Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for his leadership and for his comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who has been leading on this for years.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress determined that the Federal Government be a better partner in promoting livable communities, to make our families safe, healthy and economically secure. Government needs to lead by example, to set the tone and follow through. A critical aspect is our environmental stewardship. I just returned from 4 days in Oregon and was, frankly, surprised at the intensity of the public reaction to this administration's lack of commitment to the environment. The sudden about-face from an explicit campaign promise to have mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions has struck a nerve. The administration may think it is time to study global warming, but most Americans agree with the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is real and that we must do something about it. I was struck by the continued deep opposition to the administration's proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. For me the issue is not a question of whether the environmental damage may result, it is the fundamental question whether we should do it at all. I was pleased to see a recent newsletter by the Rocky Mountain Institute which contained an article by Amory and Hunter Lovins asking that fundamental question. They point out, for example, that the State of Alaska's own recent survey forecast on the long-term oil prices suggest that the prices are not going to be high enough to make the operation profitable. Using our time and resources to recover this more expensive oil would result not only in a waste of money, but it would in the long run result in more oil imports as we ignore more cost- efficient operations other than the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. This also continues to ignore the reality that we, as a country, cannot and should not continue to consume energy the way that we currently do: six times higher than the world per capita energy consumption, twice as much as developed countries like Japan and Germany. The irony is that conservation does work and would work better than a mad rush to exploit our oil resources. It is estimated that a mere 3- mile-per-gallon improvement in the performance of SUVs would offset the entire proposed oil production from the Arctic. And if we feel that we cannot single out these large and inefficient vehicles, then just a \1/ 2\-mile-per-gallon efficiency improvement in the fleet overall would meet the production of the Arctic wilderness. It is a lack of will regarding the average level over the last 20 years that we have not reduced these mileage requirements. Last year was 24 miles per gallon, tied for lowest in the last 20 years. We can and we should do better. Simple things like in California having roofs that are white and reflective would reduce air conditioning costs by approximately 30 percent. It would be far more effective for us to make that investment in conservation. I started in politics during the last energy crisis some 25 years ago, and despite Ronald Reagan's efforts to gut and reverse the efforts, conservation over a period of time has saved a quantity of energy that is four times the entire domestic oil energy production. Conservation is the only alternative that will provide immediate relief to those of us in the West this year. It has no threat from terrorists, no risk of environmental damage, and conservation continues producing every year. That is why past efforts at conservation have made each oil barrel that we have today support almost twice as much of the gross national product as in 1975. But last and most significant, it does not make sense to strategically drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge if we are worried about oil security for the United States. What could be more foolish than placing our bets on an aging 800-mile facility that is increasingly unreliable, that is wearing out, and is impossible to defend? The potential for disruption makes it an ideal target for a terrorist, a rogue state or a deranged person. It is in fact a potential disaster waiting to happen if you are concerned about security. Far better than this rancorous debate over the potential environmental damage in the wildlife refuge is to work to reduce the waste of energy in the United States.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress dedicated to making the Federal Government a better partner in helping our communities to be livable, for our families to be safe, healthy and economically secure. One important way of advancing that mission is through the intelligent use of the bicycle. As a person who cares about cycling and the world environment and energy supply, it was, to say the very least, unnerving to read the story about cycling in China in Monday's Washington Post. China is a huge country with an old and venerated tradition that is having trouble modernizing. It has experienced a century-long love affair with the bicycle since it was first introduced to China by American missionaries. They have more bicycles in China than any place in the world, but it is ironic that this country is seeking to ban bicycles in some areas. It is especially ironic to ban them from the central cities where they can have the greatest impact. The bicycle is the most efficient means of transportation that has ever been devised. Unlike the horse or automobile, there is no pollution generated from cycling. It leaves the cyclist healthier, and the cyclist takes up a fraction of the roadway. As somebody who brought a bicycle to Washington, D.C. instead of a car when I was elected 5 years ago, I can testify that for the vast majority of my meetings around Washington, D.C., I will beat my colleagues who take cabs or their cars. The movement from bicycles to cars has serious and wide-spread side effects and is a prescription for disaster. It is frightening to consider the 1.3 billion Chinese each with their own car living further from where they work. The increased demand for concrete in the cities and impact on the environment resulting from more automobiles in China than any place in the world is not going to help our efforts to address global climate change. The bicycle is not the only answer to problems of livability and it is not for everyone; but the facts remain at a time when our roads are too congested, the fitness of our children, the skyrocketing levels of morbid obesity, an important part of every community's equation for being safer, healthier and more economically secure is probably stored in the garage or parked in the basement. Over 100 million Americans have access to bicycles, but what should Congress do to help people use them? First, and foremost, Congress should lead by example and provide more adequate bike parking, more showers and changing facilities in order to encourage bike commuting here in Washington, D.C. Surveys show that if offices are so equipped, 45 percent of the employees who live within 5 miles would choose to bike commute to work. Federal employees are allowed, in many cases, free parking or free transit. They can be reimbursed for cab fair or auto mileage, but cyclists are on their own; and that is rather foolish. Benefits should be expanded to include bicycle commuters the same way we treat other Federal employees. We need to provide funding for safe transportation for our children. Over the course of the last 20 years, the number of children who are independently able to get to school on their own has decreased substantially, in some communities by 70 percent or more. Regular cycling can help deal with that access. It can help with the epidemic of childhood obesity and promote the wellness of our children. Indeed children that ride to school in cars in slow-moving traffic experience worse air pollution than those who are walking or cycling. I hope that Congress will consider more ways to encourage the implementation of the Safe Routes to School program to help provide the routes and to teach children about bicycle safety and promoting biking as a viable means of transportation. Last but not least, Members of Congress should join the Congressional Bike Caucus. This is a group of Members of Congress who periodically host rides around Washington, D.C. for Members, their families and staff, but there is also a serious component to what we do. We have worked to help promote sound Federal bicycle policies and encourage the construction of thousands of miles of bicycle paths. Our rides have served to raise the awareness of the cycling climate here in Washington, D.C. and to work with groups in the community to improve the cycling conditions in the District. At the end of the month of March, there will be hundreds of cycling advocates from around the United States here on Capitol Hill to deal with the first annual Bicycle Summit. It will be a time to concentrate on those areas where the Federal Government can be a better partner in providing greater transportation choices so that our communities can be safer and our families can be healthier and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our National Trails System promotes wilderness appreciation, historic preservation and a healthy lifestyle, which are all key components of livable communities. H.R. 834, the National Trails System Willing Seller Act, is an important bill that restores parity to the National Trails System and provides authority to protect critical resources along the nation's treasured scenic and historic trails. Passage of this bill will ensure that the federal government can be a better partner with trails advocates and private property owners across the nation. Acquiring land from willing sellers to complete nine national scenic and historic trails, including the Oregon and Lewis and Clark trails, is of vital interest to my constituents in Oregon. As the nation begins its focus on the bicentennial of Lewis & Clark's Corps of Discovery trip to the Pacific Ocean, purchasing and preserving historic sites along their journey will serve generations to come. Without willing seller authority, federal trail managers' hands are tied when development threatens important links in the wild landscapes of the trails or in the sites that tell the stories of the historic trails. With willing seller authority, sections of trails can be moved from roads where trail users are potentially unsafe, and critical historic sites can be preserved for future generations to experience. Ensuring safety and access for the many families and individuals who enjoy our national trails is certainly an important effort and one that this Congress should support. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 834.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the beginning of this Congress has been dominated by discussions of President Bush's massive tax cut proposal-- a proposal which, after accounting for the true costs to government, is likely to cost close to $2.6 trillion rather than $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. It is also the most important issue that we'll face over the next six months. Not only will it dominate the news; whether and how much to reduce government revenue will also frame every policy debate in Congress. The decision will determine our ability to honor our health care commitments, protect our environment, educate our children, defend our country, or keep our economy strong. For many in Washington, cutting taxes has become the popular mantra. Gone is concern for the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, which instituted spending caps to help reduce our national deficit. Now, however, Congressional leaders are winking and nodding at those unrealistic restrictions and empty past promises, hoping the American press and public won't notice. Since coming to Congress in 1996, I have based my fiscal policies and budget decisions on five principles--principles that continue to guide my responses to the current tax cut proposals: 1. Tax reductions need to be fair. Every Oregonian should be positively affected by these tax reductions, not just a selected few. The Bush proposal ignores the largest burden for most Americans: payroll taxes. Hardworking families who need help the most should have their burden reduced as much as those who are the most well off. Approximately 146,000 Oregon families are left out. 2. We must honor our promise to fund Social Security and Medicare. These obligations are not diminishing over time; in fact, they are growing larger each year, as the baby boom generation retires and requires increased medical assistance. 3. We need to pay down our $6 trillion national debt. This single act is the most effective way to lower government spending--and reduce the long-term interest costs for American families and business. 4. We must avoid future funding shortfalls. The robust economy of the past few years has lured many states-Kansas, North Carolina, and President Bush's own state of Texas, among others--into cutting taxes and fees, only to find themselves struggling to fund basic services. 5. We need to honor the commitments we've made to provide health care for our seniors, education for our children, and a cleaner environment. Time and again, my constituents tell me that honoring these obligations and commitments takes precedence over reduction in taxes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are being forced to vote today on this resolution of disapproval for OSHA's ergonomic standard. This is an all or nothing approach. Our effort to bring about improved ergonomics for our nation's workers was started by Elizabeth Dole when she was George Bush, Sr.'s Secretary of Labor ten years ago. What we are attempting to address is the single largest workplace safety and health problem in the United States: the work-related stress and strain injury and disorders that cost the economy over $50 billion every year. Employers pay between $15 and $18 billion in worker's compensation costs alone for these injuries. We can do something about it. The National Academy of Science backs the scientific basis for OSHA ergonomic standards. An exhaustive 2-year study conducted by 19 experts in the field found that there is a direct relationship between the workplace and ergonomic injuries, and ergonomic injuries can be significantly reduced through workplace interventions. Now the Republican leadership wants to ignore the very study it mandated. It is the wrong step to just overturn this rule. We need to take action to protect the health and safety of working families. The OSHA standard is only 9 pages long, and it is written in plain English. To serve the needs of our workers as well as to prudently address costs and benefits, I urge a no vote on the resolution of disapproval for the ergonomics rule.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 727, a bill that provides for Consumer Product Safety Commission regulation of electric bikes. I have dedicated my service in Congress to the promotion of livable communities, communities that are safe, healthy, and economically secure. Transportation choices are a critical part of a livable community. As a chair of the Bi-Partisan Bicycle Caucus, we recognize that electric bikes are important to that goal in that they provide an energy efficient transportation alternative. Any bicycle can be easily converted to an electric bike. They can be an effective tool in the fight against traffic congestion, parking shortages, noise and air pollution, problems we see increasing in urban areas across the country. At a time when our country is struggling with energy shortages, electric bikes are not only energy-efficient, they reduce the consumption of gasoline. Currently, electric bikes are subjected to the same standards as motor vehicles and must comply with all of the same safety standards as motor vehicles. This level of regulatory burden is unnecessary and has a dampening effect on the availability of these bicycles. Regulation under the Consumer Products Safety Commission ensures that bicycles continue to meet rigorous safety standards while increasing their availability to consumers. I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, my priority in Congress is for the Federal Government to be a better partner in promoting livable communities, to make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. A critical element in a livable community is making sure that we can deal with the natural disasters: floods, fire, earthquakes, and storms. Every year natural disasters cost billions of dollars and kill and injure Americans all across this great Nation. Every year the Federal Government is there to help unfortunate victims and their States and local governments in the recovery and repair. In the last 8 years alone, the United States has suffered more than 850 people dying in floods, and the property damage has totaled almost $90 billion. The total expenditure for disaster relief, including FEMA and insured losses, has been more than $150 billion in the last 20 years. There are two ways that we can help: we can be dealing after the fact, dealing with the unfortunate victims and the damage that has been brought; or we can work to deal before disaster occurs to minimize damage and perhaps even prevent it all together. I note two important provisions in the administration's recent budget submission: one is the reform of the Federal flood insurance program. This is a high priority for me. It is long overdue. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have introduced legislation in the last Congress that two floods and you are out of the taxpayer pocket bill to stop the Federal Government subsidizing people who live in areas that God has repeatedly shown that he does not want them. There is one home in suburban Houston that has suffered over $800,000 of loss over the last 20 years, 16 occasions, a home that is only worth, they tell us, $115,000. Our legislation would allow people to use this money to relocate out of harm's way or to flood-proof their property. But if they do not, then they will be required to foot the bill themselves, not the U.S. taxpayer. We have seen dramatic examples of what this sort of proactive activity can do. The Arnold, Missouri, flood damage in 1993 was over $2 million; but after work in flood-proofing the community, moving people out of harm's way, the 1995 flood, which was much larger, had only $40,000 in damage. Madam Speaker, I am pleased with the recognition the administration has for our legislation, but I have serious reservations about another proposal which would eliminate Project Impact. This is a Federal program that is not a grant, but instead provides seed money to help the people themselves build disaster resistant communities, to develop the partnerships and upfront investment needed to make sure that people do not suffer these horrible losses. Madam Speaker, I was impressed this last fall to be able to address a conference of over 2,000 participants, partners all across the country in these partnerships. There are now 250 Project Impact communities and over 2,500 business partners alone, including NASA and four NASCAR race drivers. It is important for us to nurture this type of partnership, not to turn our back on it. Project Impact and flood insurance reform are two important ways that the Federal Government can be a better partner to promote livable communities and to make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress committed to having the Federal Government be a better partner in helping our communities be more livable, our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. Among the most important areas for the new Administration to reexamine is the quality of life, the livability of our enlisted people, and the relationship that the military plays in making all our communities more livable. There are tremendous opportunities to continue some good things that started in the last Administration, and for the President and Secretary Rumsfeld to move even further. The bottom line is that the United States Department of Defense should be a leader at home and abroad, improving the quality of life for the men and women in uniform and their families. The Department of Defense should be a world leader in building livable communities, whether it is improving environmental protection, sustainable development or partnerships with citizens at all levels. There are some outstanding examples taking place within a stone's throw of our Nation's capitol. The Navy Yard renovation is leading the revitalization of the District of Columbia's Southeast waterfront. It is recycling materials and land, developing green buildings, and proving that you can improve the quality of military life while making a difference for the community. The Department of Defense is managing a massive problem dealing with the same Endangered Species Act that confronts American communities all across the country. To cite just one example, there are 17 endangered species that have been identified at Camp Pendleton, the only large green space remaining between Los Angeles and San Diego. The Department of Defense is managing 12,000 properties that are listed on or are eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This is the largest inventory in the United States and slated to grow even larger because over the next 30 years another 70,000 buildings will reach 50 years of age and require evaluation. In fact, our military is the largest manager of infrastructure in the world with over $500 billion in bridges, hospitals, roads and docks. One of the most challenging examples is to be found in the area of housing. There are over 300,000 units of military housing; and sadly, as President Bush is discovering today, two-thirds of them are substandard. There is an opportunity to harness new techniques in partnership with the private sector to make sure that we retain valued personnel by treating their families right with homes we can all be proud of. I hope this Congress will step forward to help the military in other ways to promote livable communities. One of the most important ways would be to increase the necessary funding in order to accelerate the timetable for cleaning up unexploded ordnance, the bombs and shells that did not go off as intended and litter the landscape in over a thousand locations across the United States. There is a legacy of bases, bombing sites, and storage depots from Martha's Vineyard to Camp Bonneville in metropolitan Oregon. Even around the American University campus right here in Washington, DC there is unexploded ordnance and nerve gas and that has been here since World War I. We cannot wait 500 years to clean these sites up, which is the time that will be required if we follow the current pattern. The President should include a separate line item in the budget he submits to us, and Congress should focus on it and provide adequate funding. Another simple but powerful step would be for the Department of Defense and, say, the Post Office to obey the same rules as the rest of America. The presumption should be that absent a specific finding of urgent military necessity, our Department of Defense meets the same building codes, environmental standards, and transportation requirements. Last, but by no means least is the opportunity to keep the mission if not the team intact at the Department of Defense for the military to provide true environmental leadership. There was an outstanding team that was assembled in the last administration: Sherri Wassserman Goodman, Randall Yim, Sandy Apgar, to name just a few. These people have doubtless moved on, but there is a lot to be learned from them, and we need to make sure that the mission and the techniques are retained and enhanced. Getting and retaining the highest quality fighting force in the world requires that we treat them and their families right. It is important to make the military a full partner in livable communities using the ingenuity, the brain power, and the sense of mission and devotion to duty that are the hallmark of our armed forces.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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 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.

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.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. But it had nothing to do with the government, Mr. Speaker.

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. 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 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.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that sentiment.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I beg your pardon?