Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just conclude by expressing three things. First, I would like to acknowledge the leadership of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) in attempting to balance a very complex set of issues that we deal with in the Pacific Northwest. And oftentimes I know he must feel like he is the man in the middle. But I think he has addressed this in a direct and forthright manner. I do not think there is anybody in the Pacific Northwest who has worked harder to reach out to try to find middle ground and to avoid the catastrophe, I think, on all sides of these controversies. If we are going to cede our ability to plan in a thoughtful and manageable fashion and have it done on a piecemeal basis via the courts, I think we ought to move forward in terms of supporting what the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) has proposed. I want to make clear that, as far as the national monuments are concerned, my Republican colleagues have been in control here for the last 4 years, and they have been unable to fashion a compromise acceptable to the American public to go ahead and repeal this legislation. And we have been in fact left with, and I am pleased that we still have, an Antiquities Act that has been utilized by 14 Presidents over the course of the better part of this last century, since 1906, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think it would be a tragedy for this House to use this back-door attempt to try and take away a power to have disastrous consequences on lands that belong to the American public, and they want us to exercise this sort of stewardship. I would ask them to at least have the decency to bring forward legislation to repeal the Antiquities Act and do this in a straightforward fashion.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the Defense Appropriations bill last night because of its pricetag that is unprecedented in peacetime and unjustified by the threat, and the misplaced priorities within the bill. Representative DeFazio's amendment was a step in a more rational direction. It would have reduced the next two years' purchases of F-22 fighter aircraft, as recommended by the General Accounting Office, and redirected the savings to readiness and quality of life accounts. It was a modest amendment, and it did not cut money from the defense budget. It just spent it on higher-priority issues at a time when the F-22 continues to experience technical problems and we already have the world's most advanced fighter, the F-15. The $930 million saved would have been spent instead on items that were not funded at the level requested by the Department of Defense, or were included on the Pentagon's unfunded ``wish list.'' Those items include additional funding for troops on food stamps, nuclear threat reduction, bonus payments to sailors on sea duty, facilities maintenance, spare parts, and recruiting. I want to also speak to the larger issues of the bill. We made some gains this year on the issue of military retirees' health care. Most important is this bill's provision of $94 million for a pharmacy benefit for all Medicare-eligible military retirees and eligible family members. This set an important precedent for us to eventually provide prescription drug coverage to all Medicare recipients. Those who have served in our military are a well-deserving group with which to start. This bill continues various health care demonstration projects-- including Medicare subvention and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Another important aspect of military retiree health care included in this bill is the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan. These are locally-run, community-based HMOs that provide military retirees another choice. I look forward to the findings of the independent oversight panel funded in this bill which will present recommendations to Congress on a permanent military health care program for the Medicare-eligible. Unfortunately, there continue to be unmet needs. The Department of Defense Comptroller has just done a study that shows that the military health care system for active-duty and retirees up to age 65 as currently structured is underfunded over the next 6 years by $9 billion. In addition to taking care of its people, our military has an important role to play in taking care of the environment, Congress needs to make clear that cleaning up after itself is a cost of doing business for our military just as it is for any other polluter. DOD is responsible for environmental cleanup at thousands of what are known as Formerly-Used Defense Sites. At many of these properties, owned by private parties and state, local, and tribal governments, the public may come into contact with residual contamination. The cost of completing this cleanup is estimated at over $7 billion by the Army Corps of Engineers, yet funding in this bill is less than $200 million. Another danger to communities is unexploded ordnance, old bombs and shells that could kill or injure people who encounter them. The cost of clearing these bombs is estimated at $15 billion by the Defense Science Board. The consistent underfunding of this challenge could begin to be addressed if it had its own line item in the defense budget. I call upon the Administration to create this line item in the request it is preparing now for submission to Congress for FY02 funding. More than a decade after the Soviet Union collapsed, our investment in national defense has returned to cold-war levels. During the cold war, the United States spent an average of $325 billion in current year dollars on the military. This year's budget resolution gave the Pentagon $310 billion--95 percent of cold-war levels and 52 percent of discretionary spending. And now Monday's Washington Post has a front-page story stating that, starting now, the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan to submit budget requests that call for additional spending of more than $30 billion a year through most of this decade. There is no reason to continue our reliance on a cold-war economy. Our massive investments in weapons and bases could be replaced with massive investments in education and health care and the other things that make for livable communities. While we are first in military expenditures among industrialized countries, we are 17th in low- birthweight rates, 21st in eighth-grade math scores and 22nd in infant mortality. The defense budget is large, certainly large enough to fund the programs that are needed for the people who serve and have served us and for the environment. Instead, it spends too much on duplicative weapons systems and questionable technologies at a time when we lead the world many times over in military might. We need to get our priorities right.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was not here to vote today on eliminating the inheritance tax. Instead, I am on the other side of the continent, celebrating my daughter's college graduation with family and friends. Frankly, I would have been embarrassed to be participating in today's debate, which is nothing more than a cynical political sideshow staged by the Republican leadership in their appeal for the support of some of the most spectacularly wealthy people in the country at the expense of people who look to the federal government for help. The issue before us is straightforward. I believe, as do the majority of my colleagues, that no one should be forced to sell a family business, farm, woodlot or closely held business, simply because a family member or principal owner has died. Such sales are often economically disruptive and damaging to the family involved; certainly, they do nothing to make our communities more livable. There is a way to solve what is a very real problem faced by some contractors, farmers, woodlot and other business owners. We can defer the inheritance tax permanently, so long as the business remains in the family or closely-held partnership. I don't care how much the business is worth--if the owners don't want to sell, they shouldn't have to. We should also increase the exemptions in the inheritance tax, and adjust it for inflation, just as we did with the income tax. These three steps would solve the problem for every person who has contacted me, and would be enacted by a large majority and signed into law by the President. The bill we are considering, however, is far different. Even though it will not be enacted into law, the legislation offers clear insights into the thinking and priorities of the leadership of the Republicans. It would offer enormous benefits to a few hundred of the wealthiest people in America, whose billions in unrealized capital gains will pass to their heirs without ever having been taxed, but it ignores the pressing needs of hundreds of millions of other Americans. What about the 11 million American children who have no health insurance? What about their families, working hard, but still struggling on income of ten or fifteen thousand dollars a year? What about the elderly, who can't afford to buy the prescription drugs that would so improve the quality of their lives? What about the students with special educational needs? This Congress is about to consider a budget that shortchanges them once again. It is scandalous that men and women who served their country may not receive the health care they were promised. It is damaging to our future that many of today's college graduates--the ones we will depend on to shore up Social Security--are beginning their careers staggering under a crushing load of student debt. This Congress looks at all these problems and sees nothing of interest or importance. The problems of those most well-off are far more consuming--and far more rewarding to pretend to solve. In the end, this bill will be vetoed and America's small businesses will be right back where they started. I came to Congress to help American families be safe, healthy and economically secure. Allowing family businesses and closely held corporations to stay in family hands would clearly help this effort. I am not opposed to helping solve the problems of the most well-off in society. At a minimum, however, we should pay equal attention, expend equal effort, and invest as much in those Americans who are struggling even in these best of times.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my goal in Congress is the promotion of livable communities; communities that are safe, healthy and economically secure. By definition, livable communities must have a top-notch school system and must protect the physical and mental well- being of children, adults and seniors. The annual Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bills form the primary Federal contribution to meet these critical needs. Unfortunately, this year's Labor, Health and Education bill (H.R. 4577) falls short and I must oppose it. H.R. 4577 cuts from the President's budget $1 billion in teacher quality and improvement programs and $38 million that would have ensured 1.6 million elderly and disabled Americans receive quality nursing care. The bill also leaves out $1.5 billion in payments for the education of disabled children, money that the House of Representatives has indicated, by vote, should be provided to local school districts. The list goes on. I am extremely discouraged that H.R. 4577 underfunds health and education programs while at the same time Congress is setting a course for a broken budget. Overall FY 2001 spending will certainly mark an increase over FY 2000 spending. With a $21 billion increase in defense spending for FY 2001, it is not hard to guess the priorities of this Congress. We are preparing to spend $60 billion over the next 15 years on a national missile defense system that will not work, but spending little in today's bill to ensure our children will grow up prepared to work. Tomorrow, the House takes up an estate bill that offers enormous benefits to a few hundred of the wealthiest people in America, whose billions in unrealized capital gains will pass to their heirs without ever having been taxed. When fully realized, these estate tax changes will drain $50 billion a year from the Treasury. I am a champion of providing targeted estate tax relief to family farms and businesses, which we can do for relatively few dollars. But instead of a targeted estate tax bill, one that would leave enough revenue to insure the 11 million American children who go without health coverage or help seniors buy prescription drugs, Congress is racing to pass a fiscally irresponsible tax cut for those who need it least. Mr. Chairman, I realize that H.R. 4577 is, and should be, a work in progress. Unfortunately, not enough progress has been made. I am voting ``no'' with the knowledge that H.R. 4577 will be back in the House at a later date and call on my colleagues to rethink our funding priorities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my final minute, Mr. Chairman, the area that I take exception to what the gentleman is talking about is two- fold. One is that it leaves out areas that have already been studied and virtually all rational people agree have wilderness characteristics. They are sensitive areas. His amendment would undercut what my colleague from Colorado is attempting to do. Second, these are areas that are in fact under assault. These are areas where there are extreme pressures, where there is growing use of recreation vehicles. It is extraordinarily destructive, in the public mindset. With all due respect, I do think there are problems. That is why I do not want to settle for the limited vision that is so uncharacteristic of my friend, the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am seeking clarification from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), if the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) would yield for a question.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as a Westerner, and not the near West, like my friends, the gentlemen from Colorado and Utah, but the real West, out there in the West Coast, I have some modest sense of what goes on in wilderness areas. I have spent a little time interacting with people over the last 30 years as an elected official. I have watched the dynamic. I would not pretend to be an expert in the wilderness areas in Utah, but I would take some exception with perhaps lumping in my friend from Colorado with people who do not quite know what they are talking about. I would venture a bet that there is nobody in this legislative body that has spent more time on foot and on watercraft going through this area than the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). He is offering this up not as an extremist. Again, I am concerned about the rhetoric that is sometimes employed when talking about people who are concerned about the protection of these precious resources that belong to the American people as extremist. I am one of 160 cosponsors in this assembly of H.R. 1732, America's Red Rock Wilderness Act, which would go far beyond the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Colorado. I do not think those 160 people or the vast majority of groups and organizations and media outlets that are involved in supporting it could be characterized as extremists. Indeed, I come from a western State, and I think a lot of the people would be regarded pretty much as mainstream. Coming forward, I am supporting the Udall amendment and against my good friend, the gentleman from New York. Often I find I am on the same side on issues of protecting wilderness values. But the question that I posed to him in terms of what would be protected in terms of those 202 lands, it is clear if we look at the map that what the Boehlert amendment would do would be to extend it to the portion that is in the bill itself. The Udall amendment would go far beyond that to deal not with a political fix that makes sense in terms of the local politics in Utah, in terms of county boundaries and where roads are. But looking at it from satellite, looking at it in terms of an ecosystem, the Udall amendment would provide wilderness study. It would not designate it as wilderness, but it would require that we get on with the study, and it would reserve to this Congress the ability of making a wilderness designation, if that is what is warranted, over the whole area, and not having degraded it in the time being. These are areas that are under assault. I am sure that my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), would not like to see this area eroded away, that we would have an arbitrary fracture of the whole wilderness potential area; have damage, have people establish in their mind that it is severable, when in fact I think he would agree, based on his environmental orientation, that it is not. I have great sympathy for the problems of people who are in small States where these are very inflamed and sensitive issues. I know there are strong cross-currents. We need to respect them. There has been lots of opportunity in Utah, and that will continue. I respect what my colleagues from the Utah delegation have done, and Secretary Babbitt. But I think we ought not to foreclose the opportunity of doing this right by adopting the Boehlert amendment and undercutting what the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) is trying to do, protect the options of this Congress and protect the future of that area.

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

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) is talking about the protection of the 202 areas. Would that not only apply to the areas within the boundary that is designated under this bill and leave off all of the other areas that would have been included under the Udall bill?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. No.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is for the Federal government to be a better partner in making our communities more livable, to make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. One of the indicator species of a livable community is the pedestrian. Earlier this week, people in Montgomery County were shocked, I am sure, to read that in their community pedestrian deaths were as high as homicides. In 1998 and 1999, 25 people were killed in pedestrian accidents, the same as those that were killed in homicides. Really, this is not news. The statistics are that Americans are 160 percent more likely to be killed by a car than to be shot and killed by a stranger. It is the equivalent of an airline crash every 2 weeks in this country, and for every person who is killed, there are another 20 who are injured; 6,000 dead in all, and 110,000 injured. The seniors of our community are at the highest risk, almost twice a likely to be killed or injured. Walking for them is more important, not just as a form of exercise, but it is an important part of their transportation system, because many of them no longer drive. Mr. Speaker, it is important because everyone at some point in their journey is a pedestrian. But there are lessons to be learned from our experience. We are finding that some of the sprawling unplanned communities that are primarily auto-oriented are the most dangerous places for people to walk, places like Fort Lauderdale and Miami; Atlanta, that we have talked a lot about on the floor of this House is sort of a poster child for unplanned growth and sprawled; and Tampa, St. Petersburg, and Dallas, Texas. Ironically, many of the older, more pedestrian-oriented are the safest. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, by one account, is the safest place to walk in America. It does not have to be this way. There are opportunities for us to plan for people, not just for cars; to put uses closer together, not mandate that they be separated from where people work, where they live, and where they shop. The Federal government itself can be a partner by not taking an historic Post Office in downtown small town America and locating it by a strip mall out at the edge of town without even paved sidewalks. There is a whole philosophy that has developed, an engineering approach that is called ``traffic calming'' that we had great success with in our community in Portland, Oregon, to be able to make a difference for the way that people live. The Federal government in the ISTEA-T-21 legislation has set aside significant funds for traffic safety, but sadly, many of the States are not using those resources in ways that will make pedestrians safe. Fourteen percent of all motor vehicle-related deaths are pedestrians, yet only 1 percent of the highway safety money from the Federal government is used for pedestrian safety. It is important for us to use the tools that we have available, that we are sensitive to putting people into the planning process to make our communities more livable and make our families safer, healthier, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on H.J. Res. 98, which will designate May 25, 2000 as the Day of Honor to celebrate minority veterans throughout the country. This day will be set aside to recognize the service of African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans in World War II. The service and sacrifice of these men and women is all the more moving because, in many cases, they fought to protect freedoms that they themselves did not fully enjoy. Today, we understand that part of what makes a community livable is respect for diversity and an appreciation of our differences. Understanding our history, even when it contains difficult memories, is an important part of bridging the ethnic and cultural divisions that still trouble us. African Americans were the largest group of minority Americans to serve in World War II. More than a million African American men and women served in the United States Armed Forces in the war. The famed 332nd Fighter Group of the Tuskeegee Airmen never lost a bomber under their escort to an enemy fighter in 200 missions. The Day of Honor was celebrated in Portland last Saturday at Reflections, a coffee and book store in my district. African American servicemen from all branches of the United States military were recognized for their sacrifice and heroism on the battlefield. I was especially pleased that Mr. Edgar L. Bolden, who served with the Tuskeegee Airmen and now lives in the district I serve, was the guest speaker at the event. Mr. Bolden trained as a fighter pilot with the Tuskeegee Airmen, serving his country honorably, and then went on to receive an engineering degree and work for the Federal Aviation Administration and in the private sector. Another outstanding group of African Americans who served our country in World War II was the 555th Parachute Infantry Battalion, the Army's only all-African American parachute infantry unit. Born within an armed forces that had typically relegated African Americans to menial jobs and programmed them for failure, the 555th or ``Triple Nickels'' as they were called, received new orders as the war was drawing to a close--a change of station to Pendleton Air Base in Pendleton, Oregon. The 555th acquired a new nickname, the ``Smoke Jumpers'' and they were on emergency call to fight forest fires in any of several western states. Their other mission was ``Operation Firefly'' in which they would parachute into areas where there were suspected Japanese ``balloon bombs--incendiary devices that had traveled across the Pacific on hydrogen balloons and posed the risk of setting fires and were a danger to people. Indeed, a woman and five children were killed by one of these bombs near Bly, in southern Oregon. The Triple Nickels carried out the hazardous mission of locating and disposing of these bombs. Two years later in 1947, the 555th became the unit that integrated the Army when they became members of the 82nd Airborne. These are just a few of the many examples of sacrifice and bravery displayed by minority veterans in World War II. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all of our veterans. It is because of them that we were able to exercise the freedoms that are central to our Nation's character.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership in this issue. The world's most important relationship over the next 20 years will be between the United States, the world's greatest military power and economic power, and China, the world's oldest culture and largest population. The change in China since Nixon began diplomatic and economic engagement has been nothing short of phenomenal. The forces of change and reform will win out sooner if the United States is engaged than if we play into the hands and forces of repression. Isolation simply does not work. In South Africa, it took all of the world's developed powers coalesced against a relatively small country to change apartheid. The rest of the world does not agree with us on China. We cannot even force change in Cuba, a tiny country with an aging dictator and a population about the size of Michigan. The United States could accelerate change in China, and that will not just have significant benefits for our businesses, it will also benefit the environment. But that takes modern technology and investment, services that the Chinese need that we are good at and that will improve their environment while it provides us with economic opportunities. Over half a century ago, the Marshall Plan invested not just in our devastated allies but in our defeated enemies in Europe. The Russians, however, denied us a partnership in Eastern Europe because they knew it would hasten the emergence of democracies and free enterprise. Today, after having spent trillions of American tax dollars to win the Cold War, we have an opportunity to accept an offer from the forces of Chinese reform. Approval of normal trade relations will not change China overnight. We will have to remain vigilant to make sure we use every tool we have to make sure the Chinese adhere to the agreement, but it will give us firmer footing in the Chinese economy, it will give us beachheads and inroads of the type that so terrified Stalin and continue to terrify the Chinese dictators. A vote for permanent normal trade relations will hasten human rights, environmental protection and a stronger economy in China and the United States.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the point, as my colleague from Indiana was making, was what the public has a right to know. The fiscal year 1997 budget was revealed to the American public as $26.6 billion. That was not something that was probably a shock to our adversaries, who have pretty good estimates of what we are doing in this arena. There are experts that speculate on this. The Republic's foundations have not been shattered. The next year when it was revealed that it was $26.7 billion, life went on, and if we were to give the American public what the figure is for this year and what is recommended in the aggregate for the following year, life as we know it will continue. I think that we in this body and in the Federal Government generally tend to draw a curtain of secrecy over things that are not going to be secret from our adversaries; but they are going to keep, and this happens time and time again, information that we do not want revealed to the American public for whatever reason. We are starting to see the history of what has happened with the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover under the guise of national security. We have seen the things that have been perpetrated by that agency under Mr. Hoover's regime. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is time for us to take a step back and look at this amendment, which gives the American public an opportunity to evaluate some of the trending. It is not going to be a great mystery to our adversaries who have access to some information from their sources. It is speculated upon in the academic community, but it will give the American public a little more information. I think it is appropriate for us to ask hard questions as a people about the resources that are being invested. How, given the tens of billions of dollars that were invested in our security apparatus, we could not predict the collapse of the former Soviet Union; that we somehow could not identify the Chinese embassy, which resulted in a tragic bombing, the impact of the repercussions we are still dealing with. Mr. Chairman, I think that we ought to be honest about the public realm and stop the charade here. There is an adequate amount of information that is available for very sophisticated people to be able to allow some tracking of this. I think taking an additional step so that the American public has it makes sense. I hope that we will be more rational about what we keep secret and what we do not. I am all in favor of trying to protect things that are truly important for national security, but not to protect people from embarrassment about things years after the fact, and not to protect the American public from knowing how their tax dollars were spent. Rumor has it that in about 1987 we had a peak of about $36 billion that were invested in all of these intelligence activities. Yet, today, 13 years later, with a less sophisticated array of allied forces that we are contending with, we are still investing huge sums of money that ought to give us all an opportunity for a constructive national debate. I think the approval of this amendment, with the recommendations of the commission that we had of other informed sources who want to pull this out into the light of day, as my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has indicated, would be an important step forward. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we as a body will be consistent in terms of wanting to make sure that the public has access to all of the positions that they have a right to have knowledge of and that does not compromise our security. We can start by at least going back and giving a third year's subject for what the total disclosure is. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, earlier there was an interesting discussion on the floor and an amendment that was offered but subsequently withdrawn by the gentleman from Georgia. I listened carefully to his comments, and I respect his concerns, but I feel that he is absolutely taking the wrong approach, and his region of Atlanta is a good reason why. The region of Atlanta has been characterized by some as the urban area whose growth has been the most rapid in the history of human settlement. A more than 25 percent increase in population has occurred since 1990. The city's region in that time frame has grown north to south from 65 miles to 110 miles. And, frankly, the results have been devastating. The average Atlanta commuter drives 36.5 miles a day, the longest work-trip commute in the world. And this has had serious problems in terms of air pollution, to the point that the Federal transportation authorities have withheld resources from the Atlanta metropolitan area due to its inability or unwillingness to meet air quality standards. This has had business implications. The Hewlett-Packard Company decided not to expand its Atlanta facilities. The city lost its 1997 top rank as the city's best real estate market and is now number 15 among 18 cities that are monitored. It has health implications. The Centers for Disease Control has found that there is an alarming increase in obesity, and some experts have linked this to the potential of the bad air that discourages exercise, and poor urban design that makes it hard for people to walk, bike and otherwise exercise. Asthma is the number one reason for childhood hospitalization in Atlanta. The clean air policy conformity provisions were designed to ensure that areas with air quality problems take into account the pollution impacts of proposed transportation projects. The Clean Air Act states that no transportation activity can be funded unless that activity conforms to the State's clean air plan. The State of Georgia, the Regional Atlanta Commission, and the U.S. DOT were finally sued by a coalition of environment and civic groups because of the inability to comply with the law. Last March, the Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA regulations violated the Clean Air Act and the EPA and the U.S. DOT were forced to revise their guidelines surrounding grandfathering. Now we have had the Federal Government and the environmental groups agree that the current policy is in fact appropriate, but because the State was able to turn things around so quickly, not a single dollar of Federal funding was lost in the process. During the conformity lapse, money was redirected from polluting projects to projects already in the plan that either had no negative impact, like bridge reconstruction and safety improvements, or showed air quality benefits, such as transit and high occupant vehicle lanes. The proposed amendment that was discussed would have undermined the conformity provisions and make it easier for regions to ignore air quality in their transportation plans, speeding the march towards gridlock and away from clean air. But Georgia has been making progress under the current program. The coalition of citizens, business, homebuyers, and environmental groups have formed a coalition to address the air quality and traffic congestion concerns. Governor Barnes, with the support of the business community, created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority to coordinate and oversee for the first time metropolitan Atlanta's fight against pollution, traffic and unplanned growth. There is an exciting 130-acre redevelopment in the old Atlanta Steel site that is combining residential, retail office and entertainment space in a transit-oriented development on a brownfield site in midtown Atlanta. Mr. Chairman, I am a cosponsor of legislation introduced by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), The Road Back to Clean Air Act, which would put into law the EPA and DOT conformity and transportation planning guidelines that were key to addressing the air quality problems in Atlanta, Georgia. The bill would increase the flexibility so other areas of the country could continue to receive Federal funds for transit, safety improvements, road rehabilitation, and other projects, even during a lapse in the conformity of their transportation plans. It is decidedly misdirected for us to retreat from our commitment to clean air and to try and use this legislation to do so. We would be far better served to try and make the system work, and in Atlanta it is working and is a model for the country. Amendment Offered by Mr. Vitter

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the priorities in this bill are misplaced. For years we made commitments to military retirees that they and their families were entitled to lifetime health care. Some may argue it is too expensive but the commitment was made and people relied upon it. We can afford to honor our commitments. We are spending too much in this bill on too many unproven technologies, duplicative systems, and Congressional add-ons. We are not spending enough on our people or on environmental remediation of past actions. We are making a down payment totaling $2.2 billion on a national missile defense system that CBO estimated last month will cost $60 billion over the next 15 years. Many describe our current approach to national missile defense as a ``rush to failure'' that is resulting in excessive spending on a system that has only a spotty record of success. We don't need three brand-new advanced fighter jets. We will have military air superiority over all potential adversaries for years to come with our current planes. The combined cost of the Air Force's F- 22, the Navy's F-18 E/F, and the Joint Strike Fighter will be well over $350 billion. This bill adds over $3 billion this year for weapons systems that were not requested by the Pentagon and no funds were added to the personnel account for our troops. Before we embark on new projects, we must address our primary responsibilities of taking care of our people who serve and have served in uniform and cleaning up our environment. If in the name of politics, we can give the military money it cannot afford for projects it does not need or want, then in the name of taking care of people, we can pay the bill and do it right. In the name of national security, we must not shortchange our people or the environment. I regret that we did not have the opportunity to consider Congressman Allen's amendment giving the Pentagon the flexibility to dismantle strategic nuclear missiles it no longer wants or needs. We could save billions if we were not forced to maintain our nuclear arsenal at the START I level of 6,000 strategic nuclear weapons while Russia's forces continue to decline due to aging and funding shortfalls. I am also disappointed that the McCarthy amendment was not allowed. It eliminated language that discriminates against gun manufacturers that have entered into common-sense agreements with our government to add child safety locks to their product. The McCarthy amendment would have allowed our government to lead by example by giving our business to gun manufacturers who want to bear some part of the responsibility for the end use of their products. The fact that the leadership does not want members to vote on this issue is a sure signal that we would have prevailed. I hope the offending language will be removed in conference before the president signs this bill. We have to ask ourselves, what is truly important? Should we spend more money on a military that is unrivaled anywhere in the world, while ignoring commitments to our military retirees and family's health care? I think not.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, amidst the sometimes incendiary rhetoric surrounding the efforts to reduce gun violence, there are times when it is easy for people to overlook a basic fact: the victims of gun violence are real people; they are not statistics. They are not debating points. The grounds of our Nation's Capitol are filled with memorials to the dead. Our visitors and tourists here are visiting them as I speak, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the Korean Memorial, soon we may have a memorial to the soldiers who died in World War II. Mr. Speaker, if we take all of those memorials to all the soldiers who have been killed since the Civil War, it would be fewer than the number of Americans who have been lost to gun violence in the last third of a century. It is not enough to simply have another memorial here in our Nation's Capitol; although, something the size of 16 Vietnam memorials would be impressive, because that is what it would take to list all of these victims. Last Sunday, in Portland, we had thousands of people standing and crowding into our little Pioneer Courthouse Square for our Mother's Day March against gun violence. They were standing on 70,000 bricks that had peoples' names inscribed who contributed to building that public square. It would take 10 acres of bricks with peoples' names to deal with the million victims. Our job must be to make sure that these victims are not anonymous; that we put a face next to the names, to provide details of the life that would go along with that picture. It is important to let people know that these victims had parents, relatives and friends. They had jobs. They had hopes. We need to know how it happened and we need to think of what we could do to prevent it. That the United States has the worst record of gun violence of any developed Nation in the world ought to be a concern to every citizen, a sense of shame. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is we are less smart than the rest of the world. It is hard to believe that we are somehow worse people. I cannot believe that we care less about our children more than others, and I would hope that we as a people are not somehow more reckless. I hope that in focusing our attention on the loss, how it occurred, what it means, we will be able to renew our commitment. Tomorrow, I am going to speak on the floor of this House about one face, a young man named Darrell English. I will talk about the circumstance of his death, and I will be posting that information on my website and dealing with it in public meetings so that others may know the name, the face, the hopes and the dreams. Every month, as long as I am in Congress, I will continue the discussion on the floor, on the Web, the conversation with the community, as a small gesture that these people not have died in vain. This hope that we can all do our part to reduce the danger of gun violence. I hope the House of Representatives will act on that, finally, acting on a juvenile crime bill that has been locked in conference committee that has not met for 295 days because of unwillingness to pass the simple common sense steps that have already been approved by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I hope that citizens back home will take steps to promote their own initiatives and legislation that politicians can use to make their communities safer in the political process, at the ballot box, in the legislature. I hope that every citizen will do their part as individuals, that no parent allows a child to go into a home without inquiring as to whether or not there is a gun there, if it is locked, if it is loaded. If Americans can somehow cut in half the rate of automobile deaths in the last 30 years, I know that we can do our part to protect our families. There is no single magic solution, but together we can find hundreds of ways everyday to make America safer, to make our communities more livable, because the most important face is going to be the face that does not appear on a poster like this, a picture that does not appear of one of our loved ones whose life was not lost to gun violence.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy in yielding me time to discuss the bill today. Mr. Speaker, I am planning on supporting the rule and the underlying bill, but I am concerned that we are not taking full advantage of the opportunity in the military construction arena. One of the greatest threats to national security in this country and worldwide is the disease, poverty, pollution, unrest and misery that is produced. We have serious problems here at home that is part of the legacy of 60 years of war, amongst them some of our production facilities at Hanford, Rocky Flats. We have chemical weapons, toxic waste and unexploded ordinance. One of the most powerful tools of government to lead is to lead by example. I think one of the ways the government can do that is to follow the rules and model the behavior that we want the rest of society to follow. One of the biggest, richest and most visible opportunities for the United States to lead by example in ways to promote livable communities is dealing with the military. The Department of Defense manages the world's largest dedicated infrastructure. It covers 40,000 square miles, a physical plant worth over $500 billion. The bill before us could give many opportunities. One that we see in the Department of Defense is on-base housing programs. The military housing privatization initiative that is being continued is an example to allow funding. It allows the service to partner with civilian developers to build and renovate family housing on military installations, to convey housing units to private companies, while retaining the land in Federal hands, to provide military members with the same type of housing that the people that they defend have the opportunity to live in, and create communities that look, feel and work like those outside a military base. But, unfortunately, we are losing an opportunity here for the Federal Government to be a better partner with the local communities in which they are situated. I would hope that as we move forward with this through the legislative process and in subsequent years, that we reverse the presumption that we have a situation where the Department of Defense plays by the local land use and planning rules of the local community. For instance, we saw in 1999 the Army proposed to develop a 700,000 square foot private shopping center on Fort Hood that would have severely affected the surrounding business community in Collin, Texas. We have an opportunity here to avoid having the Federal Government impose massive highway and infrastructure requirements on States and communities without their being able to realize any offsetting tax benefits. I note that on the Senate side, in Section 8168 of the Defense Appropriations Act, it permits the City of San Antonio to exercise these responsibilities for the Brooks Air Force Base Demonstration Efficiency Project. This should not be the exception. This should be the rule. We should be cooperating with local communities, we should be playing by their planning and zoning rules, we should be leading by example. I am pleased that the bill has many other positive things, a 72 percent increase in the cleaning up of the environmental problems associated with base closings, but I hope that the committee will work with us to make sure that the military is a better partner with local communities to provide livability wherever our facilities are located.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, all across America, people woke up this morning to front page stories in their communities about the Million Mom March against gun violence. There are pictures of the hundreds of thousands of people who gathered here on the Mall in Washington and other stories featuring the crowds in their hometowns in dozens and dozens of communities across America. I joined thousands of people for a march to Pioneer Square in Portland, Oregon yesterday. I do not know if there were a million moms or not. Based on the reports that I have reviewed, it is likely that the hundreds of thousands here in Washington, D.C. and the tens of thousands in communities across the country could easily have reached or surpassed that number. The issue for me is not so much whether there were a million moms who marched, but the million moms who grieve. In the last third of a century, over a million victims have been claimed by gun violence in the United States, more than the entire number of Americans lost in all the wars from the Civil War right through today. Yesterday's gathering was in memory of the million victims, though the testimony was not just of a million victims, but a million mothers, a million fathers, millions of brothers and sisters and grandparents whose lives were touched forever by gun violence. The Americans who participated were not, in the main, advocates or activists. They were largely people who know that America can do better. They know that despite the opposition of the National Rifle Association to the Brady Bill, that America is safer because people with criminal records or a history of mental illness have been prevented by that Brady Bill from getting a half million guns. They know that if these prohibitions were extended to people with a history of committing violent misdemeanors, that America would be safer still because these people are 15 times more likely to commit violence with weapons. They know that if we care enough as a Nation to make it harder for a 2-year-old to open a bottle of aspirin, then we can make it harder for that 2-year-old to shoot her sister. They know that the gun show loophole should in fact be closed, especially when they learn that the delay of a few hours for a certain category of people who are not cleared instantly, that these people are 20 times more likely to have the record of mental health problems or criminal records that are precisely the people we want to keep weapons away from. The American public knows that we can succeed. In the 1960s, Congress and the auto industry, prodded by the public, began a war on traffic deaths that resulted in safer cars and tougher laws. In the 1980s, a mother who lost her child to a drunk driver decided to add her voice to that of many others, and MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, was born, and the government was encouraged, some would say forced, to crack down on drunk driving. As a result of all of these options, in the last third of a century, we have cut the death rate on our highways in half. The mothers march is a signal to people all over America that it is time for a similar effort to reduce gun violence in our communities. Everybody knows that there is no single solution, but that there are many small steps that will save lives. If we in Congress are serious about listening to our constituents and making our communities more livable and safer, we have to start today. Why does the Speaker not direct the conference committee on juvenile crime, which has not met since last August, to meet now and address the simple, common-sense provisions to reduce gun violence that have already passed the Senate? Action by this House would be an important sign that we can send to our constituents that we understand their concerns and we share their passion for saving families from unnecessary violence, making our communities more livable, our families safer, healthier and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding time to me. Unlike my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the public sets a very high priority on the protection and public maintenance of our green infrastructure. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) had it right. We are losing the battle and we do not have to wait until the turn the century and the doubling of our population. Between 1992 and 1997, we lost 16 million acres, an area approximately the size of West Virginia, to development. The public is starting to move at the State and local level. They passed 379 initiatives for over $8 billion in the last 2 years. It is time for the Federal Government to do its part being a better partner in that process. The funding of CARA is a good start with historic preservation of urban parks, Native American land and allocating $150 million to conservation easement and species recovery. These long-term investments will add valuable to our communities. They are, in fact, financed on just the interest on the $13 billion in the trust fund right now. Mr. Chairman, it is time for the Federal Government to be a better partner for liveability. The passage of this bill is a good start.