[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 25338-25345]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ose). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a 
few minutes this afternoon discussing the situation we face ourselves 
today in terms of dealing with the homestretch of the year 2000 
election. There is, I understand why we have seen in many expressions 
of public attitude, a sense of confusion. We have heard the Republican 
candidate for President, Governor Bush, talk about his concern about 
the gridlock and partisan bickering here in Washington, D.C., trying to 
make it some aspect of his campaign, that somehow this would be an 
advantage of his candidacy, somehow either not knowing, caring or not 
being honest with the fact that it is his party that is not dealing 
with allowing partisan solutions to come forward.
  As is known to every Member of this Chamber, there was a bipartisan 
solution to the issue of a Patients' Bill of Rights that was passed 
with overwhelming Democratic support and a number of Republican 
supporters as well, a significant majority of this Chamber. But 
unfortunately the Republican leadership refused to allow a fair and 
honest discussion of this proposal to move forward and decided to 
appoint members of the conference committee who actually disagreed with 
the overwhelming sentiment, the overwhelming bipartisan sentiment of 
this Chamber.

                              {time}  1515

  In the area of efforts to reduce gun violence, we had an historic 
opportunity last year when finally there was a little glimmer in the 
United States Senate where there were some provisions that were passed 
that would have been small steps towards reducing gun violence, a huge 
concern for people around the country.
  One of those, the gun show loophole, for instance, had bipartisan 
Senate support, would have had an opportunity for passage here, but 
this legislation has been bottled up in a conference committee by the 
Republican leadership that will not meet with the Republican Senate 
leadership and bring legislation to the floor of this Chamber. That 
juvenile justice conference committee has not met since last summer; 
not the summer of the year 2000 but since August of 1999, losing an 
opportunity to have a bipartisan solution towards reducing the epidemic 
of gun violence.
  Perhaps nowhere is the stark differences between the candidates more 
clear than dealing with the area of the environment, and I wanted to 
take the opportunity today to have an opportunity to discuss these 
issues.

[[Page 25339]]

  I notice that I am joined by my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio), a senior member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, a senior member of the Committee on Resources, someone 
who has been involved with the issues of the environment since he and I 
served together as local officials in Oregon more than a decade ago. I 
am pleased to yield to him at this time for some comments about the 
environment, the year 2000 election, and the issues that are facing us.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that the area of the environment is perhaps 
where we find the most stark contrast both between the parties here in 
the House and between the Presidential candidates. For a minute I would 
like to turn to energy policy because this is very much on the minds of 
my constituents.
  In the West, where there are long distances between towns and many of 
my constituents live in rural areas, there are no mass transit 
alternatives and the high price of gasoline is a real problem for my 
rural communities. Here back, here in the East, where we are stuck 
today, people are very concerned about projected heating oil shortages, 
huge run-ups in prices of heating oil and, of course, the energy 
industry not being particularly competitive. The natural gas folks have 
taken the opportunity to quickly jack up the price of natural gas to 
follow that of oil. So even if adequate supplies are available for 
people in the East to heat their homes during this coming cold winter, 
the prices are going to be considerably higher than last year.
  So I believe it is worth examining, particularly, the two candidates 
for President on the issue of the future of energy policy and how we 
got here. How did we get into this pickle? Did we not learn back with 
the gas crunch, back in the 1970s, when people had to stand in line and 
they had what, the red and the green flags? And people got in fights in 
lines for gas stations, and you would have to get up two hours before 
you went to work to go sit in line to buy gasoline for your car. It 
seemed initially that the U.S. learned a lesson.
  In the Carter administration, we began a very aggressive policy of 
development of alternative fuels, conservation, renewable resources; 
but it all came to a screeching halt with the election of Ronald 
Reagan. And unfortunately, although the Clinton administration has 
tried to restore funding in those areas, we have to remember that for 
the last 6 years, 6 years, Governor Bush likes to talk about well, why 
has the Vice President not delivered on this or that or that? Why has 
he not done more on conservation renewable resources, because he has 
been confronted with a Republican majority who is in thrall to the oil 
companies. That is why. They do not want conservation renewables. They 
do not want alternative energy development, and it is really clear. If 
we just look at this year's budget, we would see that as of this date, 
the Republicans have cut renewable energy resource $106 million below 
the President's request in the energy and water bill, and passed a $211 
million cut in the President's request for energy research in the 
Interior bill.
  What is their solution? Well, we are not quite sure. I mean, Governor 
Bush and a number of prominent Republicans have talked about drilling 
in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
  Now let us set aside the issues of that spectacular and distant place 
and the potential for environmental degradation. Just look at the 
practicality of what they propose. It is laughable. The pipeline today, 
which is coming from Prudhoe Bay, and I have been to this area, is 
full. It is full. And it is pumping oil as quickly as it can to the 
coast, where it is being loaded as quickly as they can on tankers. Now, 
that should be of some help to us, particularly in the West. But guess 
what? The Republicans passed legislation at the request of two oil 
companies in 1996 to export all of Alaska's oil.
  They have a short memory. We made a promise to the American people. 
The American people paid for that pipeline, and they were promised none 
of that oil will go overseas. Guess what? Every single drop is going to 
Japan and China, where they are paying a lower wholesale price than the 
same oil companies are charging their refineries on the West Coast for 
oil which they obtained elsewhere, but profits are up 300 percent. So 
their solution is we should drill in the Alaska National Wildlife 
Refuge, I guess so we can export oil more quickly to Japan and China.
  I am not quite certain how that helps, but that is the one thing that 
Governor Bush has been able to say about this.
  It is clear he cannot say much more, nor can the Republicans over 
there if we look at the campaign and expenditure reports: Massive 
contributions from the oil industry. I mean, it is pennies to the oil 
industry. Their profits are up 300 percent; seven billion dollars in 
the last quarter, an absolute record. They do not want anybody to rain 
on their parade, and raining on their parade means we do serious things 
in this country for energy independence, for conservation, renewable 
resources, fuel economy standards, mass transit. And time and time and 
time again our colleagues on that side of the aisle try and kill mass 
transit. They are engaged right now in trying to kill off Amtrak, 
becoming the only major industrial nation on Earth without a passenger 
railroad.
  They have sat back and delayed better fuel economy standards. Do you 
really believe Detroit cannot make more economical automobiles? I 
really think they could; but if they are not forced to do it, well, why 
should they? And our colleagues on that side of the aisle have been 
very willingly working with the oil companies and a few of the 
automobile companies to set back those standards. They do not want to 
save oil. They do not want to save gas. In fact, former Representative 
Cheney, the Vice Presidential candidate, felt that his job as the CEO 
of the Haliburton Company, an oil exploration company, was to drive up 
the price of oil and he was engaged, as CEO of that company, in 
colluding with the OPEC countries and advising them to restrict 
production to drive up the price.
  Of course, it helped his stock options when he left the company. He 
said very proudly in the debate with Senator Lieberman that he had not 
made his dollars in the public sector; he made them in the private 
sector. Well, guess what? He was playing golf 5 years ago as a 
lobbyist, a former Member of Congress, with the CEO of Haliburton who 
took a real liking to him. They had a great time, a good round. He 
said, I think you ought to take my job, Dick. I am retiring. And he 
did. So he went from a guy with a lot less than a million bucks to a 
guy with many millions by working for this oil company.
  So we have to wonder, who is going to dictate oil policy in the 
coming administration?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I too was struck by that comment about 
having made his money in the private sector, not sullying himself with 
government. But is it not true that the company for which he went to 
work and some of the performance bonuses that he has earned have been a 
result of massive government contracts, for example, with the military?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, if the gentleman would yield back, in fact, yes, 
Haliburton had very large government contracts; and I am certain being 
a former Defense Secretary may have helped a little bit there, but 
there is also now some question being raised about whether or not in 
carrying out those contracts that there was some impropriety. And, in 
fact, there are investigations ongoing on whether or not the taxpayers 
were defrauded.
  So not only was the gentleman given a job which took him from being 
worth not very much to being a multimillionaire in a very short period 
of time, in conducting that job, his company was doing business with 
the Defense Department, where he formerly was head of the Defense 
Department, and is now under investigation for impropriety. And, 
thirdly, of course, one way they did raise their profits was by laying 
off lots of American workers. So this is really a record to brag about.
  All that leads back to the point that I was trying to make earlier, 
which is

[[Page 25340]]

the Governor of Texas came up through the oil industry, has received 
massive campaign contributions from the oil industry. His Vice 
President worked in an oil services industry and has become a 
multimillionaire by dint of a very short stint there and some very 
generous stock options and other pensions and things. And their public 
articulations are ridiculous on the issue of energy independence or 
getting down the cost of fuel in this country, conservation or 
renewables.
  They are proposing things that are absurd. Drill ANWR to ship more 
oil, which they support, to Japan and China, I guess. Yeah, they need 
oil and gas in Japan and China. I grant you that. So I really have got 
to wonder what the future would look like for Americans if we find that 
Exxon, Mobile, BP, Amoco and whatever the name of the one giant oil 
company is these days is sitting right there in the White House. I do 
not think that that is going to be a very pleasant future for American 
consumers and people certainly need to think about that.
  Not only is there an environmental threat from not dealing with 
energy efficiency and conservation and renewable resources, which is 
very large and goes to the issues of global warming which they do not 
believe in, but there is also an immediate threat to the American 
public and to the American consumers from the outrageous and 
extortionate prices that they are being charged by the oil cartels 
under the excuse of restrictions with the OPEC countries which Vice 
Presidential nominee Cheney advised the OPEC countries to do. But 
perhaps since he gave them that advice when he was an oil executive, if 
he becomes Vice President he will give them different advice and tell 
them to raise production and lower prices. We can only hope that he 
will be more generous and enlightened if he achieves office.
  I would be happy to yield back to the gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman referencing the issues 
that we are facing regarding energy and global warming. These are part 
and parcel of the critical elements that we are facing here in the year 
2000 election. I do not think it has been given quite the currency that 
one would have liked. But just again today on the editorial page of The 
New York Times, there was a reference to a new report that is coming 
forward, the third report from the group that was set up after the 
Kyoto Accords to try and monitor this, with over 50 recognized experts 
now finding not only is the consensus of scientific opinion stronger 
than ever that we have, in fact, contributed to the impacts of global 
warming that, in fact, it is accelerating but that it may be actually 
worse than we thought over the course of the next 100 years; that the 
increase in temperature may be over 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the 
course of the next century. And in that context we are faced with a 
Republican ticket that does not have a program or a proposal dealing 
with global warming.
  In fact, George Bush, Sr., derided Vice President Gore for his 
interest, his concern and his leadership about this issue. You may 
recall him being dismissed as the ozone man in the 1992 elections.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman would yield on that a second, we might 
note that this spring the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica 
is the worst in recorded history and extends well up above parts of New 
Zealand and Australia, and last summer for the first time we had 
significant ozone problems over the North Pole. So it is extraordinary 
that anybody would have derided someone for raising that very serious 
issue, both of global warming and ozone depletion, which is so 
detrimental to the future of our planet.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would just take just one brief pause here, 
reclaiming my time, because I think it does touch on another central 
issue of the year 2000 election, and that is the incredible claim that 
is being made by some that there is basically no difference between 
Vice President Gore and Governor Bush in terms of which of these 
gentlemen would be elected to be President.

                              {time}  1530

  In fact, I found it interesting that there are some who are claiming, 
first among them Ralph Nader, a gentleman who for years I have watched, 
and I have admired some of his work; just right out of college, one of 
my first opportunities for public service was at a local university 
where I had a chance to play a small role in helping facilitate the 
Student Interest Research Group in Oregon. I admired Mr. Nader and some 
of the Raiders. But somehow, to hear Mr. Nader suggest that people 
should vote for him because there is no difference between the two 
candidates strikes me as outrageous. I think there will be an 
opportunity in the course of our conversation here to point out some of 
those differences.
  I note with interest that the Republican Party is now starting to use 
some of the words of Ralph Nader. They are putting on in effect ads for 
Nader, because they are hopeful that they can use this to undermine the 
support for the Vice President. I guess it is something that one has 
come to expect from the Republican campaign; and sadly, I am hearing 
from Mr. Nader that they cannot quite distinguish the difference. They 
are unaware of the difference between, or they are not willing to admit 
the difference between the two gentlemen on issues of reproductive 
freedom, which has inspired the National Organization for Reproductive 
Rights, NARAL, to have to take out ads pointing out the threat that 
would be posed to women's right to choose her reproductive health 
options. Governor Bush does not support a woman's right to choose, 
versus the President in the form of Al Gore who does, and the impact 
that this would have on the decisions for people that would be 
appointed to the Supreme Court.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, sometimes we 
have to find a little humor in dire circumstances. I did see a cartoon 
which is very illustrative of the difference between Governor Bush and 
Vice President Gore on appointments on the Supreme Court. It was a 
cartoon which showed a Supreme Court made up entirely of Justice Scalia 
and Justice Thomas. Of course, Governor Bush has said, and remember, 
his father thought that Mr. Thomas was the most qualified person for 
the job, and now, of course, his son has said that he thinks that 
Thomas, being loyal to his dad, I guess, and Scalia are the shining 
lights on the Supreme Court and he wants to replicate them on the 
Supreme Court. His appointments would be more Scalias and Thomases.
  Well, we can throw out a woman's right to choice with the first 
appointment of a Scalia or Thomas clone. With the second appointment of 
a Scalia or Thomas clone, we can throw out the Civil Rights Act and a 
whole lot of other very important Federal laws that are based on 
Supreme Court decisions that would be revisited by a very radical 
right-wing court, and that is inevitable under his stewardship as 
President.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, just reclaiming my time briefly, it is 
interesting that people are talking about the fluid political situation 
that this Presidential election, it seems that each poll shows 
jockeying around the country and there are people looking at whether or 
not they are ahead in the electoral college or not, but clearly it is a 
fluid situation and I think most commentators believe in the next 10 
days it could go either way. Certainly we have watched the struggle for 
control of the House of Representatives. Most pundits feel the House is 
very much in play. Some even think that it is possible that the Senate 
may change hands, but certainly there is a momentum toward the 
Democratic side over there.
  One thing that we have not talked about is how much in play the third 
branch of government is, the Supreme Court, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's reference to the close nature of many sensitive decisions. 
The Washington Post recently had an analysis of the recently concluded 
term of the Supreme Court, where they analyzed 19 key decisions, and 
eight of the 19 decisions were 5-4 decisions that could turn

[[Page 25341]]

on the appointment of, as the gentleman says, one or two justices.
  We have recently completed the longest period in 177 years without an 
appointment to the Supreme Court; 177 years have passed since we had 
this period of over 6 years before an appointment. We have three over 
the age of 70 who are on the Supreme Court; we have some who are cancer 
survivors. There is, in all likelihood, significant changes that are 
going to take place, and whether it is dealing with the environment, a 
woman's right to choose, civil rights, as the gentleman mentioned, or 
the balance between the Federal and State governments, there are huge 
issues that hang in the balance, and perhaps at no time in our Nation's 
history for the last 40 or 50 years has the Supreme Court been so in 
potential of having a dramatic shift.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, a lot of the 
public does not focus on this on a daily basis, and neither do I. I 
mean, the Supreme Court is that building over there somewhere. But that 
is the bulwark we have against bad legislation, bad laws in this 
country. It is the bulwark we have for our Bill of Rights, our precious 
individual liberties. Just recently, snuck through the Congress in the 
intelligence bill is an Official Secrets Act for the United States of 
America.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I beg your pardon?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. An Official Secrets Act. It was made part of the 
intelligence bill which, of course, we cannot read before we vote on 
it, and it was put in it before anyone knew it was there. They do have 
a special room where you can go and read it if you want, but you cannot 
talk about it, so I do not go and read it. But they put in a clause 
which would establish an Official Secrets Act in the United States of 
America. Not even just for national defense purposes, but for anything 
that any government bureaucrat who is anywhere in the government who 
has a stamp that says, classified, they can stamp anything on their 
desk ``classified,'' and anybody who discloses it or second- or third-
hand prints it in the newspaper or talks about it, even a Member of 
Congress, would be subject to criminal penalties.
  Now, would we ever know about the problems created at the Department 
of Defense in acquisition or the problems in other parts of the 
government if all of the States could just be simply classified? So we 
are going to be turning to the next Supreme Court unless we can get 
this bill vetoed by the President and sent back down here to strip out 
the new Official Secrets Act. We will be turning to the next Supreme 
Court to see whether or not our precious liberties maintain any sort of 
modicum of control over the government. I mean that is extraordinary. 
Just think about it. It is not just the woman's right to choice. It is 
civil liberties, it is States' rights, and in this case, it is free 
speech. And these things are all important.
  Mr. Speaker, our current obscene system of campaign finance came from 
a bad Supreme Court decision. The American people are pretty sick of 
what is going on with the just unbelievable millions and billions of 
dollars this year, more than $1 billion, being spent on the campaigns 
for elected office, and that is a result of a well thought-out reform 
adopted after the Watergate scandal being thrown out in a bad Supreme 
Court decision. They affect our everyday lives. It is important. And to 
have Governor Bush say he wants to have Scalia, Thomas, Scalia, Thomas, 
Scalia, Thomas as the Supreme Court, and we look at their decisions. It 
is going to be a very grim day if we care about any of those things.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, briefly reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
the gentleman's concern, and I think we ought to note at this point 
that it actually goes, of course, far beyond the Supreme Court. The 
Supreme Court is the ultimate law of the land. It does symbolically 
capture our attention; it is something we can focus on. But, of course, 
as the gentleman well knows, we rely heavily, in terms of our work in 
the Federal Government, in enforcement of rights from environment to 
choice to consumer protection; it is a rare decision that gets to the 
Supreme Court.
  Day in, day out, these are decisions that are made in the Federal 
district courts and circuit courts where there has been a log jam that 
has been created, and again, because the Republicans in the Senate have 
refused to move forward in a bipartisan way for an appointment to 
lower-court positions. Oftentimes, these are incredibly well-qualified 
people, where there is bipartisan support back home. But there is a 
backlog now, and the floodgates are going to be loose for the next 
administration, and there will be hundreds of judicial appointments 
that will seize and control the character of the judiciary for a 
generation to come.
  I would note that we have been joined by our colleague from the State 
of Oregon (Ms. Hooley), and I am happy to yield to her if she wishes to 
continue the colloquy.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  As we look at this election and look at what it means to people, I 
think sometimes as we talk about in this Congress, we have actually 
stopped a lot of environmental riders. Well, what are riders? What does 
that mean? What does really affect people in their everyday lives? All 
I have to do is look back at the time when in 1994, 6 short years ago, 
when Gingrich and gang took over and some of the policies that they 
tried to put into effect. I mean whether it was doing away with our 
clean drinking water amendments or our clean air provisions and laws, 
and what does that mean to real people.
  Well, first of all, when we do not have clean air and we have any 
kind of a lung problem or one has asthma, I mean, this is devastating 
to someone if they do not have clean air to breath. Look at the Bush 
record and look at what has happened in Texas, and they have some of 
the worst air pollution in the world. Well, if I have any kind of a 
respiratory problem, I do not want to live there. I want to make sure 
our State and our Nation has clean air to breathe. If we look at 
people's everyday health and how it relates to water, would it not be a 
shame if one went to the faucet, took a glass, filled it full of water 
and said well, I really cannot drink that. I have to buy bottled water 
and the cost of that.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time briefly, I appreciate 
the gentlewoman's references to the issue of clean air, because this is 
something research is showing is not just a transitory problem. We have 
just had published a report in Southern California, which is now no 
longer the smog capital of the United States.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. It used to be.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. That honor, that distinction has been claimed by 
Houston during the course of Governor Bush's term of office, that 
losing this lung function over the course of a few years becomes 
permanent. They have been able to identify that the smog in Southern 
California reduces the growth of lung capacity 10 percent and makes 
people more likely for a lifetime to be hospitalized, for example, for 
asthma attacks. When we look at the record of Governor Bush in Texas, 
the smog problems in Texas cities have actually increased in the 6 
years that he has been governor.
  Mr. Speaker, 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, Beaumont, Port Arthur are in violation of Federal clean 
air standards for ozone pollution. As I mentioned, for the second year 
in a row, Houston is the smog capital of the United States, surpassing 
Los Angeles.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman talks about 
that, again, we have to say well, so what, it is the smoggiest place; 
but how does it affect people? Well, asthma is now the number one 
reason that children miss school, the number one reason for absenteeism 
in our schools today. That is directly related to what the gentleman 
was just talking about; it is our air and

[[Page 25342]]

whether or not it is clean air or dirty air.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that if Governor Bush was 
concerned about that environmental threat, we would have seen some 
manifestation of it, some energy, some passion.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. As Governor-elect, Bush opposed new vehicle emissions 
testing programs that had been designed and contracted by the State to 
implement the 1990 Clean Air Act. He called it onerous and 
inconvenient. As Governor in 1995, he worked out a deal with his 
legislature to overturn the centralized inspections, because it was too 
inconvenient. Instead, the decentralized system, similar to the old 
system except it costs more, the tests were less accurate, and it was 
easier to evade.
  Now we are in a situation. Dallas, for instance, is in noncompliance. 
His response in the case of Dallas was to argue with EPA to change how 
they were testing the methodology, not clean it up.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
that is the interesting way to deal with air pollution, of course, 
would be to the change the standards. I think we can actually expect in 
a Bush Presidency, if there should continue to be a Republican 
Congress, that that would happen.
  I remember the bad old days before we had a Federal Clean Air Act, 
and as a concerned graduate student at the University of Oregon, went 
to a meeting with people concerned about pollution from a local 
company. And this was before we had a Federal law and the 
representative of this rather large company that is now known and 
advertises widely for being environmentally responsible was to say, 
that is the smell of jobs, and if you do not like it, we will move to 
Idaho, because they do not care.
  Mr. Speaker, that is what happens if you dismantle strong Federal 
standards, which is exactly what we know would happen under a Bush-
Cheney Presidency, if they had a compliant Congress.
  Let me just turn for a second for clean water. We take it for 
granted. Water is going to become one of the most precious commodities 
in this century. Wars will be fought over water according to the CIA. 
In fact, we are close to that in some parts of the world. We are 
running out of potable water. We take a lot for granted.
  At the height of the Republican revolution here, I sat on the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, we had a markup that 
went on for 5 days. We were working on a piece of legislation to 
reauthorize the expired Clean Water Act. We went through amendment 
after amendment, trying to fix the problems with the law and lock step, 
100 percent of the Republicans voted against us, the Democrats in the 
minority, and that bill went through the House.
  And if Bill Clinton, if we had not had a President downtown saying if 
that bill gets near my desk, I will veto it, shred it and destroy it, 
that probably would have become the law of the land, and it would have 
taken us back actually to the days when any industry anywhere could 
dump.
  This bill actually embodied a new principle, and this is free market 
economics. Anybody who wants to can dump whatever they want in the 
water, and the bill said the public would be obligated if they wanted 
to use the water for something other than a sewer to clean it back up. 
It would have taken us back to the 1950s and early 1960s when we had 
rivers here in the eastern United States that actually caught fire. A 
lot of people are too young to remember that today. That actually 
happened, the Cuyahoga River and other rivers, they caught fire, they 
were so polluted, they were so dead.
  The Willamette River in our own State was an open cesspool, and it is 
only because of Federal laws that many of these rivers have begun, 
begun to restore their health.
  We are not yet done with that journey, and it is going to come to a 
screeching halt if not turning back the clock with a Bush Presidency.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If I may just reclaim my time briefly, I want to just 
follow up on one of the gentleman's points, because today many people 
take for granted the protections of the Clean Water Act. They take for 
granted some of the progress that came, as the gentleman mentioned, at 
the expense of a lot of time, money, energy and struggle.
  One of the members of the ticket, Secretary Cheney, who has a record 
that he compiled as a Member of this Chamber, and when we look back at 
what his work is there, it gives us some sense, perhaps, of his values 
and what it brings to the Republican ticket.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. A voting record is a very good way to understand 
someone's future conduct.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. If we look at the voting record of then-
Representative Cheney, he voted seven times against authorizing clean 
water programs, often as one of a small minority who voted against 
authorization.
  In 1986, he was one of only 21 Members who voted against the override 
of President Reagan of the appropriations to carry out the Clean Water 
Act, one of only 26 Members to vote against overriding the veto of the 
Clean Water Act, a lifetime record, according to the League of 
Conservation Voters of 13 percent, one of the worst of that generation.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am 
going to go back to clean air for just a minute. I know we have been 
talking about clean water. I want to go back to clean air for just a 
minute.
  The gentleman was talking about the voting record of Governor Bush or 
the State he presides over, and the gentleman talked about when the 
pollution went up in Dallas, not wanting to do emission tests because 
it was inconvenient and it was costly.
  I had the privilege, I guess, of going to school in Southern 
California for a couple of years, and the first 2 months I was at 
school, September and October, I was sick the entire time. I did not 
know what was wrong with me.
  Finally, I went to a doctor, then I went to another doctor, because I 
had no idea why I felt so lousy. And then one day, I woke up, and there 
were mountains behind the college. I said, where did they come from? A 
miracle has happened. There are mountains back here. We finally 
discovered it was the air pollution that had made me sick for 2 months.
  Mr. Speaker, in our State, where we do have mandatory vehicle 
emissions, I go have those. And, yes, it is a little bit inconvenient. 
It costs me some money, but having had that experience of what happens 
when you have dirty air, I now gladly go and get my car tested to make 
sure that I am driving a car that does not pollute.
  I just think that is what happens to people every single stinking day 
that you have that kind of air pollution. People become sick, and it 
may be inconvenient to go and get your car tested, but let me tell my 
colleagues, it is a lot more inconvenient to be sick, it is a lot more 
inconvenient to be in the hospital, and when you look at the number of 
students that miss school every single year because of their asthma 
problems, I will tell my colleagues it is well worth it. I cannot 
imagine having a President who would not care about our clean air.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. The comments the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) 
is making in terms of her personal commitment to the environment, 
actually, we know from survey research that the American public is 
willing to pay a little bit for clean air. They are willing to pay a 
little bit for clean water.
  They know that investing in the long run in the environment is 
something that is important for their future and their children's 
future. That is why as we look at the two candidates and compare their 
performances, compare their platforms and their ideals, looking at the 
performance in the State of Texas is so unnerving for me. Texas ranks 
near the bottom of all the States in the union in the investments that 
they make to try and clean up the environment.

[[Page 25343]]

  One would think that a large State with such huge environmental 
problems would be maybe working a little harder. But the State of Texas 
ranks 44th out of all the States in per capita spending on 
environmental programs.
  Mr. Speaker, they are the third worst in the country for toxic water 
pollution. When we look at areas, for instance, like open space and 
public lands, the Bush-Cheney ticket has responded that maybe they 
would like to undo some of the monument designations that we have seen 
this administration step forward, but looking at what they have done in 
the State of Texas. Texas ranks 49th out of the States in the amount of 
money it spends on its State parks.
  Governor Bush appointed a commission to look at those problems. I 
will say that this is an area that has had bipartisan support around 
the country. Republicans and Democrats in our State support public 
space, open space, parks.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. They have done it with their dollars, by the 
way.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. They have stepped up, they approved local 
initiatives. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is on the 
Committee on Resources that has been working with the interesting 
leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) to craft CARA, which is currently 
dead in the Senate, because the Republican leadership will not allow it 
to be voted on, that passed here overwhelmingly with bipartisan 
support; but in Texas, the governor appointed a commission to look at 
it and then would not support that commission's efforts to solve the 
problems.
  They wanted to remove a cap on the sporting goods tax to increase 
their revenues. He did not support the proposal. The measure died.
  He created this task force and ignored the request for additional 
funding. A year ago on the campaign trail, Governor Bush did not even 
know how to respond to a question about the CARA legislation. He did 
not know whether he supported it or not. He certainly has not added his 
voice to try and break the partisan gridlock on the part of the 
Republicans in the Senate right now so he could get CARA through this 
Chamber.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman would yield on that, there may be two 
reasons for Governor Bush opposing this wonderful new program that 
would not have cost the American taxpayers a penny to better take care 
of our public lands, to enhance open space, acquire park lands from 
willing sellers with great private property protections in the bill.
  I think perhaps it goes back to where we started our discussion, 
because this thread runs through everything. Dirty air down in Texas is 
principally due to pollution by the oil industry.
  The money for the CARA bill is money that comes from lease charges 
offshore oil and gas drilling. These are public lands. These are public 
resources. We exact a modest royalty when the oil companies do not 
defraud the taxpayers, for the extraction of that oil and gas. And the 
law has said for more than 20 years that that money is supposed to flow 
to the acquisition of open space, conservation, and park lands. And it 
has not.
  Finally, in a bipartisan basis, this Congress came together and said 
enough is enough. We are going to take that money that is being paid by 
those oil and gas companies, and we are going to use it for the purpose 
for which it is intended. We are not going to steal it, and spend it on 
some other part of the Federal Government or the Pentagon or anything 
else.
  Perhaps Governor Bush's concerns come back to the oil industry again, 
since he made his fortune drilling rather unsuccessfully for oil, but 
that is not a prerequisite to making money in that industry. Or Vice 
Presidential nominee Cheney, who headed up an oil services company that 
consulted with the OPEC countries and got them to successfully 
constrain production to drive up the prices, also did well in the 
industry.
  If I could just reference one thing from yesterday that many people 
might have missed on the floor, we had a debate over something called 
POGO, not the comic strip; but POGO is the scandal, where a number of 
oil companies defrauded the Federal Government. That is, the taxpayers 
of the United States, from paying their lawful fees for the extraction 
of oil and gas from Federal lands, from lands that were owned by all 
the people of the United States.
  They essentially plea bargained to a one half of a $1 billion 
settlement. We do not know really how much they stole; but they plea 
bargained to that. But this Republican Congress has spent all of its 
time trying to investigate the people who blew the whistle, not the oil 
company executives who defrauded the American people of hundreds of 
millions of dollars. But let us find and get and harass those 
whistleblowers in the Federal Government who exposed this.

                              {time}  1600

  Do we think that those whistleblowers would be able to keep their 
jobs in a Bush-Cheney oil company administration? I do not believe so.
  So to say there is no difference between the candidates for President 
is absurd, and particularly on all these strains that can come back to 
the tentacles of the oil industry which has had the largest profits and 
the largest increase in profits in its history in this last quarter, 
gouging the Americans every day at the pump, and is responsible for 
many of the problems we have talked about. Now we are going to put 
their folks in the White House. I hope not.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, going 
back to talk about CARA for a minute and, again, a program that really 
provides open space, provides public lands, makes sure that we take 
care of our coastline and our coastal resources, and, again, it does 
not cost the taxpayers money because it comes from the drilling 
offshore. I believe that program, not only was supported in a huge way 
here, in a bipartisan way, but supported by most of the Governors in 
the states.
  Now, I do not know, and maybe one of the gentlemen know, whether Bush 
supported that as Governor of Texas. I am asking my colleagues that 
because he keeps talking about, ``well, I want to work in a bipartisan 
way, and I can get the job done.'' I cannot tell my colleagues how many 
times I have heard ``I can get the job done. I can go work in a 
bipartisan way. I will get results.''
  I wish he would pick up the phone and make a call to the Senate 
President and the Speaker of the House if he cares about that issue or 
any other issue that we have been dealing with here. I mean, we can go 
into real Patients' Bill of Rights. He says he supports that, even 
though he did not.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, he vetoed it.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. He vetoed it, right.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. It came along without his signature.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. But he says he supports it. But I am just 
saying he keeps talking about how he can get this done in a bipartisan 
way. I wished he would pick up the phone and call some of these people.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that sentiment.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know if he 
supported CARA?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that he is now 
supportive.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Oh, he did not know about it. That is right, he 
did not know about it. When all the other governors supported it, he 
did not know about it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Yes. In response to a direct question, he was unable 
to indicate whether or not he supported it. He just did not know how to 
answer that question, according to the San Antonio Express News of June 
15, 1999.
  But having attempted to do something in Texas, falling short of the 
mark, not supporting them, it would seem this would be a classic 
opportunity if he now supports it, if it is ``free money from the 
Federal Government'', and if he opposes ``partisan bickering'', maybe 
he can intervene

[[Page 25344]]

and say something to the Republican leadership so all it has to do is 
be voted on. Because we all know, if it were brought to a vote on the 
floor of the Senate, it would pass overwhelmingly because it is 
supported by the American public. It just makes too much sense.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, do we 
need to give him the phone numbers of those people?
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is a concern. But it seems to me that 
we take a step back and we look at the approach that has been offered 
up.
  We have talked a little bit about air quality problems in the State 
of Texas, which are substantial, and they are getting worse as it 
relates to other parts of the country. Governor Bush has touted his 
voluntary program to deal with over 700 factories that are not meeting 
the air quality standards. Many of these have been grandfathered in.
  The approach that was touted by Governor Bush under legislation in 
Texas over a year ago, Senate bill, S. 767, was basically voluntary 
compliance. Well, in the face of this voluntary compliance, the Texas 
Air Crisis Campaign has gone back and looked at what has actually 
happened in the State of Texas.
  Of these over 700 factories, only a small number have stepped forward 
and done anything. The total amount of harmful air pollution from these 
few dozen plants that are doing anything at all has reduced harmful air 
pollution by less than one-third of 1 percent. It is an approach that I 
think is something that most people would not be very excited about 
applied on the Federal level.
  But if we are going to have appointees that are drawn from the ranks 
of the people that are supposed to be regulated, if we are going to 
have a judiciary that is populated with people who are hostile to the 
notion of government regulation, we may be forced to rely on this 
approach. I think the report is such that it would be a sad one in 
terms of actually producing results.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I could not 
find this earlier in my notes. I know we have covered a lot of ground 
here, but there is so much to talk about that the conventional press is 
not talking about.
  He mentioned the ties of Vice Presidential nominee, former 
Representative, former Secretary of Defense, former Halliburton Company 
executive, Mr. Cheney. Mr. Cheney, again, was chief executive for a 
short 4 or 5 years of this oil services company. During that time, and 
he says, again, if we recall, nothing to do with the public the fact 
that they gifted him with $30 million for his tenure there, 5 years.
  Well, their government contracts during that time period doubled to 
$2.3 billion. Their two largest customers were, surprise, the United 
States Department of Defense. Former Secretary Cheney of the revolving 
door managed to get them contracts with the agency which he headed 
until just a year or two before that. They also had a contract from the 
British Defense Ministry.
  Then they raked in another $1.5 billion in government loans from the 
Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, up 
from $100 million before Mr. Cheney took over.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. But it had nothing to do with the government, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is the private sector making money off 
the government. But that is his proud record. I think that causes some 
grave concern. I mean, not only as chief executive was he involved in 
colluding with the oil ministers of the OPEC countries and urging them 
to drive up the price of oil, and he succeeded in that effort, but, 
then after he finished raising the price of our oil and gas by 
colluding with OPEC, he then turned to the Federal taxpayers to greatly 
enrich his company, and then to provide him with a huge payoff as he 
left.
  But, remember, he did take some tough steps while he was there. He 
did lay off several thousand American workers. So he certainly deserved 
that $30 million golden parachute when he left. We can certainly 
understand that.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it is probably a very small amount 
of money compared to all the money he brought in off of government.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are reaching the last 4, 5 minutes of 
our discussion here today. I did want to accord the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Hooley) some time if she had some concluding thoughts about 
the impact of the 2000 election, the environment and the choices that 
we are faced.
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I think this is, and people have 
said it before, this is probably one of the most important elections we 
will ever have. It is interesting. I turned on the news last night when 
I got home, and I watched them talking to many people who were 
undecided. One of the things they said over and over again was, well, 
there is not much difference between the two of them. Well, we like 
one. We know he does not know much, but we do not like his personality 
much. So those were the kinds of information that they were talking to 
the press about. Or I do not know whether I am going to vote.
  I guess I want people to keep a couple of things in mind as this 
election comes up. First of all, one of the things that makes this 
country so great is that people participate. So voting is absolutely 
critical. It is really all about democracy. If we want to keep this 
democracy going, then people really need to participate, and they need 
to do that by voting.
  Then I think they have to really think through what a President does. 
I mean, a President deals with the Congress. They deal with policy that 
affects everyday people's lives, day in and day out, whether it is if 
they can go and afford their prescription drugs, whether there is a 
safety net for them with Social Security so that, when they retire, if 
they do not have much money, like my mom did. I mean, she had $72 a 
month in her retirement plan. She could not have survived without 
Social Security.
  It is the roads we built. It is making sure that we keep our Nation 
free. It is how they deal with foreign policy. It is who appoints the 
Supreme Court. It is who sets the policy, and are they looking out for 
just a few people, or are they looking out for all of us.
  I want them to think very, very carefully about this election. I want 
them to vote. But this decision is in their hands about who is it that 
they want for President, to think through the kind of person they want 
as President and the skills that person has to help each person in this 
country.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, just on the theme of voting, I hear many of 
the same things that the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) heard on 
television last night from some of my own constituents. The government 
is not relevant to me. What you are doing is not relevant to me.
  Well, a lot of times it is not. They are right. The fact that we 
investigate whistleblowers and not oil price company fixing or stealing 
money from the American taxpayers, it is right, the government is not 
relevant to their concerns. It is not relevant, because they did not 
vote. If one does not vote, the government is going to be run by the 
special interests who are funding many of the campaigns. People must 
vote. They have to go out and vote.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I think that is an appropriate tenor on 
which to close our discussion, because there are opportunities from 
coast to coast for people to make a difference in this election, 
because it is so close.
  It seems to me that it is important. It is one of the things I could 
not disagree with Mr. Nader more strongly. There is a huge difference 
between the record of the most environmentally sensitive Vice President 
since Teddy Roosevelt, an administration that has done an excellent job 
with the environment, not everything, maybe, that some of us would 
want, but as my colleagues have pointed out, having to actually hold 
back the tide from an antienvironmental Congress led by Republicans who 
were not sympathetic.
  It seems to me that this is an opportunity for Americans to look very

[[Page 25345]]

clearly at what they want in terms of an administration that is going 
to govern, not just for 4 years, but is going to determine a judiciary 
for a generation.
  I would hope that people would, in fact, focus on the difference 
between performance and make a difference, not pretend to send a 
message, but to really take that vote in a way that will make a 
difference in terms of the President, in terms of the Congress, in 
terms of providing the type of political representation they want.
  It seems to me that, when we have the most competitive Presidential 
race in 40 years, the most competitive Congressional race in half a 
century, and a situation, as I mentioned, we have not seen with the 
Supreme Court in 177 years, and all of them converge at the same time 
in this election, it is critical for people to cast that vote carefully 
because it is going to make a huge difference for them, their children, 
and for generations to come.

                          ____________________