Special Order: Urging Environmental Debate Between Presidential Candidates
 

(House of Representatives - October 12, 2000)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 1999,
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is recognized for 60 minutes as the
designee of the minority leader.

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. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I particularly
thank the gentleman for taking this time to discuss an important issue, which has not
gotten the attention that I think it deserves in the context of this particular Congress.

In fact, as a member of this Congress, I have often felt that we are fighting a defensive
action here, where we are taking actions that are designed to prevent harm from being
done rather than moving forward in a positive direction on a number of environmental
issues that really need to be addressed. The Endangered Species Act is one, and I know
that the gentleman just referenced it, that deserves a great deal of attention.

The issue of CARA, a piece of legislation which is designed to protect public lands and
open space, and provide also recreational opportunities both in rural and urban settings, is
a critically important piece of legislation. A good portion of that was advanced in the
context of the interior bill, which we passed here just recently and which was signed by the
President just the other day.

Now, the reason that that provision advanced in the interior bill was in large measure a
result of the leadership provided by the administration, both the President and Vice
President Gore. That interior bill contained a landmark preservation, if I am not mistaken
the amount was $12 billion, over a period of time for open space protection, preservation,
and also for recreational activities, again in rural but also in urban settings in association
with urban parks and things of that nature.

One of the issues that I think that we really need to address, and which has not gotten
enough attention, is the issue of water resources, particularly fresh water resources. It is
true, and many people have observed fairly recently, that fresh water resources around
the world, including those fresh water resources here in the United States, are being
depleted, particularly those resources that lie in aquifers underground. We know that, for
example, in the great Midwestern section of our country there is a huge underground
reservoir known as the Ogallala, which runs from northern Texas up to the Dakotas, and
covers a huge vast area, or at least underlies a huge vast area of the central plains.

That water resource contained in that Ogallala underground reservoir is being depleted at
a rather alarming rate. This is fossil water. In other words, it is water that has lain
underground for centuries and there is no visible source of rejuvenation for this aquifer. The
fact that we are depleting it at such a rapid rate is something that ought to be of increasing
concern.

Now, the depletion is primarily for agricultural purposes, for applications of an agricultural
nature throughout that area, and, of course, good purpose. But the idea that we can
continue to drain a resource in the belief that that resource is always going to be there and
will not be depleted is a false notion. It is a basic fallacy, and it is one with which we have
to come to grips.

So I think that this issue of fresh water resources is an issue that is going to require a
great deal of attention from this Congress in the future and from the next administration.
And that, of course, raises the question of what kind of administration do we want to have
in place here to succeed the Clinton administration which will husband these resources in a
reasonable way; in a logical and rational and intelligent way. I think the answer to that
question becomes quite apparent when we look at the choices that we have before us.

We have on the one hand Governor Bush, who has a record of depletion and deterioration
of resources in the State in which he is the executive; and, on the other hand, we have
Vice President Gore, who has a very deep and long record of environmental protection
and husbanding of resources going back to the time when he served in this House, and
then later in the Senate, and all of which he brought to his position as Vice President of the
United States.

So I think as people make decisions with regard to this upcoming election, and I think it is
easy to lose track of time around here, but I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 3
weeks now until November 7, as people begin to think more closely about the decision
they are going to make with regard to who is going to be the leader of our country for the
next 4 years, I think one of the issues that they ought to factor into their decision-making is
the issue of the environment and who among those who are holding themselves out for this
office for President of the United States is best equipped and has the knowledge and the
sensitivity and the ability to care about this issue. Who is best equipped, then, in that
regard, to assume the responsibility of President of the United States.

So this is one of the issues that is of concern to me as I think about the upcoming election
and I think about the kind of leadership that we are going to need to carry us forward into
the 21st century at a time when environmental resources are going to be increasingly
under adverse pressure and forced into adverse circumstances.

So that is a question which I hope people will be thinking closely about as they make their
decision about the President and Members of the Congress and Members of the Senate
as they cast their vote on November 7.

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. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend for yielding to me and thank him for
bringing this issue before this body.

As he pointed out, in last night's debate, we had a little bit of a discussion about the
environment, not enough of a discussion on the environment. There is a clear difference
between the Vice President and the Governor on the environmental issues.

The Vice President, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) has pointed out,
throughout his entire career has been one of the real leaders on sensible environmental
policies, policies that not only help preserve our environment but also deal with economic
expansion but not at the cost of destroying our woods or our airs. He understands the
importance of smart growth. He understands the issues of being sensitive to our
environment.

I particularly appreciate the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) taking this time.
Because when we contrast that to the record of Governor Bush and the State of Texas,
which has one of the worst environmental records of any State in this Nation, and the Vice
President mentioned some statistics yesterday as related to health care, it is very clear
that the State of Texas has been at the bottom of our Nation in providing health benefits
for its citizens, but it is also at the bottom of our Nation on its record on environment.

They have literally destroyed much of their environment at the cost of trying to do certain
types of growth when it was not necessary to do that. It is certainly not the model of
leadership that we need in this nation.

This issue is particularly important to the people of Maryland, important to all the States.
But the quality of life in Maryland is very much dependent upon the quality of our
environment. We pride ourselves on the Chesapeake Bay, the most important natural
resource in our State.

I must tell my colleagues, when I was speaker of our State legislature, we took on the
challenge to try to reclaim the Chesapeake Bay. Because it was becoming unsafe in many
areas for people to swim or for people to use for recreational purposes. If they fell into our
harbor, they did not have to worry about drowning, they would worry about whether they
could survive the pollution that was coming in from all sectors, from the industrial use, from
the farming use, from just not paying attention to our environment.

We made a commitment 25 years ago to do something about it. And we have. We have
done a pretty good job in helping to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. But I must tell my
colleagues, we need a clean air policy because that affects the quality of the Bay and acid
rain. We need a smart growth policy because that affects the quality of the waters leading
into the Chesapeake Bay. We need a national policy on environment. We need leadership
in the executive branch that will be sensitive to these environmental issues.

Mr. Speaker, there is such a contrast between the two candidates for President on this
issue. And I hope that in the remaining 3-plus weeks, less than 4 weeks, before the
election that we will focus as a Nation on the environmental issues.

Look at the record of the Vice President and the Governor on the issues that we have
been talking about this evening. They are very much related to the quality of life in our
community, very much related to our commitment to try to improve the quality of life in
each of the districts that we represent.

So I hope that we will take the time to compare the candidates who want to be President
of this great Nation as to where do they stand on smart growth, that is placing people near
where they work and where they live so that we can put less stress on the commute times
in this country, less time on our energy dependency.

We are too dependent upon imported oil. We all know that. Part of the solution, as the
Vice President has said, is less use of fossil fuels in our community, more smart growth in
our community. That will help the quality of life for people who live in my district and every
district in the Nation, and it will also help preserve the Chesapeake Bay and the other
great bodies of water in our Nation and our air that we breathe.

I have been disappointed by what we have done in this session not because of the
administration but because we have been spending more time trying to beat down some
bad action by our colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, when we should be
looking at building a record that we can look back at with pride.

I very much hope that as we get into the last weeks of this campaign that we will challenge
the leadership of our candidates running for President as to how they stand on these
issues. I think there is no comparison here between the Vice President, who in his entire
career in Government has shown leadership and sensitivity to the interrelationship between
all the environmental issues, and the Governor, who has a record that none of us want to
emulate from the State of Texas.

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. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the comments of my
colleagues. I could speak a minute on this issue, but I think I would simply repeat what the
rest of them have said. I have some comments about some of the fiscal issues and if the
gentleman has time at the end and wants to yield time to me to discuss that point, I will.
Otherwise, I thank the gentleman on the other side for agreeing to allow me to have 5
minutes at the end of his remarks.

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

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make an observation, if I may, in connection with the
comments that were made just a moment ago by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin).

I think that occasionally, if we look at these issues superficially, we fail to recognize the
co-relationship between issues that sometimes are taken separately and distinctly and not
joined together.

The gentleman mentioned the relationship, for example, between the environment and
energy. And there is a clear nexus there, obviously, that needs to be dealt with. And in that
regard, it gives another opportunity to talk a little bit about the initiatives of Vice President
Gore and his leadership on both environmental and energy issues in a way that addresses
the complexities of both.

For example, we know that we are increasingly dependent upon foreign oil. I think we are
importing now something in the neighborhood of 56 percent of the oil that we consume
here in the United States from outside of our borders. This becomes, at that level, an issue
even of national security. We are far too dependent upon outside sources for the fossil fuel
that we depend upon for transportation, for heating, and for a variety of other uses.

Now, that is something that we have to deal with. We have to gain energy independence to
a greater degree. We have to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. How do we do that? One
of the ways in which we do it is to develop alternative sources of energy. And this is an
issue on which Vice President Gore has taken a leadership position that in fact was far
ahead of its time. He was talking about these things when it was not apparent to most
people that it would be necessary to take any action in this area.

For example, he was talking about the need to develop photovoltaic cells, for example, and
direct solar energy for the creation of less electricity and, by the way, in so doing, creating
a vast new industry for America which will enable us to address other issues, such as our
balance of trade, balance of trade deficit.

If we are developing new sources of energy for a world that is going to be crying out for
new sources of energy, that enables us to deal with our own energy situation more
intelligently, reduce our dependence upon fossil fuel, create energy alternatively, and at the
same time produce a product that will be desired by virtually every other country in the
world.

We have an opportunity, in other words, to take a leadership position here in a new
industrial venture that will enable us to accomplish a variety of objectives in a very concise
and particular way. And for that I think Vice President Gore deserves a great deal of
credit for stepping out in front on this issue and directing the way toward its solutions.

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I say
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) that I could not agree with him more.

It is rather tragic at a time now when we see the great peril that the Middle East is again
embroiled in as the peace negotiations falter and the acts of violence are currently playing
themselves out, and we think that if at the end of the Iraqi war if we had made a
commitment that we would not ever again put ourselves in a position where we had to
send American soldiers in the pursuit of oil or to protect the Kuwaiti fields or to protect the
Saudi Arabia fields, or what have you, that we would have pursued this vast array of
alternatives that the Vice President has been talking about almost his entire public life, that
we could have, in fact, pursued alternatives in energy consumption, in conservation, in
technologies that would have, in fact, really made us independent and insulated us in these
kinds of situations.

But, in fact, we chose to go another route. And that was massive increases in
consumption, the failure to go for the efficiencies, the failure to recognize what was readily
available on the market and use that here domestically or to sell it overseas. And yet, even
now we continue to see the other side of the aisle and Governor Bush suggesting, if we
just had one more drilling of oil.

The fact is we have increased the production of oil in America over the last 10 years rather
dramatically. The hottest oil play in the world is the Gulf of Mexico. Oil companies have
spent tens of billions of dollars to be able to go in and to drill there, and it has obviously
been worth their while. It is a fantastic find because of new technologies in that field. But it
has not made us any more independent. It has not made us any more independent. It has
continued the addiction that we have had to foreign oil.

And so, rather than get our house in shape here and get our country in shape as the
gentleman has suggested and as the Vice President has suggested over the last decade,
we have done just the opposite, we have made ourselves more dependent. And like any
other addiction, it is very difficult to break. But we ought to stop it at this point and
recognize the peril it places us in internationally, the peril it places our economy in, and the
unneeded expenditures by Americans for energy that is not necessarily simply because of
the waste that is involved.

That was clearly one of the choices that was presented in the debate last night about
whether or not we embrace this in terms of the future and in terms of the knowledge that
we now have about energy efficiencies, conservations and technologies or whether we just
say, `Let's go back to what we were doing in Pennsylvania at the turn of the century and
just put another hole in the ground.' It is wonderful to get the oil, but it does not relieve the
dependence and there is no indication that it ever will relieve the dependence unless, in
fact, we go to these new technologies. I just want to thank the gentleman for making that
point.

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. When 70 percent of the import is for transportation,
we deny the fact that readily available today at these market prices, with no compromise
in safety, speed or technology, a car is available, you can get 35 miles to the gallon. Not a
big push from where we are today, but a dramatic change in our consumption pattern and
our independence, if you will. That could just be done today with essentially no sacrifice
being made. Not a dramatic runup in the price of an automobile, not a dramatic
compromise in the safety for you or your families and your comfort or anything else. It is
available today.

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

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Those vehicles could be made here with no change.
The difference is that all the advances that we have made on engine efficiency, the
dramatic increases that we have made in efficiencies of the internal combustion engine
have been loaded up with weight so that you can drive a bigger and a heavier car rather
than returning the benefit to the economy, to the consumer and to the environment. We just
decided we would take all the improvement and we would negate it by putting 9,000
pounds on top of it. So here we get what the industry said they could do, what many of us
in the Congress wanted them to do, what the environment needs them to do, and then we
just larded it up. So rather than driving an ordinary car, we took all those benefits and just
put them in, if you will, to style. That is costing the American consumer a huge amount of
money, a huge amount of money for no real benefit at all.

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. It is all there. It is there. But obviously when we
suggest to them that they can do this voluntarily, just like when George Bush suggested to
all those old polluters in Texas to just do it voluntarily, they chose to do it another way.
They chose to do it to maximize profit and forget the public interest, forget the needs to
clean up the environment, forget the air quality, forget the economy of people who are
reaching into their pocket to pay $2 for gasoline in a car that is getting them 20 miles to
the gallon when, in fact, they could be getting 35 with none of these trade-offs.

It could be done here, it could be done with American labor. They are the best
autoworkers in the world. That is not even a contest. But it is not being done because
huge, huge cars now are cash cows for the automobile companies and that is more
important to them than the public safety, the environment, household incomes, expenses or
our dependency on foreign oil.

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. GEORGE MILLER of California. That is the exact point. When you say to these
companies, there is going to be voluntary compliance, if you can do it, do it, we would all
appreciate it. You are also sending the same signal that says, `And if by the way you
continue to pollute, that's okay, too. If you choose to clean up, that would be nice, but if
you choose not to clean up, it's the same.'

Before we had the Clean Air Act and I know the gentleman is very interested in the Clean
Water Act, before we had the Clean Air and the Clean Water Act, I do not remember
companies walking in and saying, `I'm going to voluntarily clean up the arsenic in the
water,' or `I'm going to voluntarily clean up the benzene in the air, the lead in the air or the
pollution in the Hudson River.' I do not remember that happening. It was only because of
the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act that these companies stepped forward. They did it
because it was the law of the land. What we have seen for 6 years in this Congress under
a Republican majority and what we have seen in the State of Texas is continued efforts by
corporate entities to lean on the political system so it is not the law of the land. And if it is
not the law of the land, you will not clean up the Hudson River, you will not clean up the
Sacramento River, you will not clean up the Mississippi River, you will not clean up these
areas that America holds as treasures.

And so as the gentleman points out, when Governor Bush got all done with his volunteer
stepping forward, this is like a bad film of the Army: I need these volunteers, now
everybody take one step forward and everybody steps back and one guy is left there as
the volunteer. This is like a bad movie. If we work at this rate on cleaning up pollution in
America that they are in Texas, we will all be choking to death. It is not happening. The
figures point it out. The Governor could sit there last night and say, `We have a plan and
it's working.' Well, if this is his definition of `working,' there is a horror story in store for the
American public, because that does not address the needs of the cities and others who
have air pollution problems and toxic problems. That is just unacceptable.

We have struggled in this Congress to try to get entities to step forward and be
responsible for Superfund sites, for water pollution and air pollution. I think the gentleman
makes a very important point about the so-called voluntary program in Texas. You
voluntarily get not to obey the law is what you do. That is what you get to volunteer to do.

Mr. HINCHEY. The gentleman from California, I think, makes very important points about it
as well. It is even true that after you require it in the law, if you do not have proper
enforcement of the law, even then you will find some of these corporations that were
responsible for the pollution in the first instance resisting taking the appropriate and
responsible action to clean up the mess that they made.

The gentleman mentioned the Hudson River. That is one clear example where you have
had PCB contamination now for decades and the responsible parties have not done
anything to address that pollution. In fact, what they have done is they have come here to
the Congress, they have gotten Members of the Congress to introduce amendments to
pieces of legislation which will, in fact, delay any act of responsibility on their part. So not
only do voluntary actions not work but in addition to the law we have found in our
experience that you also have to have effective enforcement. No, absolutely not, they are
not going to do any of these things voluntarily because it costs them money, and it should
cost them money because they made enormous profits in creating that pollution in the first
place in most instances. But in addition to having good, decent, powerful laws, you also
have to have consistent and effective and honest enforcement.

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. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank him for holding this very
important special order.

Mr. Speaker, on September 29 of this year, Governor Bush of Texas, attempting to
reassure the public that there was no choice to make between oil production and
preserving wilderness waxed eloquent on the subject of the Arctic Refuge.

`We should open up a small fraction of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for responsible
oil and gas exploration. The Vice President says he would rather protect this refuge than
gain the energy. But this is a false choice. We can do both,' said Mr. Bush, `taking out the
energy and leaving only footprints.' Leaving only footprints. A wonderful image, is it not,
leaving only footprints in the Arctic Refuge? Like Robert Frost and his little cat's feet or
Robinson Crusoe discovering he was not alone when he spied the telltale footprints of
Friday on the shore of sand before the high tide washed them away.

An image of footprints in the Arctic Refuge that the petroleum industry would leave and
would love to have linger in our minds, these footprints of Friday or cat's paws in the sand,
children walking along the beach. Footprints.

It is against the law, of course, as we know, to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge and the only
way that will ever change is if the industry manages to get Congress to change the law.
They are very resourceful, this industry. They have put together a dream ticket in the
person of an oilman for President and an oilman for Vice President. And now they are
engaging in industrial strength poetry as they try to win a license to destroy the wilderness
of one of the last places on God-created Earth that man has yet to try to improve.

So Governor Bush says his plans would only impact about 8 percent of the refuge. Well, it
turns out that what they want to drill is in the biological heart of the refuge, where polar
bears den and caribou give birth. Imagine your doctor telling you, `This won't hurt. We're
only going to drill in a small fraction of your body, only about 8 percent, only around the
region of your heart, only that 8 percent of your body. That is the only place we're going to
operate. Don't worry, we won't touch the rest of you. Only that 8 percent. The heart.' The
heart of this refuge.

Now, let us take a look at the industrial footprints that have already been left on the North
Slope by environmentally sensitive oil companies which want to drill in the heart of the
refuge. These pictures are from Dead Horse and from Prudhoe Bay. They are part of a
vast industrial complex that generates on average one toxic spill a day of oil or chemicals
or industrial waste of some kind. It seeps into the tundra and becomes part of a new and
improved North Slope as it is viewed by the oil industry. This energy sacrifice zone already
spews more nitrogen oxide pollution into the Arctic each year than the city of Washington,
D.C.

That is all of the pollution created in Washington, D.C. is not as great as the pollution
created by these sites already in this Arctic North Slope area. As we can see, the drilling
for oil takes a huge amount of equipment for roads, for pipes, for wells, for pumping. All
the trappings of a massive industrial undertaking have been hauled or flown or barged to
the North Slope around Deadhorse and Prudhoe Bay. The companies have been able to
afford to bring everything in to such a remote location because today they are making
money. But guess what? Tomorrow it will still be there, and tomorrow and tomorrow and
tomorrow. All this stuff never leaves. The roads, the pipes, the dry holes, the bulldozers,
the spent wells, the gravel pits, it all stays. And together, it makes up a footprint that can
only be described as a world-class mess, and it is going to stay that way because once
the industry starts making money up there, the last thing they are going to do is to go into
debt in order to clean it up.

The industrial footprint extends for miles. When it is overlayed on the refuge, we can see
that it would end any notion of this treasured corner of God Almighty's earth remaining
wild, untrammeled, and untouched.

Let me finish by noting that this is Federal land that has been set aside for all of the people
of the United States. It does not belong to the oil companies. It does not belong to just one
State. It is a public wilderness treasure. We are all the trustees. As far as I am concerned,
we are going to have to work as hard as we can in order to make sure that this
incomparable wilderness is not touched. There are plenty of other places that can be
explored in Alaska; and as Joe Lieberman said in his debate, if we just increase fuel
efficiency of an automobile three miles a gallon, it would produce more oil than all of this
Arctic wilderness.

Let me conclude and compliment the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for
holding this important special order. I think all of these issues have to be discussed.

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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues and in
particular acknowledge the articulate and eloquent comments from the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As I think he
pointed out, the geologists tell us we have probably something along the order of 6
months' supply in this area, and to me it would be a big mistake for that short-term supply
of oil to trample an area that was described in such fashion. It is a trade-off that is not
really acceptable, I think.

What is acceptable? Well, if we look at what Vice President Gore has been talking about,
what is acceptable is to throw ourselves into all of these opportunities that we have to
develop different types of energy production methods that are really exciting technologies
out there. One hundred years ago, when petroleum was discovered, there were only two
or three obvious uses for it. What did we do as a country? What did we do as a society?
We said let us invest in research and development.

The Federal Government stepped in, and now we have almost countless uses for
petroleum. In fact, some historians, I think, will tell us that we wasted it in our automobiles
in the latter half of the 20th century.

We have very promising technologies in solar, as demonstrated by phototechnologies. We
have wind technologies where the price of kilowatts is coming down dramatically. Biogas.
We ought to be throwing all of those kinds of technologies into the mix at this time. I think
we are going to see some enormously exciting things happen.

It is a false choice: it is going to hurt our economy, or it is going to hurt our environment. It
is truly a false choice and the Vice President is saying, look, we have incredible
opportunities in the developing world to take these technologies to places like China and
Indonesia and India, and in the process do right by our economy, do right by the economic
development opportunities. So the Vice President looking ahead, oil is going to be a thing
of the past; the geologists tell us that those supplies are limited, that in the next 100 years
oil as we know it will not be available to us. Let us look ahead, follow the leadership and
the vision of the Vice President.