Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, just reclaiming my time briefly, it is interesting that people are talking about the fluid political situation that this Presidential election, it seems that each poll shows jockeying around the country and there are people looking at whether or not they are ahead in the electoral college or not, but clearly it is a fluid situation and I think most commentators believe in the next 10 days it could go either way. Certainly we have watched the struggle for control of the House of Representatives. Most pundits feel the House is very much in play. Some even think that it is possible that the Senate may change hands, but certainly there is a momentum toward the Democratic side over there. One thing that we have not talked about is how much in play the third branch of government is, the Supreme Court, and I appreciate the gentleman's reference to the close nature of many sensitive decisions. The Washington Post recently had an analysis of the recently concluded term of the Supreme Court, where they analyzed 19 key decisions, and eight of the 19 decisions were 5-4 decisions that could turn on the appointment of, as the gentleman says, one or two justices. We have recently completed the longest period in 177 years without an appointment to the Supreme Court; 177 years have passed since we had this period of over 6 years before an appointment. We have three over the age of 70 who are on the Supreme Court; we have some who are cancer survivors. There is, in all likelihood, significant changes that are going to take place, and whether it is dealing with the environment, a woman's right to choose, civil rights, as the gentleman mentioned, or the balance between the Federal and State governments, there are huge issues that hang in the balance, and perhaps at no time in our Nation's history for the last 40 or 50 years has the Supreme Court been so in potential of having a dramatic shift.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that he is now supportive.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I would just take just one brief pause here, reclaiming my time, because I think it does touch on another central issue of the year 2000 election, and that is the incredible claim that is being made by some that there is basically no difference between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush in terms of which of these gentlemen would be elected to be President. In fact, I found it interesting that there are some who are claiming, first among them Ralph Nader, a gentleman who for years I have watched, and I have admired some of his work; just right out of college, one of my first opportunities for public service was at a local university where I had a chance to play a small role in helping facilitate the Student Interest Research Group in Oregon. I admired Mr. Nader and some of the Raiders. But somehow, to hear Mr. Nader suggest that people should vote for him because there is no difference between the two candidates strikes me as outrageous. I think there will be an opportunity in the course of our conversation here to point out some of those differences. I note with interest that the Republican Party is now starting to use some of the words of Ralph Nader. They are putting on in effect ads for Nader, because they are hopeful that they can use this to undermine the support for the Vice President. I guess it is something that one has come to expect from the Republican campaign; and sadly, I am hearing from Mr. Nader that they cannot quite distinguish the difference. They are unaware of the difference between, or they are not willing to admit the difference between the two gentlemen on issues of reproductive freedom, which has inspired the National Organization for Reproductive Rights, NARAL, to have to take out ads pointing out the threat that would be posed to women's right to choose her reproductive health options. Governor Bush does not support a woman's right to choose, versus the President in the form of Al Gore who does, and the impact that this would have on the decisions for people that would be appointed to the Supreme Court.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman referencing the issues that we are facing regarding energy and global warming. These are part and parcel of the critical elements that we are facing here in the year 2000 election. I do not think it has been given quite the currency that one would have liked. But just again today on the editorial page of The New York Times, there was a reference to a new report that is coming forward, the third report from the group that was set up after the Kyoto Accords to try and monitor this, with over 50 recognized experts now finding not only is the consensus of scientific opinion stronger than ever that we have, in fact, contributed to the impacts of global warming that, in fact, it is accelerating but that it may be actually worse than we thought over the course of the next 100 years; that the increase in temperature may be over 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the course of the next century. And in that context we are faced with a Republican ticket that does not have a program or a proposal dealing with global warming. In fact, George Bush, Sr., derided Vice President Gore for his interest, his concern and his leadership about this issue. You may recall him being dismissed as the ozone man in the 1992 elections.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I too was struck by that comment about having made his money in the private sector, not sullying himself with government. But is it not true that the company for which he went to work and some of the performance bonuses that he has earned have been a result of massive government contracts, for example, with the military?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to spend a few minutes this afternoon discussing the situation we face ourselves today in terms of dealing with the homestretch of the year 2000 election. There is, I understand why we have seen in many expressions of public attitude, a sense of confusion. We have heard the Republican candidate for President, Governor Bush, talk about his concern about the gridlock and partisan bickering here in Washington, D.C., trying to make it some aspect of his campaign, that somehow this would be an advantage of his candidacy, somehow either not knowing, caring or not being honest with the fact that it is his party that is not dealing with allowing partisan solutions to come forward. As is known to every Member of this Chamber, there was a bipartisan solution to the issue of a Patients' Bill of Rights that was passed with overwhelming Democratic support and a number of Republican supporters as well, a significant majority of this Chamber. But unfortunately the Republican leadership refused to allow a fair and honest discussion of this proposal to move forward and decided to appoint members of the conference committee who actually disagreed with the overwhelming sentiment, the overwhelming bipartisan sentiment of this Chamber. In the area of efforts to reduce gun violence, we had an historic opportunity last year when finally there was a little glimmer in the United States Senate where there were some provisions that were passed that would have been small steps towards reducing gun violence, a huge concern for people around the country. One of those, the gun show loophole, for instance, had bipartisan Senate support, would have had an opportunity for passage here, but this legislation has been bottled up in a conference committee by the Republican leadership that will not meet with the Republican Senate leadership and bring legislation to the floor of this Chamber. That juvenile justice conference committee has not met since last summer; not the summer of the year 2000 but since August of 1999, losing an opportunity to have a bipartisan solution towards reducing the epidemic of gun violence. Perhaps nowhere is the stark differences between the candidates more clear than dealing with the area of the environment, and I wanted to take the opportunity today to have an opportunity to discuss these issues. I notice that I am joined by my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a senior member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, a senior member of the Committee on Resources, someone who has been involved with the issues of the environment since he and I served together as local officials in Oregon more than a decade ago. I am pleased to yield to him at this time for some comments about the environment, the year 2000 election, and the issues that are facing us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time briefly, I appreciate the gentlewoman's references to the issue of clean air, because this is something research is showing is not just a transitory problem. We have just had published a report in Southern California, which is now no longer the smog capital of the United States.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time. As a relative newcomer to this Chamber, I have been following this to understand how the House works, how we can pick out one item for the first time in 17 years to proceed forward with a recommendation for criminal activity. The U.S. Attorney is already following up on potential misconduct; so that is not the issue here. The issue is, the dealing with the House of Representatives. Seventeen years ago, Rita Lavelle stonewalled Congress completely, would not answer the phone, would not come forward, would not produce documents. These are people who did come forward, produced thousands of pages of documents. This has already been deleted by the amendment of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). We are looking at something here that looks to me like a pretty broad sweep that is calculated not to get at the problem of misuse of oil royalties. It is not whether or not these people are going to have their behavior investigated. It is, it seems to me, rather a chilling effort in terms of people who come forward and for the first time in 17 years. I think this is indeed a stretch.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the combined D.C./Commerce- Justice-State Appropriations Conference Report. Attaching the DC appropriations to the larger Commerce--Justice-- State bill once again does a great disservice to the people of the District. The DC portion of the conference report is a great improvement over the version passed earlier by the House. It includes provisions that increase funding for two projects that I have strongly supported: $25 million for the New York Avenue Metro Station, and $3 million for environmental clean-up of Popular Point along the Anacostia River. Both projects are top priorities for residents and the City to help spur new economics development activity for the District. Combining it with the larger Commerce-Justice-State bill, which contains provisions wholly unacceptable to the President, means that once again the District is being held hostage to Congressional tactics. It is unnecessary and it is wrong! This bill fails to include critical provisions that would bring fairness and justice to our nation's immigration laws. Last month, I joined 154 other House Democrats in sending a letter to President Clinton promising to sustain a veto of this bill should the Republican majority fail the Hispanic community yet again. While Republicans speak of compassion, their actions tear families apart and support inequalities in our laws. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness act (LIFA) provisions are critically-needed pieces of legislation that would bring fairness to families and individuals who call America home, and who have made significant social, economic, and political contributions to our nation. I am cosponsoring legislation calling for all three of LIFA's provision: to allow those who qualify for permanent residency to complete the final stages of their application in the U.S. rather than returning to their country of origin; to provide Central American and Caribbean immigrants who have been here since 1995 the right to apply for permanent residency (as is the case for Cubans and Nicaraguans); and to update the ``registry date'' which would allow immigrants here since 1986 to apply for permanent residency. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership will not permit a vote on our legislation and attaching it to appropriations legislation is the only way this Congress can provide justice to these families. I am also disappointed about the failure of this conference report to include the hate crimes enhancement law as the Administration had requested. Along with more than 190 Members of the House from both parties, I cosponsored the legislation to extend current federal hate crimes law to cover violence motivated by prejudice against the victim's sexual orientation, gender or liability. It will not become law this year because Republican leaders have shown once again that they are opposed to passing the legislation in any form. We have a long way to go on to ensure the safety on all citizens. I will continue to support efforts to fight hate crimes and discrimination. This legislation also does a disservice to the environment. Section 636 of the bill would prevent the Cuyahoga Valley National Park from gaining stronger clean air protections. Provisions in the bill also allow Coastal Impact Assistant funds to be used for environmentally damaging projects and activities, making a mockery of ongoing efforts to restore our endangered coastal areas.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. Would that the rule that we are debating here today simply had given us a tax bill that somebody may be able to comprehend. As my colleague from Mississippi pointed out, there is nobody in this Chamber that knows exactly what they are voting on. I look forward to the debate later today on the merits of the proposals that we have heard argued briefly before us. But this rule snuck in provisions that are extraneous to taxation. I give you just one example: It does not just overturn Oregon's death with dignity law, the only such provision in the United States, but it would criminalize the critical doctor-patient relationship dealing with the management of pain. This is something that is objected to by a number of medical societies around the country. Any thinking professional who considers the potential of criminalizing this sensitive relationship understands on this basis alone it calls for the rejection of the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA) substantially cut payments to health care providers in order to reduce total Medicare spending. I voted against the Balanced Budget Act because the cuts were too severe and have threatened health care delivery to the Medicare population. It is no surprise to me that the bill before us today, H.R. 2614, seeks to undo portions of the BBA. However, I am extremely disappointed with the unfair provision of this bill; it doesn't provide adequate help to the neediest parts of our health care system. Hospitals absorbed the largest funding reductions under the BBA, Oregon hospitals alone are expecting a $33.6 million loss in fiscal year 2002. However, hospitals only receive a fraction of the ``give back'' provided by H.R. 2614. Over 41 percent of the spending in this bill goes to Medicare HMOs, affecting only the 16 percent of the Medicare population covered by managed care plans. I will not support a bill that does not provide sufficient relief to our hospitals, home health care agencies, nursing homes, and hospices. Hospital payments aside, the increased funding to Medicare HMOs does not ensure improved healthcare for Medicare HMO customers, nor does it address the flawed Medicare managed care reimbursement rate structure that unfairly punishes cost effective states like Oregon. Managed care plans in my district have recently doubled the monthly co-payment from $35 to $69.50 with no corresponding increase in benefits. At the same time, seniors in states with higher than average reimbursement rates like California, New York, and Arizona have no out-of-pocket costs for health care and often receive dental and vision coverage and a prescription drug benefit. It is unfair to increase payments to Medicare HMOs without focusing relief on those customers that are forced to pay the highest rates and receive the fewest benefits. A major concern is a provision that would criminalize decisions doctors make on pain management for the most seriously ill and overturn Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. Oregonians have twice voted to support the assisted suicide law. H.R. 2614 not only is an attack on the Democratic process, but also threatens to pain management. There is evidence that doctors are increasingly hesitant to prescribe pain medications to terminally ill patients for fear of being accused of unlawfully assisting a suicide. The on-going attempts by Congress to criminalize the doctor-patient relationship are a threat to pain management in all fifty states.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's input in framing these issues as it relates to the environment, the difference between Governor Bush and Vice President Gore, and what it would mean for the agricultural industry. I did appreciate the gentleman's reference to the bipartisanship in both the legislation that he is cosponsoring and he referenced the progress that we made in the recently approved VAWA. That is something that I think bears some consideration. I must confess, when I came to this Chamber, the partisanship really was sort of off putting. I note the presence in the Chamber this evening of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I, too, am saddened at the prospect of his leaving. I have appreciated his thoughtful approach in a bipartisan fashion with the important work of the Committee on Appropriations and in other areas as well. There is no one I respect more, and I appreciate in my short tenure here what he has added in an element of bipartisanship. I guess that is what concerns me the most, Mr. Speaker, about what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) is talking about, because when it comes to America's environment, we should be working on a bipartisan basis. The gentleman from Wisconsin and I have been working with people like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). We have had the leadership on our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure where the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) time and time again have actually fashioned this fascinating environmental legislation, ISTEA, the VAWA bill, where we have been able to put some of these provisions in. I guess this is one of the concerns that I have because I do not want to have mistaken what we are talking about this evening that somehow just attempting to be mindlessly partisan. All the legislation that the gentleman from Wisconsin and I have been working on, there has been an effort to make it bipartisan in nature. Regardless of who controls this Chamber in the next Congress, it is going to be important to fashion bipartisan agreements to move legislation forward.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's words. I guess that is one of the things that disappoints me about the nature of the current Presidential campaign. Last year, I worked on a bipartisan basis putting together a group of people to try and help both parties deal with these issues at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand) where we had a bipartisan group to try and frame these issues. Because it sadly does not need to be partisan. The point I wanted to make was that we actually reached out at Harvard University developing a bipartisan opportunity for people in both parties to fashion approaches for the environment and livable communities with a notion that it would play a larger role in this election. I note with interest, and again I am sad about it, I am not happy to deal with the record of Governor Bush as it relates to local government and dealing with problems of sprawl. I was disappointed, because I had worked for years with people in the capital city of Austin, Texas who have tried repeatedly to figure out initiatives that they could take to help them get control of some very serious situations that they have, trying to manage growth and pollution and sprawl in the capital city of Texas. Sadly, Governor Bush has supported legislation that took away the ability of the City of Austin to creatively solve their own problems. Now, the Governor has no national policy. The State of Texas does not have anything to help them. He would even support legislation that takes away the creative approaches that were taken by the capital city of Austin. I think it is a sad legacy. As I say, it is not something that needs to be partisan. I am the first to point out that it was a Republican Vice President who subsequently became president, Teddy Roosevelt, who set aside the land for the impressive national monuments, one of the first and great conservationists. But it was this administration over the objections, sadly, of some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and apparently over the objections of the Republican ticket of Bush and Cheney for extending monument protection. In fact, they have already announced that these are some of the first things they will review in the event that they are elected this November. Vice President Gore has been involved in this administration being point person on some of the more creative partnerships to protect, for example, habitat. Seventy percent of the continental United States is in private hands. Successful efforts to maintain and restore the Nation's wildlife must include private land owners. One of the most valuable tools has been the Habitat Conservation Plan, which is a long-term agreement between government and a land owner that helps ensure the survival of threatened wildlife while allows productive use of the land. Prior to 1993, only 14 such plans existed. Throughout 12 years of Reagan-Bush, 14 plans existed. This administration has forged another 250 plans protecting more than 20,000 acres and 200 threatened or endangered species. The Vice President has been part of the effort to protect and expand national parks and monuments and has already announced that he will fight to block efforts to roll back the environment progress that we have made. The Vice President has been active seeking full funding of the Lands Legacy Initiative, one of the more creative parts through the Land and Water Conservation fund. The Vice President has long been on record to reform the antiquated mining law and use that reform to help pay for conservation. The Mining Act of 1872 is on the books effective identical today as it was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant. This allows patents for hard rock minerals on public lands to be mined for $2.50 an acre or $5 an acre. Since taking office in January of 1993, the 1872 Mining law has required the Department of Interior to sign 40 mining patents, some of which have been granted to foreign hard rock company, mining companies, deeding away publicly owned resources valued at more than $15 billion to individuals and private mining companies. In return, the taxpayers received a little more than $24,000. This is an outrage. The last Republican administration vetoed efforts of Democratic Congresses to reform it. Vice President Gore would use the money from mining royalties to pay incentives to protect open space and help communities support local parks. I have already referenced earlier in my remarks this evening the rather bizarre position of Governor Bush who rules out some of the initiatives in saving the salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest who has no plan himself. The Vice President has committed to saving the salmon stocks and is willing to consider all the options that would be required under our treaty obligations and under U.S. law. Well, as I look at the record of Governor Bush, it gives me pause. Looking at the area of public lands, one is hard-pressed to find what Governor Bush did in his stewardship in the last 6 years to deal with Texas parks or public land. Again, this is not a partisan issue. I have been on the floor of this Chamber commending Governor Christine Todd Whitman, Governor Pataki for his and her initiatives, respectively, dealing with the preservation of open space in the States of New Jersey and New York. They do not have to be partisan issues. In fact, when governors, Republican or Democrat, take the lead, the public supports them, and legislators fall in place. Well, what is Texas doing to take advantage of the massive public support for improving park and open space? Texas, the second largest State in the union, running substantial budget surpluses, where does it rank, where in the ranking of the States on the money it spends on State parks? A 1998 State audit found that Texas had a funding backlog of $186 million just for the maintenance of existing parks. In 1999, the Texas Parks Commission tried to remove the cap on a sporting goods tax to increase its revenue. Governor Bush could not see his way clear to either provide money in his budget or to support the increase in the revenues. The measure died. Governor Bush did appoint a tax force to find a solution, perhaps a good start. But then when his parks commission made a recommendation, did the governor embrace it? Did he come forward challenging the legislature to meet the needs? Sadly not. He created this task force on conservation which he charged with finding ways to ensure that Texas leaves a legacy for our children and grandchildren, a legacy of unwavering commitment to preserve and conserve our treasured lands. And then he ignored the request for initial funding for the commission. A year ago on the campaign trail, one of the most important pieces of conservation legislation, and again I point out it was bipartisan legislation, it cannot be more bipartisan than when you have the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chair and ranking member respectively of the Committee on Resources, which passes this Chamber with over 300 votes, Governor Bush, when asked last year about his support for the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, did not even know how to answer the question. He would increase logging on public lands. He would reverse the roadless area protections that have been a part of this administration's roadless area initiative. I have already referenced that they have indicated they might well try and reopen lands to development that have been protected by this administration. I think it is something that is exceedingly frustrating for people who care about the environment to take a step back and look at the nature of this sorry legacy where the governor has dealt with the environment in the State of Texas. It did not have to be that way. It was not that way with Governor Engler in Michigan, Christie Todd Whitman, Governor Pataki; it is not the way with Democratic governors across the country, but Governor Bush seemingly does not set a priority on the environment other than photo ops when he comes to the Pacific Northwest. Where is the passion, the commitment, the outrage that under his watch Houston has become the smoggiest city in the United States? In the area of energy, which is important in terms of both American policy and its environmental consequences, here again is another stark difference between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush. Vice President Gore has supported conservation, is against drilling in the ANWR, 95 percent of Alaska's north slope is already available for oil and gas exploration and leasing. The wildlife preserve is the only 5 percent that is not available. And the estimate of the impact of the ANWR in terms of our energy supply is that it would be at most a 6- month supply of oil. And it would take 10 years to bring that energy supply to market. This is opposed by three-quarters of the American public. It is in fact even opposed by a majority of people in the State of Alaska. But it is part of Governor Bush's proposal for dealing with the energy problem. Mr. Speaker, I am really troubled with this disconnect between America's long-term environmental interests, with the wishes and needs and interests of the American public, and what has been offered by Governor Bush and the Republican ticket. It is my hope that in the remaining 2 weeks of this campaign, that the American public will focus on the difference between the two gentlemen who would offer themselves up for President, one of whom will be elected President and use that in guiding their votes accordingly.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, we have reached the home stretch in the Year 2000 elections, and I think it is safe to say that one of the areas that is most critical to our voters deals with the environment. I hope that in the remaining two weeks that we are dealing with this election that it will be an opportunity for people to focus in on what the candidates stand for, what they would do if they were elected to our highest honor. I think it is important to focus in on the environment, because it is one of the areas where people do not really have to guess about the differences between the two candidates. Somehow, in a number of areas dealing with this election, we appear to have sort of given a free ride on occasion dealing with the substance of these campaigns. I found of great interest this morning the column that appeared in this morning's Washington Post by Michael Kinsley entitled ``The Stupidity Issue.'' Kinsley is the slate editor who writes a weekly column for the Post, and he has done one of the best jobs I have seen in capturing the problems of Governor Bush and the representations that he has made in the course of his campaign. Being delicate, either the Governor is having problems telling the truth, or his capacity to understand some of these issues is truly at question. It is illustrated, and Mr. Kinsley goes on at some length to talk about the way that Governor Bush has talked about his partial privatization of the Social Security program is going to be paid out of surpluses in that program. Now, since both candidates have pledged to protect the surplus, including Governor Bush, it is quite clear that the Governor is going to have to either renege on his promise that there will be no reduction in benefits for the people for whom these surpluses have been dedicated to be able to provide it, or they are not going to be able to provide the transition to cover the costs of privatization. There is no two ways about it. Mr. Kinsley goes on at some length in the article. He had three others that I thought were really rather noteworthy, and I quote. ``When he,'' Governor Bush, ``repeatedly attacks his opponent for partisanship, does he get the joke? When Governor Bush blames the absence of a Federal Patients' Bill of Rights law on a lot of bickering in Washington, D.C., has he noticed that the bickering consists of his own party, which controls Congress, blocking the legislation? When he summarizes `it is kind of like a political issue as opposed to a people issue,' does he mean to suggest anything in particular? Perhaps that politicians, when acting politically, ignore the wishes of the people? How does he figure, if at all?'' Mr. Kinsley goes on further about Governor Bush declaring in the debate, ``I don't want to use food as a diplomatic weapon from this point forward. We shouldn't be using food. It hurts the farmers. It is not the right thing to do. When just a few days later he,'' Governor Bush, ``criticized legislation weakening the trade embargo on Cuba, which covers food, along with everything else, has he rethought his philosophy on the issue, or was there nothing to rethink?'' ``Finally, when he,'' Governor Bush, ``says that local control of schools is vital and criticizes his opponent for wanting to federalize education, and promises as president to impose various requirements on schools, when he complains that Federal money comes with too many strings, and then turns around and calls for after school funds to be used for character education, and then endorses a Federal law forbidding state lawsuits against teachers and so on, does he have a path through this maze of contradictions? When he,'' Governor Bush, ``promises a Federal school voucher program, and then deflects criticism by saying vouchers are up to states, is he being dense, or diabolically clever?'' Unfortunately, we have seen this sort of approach by Governor Bush when we are dealing with issues in the Pacific Northwest, dealing with things like the salmon. We have a problem that currently we have a number of salmon species that are threatened with extinction, and we have a requirement to do something about it. Governor Bush has traveled to the Pacific Northwest to declare that he has ruled out one of the potential solutions, and that would be the partial elimination of some of the dams in the Columbia River-Snake system. He will not tear down those dams, ever. Well, it begs the question. What if that is the only choice to comply with the law of the land? Would he as president of the United States turn his back on the responsibility of complying with the Endangered Species Act? What if the Federal courts rule that we have treaty obligations to the Northwest Native Americans, a very strong case some feel that we may have, an obligation, both moral and legal, to those native peoples who have, frankly, been treated rather shabbily by the U.S. Government over the course of the last two centuries. What if the Native Americans get tired of the behavior of the Federal Government and a lack of action and see that their treaty rights will be violated and they take us to court? And what if the Federal courts rule that we have an obligation to the Native Americans that entails partial dam removal? Is the Governor simply going to rule out compliance with the obligation to the Native Americans? What if the alternatives that we have in complying with either our treaty obligations to Native Americans or to the Endangered Species Act under law, what if the alternatives place a far greater burden on the citizens of not just the Pacific Northwest, but on the United States Treasury? It would seem foolhardy to rule out consideration of an option that may in fact be legally required. It also begs the question of when the Governor is in the process of ruling out potential action that may be mandated, what is his plan? I have listened as he has come to the Pacific Northwest, had a photo op out in the wilderness reading off a teleprompter. What is his plan? The silence is deafening. Who is going to be responsible, and how much will it cost? Given the Bush record, I find no small irony that also in this election we are finding that Ralph Nader and some apologists for the Green Party are urging people to send a message by voting for Mr. Nader for president. It gives me pause, as somebody who cares deeply about the environment, as to what precisely might that message be? To turn your back on the most environmentally active and effective vice president since Teddy Roosevelt raises significant questions. To mislead the American public about both the Gore environmental record and the consequences seems to me to be sad. Now, I have respected much of what Ralph Nader has stood for in past years. I had an opportunity to first meet him after I had recently graduated from college. Actually my first job out of college was working as an assistant to the President of Portland State University, and I had a chance to work with Mr. Nader and some of his associates and Portland State University students in setting up the Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group. They did a lot of good work, and I continue to work with them. But somehow for Mr. Nader and his apologists, to declare that there is no difference between Vice President Gore and George Bush is I think a similar stretch of credibility, similar to Governor Bush and his problems with his Social Security plan. There is, in fact, a huge difference between George Bush and Al Gore; and Ralph Nader knows it or he is completely out of touch with the last 5 years' battle in Washington D.C. There is no difference between drilling in the Arctic Natural Wilderness reserve as is proposed by Governor Bush as a stopgap approach to some of our energy problems? Stopgap approach, by the way, which would take 10 years to come on line and provide only a few months' worth of energy supply for this country or Vice President Gore's staunch protection commitment to protect the ANWR and keep it off limits for drilling. There is no difference between improving and enforcing the clean air standards and Governor Bush's advocacy and performance in Texas? Does not Mr. Nader know who is fighting the antienvironmental riders that have plagued this Congress since the Republicans assumed control? I recall very little help, if any, from Mr. Nader here in the trenches for the 5 years that I have been in Congress as we have been resisting these destructive proposals to legislate via the appropriations process. But there is no difference between appointment of justices in the mode of Justice Thomas and Scalia to the Supreme Court that are the model that is cited by Governor Bush? Gentlemen who have a very distinguished, and I would argue limited, indeed, negative view of the opportunity for the Federal Government to protect environmental values. And contrast that with the appointees of the Clinton-Gore administration to the Judiciary, those few appointees further down in the judicial ranks sadly, because I am afraid our Republican friends in control of the United States Senate have been, I think, sadly deficient in allowing a bipartisan review in consideration of qualified, well-qualified, appointees to fill important vacancies in the lower Federal courts. There is a clear, clear record, however, between the appointees of the Clinton-Gore administration and those cited as the model by Governor Bush. A court full of people in the mode of Justice Thomas and Scalia would make a huge difference in the enforcement of our environmental laws for a generation. The dead hand of Richard Nixon lives on a generation later in the person of Justice Rehnquist who was his appointee as chief justice. So the next President of the United States will have an impact on a whole generation of legal decisions with the appointments up and down the Federal bench. It is important to note that as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, we have gone longer than at any period in our history, 177 years without a Supreme Court appointment, and we may be looking at 2, 3, 4 appointees just in the next term of the President of the United States. Madam Speaker, it is, in fact, a major difference, and that in and of itself would justify support for Vice President Gore over a wasted vote for Ralph Nader or sitting home alone and not voting at all. Having watched this administration struggle to push back the forces that are in control in this Congress, it seems to me that it would be an opportunity to set us back for years to come if we are not doing justice to the people, because either Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore is going to be elected President of the United States, even Mr. Nader agrees with that. I think it is important that people consider how their vote for President is going to affect that outcome. And in that connection, I think it would be important to take a few minutes to look at that record between the Vice President and Governor Bush in a little greater detail. I have referenced in the past some issues that relate to air quality. Governor Bush was asked in May of 1999 the impact on clean air since he became governor. Governor Bush said, when asked the question is the air cleaner since I became governor? The answer, according to Governor Bush, is yes. Well, I invite people to take a close look at the record of the Bush administration in dealing with the clean air problems of the State of Texas under the Bush administration. Smog problems in Texas cities have increased under the Bush administration. Texas ranks first in the Nation in toxic air emissions from industrial facilities, discharging over 100 million pounds of cancer- causing pollutants and other contaminants in the air annually. Of the 50 largest industrial companies in Texas, 28 violate the Clean Air Act. Currently, the areas of Houston-Galveston, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso and Beaumont-Port Arthur are in violation of Federal clean air standards for ozone pollution. Madam Speaker, during the years that Governor Bush has been in office, Houston has surpassed Los Angeles as the city with the highest levels of smog in the United States, capturing that position sadly for the second year in a row. Governor-elect Bush in 1994 opposed a new vehicle emissions testing program that had been designed and contracted by the State to implement the 1990 Clean Air Act calling it onerous and inconvenient. After he became governor in 1995, he and the legislature cooperated in overturning the centralized inspections on the ground that it would be too inconvenient for motorists. And instead they installed a decentralized system similar to the old system, except it costs more, tests less accurately, and is easier to evade. He urged the EPA to, rather than help Texas solve the problem by being tough on polluters, he suggested that EPA measure pollution differently. He would not throw Dallas out of compliance because one monitor goes over unacceptable levels for an hour next summer. He wants the EPA to measure air quality over the longer period, over an average. Well, now Texas faces EPA penalties, the potential of losing Federal highway funds for failing to implement an air pollution plan for Dallas-Fort Worth in the face of a severe violation of clean air standards. It is important to note that this is not some esoteric matter to quibble over. These air quality standards have an effect on people's lives. Just this last week, there was a report from the University of Southern California that had reviewed the impact of the smog in the Los Angeles Basin. Remember, Los Angeles has smog that is now not as serious as Houston's. In Los Angeles, they found that that impact on the children, and they monitored them from the 4th grade to the 7th grade to the 10th grade, they found a 10 percent loss in the growth of lung capacity, this is not something that appears to be reversible. With a 10 percent reduction, it made people much more likely to be hospitalized, for instance, with an asthma attack. These are serious issues that affect the lives of people at risk, particularly children, senior citizens, people with delicate health, but the Texas environmental legacy under Governor Bush continues sadly to be one that I do not think Americans would be proud of, and it is not something that they would like as a standard by our chief executive. Texas ranks number one in the number of chemicals polluting its air. It ranks number one for the amount of toxics released in the atmosphere. In 1997, which was the most recent year that I could obtain statistics, over 260 million pounds of toxic pollution was released. Since Governor Bush took office, the number of days when Texas cities have exceeded Federal ozone standards has doubled. Governor Bush often cites his leadership as Governor of Texas as a qualification to be President of the United States. Well, there is a lot of give and take about how much power it has and how he has used the power and whether he simply is claiming credit for things that his predecessor's put in place. For instance, the education reforms have not been initiated by Governor Bush but were those that were initiated by his predecessors and the Texas legislature. But if Texas were a country, one area that it is big in, it would be the seventh biggest emitter of carbon dioxide of any Nation in the world. We can take a step back, not just looking at clean air; although, that is one of the most graphic areas of failure of leadership, but look at what Texas has done in other areas of the environment. Look at aggregate spending on protecting the environment. Some people say, well, these comparisons really are not fair to Texas, because Texas has more industries, for example, that deal with petroleum, for instance. What would be a fairer measure? Let us look at per capita spending on environmental cleanup, for instance. In fact, if Texas has all of these huge industries, all of these huge problems, these massive threats to the environment, we would expect that a fair way of measuring commitment to the overall environment would be looking at per capita spending. It is a big State. Let us not compare it necessarily just to the State of California. How much are they spending to solve the problem? Not that that is the entire test at all. They are spending, according to The Los Angeles Times of April 4 of this year, 44th in per capita spending on all environmental programs in the country. That is 44th from the top to the bottom. There are only 5 States that spend less on cleaning up their environment, and given the fact that there is probably no State with greater environmental challenges, that is rather depressing, to say the very least. Madam Speaker, it is of some interest that Governor Bush talks about his voluntary emissions cleanup to allow people to voluntarily decide in the area of the grandfathered plants that have been emitting harmful pollution. They were grandfathered in. The Senate bill 766 that Governor Bush is so proud of and touts as part of his approach has reduced harmful air pollution from these grandfathered plants in Texas, 470 of them, there are only a handful, less than three dozen actually complying. It has ended up in reducing harmful air pollution by less than 1/3 of 1 percent. Well, what about water quality? In 1999, Texas was the third worst in the country for toxic water pollution. Now, this is 5 years after he assumed office, the third worst in dumping chemicals into its own water supply. Texas also ranked second worst for emitting known and suspected carcinogens into water in the country. It had the river with the third most pollution in the country and ranked third in emitting reproductive toxins into the waterway, and ranked second worst in dumping nitric compounds into the waterways. I note that adding former Secretary Cheney to the ticket did not really do much in terms of balancing, because Secretary Cheney has a record as a Member of this Chamber where he could show what his passion and belief was in terms of protecting the environment. The League of Conservation Voters has assessed the records, the voting records of Members of this body for the last 25 or 30 years. During the time that Secretary Cheney served in this Chamber, he had amassed a lifetime voting record of 13 percent, according to the League of Conservation Voters. Cheney voted seven times against authorizing clean water programs, often as one of only a small minority of Members who voted against the authorization. For example, in 1986, Cheney was one of only 21 Members to vote against the appropriations to carry out the Safe Drinking Water Act. One year later, in 1987, Secretary Cheney was one of only 26 Members to vote against overriding the Reagan veto of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. Think about it. Mr. Speaker, 435 Members of this Chamber, almost 400, including in the neighborhood of 150 Republicans, voted against their own President on the veto of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, but not Dick Cheney. In contrast, Al Gore has fought for clean water as a United States Senator and as Vice President. As Senator, he was an original cosponsor of the Water Quality Act of 1987, the same time that Secretary Cheney was one of only 26 Members of this body to vote against the outrageous veto, the override of the veto of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have been joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), with whom I have been privileged to work extensively in this Congress on issues that deal with water quality and the environment. I commend the gentleman for his vision and foresight in being the author of legislation that I was privileged to cosponsor to deal, for instance, with areas to make the Corps of Engineers more transparent in its operations, to allow more environmental and citizen input into its decisions, to allow independent review, independent scientific review to make sure those projects are meeting the mark, and he did not need a week-long series of articles in the Washington Post to alert him to the problem or to motivate him to action. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, was the gentleman concerned that on one hand, Governor Bush allegedly talks about opening these up overseas, and yet, turns around and criticizes the recent initiatives that were taken by this body on a bipartisan basis to open up the opportunity of having food to be traded with Cuba? Does that seem a little bizarre to the gentleman?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, there is an important element in this bill that I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Crane); to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Archer); the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); and the staff on both sides of the aisle for dealing with something that actually would penalize good corporate environmental leadership on the part of American companies. One of the reasons we have been interested in the opportunities for freer trade for American enterprise is an opportunity to extend American environmental standards and expertise around the world. In my State of Oregon, we have a homegrown shoe company that is now the largest in the world, Nike. It is not just the largest shoe company in the world, but it has developed into a significant leader in environmental standards. For example, in all the factories in which Nike does business around the world, they meet OSHA U.S. air quality standards. They also have developed a fascinating approach to recycling shoes. They call it Reuse a Shoe, where they recycle them instead of landfilling them. But this company was faced with a bizarre and I think counterproductive interpretation by the U.S. Customs Service because they were going to be penalized for recycling the shoes and giving them away to charity as opposed to simply throwing them in the landfill. The provisions of the U.S. Customs Law allows companies to get the Customs duty drawback if it is destroyed to the extent that the product has no commercial value. Unfortunately, the Customs Service interpreted that so narrowly that Nike would have been penalized for this Reuse a Shoe program where they grind it up, they make playgrounds for underserved inner-city youth. In fact, the track at the White House is used of this recycled material. I firmly believe that the Customs Service could and should have interpreted the provisions that the product has no commercial value to cover this, because clearly Nike was not benefiting. In fact, it was costing them money to be a good environmental steward, but they thought it was the right thing to do. I really appreciate the committee's placing a provision in this bill that made clear that a company that is a good environmental steward, that is recycling, is not going to be penalized. I would like to express my appreciation to the committee and the staff for making that adjustment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding me this time. While I am prepared to support the rule and the underlying bill, I am disappointed that our proposed amendments were not ruled in order. While more progress is possible on this bill, at this late date in this session it may well be unrealistic, and there is, in fact, much to celebrate. The inclusion in the legislation of almost $8 billion to save the Florida Everglades is symbolic of our changing attitudes towards water resource management. It is also important to remember that we are simply paying to undo our own bad decisions. This Congress told the Corps of Engineers to drain the swamp in 1948, and drain it they did, all too well, without comprehensive planning and environmental assessment of its impact. We must do what we can to make sure that we do not repeat those mistakes of the past. Akin to the Everglades, the Columbia Slough, in my district, was cut off from the Columbia River by a Corps project decades ago and today it is stagnant and heavily polluted. This legislation directs the Corps to work with the City of Portland to fix the problems associated with the old Corps project. I am pleased that the bill incorporates my proposal for $40 million in funding to protect and restore the lower Columbia River and Tillamook estuaries, critical nurseries for endangered salmon. While there are some reform measures included in the bill, I would hope that we can continue going further. I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) on legislation which would increase the Corps' transparency and accountability that would guaranty more citizen participation and lead to a better balance between economic and environmental considerations. This is an effort that I will continue to pursue. One particular area of Corps reform that I think we in this body need to look at very carefully is the contentious beach nourishment program. In too many cases, the program is washing taxpayer dollars out to sea while actually hurting the environment. One simple change that we tried to make in order would require communities with beaches to at least pay full costs for any prospective Corps beach nourishment project if there is no public access. But the major reform of the Corps of Engineers is to be found on the floor of this Congress. We need to be more careful of what we authorize, what we require, and how all the complex pieces of our waterways fit together. This bill can help start the process. I support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, my goal in coming to Congress was to help make the Federal Government a better partner in making communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure. Clearly, safety from the threat of gun violence is one critical element in a livable community. Since I started my public service career, over 1 million Americans have lost their lives to gun violence. That is more than all the United States citizens who have lost their lives in battle from the Civil War through last week to the 17 who were tragically killed in Yemen. Part of the solution to this epidemic of gun violence is to put a name to those faces, to make them real. One of those faces belongs to a woman named Candice DuBoff Jones, who was a bright, caring 26-year-old attorney who N O T I C E Effective January 1, 2001, the subscription price of the Congressional Record will be $393 per year or $197 for six months. Individual issues may be purchased for $4.00 per copy. The cost for the microfiche edition will remain $141 per year with single copies remaining $1.50 per issue. This price increase is necessary based upon the cost of printing and distribution. Michael F. DiMario, Public Printer happened to be a law school classmate of mine in Portland, Oregon. One morning at 10:30, she was having a hearing on a domestic relations matter two floors below where I was working as a county commissioner. Shots rang out. Candice was dead, along with her assailant who was the husband of the woman she was representing. This impact had a dramatic ripple effect. It was not just the loss of Ms. Jones' life, but it was a loss for her husband, it was a loss for her brother, friends, and colleagues. Certainly, everybody in that courtroom was scarred by that event. Madam Speaker, it is hard for me to share even today, not because we were that close particularly. In fact, I knew her brother much better, who was a distinguished and respected faculty member at our college, Professor Leonard DuBoff. But what is hard for me, besides the tragic loss of this woman, was that we as a society, we as a government know we can take steps to reduce gun violence, and we do not. Over the same period of time that we lost those million gun deaths, we as a society cut the rate of auto death in this country in half. There was not any single magic solution, but there was a determination on the part of citizens and government alike to take simple, common sense steps to improve traffic safety, auto design, and law enforcement. We can do the same thing to reduce gun violence. Luckily, there are now some States where citizens have taken the matters in their own hands, like my own State of Oregon where there is a measure on the ballot in November that will allow people to close the gun show loophole. I am confident that voters will overwhelmingly, when given this chance, vote affirmatively, as they will in Colorado. It is strange that at a time when leaders in the Mideast are once again taking risks for peace, in fact, putting their own lives at risk by stepping forward, I am sad that the Republican House leadership will not stand up to the gun lobby and take a small but important step for peace in this country to reduce gun violence. We have not had a meeting of the conference committee on the juvenile crime bill for the last 15 months. It was last August that it met. It has a provision that would enable us to close the gun show loophole that has already passed the Senate. This is just but one small step, but it would send a signal that we in the House of Representatives care enough about saving lives of families in this country to take modest political risks to do the right thing. There is still time yet in this session of Congress to do that, to convene the conference committee, to allow the House of Representatives to vote on closing the gun show loophole, to take a small step to make our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I want to spend this time this evening dealing with an issue that I hope will get the attention that it deserves yet in this election. We just had the second Presidential debate last night. I still hold out hope for an environmental debate between the candidates for President as well as leaders in both parties up and down the ticket. The significance of the environment to the American public is not just a matter of public opinion polls, although I note with interest recently a publication of the Clean Air Trust where they had conducted a survey of voters that indicated that 4 in 10 suggested that they would shun a Presidential candidate who opposed tougher new clean air standards, according to their national poll by the nonprofit Clean Air Trust. They were conducting this survey to determine the impact of just this one key environmental issue, clean air. At the same time, nearly 6 in 10 voters say they would reward a Presidential candidate who fought to support clean air standards. These are entirely consistent with results of a separate Clean Air Trust survey of likely voters in the battleground State of Michigan. But we do not have to just look at public opinion polls. I note with interest that, when we open up the newspapers in our communities from coast to coast, border to border, they are filled with issues of environmental concern to our citizens. A lot of the work that I do in Congress focuses on livable communities and what the Federal Government can do to be a better partner in promoting an environment where our families are safe, healthy, and economically secure. I am pleased that the Vice President has been a champion of the Federal partnership in promoting livable communities. His activity on behalf of the President's Council for Sustainable Development, indeed, he has been pushing and probing across the board in the Federal Government for each and every agency to have their program of sustainable development, of livable communities, of ways to promote environmental enhancement. The contrast with Governor Bush I think could not be more stark. There is no comprehensive State program in the State of Texas dealing with environmental quality and livability. Indeed, there is no indication that Governor Bush has chosen this as an area that he wants to promote Federal involvement and partnership. When we look at the response to local communities in the State of Texas to try and deal with those problems, it appears that he does not really look with favor at initiatives at the local level. I would quote from a recent column by Neal Peirce, one of the national journalistic experts in this arena who has been following livability environment and what happens in our metropolitan areas for several decades. He had indicated that the question about Governor Bush is why he seems oh so indifferent to America's growth quandaries. He constantly stresses local control. But The Austin American-Statesman reports that, when the growth- deluged city of Austin, the capital, moved to regulate development and water quality, Governor Bush approved State legislation to negate all its efforts. So it appears that he does not have a comprehensive program in the State of Texas. He does not support a comprehensive approach on the part of the Federal Government. He is willing to cut active local governments like the capital city of Austin off at the knees. This, I think, speaks volumes to the American public about the most important challenge that we are going to be facing in terms of enhancing and maintaining our quality of life. I think a further elaboration of the difference between the record of the Vice President and the Governor of Texas is enlightening. The State of Texas ranks near the bottom in spending on the environment, 44th out of the 50 States in per capita spending on environmental programs, according to The Los Angeles Times last April. Texas is the third worst in the country for toxic water pollution last year. It was ranked third worst in terms of dumping chemicals into the water supply. It also ranked second worst for omitting known and suspected carcinogens to water in the country. In 1998, Texas also had the record with the third most pollution in the country and ranked third in omitting reproductive toxins into the waterways, and second worst in dumping nitrate compounds into that State's waterways. Governor Bush selected as his Vice Presidential nominee Dick Cheney, a gentleman, a former colleague of many in this Chamber where he served for some dozen years in the 1980s and 1990s. Secretary Cheney, as a Member of this body, voted seven times against authorizing clean water programs, often as one of a small minority of Members who voted against the authorization. In 1986, Secretary Cheney was one of only 21 Members to vote against the appropriations to carry out the Safe Drinking Water Act. In 1987, he was one of only 26 Members who voted against overriding President Reagan's veto of the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. The contrast here with Vice President Gore is stark. As a Senator, Gore fought for cleaner water. He was an original cosponsor of the Water Quality Act of 1987. He has been part of an administration that has set aside more lands for Federal protection than any administration since the man who got the ball rolling, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt almost a century ago. He has been an active promoter of critical partnerships to protect habitat. As my colleagues know, 70 percent of the continental United States is in private hands, and any successful effort to maintain and restore the Nation's wildlife must include these private landowners. One of the most valuable tools that has evolved is the habitat conservation plan, which is a long-term agreement between government and land owners that helps ensure the survival of threatened wildlife, while still allowing productive use of the land. Prior to 1993, only 14 such plans existed. This administration, with the Vice President as the point person on the environment, has since forged another 250 plans, protecting more than 20 million acres and 200 threatened species, voluntary programs with private landowners to protect wildlife. I think it is also clear that the Vice President would continue to protect and perhaps even expand national parks and monuments. This has been an item of some modest concern on the floor of this House, and we have had an opportunity to discuss it. I think the Vice President is clear that he would be supportive of those efforts, and he would seek full funding of the land legacy initiative that the administration, Mr. Gore, proposed. They have supported full and permanent funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As part of the 2001 budget proposal, the President and Vice President requested $1.4 billion for the Land Legacy Initiative. I have every confidence that, as President, Al Gore would continue to insist that the Land and Water Conservation Fund be fully funded. The Vice President is also on record to support reform of the antiquated mining law to help pay for conservation. Currently, the Mining Act of 1872 remains on the books exactly as it was signed by President Ulysses S. Grant more than a century and a quarter ago. It grants, effective today, allowing patents for hard rock minerals on public lands to be mined for $2.50 or $5 per acre. Since taking office in 1993, just in the course of the last two administrations, the 1872 Mining Law has required the Department of the Interior to sign 40 mining patents that deeded away publicly owned resources valued in the billions of dollars, one estimate is more than $15 billion, to individuals and private mining companies. No guarantee that those private mining companies are even American companies. In return, the taxpayers have received a little more than $24,000. The Vice President supports modernization of this law to take advantage of changed circumstances. We are no longer needing to bribe people to exploit the wilderness and settle the West. We can use the money from any mining royalties that we ought to grant to help pay for incentives to protect open space and help communities support local parks. Again, as I look back and reflect on the difference that there would have between the Vice President and Governor Bush, I think this record is stark. If one reviews the record of Governor Bush, who cites his stewardship, now in his second term as governor of our country's second largest State, and look at what he has done for parks or public land in the State of Texas, I think any objective review of that record would find that it is indeed sparse. Texas ranks number 49 out of all the States in the amount of money it spends on State parks. That is number 49, I might add, from the top to the bottom. It is next to the last. A 1998 State audit found that Texas had a funding backlog of $186 million just for maintenance of its existing parks. In 1999, the Texas Parks Commission tried to remove a cap on the sporting goods tax to increase its revenues so it could do something to help this desperate situation in the State of Texas. The governor, sadly, did not support the proposal and the measure died. There was at least some lip service that was given by the administration of Governor Bush when he appointed a task force to find solutions to these problems. He created a task force on conservation which he ``charged with finding ways to ensure that Texas leaves a legacy for our children and grandchildren, a legacy of unwavering commitment to protect and preserve our treasured lands.'' Sounded good. But when he had an opportunity to translate this into action, the governor ignored the request for additional funding from the Texas Parks Commission. One of the most exciting proposals that has developed in this Congress, and something that has excited the attention of Americans across the country, has been fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Act, the CARA legislation, which passed this Chamber with an overwhelming bipartisan vote under the leadership of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Resources, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). That was really an artful piece of legislation that would have the opportunity of really transforming the use of our public land. It had resources for urban parks, for nature areas, for habitat restoration, conservation, purchase and maintenance, and historic activities. There was something here that excited, I think, the attention of environmentalists, conservationists, and citizens all across the country. According to the San Antonio Express News last year, when asked if he would support the legislation, the governor did not know. I quote: ``I do not know how to answer your question.'' And to the best of my knowledge, I have not seen him adding his voice to try and pry this legislation out of the death grip that it has with the Senate leadership where it has not been permitted to move. It is clear that Governor Bush would increase logging on public lands, but it is less clear what that environmental impact would be. He would reverse the roadless area protections that are encountered in the administration's roadless areas initiative, and this came out of his visit to Seattle, as quoted in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 26 of this year. The vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party has been clear that a Bush-Cheney administration would be very interested in reopening the issue of the lands that have been protected from development by this administration. Another issue of great concern to those of us in the Pacific Northwest, where we are struggling with how to balance the variety of interests dealing with the problems of the Columbia River System, with the issue of endangered species, with salmon, treaty rights to Native Americans, where there are conflicts in terms of barge traffic on the rivers, recreational users, and power, this is not an easy issue; and one of the things that has been clear is that this administration is willing to explore all options, and even some that are going to be very difficult. Vice President Gore has reiterated the fact that he feels that until we have a plan in place, that we need to keep all these options on the table. Unfortunately, Governor Bush has stepped into a difficult situation, one that does not have an obvious solution, and is willing publicly, I think sadly for political purposes, to rule out some options without having anything in the alternative. For him, evidently, not complying with the Endangered Species Act, not dealing with our commitments under treaty obligations to Native Americans, the extinction of salmon runs is, in fact, an option. The area of clean air is another one that is of great concern, I think, to all Americans; but I want to pause at this point because I have been joined by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). I am going to begin a somewhat lengthy piece, but the gentleman from New York, who is a member of the Committee on Appropriations and a tireless champion for environmental interests in his district, in his State of New York, and throughout the country, I know has been deeply involved in a number of these issues. He is a member of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations as well, and I would yield to him if he has some observations or thoughts at this point as we have been discussing these issues as it relates to the Vice President, Governor Bush and the choices before us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time briefly, I could not agree more with my distinguished colleague from California. He points out that we are, in fact, extracting more energy from more sources. But if we as a Nation that represents 5 or 6 percent of the world's population continue to use 25, 30 percent of the energy supply and if our primary bets are on fossil fuels that are, in fact, finite no matter what some would hope, we are on a downward path that can only lead to disaster.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Could those vehicles, energy-efficient vehicles be made here in the United States by American workers?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Is it possible that if we had at least studied the CAFE standards, that if we would have applied the CAFE standards across all of today's fleet, not having massive exemptions, that we could have actually had the best of both worlds?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, I was struck by your comment about the voluntary emission reduction plan in Texas. This is one of the innovations that has been cited by Governor Bush under his leadership. There was legislation that was introduced, he supported, Texas Senate bill 766 that took effect more than a year ago. It has been touted as an approach to voluntarily clean up these 760 old plants that were grandfathered in. I find it fascinating that as a result of this effort, there have been 73 so-called pioneer companies out of the 760 that have taken part, that the majority of these plants, even of the 73 that took part, there are only 28 that even applied for permits, only 19 received them and only five of these volunteers with permits that actually required reductions. So there are actually only five out of 760 plants that are actually producing any result and it is something like 0.3 percent.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I will not object, and I rise in support of H.R. 4853.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.