Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) who has been a leader on a whole host of environmental and energy issues.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) joining us, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), who has been active in these issues since long before he came to this Chamber.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like if I could, with the indulgence of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), yield to our colleague, the gentleman from the State of Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who has a long and distinguished record as a State legislator, as a private citizen, and as a Member of this Congress for focusing in on many of these concerns that I know my colleague shares.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Two observations. One, I appreciate his reference to growing smarter in terms of wiser use of our resources and avoiding unplanned growth and sprawl. The State of Maryland has recently been cited as another national model for experimenting with this. And I think it is important that, unlike what some of the people who are attempting to be critical of this, there is no effort with smart growth to deny choices to the American public. The notion here is to give them more opportunities in terms of where they live, how they move. If the only way somebody can get their children to a soccer game or to school is to drive them, if they cannot walk, if they cannot cycle, if they cannot get there on their own, if they have no access to transit, it narrows their choices. If there are neighborhoods that are disposable, hollowed out, it narrows the choices. One of the things that I am, I guess, most appreciative of for the Vice President is taking the risk that some people will try and turn these concepts on their head and suggest that somehow this is a war on the suburbs or it is trying to deny choices, when nothing could be further from the truth than trying to promote more opportunity. I am prepared to talk a little further on clean air, but I notice we have been joined by my colleague the gentleman from Southern California (Mr. Sherman). Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I had yielded the gentleman 2 of 3 of my minutes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio. (Mrs. JONES of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). I am sorry, but I thought the Chair would notify me when the time had expired. I apologize. Mr. Speaker, the Vice President has sometimes been accused of being sort of robotic and wooden. In fact, he has joked about it himself. But there is one thing that that man is passionate about. It is the environment. When I look at the dismal record in the State of Texas with the air quality deteriorating, I look for the passion and the commitment from the governor of that State, but I do not see it. I think there is a huge difference between the two, and I hope that the American public will have the opportunity in the remaining 3\1/2\ weeks to focus on this.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, pipeline safety is literally a matter of life and death. Legislation this important must be crafted carefully, allowing for the input of every member of Congress, since pipeline safety impacts every American community. Legislation this important must be brought through committee and to the Floor of the House of Representatives in an inclusive, nonpartisan manner. Sadly, this was not the case for yesterday's consideration of the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act. S. 2438 faced significant opposition from consumer, environmental and labor groups, and was opposed by my own committee leadership. The bill did not ensure that pipelines would be inspected and did not do enough to help local emergency management agencies react to pipeline emergencies. Given these, and other concerns, and given the considerable opposition the bill faced, S. 2438 should not have been brought to the floor as a suspension calendar item. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the suspension calendar is meant to move noncontroversial, routine items. As such, these items are given little time for debate and no opportunity for amendment. Had S. 2438 been brought for a vote in a more open manner, it could have won my support. It is my sincerest hope that the Republican leadership will take pipeline safety seriously and bring S. 2438 back to the House of Representatives in a manner that permits its further debate and possible improvement.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the priorities represented in this bill are misplaced. It spends $310 billion, over half of our discretionary budget. This is $4.5 billion more than the President requested and $21 billion above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. We are spending too much in this bill on too many unproven technologies, duplicative systems, and, in some cases, congressional add-ons that our military leaders don't want. We are spending enough on things like environmental remediation of past actions. For example, the estimated pricetag for clean-up of the unexploded ordnance that contaminates millions of acres of land and internal waterways is over $100 billion. The funding in this bill for environmental restoration is a mere $1.3 billion, less than half a percent of the total. We don't need three brand-new advanced fighter jets. We will have military air superiority over all potential adversaries for years to come with our current planes. We will spend over $300 billion over the next 10 to 20 years on the Air Force's F-22, the Navy's F-18 E/F, and the Joint Strike Fighter. We are doing this rather than made the hard decisions we need to in order to make proving for our national defense more cost-effective. It is also troubling that the hate crimes provision was not included in this bill. The Senate added it to its defense authorization and we in the House voted in a bipartisan fashion in favor of a motion to instruct conferees to include it in the conference report. This does not reflect the will of the Congress. For years we made commitments to military retirees that they and their families were entitled to lifetime health care. I am pleased that we have made good on that promise in this bill by providing lifetime health care for military retirees and their eligible family members, as well as pharmacy access to all Medicare-eligible military retires. But this could have been accomplished within the context of a better bill. Because of the many failures of the bill, I was forced to vote against it. America has the best-trained, best equipped and best- prepared military forces in the world. Our forces are ready to defend America's interests wherever they are threatened. That will continue only if we're careful about the investments we make. We need to seek peace from all the threats of the new century. This bill spends too much on the wrong things and not enough on cleaning up from out past activities and preparing to transition to fight tomorrow's wars. This is the key not only to security abroad, but to livability at home--to make our men and women in uniform and all our families safe, healthy and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly voted against this bill though there is much in it that merits support. However, the benefits accorded to farmers in this bill are disproportionately skewed to large operations, not to smaller-scale, family farms. If people want to step back and provide benefits for small farms, I will be the first to look at ways that we can do that in a cooperative fashion. But this bill is not targeted. We continue to pour unprecedented sums to agriculture without addressing the apparent failure of the so-called ``Freedom to Farm'' bill. Several provisions illustrate the lost opportunities. We missed an opportunity with Cuba in this bill. We successfully trade with China. Why can't we pursue a rational trade policy with Cuba? Cuba trade will hasten the departure of Fidel Castro, leader of one of the last remaining bastions of communism. There is a rider for the sugar industry buried in this conference report that subverts the reform the 1996 Freedom to Farm bill was supposed to usher in. It will do nothing to change the $352 million in loan defaults taxpayers are paying this year, no GAO's estimated $1.9 billion cost of the sugar program to consumers. As pointed out in an October 1 editorial in the Washington Post, the drug reimportation language in this bill is unlikely to do much to address the problem of affordability of prescription drugs. The five- year time limit on the bill will significantly minimize the effectiveness of this token effort to address the skyrocketing cost of pharmaceuticals. These narrow provisions won't have the impact for our seniors that real solutions to the prescription drug crisis world have. This bill does not do enough to address the serious problem of hunger in the United States. Even in this time of unprecedented prosperity, many families are hungry. Oregon has one of the highest rates of hunger in the nation. Yet, the conference report provides less funding to food stamp programs, less funding to school breakfast and lunch programs, and less funding to the WIC programs than what was originally allocated in the House and Senate versions of this bill. We can do better.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in giving me time to speak on this bill. I came to this, actually it was sort of interesting. Listening to my colleague, the gentleman from eastern Oregon (Mr. Walden), and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, I must admit that I find myself in modest disagreement with them both. I was one of those people that did not look at the action, the attention, the interest by Secretary Babbitt as a noose. I feel, with all due respect to my Republican colleagues, that this administration has been moving forward to attempt to protect precious jewels of resources throughout the country, and I think appropriately so. And I have been supportive of their efforts; and, candidly, at one of our early meetings, I was there to just say I did not think that monument status was a bad fallback position; and frankly, rather than a noose of Federal regulation, I am not prepared at this point to go into some debate, but I will be happy to do it with my colleague; and I am sure we will have opportunities on the campaign trail, about the Republican approach to environmental protection, hard rock mining, what has happened with grazing areas around the country; and frankly I think the vast majority of the American public supports greater protection, including many of the monument designations. But what my friend from eastern Oregon approached, and I think rightly so, was the notion that we, because of the patchwork that has occurred in this area, in part historic accident, in part smart business practice, in part frankly we in government at all levels have been asleep at the switch, we had an opportunity to do something better. And I will add my voice and you will hear from other Members of the Oregon delegation who will come forward each with their own unique story about the treasure that is this wilderness that we are about, I hope, to designate today. In fact, I could use all of my time, and I will not, just talking about the experience of going out at dawn on a spring morning far into the desert off a deserted road and watching the mating ritual of the sage grouse as the sun comes up. It is truly something that sends shivers down your spine and is something that is fragile in nature and something that is part of this heritage that we could lose. And I would also take modest disagreement with my friend when he talked about this is not an area of high-tech millionaires, because it is truly a unique way of life in eastern Oregon, the ranching activities; but we have already seen that there are some of the high- tech millionaires that appreciate this. There have been sales pressures. I have visited with one gentleman in eastern Oregon recently who purchased an element that frankly we should find a way to add to the protection, because despite our vaunted land-use planning protections in Oregon, there is still much of this land that is at risk; there is much of this land that could in fact be developed in the future, and there is pressure for people to put not just mansions but massive structures which they legally would be entitled to do if we are not able to move forward in the future. So while we are not threatened perhaps by traffic jams in this portion of eastern Oregon, we are not threatened by huge dot-com compounds that will be there, there is some of the new money, and some old money, that has the potential of disrupting this precious area. That is why I must take modest exception to my friend from California, because there is in fact an urgency at moving forward. And because while there may not be some areas that fit perhaps into a cookie cutter approach for land valuation and exchanges, I am convinced that the package that has been developed here as a result of painstaking effort on behalf of a number of people, the tip of the iceberg was mentioned by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), and they deserve that recognition and our thanks. But what was accomplished was a package that actually is fair value for priceless resources. And it was not something that the Oregon delegation signed off on. It was a vicious process of give-and-take, of hand-wringing, that resulted in drafting our approach for Oregonians. In addition to acknowledging the efforts of my friend, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), I would like to acknowledge the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who stepped forward at a critical time. Sometimes he can be a little cranky. He saved it, he brought it in at the right moment, and I think he helped move some things forward. The administration, and especially Secretary Babbitt, who kept the eye on what our objective was. The people from the environmental community in Oregon hammered away at things that they held dear, and they are proud supporters of this legislation, from the American Lands Alliance, the Audubon Society, Columbia Gorge Audubon, Cybil Ackerman, Mark Salvo. I do not have time to go through everybody's name. I hope somebody will at the end. But I guess I want to conclude by the notion that this is not just recapturing the heritage of what we have in eastern Oregon and crafting an Oregon solution as a team to something that is going to last for generations. I think this is an example of how this Congress should work, because as frustrated as I am frankly by the lack of environmental progress, I think we have demonstrated today that people of disparate views could come together, one person looking at the threat of protection and somebody else looking like this was going to help us, but come together and make something that was better. And I would hope that not only would the House pass this legislation overwhelmingly; but I would hope that this would serve as a model that we could take forward to craft appropriate environmental solutions, break the logjam. There are a number of things that we could move forward with, and I think if we had the same sort of inclusive process that was demonstrated here, we could in fact reach the objections that have been advanced by our friend from California and be able to move forward with items that we can all take pride in. Madam Chairman, I add my congratulations to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), our Senators and governor for making this possible.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) adding his voice and his concerns. Mr. Speaker, I yield again to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) talking about the shift that has taken place. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) was concerned about being able to move forward in dealing with these power plants that have not been complying with the Clean Air Act. In Texas, they are proud of a voluntary approach. They have hundreds of these old plants that are not in compliance, and this voluntary approach has resulted in a few dozen coming into compliance. It is an abject failure, and I think it would be absolutely a disaster were that approach applied here on a national level. Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), a leader in areas that range from bicycles to energy conservation. The gentleman from Maryland is a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means. I am privileged to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's contribution to this discussion. I would just make two comments before turning to another of our colleagues. First, as bad as this Texas environmental legacy is, and it is, as the gentleman pointed out, awful, what concerns me more than anything is somehow Governor Bush's lack of urgency about this. Where is his outrage about what has happened to his State in the last 6 years that he has been Governor? Where are his initiatives to try and do something about it? I find the lack of passion on the environment inexplicable, and it is something that I think ought to be of grave concern to every American. I do appreciate the gentleman putting up the picture of what we are talking about with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This, after all, was something that was recognized as a national treasure by that radical Republican Governor, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1960, when he started setting aside these unique lands for protected status, America's Serengeti. The gentleman has pictured on that beautiful scene of the plain some of the large caribou herds, 130,000 of them, that calve and rear their young on that coastal plain, that provide subsistence to indigenous people that have a right to rely on that, and could be destroyed by the disruption of the herd. The gentleman has pointed out, as has our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), that this refuge is much more sensitive than Prudhoe Bay, and that the American public, we have talked about 70 percent of the American public opposes drilling here, as advocated by Governor Bush. I find even more interesting that Alaskans, who would stand to benefit from the oil drilling, even Alaskans have a slight majority, according to the public opinion polls, that oppose drilling in this precious area. It is obviously shortsighted and dangerous. I appreciate the gentleman focusing on it for us this afternoon. Now it is my pleasure to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), another of the environmental champions in Congress, a woman who has perhaps one of the most challenging urban districts in urban America, the one that is keenly environmentally sensitive and concerned about livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have been joined by our colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), an admitted expert in this area. Perhaps if the gentleman would like to comment on it since this has been an area of his expertise for years.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and I think he hit the nail right on the head. What Vice President Gore and the Democrats in Congress have been advocating is giving the American public choices. We right now have 3 or 4 percent of the world's oil reserves. We are consuming currently 25 percent. The gentleman rightly catalogued the efforts on the part of this Congress, Republicans, to stop us from moving forward; cutting back on energy conservation, avoiding opportunities to reinstate and even study the impact of energy efficiency in vehicles across the fleet. As the gentleman points out, it goes in the wrong direction. It is important that we give the American public choices. If the American public had realistic choices two times a week to take mass transit, to car pool, to be able to telecommute, having the opportunity, other than just being in their own car commuting by themselves, we would not have to import any oil. But, again, Governor Bush has no initiatives in this area, and our friends in Congress have been cutting back on solid initiatives that have been advanced in the past. I appreciate the gentleman focusing on this notion of just simply drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. This, of course, is opposed by the overwhelming majority of the American public, even in these times of scarce energy availability. They know that opening this portion is not only an environmental threat, but it just prolongs the ultimate solution that we have. It is, at most, a 6-month supply of oil, and it would take up to 10 years for us to be able to bring that oil to market. Threatening the Arctic Reserve for something that is not going to make a difference in this crisis or the next crisis is an example of a failed one-dimensional approach from Governor Bush. We are going to talk more, because in fact that is not unlike some of the problems that he has with his own environmental legacy in Texas. Before elaborating on that, I did want to be able to turn, if I could, to our colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), from the other Portland. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has developed legislation, for instance, to help clean up pollution from aging power plants. He has introduced two bills to curb air pollution, the Clean Power Plant Act and the Omnibus Mercury Emissions Reduction Act. He has been a leader as a local official, the mayor of Portland, Maine, and in his work here in Congress, not just for dealing with things like prescription drugs, but working to make sure that Americans have the quality of life that they want and they deserve. It is my great honor to yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I appreciate the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) tying these pieces together, because as she mentioned, under the notion of livable communities, which the Republican leadership has attempted to sort of pass off as somehow a war against the suburbs or citizens, trying to pry citizens from their cars, she pointed out that it is, instead, a broader concept of how we tie the pieces together, how we make our families safe, healthy and more economically secure. I could not agree with the gentlewoman more. This administration, the Clinton-Gore administration has done more than any administration in history for the Federal Government to be a better partner, whether it is the environmental ethic, as the gentlewoman from California mentioned, that is being instilled in the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, to the statements that the Vice President himself has made that indicates that, really, the best is yet to come if we have an opportunity for him to serve as President building on this legacy. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments and her leadership. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner). There are a number of issues that impact people in urban areas. The gentleman from New York represents one of the most urbanized areas in the country and has been a champion of neighborhood livability, metropolitan livability, and Congress being a better partner.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have just witnessed last night the first of the presidential debates between the candidates of the two major parties. After a great deal of wrangling, I was pleased to see that Governor Bush agreed to the debate commission's recommendations and has agreed to share the platform. I think it is important that we are now turning to issues that confront the American public. Unfortunately, sometimes with the barrage of issue ads that we see and at times conflicting claims, I can understand how the American public can be confused about what the actual truth may be in a particular area. But I will tell you in the areas that relate to the environment, there is really no excuse for confusion. The differences could not be clearer between the two political parties and the two major candidates. We wanted to take a few minutes this afternoon to address those issues of the environment, where people stand and what difference it makes for the American public. I am honored to be joined in this discussion this afternoon by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, a gentleman whose legacy in terms of protecting the environment, dealing with natural resources, fighting against pollution, leadership on a wide variety of issues is unparalleled. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the input of the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). We have had a number of references to the debate last night. One of the more interesting debates that is going on is to listen to our Republican colleagues debate with themselves on these issues of the environment and energy. I found it greatly amazing actually when we had the Republican Whip, Tom DeLay, barely a week ago calling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve a national security asset and concerned about somehow it being played politics with. Yet this was the same Tom Delay who introduced legislation a year earlier that, along with abolishing the Department of Energy, would have sold off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or when we hear Tom DeLay accusing the administration of playing politics with an intervention in the market that actually drove down the price. At the same time the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the Committee on International Relations, said that we welcome the President's announcement that he will release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. My colleagues will recall the same day the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the Subcommittee on Energy and Power, was saying that he was going to look at legislation potentially that would block this release. What happened? He spiked oil prices back up again; the next day backing away from his plan saying it is time. Well, I appreciate my colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), for talking about the question that we have to try and deal with putting the pieces together, promoting more livable communities, giving people more choices. Mr. Speaker, one of the leaders in Congress doing this is the gentlewoman from Orange County, California (Ms. Sanchez), our colleague who has lectured at Harvard, who has toured various parts of the country, and who has one of the most challenging districts in the country but has been active with her local officials, with her citizens to help them from the government sector to be able to give them more choices and more resources. I am pleased that the gentlewoman would be willing to join us in this discussion. I yield to her.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, expanding the number of H-1B visas for foreign workers is critical to the well being of Oregon's high-tech community. Given the strong economy, record low unemployment, and declining graduation rates in high-tech education fields, that industry is facing a critical shortage of highly educated workers. In Oregon, for example, we have openings for 800 software engineers and are currently unable to fill them. Our education system is not producing the needed skilled workers for the high-tech industry. The H-1B visa program helps fill the void, but that's not all it does. The legislation we adopted last night helps develop our own workforce. The bill keeps the current $500 application fee that employers pay for new H-1B visa holders, which produces $75 million in revenue each year. Less than two percent of the fees is for administrative expenses and the rest is used to enhance our educational system. This funding provides math, science, engineering, and technology post-secondary scholarships for low-income and disadvantaged students. It is also used to improve K-12 math and science education and for job training. While this funding helps, I have joined many of my colleagues in pressing for more. I am a cosponsor of the Dreier-Lofgren bill that raises the cap on H-1B visas and doubles the application fee to $1000. I am hopeful we can adopt that increase before we adjourn and thereby do even more to meet our nation's educational needs. Many companies in my state are working independently of the government to help as well. Intel makes its micro-chips in Oregon. In 1998, it contributed $63 million to higher education and $29 million to K-12 education. In an effort to encourage high school students to enter science and engineering career field tracks, companies like Electro Scientific Industries have partnered with local school districts and opened their doors to students, teachers and parents to talk to young engineers about career decisions and options. Together, we can reverse the shortage by improving our educational system. In the short term, increasing visa numbers is not a bad thing. Each new wave of immigrants adds to the diversity and character of our communities. This diversity has given us the strength to grow in times of prosperity and survive in times of trouble. H-1B visa holders add to our strong economy.