[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 16]
[House]
[Pages 24188-24193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 24188]]

                          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 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.

[[Page 24189]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 24190]]

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 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.

[[Page 24191]]

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 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.

[[Page 24192]]


  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 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

[[Page 24193]]

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.

                          ____________________