now have about energy 
efficiencies, conservations and technologies or whether we just say, 
``Let's go back to what we were doing in Pennsylvania at the turn of 
the century and just put another hole in the ground.'' It is wonderful 
to get the oil, but it does not relieve the dependence and there is no 
indication

[[Page 22408]]

that it ever will relieve the dependence unless, in fact, we go to 
these new technologies. I just want to thank the gentleman for making 
that point.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time briefly, I could not agree more 
with my distinguished colleague from California. He points out that we 
are, in fact, extracting more energy from more sources. But if we as a 
Nation that represents 5 or 6 percent of the world's population 
continue to use 25, 30 percent of the energy supply and if our primary 
bets are on fossil fuels that are, in fact, finite no matter what some 
would hope, we are on a downward path that can only lead to disaster.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. When 70 percent of the import is for 
transportation, we deny the fact that readily available today at these 
market prices, with no compromise in safety, speed or technology, a car 
is available, you can get 35 miles to the gallon. Not a big push from 
where we are today, but a dramatic change in our consumption pattern 
and our independence, if you will. That could just be done today with 
essentially no sacrifice being made. Not a dramatic runup in the price 
of an automobile, not a dramatic compromise in the safety for you or 
your families and your comfort or anything else. It is available today.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Could those vehicles, energy-efficient vehicles be 
made here in the United States by American workers?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Those vehicles could be made here 
with no change. The difference is that all the advances that we have 
made on engine efficiency, the dramatic increases that we have made in 
efficiencies of the internal combustion engine have been loaded up with 
weight so that you can drive a bigger and a heavier car rather than 
returning the benefit to the economy, to the consumer and to the 
environment. We just decided we would take all the improvement and we 
would negate it by putting 9,000 pounds on top of it. So here we get 
what the industry said they could do, what many of us in the Congress 
wanted them to do, what the environment needs them to do, and then we 
just larded it up. So rather than driving an ordinary car, we took all 
those benefits and just put them in, if you will, to style. That is 
costing the American consumer a huge amount of money, a huge amount of 
money for no real benefit at all.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is it possible that if we had at least studied the 
CAFE standards, that if we would have applied the CAFE standards across 
all of today's fleet, not having massive exemptions, that we could have 
actually had the best of both worlds?
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. It is all there. It is there. But 
obviously when we suggest to them that they can do this voluntarily, 
just like when George Bush suggested to all those old polluters in 
Texas to just do it voluntarily, they chose to do it another way. They 
chose to do it to maximize profit and forget the public interest, 
forget the needs to clean up the environment, forget the air quality, 
forget the economy of people who are reaching into their pocket to pay 
$2 for gasoline in a car that is getting them 20 miles to the gallon 
when, in fact, they could be getting 35 with none of these trade-offs.
  It could be done here, it could be done with American labor. They are 
the best autoworkers in the world. That is not even a contest. But it 
is not being done because huge, huge cars now are cash cows for the 
automobile companies and that is more important to them than the public 
safety, the environment, household incomes, expenses or our dependency 
on foreign oil.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, I was struck by your comment 
about the voluntary emission reduction plan in Texas. This is one of 
the innovations that has been cited by Governor Bush under his 
leadership. There was legislation that was introduced, he supported, 
Texas Senate bill 766 that took effect more than a year ago. It has 
been touted as an approach to voluntarily clean up these 760 old plants 
that were grandfathered in. I find it fascinating that as a result of 
this effort, there have been 73 so-called pioneer companies out of the 
760 that have taken part, that the majority of these plants, even of 
the 73 that took part, there are only 28 that even applied for permits, 
only 19 received them and only five of these volunteers with permits 
that actually required reductions. So there are actually only five out 
of 760 plants that are actually producing any result and it is 
something like 0.3 percent.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is the exact point. When you 
say to these companies, there is going to be voluntary compliance, if 
you can do it, do it, we would all appreciate it. You are also sending 
the same signal that says, ``And if by the way you continue to pollute, 
that's okay, too. If you choose to clean up, that would be nice, but if 
you choose not to clean up, it's the same.''
  Before we had the Clean Air Act and I know the gentleman is very 
interested in the Clean Water Act, before we had the Clean Air and the 
Clean Water Act, I do not remember companies walking in and saying, 
``I'm going to voluntarily clean up the arsenic in the water,'' or 
``I'm going to voluntarily clean up the benzene in the air, the lead in 
the air or the pollution in the Hudson River.'' I do not remember that 
happening. It was only because of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water 
Act that these companies stepped forward. They did it because it was 
the law of the land. What we have seen for 6 years in this Congress 
under a Republican majority and what we have seen in the State of Texas 
is continued efforts by corporate entities to lean on the political 
system so it is not the law of the land. And if it is not the law of 
the land, you will not clean up the Hudson River, you will not clean up 
the Sacramento River, you will not clean up the Mississippi River, you 
will not clean up these areas that America holds as treasures.
  And so as the gentleman points out, when Governor Bush got all done 
with his volunteer stepping forward, this is like a bad film of the 
Army: I need these volunteers, now everybody take one step forward and 
everybody steps back and one guy is left there as the volunteer. This 
is like a bad movie. If we work at this rate on cleaning up pollution 
in America that they are in Texas, we will all be choking to death. It 
is not happening. The figures point it out. The Governor could sit 
there last night and say, ``We have a plan and it's working.'' Well, if 
this is his definition of ``working,'' there is a horror story in store 
for the American public, because that does not address the needs of the 
cities and others who have air pollution problems and toxic problems. 
That is just unacceptable.
  We have struggled in this Congress to try to get entities to step 
forward and be responsible for Superfund sites, for water pollution and 
air pollution. I think the gentleman makes a very important point about 
the so-called voluntary program in Texas. You voluntarily get not to 
obey the law is what you do. That is what you get to volunteer to do.
  Mr. HINCHEY. The gentleman from California, I think, makes very 
important points about it as well. It is even true that after you 
require it in the law, if you do not have proper enforcement of the 
law, even then you will find some of these corporations that were 
responsible for the pollution in the first instance resisting taking 
the appropriate and responsible action to clean up the mess that they 
made.
  The gentleman mentioned the Hudson River. That is one clear example 
where you have had PCB contamination now for decades and the 
responsible parties have not done anything to address that pollution. 
In fact, what they have done is they have come here to the Congress, 
they have gotten Members of the Congress to introduce amendments to 
pieces of legislation which will, in fact, delay any act of 
responsibility on their part. So not only do voluntary actions not work 
but in addition to the law we have found in our experience that you 
also have to have effective enforcement. No, absolutely not, they are 
not going to do any of these things voluntarily because it costs them 
money, and it should cost

[[Page 22409]]

them money because they made enormous profits in creating that 
pollution in the first place in most instances. But in addition to 
having good, decent, powerful laws, you also have to have consistent 
and effective and honest enforcement.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who has been a leader on a whole host of 
environmental and energy issues.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank him for 
holding this very important special order.
  Mr. Speaker, on September 29 of this year, Governor Bush of Texas, 
attempting to reassure the public that there was no choice to make 
between oil production and preserving wilderness waxed eloquent on the 
subject of the Arctic Refuge.
  ``We should open up a small fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge for responsible oil and gas exploration. The Vice President says 
he would rather protect this refuge than gain the energy. But this is a 
false choice. We can do both,'' said Mr. Bush, ``taking out the energy 
and leaving only footprints.'' Leaving only footprints. A wonderful 
image, is it not, leaving only footprints in the Arctic Refuge? Like 
Robert Frost and his little cat's feet or Robinson Crusoe discovering 
he was not alone when he spied the telltale footprints of Friday on the 
shore of sand before the high tide washed them away.
  An image of footprints in the Arctic Refuge that the petroleum 
industry would leave and would love to have linger in our minds, these 
footprints of Friday or cat's paws in the sand, children walking along 
the beach. Footprints.
  It is against the law, of course, as we know, to drill for oil in the 
Arctic Refuge and the only way that will ever change is if the industry 
manages to get Congress to change the law. They are very resourceful, 
this industry. They have put together a dream ticket in the person of 
an oilman for President and an oilman for Vice President. And now they 
are engaging in industrial strength poetry as they try to win a license 
to destroy the wilderness of one of the last places on God-created 
Earth that man has yet to try to improve.
  So Governor Bush says his plans would only impact about 8 percent of 
the refuge. Well, it turns out that what they want to drill is in the 
biological heart of the refuge, where polar bears den and caribou give 
birth. Imagine your doctor telling you, ``This won't hurt. We're only 
going to drill in a small fraction of your body, only about 8 percent, 
only around the region of your heart, only that 8 percent of your body. 
That is the only place we're going to operate. Don't worry, we won't 
touch the rest of you. Only that 8 percent. The heart.'' The heart of 
this refuge.
  Now, let us take a look at the industrial footprints that have 
already been left on the North Slope by environmentally sensitive oil 
companies which want to drill in the heart of the refuge. These 
pictures are from Dead Horse and from Prudhoe Bay. They are part of a 
vast industrial complex that generates on average one toxic spill a day 
of oil or chemicals or industrial waste of some kind. It seeps into the 
tundra and becomes part of a new and improved North Slope as it is 
viewed by the oil industry. This energy sacrifice zone already spews 
more nitrogen oxide pollution into the Arctic each year than the city 
of Washington, D.C.

                              {time}  1830

  That is all of the pollution created in Washington, D.C. is not as 
great as the pollution created by these sites already in this Arctic 
North Slope area. As we can see, the drilling for oil takes a huge 
amount of equipment for roads, for pipes, for wells, for pumping. All 
the trappings of a massive industrial undertaking have been hauled or 
flown or barged to the North Slope around Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay. 
The companies have been able to afford to bring everything in to such a 
remote location because today they are making money. But guess what? 
Tomorrow it will still be there, and tomorrow and tomorrow and 
tomorrow. All this stuff never leaves. The roads, the pipes, the dry 
holes, the bulldozers, the spent wells, the gravel pits, it all stays. 
And together, it makes up a footprint that can only be described as a 
world-class mess, and it is going to stay that way because once the 
industry starts making money up there, the last thing they are going to 
do is to go into debt in order to clean it up.
  The industrial footprint extends for miles. When it is overlayed on 
the refuge, we can see that it would end any notion of this treasured 
corner of God Almighty's earth remaining wild, untrammeled, and 
untouched.
  Let me finish by noting that this is Federal land that has been set 
aside for all of the people of the United States. It does not belong to 
the oil companies. It does not belong to just one State. It is a public 
wilderness treasure. We are all the trustees. As far as I am concerned, 
we are going to have to work as hard as we can in order to make sure 
that this incomparable wilderness is not touched. There are plenty of 
other places that can be explored in Alaska; and as Joe Lieberman said 
in his debate, if we just increase fuel efficiency of an automobile 
three miles a gallon, it would produce more oil than all of this Arctic 
wilderness.
  Let me conclude and compliment the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer) for holding this important special order. I think all of 
these issues have to be discussed.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Udall) joining us, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall), who has been active in these issues since long 
before he came to this Chamber.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to associate myself with the comments of my 
colleagues and in particular acknowledge the articulate and eloquent 
comments from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) about the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As I think he pointed out, the 
geologists tell us we have probably something along the order of 6 
months' supply in this area, and to me it would be a big mistake for 
that short-term supply of oil to trample an area that was described in 
such fashion. It is a trade-off that is not really acceptable, I think.
  What is acceptable? Well, if we look at what Vice President Gore has 
been talking about, what is acceptable is to throw ourselves into all 
of these opportunities that we have to develop different types of 
energy production methods that are really exciting technologies out 
there. One hundred years ago, when petroleum was discovered, there were 
only two or three obvious uses for it. What did we do as a country? 
What did we do as a society? We said let us invest in research and 
development.
  The Federal Government stepped in, and now we have almost countless 
uses for petroleum. In fact, some historians, I think, will tell us 
that we wasted it in our automobiles in the latter half of the 20th 
century.
  We have very promising technologies in solar, as demonstrated by 
phototechnologies. We have wind technologies where the price of 
kilowatts is coming down dramatically. Biogas. We ought to be throwing 
all of those kinds of technologies into the mix at this time. I think 
we are going to see some enormously exciting things happen.
  It is a false choice: it is going to hurt our economy, or it is going 
to hurt our environment. It is truly a false choice and the Vice 
President is saying, look, we have incredible opportunities in the 
developing world to take these technologies to places like China and 
Indonesia and India, and in the process do right by our economy, do 
right by the economic development opportunities. So the Vice President 
looking ahead, oil is going to be a thing of the past; the geologists 
tell us that those supplies are limited, that in the next 100 years oil 
as we know it will not be available to us. Let us look ahead, follow 
the leadership and the vision of the Vice President.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.

[[Page 22410]]


  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I had yielded the gentleman 2 of 3 of my 
minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Apparently he used more than the 2 minutes. 
I am sorry if there is a misunderstanding, but the hour is up.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for 30 
seconds.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. I would advise the gentleman that a 
unanimous consent is not acceptable under a special order for 
additional time.

                          ____________________