Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's focusing in for us on the concern that we should have in terms of what the Bush administration would represent based on what has happened in two terms now of the Governor of the State of Texas. Texas, if it were a country, would have the world's seventh largest emission of carbon dioxide. Texas, under the leadership of Governor Bush, has now seen that Houston has now emerged as the number one city in the country in terms of pollution, air pollution, surpassing Los Angeles. We will be talking more about that. I am privileged to have join us for a discussion of these issues the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a valuable member of the Committee on Appropriations and someone who has been a leader in environmental protection in this Congress. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I do hope that this will be an opportunity over the course of the remaining month of this election for the American public to focus keenly on these issues. I think the record is clear. I think that goals that the American public want are available to us, and I am hopeful that they will figure largely in the result next November.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress has been to make the Federal Government a better partner, working with people back home to make our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. An important step towards that goal would be to reduce the threat of gun violence in our communities. In no developed country in the world are families at greater risk of gun violence than in the United States. Why is this? I think that one of the problems is that the sheer magnitude and terrible frequency of gun violence has numbed the American public. It is hard to grasp the enormity of more than 12 children a day killed, the equivalent of a Columbine High School massacre just scattered around the country. Part of our task must be to put a human face on those tragedies and then to propose simple, common sense steps to reduce gun violence. My first experience with this tragedy involved a high school friend. Bob Boothman was one of five kids. He was sandwiched between two older twin sisters and two younger twins, a brother and a sister, a couple of years younger. The Boothman family was a place where people gravitated. It was warm and loving, lots of activity, friendly, full of life. Then, one night in the fall of 1969, as Bob was driving home, things were turned upside down for that family. Someone in a car driving in the other direction fired a random shot that killed Bob. Bob, the student body officer, the boyfriend, the son, the brother, the trusted employee. Life did go on for the Boothman family, their children, and today, their grandchildren. Yet, nothing quite filled the void of having lost this terrific young man. It was not just Bob that was the victim, but his parents, sisters, brother, friends. They were all victims of that violence, changing their lives forever. Mr. Speaker, I share this painful memory not because we should dwell on these losses, but because they should inspire us to take steps to protect families in the future. About the time that Bob lost his life, America declared war on drunk driving and death on our highways. Our battle for highway safety was enormously successful. We have cut the fatality rate in half by a series of simple common sense reforms. So too, we can launch a similar effort to protect Americans against gun violence. We can take simple, common sense steps, keeping guns out of the hands of more people with a pattern of reckless and dangerous behavior, treating the gun like the dangerous product that it is, making it harder for children to obtain and use them, cutting down on illegal sales and distribution. Sadly, this Congress has been paralyzed by extremists on the issue of gun violence, and the Republican leadership has refused to even allow the conference committee on the Juvenile Justice bill to meet for 14 months to consider the Senate-approved gun amendments. They have not met since August of last year. Luckily, in my State of Oregon, in November, we can vote for Measure 5, which would close the gun show loophole, a small, but significant step to make sure that all gun purchasers are subjected to background checks, to maybe help break the log jam here in Congress. Mr. Speaker, Bob Boothman died on a cold November night in 1969. Since then, over 1 million Americans have lost their lives to gun violence, more than all of the Americans who have been killed in gun violence in war from the Civil War to this date. We as a Nation have celebrated the sacrifice of those million war dead; and we have worked to minimize, to prevent future conflicts and loss of life. So too, we need to memorialize the victims of gun violence, to make sure that their lives were not lost in vain, so that all of America's families can be safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in serving in Congress is to promote communities that are more livable. We are not going to achieve that goal unless we make significant progress toward cleaning up our Superfund and Brownfield sites. For that reason, I have been a consistent supporter of Superfund and Brownfield legislation in the 106th Congress. Of all the Superfund and Brownfield bills, it appeared that H.R. 1300 had the greatest chance for passage in the House. Despite significant bipartisan support, Senate leadership has made it clear that H.R. 1300 will not move on their side. I am deeply disappointed that instead of moving H.R. 1300 we are being asked to vote on a controversial bill which I must oppose as will many of my colleagues. Hopefully in the next Congress we will be able to pass genuine Superfund and Brownfield legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) for his comments, and I must commend his leadership. I had the pleasure of attending that first National Oceans Conference in the beautiful district of the gentleman 2 years ago. It was a very inspirational event. It brought people together. Great things have come from it. Of course, the gentleman was the inspiration for the President with another stroke of the pen, with the California Coastal National Monument. I commend the leadership of the gentleman and his vision, and I appreciate him joining me this evening. Mr. Speaker, I think the item that frustrates me the most is not the governor of Texas' poor environmental record, lack of leadership; but it is the lack of perception and passion about protecting the environment that I personally find most disturbing. It seems to a casual observer at least that he seems unaware of Texas' serious environmental problems. Where is his outrage and his concern being expressed that under his leadership Houston has become the city with the Nation's worst air quality? This environmental indifference, if combined with the typical Republican leadership that we have seen in Congress in the last 6 years, could be disastrous. I want to talk about that in a moment, but first I guess it is important to also reference that there is another branch of government that is going to be in flux as a result of the outcome of this election, because every 2 or 3 years on average a Supreme Court Justice is appointed. There have been no justices appointed the last 6 years. It is very likely that the next President will be appointing more than one justice, probably 2, 3, 4, in the next 4-year term alone. Governor Bush has indicated that from his perspective, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas would be the models for his Supreme Court appointments. I think a cursory review, even a cursory review of their judicial decisions indicates why that could potentially be a disaster for the environment. But the Supreme Court is only the tip of the iceberg, because the next President will be appointing hundreds of Federal district and circuit court judges. Now, these are the men and women who make decisions every day in the various circuits that impact the day-to-day activities of Americans. In many cases, these are the decisions that stand, that are never reviewed, that determine the outcomes. Of course, the judiciary on the district and circuit court level has been sort of the farm club, the bench for future higher appointments. It would be, I think, unfortunate if we were to have an approach such as has been indicated by Governor Bush as his model. I also mentioned the other branch of government, the legislative branch, because here too there are significant differences that are offered to the American public. It has been the Democratic administration that time and time again has beaten back destructive environmental riders, vetoed legislation that was overreaching, and has been a part of constructive negotiations to be able to protect and enhance the environment and hold the line here in Congress. If you look at the ratings by the people whose job it is to advocate for us on the environment, one of the best is the League of Conservation Voters. They have for years been compiling a nonpartisan assessment of legislative voting records. They break these records out looking at the House and the Senate and the Republicans and the Democrats. The difference between the two parties is stark. If we look at just the leadership of the environmental committees alone, in the Senate the party average for the Republicans is 13; for the Democrats it is 76 percent, but for the average leadership the chairman of the Senate Republicans are actually even worse, scoring a bare 9 percent. If we look at the House of Representatives, it is even more stark. The average for Republicans is 16 percent; for the Democrats the average is 78. But if you look at the leadership of the committees that deal with the environment, the average for the chairs of the Republican members is 1 percent. Of the 5, there was one, according to the League of Conservation Voters, 1 was 6 percent, the others had 0. Yet, for the democratic Ranking Members, the people who stand to ascend to the chairmanships, the average is 69 percent. If we look at the House and Senate leadership, overall, the average leadership in the Senate was 0 for the Senate leaders, and in the House, it was 4 percent. The democratic leadership was 86 percent in the House, even more environmentally sensitive than the party average of 78 percent, but basically, more than 6 times more environmentally sensitive and friendly, according to the evaluation of the League of Conservation Voters. Mr. Speaker, this has manifestations as it deals with actual policy impact. I listened with some frustration earlier this evening as one of my colleagues, the gentleman from Florida, attempted to take to task the Democrats in the administration dealing with energy policy. I thought for a moment, my goodness. What is the energy policy that has been given to us by the Republicans? For example, the Bush-Cheney ticket would be drilling in the ANWAR, in the Arctic Reserve, destroying forever this pristine, what has been described as the Serengeti of the Arctic, and there are a few month's supply of energy. This is something that the American public opposes by a 3-to-1 margin which the Republicans in Congress have been advocating, but a democratic administration has been resisting. I look at the difference that has been proposed by my friends in Congress from the Republican side of the aisle, because it has not been very long ago that they had no energy alternatives; that, in fact, the Republican administrations in the 1980s cut back energy research and development by billions of dollars for alternative energy sources. In 1995, when the Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate, they once again started the attack that was begun by the Reagan administration. Their first efforts were to cut energy efficiency programs 26 percent; $1.117 billion in fiscal year 1995 was cut to $840 million. The Committee on the Budget report for fiscal year 1997 actually recommended abolishing the Department of Energy. Think of that: abolishing the Federal agency to work in this area, and further proposed cutting energy conservation programs 62 percent over 5 years. In these total 5 years, the Republicans have slashed funding for solar, renewables, and conservation funding by a total of over one and a third billion dollars below the Clinton administration requests. Furthermore, the Republicans have cut programs like the Weather Assistance Program beginning in 1995 when they cut it by 50 percent. Even now, in the middle of the energy emergency that we have been looking at over the course of the last 6 months, the Republicans are, in fact, asleep at the switch. Last spring, in the middle of the gas price crisis, number one, the Republicans were ready to, or they were flirting with having the President's authority to protect our economy by using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve expire. In 1999, the Republicans rejected an Energy Department proposal to buy $100 million of crude oil, or nearly 10 million barrels of crude at that time of record-low prices to build up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve that could have been used during a situation such as we are facing here. It took the House Republicans nearly a year to recognize that rising fuel prices were a national problem. They last looked at oil prices in March of 1999 and then held only the second hearing in March of 2000. There was nothing for a year from the people who control Congress. Now, despite overwhelming evidence throughout 1999 and early 2000 that prices of gas, diesel and home heating oil were on the rise, House Republicans failed to hold even a single hearing or make a single proposal on stabilizing fuel prices, and throughout this period, they took no steps to invest in America's energy independence and economic security. But, in 1999, and I recall this well, the Republican leaders called again for the elimination of the Department of Energy and selling off the petroleum reserve. Specifically, in April and May of last year, after OPEC's production cuts started a rise in prices, Republican leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) joined the Republican budget chair and 34 other Republicans to introduce H.R. 1649, the Department of Energy Abolition Act. I think the collected memory of my friends on the Republican side when they attempt to criticize the Democrats in Congress, who are not in control, or the efforts of the democratic administration to do something about it is shortsighted, to say the very least. The Armey-DeLay energy bill would have eliminated the Energy Department and with it, oil conservation programs, renewable energy conservation research; it took energy policy out of the cabinet and sold off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the Navy's petroleum reserve. Such foresight. How much better off would we be today if we had adopted their reckless proposal? Another ironic example for me of the Republicans dropping the ball is when the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Committee on Science held hearings in 1996 that attacked the Department of Energy's information administration for ``Consistently overestimating the price of oil and using these `inflated predictions' to justify increases in conservation research and development programs.'' The subcommittee chairman criticized the Department of Energy officials for predicting an oil crisis that could be caused by increased demand, increased imports, or instability in the Persian Gulf. The projections that drew that Republican chairman's criticism predicted that in the year 2000, the price per barrel of imported oil could be as high as $34, and to that Republican subcommittee chair, that was outrageous. I note for the record that as of March 7 in the year 2000, the price was $34.13. Mr. Speaker, every day in America communities large and small are struggling with issues that define their environment, their liveability, their quality of life. Some people suggest that there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, but I will tell my colleagues when it comes to the environment, the reality is stark. The Democrats in this administration and in Congress have a positive record of support and accomplishment, of sympathy and passion. The Republican ticket offers indifferent voting records, cursory performance in office, and advocacy of dangerous, even reckless, environmental policies. Our air, our water, the landscape, our precious natural resources do not have the time to survive benign neglect or malicious indifference, let alone active assault. There is a huge difference between the parties, perhaps on the environment more than any other issue. The stakes of the election for the environment could not be higher. I hope that the American public will look closely at the records and promote policies and candidates that will make our communities more livable and our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time for a moment, one of the things that has struck me about the leadership of Governor Bush is how negative it has been towards cities in Texas that are actually trying to solve the problems. This actually occurred, this was reported in the Austin American Statesman reporting that when growth-deluged City of Austin moved to regulate development and water quality, Bush approved State legislation to negate all its effects. So while talking about local control and turning things back, when communities in Texas, and Austin is a terrific town, they are struggling with significant growth, has actually tried to move ahead, Governor Bush was not there supporting them, urging them on. In fact, he approved legislation that stripped away the powers that they wanted to try and solve it dealing specifically with what the gentleman said.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly join my colleagues in wishing our friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) well. Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend a few moments this evening discussing elements that deal with our quality of life in our environment. After a seemingly interminable and preliminary process which has been seemingly going on since the last elections 2 years ago, we are now entering into the political home stretch. As the candidates move past the debate on debate and the skirmishing that occurs here on Capitol Hill about budgets and health care, there is an overarching theme that is yet to be comprehensively addressed, the livability of our communities and the role the Federal Government can play in making our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. The long-term implications for the environment have raised many areas of concern for citizens across the country. I find that it is interesting that it is not just a concern for college towns or for traditional urban centers. We find that these are very significant issues in areas like the mountain States of Colorado and Arizona and Utah. People have been facing development and fear the situation is going to deteriorate overtime. I would like to take this opportunity this evening to discuss some of those items in greater detail. But I would like to begin, if I may, by yielding to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the delegate from the District of Columbia. She, I think, has perhaps one of the most difficult challenges that any of us face, representing the District without a vote, without Senate colleagues, and facing some of the very difficult environmental and development issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) to elaborate on some of her concerns.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I cannot let the occasion pass without congratulating the gentlewoman on leading the pack of some 3,500 cyclists just 2 weekends ago and a marvelous experience for so many people from the Metropolitan area, not just from the District of Columbia. I did want to point out that tomorrow morning, again with the cooperation of the office of the gentlewoman, the bicycle caucus is going to have a tour of the south waterfront redevelopment and we will be leaving at 7:30 from the Rayburn horseshoe to be able to combine some bicycle work with understanding some of the development challenges that are being faced by the District.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining us and the gentleman is too modest. As the gentleman is leaving us, I want to express my deep appreciation for the leadership that the gentleman has shown on a whole range of issues with the Mississippi River Valley. When we had the week-long expose in The Washington Post dealing with concerns, serious concerns about management of the environmental issues in terms of Congress' behavior, I was proud that there were numerous references to the gentleman's insightful reform legislation that he has introduced well in advance of the current controversy to try and depoliticize, to make more transparent and to allow the public to be involved with these critical issues. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor with the gentleman of his legislation and look forward to working with him hopefully maybe even in this session to achieve that reform, but certainly in the next Congress. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), who has served as a mentor to me in my brief tenure in Congress to understand how Congress can be a better partner with the environment, including a report that he issued today on the steps of the Capitol.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I again commend the gentlewoman for her valiant efforts in terms of promoting the environment and livability of our Nation's capital. I think she is doing a job on behalf of all of us, because we all have a stake in the success of Washington, D.C. I would like to return, Mr. Speaker, to focus for a few moments about the environment and what difference it is going to make in the election this fall. We are now facing the issue of what candidate and which political party will do the best job. It is very clear that the Republican ticket, even though not currently in office on the national level, does in fact have an environmental record. Former Representative Cheney, when he was in the House for almost 13 years, compiled a lifetime voting record on environmental issues of 13 percent, one of the worst in that period of time. Likewise, Governor Bush in his two terms now as governor of Texas has an environmental record. Where is his leadership dealing with the fact that Texas puts more chemicals in the air than any other State and by most rankings is the State with the worst toxin level in the atmosphere? Were Texas a country, it would be the world's seventh largest national emitter of carbon dioxide. The largest problem is the dangerous amount of nitrogen oxide which mixes with the exhaust vehicles to create ozone and smog. And under the leadership of Governor Bush, in 1999 Houston surpassed Los Angeles as the country's smoggiest city. Texas had the Nation's 25 highest ozone measurements and 90 percent of the Nation's readings deemed very unhealthy by the EPA. This summer, while Los Angeles has posted eight more days of unhealthy ozone than its Texas rival, Houston's worst smog was dirtier than any in Southern California according to air quality officials. Since Bush took office, the number of days when Texas cities have exceeded Federal ozone standards have doubled. Houston and Dallas currently face Federal deadlines to make sharp cuts in air pollution or risk losing Federal transportation money. At the same time that Texas environmental conditions are reaching a crisis point, cities such as Charlotte, North Carolina and Salt Lake City have managed to absorb growth while improving their air quality. The Bush administration claims that growth, not governance is the reason for the State's appalling air quality. It is hogwash. Rather the State's environmental record perhaps best underscores what a Bush Presidency would mean for our Nation's air, water, streams and for forested area. Virtually no support for growth management, no commitment to improving the air or water quality, no protection for environmental resources. Consider the impact of the Republican governor in terms of who he has appointed to run the State's environmental agencies. All of the Texas natural resources conservation commissioners have backgrounds in industry. The same industrialists who are the generous contributor to the Bush Presidential campaign. He is fond of saying you cannot regulate or sue your way to clean air, clean water. Yet, consider the results of his environmental centerpiece, rather than forcing the worst polluting industrial plants in the State, those grandfathered into the State's clean air policy, that currently contribute 36 percent of the chemicals Texas released in the atmosphere, Bush has worked out a program with the industrialists, a voluntary cleanup. After 2\1/2\ years, the scheme has produced only 30 of 461 plants not already facing Federal restrictions to comply with environmental guidelines. Together these 30 plants reduce grandfathered emissions by only 3 percent. Should Vice President Al Gore and the American public push Bush on these issues, George W. may feel like the disobedient son haunted by his father's words. I recall in 1988 George Bush, Sr. went to Boston Harbor and attacked the environmental record of his opponent Michael Dukakis, saying my opponent has said he will do for America what he has done for Massachusetts, that is what I fear for my country. That has an ominous ring as it relates to George Bush's leadership in Texas. I would yield to my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) a few moments to elaborate on these elements.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the week-long series in the Washington Post about the Corps of Engineers and its relationship to Congress and, more importantly, to the environment, raises key questions about the Corps' future direction. The immediate challenge is for the Corps and Congress to respond carefully, thoughtfully, and in the right context to the real issues surrounding the Corps' important mission. In its very name, the Army Corps of Engineers combines the two professions that are perhaps most results-oriented, focused, precise and committed to following orders: engineering and the military. It imposes upon those of us in Congress a special responsibility. We must be sure that we are asking the right questions and looking at the big picture. For if the Corps' assignment is to stop flooding in a particular area, that is precisely what they will do, but that may be all that they do. As much as I agree with some of the concerns and criticisms of the Corps, it is wrong to single them out alone. The behavior of the Corps is just the most obvious example of our country's 2-century long certainty that we can conquer and bend to our will the force of nature. The Corps has simply been responding to the orders and expectations of Congress and the citizens. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Corps' responsibility to deal with waterways and flooding, the policies that Congress has directed and funded often appear to be doing more damage than good. Our flood insurance program continues to subsidize people to live in harm's way. Combined with our tendency to engineer rivers, to channelize them, to raise levees ever higher, along with failure to insist on careful land use and wetlands protection, we have produced a situation that is dangerous and self-perpetuating. We are subsidizing people to stay in harm's way, and at the same time we are engineering rivers to produce more frequent and dangerous flooding. Obviously, part of the message is to stop treating our rivers, wetlands and beaches like machines to be channeled, repaved and recontoured without regard for long-term costs to the environment or, frankly, to the Federal Treasury. The $8 billion we are prepared to spend now to repair part of the damage that we inflicted on the Everglades through miscalculation and poor planning and engineering is an example of why reform is needed. Madam Speaker, there are, indeed, serious efforts with real potential for reform right now. I have been pleased during my tenure in Congress with the Corps' efforts to reposition itself. Its Challenge 21 proposal would allow the Corps to enter into an agreement with local partners to provide passive flood mitigation and river restoration projects and do so more quickly and cheaply. Congress can help speed this on its way with adequate funding right now. In WRDA 99, we made it easier for local communities to choose nonstructural approaches to flood control, giving them more freedom to choose more environmentally and economical approaches. The Corps of Engineers' shoreline protection program is in serious need of reassessment to avoid a parade of costly and expensive projects that in the long run are environmentally destructive and put people again in harm's way. This is especially critical at a time when it is estimated that the average shoreline will retreat 500 feet over the next 60 years, and that in the next decade alone, 10,000 structures will fall into the ocean. We cannot afford a blank check from the taxpayer and another losing fight with irresistible environmental forces. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4879, introduced by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), of which I am a proud cosponsor, is another important piece of reform that would go a long way in addressing some of the problems that have been exposed. This bill would reform the project overview and authorization process, establish an objective outside review panel for controversial projects. To increase transparency and accountability, it would guarantee more citizen participation and lead to a better balance between economic and environmental considerations. At the end of the day, we need more dramatic steps. When Congress found military base closing too polarized and politicized to tackle itself, we established a separate commission to handle it. Through that, we have been able to do the right thing for the military, while helping communities and the Federal taxpayers. Perhaps it is time for such a stronger mechanism to depolarize and depoliticize the Corps operation here in Congress and to help everybody look at the big picture. In the meantime, we can use the new public attention and new leadership at the Corps to promote change and reform within the Corps itself so that they can be a critical ally in protecting the environment, making our communities more livable and our families safe, healthy and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is supposedly about the marriage penalty, but like last week's debate on the estate tax, it is really about priorities and fiscal discipline. It will never be possible to design a tax system that is perfect. Often people of good will disagree about objectives and interpretations. Most of the people I represent, however, and a majority of Americans want us to do the job right. They know we can do better. The President is correct in resisting a series of tax cuts that favor those who need help the least until there is at least equal attention to the plight of those who need our help the most. There are some serious marriage penalties in the tax code and in other areas of federal law, but this bill would not fix them. Lower- income workers, who benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit, face a sharp reduction in benefits when they marry. This bill does not begin to address that problem. Nor does it try to distinguish between the slightly less than half of America's couples who are affected by the marriage penalty and the other half, who receive a marriage benefit. This bill lowers taxes for many, while overlooking those who need our help the most. This bill does nothing to ease a difficulty that fully 50 percent of families will face by 2010--the risk that using the child care and education credits will force them into the Alternative Minimum Tax. This is a very real problem, especially for larger families who simply will not get the tax relief they were promised. These problems can all be fixed, and the cost would be lower than the unfocused proposal the President rightly vetoed. We could have tax relief for those who face the biggest problems, while still reserving funds to provide health insurance to some of America's 11 million uninsured children; to offer prescription drug coverage to the one- third of older Americans who have no insurance for this expense; and to pay down the national debt.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the American public weighs the personalities, the politics, the policies, and the passions of this election year, there is one area where their differences could not be more clear, the commitment to livable communities and a cleaner environment. In the long run, there may be no area where the decisions are more significant. The forces of environmental degradation will not be easy to reverse. Cleaning up our waterways and dealing with the consequences of unplanned growth and sprawl may take decades. Reversing global warming may take thousands of years. We have no time to waste. Luckily for the American public, Al Gore and Joe Lieberman have the very highest rating from the people whose job it is to advocate for and monitor congressional performance on the environment. One does not have to be merely concerned about the stated environmental policies and positions of a Bush/Cheney administration, like drilling in the Arctic Wilderness Reserve or reversing monument status protections for some of our national treasures. The Republican ticket also has an environmental record. Dick Cheney, in his 12 years in this Chamber, compiled one of the worst environmental voting records. Governor Bush, after two terms leading the State of Texas, has failed to lead his State from the bottom ranks in air and water quality. His voluntary approach for polluting industries out of compliance with air quality standards has resulted in only 30 of 461 companies stepping forward, raising questions about both his judgment and his commitment to the environment. Indeed, sad as his performance has been, it is the lack of perception and passion that I find most disturbing. He seems unaware of the Texas environmental problems. Where is his outrage and his concern that, under his leadership, Houston has become the city in the country with the worst air quality? This environmental indifference, if combined with that of the Republican leadership in this Congress, could be disastrous. The Clinton/Gore administration has been perhaps the most environmentally sensitive in history, but progress has been slowed not just by the complexity of today's environmental problems but by highly organized special interests and, sadly, by a Republican-controlled Congress that has been one of the least sensitive in history. For example, since the Gingrich revolution, the EPA has been under continuous assault and a series of destructive riders have made the budget process an ordeal every single year for the environment. Bipartisan alliances to protect the environment should be the rule, and we have seen them on this floor. I salute the work of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) with TEA-21, keeping the framework in place, of the gentleman from Alaska] (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on CARA, with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) working with me on flood insurance reform. But these, sadly, have been the rare exception. The leader of the other body not only proclaims brownfields reform to be off-limits but actually puts this incredible pledge in writing. In the House, the majority leader and the majority whip have an environmental voting record of zero from the League of Conservation Voters. We should also consider the hidden environmental issue of this election, that of judicial appointments. The third branch of government, the judiciary, has at times played a key role in protecting the environment by requiring the enforcement of environmental laws, preventing overreaching by public and private parties. Governor Bush has voiced enthusiasm for judges in the mold of Scalia and Thomas. Judicial appointments along these lines could not only hamstring an administration for years but could cripple environmental enforcement for a generation. There are some who suggest there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in this election. When it comes to the environment, the reality is stark. The Democrats have a positive record of support and accomplishment, of sympathy and passion for the environment. The Republican ticket offers indifferent voting record, cursory performance in office, and advocacy of dangerous, even reckless, environmental policies. Our air, the water, the landscape, our precious natural resources do not have the time to survive benign neglect, malicious indifference, let alone active assault. There is a huge difference, perhaps more than any other issue, that of the environment. The stakes for the environment could not be higher, and the public should give it the attention that it deserves.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today's debate is really one of priorities and fiscal discipline, not the estate tax. There is no question that the inheritance tax is badly in need or reform. Since I came to Congress, I have supported increasing the exemption, adjustments for inflation, modification of rates, and protections for closely-held and family businesses. That approach would gain the support of the vast majority of my colleagues, and would also offer more immediate and more reliable relief than a phased-in repeal that could be halted at the first sign of economic trouble. By contrast, the bill the President vetoed contained much less than met the eye--and much less than those who own businesses, woodlots and farms deserve. Far from offering predictability, certainly and immediate relief, this proposal promised only a roll of the dice, continuing current inequities over a ten-year period and inviting future freezes and reversals. More fundamentally, since I have been in Congress, I have been dismayed by our eagerness to act on the problems of those who need help the least, while ignoring those who need help the most. We have put the needs of children, senior citizens and working families of modest means on hold. For example, congress has proposed repealing the ``death tax'' that affects a few hundred of America's wealthiest people, but has done nothing to address the ``life tax'' that affects the poorest of the 1.6 million people--22 percent of America's elderly--in nursing homes. They cannot receive assistance with their nursing home costs, which run $46,000 on average, unless they ``spend down'' their non-housing assets to less than $2,000. This policy imposes financial hardship on the most vulnerable before they die--300,000 people in 1998 alone--and in some cases exacts on extraordinary cruel emotional toll, as when long- married couples are counseled to seek divorce. Congress has done nothing to help the 1/3 of our poorest senior citizens who have not prescription drug coverage and pay the highest drug prices in the world. Nor has Congress addressed the health insurance needs of 11 million uninsured children. A study by the Oregon Center for Public Policy found that, despite an extraordinarily strong economy, working Oregonians were basically no better off than they had been ten or 20 years ago. One in seven working families with children is poor, and one in nine faces hunger at some point during the year. This is part of a huge tax reduction that makes it harder to meet our long-term priorities while ignoring the needs of most American families. I do not believe that anyone should ever have to sell a family business because a principal has died. Nor do I believe that elderly Americans should have to divorce their spouses in order to afford a nursing home, or that parents should have to choose between providing food or health care for their children. If Congress acts responsibly, we can solve these problems. The President is correct in resisting a series of tax cuts that favor those who need help the least until there is equal attention to the plight of those who need our help the most.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman in yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, as we were listening to the selective memory of history, we would not have a surplus today to be dealing with if we had not had some very difficult budget cutting and tax increasing under both George ``Read My Lips'' Bush and President Clinton. But those difficult decisions were made to try and put us in a position of fiscal responsibility. Now, under the Republican scheme of a tax cut du jour, we are slowly seeing this fiscal responsibility chipped away. The most recent one under the proposal before us today would cost $113 billion over the next 10 years from the Medicare Trust Fund, a trust fund that does not have adequate money to deal with it over time despite the fact we are going to double the number of senior citizens drawing upon it over the course of the next 30 years. These are the folks that passed a budget resolution that talks about budget austerity. And then we watch day after day, week after week as they ignore that budget resolution and move off into the ether fiscal land. But I am less concerned about individual cuts. I am happy to consider adjustments for people who need it in terms of cutting taxes, making budget adjustments. But my question is, when are we going to listen to the people who need help the most? We have heard about the so-called inheritance tax, the death tax chipping away. They make adjustments for 47,000 American families who are at the top end of the spectrum, but they refuse to have meaningful relief for the one-third of the senior citizens without prescription drug benefits who are now paying the highest prices in the world. If we are going to talk about people who are having their estates chipped away, let us talk about the 300,000 senior citizens who are now in nursing homes who are having their estates chipped away to deal with the $2,000 minimum. If you want to help somebody, let us get our priorities straight, not have a continual series of proposals to help the people who are least in need and you continue to ignore those people who need help the most. I strongly urge that we redirect our priority, and before we do more tax cutting du jour for the most privileged, that we might do something for the people who need it the most.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) for yielding me this time, and I strongly associate myself with the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I too rise in opposition to this resolution and support President Clinton's decision to waive Jackson-Vanik requirements for the next year. This would absolutely be the worst thing we could do at this point, undercutting the outstanding work that Ambassador Peterson and our team has done in terms of continued progress in immigration, in terms of continued accounting and cooperation in dealing with prisoners of war and missing in action. It would also undercut the progress that has been represented by the successful conclusion of the bilateral trade agreement, a critical, critical milepost. This debate is absolutely not about some hypothetical huge potential trade deficit with Vietnam. The amount of trade involved is minuscule at this point and is not going to be, under the wildest circumstances, anything significant in the foreseeable future. It is absolutely not about closing United States' factories and shipping this process overseas. The goods that have been identified here as the primary products for Vietnam are not things that the United States is specializing in right now. Most of those products are already manufactured overseas and simply shifting suppliers. And it is categorically not about slave labor. That is absolute nonsense and referenced by someone who clearly has never seen the activity that is going on now in Vietnam factories. I am informed by our embassy in Vietnam that there have been dozens of strikes already this year. And if we talk to the men and women who have done work in Vietnam, we see that even in this area progress is being achieved. Mr. Speaker, this House is poised to make some very significant accomplishments in foreign policy; a historic realignment of our policy with China. Last week's vote sent signals about being real about our relationship with Cuba and reversing some absolutely ineffectual activities in the past. We are now on the verge of doing the same with Vietnam. I strongly urge rejection of this resolution and keeping us moving in this direction.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I can only imagine the frustration that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) must feel talking about the special benefits that are accorded to the District of Columbia; for indeed what we have done, the District has special obligations that no other local government in the country has. It has the burdens of both a city and a State and it does not have the tools that we give the rest of America. On top of that, Congress is interfering unnecessarily, making that job even harder. Not only does it add unnecessary and outdated riders, but the budget that we are discussing here today is $22 million below last year's funding level. The funding that remains is not fairly distributed to the city's most urgent economic and educational priorities. I care specifically about livable communities, and I would like to reference two: one, the New York Avenue Metro station and Poplar Point in Southeast District of Columbia. The proposed Metro station at New York and Florida Avenues is the linchpin of proposed new economic development activity for the District. We here in the District every day experience poor air quality, choking traffic. We hear about problems of sprawl and economic development. The proposed Metro station represents an important step in bringing jobs and people together in a location that is convenient for commuters and does not increase sprawl or require massive additional infrastructure investments in outlying areas. This has been extensively planned through public and private initiatives with the District, the Federal Government, and the private sector each committing one-third of the funds. While the city and the private sector have stepped up, Congress is shirking its duty by not providing the full $25 million in Federal funds that the President has proposed. It includes only $7 million directly and makes up the remaining $18 million through accounting gimmicks, including the borrowing on the city's interest fund which only has $6 million left and is already obligated by other uses. The choice forced on the city to delay building the station or losing other important priorities is not acceptable. We compound this missed opportunity by the nearby development of the Metropolitan Branch Trail, the bicycle beltway within the Beltway that could have the $8 million that we have already allocated through TEA-21 coordinated with the station. We risk losing both the station and the coordination of the trail. It would be a tragedy. Poplar Point, a 110-acre site along the southern corridor of the Anacostia River, has the potential of becoming a vital urban waterfront, serving the needs of District residents who now must travel faraway to enjoy the waterfront amenities that are right outside their and our door. Not only has the site been neglected by the Federal Government, but a portion of the environmental damage is the result of pesticide residue left by the Architect of the Capitol, because that was our nursery that operated there for many years. It adds a new dimension of interference for the Congress in the District of Columbia. It illustrates the special responsibility we owe to the District both as a neighbor and as a tenant. The bill does not provide the requested $10 million for environmental cleanup and infrastructure improvement needed to spur the redevelopment and improve the economic health for the residents living near Poplar Point. Between the irrelevant riders, the limitations of the District's ability to self-govern, we are missing an opportunity. It is not just unfair to the residents of the District of Columbia, it is not fair to the American public.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my purpose in serving in Congress is to help make our families live in livable communities, places where those families can be safe, healthy, and economically secure. An important part of that effort is reducing the toll of death and injury from gun violence. One of my biggest disappointments of a public service career is our inability as a government to take action. Since I have been active in politics we have lost 1 million Americans to gun violence, more than all the Americans killed in every war since the Civil War. Preparing to leave this summer, the House has delayed for 1 year acting on the activities for reducing gun violence that were passed by the Senate. We can in fact take sensible steps, as we have with other public health crises. For instance, we had faced massive carnage on our Nation's highways. Yet, for the last 30 years, as part of a larger strategy, we have cut automobile deaths in half, not by accepting the carnage but by moving forward with a safer automobile product, highway design, and attitudes towards things like drunk driving. The same approach can work with gun violence. The American public wants it and will support it. They want to see steps to make guns safer, to keep guns out of the hands of more people with violent or criminal histories, to close the gun show loophole. One of the most important things we need to do to urge action is to put a face on the 1 million people who have been killed. That is an effort that I have been attempting in my term of office. Today I wanted to say a couple of words about a young man named Ray Ray Winston, who was Portland, Oregon's first victim of gang-related slaying. Some dismissed his death as something that was a logical consequence of a young man running with a tough crowd, being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, Ray Ray Winston was a young man who was dealt a very tough hand by life: a father incarcerated, not having as much family support; a young man who had aspirations, for instance in athletics. He had been just a couple of weeks before his death in a basketball camp with my son. Unfortunately, his death set off a wave of shootings. Teenagers who should have been in school instead of out in the streets were involved with retaliatory activity, the risk being accentuated by the availability of guns and the willingness to use them. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we make sure that Americans understand that there is a face behind each one of those statistics. Then we need to press for action, first on the local level, not just with Governors and mayors and county commissioners and housing authorities, but also supporting the activities of citizen activists. For example, in my State of Oregon we have put an initiative on the Oregon ballot to close the gun show loophole if Congress cannot and will not act. But there is no escaping the need to put pressure on the national level. Sadly, there is a huge difference between the political parties regarding gun violence. Sadly, the Republican leadership in the House has been an active partner with the NRA preventing us from moving forward. They have even boasted that if they were able to elect George Bush, they would be able to work right out of the White House. But Vice President Gore and the Democratic congressional leadership would in fact enact commonsense reforms to reduce gun violence. These are steps that are supported by the American public and steps that would make a difference. When we come back in September, it will have been 13 months since the conference committee on juvenile violence has even met. I hope the American public will add their voice to demand an end to the spineless acceptance of gun violence and enact simple, commonsense gun reforms to make our communities more livable, to make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time. Domestic terrorism is one of the most fundamental threats to the liveability of our community. I have greatly enjoyed working with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the leadership of our committee on the Preparedness Against Terrorism Act. It is providing important coordination as has been detailed by the preceding speakers, and I want to add my strong support and am proud to be a cosponsor. But I would like to focus, if I could, for just 2 minutes on one particular aspect that I appreciate the subcommittee adding into the effort and that deals with the critical area of transportation. Providing safe and accessible transportation choices for all members of the community is a critical role for the functioning of that community. There are 350,000 Americans who work every day in providing public transportation services that allow our communities to work. And there are more than 6 million Americans a day who ride transportation services to work, to school, and to other functions in their community. Ensuring their safety from acts of terrorism is a critical step toward the larger goal of providing a safe working environment and safe transportation. The Preparedness Against Terrorism Act adds an important launching point toward meeting this goal. It includes critical provisions for the first time in Federal statute for studying the threats from terrorism on our Nation's transportation systems and strategies for improving our ability to prepare, prevent, and respond to these potential attacks. We had demonstrated and our colleague from Georgia mentioned a few moments ago the release of the poisonous gas in 1995 on the Japanese subway system. We saw how it faced the unique and increasing potential threat from terrorist attack given the difficulty in monitoring, identifying and responding to threats of this nature. When accidents or crime occur on buses or rail, they often capture the news headlines. Despite the high profile given to such instances, transit, of course, remains one of the safest modes of transportation; but sometimes you would not know that through the headlines. Sadly, in recent years there have been a series of events across the country. In Washington, D.C., and California, Wisconsin and Texas, bus drivers have been attacked, threatened and injured. In several instances passengers as well have been injured as a result of these attacks. When these types of tragedies occur, we have real problems in terms of making sure that people use the system. For the thousands of men and women who work as bus drivers, rail or ferry operators, we need to highlight the important job they perform and recognize the responsibility they take on with each passenger they carry. I appreciate the provisions in this bill that have the director develop in its annual preparedness plan and risk assessment looking at what happens for transportation. But I hope that this will serve as a springboard for our doing a better job for the entire transportation system to deal with the needs of passengers and transportation workers. I have enjoyed working with the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the transit union to include these provisions in the bill, but I hope this tip of the iceberg is something we can work on in our committee to extend these provisions because every day Americans deserve maximum safety and security when they use the transportation systems. I appreciate the work here, and I hope we will be able to follow up on it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, today, I cosponsored an amendment to withdraw the global ``gag'' language from the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. The language denies U.S. family planning funding to any overseas organization that uses its own non-U.S. funds to provide abortion services. The family planning dollars appropriated in this bill are critically important to the prevention maternal and child deaths and the continued spread of STDs. Congress should not make the allocation of this life saving funding contingent on how a foreign organization chooses to spend its own dollars.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this type of pitched battle does not have to occur if the postal service would start working with our communities earlier. I would hope that this committee would bring its good offices together to encourage that common sense approach.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the most powerful tool the Federal government has to make our communities more livable is not necessarily a rule, regulation, or a mandate placed upon the public, but simply to play by the same rules as the rest of America, to have Federal agencies like the United States Post Office obey the same rules and regulations that we require homeowners and businesses to follow. There are over 40,000 post offices across America. They are both the symbols of how we connect to one another and of a very real part of each and every community. Time and time again we find that the post office on Main Street anchors the business opportunity. It is a source of pride for people in local communities. Often it is an historic structure. Each of these post offices is an opportunity for the Federal government to promote livability by being a more constructive partner. While there are many legitimate efforts and real progress by the postal service in some areas, I see too many examples where the post office has fallen short of the mark. A good example is to be found in my own hometown of Portland, Oregon, where land use planning has been a hallmark for a generation. There is perhaps no American community that has worked harder to manage growth. Most recently, our community has finished a 20-40 growth plan to prepare for growth over the next 40 years. It involved over 17,000 citizens, businesses, and all the local governments for 5 years. Yet, the postal service, with over 500 facilities in a fast-growing region, acknowledging that it is playing serious catch-up, made no attempt to coordinate its facilities with the planning of the rest of the community. Knowing where growth would be concentrated in the years ahead would have enabled the postal service to make strategic facilities decisions in a way that would take advantage of change, rather than trying to continue to play catch-up. The Federal government cannot afford to pursue independent strategies on its own. Opportunities in this case were lost for coordinated planning to avoid mistakes and save money, time, and effort. Too often the postal service uses its exemption from local land use laws to avoid making investments that would be prudent not just for the community but for its own customers. Again, in my own community, I had a post office under construction where the city received a communication from the postal service that they would not cooperate with us because they were immune from all local laws. Despite the fact that any other business or the city itself would have been required to, for instance, put in pedestrian sidewalks, the postal service decided they would not even accede to this modest requirement. We got them to put in half the sidewalks only by threatening to block the entrance to their facility. To assist the post office in partnering with communities, I have introduced the Community Partnership Act, which would require the postal service to obey local land use laws and planning laws and environmental regulations and to work with local citizens before they make decisions that could have a wrenching effect on communities. It is ironic that our postal service gives the public more input into what version of the Elvis stamp we are going to print than on decisions that could be literally life or death for small town America. I am pleased that our legislation, H.R. 670, has a Senate companion bill by Senators Baucus and Jeffords, and that they have attracted a broad coalition of supporters, including Governors, mayors, cities and counties, a host of preservation action groups, and I believe is the only environmental priority of both the National Association of Homebuilders and the Sierra Club. With its 240 bipartisan sponsors, this bill would easily pass if it were brought to the floor for a vote. I will continue to work with the bill's supporters on and off the Hill, and hope that we can achieve floor action. But in the meantime, I would hope that the leadership of this Chamber and the conferees on the Postal-Treasury bill would at least include language that would encourage the postal service to, at a minimum, make public their capital plans for communities as a result of their 5-year capital investment plan. In Blackshear, Georgia, last year, the public was notified that their post office might be moved in less than a month. The service management delivered the verdict that it would be closed, a new one would be built, and a new site was chosen on a highway away from town. Now a great fight has ensued with the Rotary Club, the chamber of commerce, the American Legion, their local historical society, both the Republicans and the Democrats joining with over 1,000 postal patrons in opposing the move.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in yielding me the time. I appreciate the hard work that has been going on both sides of the aisle in moving this legislation forward. I would speak just briefly to one particular item that does speak to the quality of life of our families, who we want to be able to be safe, healthy, and economically secure. The section 415 modifications speak to a very real problem we have now where working men and women who are covered by pension retirement programs are not able to collect the full amount of money that they would otherwise be granted. This is a problem. H.R. 1102 would correct this. It recognizes that hard physical labor oftentimes requires people to retire earlier. The substitute that is going to be offered and the bill before us now both deal with the 100 percent of compensation problem, this speaks to the potential disparity to the lower-paid employees who do not get all that they would otherwise be entitled because some of these programs are based on years of service, not simply to the amount of salary. The second provision that both bills have that I am pleased to see deals with aggregation. In many cases we have employees who are part of two pension plans, one that is a multiemployer plan and another that is simply their own union or company. It is important that we include this piece. Finally, I would commend my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), who talked about some of the improvements that are being made for the people most in need. These employees who oftentimes are required to retire earlier are subjected to a problem where there is money in the pension program, but they are not allowed to collect it. The substitute would put an 80 percent floor and protect them. These are important provisions that I hope will ultimately find their way into law.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will oppose the defense appropriations conference report before us because, at $288 billion, it spends too much money and spends it inefficiently. The $1.9 billion it contains for national missile defense is but the most glaring example. That is an amount even greater than the House voted for national missile defense last month. President Clinton has said that later this year he will decide whether to deploy a national missile defense system. In light of the failure of the last two tests of this system, no decision to deploy should be made. The President has said his decision will be based on four criteria: the technology, the cost, the threat, and the impact on arms control. For each, the case for deployment is weak at best. On the technology, the recent test failures demonstrate just how hard effective missile defense is. It is impossible to know whether the system will work until realistic tests are done, and that will not happen for years, if ever. We should not risk American lives on a bet that missile defense will work. On cost, since the late '50s, the U.S. has spent over $120 billion on missile defense, with almost nothing to show for it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Pentagon's current proposal will cost $60 billion. This is pouring more money into a hole in the ground. On threat, it is far better to pursue such endeavors as the ongoing talks with North Korea on ending its emerging missile program rather than attempting to build a defense against non-existent missiles. On arms control, a U.S. national missile defense is likely to push countries that already have nuclear weapons, Russia and China, to maintain or expand their arsenals, and risks destroying the entire nonproliferation regime that the U.S. has tirelessly built over the last 50 years. A missile defense that does not work while exacerbating tensions with potential adversaries is far worse than no defense at all. We should spend our money on more useful things.