Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is the first major appropriations action of the year, and already we're starting off on the wrong foot. This bill spends too much on the wrong things and does not devote enough attention to priorities that we desperately need to focus on. I have major concerns about the money being spent on additional defense projects in this bill. Billions of dollars are provided for such spending, including military construction projects, new jet engines and tanks, a demonstration project for an air force base in Texas, and a military training range in Puerto Rico. Other members have offered amendments to add billions more in defense spending. I do not believe the supplemental appropriations bill should be a vehicle to ratchet up military spending. I also have concerns about the money being put forward to help combat drug trafficking in Colombia. Although I am very interested in seeing the drug problem confronted throughout the hemisphere, I am skeptical that sending more military equipment into an already unstable region will be successful. Rather, the problem will most likely be pushed into other regions as a result. This bill should be limited to true emergency spending, not for additional pork projects in places that don't need it. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this week there is a meeting in Norfolk, Virginia, of the unsung heroes of the efforts to promote Virginia's livability, the town planners and the citizen volunteers who are on the front lines doing one of the hardest jobs in terms of coping with the problems of growth and development and sprawl in Virginia, but sadly, they have fewer tools than almost any State in the country. They know what to do, but despite those efforts, the State of Virginia has had unbalanced growth over the course of the last 15 years. The 1990s were a disaster. There was a failure in 1990 to adopt minimal State planning goals that would have helped provide form and direction. In 1995, the legislature in Virginia overwhelmingly defeated Virginia's Strategic Planning Act. Today we have a State administration that is asleep at the switch, and a legislature that is not helping the people of Virginia. There is no tie-in between their transportation investments and land use. There is certainly a head-in-the-sand attitude regarding paying the bill. Even if you are one of those people who still feel that we can pave our way out of traffic congestion, and that number is a smaller and smaller number across the country, because community after community has proven that we do not have enough concrete to pave our way out of congestion, but even if one believes that, in the State of Virginia there is no plan to deal with over $50 billion of transportation investments that are conservatively required over the course of the next 20 years. The Virginia Department of Transportation, VDOT, which is behind the curve as it relates to many of the transportation agencies around the country, was seriously damaged in the 1990s. There were ill-conceived programs of downsizing which ended up having a number of people who were terminated as retired, only to be hired back at higher salaries afterwards to try and move transportation projects along. But I am pleased to say that there are some signs that things are happening in Virginia on the right side of the equation. First and foremost is that the citizens at the grass roots level are pushing back. There is increasing concern about unplanned growth. In Loudon County we saw a sweep of eight smart growth candidates into county office, four Democrats, two Republicans, two Independents. It was a broad bipartisan effort to try and get back in control of their community. There were other electoral wins in Fairfax, Prince William, in Stafford, in towns and cities across Virginia. In the city of Suffolk there is an integrated comprehensive plan and zoning to direct growth towards designated areas that can handle it. The highly respected Mason-Dixon poll in March showed that growth is the number one issue in the Shenandoah Valley. Even the conservative newspaper, the Richmond Times Dispatch, has had a 180-degree change recently, and recently editorialized on behalf of planning smarter. Madam Speaker, Virginia has given much to this country, the home of Thomas Jefferson, of George Washington. It was a leader in the democratic institutions for the entire world. It is my hope that their Governor and that their legislature will stop denying the problem, will work with us in Congress, will work more importantly, with people at the grass roots level, all working as partners for livable communities. If they are willing to do so, to deal with those planners, with those citizen volunteers, with simple, commonsense steps and structure to make the planning process work better, Virginia communities will in fact be more livable and all our families can be safer, healthier, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, passing a budget resolution should be the first step in a process of guiding our country towards fiscal stability. In a time when the economy is strong and when there is a consensus on things like reducing the national debt, protecting Social Security and getting the most out of the dollars we invest, one would hope the budget resolution could be accomplished in a constructive fashion. At this time, we should establish a blueprint for government spending that guides our spending decisions through the coming years and gives a signal to the American public about our priorities. Unfortunately, again this year that has not been the case with the budget resolution. The resolution adopted by the Republican majority continues a pattern of budget gimmicks, ambiguity, and deception. The Republican appropriators have no intention of following this blueprint and there is virtually no one in the Republican caucus who's going to have a voting record at the end of this year that would conform to what the budget resolution demands. This budget is rife with double counting, under counting for important priorities such as a Medicare prescription drug benefit, and slashes other priorities for massive tax cuts that are not supported by the American public and will not find their way into law. I voted for four alternatives to this budget, all of which are superior to the Republican version which was passed. There are details of each that I don't necessarily agree with, but they are each more honest and would be better for America than the Republican version. I hope I will see the day when we have a budget resolution that actually resembles the final budget at the end of the year.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, our nation needs a real energy policy rather than allowing ourselves to be surprised with global price changes. We need to support incentives to improve energy efficiency such as tax credits for new energy and alternative fuel technologies, as well as improved efforts to weatherize homes and businesses. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in the Washington Post, we are becoming a nation of oil addicts. The past decade has seen an increase in gas-guzzling SUV's and a dramatic increase in the number of vehicle miles traveled. Average fuel efficiency has remained unchanged for the last 10 years. Congress has repeatedly refused to increase CAFE standards for SUVs and light trucks, going so far as to prevent the U.S. Department of Transportation from even studying the impacts on oil consumption and air quality from increased CAFE standards. In real terms, there have only been four years out of the last 70 where the price of a regular gallon of gasoline was as low as it is today. Gasoline is getting cheaper and cheaper all the time. There are some real problems for home heating oil costs and supply flows, but it is important to put gas prices in perspective. Nevertheless, we need to make sure that the free market is really free. If that requires legislation, let's get on with it. Everyone needs to play fair and by the rules. Any suspicion that oil producers are artificially ``fixing'' the price of oil should be investigated fully. Oil producing nations do receive assistance from us, and we need to make sure they understand that unless the free market is allowed to work, we may reconsider future assistance. Our diplomatic efforts should be firm but not heavy-handed. Our nation cannot afford to set our own energy policy with the assumption that petroleum supplies are unlimited and that we will always have the world's lowest oil prices. Record low oil prices last year made us lazier on conservation and the development of new energy technologies. A kink in the supply chain today could develop into a full blown oil crisis tomorrow. We need to remain vigilant on providing people with more transportation choices and higher efficiency standards to conserve the oil we have.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague discussing the issue of gun violence, but I could not disagree with his assessment more. A livable community is one where people are safe, healthy, and economically secure. Gun violence undercuts each of those elements. We are not safe today in the epidemic of gun violence, whether it is in Mount Morris Township, Michigan; Littleton, Colorado; or Springfield, Oregon. Gun violence is a leading cause of death and injury, 12 per day for children alone. And our families are not economically secure. Gun injuries, injuries, cost almost $20,000 per incident to treat, and the cost of a gun-related death is approximately one-third of a million dollars. In the face of overwhelming evidence about gun violence, the gun apologists continue to argue that guns somehow make us safer, and simple common sense gun legislation is unnecessary. By their logic, we could get rid of metal detectors in airports. Yes, a few guns might get through, but almost certainly well-armed passengers would gun down the terrorists. A little article in today's Post notes that for the second time in a week, a passenger was arrested on a plane for assaulting a pilot. Would we be better off if that passenger had been armed so that there would have been a gun battle instead of a fist fight? The NRA argues that the people who want to reduce gun violence have blood on their hands, that they want a certain level of violence. I was with the President of the United States as he visited the victims and the families in my State in Springfield, Oregon; and I know that such an assertion is as untrue as it is sick and twisted. Tragically, it is consistent with the NRA's approach and that of their apologists. They oppose even the most simple common sense approaches. If they had their way, the Brady Bill would not have passed and 400,000 felons and mentally ill people would have had guns outright, instead of eliminating that opportunity for them. Does anyone think that that would have made us safer? We do not have to be stalemated by this argument. There are simple common sense approaches. We can require safe storage of guns. Maybe it would not have made a difference for that little 6-year-old boy and the girl he shot in terms of that home, but maybe the gun would not have been stolen in the first place if it had been in a lockbox. We can lead by example by making sure that smart gun technology is available for law enforcement officials. One in six law enforcement officials who are killed with a gun are killed with their own service revolver or that of one of their partners. If the Federal Government and State governments would announce that next year we will not purchase guns that are not personalized, that cannot be wrestled away, we could move that technology forward by leaps and bounds. We can make guns safer to reduce accidental death and injury. Why in the name of all that is holy do we sell guns in this country that do not tell you whether or not there is a bullet in the chamber, when we have mandated child-proof bottles for aspirin and cigarette lighters? Why do we have more consumer protections for toy guns than real guns? Sadly, it is the apologists for the gun lobby who have had their way. We can also keep guns out of the hands of violent felons; not just violent felons, but violent misdemeanants as well. A study at the University of California-Davis has demonstrated that those who are convicted of misdemeanor crimes are 7.5 times more likely to be charged with new crimes than those with no criminal records. The vast majority of people who own guns, as well as normal citizens who do not, support prohibitions like this. Finally, we can take a step here in Congress today. We can end the gridlock. The Republican leadership should, must, let us move forward. The conferees on the juvenile violence bill have not met since August, hung up over these gun violence provisions. They ought to meet. They ought to meet today and allow us to vote on these simple, common sense provisions. Finally, people at home today have an opportunity and responsibility themselves to reduce gun violence. Parents should not only demand that Congress act, but they should make sure that if they have a gun in a home, that it is stored safely, and if a child of theirs is going to go next door to play at a neighbor's house, they ought to find out if there is a gun in that house and demand that it be stored safely before their child plays there. There is no excuse for continuing to tolerate the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world in our country.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) how long it takes to just simply file the permit that he is talking about, these steps that have to be taken? How hard is that in terms of just filing an appeal or a permit? How much time is involved with that? How hard is it?

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, Mr. Chairman. I have spent my entire public service career dealing with issues that promote livable communities. I know from personal experience that, at times, local land use laws can be time- consuming, expensive, and uncertain. Many times the development community draws the blame for things like sprawl and congestion when in fact they are abiding by outmoded local planning and transportation notions. Too often the development process becomes too political and painful. But it is absolutely false to suggest that somehow the blame for this is on the shoulders of local officials who are trying to protect the community. I am willing to work to improve the process. I cosponsored and voted for a nearly identical bill in the 105th Congress which I hoped would be the first step in trying to have a rational discussion about this, and have been working with the development interests and local government and the environmental community to reach common ground. I supported the bill, even though I made it clear at the time that the bill in that form would not and should not pass, but I thought it would be a beginning of an important discussion. But rather than use that as a springboard, what we have back here again today is the identical bill. I am disappointed that the legislation represents no modification, no conciliation, and is not a productive contribution to the reform effort. It faces a certain veto by the President if in fact it could be passed, which it will not. Occasional development hardships cannot justify short-circuiting the land use process against other homeowners, neighborhood associations, environmental groups, and local governments. In Oregon, we have an elaborate system of appeals dedicated to land use, heralded as one of the best in the Nation. Our Land Use Board of Appeals has been developed and refined over the years, and at the same time, the process has been supported by our voters three times in State-wide initiatives. It is entirely possible that if this misguided legislation would be passed in its present form, it would entirely circumvent our land use planning process. The bill is further flawed because it is sending land use disputes to our already overtaxed Federal judiciary, with absolutely no guarantee that they can be resolved any faster. In fact, we have received indication from the Federal judiciary that they see this as a burden to their already strained system. The only way this bill would produce a speedy resolution and reduce developer expenses is if small cities and counties stopped trying to enforce their land use laws. That is in fact what would happen, in many cases. This is counter to the rising tide around the country where people want more protection against unplanned growth, bad environmental decisions, and transportation problems. Smart growth is not no growth. I am committed to working with the advocates of smart growth and livable communities and the development community to develop approaches that solve these problems. We can provide a balanced system of adjudication in land use disputes. The problem in some States like California is that they do not have a system. It is a series of patchworks that do not work. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we support State-wide frameworks that are less political, more predictable, less costly, that will achieve timely administrative process and judicial review without leading to a race to the courts to bully local governments into dropping their rights. Rather than evolving the debate, this bill before us is having a polarizing effect. I urge a no vote. I urge my colleagues to work with us to actually solve the problem for more livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we had an assertion by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) about the procedures that would be followed. The fact is, under the bill that has been proposed, there is an exemption. If the claimant feels that it would be futile to pursue this claim, there is an additional problem. They talk a lot about the small individual property owners, but the fact is the vast majority of jurisdictions in this country are small governments that cannot afford to be involved with this. So my colleagues have taken a theoretical problem for a few problems of small owners action, and they have substituted a massive burden on the part of many small governments who simply are not going to be able to undertake a well-financed aggressive development interest that seeks to move the other direction. I think it just simply reverses that presumption.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think I have spent more time than anybody in this Chamber working with people around the country, in Florida, in Georgia, in the Northwest who are concerned about the livability of their community. That is my focus. The notion that somehow that we are going to deal on these extreme takings cases, and that is what we need to focus on, misses the point entirely about the impact that this legislation would have. The things that people care about in communities around the country are the impacts on small communities and a whole host of areas that are in a gray area, where it is not cut and dry. I personally believe that, oftentimes, the decision making process is too uneven, is too political. That is why, State after State after State, is starting now to establish comprehensive land use planning processes from Tennessee, Oregon, Wisconsin. Georgia is now looking in metropolitan Atlanta because of the nightmare they have with sprawl and unplanned growth. This legislation would undercut those efforts whenever people feel that they can have an opportunity to circumvent it. They do not have to perfect appeals. The gentleman keeps talking about how they have to go through the process again and file applications. That is simply pushing paper. That is an application fee. It does not require an extensive effort. If the gentleman reads the bill, he finds out there is a further exemption where, if people feel that the application or the reapplication or waiver would be futile, that they do not have to go through that process at all. That is absolutely the wrong approach to take. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the author of this amendment, has pioneered a bipartisan effort to reach Superfund compromise. If we would have that same sort of spirit to deal with those few problems where there are legitimate issues about streamlining the process, come together, I think we could improve the process without going to the extremes of turning it around. This turns it around. It places small and medium-sized jurisdictions at the mercy of people who will file these expensive appeals. It is going to back up the courts if they use it. It is not going to be any faster. It will, in fact, wear down. Remember the vast majority of jurisdictions in this country have fewer than a couple of thousand constituents. I, in the past, have enjoyed working with the home builders trying to refine these efforts. They are doing a great job now I think of negotiating with the administration on Brownfield legislation. We ought to take that approach, solve a problem rather than opening a floodgate, undercutting State and local efforts, and doing something that has no chance of being passed through this body and signed by the President, and is only going to inflame the opposition that people have to local efforts that do not support planned thoughtful growth.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) could not answer the question. Just simply filing a meaningful appeal does not require in most cases huge amounts of time, huge amounts of money. It is simply an administrative action and does not require going through having any sort of ripening process at all. It is simply pushing paper.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, in a typical jurisdiction in his community, how much does it take to file a meaningful application?

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, one indication of how the momentum for the efforts across the country to promote livability has been gaining speed is the comments from governors who are talking about smart growth and livability in their State of the State addresses. One State deserves special attention and that is Georgia, where we have been watching a renaissance in our cities and inner suburbs taking place. Atlanta, which some have sort of dismissed as the poster child of sprawl, is making significant progress under the leadership of Governor Barnes and with the assistance of business leaders like John Williams, who was recently profiled in the New York Times. Atlanta has been characterized by some as the area of the most rapid growth in the history of human settlement. A more than 25 percent increase in population since 1990, the city in that time frame has grown from north to south from 65 miles to 110 miles, and the results have been devastating, frankly. The average Atlanta commuter drives 36\1/2\ miles daily, the average, the longest work trip commute in the world. This has had serious problems in terms of their air quality to the point that Federal transportation officials have withheld resources because it is not meeting air quality standards. Over 60 percent of the State's rivers and streams do not meet water quality standards, almost twice the national average. It is losing business. In 1998, Atlanta lost a bid for the Harley Davidson plant. Hewlitt Packard decided not to expand its Atlanta facilities; and in fact, the city lost its 1997 top rank as the country's best real estate market and is now 15 among 18 cities that are monitored. There are even concerns about the health implications. Last fall, the Centers for Disease Control reported amongst the alarming national increase in obesity rates that the greatest percentage increase occurred in Georgia, over 100 percent in the last 10 years. Some of these experts were speculating that it may be related to the bad air that discourages exercise and the poor urban design that makes it hard to find places to walk, bike, and otherwise exercise. Asthma is the number one reason for childhood hospitalization in Atlanta, but there are very positive signs on the horizon. As I mentioned, the leadership of Governor Barnes, with the business community, was able to create 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 138-acre redevelopment in the old Atlantic Steel site that is combining residential, retail, office and entertainment space in a transit-oriented development on a brownfield site in mid-town Atlanta. Recently, we have seen another business, Bell South, decided to relocate from 75 different suburbans office areas to three centers for 13,000 employees inside the perimeter and all adjacent to transit. In no small way, this has been the result of business leadership exemplified by Mr. Williams, head of Post Properties. In fact, he has been here on Capitol Hill meeting with senators and representatives talking about how, in fact, his business, which was built on the development of suburban luxury office, has discovered a significant opportunity to move this new housing into the increased demand closer in central cities, growing at more than 10 percent a year as opposed to 2 percent in the suburbs. They have shifted their focus from development on existing farm lands and wood lots to more urban locations and expanding to make a profit in in-town housing, not just in projects in Atlanta but also the real estate markets in Texas, Florida, and Virginia. One of the reasons why the livable communities initiatives are being successful is not just because of political leadership but because business leaders, like Mr. Williams, the president of the chamber of commerce for metropolitan Atlanta, understand what is at stake and they have practiced their civic leadership in the broader sense of the community and with their personal business practices. This is a very positive sign for those of us who want more livable communities so that our families can be safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it's time for a minimum wage increase, it's time to help family businesses. We are playing out the next round of inappropriate tax cuts, this time under the guise of helping minimum wage workers. A discussion on the minimum wage and small business taxes is appropriate. We must increase the minimum wage so that it at least keeps up with inflation. We can provide tax assistance to those who need it. But the two efforts should not be linked. This is a political exercise that guarantees that nothing will pass. It invites a veto. A two-year minimum wage bill would pass and swiftly become law. Oregon's experience has shown that you can have healthy economic growth and a higher minimum wage. As Oregon's wage rate was phased in from 1997 to 1999, 57,000 welfare recipients found jobs, a 33% reduction in the total welfare caseload. Total unemployment in our state has dropped from 6% to 4.7% since Oregon's wage rate increased to $6.50 an hour over a year ago, to become the highest minimum wage in the nation. I am eager to work for tax reform for those who need it most: closely-held businesses, farms and woodlots. The Democratic alternative would increase the current $1.3 million estate tax exclusion to a $4 million per family exclusion. We could pass this kind of targeted tax bill tomorrow, but we can and should do more. The current estate tax often forces sale of assets, cutting of timber or even sale of the business itself to pay the tax. We should permanently exempt closely- held family businesses and farms from estate taxes so long as the assets stay within the family or the same closely-held ownership. The Republican tax bill does not target those who need the most help. Only \1/6\ of the benefits go to ``small business.'' The majority of taxpayers would only see about a $4 tax cut. Worse, the Republican tax bill commits over a hundred billion dollars in tax breaks without a budget and without guaranteed protections for Medicare and Social Security. This is a dangerous game. I urge the Republican leadership to stop playing politics. Don't force a bill that doesn't stand a chance of being enacted into law. Give Congress the chance to vote a fair minimum wage increase up or down. Allow a proposal to help family businesses and farms to stay in the family. These are two proposals the American people support and deserve.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor of H. Res. 396.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, a livable community is one where our families are safe, healthy, and economically secure. The Federal Government has an obligation to be the best partner it can in helping create and maintain livable communities. A critical element in creating the climate in which a livable community can thrive is reducing the threat of gun violence. Since Richard Nixon was President of the United States, over a million Americans have lost their lives to gun violence. This is more than all the deaths in all the American wars since the Civil War. For every gun death, there are three to four injuries. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a major threat to the health of our communities. One hesitates to put a dollar cost on such tragedy, but the fact is gun deaths are the most expensive trauma-related deaths, costing over a third of a million dollars. For each child shot by a gun, those injuries total what it would take to send them to college for a year. The total costs are over $4 billion a year. If we add all of the indirect costs, lost of productivity, it is over $100 billion by some estimates. It is important to note that no family today is safe from gun violence, whether it is in Jonesboro, Arkansas, whether it is in the high school in Columbine, Colorado, in my State of Oregon, in Springfield. Mr. Speaker, this morning, as I was walking to this Chamber, I was given a notice that in Mount Morris Township, Michigan, this morning a first grader was shot by another pupil, a first grade child. It is important for us to not be paralyzed in this Chamber and assume there is nothing we can do to reduce gun violence. There are a number of simple commonsense steps. I hope that the leadership in this Chamber will bring forward simple, commonsense gun violence provisions that passed the Senate and should find their way to the floor of this House. There are other examples of what we can do. Yesterday's Washington Post had an article about the smart gun technology that the Clinton administration has proposed to invest in, a gun that can only be fired by one authorized person. In Maryland, Governor Glendening is proposing that there only be sold smart guns in 3 years. Both of these proposals have merit and deserve serious attention by Congress and the Maryland Legislature. But there is another area that requires no massive legislation. And that is simple, for the Federal Government to lead by example to do what we are asking the rest of America to do. Mr. Speaker, every year, the government purchases thousands of weapons for the men and women in law enforcement. If we decreed that only smart guns would be purchased from this point forward, we could use the market forces, the vast potential for sales to government to encourage, to incent the private sector to provide that need. This is critical for men and women in law enforcement. One out of every six law enforcement officials who dies in the line of duty is killed by their own service revolver or by a service revolver of one of their colleagues. It would build a market for smart gun technology. It would send a signal that it is safe enough and important enough for law enforcement, that it is the right thing to do for private citizens. Every day in the United States, over a million children go home to homes where there are loaded guns that they have access to. There are over a third of a million firearm deaths every year in this country. If we take the simple, common sense approach to have smart gun technology available, we can make a significant step towards reducing that carnage. For the Federal Government, to lead by example, by putting its money where our mouth is, would be an important step. Mr. Speaker, and last, and by no means least, as I mentioned, I do hope that the leadership in this assembly will enable us to vote on the Senate-passed provisions to take those simple steps towards safe gun storage, reducing the magazine size for automatic weapons to 10 or fewer bullets, and having background checks at gun shows. These are things that can make our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I too would like to add my voice in appreciation as a member of this chamber for the leadership from the committee in terms of making sure that the United States' leadership in the area of information technology will be assured with the enactment of this legislation. This is an important step in the right direction. I wanted to reference simply two points that are of special interest to me. I appreciate the language in this legislation that would require the study of the encryption technologies that are available in foreign countries. I have often been concerned that our encryption policy in the United States in terms of export restrictions verged on the ludicrous. We were in danger having the potential of some Gameboy platforms running athwart our restrictions until recently by action of the administration. And having a rational study of what is available overseas, compare that to what is available here, trying to make this something that makes sense in the broader world stage is important, I think, for our constituents who are engaged ultimately in ways to make sure that we have maximum benefit of encryption technology in the United States and we do not put American companies at a disadvantage. Second, I appreciate and applaud the leadership of this committee trying to focus the need on having permanent research and development tax credit. This is something that makes a huge difference to industry in the long term looking over the long haul, something that industry can use to be able to make its research and development decisions. I hope that the legislative leadership in both Chambers will take seriously the message that has been delivered by the committee to make sure that this is made permanent so that industry can count upon it. I look forward to having a clean vote on this item before we adjourn. I think it would be overwhelmingly approved, it would be an important signal for our industry, and I think it is something that we no longer need to delay.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for people who care about livable communities, the D.C. metropolitan area is either a test case or a basket case; sometimes it is both. In terms of quality of life for the commuter, the experience in recent decades commands a horrid fascination. Between 1982 and 1994, there was a 69 percent increase in the time D.C. area commuters spent stuck in traffic. The average speed on the Beltway has decreased from 47 miles an hour to 23 miles per hour. In D.C., we are told that the average commuter spends 76 hours a year stuck in traffic; that is almost 10 working days sitting in the car absolutely immobile. In Northern Virginia this summer, nearly 1 out of every 3 days was in violation of ozone clean air standards. Mr. Speaker, of course, it is no secret that in this metropolitan area we are sprawling far more rapidly than we increase in population. From 1970 to 1990, Metropolitan Washington population grew 25 percent, yet the area that we consume increased over 60 percent. The suburbs here grew by a population of 18.3 percent while the District itself lost 17 percent of its residents. In the first 7 years of the 1990s, the District was hemorrhaging one person every hour. There are solutions which we know will not work; one is trying to simply pave our way out of congestion. The congestion in the United States will triple over the next 15 years, even if we increase capacity 20 percent. The same people who tell us that we have the second worst congestion in the country found that, despite roughly $30.8 billion spent by urban areas to add more vehicle lanes, congestion levels remained almost identical to urban areas that did not. Mr. Speaker, of course, here we do not have any thoughtful regional land use. But at an era of smart growth, we seem to be continuing to engage in dumb growth, like putting a massive stadium with huge public subsidy out in the middle of nowhere where it is virtually inaccessible any way other than by car and then being surprised when on opening day it is jammed and some people actually are abandoning their cars to get to the game. We continue to scatter development throughout the region away from Metro stations and designated growth sites. There are things that can, in fact, work and make a difference. Last week in Atlanta, Transportation Secretary Rodney Slater launched the Commuter Choice Initiative, a program that was created in TEA-21 to provide $65 a month in tax-free transit or vanpool benefits for employees in both the private and the public sector. While this effort is a step in the right direction, we in Congress need to make sure that the Federal Government leads by example. Unfortunately, here in our congested metropolitan area, there is no uniform program or policy for our Federal employees, yet 350,000 Federal employees make up the majority of people who work here in and near transit. There is no uniform parking or commuter policy across the Federal Government. The costs and subsidy for parking varies, different levels of transit subsidy. Mr. Speaker, the administration is looking at an Executive order for Federal transportation in the National Capital region. This Executive order that they are looking at would require each Federal agency in the region to support transit and commercial vanpool benefits, to increase carpool and vanpool benefits, encourage bicycle and walking and provide shuttle service between transits points and agency workplaces where appropriate. Last week, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) introduced legislation that would make this happen much faster via the legislative route. His bill would expand Federal employee commuter options and accept the Federal Government's responsibility as the single largest employer in the Capital region to reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. Mr. Speaker, I am excited about the gentleman from Virginia's leadership and the way that the administration is moving. I hope, however it is done, that we do not let an extra minute go by. People who are caught in traffic as we speak this moment deserve the best from the Federal Government to make our communities more livable, to make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure. Having a uniform comprehensive approach to the Federal Government's transportation issues in the metropolitan region is an important step in that direction.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in 5 short minutes, when I sit down, there will be 6 more Californians. Twenty-four hours from now, 1,700 people will either be born or move to the Golden State. This continued relentless growth, coupled with patterns of unplanned development, congestion, pollution, and the loss of open space has created a backlash in our Golden State. The front page of the Sunday New York Times yesterday contained a dramatic example of the controversy surrounding a huge development, the Newhall Ranch in the Los Angeles area, and what it represents for their community. The struggle to manage growth properly is a key concern for all Americans, but the implications for California are critical. Just as families across America watched on Disneyland the progress on the Walt Disney Show every Sunday night for weeks during the mid-1950s, America has been watching the struggle to manage developed area in our Nation's largest State. In the Los Angeles area alone, from 1970 to 1990, the developed area tripled to encompass an area the size of the State of Connecticut, growing six times faster than the growth in population. This explosive growth is not just limited to Southern California. It has created a crisis in livability in the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, and the Central Valley, home to America's most precious farmland, arguably. Fresno County produces more agricultural product than 24 States combined. Yet, if the projections to triple its population with the current land uses are realized, there will be a million acres of farmland lost. Since 90 percent of all of California's agricultural output is near the urban fringe, this has critical implications all across the State. California has many examples of smart growth initiatives led by individuals like State Treasurer Phil Angelinas and his insightful report detailing how California State government can invest in smart growth. There are communities that have taken in their own hands to establish limits on urban growth and protect their natural resources through local initiatives. The Silicon Valley Manufacturers Association for years has identified as the top priority for this business group affordable housing, protection of open space and transportation. The wildly successful and popular Coastal Zone Management Program is an example of sound land-use planning in the State of California, but what the State does not have is a statewide framework that would assure that every local government does its job and that nobody can grow at the expense of their neighbors. It is time that the voters or the State legislature provide the same thoughtful framework for the rest of the State. Californians should also insist that Congress not stand idly by as they struggle to maintain the livability of their State. Candidly, many of Congress' well-intended programs in the past, from massive water projects to the interstate freeway system, have fueled California's explosive growth and some of the problems. There are simple steps that we can take here in Congress. We should require that the substantial sums of Federal money for infrastructure and water projects, road transit, should be spent only after careful planning and analysis to protect community resources and the environment. The Federal Government should increase its investment in brownfield cleanup through subsidy low-interest loans and tax incentives and continue efforts to reform the brownfield and Superfund cleanup process. The Federal Government should reform the flood insurance program, passing a little piece of legislation that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I call two-floods-and-you-are-out-of-the-taxpayers'- pocket so that the Federal Government no longer subsidizes people living where God has repeatedly shown that he does not want them. The Federal Government should be leading by example, whether protecting the vast Federal resources like Yosemite Park, treating it like a livable community or leading by example by making sure that the post office obeys local land-use laws, zoning codes, and environmental laws. The California experience is just one more example of why every politician in the year 2000 should have a program to promote livable communities, what the government can do to be a better partner to make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in allowing me to speak on this presentation. Just 3 months ago, this Congress left Washington, having passed a budget that none of us could take pride in, a budget filled with gimmicks, so-called emergency spending, and special interest earmarks. Now we are starting off this new session on the same track of fiscal irresponsibility and unresponsiveness to what Americans tell us are the real issues. The one difference is that instead of a single massive tax cut along the lines that the America public turned a cold shoulder to last year and is still being proposed by Republican front runner Governor Bush, the majority in Congress is pursuing a piecemeal strategy of the same thing. They are offering last year's rejected tax bill, only repackaged in a few smaller chunks. Today's so-called marriage tax reform is the first piece. Instead of targeting tax relief to the people who need it most, this bill is replete with other special-interest provisions that will cost almost $200 billion over the next 10 years. Only half the proposed tax benefits go to the tax filers who currently pay the marriage penalty. Ironically, this bill does nothing to address the growing problems of working families being forced to pay the alternative minimum tax. In short, the majority's approach is to spend more money than we need or can afford in order to help people who need it the least, while it shortchanges those most in need: the working poor and lower-income families who have seen their incomes actually fall by about 10 percent. The Democratic alternative takes a different approach. It is targeted towards those people who need help the most. It doubles the standard deduction, adjusts the AMT so that families will receive the full benefit of the standard deduction, and addresses the marriage penalty and the earned income tax credit, providing greater relief for the working poor and, therefore, poor families. Not only targeting will help those who need it the most, it will save money, money that we can use to pay down the debt, protect Social Security and Medicare, and fund what my constituency tells me are their priorities: education, environmental protection, and prescription drug benefits. I hope we can start working together today to make our tax system fairer and help those who need it the most.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, just three months ago, this Congress left Washington, having passed a budget none of us could take pride in, a budget filled with gimmicks, so-called emergency spending and special interest earmarks. Now we are starting off this new session on the same track of fiscal irresponsibility and unresponsiveness to real issues. The one difference is that, instead of a single massive tax cut along the lines of that rejected by the American public last year and still proposed by the Republican front-runner, the majority in Congress is pursuing a piecemeal strategy. They are offering last year's rejected tax bill, only repackaged in smaller chunks. Today's so-called marriage tax reform is the first piece. Instead of targeting tax relief to the people who need it most, this bill is replete with other special interest provisions that will cost almost $200 billion over the next ten years. Only about half the proposed tax benefit goes to tax filers who currently pay a marriage penalty. Even less relief goes to those most in need, since about 70 percent of the benefits will go to couples earning more than $70,000 per year. Ironically, this bill does nothing to address the growing problems of working families being forced to pay the Alternative Minimum Tax. In short, the majority's approach is to spend more money than we need or can afford in order to help the people who need help the least, while it shortchanges those who need help the most--the working poor and lower income families, who have seen their income fallen by about 9 percent. The Democratic alternative takes a different approach. It is targeted toward the people who most need help. It doubles the standard deduction, adjusts the AMT so that families will receive the full benefit of the standard deduction, and addresses the marriage penalty in the EITC, providing greater relief for the working poor and near- poor families. Not only will targeting aid this way help those who need it most, it will save money--money that we can use to pay down the debt, protect Social Security and Medicare, and fund what my constituents tell me are their priorities: education, environmental protection and prescription drug benefits. This is what the American people want, what is needed in my district, and above all, something could be accomplished in a heartbeat with no partisan rancor. I hope we can start working together today to make our tax system fairer and to help people who need it most.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Virginia legislature just said no to the citizens' efforts to try and control the problems of livability in their community. It is sad that the new leadership in Virginia just does not get it. Smart growth is good for the economy. It helps declining and distressed areas, and it does not force the Hobson's choice of dumb growth. But the State of Virginia refuses to deal meaningfully with the transportation and finance problems on a State level and at the same time, refuses to give local governments tools to handle it themselves. I hope that the citizens of Virginia, as I hope that citizens around the country, will hold each elected official responsible on all levels for their efforts to give the tools to make sure that our communities are more livable so our citizens can be healthy, economically secure and safe.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the issue of the livable communities will be one of the dominant themes in the year 2000 election. It is not altogether clear to me that the pollsters, pundits, and consultants fully understand the depth of this issue and what it means to American families. The reason it will be an issue is not because it is being driven by the national level, although I do appreciate the leadership of the administration and Vice President Gore. This is an issue that is being driven from the grassroots. Many of us are aware that in 1998 there were over 240 State and local ballot measures nationwide that dealt with issues of open space, land use planning, and environmental protection and transportation. Seventy-two percent of these measures passed involving spending of over $7.5 billion; even in the relatively quiet so-called off year of 1999, the drumbeat continued. There were 139 ballot measures with a 77 percent approval rating. The media coverage of the term ``smart growth,'' which is probably the best proxy of livable communities, rose from 101 citations in 1996 to over 2,700 citations in 1999. Why is this? People know that the past patterns of development are simply not sustainable. From 1992 to 1997, we just learned a couple of weeks ago that over 16 million acres of farm and forest land were lost to development, an area larger than the State of West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we as a Nation are sprawling faster than we increase in population. In the last 5 years, the population grew by 5 percent, while developed land area increased 18 percent. In fact, we are seeing communities around the country that are actually losing population, yet are gobbling up land at a 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent rate in a decade. This means that wetlands in the United States are disappearing at a rate of 54,000 acres annually, despite our good intentions, despite some protections that are being built in. At the same time, we are becoming increasingly dependent on foreign oil. Petroleum prices have tripled in the last few months. Drivers in the Washington, D.C. metro area waste 116 gallons of fuel each year simply waiting in traffic. We know that we can do better than forcing the average commuter to spend more than 50 workdays a year behind the wheel of his or her car just to get to work. Livability does not have to be a casualty of gridlock in Washington, nor does it have to become a partisan issue. There is no reason we cannot embrace as a Congress some of the administration's specific recommendations for livable communities, in transportation funding, for better America bonds. We can as a Congress embrace the bipartisan legislation that is coming forward by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There is no reason that we cannot see the enactment of terrific legislation, if I do say so myself, the two-floods-and-you- are-out of the taxpayer pocket that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and I are working on to reform our national flood insurance program, to help people and not promote and subsidize the degradation of our environment. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the public knows we can do a lot better, it is time for the Federal Government to be a full partner in that effort of promoting livable communities. I am looking forward to bringing to this floor proposals this year that will make our families safe, healthy, and economically secure, maybe something as radical as requiring the post office to obey the same land use, environmental and planning regulations as the rest of America. Promoting livable communities is not rocket science. It is definitely our job. I urge the Congress to take a bit of a break from some of what occupies our attention day in and day out and think about ways that we can make our families safer, healthier, more economically secure, while saving money and protecting the environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as the voters of New Hampshire salvage some dignity from the presidential nominating process, it was keenly observed in Oregon by Monroe Sweetland, the father of Oregon's modern Democratic Party. Last month in Portland, we gathered to celebrate his 90th birthday. Although a partisan Democrat, he was introduced at this gathering by his good friend, Republican Senator Mark Hatfield. Monroe was a confidant of Eleanor Roosevelt and ally of President Truman. He was in Indonesia during ``the year of living dangerously'' and then returned to the United States to be political director for Western States of the NEA for over a decade. Monroe is a journalist, State senator, and small businessman who last year ran a very competitive race for State senate. Legally blind for years, his slogan was that his eyesight may be dim, but his vision is clear. I am proud of the many contributions of this great man and look forward to his next decade of public service. He shows how politics should be conducted while living life to the fullest.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against the Omnibus Budget Agreement because it continues a pattern of budgeting which I feel undermines the confidence and credibility of the American public in one of the most important congressional responsibilities we have--managing the people's money. I opposed the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement because it was clear there was no intention of implementing it. It was a ruse. Last year, there was $35 billion in excess spending at the last minute omnibus bill. This year, there is no more time for analysis, and the amount of money that is being gimmicked, manipulated and spent in violation of the budget rules is up to $45 billion. While there is much in the bill that I support, and while it has been made better due to heroic efforts on the part of the Administration and the House Democratic leadership, it still falls far short of the mark to which Congress should be accountable. I continue to hope that the day will come when the budget process is transparent, not larded with unfortunate spending decisions and is done in a fashion that both Congress and the people we represent can follow what we're doing. Until that day, I feel it appropriate to vote no.