Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I identify with many of the comments the gentleman made in his initial comments. However, I have some reluctance in having us come forward with this proposal today. The backdrop of the hurricane that is taking place, the devastation that is going up and down the East Coast, and we are taking a critical piece of legislation, the coastal barrier resources system, where we should be looking at ways to strengthen the legislation. We should be looking at areas to add land that are protected, and instead, we revisiting it again on a piecemeal basis, adding additional land, in some cases in dispute. I am sorry, it may be that it is flooded and we cannot find where it is. I find a great deal of irony that we would be having this today, not even being able to know what it is precisely that we are talking about. Mr. Speaker, this is a piece of environmental legislation that came forward in the Reagan administration. It was focused on making sure that the federal taxpayer was not subsidizing inappropriate development. I am one that feels that it is entirely appropriate for government on the State, federal, and local level to perhaps exercise a little more discretion about where we do permit and encourage development. But at a minimum, the federal taxpayer ought not to be in a position of subsidizing development that is environmentally not sound. We are whittling away, bit by bit, pulling land out of this. We do not have clear and convincing criteria to guide what is going on. It seems to me that this is again wildly inappropriate, given the backdrop of what is going on to serve as a reason for why we should insist that this be done properly. We ought not to have a series of confusing directives from the Fish and Wildlife Service, something that is submitted to potential political manipulated. We should be strengthening this system today, adding integrity to the decisionmaking process, by having Congress codify the development criteria into law, once and for all. And we ought to be very clear that we know exactly what we are voting on, especially when this is coming forward on a suspension calendar. With all due respect, I do not feel comfortable moving forward like this. I feel very strongly that it is time to be evaluating the West Coast lands for inclusion. It has been trapped in limbo now for years. We should be as a Congress moving forward with the administration to make sure that we are not having inappropriate federal subsidies for development on the West Coast lands, along with other remaining undeveloped coastal barriers among the East, the Gulf and the Great Lakes region. Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating for me when I think Congress has a role to be a good partner with the private sector, with State and local governments, to make sure that we are promoting sound environmental developments and livable communities. I am frustrated that the Federal Government is aiding and abetting some of the disaster that we are seeing right now in the Carolinas because we have not had a thoughtful approach frankly to our flood insurance; and we give money to people who are repeatedly flooded out of areas and they move back in. This is another example of where we are not taking advantage of a comprehensive approach. With all due respect, I would urge that this legislation not move forward today, that we come forward with a comprehensive approach to the system, that we deal with the West Coast that is in limbo, and for heaven's sakes, we do not come forward with areas to withdraw additional land when we do not know what we are talking about and we are hoping that something is going to be taken care of in a never, never land in a conference committee. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge rejection of the proposal before us today.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about the need to reform the system that finances our elections on political parties. Far too much of the time of this Chamber is devoted to fund-raising. We as Members know it, and so do our constituents. It is not surprising that the current system has led to a serious erosion of public confidence in the democratic process. Also, we know that all too often the policy has been shaped by campaign contributions. One needs look no further than what we have seen with the tobacco industry over time. The most egregious example I have seen since I have been in Congress was the $50 billion tax break for the cigarette manufacturers slipped into the 1997 tax reform legislation unannounced. This campaign finance legislation, authored by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), does not just improve our terribly flawed system. More important, it will break a logjam that has prevented reform. It will show the American people we can deliver something that is good for the political process and good for America. It will help us clean up the political process and make other reforms easier and more likely. It will help us exercise the bipartisan collaborative reform tendencies that can have a huge impact on the people's business in this Congress and beyond. I urge a rejection of the poison pill amendments, and to pass Shays- Meehan.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year I had an opportunity to travel with a congressional delegation chaired by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to the island Nation of Indonesia. There we had an opportunity to meet with President Habibie, to meet in prison with Jose Alexandre Gusmao, who is likely to be the president of an independent East Timor, should that ever come to pass, as well as maybe of Indonesia's military leaders, people who appear to be sophisticated, many of whom are United States-educated. Again and again we heard of Indonesia's commitment to democracy and its determined effort to undo the damage done by the Asian financial crisis and its need for our support. The scheduling of an election on independence for East Timor was perceived as a positive sign. But over the last 8 months we have been watching those events unfold in East Timor, hoping for the best, but with a growing sense of apprehension. Last month's election results and the carnage that followed realized our worst fears. East Timor is in fact different from Indonesia's other areas of ethnic tension. Its history is different. It was ruled for hundreds of years by the Portuguese, not the Dutch. It is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic, not Muslim, like most of Indonesia. The people of East Timor have done everything that the world community could have expected in seeking their independence. They have suffered 25 years of repression at the hands of Indonesian military and paramilitary groups. In August, over 98 percent of the 450,000 eligible voters braved grave personal peril to journey to the polls. Only 2 weeks ago, those election results were described as a model vote, and the results, of course, were overwhelmingly clear. By a majority of more than three to one, East Timor voted for independence from Indonesia. But the reaction to this vote was chilling. Military groups have gone on a rampage. Innocent civilians, United Nations personnel, priests, nuns, women, and children have been attacked and killed. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of deaths have been added to the over 200,000 lives that have been lost on this troubled island over the last 25 years. The situation in East Timor is indeed complex and delicate, because Indonesia is simultaneously trying to restore its own democracy after years of military dictatorship, repair a shattered economy, and retrain its military to respect civilian authority. Whether it will be able to do those things is very much an open question. There is a great deal at stake in Indonesia's resolving these problems. It is indeed a huge country, the fourth most populous in the world. It has the largest Muslim population in the world. It is rich in natural resources. It was, until recently, aspiring to be an Asian and a world leader. Now it is just trying to hold itself together. Struggling with centrifugal forces of ethnicity are Nation's separatist movements that could splinter this vast Nation created and held together by force. But the greatest threat to Indonesia's future is to allow the hardliners to overturn the referendum through violence and fear. Tolerating this would send exactly the wrong message to the Indonesians, their military, and people struggling to make democracy work. The credibility of many is on the line. The United Nations did not create this crisis, but it must follow through if it is to have political and moral credibility. The neighboring Asian countries, through ASEAN, have a chance to be heard and a chance to play an important role in events of such direct interest to them, and perhaps putting a more Asian face on any peacekeeping effort. The United States should continue to exert pressure and influence through every means possible to restore peace and bring democracy to East Timor. For 20 years, we have erred on the side of caution. We have been timid in seeking to protect East Timor. Perhaps that role is changing, as it should. I am greatly encouraged by the United States' role over the last 96 hours. There are some that argue that we have to be selective in playing a role as the guarantor of freedom and the protector of those who seek democracy worldwide. There are limitations, it is argued, on the powers and realities in the many potential areas of involvement. But the people of East Timor have already earned our support, paying a horrible price over the last 25 years. The world community needs to prove its capacity to keep its commitments to people aspiring to freedom. Indonesia must be strongly encouraged in new directions of tolerance and democracy, lest this vast island country dissolve, with enormous consequences to world stability, as well as to the 211 million Indonesians. The United States has the opportunity and the responsibility to help Indonesians and the world keep their commitments. We in Congress should use every opportunity in the days ahead to keep the spotlight trained on this troubled island.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues Mr. Walsh and Mr. Mollohan and those on the Appropriations Subcommittee have been given an impossible job given the BBA of 1997. Had the entire budget process been more honest, we would not have the situation that we are in, today. Had the budget process been more honest, Congress probably could have passed this bill before the August district work period. Instead we are here pitting the NASA scientists against the veterans, against the children who participate in AmeriCorp against the segment in our society who needs help with affordable housing so they are not on the streets homeless. All of these programs are worthy of our support and all contribute to help make our communities more livable. Some would say that this process helps us set our priorities, others would say that this just shows who is more politically organized. In reality it is probably a slight demonstration of both, but since this is a political arena it favors the politically organized. Is it any wonder that the federal government spends 14 times more on space exploration than in oceanic research? NASA's proposed budget is $13.85 billion while the two agencies that do oceanic research NOS and NIPHS' budget combined is only $930 million. I believe Congress should tone down the political nature of budgeting and be in the business of making communities more livable. A livable community is one that is safe, economically secure and one that plans and helps to meet the needs of those less fortunate. An undeniable part of a livable community is affordable housing. The federal government is key to helping people who cannot otherwise be housed and to assist families in transition from dependent to self- reliant. At a time when the American economy is booming and the government for the first time in decades is not operating in the red, it makes no sense to cut money from public housing, when for this segment of our community, affordable housing becomes harder to find. But under the present political budget process, the money has to be cut. In my district, the Housing Authority of Portland operates 2,800 units of public housing in 32 apartments and over 200 single-family sites. Who are the people that live in our public housing? They are the poor, the elderly and younger people with various disabilities. They are the people who have families who are working hard to learn skills to work at jobs that pay more than minimum wage. They are precisely the people we want to help even if they are the people who are not politically organized. They are not the people who will be helped next year by the over three-quarter trillion dollar tax breaks even though many have a very heavy tax burden because so much of their income goes to payroll taxes and sales taxes. They are the people who will be hurt this year by this bill, because the bill falls short, because the Congress in 1997 got pulled away from the real priorities of the American people. The non-capital costs of operating those public housing units in Portland last year was paid for with $5.5 million in tenant rents. Yes, tenant rents. This did not cover the costs of the units, an additional $5.1 million was paid by the federal government to help with the operating costs. There are U.S. citizens across this country who need this type of support. This type of hand up. Without it, there will be 156,000 fewer housing units for low-income families. It means our homeless population will probably increase by 16,000 people and people with AIDS won't get the help they need to get off the street. It means 97,000 jobs won't be generated for people coming off welfare. If this bill passes with the present cuts in HUD of $1.6 billion below last year's level, people in Portland will be faced with a 15 percent reduction in operating subsidy this year. That means Portland could face a loss of $4,670,000. We could lose 529 low income housing units for families. Livable communities promote safe neighborhoods, economic security, and where there is a good partnership with private institutions and government at all levels to leave the community and the environment better than they found it. Let's be honest with the American people. Lets not chop away at it each year leaving our elderly, disabled and young struggling families to fend for themselves. Let's not pit our veterans against our seniors or scientists. An honest budget process will make our jobs easier. Housing shouldn't be a political issue. I think most folks agree that there will always be some people in our society that we will always have to help, and we know we should. For many others help now means the American Dream is achievable tomorrow. All segments of our community deserve our attention and help. This process needs to be changed to promote not just an honest discussion but a more fair and equitable budget.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is not often that on the floor of this Chamber we can deal with several major issues simultaneously, but such is the case today as we deal with House Resolution 58, which would deny the waiver of the Jackson-Vanik for the nation of Vietnam. This issue is not just of trade and international commerce. It truly is an opportunity for the United States to help get our story straight regarding one of the great tragedies of our time. The war in Vietnam was truly a tragedy for that nation. Great damage was inflicted upon the people, on a country that had been at war for over a third of the century, from World War II to the conclusion of that effort, but it had serious implications for our country. It divided generations, divided families, polarized our society. I have great respect for the men who served in Vietnam. It has been a privilege for me to become acquainted with our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), and the suffering that he and his family went through. I have been touched by that extraordinary sacrifice. Yet, at the same time it is clear to me that it is important for us to acknowledge the problems that we faced as a Nation dealing with the war in Vietnam. We were on the wrong side of history. Just this week, we had before the John Quincy Adams Society, Robert McNamara acknowledging that he was well aware, during his tenure, that the war was not winnable and acknowledged the problems with the rationale that was advanced. These were items that were known, frankly, on college campuses around the country at this time but denied at the highest levels of our government. Last year, on the eve of the Jackson-Vanik waiver vote, I received a call from Vietnam from my daughter who was visiting. She was struck by the kindness of the Vietnamese people, the beauty of the landscape and as a college student she was not really aware, until her experience in Vietnam, of the tragedy of that conflict. I have in mind today that conversation and her experience as we come forward. We are going to talk about trade and economic opportunity, and that is important. We are on the verge of signing a major trade agreement with Vietnam that will accelerate the economic prospects of that country. We have in the capitol today, Ambassador Pete Peterson, who has performed a tremendous service over the last few years in his work in Vietnam. He is arguably the best qualified person in America to bring about the reconciliation. His political and military experience, his passion and his compassion set him apart and make him uniquely qualified. I continue to be amazed at his efforts. We have the opportunity to build on his efforts with the rejection of the disallowal, to make progress on human rights, transparency of economic activities. We have the opportunity to help in Southeast Asia, the world's 12th most populous country, hasten their economic progress, but it goes far beyond that. The defeat of House Resolution 58 will help accelerate the integration of Vietnam into the world economy. It will help open up their society, but more important it will be an opportunity for us here on this floor to acknowledge the United States needs to get beyond this terrible legacy. It is more than economics. It is an opportunity for America to get things right. I strongly urge my colleagues to join with us this morning in the Capitol, room H-137. Pete Peterson will be meeting with us individually to talk about his experience, to talk about this opportunity, to give us a chance to not only move Vietnam forward economically but to do what is right by the American people in this conflict.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have a certain degree of irony being here on the floor having this resolution debated today, when earlier this week we had former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara here on Capitol Hill meeting and admitting basically that the college students were right 30 years ago and that the government and Mr. McNamara were not telling the American people the truth. I think it is amazing for us to look at the progress that has in fact occurred over the last third of a century. We have heard referenced on the floor the 500,000 people that have been able to legally emigrate. We had opportunities today for Members of this assembly to meet with our former colleague Pete Peterson to talk about his experience with the progress in terms of religious freedom in Vietnam and the rebuilding of churches and pagodas, the progress on the MIAs where we have more accountability than any war in American history. Even in the area of democratic government, there were 61 people elected to the Vietnamese Assembly who were independents, who were not Communists. Consider this, given where they have been, that one even is a former South Vietnamese military officer. Pete Peterson has made huge progress in his life's work of trying to bring 350 million people together between our two countries, the majority of whom in both countries were not even alive during the Vietnam War. I strongly urge a rejection of this resolution before us today. Reject the resolution in order to hasten the day when we can get beyond the tortured struggle that has, I think, divided our country unnecessarily and bring about a healing and an integration of the Vietnamese nation into the world economy and allow us to be able to deal honestly with the history that got us here in the first place.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is a theme this morning on the floor of the House: dealing with how we can promote livable communities. Whether it is dealing with community-oriented policing, ``Weed and Seed,'' or associating the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) about Better America Bonds, there is a lot that the Federal Government can do to make a difference for things that people really care about, making their families safe, economically secure and healthy. Mr. Speaker, a critical part of making the Federal Government a better partner in promoting livable communities is the work we do with basic infrastructure. Rather than spending a lot of new money, making new rules and regulations and starting new programs, one the most important contributions the Federal Government can make is using our existing resources more wisely. Nowhere is that more clearly illustrated than what we do with water resources. Currently, the Federal Government makes it easier to spend money paving a creek to stop flooding than to restore wetlands to achieve the same goal. I have already introduced legislation that would make it easier for communities to invest in cheaper, greener approaches to flood protection. This approach does not need to cost the Federal Government an additional dime, and it gives the communities more choices as they solve their problems and increase livability. The National Flood Insurance program poses another critical water resource management challenge. It is appropriate for the Federal Government to step in when there is a case of unforeseen natural disaster. However, if it is clear that some people make it hard on themselves by continuing to invest in unwise anti-environmental, unsustainable situations, then we have an obligation to draw the line. The Federal taxpayer should not be paying for people to live in places where God repeatedly has shown that he does not want them. There is a home in Houston which has an appraised value of $114,000 which has received over $800,000 in flood insurance payments in 16 events in the last 10 years. Over 5,600 properties, nearly 1 in 10, have loss claims which exceed the value of the property. Forty percent of our flood insurance goes to 2 percent of the property that is repeatedly flooded. Mr. Speaker, if the local government and private property owners are going to be foolish, they need to do it on their own dime. Indeed, it is not just our money they are wasting; these development patterns take on a life of their own. They pressure organizations like the Corps of Engineers, FEMA and state and local communities to further engineer the environment and protect ill-advised development from flooding, often succeeding in making matters worse. Despite having spent over $40 billion since 1960, our losses adjusted for inflation are three times greater than when we started the building spree. Our disaster relief costs have increased 550 percent in the last 10 years. It is time for us to rethink our policies and our investments. It is time to stop the waste of money, predictable loss of property, and threat to public safety. As a basic simple common sense step, it is time to reform the National Flood Insurance program. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with the gentleman from Nebraska, (Mr. Bereuter) who has long been a champion of reforming the Flood Insurance Program to propose a simple approach to repetitive flood loss. We retool the Flood Insurance Program so that rather than continuing to rebuild a repeatedly flooded home, the program would provide homeowners with money to help them move away from flood waters or at least floodproof their homes. Those who refuse assistance must start paying the real actuarial insurance costs for the risks that they choose to take. This policy is both humanitarian and fiscally responsible, allowing people to move out of harm's way and protecting the Federal taxpayer by making the National Flood Insurance program solvent. We need to enforce the existing rules and regulations to keep people out of harm's way. We need to spend money to prevent loss rather than repeatedly cleaning up after it is too late. This basic solution to more livable communities will not require more money or bureaucratic regulations. As usual, a livable community is possible if the Federal Government is a thoughtful partner with citizens and their local government. I would like to urge my colleagues to join with me and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) to reform the National Flood Insurance program and to sign on as cosponsors of our ``Two Floods and You're Out'' legislation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the courtesy of my colleagues. I have long felt that one of the problems we have in the Federal Government is that we do play by different rules, whether it is the post office that does not obey local land use laws, zoning code, environmental regulations. I think the Congress should move forward to make sure that we all play by the rules. But for heaven's sake, I think it is ill-advised, when the Corps of Engineers is, in fact, moving in the right direction, for us to throw sand in the gears as it relates to permit 26, require an overworked, underfunded Corps to come forward with yet another study and to enact a separate appeal process rather than have an administrative repeal. I strongly urge support for the Visclosky-Borski-Oberstar amendment and that we move away from this notion of environmental legislation with the appropriations process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, 10 years ago President Bush announced a no-net-loss policy for Wetlands in this country; and, as a local official, I saluted him for that. It was a policy that was long overdue. We have heard colleagues from both sides of the aisle talk about the need to protect wetlands in this country. Yet we continue to fall far short of the goal articulated by President Bush. We can quibble about the statistics, but we are still losing between 1,000 and 2,000 acres per week, 50 to 100 thousand acres per year, year after year, losing this precious resource. The gentleman does not understand why we should intervene quickly if someone is proposing to develop land as opposed to a slight delay or a longer delay in terms of development. There is a big difference. Because if we allow development to proceed forthwith, we lose that wetland. There is a big, big difference. I can understand in my mind why it would be sound Government policy to act immediately if there is a potential for losing this activity.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I was explaining why it was sound Government policy to permit an immediate action if we are going to lose a resource that is going to be lost for centuries or millennia, as opposed to having a slight delay for development that people can go ahead and appeal and can move forward. We have seen tremendous progress that has been made streamlining. And, in fact, we have streamlined in many cases too well. We have not halted the loss of the wetlands in this country. Wetlands, as has been documented, are the cheapest way that we are going to provide flood control. They are the cheapest way that we are going to provide for endangered species. It is the most cost-effective way for combined sewer overflow problems that plague over 1,100 communities around the country. It is, with all due respect, an effort that a number of us who are concerned environmentally see this as being putting sand in the gears. The last thing an underfunded, overworked Corps of Engineers needs to do is to come forward with yet another study. They are working on this. I have been a critic at times of the Corps, but I am impressed with the 180-degree effort that has been undertaken on behalf of the Corps of Engineers. We do not need to sidetrack them. They have had over 10,000 comments, moving forward. Let them develop an administrative procedure for appeal. Do not move it automatically to the courts, undermining some of the incentives that we have now for people to work cooperatively to solve these problems. We do not need, in my judgment, for us to go once again in an appropriations bill undercutting the work that we appropriately do in the authorizing committee. I would defer to my friend from New York, the chair of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, for work that he might do in terms of fine-tuning. In fact, I urge that we bring some of our friends together from a variety of water resources agencies because it goes beyond the Corps of Engineers. It includes FEMA. It includes Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation. There are a wide range of people that need to be involved. I am not concerned if we require local governments, water districts, school districts, even some Federal agencies to play by the same rules that we require the private sector. That is not an argument for pulling the plug. I think that helps us fine-tune and move the process forward.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Reclaiming my time, with all due respect, I think there are a whole host of areas we could constructively discuss in terms of what has happened environmentally with the State of Louisiana. I think by some ill-planned efforts that have gone, including the Federal Government, over the years, that we have helped create sort of an environmental time bomb in terms of Louisiana.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I will talk with the gentleman about the Mississippi River flood control and these sorts of things at another time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, one aspect of the livable community in a global economy is the struggle of this Congress to understand the huge and complex nation, that is China. An ancient society, over 4,000 years old, and a large country, almost beyond our comprehension, more than four times the United States, a quarter of the world's population. In my lifetime, we have turned a blind eye to the cruelty and corruption of the Kuomintang government, headed by Chiang Kai-Shek. We chose to support that effort during World War II. We ended up making some unfortunate decisions perhaps only history will judge, but the recent evidence suggests that we did not have to make as much of an enemy of Mao Tse-Tung and the communists. This tragic miscalculation came into fore during the Korean war, when General MacArthur defied President Truman and enlarged the conflict and ultimately cost thousands of United States lives that was unnecessary. At the time, of course, in the well of this Congress, MacArthur was viewed as a hero and Truman was vilified. History has shown that President Truman was, in fact, a visionary in a number of respects; one of our greatest presidents, praised by no one less than Ronald Reagan, but we have seen the ebb and flow on this floor where Congress simply has not exercised proper perspective. We saw where Richard Nixon, who was characterized during his early career as a red baiter, as someone who was against the Communist Chinese, yet he was able during his presidency, one of the most enduring and lasting contributions was to swing the balance of power towards a more strategic alliance with China, and that hastened the collapse of the former Soviet Union. We have seen China behave as a nation of what appears to be to us in excess. The great leap forward, costing millions of lives of their own people, the cultural revolution of the seventies, the current turmoil that is in this context is perhaps a little more understandable, but one thing is very clear, that we are seeing unprecedented access to the Chinese people, more and more educated abroad, particularly in the United States. Even with the Internet access, it is transforming the internal dynamics of China. The United States does not have to sit back helplessly as we look at forces in China but nonetheless it seems to me important that we do not use heavy-handed, clumsy behavior, assuming that the United States can isolate China and make it bend to our dictates. It is important that we use trade and our economic relationship as tools. There is no turning back. Our history, both of the United States and of the West in general, has been mixed with the Chinese and there is much to make them apprehensive, but the United States has paid a heavy price for miscalculating during World War II, during the Korean War and Vietnam. The United States and China spies on each other continuously but we really do not know each other very well. I am hopeful that this week on this floor Congress will reject the notion that we ought not to treat China as we do 180 other countries, with normal trade relations, because if we are able to take that important step, it is only going to hasten the further change and progress within China, strengthening our country, strengthening the Chinese people and their economy, and ultimately the world itself will be a better place.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his courtesy in yielding me this time. Today, the United States and China spend hundreds of millions of dollars spying on each other. But despite all the spying, I do not think we really know each other very well. China is in fact a study in contradictions. Today, it is more modern and open than ever before in its 4,000-year history. Yet, it is in fact reacting defensively in an agitated fashion regarding the continued controversy with Taiwan. We have our demonstrators outside here on the grounds of the Capitol dealing with the local religious movement, Falun Gong, that has captured so much interest in China. It is an ancient nation that is modernizing rapidly, but this society filled with state-run activities is paying a substantial price as it downsizes its bureaucracy, modernizes its institutions, and privatizes it its state-owned industry. The United States has paid a terrible price in the past for misunderstanding China. During World War II, we bet on the wrong horse. Barbara Tuchman's brilliant biography of Joe Stillwell makes clear the waste of resources for the corrupt Kuomintang government of Chiang Kai- Shek, who was not interested in fighting the Japanese, when we could have done something more constructive with Mao Tse-Tung. During the Korean War, we had thousands, tens of thousands, of needless American casualties because General McArthur, in flagrant disregard of orders and common sense, overplayed his hand. Yet, the Cold War was won more quickly in part because Richard Nixon had the courage to reverse his course of action and engage in a strategic alliance with China. Lots of countries we disagree with abuse human rights and do not honor democracy or the free market. Sometimes, sadly, that happens with the United States complicity. We gave arms to terrorists with Ronald Reagan. Normal trading relations does not mean we condone that behavior. It just gives us more tools and opportunity to do something about it. The world will be a better place sooner. One only has to review 4,000 years of Chinese history and look at where we are today to know that we are, in fact, on the right path.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, part of the challenge of a livable community is to help people compete in and adjust to the new global economy. Trade in North America is an important part of that challenge. Since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the commerce between Mexico and the United States has grown from $80 billion to about $200 billion and is steadily rising. In part, it could be said to be working. But there are some points of serious challenge that are hidden in the statistics about commerce. I am particularly concerned about lax cross- border crossing controls that put the driving public at risk and put United States trucking and passenger transport at a competitive disadvantage. There are some very serious problems, the most significant of which is that Mexican enforcement programs are still virtually nonexistent 5 years after the enactment of NAFTA. And according to the Inspector General, our own United States Department of Transportation does not, and I quote, ``. . . have a consistent enforcement program that provides reasonable assurance of the safety of Mexican trucks entering the United States.'' Furthermore, should the moratorium on cross-border trucking be lifted in the near term, our Department of Transportation is not ready to reasonably enforce the United States' safety regulation on Mexican carriers. Few of the 11,000 trucks now crossing daily into the United States are inspected, and almost one-half of those which are inspected have problems so serious they must be immediately ordered off the road. Yet, it is not clear even those ordered off the road comply. Also, the Department of Transportation and State inspectors do not routinely provide inspection coverage on evenings or weekends, thereby allowing thousands of trucks to enter the United States without even the threat of possible inspection. It is not just a problem dealing with trucking. Mexican buses and passenger vans pose a serious threat to highway safety, with low inspection rates and an out-of-service rate twice as high as United States buses. Under recently enacted TEA 21, $124 million of infrastructure was allocated for border and trade corridor investment. There is certainly the need and there are resources available. The DOT should use the $10 million per year in TEA 21 for national priority and border safety enforcement activities to station staff at the border and to assist State border oversight efforts. Moreover, Texas and Arizona border inspection facilities and staffing are woefully inadequate. Neither State has permanent truck inspection facilities at the border, even though 76 percent of cross-border truck traffic entering the United States comes through those two States. The issue goes beyond just simply what happens at those borders. There are 24 other non-border States that the Inspector General found where over 600 inspection records suggest that 68 motor carriers domiciled in Mexico operated illegally outside the permitted United States commercial zones. I feel very strongly, as a person who supports free trade, and I would have voted for NAFTA had I been in Congress at that time, because my area and increasingly the United States economy is contingent upon free and open trade activity, but there is no excuse for us to have at risk our environmental and safety laws. This week over 30 of my colleagues are calling upon the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), to consider convening hearings on these serious cross-border problems associated with commercial vehicles and NAFTA. Being able to focus on the problem, and more important, to be able to bring the United States' action to bear, both on the Federal level and the State level, is critical if we are going to fully realize the promise of free trade without putting our Nation's citizens and our environmental laws at risk.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time, and I appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). I would like to express my strong support for H.R. 1033, the Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act. I hope this time we get it through, that there are not hang- ups. I was pleased with what the House did in the last session. It is of particular interest to me as the only graduate of Lewis and Clark College in Portland, Oregon, the namesake of the great explorers; in fact, both my degrees are from the institution. I grew up in the Pacific Northwest, steeped in the lore and tradition that surrounded the Lewis and Clark expedition. It is very important to us in the Pacific Northwest. One hundred years ago in our community, the centennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition was celebrated in a world's fair that had a profound impact on our community, on the Pacific Northwest and the West Coast in general. This resolution, which passed the House last year and has been ably described by the gentleman from Nebraska and the gentleman from New York, has the potential of providing resources for a national celebration of this undertaking. I will not bore Members or our guests with further recitation of that exploration, but suffice it to say that over 200 years ago when President Jefferson coaxed the Congress to appropriate $2,500 for this exploration, it was money well spent; and I think that the resources that will be invested in this celebration will likewise be well spent. There is a great deal that we need to do to reconnect with our friends in the Native American communities in the 11 States throughout the passage of the expedition, for us to acknowledge the contributions they made and understand what it means in today's world to be connected to people of other ethnic backgrounds, particularly Native Americans, but also I think this is an international respect as well. It is a chance for our Nation to reflect on the power of exploration and scientific advancement, to reach out to others in the Native American community who were a part of that exploration, who on more than one occasion rescued the explorers. It is an opportunity for us as a Nation to reflect on our ancestors who had the ability to dream on a vast scale. Today, we need this observance and all that it requires to help us face our destiny in a new century. I am pleased to be associated with the legislation and hope that the House will act expeditiously.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is for the Federal Government to be a full partner in helping our communities be more livable. I discussed improving liveability of the physical environment on this floor dealing with transportation infrastructure, managing our water resources in a more rational fashion, and reducing gun violence. These are all elements the Federal Government can profoundly influence in our communities and provide the quality of life that our citizens desire and deserve. A critical part of that well-planned infrastructure for a livable community is access to the global economy through Internet connections. That is why I have strongly supported the E-rate, which helps schools and libraries connect to the Internet with subsidized costs. The Internet is to America's tomorrow what the highways and railroad systems have been in the past. It has had the potential to change our communities and landscapes in ways that are truly profound. There is an Internet drama unfolding now which has profound implications for how the Federal Government can help communities realize their vision of a livable future. I am referring to high-speed broad-band Internet access via the cable systems which are part of the households of many Americans. This issue is being played out as the consolidation of America's cable delivery system is almost complete, featuring ownership by telecommunication giants like AT&T which recently purchased the TCI cable system, America's largest. Ironically, 7 years after the passage of legislation to deregulate cable, titled the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, the consolidation in the industry is resulting in fewer choices for cable consumers. In fact, by this time next year, only New York and Los Angeles will have more than one cable operator. Why is this important? The majority of Americans are still in the horse and buggy era of Internet connections, by connecting on the Internet through their phone lines. Cable has the potential of moving millions of American households into the equivalent of a high-speed rail Internet connection. As we make this quantum leap from the horse and buggy technology to truly the information super highway, we must ensure that this new service provides the same type of competition that has inspired better service options at lower costs for long-distance and for Internet service over the phone lines. What happens if these cable systems are owned by just a few companies? Soon, AT&T will provide cable service for almost two-thirds of American households. We get a little glimpse of this in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, where AT&T is the only cable provider in our entire metropolitan area. As a condition of the approval of the merger with TCI, the citizen advisors in my community made the recommendation to our elected officials that there be competition for high-speed Internet connections over the cable platform. AT&T has chosen to argue strenuously that it should have a monopoly. The company insisted that everybody have to pay for AT&T's Internet service, regardless of whether or not people want to use it. Forcing people to use its service or pay twice for Internet connection is an integral part of AT&T's business plan. In fact, it is such an important part that when the elected officials chose to support the recommendation of our citizens, AT&T warned, in not very subtle language, that the city better have a big legal budget, and in fact, sued, trying to win in the Federal court what AT&T could not justify to Portland's citizens and to its elected officials. But AT&T lost in a powerfully worded decision by a highly respected and moderate to conservative local jurist. Yet AT&T is continuing its appeal and in the meantime is threatening not to invest in our community that had the temerity to suggest that we ought to have competition. While the company's influence is being felt in Washington, D.C., it is time for the administration and Congress to protect connectivity, competition, and choice. This is a national issue, not just Portland. Cities all over the country are dealing with this, in L.A., San Francisco, Seattle, Minneapolis to Boston, Atlanta, Chicago and Detroit. Just last week, Broward County in Florida passed a resolution just like Portland's. I will be introducing legislation this week to help local communities in their quest to determine their own technological future through competition, connectivity, and choice. Congress, the FCC, the private sector and local governments, everybody has a role to play. We all must fight to protect the competitive forces that so many of us say are important. The stakes are high not just for this vital telecommunication link, but also to prove that we are serious about making competition work for more livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 434, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. This measure is long overdue, and will help strengthen the economies of the world's poorest continent. This bill presents very little threat to American industries in the short run, and holds a huge upside potential for American jobs and profits to increase in the long run. The most important part of this bill is that it will make a huge difference for the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa by giving them tariff reductions under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), as long as they are cooperating with international labor and transshipment standards. At a time when military action is something to be avoided and there are real questions about what economic assistance we should provide around the world, this bill allows us to directly participate with and help strengthen other countries through global trade. I believe it will ultimately be the best long-term investment for the American taxpayer.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that this legislation has the potential of establishing a dual track. Certainly none of us want to be in a position where government is discriminating against the free exercise of religion, but, by the same token, as we have community after community across the country struggling to be able to maintain their liveability, to try and deal with issues of quality of life, to provide a broad exemption to a religious institution, to be able to violate the rules of the game that other people play by in terms of environmental protection, in terms of land use and transportation is ill advised. This is why we have a broad coalition of groups that deal with land use, with transportation, with the environment who are rising their voices in opposition led by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. We have heard here that there are areas where somehow there is discrimination against churches and their exercise of building and development activities, but this legislation would provide a requirement that in all instances government that has the authority to make individualized assessment, the action requires the State or local government to demonstrate the reasons for the land use are compelling and that the regulation is the least restrictive means supplied to each affected individual furthering that interest. This is something as a local official I can tell my colleagues the requirements economically, legally and practically to establish that burden unlike we would do for anybody else is unjustified and unnecessary. I find it frustrating that the Federal Government runs roughshod over local neighborhoods and communities where we have things like the local post office that does not obey local land use laws and zoning codes. To carve out another broad exemption under this act, that would have, I think, serious unintended consequences. Regardless of the outcome of today's vote in this legislation, I hope there is a careful look at section 3(b)1(a) and people make sure that they assure that we are protecting the rights of our neighborhoods for liveability and environmental protection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would acknowledge that it is no small feat that we have arrived at today, an opportunity to have a positive discussion on the Nation's cultural investments and our priorities without the acrimony that we have seen in recent years. And I tip my hat to the members of the committee for their leadership in guiding this forward, in taking a deep breath and sort of exhaling to make sure that we can be clear about what we are trying to achieve, rather than making it an opportunity to score partisan political points on a philosophic basis. I think the next step is for us to see how our cultural investments fit with the committee's marker that they have set down in terms of beginning the discussion for this important budget and what is going to happen over the course of the next 50 years. I think in that context we ought to be looking at the direction of the budget, and it is why I support the amendment that has been offered up by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn). The investment that we have made in cultural activities in my community that have served as a catalyst by Federal investment has been a key to the partnerships that have characterized what we have seen around the country. It has leveraged, as has been referenced on the floor, many times over the resources from the private sector, from philanthropic undertakings, and it has inspired people to be more entrepreneurial in the delivery of services. These partnerships are key in all of our communities but, unfortunately, the Federal Government has been lagging in terms of its involvement with these partnerships. It has not been keeping pace. The Federal Government, ironically, would end up making more by investing in arts activities because we can see in every one of our districts cultural investments that have provided a spark economically for local festivals, arts districts, for community events that have made a huge difference and that are a significant and growing economic presence across the country. It enables us to coax more out of our educational investments, as has been referenced by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). I have seen it in the school districts in my community where these dollars have leveraged spectacular results from young people. It has made a difference in terms of how people regard their communities, in the activities and the way that they invest themselves. Indeed, in a number of communities, we have seen arts organizations provide regional cohesion in a way that governments have been unable to. And we have seen artificial boundaries that have divided our solutions for things like storm water runoff or watershed or air pollution come together as a result of arts organizations putting together voluntary regional approaches that really can be a pattern to show how we can solve problems generally. It is not a subsidy for those who are well off. In all of our communities, most of the people of means would actually be money ahead if they would not spend their time and energy that they do in making these partnerships work but simply buy their tickets to go to San Francisco, New York or Seattle. But what we are doing is we are coaxing them to make the investments locally so that they can share the resources in terms of symphonies and in terms of museums. It is not for the wealthy and the well-positioned, it is for the young, the old, and the poor. I strongly urge support of this amendment and hope that it will begin our efforts to reinvest in a wiser fashion in the future. It is time for us, for America, to catch up with where our citizens want us to be and how the rest of the world is treating their arts and cultural resources.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the problem that my colleagues from Oregon have highlighted has been put in the spotlight and that we have had assurances from Members of the subcommittee that they will work with us to make sure that some of these anomalies are, in fact, corrected. But I would hope that we would keep in mind three things: that it is not just the money that is involved here, although that is significant. A number of us have been struggling, trying to be supportive of what the committee has been working on in the course of the debate here in the last 2 days. This is an important step to try to tie the benefits and the costs together. This is something a lot of people understand that government needs to be more entrepreneurial in a number of areas. We have seen, I think, here in Washington, D.C. the contrast between the way that we are treated here and other parts of the country. I think there is an opportunity for us to take small steps in this area. It also gives important incentives to local managers. We are getting a different behavior from people who are managing facilities, because they can be a little bit entrepreneurial. The amount of money involved is infinitesimal for most of the people that are there. If we look at CDs, if we look at things that people are carrying, not just comparing to other types of activities that they involve for recreational purposes, but the impact that it says on the managers and their employees in terms of being able to have a little discretion, in terms of being able to tie it back to needs that they have on-site that, frankly, would have a difficult time making it through the bureaucratic process. So putting aside for a moment the money, which is significant, put aside for a moment the connection between the benefits and the costs, which I think is not inappropriate, that we have had some opportunity here where we have assurances that we will work to try and make work better, and I think that is appropriate as well. But I do think it is important for us to look at the impact this has on managerial behavior in and around the facilities. And I think that that may be the greatest legacy of all, is that it helps engage in a different type of thinking, more flexibility, and more rapid reaction to give the taxpayers and the users a better product. I am confident that the committee chair and staff will follow through. And as a Member of the Oregon delegation, I, too, would like to have the fine-tuning, but I hope that we will have a chance to look back in a couple of years at how it has changed the behavior, because I think that may be the most important legacy.

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

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