Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, on the front page of newspapers across America today there is another sad episode, this time in Alabama, of reckless behavior on the road, talking about road rage where a woman killed another after a traffic confrontation. The story in this morning's Post is replete with examples of how their lives were stressed as a result of unplanned growth, congestion, traffic and sprawl in their community. Last week, I discussed at some length on the floor of this Chamber the very real health implications of unplanned growth across America. Before Congress adjourns, I think it is important for us to reflect on the fact that how we plan and build our community makes a huge difference, and I think it important for us to reflect on it here in the Washington, D.C. capital area. While I personally welcome the attention that has been received by the District of Columbia in activities recently for the District, it is not enough for us to focus on livability just as it relates to Washington, D.C. We need to be thinking broadly about the health and livability of the entire 17-government region in metropolitan Washington, D.C. We cannot separate the health of our region from larger issues. Citizens throughout this region, as I meet with them, are asking themselves the right questions. Is it not possible for people in our Nation's capital to think more comprehensively about land use and transportation and put those pieces together in a thoughtful way? Is it possible to avoid the obvious disconnect between massive infrastructure investments and access, like we have seen the marvelous front page stories and pictures where the Redskins stadium has inspired massive gridlock, traffic congestion and frustration? People are asking whether or not the Federal Government cannot be leading by example here in metropolitan areas, using the resources and presence of the Federal Government to make a difference? People are asking, is it not possible in the metropolitan capital region for us to take a tiny percentage of the revenues that are generated from new development and growth to help solve regional problems on a regional basis? Why do we not, in this region, recognize that unbalanced growth, when high activity on the western end and the decline in the eastern portion of the region has huge negative implications for both areas? There is a marvelous document that has been prepared by the Brookings Institution Center for Urban and Metropolitan Policy called A Region Divided, a Study of Growth in Greater Washington, D.C. It documents the great strengths that we have in the capital region, the wealth, the booming economy, the affordable housing, the brain power, and the unifying forces that we have with the Federal Government, the media, the historical context, but we are currently a region divided, as documented by this report. I hope that as we in Congress begin a new year, that every Member in the House and Senate, as they review their agenda to make America better, will review this report and reflect on ways that we can help make our capital region one of America's most livable communities where our families are safe, healthy and economically secure.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, a livable community is one where families are safe, healthy and economically secure. While much attention is given to the damage that unplanned growth can have to the physical environment, the physical blight, traffic congestion, loss of open space, wildlife habitat, it is clear that a community that is not livable can also have direct impacts on the physical and psychological health of families as well. Just this week, the South Coast Air Quality Management District in Southern California released a report documenting the danger to people breathing the toxic air that is concentrated near southern California's congested freeways. This danger has increased the risk of cancer. People today are increasingly concerned about the soaring rates of asthma among our children which clearly appears related to the toxins we are putting into the air. Recently, there was an article that I found amusing in the Washington Post, about how some people really enjoy the real long commute. It helps them center themselves and prepare for a long day. I suppose that may be true for some, but when the average American spends more than 50 work days a year trapped behind the wheel of a car, just getting to and from their occupation, and when we have lost 43 more hours in the last 5 years to commuting, there are direct implications. I would venture that for a much larger number the commute to work is not the highlight of their day. The National Sleep Foundation has reported that the 158 hours added to the yearly work commutes since 1969 have been subtracted from the time many Americans sleep. Carol Rodriguez, director of the Institute of Stress Medicine in Norwalk, Connecticut, observed that people with lengthy commutes often exhibit signs of stress in the workplace. Marriage and family counselors in the Bay Area see patients struggling with the increased demands and stress placed upon them from their longer work commutes. This struggle is manifesting itself in family problems and even divorce. It has been noted that divorce itself is no longer a reliever to the stress of long commutes and separation because often, after a family breaks up, the difficulties of two households in coordinating the needs of children and employment are usually greater in terms of time and miles driven to hold things together. The job-related problems where employers increasingly, in congested communities, never seem to know when their employees are going to show up, seems tame by comparison. One of the most interesting developments may be found in a report from the Center for Disease Control and prevention on increasing obesity rates in the United States. Rates have been increasing since 1991 all across America, but there was particular concern about an increase of over 101 percent in Georgia. In 1991, when the study began, metropolitan Atlanta had one of the lowest obesity rates. What is the reason for the increase? Some blame the traditional southern diet, which it is true is often high in fat, but the South's diet is not that much different than the rest of the country today. In any case, it certainly does not explain why Georgia has the worst problem than the rest of the South. It is interesting that the researcher placed part of the blame on the problems that metropolitan Atlanta is facing as the community has become less and less livable. The skyrocketing obesity rates coincide exactly with the explosion of unplanned growth around metropolitan Atlanta which some claim is the highest growth rate in history. Dr. William Deats, one of the study's co-authors, points out that the time in the car encourages not just more fast food, it eats into the time for exercise. Others have noticed that Atlanta's unplanned growth has shortchanged the opportunities for outdoor exercise. It is not a walkable community. Sidewalks do not lead anywhere and even if people had the time and a place to exercise, the increasingly bad air makes the benefits of exercise problematic. It is important for us to reflect on why the political landscape is being influenced by the discussion of livable communities and why it is such a major issue. It seems at some level the American public understands that their health, both emotional and physical, of the family, the ability to be fit, reduce stress, adequate sleep and for the family to live together is one of the first casualties if a community is not livable. I strongly urge my colleagues to join with me in making sure that this session of Congress does its job for the Federal Government to be a better partner in maintaining and enhancing the livability of American communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, last week we discussed on the floor of this Chamber the impact that the livable communities movement will have on the 1999 elections, as well as the year 2000. It was clearly a critical factor in the elections held just last week. It was my privilege this weekend to visit with hundreds of people in New Jersey which confirmed this realization that such will be the case in the year 2000, as well. New Jersey, Madam Speaker, is the most densely populated of our States, over 8 million people in such a tiny area. I learned that part of New Jersey in the 12th Congressional District, represented by our colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), is more densely populated than India. Yet, New Jersey is known as the Garden State. And while that may be hard for some to comprehend, it made perfect sense to me as I traveled through the beautiful New Jersey countryside. Citizens of this State are under no illusions when it comes to the challenge they face in preserving their livability. It was my privilege to hear those challenges discussed at great length while participating in a forum sponsored by Rutgers University and The Courier Times newspaper on the future of South Jersey. The session took place in Camden, literally in the shadows of the City of Philadelphia, and it clearly illustrated the problems and opportunities for their region. Issues of racial relations and poverty intersected with redevelopment opportunities, affordable housing with its rich history. Several hundred citizens spent their day focusing on how to craft a vision for their community and how to implement it into action. It was truly inspirational. I look forward to following their progress in their continuing effort to shape and put in place their vision for South Jersey. Later that day I had the opportunity to participate in a series of forums organized by our colleague the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). Monmouth County, which is a large part of his district, will likely receive at least 10 percent of the million new people who are expected to be added to New Jersey's population over the next 20 years, over 100,000 people. The conversation, here again, along with the depth of the commitment, was inspirational. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and his staff had organized visits with several hundred people at four different meetings. They were willing to spend a significant amount of their time on a gorgeous fall afternoon to talk indoors about the future of their communities. People understood that it was not just enough for New Jersey to be home to the Pines Barrens and have laws on the books. There must actually be a commitment to protect and enhance the million acres of this unique treasure, which some argue is the most significant resource of its kind east of the Mississippi River. People understood that it was not enough for New Jersey's 566 municipalities to merely be planned and zoned. Those efforts must be reinforced and related to their other partners in their region and then, in turn, harmonized with surrounding regions. Local interests dominated by the vision of local control will fail. Local control is not meeting their needs today and will be even less effective in the future. I carried away great optimism for the future of New Jersey, in part because of the State's bipartisan leadership: The Republican governor, whose second inaugural theme was a livable New Jersey, has entered into an agreement with her administration and a local watchdog agency, New Jersey Future, to monitor New Jersey's executive order on sustainability. The goals and indicators are already in place with benchmarks to follow. And with a congressional advocate like the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), who did not just organize an impressive series of meetings, he has empaneled his own advisory committee on growth management and the environment while here in Congress he is providing leadership on livable communities. Livability will be on the national agenda for the year 2000 election and beyond, and it is clear to me New Jersey will be helping lead that charge.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday on the floor of this assembly I spoke about the sleeper issue in the 2000 election that was emerging in the ballot initiatives across the country. The ballot results are in. We need look no further than northern Virginia to see that growth and livable communities, quality of life, are becoming the emerging issue. Even the Virginia victory by the Republicans in the legislature was due to more than a huge infusion of campaign money. Republican candidates took moderate positions on gun violence, unplanned growth, and transportation. We do not have to wait to the year 2000 election. I strongly urge my Republican colleagues to embrace these elements of livable communities: hiring more teachers, police, reducing gun violence, and giving communities the mechanisms to manage growth. America will be the winner.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today the issue for the 2000 election is being previewed from coast to coast, that experts term a sleeper issue, hidden just below the surface. That issue, Mr. Speaker, is a welcome change from the nasty and sometimes incomprehensible partisan politics that have characterized contemporary campaigns. The issue instead is one that is positive, inclusive, that brings people together rather than driving them apart for partisan advantage. That issue, of course, is related to livable communities. How do we make our families safe, healthy and economically secure? Here in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, we in Congress have been witness just across the river in Northern Virginia to a variety of spirited campaigns. The hot button issues of these campaigns have been transportation, congestion, air pollution, unplanned growth and gun violence. At the other end of the country, there are a variety of initiatives that are local responses to the State of California's refusal to have planned State-wide growth management in place. Citizens want more control and predictability. In the State of Colorado, voters are increasingly concerned about the quality of life issues facing metropolitan Denver. This is understandable when we realize that just a couple of years ago, Colorado citizens discovered that the plans for their urbanized metropolitan Denver would sprawl more than a thousand square miles. That is bigger than Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose and Long Beach combined. Today with even a modestly pared down growth management approach and voluntary compliance, Denver is facing a significant referendum for both highway construction and, paired with a light rail referendum, both are expected to pass. In the State of New Jersey, the State-wide Transportation and Local Bridge Bond Act of 1999 will be public question number 1 on Tuesday's ballot. This is coming hard on the heels of Governor Christine Todd Whitman's pronouncement that the theme of her second term as governor would be livable New Jersey. The already-approved open space bond in New Jersey has received strong support from transit and environmental groups. The New Jersey transportation Commissioner James Weinstein has pledged repeatedly that the dollars from this bond measure will be directed towards fixing existing infrastructure and not used to add new sprawl and traffic-inducing projects. Greg Meyer of the tri-State transportation campaign was quoted as saying, ``If you build it, they will come. If you fix it, they will remain. Preserving the transportation we have already got is the means to focus growth in already-developed areas without encouraging sprawl in the fringe. The bond plan follows this principle.'' Mr. Speaker, time does not permit me to deal with even the highlights of initiatives in Arizona, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas or Washington State. I do want to note that the State of Wisconsin just enacted the ``growing smart'' law, which is that State's first comprehensive growth management act. As one who came to Congress dedicated to having the Federal Government promote closer relations promoting livability, being a better partner, I am excited by what we are seeing from coast to coast. It is time for us in Congress to do our part, whether it is making the post office obey local land use laws and zoning codes, having the Federal Government lead by example with GSA or fully funding the Land and Water Conservation Act or reforming the national flood insurance program so that we no longer are subsidizing people who are living where God does not want them. I am looking forward to seeing the results of today's election and I am excited for the election to come, because I think livability issues will continue to be the issues that Americans care about, and once again the citizens will be leading the political leaders.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is offered on behalf of myself, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). The supporters of this legislation have every right to attempt to ban assisted suicide or to promote the pain management in this country. Unfortunately, the legislation that we have been offered today is the worst of both worlds. It does not just trample on States rights, but it most assuredly does so, effectively overturning legislation that has been approved, not just once, but twice by the citizens of Oregon. In addition, the physicians that I represent in Oregon tell me that, regardless of their position on physician-assisted suicide, it will make it much, much harder to manage pain, allowing additional second- guessing of their professional judgments as they seek to meet the needs of their patients. I sincerely believe that virtually nobody outside this Beltway wants to criminalize doctor-patient decisions of this most sensitive manner. Tough decisions are made every day in hospitals all across the country, withdrawing life support, and sometimes, in instances, withdrawing drugs that can, in fact, hasten death. There are some tragic cases that involve actual suicide. Outside of Oregon, people are often driven to desperate acts alone, seeking to insulate their families from the trauma. We have heard repeatedly in the course of this discussion that pain management is a serious problem around the country. But most often in this country, as these decisions are made in quiet, most of America looks the other way and ignores the difficulty and the trauma. The citizens of Oregon have taken a difficult decision to help deal with these end-of-life questions, providing the only framework in the United States. Those of us who listened to the debate on the floor of this assembly heard very eloquent statements by my colleagues about how they arrived as individual citizens in making the decision to vote on that measure themselves, the eloquence of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) from Hood River talking about very personal instances that affected his family. Twice Oregonians have decided this is the way they want to go. Despite all the rhetoric about opening the flood gates for physician- assisted suicide, such has not been the case. There are only 15 cases last year in Oregon, and in fact the research suggests and common sense would reinforce that when we give people, their families, and their physicians control over the situation, they are less likely to take desperate and unfortunate action. The ironic approach that is taken by the supporters of this legislation may actually lead to an increase, if they are successful, in suicide in my State but without the framework. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that Members of this assembly move this bill back to committee to strip away the provisions that would criminalize the decisions that are made by physicians exercising their professional judgment on how best to meet the needs and wishes of their patients and the patients' families, and that we would exempt States which have, by a vote of their citizens, squarely addressed this issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. BLUMENAUER. In its present form, Mr. Speaker, I am.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday the House will consider H.R. 2260, called the Pain Relief Promotion Act. The legislation is seriously misnamed and is designed simply to undercut Oregon's death with dignity law. I find it ironic, because nobody outside the Beltway is interested in criminalizing doctors' decisions that deal with some of the most profound and difficult that they will ever make. In fact, every day in America we see instances where life support is withdrawn; every day in America drugs are administered to alleviate pain which actually hasten the onset of death; every day in America some drugs are withheld which cause a shock to the system and in turn cause death; every day in America there are some very tragic incidents where people are driven to desperate acts because they cannot control their situation, often painful and traumatic for their families, occasionally involving actual suicide. Most of America looks the other way. My State of Oregon has taken the lead to try and provide a framework for these end-of-life decisions. Oregon voters have not once but twice approved a thoughtful approach to give patients, their doctors and families more control under these most difficult of circumstances. Despite the dire predictions of a tidal wave of assisted suicide, the evidence suggests that when people actually have control in these difficult situations, the knowledge that they have such control means that they are less likely to use assisted suicide. In fact, last year it appears that there were only 15 cases in Oregon. But with the legislation that is proposed under H.R. 2260, doctors are going to have to fear being second-guessed by prosecutors, police and nonmedical drug enforcement bureaucrats on a case-by-case basis, for the very initial section of that bill points out that prescribing pain medication can often hasten death. But that is okay under this bill, as long as the intent is pure. In essence, it means that the doctors are going to be caught looking over their shoulders, having each and every one of their decisions subject to second-guessing and potentially subjected to life in prison if the intent appears in the judgment of others to be wrong. This is another sad example of where politicians are out of step with Americans on key personal health issues. I find of great interest one other area that sort of indicates where we are going. The medical use of marijuana was approved by eight States before last year. Six other States had their voters approve it and the District of Columbia. Citizens are indicating that they want more freedom to have pain managed and have personal control. I think it would be sad if this Congress decided to penalize the one State that is trying not to sweep it under the rug but provide a framework for making these decisions. I strongly urge my colleagues to make a careful examination of H.R. 2260. They will find why the Oregon Medical Association, the associations of eight other States, the American Nurses Association and the American Academy of Family Physicians have all urged its rejection. If you want to outlaw assisted suicide, go ahead and do it if you must, but certainly we should not subject our physicians to criminalization of their basic medical decisions.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the most important act that we can do to promote livable communities on behalf of the Federal Government is simply to lead by example. There are 65 million Americans who cycle. A simple four-mile round trip on a bicycle saves 15 pounds of air pollution. Members of this assembly have the opportunity to help lead by example by joining the Bicycle Caucus Tuesday morning with Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater and the Washington Area Bicycle Association for a ribbon cutting for the new metropolitan branch trail. If you do not have a bike, Member of Congress, let us know and we will loan you one for the event. You will have fun. Join the bicycle caucus, do right for America. As we hear the battling here on the floor, this is an activity that is ``bike'' partisan. I think it will be good for us all to get on two wheels and inaugurate that trail.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week H.R. 2260, the so-called Pain Relief Promotion Act will be brought to the floor of this chamber. The bill's supporters say passage will result in more humane treatment of terminally-ill patients. Tragically, they are mistaken. This bill's passage will do two things. It will overturn Oregon's death with dignity law, and it will undermine the rights of States to establish medical standards. It also puts law enforcement agencies in the position of second-guessing one of the most difficult medical decisions faced by doctors: how to best alleviate the pain terminally- ill patients suffer, whether or not that treatment involves life-ending decision-making. Congress is frequently put in a position of judging whether to intervene in the States' decisions. Some judgments are relatively easy to make. For example, we now have reached the point where most people are comfortable with the Federal Government protecting against racial discrimination. Such was not always the case. Many decisions, however, are very much in a gray area, which some choose, unfortunately, to use for political reasons. One such gray area, the issues that affect the end-of-life decisions, is not only difficult but personal. In my State of Oregon we have struggled, debated, and agonized with this issue throughout the last decades. The end-of-life issue is a very complex one. With the advent of new medical technologies, it is becoming even more challenging. There are a wide range of moral and medical issues associated with end-of-life decisions, but none that require Federal interference. Yet Congress is being asked to pass legislation that would undermine a law passed and subsequently upheld not once but twice by a vote of the citizens of Oregon. Now, our death with dignity legislation is still a work in progress, but the preliminary evidence suggests that this option may actually reduce the incidence of suicide. Rather than having a flood of people to our State to take advantage of the provisions of the law, it appears that individuals having the knowledge that they, their families, and their doctor can control this situation, gives them a sense of peace and contentment that enables many to move forward, enduring the pain and the difficulty without resorting to taking their own life. It may actually reduce the incidence of suicide. As Americans struggle with these issues, mostly hidden from public view, it is important that we not have the personal tragedy, that agony, that frustration made more difficult by laws that ignore the range of legitimate medical choices. There are some very serious technical problems with this legislation. It would interfere with the practice of medicine, of pharmacy, of pain management in ways that can have a profound effect on the rights that many in America take for granted. This is why a large number of medical professionals have come forward in opposition to this legislation. This bill asks law enforcement agencies, not doctors, law enforcement agencies, to make, on a case-by-case basis, judgment as to whether a doctor intended a terminally-ill patient's death while trying to alleviate pain. Asking nonmedical personnel to determine a doctor's intent and subsequent causal connection is neither appropriate nor is it even practical. The threat of these investigations can have a chilling effect open the treatment of pain. Now, at the same time, some medical boards can and have imposed sanctions on doctors, including in Oregon, for not treating pain aggressively enough. So here we have put physicians in an impossible situation: On one hand nonmedical activities second-guessing them and being sanctioned; on the other hand for not being aggressive enough. Today, doctors help deal with end-of-life decisions everywhere in America; and, in some cases, I guaranty that every day in America there are the equivalent of physician-assisted suicides. In every State but Oregon people look the other way. Oregon stands out because we have at least attempted to provide a framework. If this misguided legislation were to be passed, ironically, Oregon, the only State with guidelines where we are trying to deal with it, would be subjected to extraordinary scrutiny. Elsewhere, people would continue to look the other way. I strongly urge the defeat of this ironically termed Pain Relief Promotion Act before it undermines not only the will of the people of Oregon, but also before it damages the sanctity of the doctor-patient decision-making process and erodes quality end-of-life medical treatment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am pleased to support this legislation. I appreciate what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) mentioned in some detail on the floor, and I shall not repeat the pattern of illegal operations that we are seeing across the country. What is important here is that we have legislation that for the first time is going to provide some real teeth, being able to take people who have a pattern of illegal operation in this country, in many cases they are unsafe and environmentally not sound, being able to take these operations out of service. There is an opportunity now to strengthen the provisions so that we make sure that the civil penalties that sometimes people are simply ignoring can in fact be enforced, and a pattern of offenses can result in a significant fine of $25,000 and that they will be disqualified. I do not think that this is an issue necessarily that deals with free trade or not. I think this is one area where people on both sides of NAFTA, for instance, can come together. This is simple, common-sense enforcement of our motor carrier laws, standing up for what is important for our motorists, for the environment. In fact, I think that people who had supported NAFTA have even more reason to stand up, because if we are not providing this type of enforcement, it makes a sham out of the representations that are made that are in good faith on this floor in bringing this legislation forward. Last but not least, I like the notion of disarming people who are not appropriately operating vehicles in this country. I feel that if we take this philosophy further, I think nothing would solve the problem of repeat drunk drivers more than taking the cars away, selling them, getting their attention, the same way that taking these trucks out of service, taking these vehicles out of service will get their attention. It is a simple, common-sense approach that I think the American public would support, with broad application, and I hope that it will prove to be effective here and will be able to be used in other areas of making our highways safer and making sure that people obey our laws.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hate Crime Prevention Act, and I strongly urge the Commerce-State-Justice conferees to include this important legislation in their conference report. Since I was first elected to Congress, I have been focusing on the issues of livable communities, how we can create better partnerships between the Federal Government, State and local governments, private business and individual citizens to make our communities more livable. This means, in sum, communities that are safe, healthy and economically secure. If people are not safe from discrimination, the community is definitely not livable. I have been a strong supporter of anti-discrimination efforts throughout my public service career. As a member of the Oregon State House of Representatives way back in 1973 I had an eye opening experience when I had the opportunity to chair the legislature's first hearing on the issue of gay rights. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act is an excellent opportunity for the Federal Government to continue a trend over the last 50 years of moving aggressively to deal with issues of antidiscrimination. Since 1969, the Federal Government has had the ability to prosecute hate crimes if that crime was motivated by bias based on race, religion, national origin or color and if that victim was attempting to exercise a federally protected right. The law has, in fact, proven to be a valuable tool in the fight against hate crimes, but unfortunately these hate crimes are still a part of the American landscape, and sometimes the language of the current federal statute is simply too narrowly drawn. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act would make a critical amendment to the law, removing the requirement that the activity be, quote, federally protected and adds sexual orientation, gender and disability as covered categories. As I said, there are still hate crimes among us. In 1997 there were over 8,000 that were reported. I have had the opportunity to witness firsthand that there are real faces attached to those statistics. One of the most searing experiences in our community occurred about 10 years ago when three Ethiopian immigrants were attacked in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, one beaten to death solely because of the color of their skin. I think our hearts all went out to the families of the victims, but there were more victims than the immediate family. Sadly I was acquainted with a family of one of the people, the skin heads, who were convicted of that murder, a young man who will spend the rest of his life behind bars, tearing up his family, and indeed the whole community was touched with the awful knowledge that something of that nature could occur in our midst. If we can send clear signals that hate crimes are not acceptable, we can do more than just convict those who are guilty. If with these strong signals we can prevent these horrible crimes from happening in the first place, we will be making our communities more livable. I hope that my colleagues will join in the cosponsorship of the Hate Crime Prevention Act and that they will all prevail upon the conferees of Commerce-State-Justice to move this important process forward by including the legislation in the conference report.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. That would not fall under the scope of the Menendez amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. The intent is to protect American interests, sources of information.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I can understand where the intent we both agree is not to impede or delay.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. If there are, in fact, national interests that would prevent it being in the public benefit to have this widely disseminated, would OPIC be able to use such information under the operation of this amendment? If so, who would determine what goes in the Federal record and what does not?

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to clarify is that this has created hundreds of jobs in depressed central Oregon. It may theoretically have displaced one job someplace in the United States. I understand the Rohrabacher amendment would kill what we have done in this small mill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the debate here today, and I hope that we have some degree of context as we are moving forward dealing with what I think is a very important program for America and for people in the State that I represent, Oregon. I have been trying to understand the gist behind the amendments from the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). I have talked to OPIC; I have tried to get a feeling for what it is, in fact, we should be doing. Along with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) I had the opportunity to spend some time earlier this year in Indonesia, and as we hear the two speakers that have addressed themselves to this amendment now and where it takes us, I feel that it is important to take a deep breath. I have no objection I guess per se to the language that has been offered, but there is the subtext here that somehow OPIC is not being responsive; that somehow that these things can simply be moved along very slick and easy; and that somehow someplace off in the bureaucracy there is somebody who is inappropriately holding things up. It seems to me that when we are dealing with OPIC's ability to process claims, which is the concern, I think, that has prompted the gentleman from Nebraska's amendment, or maybe there may be more here, that one has to appreciate what OPIC has to do in order to be fair to the businesses that are involved, to be fair to the taxpayer, because as has been pointed out by our other friend from Nebraska, this is an operation that, in fact, has not lost any taxpayer money at all, and in fact this year is going to be surplusing money. Mr. Chairman, part of what they have done in terms of hitting the balance has been careful processing of claims of this nature. They have got something like a 95 percent recovery rate. I think it is important that we not assume that the people in the organization are not, in fact, processing these in an orderly fashion, that dealing with a country like Indonesia where we have multiple interests and our friends at OPIC are not just dealing with one company, but they are dealing with fashioning a record in a country that is in turmoil, and I am sure they are being pushed on by people from other agencies, from the State Department or from Treasury. We have issues that people on this floor have been concerned with, and we have other national interests that we are trying to do in stabilizing the situation in Indonesia to try and play that in a sophisticated and thoughtful fashion. Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that, as we are dealing with this language that people are making assertions about the behavior of our friends at OPIC, that taking a step back, taking a deep breath, appreciating the difficult position they are in, caught between people on one hand who refuse to acknowledge the positive contributions that this makes to our economy and economies around the world and then interfering with an appreciation of what they have to do to try and be a loyal soldier and an arm of the United States Government and advancing others of our interests. I will be prepared to talk at greater length about that at another time. Mercifully, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time at this point, but I do hope that we do not have sort of cardboard cut outs when we are considering amendments like this and appreciate the difficult task that they have been given and some appreciation for the balancing of the interests that they have to have.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I think it is inappropriate, but I was not happy at the time that we were shortening the time frame, and I think the events in the last couple years have shown that there are problems in order for them to be able to operate in a changing environment in an entrepreneurial sense. In fact, our colleague from Nebraska is concerned about a situation in the troubled state of Indonesia and suggesting recommendations here on the floor to change that. I feel that that is not something that is made easier by the shorter time frame. I think the longer time frame enabled people to solve problems that arise processing claims. Trying to move forward rather than having a shorter and shorter time frame here, going from 4 to 2 did not help make that problem go away any faster in Indonesia. Going from 2 years to 1 is not going to make it any easier in the future, and I personally have great difficulty thinking that I would be back here trying to explain to our colleague from Southern California how getting a milled product to an Oregon company to manufacture things in Oregon is good for the Oregon economy. The prospect of doing that every year drives me to the point of distraction.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. But what about the gentleman's perfecting amendment?

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand the impact in terms of the loss of a single job. May I give an example and ask how it would apply.