Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the Federal Government has no greater priority than to be a good partner to promote livable communities. The morning paper carried a story about another independent study to chart the ecological vital signs of our national park systems. Madam Speaker, I think this is an important area to pose attention to, first, because it shows how the Federal Government can lead by example, and, second, it serves as a powerful refutation that somehow the United States, being a huge and wealthy Nation, does not have to worry about things like sprawl and congestion, unplanned growth and loss of farmland, that we just pave more, continue to expand, create more of whatever land we wish of farm, housing or roads. Madam Speaker, it is reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland's experience with the Mad Hatter's tea party. ``Yes, that's it'' said the Hatter with a sigh, ``it's always tea time and we've no time to wash the things between whiles.'' ``Then you keep moving round, I suppose?'' said Alice. ``Exactly so,'' said the Hatter, ``as the things get used up.'' ``But what happens when you come to the beginning again?'' Alice ventured to ask. ``Suppose we change the subject,'' the March Hare interrupted, yawning. ``I'm getting tired of this. I vote the young lady tells us a story.'' Our tea party with the built and natural environment is not solved with more stories. We are going to have to face realities in our mature cities, small town America, fraying suburbs, even in our national parks. There are limits to the strains we can put on the land in our transportation systems. The numbers are staggering in our national parks and other federally- managed sites. In 1997, over 370 million visitors increasingly jammed on clogged parking lots, jammed highways, fragile and irreplaceable resources suffering damage from too many vehicles and too many people. Nearby gateways communities are also negatively impacted by trafficking, decreased air quality, but there is a new trend in thinking about how we solve these problems. Part of the TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century called for a coordination and study between the Department of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior. They have already produced recommendations for public transportation services at 128 sites that will enhance the visitor experience and protect the environment. Madam Speaker, this new broach to transportation has already produced tangible results in a number of areas. The Zion National Park in Utah, which has suffered from severe congestion, gridlock and destruction of natural resources, has helped to implement a new program, a shuttle bus system initiated in May of this year helps protect the fragile natural resources and protect visitors away as they visit from the canyon and provide services to the gateway community of Springdale. The National Park Service has proposed a light rail transit system for the south rim of the Grand Canyon. It will allow visitors to leave their cars outside the park and ride the light rail train to a canyon view information plaza, there they can view exhibits, ride alternatively-fueled vehicles and hike along the canyon's rim. Construction has already begun on the information plaza in April, and the light rail system is expected to be in place by the spring of 2004. It is also a priority to reduce traffic congestion in the Yosemite National Park. It is already implemented a 2-year demonstration program for a regional transportation system that would allow visitors to leave their cars outside the park and travel by shuttle bus into and around the Yosemite Valley. Together activities like this will reduce reliance on private automobiles for visitors, allow for sustainable use and enjoyment of our public lands, improve the livability and quality of life in nearby communities, and allow visitors to better enjoy their experience. Unlike the Mad Hatter, we cannot continue to just move to the next place at the party. Fortunately, this leadership shows how we can achieve this, not just for national parks, but as a model for American communities to make them safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a race with Mother Nature that we will most assuredly lose. In the past on the floor of this Chamber I have discussed reform of the flood insurance program, which as presently constituted encourages people to live, in fact, subsidizes people to live in places where God has repeatedly shown that He does not want them. Currently this is a critical issue, because we are concentrating our population in areas that are near the coastline. In California alone, 80 percent of the population lives within 30 miles of the Pacific Ocean. We have had studies, the most recent one the Heinz Report, which has shown in several of the areas that they have studied in the coastal area development has increased 60 percent in the last 20 years in high hazard areas. The report concluded for our Federal Emergency Management Agency that in the next 60 years, we will probably lose 25 percent of the structures that are located within 500 feet of the coastline. In the next 10 years alone there are 10,000 structures that are directly at risk. Yet at the same time we are involved with a massive program attempting to reconstruct our beaches, without a sense of cost, and, in many cases with a 50-year maintenance operation, we are at work dumping the equivalent of over 3,000 truckloads of sand per day in this race with nature. There are many States that are fortifying the coastline, virtually walling them off, keeping people away from the beaches, and, ironically, this costly effort at engineering is actually accelerating the erosion process. We are in fact making it worse by our efforts. We are giving a false sense of security so more people live in harm's way, which increases the amount of Federal money at risk. The fortification halts the natural process of regenerating the beaches, and the construction of what are called groins and jetties in the fortification actually deflects that power further along the coast and increases the scourging action, undercutting and sweeping the beaches away. In many cases, we are doing this time and time and time again. Since 1950, in Virginia Beach, Virginia, there have been 46 efforts at restoring that beach. It is time to stop making it worse with development and with remedial actions that are not carefully thought through. I strongly suggest that this Congress take three important steps: First, to revise the funding formulas, so that we are not subsidizing people living in harm's way and putting the Federal taxpayer at risk. It is time to revise the flood insurance program. The legislation that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I have introduced, the Two Floods and You Are Out of the Taxpayer Pocket, would be an important step in that fashion. Finally, and perhaps most important, it is time for us to stop having development occur in these inappropriate coastal locations. If we take simple, common sense steps, we can end up making our communities more livable, saving the taxpayer money and avoiding more serious problems in the future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress to help make our communities more livable--to make families safe, healthy and economically secure. Clearly, affording needed tax relief to America's working families is part of that effort. This bill, however, skews priorities: Rather than focusing on the working people who need help the most, the bill offers the most relief to those who already have lobbyists working for them. First of all, we ought to be making things easier for families, not more difficult. One big problem for them is that a growing number are being forced into the Alternative Minimum Tax, which was originally intended to ensure that very wealthy people paid at least some income tax. Just last week, I was confronted back home with a farmer who has 10 children that he works hard to support. Taking the tax credits for his children triggers the AMT for him, and no one would confuse him with Bill Gates. This bill not only fails to solve the problem, it actually makes things worse. In every year, a larger percentage of families are shut out from the full benefits of the bill, exceeding 50 percent by 2010. It's not that hard to fix this. The Democratic alternative, which I support, would offer $89.1 billion in marriage penalty relief. It would fix the AMT problem, making sure that families actually get the tax relief they've been promised. It would direct an additional $10 billion to low- and moderate-income families. Even better, it would cost less than half of what the Republican bill does. With that additional revenue, we could address other pressing priorities. More than 11 million American children have no health insurance. Many of their grandparents pay staggering sums for the prescription drugs that prolong and improve their lives. We have children with special educational needs that Congress has promised to fund--but Congress can't find the money for them. Sadly, in my own state, one in five children suffers from hunger sometime during the year. I believe these issues deserve our attention just as much as adjusting the tax schedule. For that reason, I will vote for the alternative that offers the most direct and targeted tax advantages for American families. Unfortunately, the majority has rejected the opportunity for commonsense reform in favor of political theater. The bill the House will pass today will rightly be vetoed by the President. It is going nowhere--and it shouldn't go anywhere. At $182 billion, the cost of admission to this political sideshow is just too high.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have reached the time in our political calendar when both parties are looking towards their convention as a time to set a tone, to chart a course, and to identify the policies and priorities that a new administration might bring. Both parties are crafting their platforms in an effort to highlight the most appealing parts of their agendas and to attract voters. At the same time, this Congress is moving towards its final few days, debating and voting on the legislation that will be our legacy. If we want to leave our mark on America's future, now is that time. As one who came to Congress to help make our communities more livable, to make them places where families could be safe, healthy, and economically secure, I would urge my colleagues in both parties to take advantage of the opportunity we have to deal with these issues today, to get in step with the concerns and demands of millions of Americans who are concerned about the livability of our communities. Last week, The Washington Post carried a front-page article detailing the political importance of these issues of liveability, sprawl, congestion and green space in California, our Nation's largest State. After a decade of neglect, Californians are refocusing their attention and their tax dollars on green spaces, cleaner water, preservation of seacoast, mountains and the desert. This spring, State voters approved a $2.1 billion measure for better parks and conservation. In Los Angeles, which has only one-tenth of an acre of green space per 1,000 residents, the smallest amount of any major American city, the State is planning on spending $80 million to create parks and recreational land along the Los Angeles River. It will also give some of the money from the bond proceeds to private groups to purchase and preserve open space. For instance, in Los Angeles, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy will get $35 million to purchase remaining open land around the city. State action, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. In the past 2 years, almost 20 cities have approved restrictions on sprawl. And although this kind of sentiment might be expected in the traditional more ``activist'' areas of the State, it is being manifested across California. Last month's Field Poll showed 70 percent of voters feeling it was very important to elect officials with strong environmental commitment. The Public Policy Institute of California found a majority of voters preferred to spend their State surplus on green space rather than tax cuts. Even more telling is that a majority of voters in Los Angeles, in the Bay Area, and even in the Central Valley told pollsters they would favor initiatives to slow development, even if it meant slowing economic growth. Mr. Speaker, as an advocate for livable communities, I do not believe that it is necessary at all to trade economic growth for sensible development policies. Intelligently using our resources and coaxing more value from the investments we make can make such false choices unnecessary. In California, and throughout the country, officials at the State, local, and Federal level are beginning to understand the strong sentiment in favor of liveability. This is a movement that the people have already started. As Joe Edmiston of the San Monica Mountains Conservancy said, ``The public is far ahead of the politicians on this.'' Mr. Speaker, this is not just true in California, but nationwide. At the Federal level, we in Congress have a unique opportunity to advance these issues. The Federal Government is the Nation's largest landowner, tenant, and employer. From the military to the Post Office, from our vast public landholdings to our transportation infrastructure and the environmental partnership, we have all the tools we need. Our actions have tremendous impacts on how Americans live, work, and travel. By working to make the Federal Government a better partner with the State and local governments, with business, individual citizens and community groups, we can make our cities and suburbs across America more livable communities and our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time, and I of course am horrified by the picture of the slaughtered sheep that was shown here. But let us talk for a moment about why this is offered. And I would suggest to my colleague from Texas that it is not superheated rhetoric. I would have invited him to go to Clackamas County, just outside of Portland, in my district, for a tragic incident a few months ago where the Wildlife Services agent placed a cluster of canisters of sodium cyanide on the land of a tree farmer. These so-called M-44 devices, once triggered, explode and release sodium cyanide gas several feet in the air. If sodium cyanide makes contact with the mucus membrane of an animal, touching the mouths, eyes, or nose, the animal will suffer a miserable death. On a tree farm in Estacada, a family pet, a German Shepherd named Buddy, made the fatal mistake of stumbling across an M-44 loaded with sodium cyanide. I will not show my colleagues the picture of Buddy, his face dried with blood and foam caked on his face. But what if that canister had been dealt with by a child instead of a German Shepherd? Currently, in my State, citizens have gathered 103,976 signatures to place on a Statewide ballot a measure to restrict the use of inhumane traps and poison. They do not want the USDA personnel setting out land mines on their private or public lands. These traps set by the Wildlife Services are just as dangerous as the poison. Dozens of people in the State of Oregon have come forward to tell of their tragic experiences with steel-jawed traps, leghold traps, neck snares, and Conibear traps. A chief copetitioner of the Oregon ballot measure is Jennifer Kirkpatrick, from the rural community of Scappoose, who has the story of being in a stream and had the misfortune of having her hand caught in the vice-like grip of one of these traps, a device set out in the water to crush the vertebrae of beaver, muskrat, or otter that swims into it. She indicated it was the most excruciating pain she had ever endured. Because the trap was so large and powerful, she could not free her hand, with the trap crushing it. I think we can all imagine a car door slammed on our hand. She had to walk a quarter mile to her car and then drive several miles to a neighbor's home. The neighbor struggled 15 minutes to pry open that trap. She experienced a near complete loss of the use of her hand for 9 years. And being a seamstress, she was out of work and feared that her career would be over. No place in Oregon, nor any other place in the West, is a logical area for the widespread use of these horrific traps and poisons at taxpayer expense. This amendment helps correct the problem. It does not stop private individuals who want to protect their livestock as they see fit. It simply requires the ranchers to assume the responsibility if they want to use these lethal weapons. I strongly urge approval of the amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate over the course of the last hour with great interest. I think it is an example of how we have a tremendous capacity on the floor of this Chamber to talk past one another. It is an example here of one of many items where people get involved in a vicious cycle of subsidization that ends up savaging the markets, disadvantaging consumers, and posing great risks to the environment. We could have had this same conversation about what happens with products in the fisheries industry. Estimates have been made that it costs about $1.33 in total cost and government subsidies to deliver $1 of product that is harvested from our oceans. There is no doubt in my mind that the sugar industry around the world is subsidized in many areas and produces distorting effects. But I do not think that the answer here is for us to step back and try to somehow imagine away the distorting effects in our country. We have heard on this floor that there is a disproportionately few number of people who benefit from this. If people want to step back and provide benefits for small family farms, I will be the first to look at ways that we can, in fact, do that in a cooperative fashion. But this program does not do that. It is not targeted. And, sadly, that is the case with many of our other agricultural subsidies that we spend billions of dollars on. Precious little gets to the small family farm, and they continue to go out of business each and every year. I think we have had people back away from the myth that somehow this is paid for by magic, that there is no risk to the consumer or to the taxpayer. And I thank my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) for talking about that; and, if time permits, I would like to discuss it further with him. The notion somehow that prices here are too low, well, what is happening in the face of prices being too low and a worldwide glut, the evidence is that every year since 1996 production has increased in terms of the acreage in the United States, every year since 1996; and the estimation for the year 2000, with the terrible prices, the threat of world dumping, all of the things that we have heard, the estimates are that we are going to plant at least as much as we did last year. But my particular interest has to do with the vicious cycle we are in in terms of the environment. We heard our colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) talk about the cycle that we are in in terms of subsidization, more imports at lower prices, having to subsidize and purchase more, stockpiling sugar, at least at this point that we do not need and we have no market for. But I am concerned with the cycle that we are involved with in terms of the Everglades this Congress is involved with, and I commend the effort to try and repair decades of damage to that fragile ecosystem. It is a situation in south Florida where people are going to end up having to desalinate water in the foreseeable future, a product that is going to cost them more than petroleum and that is going to taste about as good. Yet, what are we doing in this Congress to deal with the serious problems that are associated with it? The sugar program is clearly harmful to the environment in south Florida. The subsidized production of sugar in Florida results in this phosphorus-laden agricultural runoff flowing into the Everglades, contributing to the destruction of the ecosystem. And we do not have enough money to fix that. But, amazingly, the Government continues to support the sugar program in south Florida even as we are asking to put up more money to repair the destruction. And, in fact, according to the information I have received, the production in Florida for cane sugar has gone up every year since 1996 and this last year was an estimated 10,000 more acres, compounding the problem. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), to see if I understand correctly the dilemma that we are facing in this Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my community has been working hard to restore the water quality in the Willamette River. We recognized that the American Heritage River program would make the federal government a better partner in this effort and spent years working to get the Willamette River so designated. The Heritage River program has funded a river navigator who works full-time on behalf of our local governments and watershed groups. The River Navigator provides an important link between the river communities and the appropriate federal agencies and programs to clean the river. The local Heritage river communities have already dedicated an enormous amount of time and effort to this program without any additional funding, and we are committed to seeing this program develop to its full potential. I am concerned, however, that the bill as written undermines our efforts. The bill's restrictions on heritage funding do not represent the type of support that was promised when the Willamette River and her sister rivers were designated. Since current federal participation in water resource management is poorly coordinated, we should not be stepping back from this commitment. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting the Kelly/Kanjorski amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the House has finally done something about the shadowy political action committees organized under Section 527 of the tax code which can hide their donors, activities, and even their existence from public view. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and now some light will be shed on these stealth PACs that have been flying under the radar to avoid detection. Very early this morning, we voted to require these tax-exempt groups to disclose their activities. The Senate adopted very similar legislation earlier this month. It has been perfectly within the rights of anyone to give unlimited sums of money aimed at influencing American elections with no limits, no restrictions, and complete anonymity. Here's how the loophole worked: You set up a bank account, collected as many millions as you could, ran ads under whatever innocuous name you chose--Americans for a Decent Society or whatever--and attacked or supported any candidate you chose. All you had to do was refrain from using the ``magic words'' like ``vote for,'' ``vote against,'' elect,'' ``defeat,'' etc. in reference to a particular candidate. You could mention the candidates by name. You could show their unflattering visage against a backdrop of belching smokestacks. And then you could disappear from the face of the earth. That unique combination--unlimited funds with total anonymity--was the beautiful thing about the 527s, if you were a clever political fundraiser, or a billionaire with a private agenda. But that is changing now. The Campaign for America, a group of well- respected business leaders founded by Jerome Kohlberg, recently stated, ``Tax-exempt status is a subsidy, not an entitlement. Accordingly, organizations obtaining this subsidy have obligations and responsibilities to the public that provides this benefit. Every other nonprofit involved in electioneering such as parties, PACs and campaign committees discloses to the Federal Election Commission. There is no justification for making an exception for these 527 organizations. In return for the public's largesse, these organizations should at least be required to disclose their existence, substantial contributors and substantial expenditures.'' The legislation we passed requires ``527'' groups to disclose who they are, where they get their money, and how they spend it. It does not adequately cover political activities during this election cycle, but it is a good start. By closing this loophole, we are beginning to repair the damage that our current campaign system has done to public trust in government. This could be the first meaningful campaign finance reform passed in Congress in many years. Let's lift this curtain of secrecy that has shrouded elections for too long.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that Congress is finally working to provide relief to our nation's seniors; however, the bill under consideration today does not do enough to help them. The only bill the Republicans offer, H.R. 4680, relies too much on private insurers who have already expressed opposition to providing drug coverage and who have already failed to provide adequate health insurance for many areas of the country, particularly rural areas. Prescription drugs are an increasingly vital part of health care and are the fastest growing component of health care expenditures. Spending on prescription drugs is expected to reach $112 billion this year alone. Seniors, only 13 percent of the total population, account for more than a third of the annual expenditure. The average senior uses 18 prescriptions a year, prescriptions essential to their quality of life. The rising costs of pharmaceuticals combined with the increasing reliance on drugs for medical treatments have created a serious threat to the financial security of a vulnerable population, seniors on fixed incomes. The alternative legislation supported by the Administration and Congressional Democrats would do more to alleviate some of the financial burden imposed by prescription medications. The substitute bill, which was, unfortunately, prohibited from consideration today, offers coverage through the Medicare program that uses the purchasing power of the federal government to guarantee affordable prescription drug prices. Our seniors are paying the highest prescription drug prices in the world, not just in comparison with Canada, Mexico and other countries, but also with comparable medications offered to animals in veterinary clinics. The Republican proposal offers no guarantees that seniors who are purchasing drug coverage are being offered the best possible price for their pharmaceuticals. The debate today on perhaps the most important domestic issue of this Congress has been haphazard and rushed. Consequently, it is likely that even if passed, the Administration will veto H.R. 4680. However, I hope the debate today is the beginning of a truly bi-partisan conversation about how we can focus our efforts beyond election year politics to a proposal that makes a real difference for those who depend on prescription drugs for their quality of life.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress with a keen interest in having the Federal Government be a better partner in promoting livable communities, things that we can do with the private sector, with business, with individual neighborhood associations, with government at all levels to help make our families safe, healthy and economically secure. I found that one of the most powerful things that we can do in the Federal Government is to simply lead by example, for the Federal Government to model the type of behavior that we want the rest of America to abide by. We have had great fun with a very simple concept that would require the post office to obey local land use laws, zoning codes and environmental regulations. This legislation has already commanded the cosponsorship of the majority of Members of this assembly and has excited people around the country who see the post office as potential building blocks to stabilize their small towns, to stabilize neighborhood installations in over 40,000 facilities around the country. One of the best opportunities is to be found with the Department of Defense. Our Pentagon budget houses the largest inventory of infrastructure in the world. The value is placed at some $550 billion. It is a huge land inventory. The Department of Defense is the third largest repository of Federal lands, but unlike BLM or the U.S. Forest Service land, this is oftentimes intensively managed. There are some 12,000 properties in the inventory of the Department of Defense right now that is eligible for historic building status. Over the course of the next 30 years, there will be 50,000 more. These facilities represent important aspects of military history and important elements that lead to actually building the components of communities. We have seen around the country base decommissioning arise as a larger and larger issue where they have to be closed and recycled, turned over to the private sector where there is an opportunity here to revitalize communities. Where at one point this was fought by local communities who felt that they would be losing an opportunity for economic development and security, we are finding as is the case in the transitioning of Fort Ord to private ownership that this can actually be a tremendous source of job generation, new housing and facilities that can make a difference for the community. Camp Pendleton is the only significant open space between Los Angeles and San Diego. It is home to some 17 endangered species requiring special stewardship on the part of the military establishment. In the area of housing, here too is an opportunity. There is an interesting initiative taking place in the Department of the Army under the leadership of Under Secretary Apgar looking for ways to use the private sector to be able to finance and upgrade and design quality housing that our military employees deserve. In my own district in Portland, Oregon, there is an opportunity to decommission Navy ships that employs family wage jobs and modern environmental technology to make sure that these ships are dismantled in not only a cost effective but an environmentally sensitive way as opposed to what some would do, simply tow them overseas and allow them to be disposed of in Bangladesh under who knows what standards. It is simply not a responsible activity on our part. And then there is the issue of unexploded ordnance. Throughout the United States, there are areas where we have used land for training purposes that are filled with bombs and shells that have not exploded. At the current rate, it is going to take us 100 years to be able to decontaminate, to be able to deal with this problem of unexploded ordnance. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that throughout the military establishment, there are challenges and opportunities for the Federal Government to promote more livable communities, a better environment for the men and women who serve in the military, and to protect our environment by providing leadership by example. I invite my colleagues to join us the evening of July 20 at the National Building Museum for a discussion in greater detail dealing with how the military can promote livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). I listened to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) talk about a lack of accountability that inspired the American Revolution. Well, I think there is a revolution today in this country of thinking about how we deal with gun violence, and the lack of accountability today is on the floor of this Chamber where the American public overwhelmingly supports simple, common sense approaches to reduced gun violence but this Chamber is still in the thralls of apologists for gun violence and refuses to do what the American public would support. It is clear, I hope, from my discussion last week, that it is wrong for this Congress to make it hard for a 2-year-old to open a bottle of aspirin but not make it hard for that 2-year-old to shoot his baby sister. My point, which the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) somehow confused with regulation of water pistols when they purchase it, was instead that this Congress has made it clear that there are certain core product safety standards which we are afraid to extend to real guns because of the threat of the NRA. This legislation before us today has two nonsensical approaches. One, it undercuts our efforts to have a cooperative effort with the private sector in solving problems of gun violence and it would be read to prevent the Department of Justice conceivably from even discussing the Smith & Wesson agreement, clearly an illogical result. They are not a party to the legislation. It is not appropriate to be dealing with their budget, but it is clear that their job is to advise government agencies on the legal ramifications of what they enter into. That is absolutely dead wrong that somehow we would undercut their ability to do their job.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak this morning. Mr. Chairman, I think the task that the subcommittee has labored over is often mischaracterized, it is misconstrued and it is thankless, I think, for the public and for oftentimes Members of this assembly. But it is key what they do to enable us to do our job as Members, to represent our constituents; and there are critical elements in this budget that enable us to protect and serve the public, their physical safety when they are here in Washington, D.C., and to provide information. One particular item of focus for me deals with the adequate funding for the Congressional Research Service. I would like to thank the subcommittee for restoring the additional $7.5 million. Before funding was increased, CRS was slated to have had to fire over 110 individuals, drastically reducing their ability to provide valuable research and assistance. And although I am pleased that the funding was increased, I am disappointed to see that the funding has not yet met the requested level and that without this additional money, it is going to be difficult or impossible for CRS to continue to provide for its carefully crafted multiyear CRS succession initiative. I think it was very thoughtful on the part of the Congressional Research Service to try and deal with a potential catastrophe with 50 percent of their staff nearing eligibility for retirement or already eligible. The notion of being able to do some thoughtful overhire, bringing in some junior members to get the expertise, to be able to meet the needs of Congress in providing nonpartisan, thoughtful, analytic benefit to help us do our job is smart. I appreciate the fact that last year they were forced into sort of a Hobson's choice. There was a difficult additional cut that was laid upon them, and in their wisdom they elected to suspend this process. I do not think they should have been put in that box, I think that that was a false economy; but I think that that does not release us from the obligation as a Chamber to be able to provide those resources for them. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important for us to be able to continue to provide adequate research ability for the entire Congress to have this multidisciplinary expertise across all policy issues; that is an unusually broad range of expertise within this single institution, and it is given in a highly personal way. I think we have all been well served by the dedicated men and women who provide it. I do hope that this budget continues to be a work in progress, and I hope that we will make progress in terms of adequately providing for this succession for CRS.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) references the problems that Smith & Wesson is facing as a result of, not HUD's activity, but retaliation against an industry leader that has been willing to be courageous in being part of a long overdue effort to reduce gun violence in America. A part of the retaliation is here on the floor today. For far too long, we have drug our feet in simple common sense steps to make gun safety a part of an overall strategy. Things like trigger locks, gun lockboxes, smart weapon technology, making a better gun is a prudent thing to do. One out of six of our law enforcement officers who die in the line of duty are killed with their own service revolver. But it is not good enough for the gentleman from Indiana. He wants to try and gut the amendment to make real progress towards eliminating this problem. This is using the private sector to produce safer weapons, have a code of conduct that would help end the scandal that we have in this country, that there are more consumer protections for water pistols than for real guns, that this Congress has the courage to make an asprin bottle difficult for a 2-year-old to open, but this Congress does not have the courage to make that hard for that 2-year-old to kill his baby sister. This amendment is a disgrace. I have in the foyer of my office a picture of Kevin Imel, a young child of a friend of mine who was killed by a classmate in an angry moment. It is time for us to put faces on the million Americans who have been killed by gun violence since I started my public service career. It is time for us to stand up to the tyranny of the gun lobby and the people who would pander to them, and we can start by rejecting this amendment tonight.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of the gentleman, and I strongly associate myself with the comments from my colleague the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). He has it right. The ozone problems are proven. This amendment would be a significant step backward. It is, in fact, legal and required to be done by the EPA. It would be wrong to set back this work up to 2 years while some of the legal issues are, in fact, being hashed out. In Atlanta, failure to comply with the Clean Air Act provided much- needed catalyst for making a serious examination of the impacts of unplanned, rapid growth in its metropolitan area. I think what is happening in Atlanta in Georgia is part of the success stories. Because the new governor had the courage and the foresight to move through a comprehensive approach they have not yet lost one dime of Federal highway money, they have been able to channel it for things that are in compliance with the plan, and they are able to move ahead and move forward. It would be a disservice to Atlanta and to other areas of the country to not give people the best information, to not move forward as rapidly as we can, and not be ready to implement this if, as I believe it is in fact going to be the case, this is sustained by the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the United States is facing an affordable housing crisis. While the American dream has always included homeownership, the price of the average home has surpassed the financial reach of many Americans, with housing values even outpacing the national inflation rate. This VA-HUD bill disregards the current state of critical housing needs that our nation is experiencing. Despite an unprecedented era of national economic prosperity, the gap between available, affordable housing and accessibility for both homeowners and renters is widening. Families who have worst-case housing needs as defined by HUD are those who receive no government housing assistance, have incomes less than 50 percent of local area family income, and pay more than half their income for rent or mortgage and utilities. Based on this criteria, the number of families faced with worst-case housing needs has reached an all-time high of 5.4 million families, an increase of 12 percent since 1991. This constitutes a staggering figure--it means that one out of every seven American families is experiencing a critical housing situation. In the past, the United States maintained a housing surplus. In 1970, a market of 6.5 million low-cost rental units was available for 6.2 million low-income renters. By 1995, the surplus disappeared and 10.5 million low-income renters had to vie for 6.1 million available low- cost rental units on the market. This housing crisis is not just an inner-city problem. In the suburbs throughout the last decade, we saw a decline in the number of units affordable to low-income families. Today, over one-third of households facing worst-case needs are in the suburbs. Affordable housing is an essential component of a livable community. Communities that support residents of varying income levels and choices for housing are sustainable. These communities support a diverse body of workers, both service-oriented and professional, that responds to the employment needs of the local economy. This bill before us cuts $303,000 funding for my district from the Administration's request level. The reductions are in a number of HUD programs--among them Community Development Block Grants, Homeless Assistance, public housing operating subsidies, and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS. Last year, the House passed H.R. 202, ``Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors in the 21st Century'' by a margin of 405-5. It included provisions that would have meant additional funding for service coordinators, assisted living, congregate housing services, and capital improvements. No funding for this legislation was included in this appropriations bill. This means the needs will go unmet for services that will enable many of our seniors to age in place rather than face homelessness or premature institutionalization. And the Housing Authority of Portland tells me that without this funding, it will find it extremely difficult to meet its needs for basic repairs such as roofs, sprinklers and heating and cooling systems. Section 8 is the federal government's primary mechanism for meeting the housing needs of low-income households. One strength of this program is that it allows the recipient a choice of which community in which to live. This approach is different from public housing in that it disperses recipients into economically diverse communities and avoids the undesirable social effects of clustering of low-income residents. Funding for the Section 8 program needs to be strengthened. Not a single additional person is given Section 8 assistance with this bill; the ``increases'' proponents claim are merely budget gimmicks. The budget for low-income affordable housing programs, particularly Section 8 vouchers and Public Housing, needs to be increased. Housing authority waiting lists are longer than at any time in the past. Approximately 25,000 households in Oregon are waiting for housing assistance. These people are elderly, disabled, or single parents with children. So I ask my colleagues to consider these items as we each return tonight to the comfort of our homes. Think of the Americans who are honest and hard-working, yet still are having difficulty providing adequate shelter for their families. Help make the American dream obtainable for them. We need to increase funding for federal housing programs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the resolution before us today. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) often speaks of the flat-Earth society that emerges here on the floor of the House from time to time. I fear that we have some Members here today bringing that philosophy forward who feel that we could either force our will unilaterally on other Nations around the world or that we can just go our separate way in the matter of international trade or commerce or that somehow we are in danger of being taken over by a faceless team of sinister international bureaucrats. All of that is pure and simple hogwash. We are in a very powerful position today. As has been documented time and time again on the floor of this House already, we are in the catbird seat. We win the preponderance of the cases that are brought before the WTO. We do not have to go along with something that strikes us on its face as being unfair and unequitable against the environment. In the final analysis, this Congress retains the power, the sovereign power, to, on the floor, turn anything that we think is wrong. But in the meantime, we have a strong interest in making sure that we have an international system. The United States was the institution that prompted the evolution of the WTO. We benefit the most because we are the largest exporting Nation in this world. I agree it is true the WTO is an imperfect organization, like the United Nations, like God forbid this Congress that continues to treat the citizens of the District of Columbia like members of a colony. Do not talk to me about somehow the WTO is imperfect. We are holding up that same mirror to us. We can talk about lack of transparency in this Congress, lack of responsiveness to the will of the people of the United States. But we are all here slugging it out trying to do our best to move it forward. That is what we should be doing here with the WTO. Withdrawing from the League of Nations did not make Europe safer prior to World War II. Staying in the WTO, exercising our leadership is going to hasten the day when it provides the type of transparency that we want, the type of leadership. But for heaven's sakes reject this resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Ney-Gutierrez- Tancredo en bloc amendment that adds funding for VA medical research and for grants to states for extended care facilities for our aging veterans. This bill before us tonight demonstrates the effect of poorly-placed priorities created when the majority voted for a budget agreement that spent too much on military largesse and tax breaks for the wealthy. We did not place a sufficiently high priority on our nation's veterans programs in this year's budget allocations. As my colleague Barney Frank observed, we are suffering from a self-inflicted wound. In fact, this VA-HUD bill provides $2.5 billion less than the Administration's FY 2001 budget request. We have a responsibility to keep our promises to our veterans. As a nation, we have special obligation to our veterans. They have earned benefits that they receive from a grateful nation. The service and sacrifice, blood, sweat and tears of men and women who have served in our Armed Forces has allowed for the historic prosperity we now enjoy. Caring for our veterans is a legitimate cost of national security, yet we do not seem willing to spend an adequate amount on that care. This year, we are spending 52% of our discretionary budget on the military but not enough on those who have already served: our nation's veterans whose funding is dependent on this much smaller appropriations bill that is before us tonight. We are spending $46.8 billion for veterans' health care, research, and medical facilities. Funding for military activities, including our nuclear weapons stockpile, will total some $311 billion this year. We owe our veterans more than they are receiving. We are spending $22 billion more in this year's defense appropriations bill than we did in last year's; by comparison, funding for Department of Veterans Affairs medical and prosthetic research is the same in this bill before us last year's funding: a mere $321 million. The $62 million for major construction and improvement of VA facilities is 5% less than we spent last year. ``Minor'' construction projects--those costing less than $4 million per project--and extended care facilities are each given a third less funding than they received last year. This budget falls half a billion dollars short of the level called for in The Independent Budget, proposed by Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and other veterans' groups. Over the past decade, federal spending for veterans' health care has fallen dramatically short of keeping pace with medical inflation. These shortfalls have forced VA medical facilities nationwide to cut services, delay and even deny care to veterans in need. Without adequate funding, the VA, created to meet our nation's obligation to its former defenders, will be unable to meet its obligations to veterans. It is time to acknowledge the sacrifices our veterans made and to honor our commitment to them. They answered their call to service long ago; now we must answer back by ensuring them a secure and stable future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have spent my adult life in public service, but one element that disappoints me is the failure of our society to address the critical problem of reducing gun violence in our society. Since I started my career, over 1 million Americans have become victims to gun violence. This is more than all the Americans who have died in all the battles since the Civil War. One of the reasons, I think, that we have failed to make progress in reducing this epidemic of gun violence is because we have failed to put a face on a million victims. One of the things that I would like to do, as a small contribution towards the reduction of this gun violence, is to help put faces on those victims. We cannot afford for them to be anonymous. Today I would like to spend a couple of minutes talking about young Kevin Imel. He was visiting a school mate during spring vacation. The evening before, an 11-year-old friend had been playing with his parents' gun. The guns were not safely stored. They did not have trigger locks. They had bullets. Kevin was not comfortable and would not play with his friend and made it clear to him. The next morning as they were watching Saturday cartoons, the friend suggested again that they play with this gun. Kevin was evidently forceful in indicating that one should not play with guns. It angered his 11-year-old classmate, who went to his parents' room while his mother was putting on makeup, marched out of the room with a rifle, announcing, ``Kevin, you are dead.'' He fired a bullet that went through Kevin's shoulder. His little sister who was there helped carry him to the car, and Kevin bled to death on the way to the hospital. Kevin Imel's parents are well-known in my community. His mother is characterized with courage and warmth, who helps others by deed and leads by example in terms of leadership of what people in the disabled community can do. Lon, the father, was a labor leader. He worked for our former colleague, Congresswoman Elizabeth Furse, and he too has been active in the community. Their service is all the more poignant, I think, because their son Kevin today is a series of warm memories and a life tragically cut short rather than growing into adulthood and being productive and carrying forward himself. It is time for America to remember the Kevin Imels of this world, to put a face on those million victims. I do think that it is time for our friends in the Republican leadership in this Congress to allow us to deliberate on items that would reduce gun violence. For almost a year now, the conference committee on juvenile crime has not met. The provisions that have passed the Senate, three simple common sense provisions that would help reduce gun violence, that are supported by the overwhelming majority of the Americans and indeed of American gun owners, have not been deliberated. It is time for the Republican leadership to honor the memory of people like Kevin Imel, allow us to deliberate, allow us to put these into action, allow us to help make sure that those million people who have died to gun violence have not died in vain.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Slaughter-Horn-Johnson amendment which increases funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $15 million, for the National Endowment for the Humanities by $5 million, and for the Institute for Museum and Library Services by $2 million. Investments in our cultural institutions, like the NEA and NEH, are investments in the livability of our communities. For just 38 cents per year per American, NEA supported programs help enhance the quality of life for Americans in every community in this country. For just 68 cents per year per American, NEH supported programs preserve our heritage by keeping our historical records intact and building citizenship by providing citizens to study and understand principles and practices of American democracy. In fact, Congress established the NEH because ``Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens.'' Adequately funding the National Endowment for the Arts, in particular, is absolutely critical to the state of Oregon, which has suffered in recent years from cutbacks at the state and local levels. Portland and other cities in Oregon have managed to make this work by using public funds to leverage as much private investment as possible. Portland arts groups manage to attain about 68% of their financial resources from the box office, which is higher than the national average of 50%. Portland companies have stepped up to the plate-- doubling their investment between 1990 and 1995. The public investment, particularly the investment from the NEA, is absolutely critical to preserving these opportunities. A commitment to culture pays many dividends--dividends that promote our economic development and our understanding of the world around us. Economically, an investment in culture helps promote tourism. People flock to cities that support the arts and humanities, benefiting hotels, convention centers, restaurants, and countless other businesses related to entertainment and tourism. In fact, the nonprofit arts industry generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity, supports 1.3 million jobs, and returns $3.4 billion to the federal government in income taxes and an additional $1.2 billion in state and local tax revenue. An investment in culture also helps previously disenfranchised groups gain access to new cultural experiences. The NEA, for example, provides fun and educational arts programs that help students and teachers develop arts, environment, and urban planning curricula. Public funds, like those from the NEA, are also critical to keeping ticket prices low, giving lower income individuals and seniors the opportunity to attend cultural events. If ticket prices reflected the entire cost of the event, cultural events would by necessity be denied many of our citizens, especially the young and elderly. We won't be able to meet these unrealistic budget caps by limiting spending on our Nation's cultural heritage. This approach is shortsighted and doesn't recognize the long-term economic and social benefits an investment in culture conveys to our communities and the Nation as a whole. We have the tools, infrastructure and innovative spirit in place to make communities across the nation more livable through cultural opportunities. What we need to promote is a National commitment to improving the livability of our communities by investing in culture. We can develop and promote that national commitment through the NEA and the NEH.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we continue to have the language being employed of the extreme antienvironmentalists, people who are talking about reckless. If it were truly reckless, my colleagues would be proposing alternatives to eliminate these as monument designations. They are not, and I think that that is prima facie evidence that it is, in fact, not reckless. These are reasonable approaches and are supported by the majority of the public. There is the notion of a land grab. As my colleague from New York pointed out, this is not a land grab. These are lands that are already owned and managed by the Federal Government. There may have been surrounded some parcels of private property as our colleague from Arizona pointed out, but they have always been surrounded by the Federal Government and that does not change it. What is changed under this antienvironmental rider is that you can no longer use Federal funds to manage them. Bear in mind they do not change the category but things that were legal earlier to use Federal money, for example, to deal with issues of vandalism or invasive species which would have been legal under the prior designation are no longer legal because they would have to be managed as monument property. Earlier you had legal grazing activities which require money to be able to manage, but now since it is monument land and would not be designated to spend money managing a monument means that you make that impossible for grazing; for mining. This is absolutely inappropriate and would not be supported and is truly going to lead to a condition that these folks in other contexts would be going absolutely bonkers if it were proposed. But their amendment, were it to be so unfortunate to be adopted, would put that into effect. Last but not least, it would not allow funding for the planning and engagement of the community to make these processes work. These are efforts that the people talk about engaging the public. It would not allow money to do so. It is a bad idea. I hope that this antienvironmental rider is firmly rejected.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I went over and looked at the citation from my colleague from eastern Washington, and I apologize for not being conversant with it, but it seems to me quite clear that what that is, it talks about this as potentially reviewable. The point I made is that there is no judicial determination on point that would apply this to a land use planning process, and I stand by that assertion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask, my colleague from eastern Washington said talk real slow, the allegation here is following the law. What they are basing this on is a GAO report on the Tongas wilderness. This would subject a precedent that they somehow want to stretch to every land use decision. No court has ever decided this. This was a GAO opinion from 1973. No court has ever decided it, but I find it ironic that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are somehow holding up to such reverence a GAO report when they do not do this for mining practices, for timber practices, for abuse in the oil industry. These are all GAO reports that the majority has seen fit to avert their eyes; but here, they would subject every land use process to an opinion that devolves from this one item.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time to speak against the Nethercutt amendment and in favor of the Dicks amendment. First, as it relates to what my friend from Spokane has advanced, I think it is important to allow the Columbia Basin Ecosystem plan to proceed. If adopted by this chamber, the Nethercutt amendment would retain the anti-environmental rider, which would block the implementation of this Pacific Northwest plan for forests, watersheds and endangered species. It is true that it has grown somewhat in terms of scope and dimension. It has done so because that is what has been dictated as in the best interests of the region that we all care about and in terms of what will make the most difference. Careful long-term planning is a help, not an impediment, to the various challenges that we face in the Pacific Northwest. I have heard my colleague more than once on this floor talk about the problems how this has stretched out over 7 years at a cost of $45 million. Well, adoption of this amendment, and subjecting yet another requirement to this plan, is only going to make the process more expensive and more time consuming. And, indeed, Congress itself is in no small measure a culprit. Every year that I have been here, since 1996, the Committee on Appropriations has been interfering with the orderly implementation of this review. Now, as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) pointed out, the extension of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act to this study is something that has never before been required. It is vigorously disputed as to its applicability. But most important it opens up a very real possibility that we are going to block the potential Federal Government activity to improve the environmental and management activities in the Columbia River basin. It is going to make it more likely, not less likely, that a court is going to intervene, possibly issuing a decree that could mandate management plan changes and entirely halting the production of goods and services on Federal lands in project areas throughout its deliberations, and the variety of little pieces that are involved there. It is wrong. We ought to get on with this business. It has the greatest potential of solving some very real problems that we in the Pacific Northwest face. I would like to speak, if I could for a moment, to something that I consider even more insidious, and that is the underlying amendment that would include restrictions on the ability to have funding to implement the National Monuments Act. This is a major policy adjustment, as has been suggested by my colleague from Washington, and it would have severe, I hope unintended, consequences. Some may applaud at the prospect of not having law enforcement on our public lands, but that is an extreme position that would not be approved by my constituents, nor I think by the constituents of at least most of us in this Chamber. It is not going to do us any good to not be able to regulate off-road vehicles, law enforcement, mining, the grazing activities. This is categorically wrongheaded, and it is, in and of itself, why the administration will veto the bill. They would have no choice. But it is an example of the environmental extremism that we hear so often about on the other side of the aisle. If my colleagues do not like the Antiquities Act, they should go ahead and repeal it. If they do not like what the President has done in any specific designation, they should have the courage to bring a specific bill to Congress and undo it. They do not because these are popular actions, they are things that would be supported by this Chamber, and the environmental extremists on the other side of the aisle would rather play havoc with our ability to manage public land in an orderly fashion.