Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. As I attempted to make clear, I am embarrassed that my State legislature has broken faith with the voters of Oregon by taking away money that they just approved at the ballot box and using it for other purposes. So I feel that there is a very mixed record on the part of States. That is why I support efforts of the Committee on Appropriations to have appropriate guidelines for the disbursement of Federal funds.

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, because I think they started the debate with the proper tone. It is a 50-year vision, and it is just a starting point, I hope, for this Congress. What the bill talks about today is fundamental infrastructure for livable communities. As we try and deal with the consequences of unplanned growth around the country, the stewardship of our public lands both in wilderness areas and what happens in our developed communities are more and more important. I wanted to thank the committee for their hard work to diffuse some of the volatile legislative hot buttons, being able to provide at least a stable funding for the arts and minimize the toxic riders that have obscured the important debate that has attended this bill in the past. Last week, it was my pleasure to watch the hard-working members of this subcommittee and their staff in our region of the Pacific Northwest. I am pleased that they had a chance to look firsthand at the Columbia River Gorge where I am convinced that each dollar that is invested will go further than any place else in America in protecting a critical legacy. We saw firsthand the impact of the subcommittee's efforts to try and make sure that we are maximizing resources and working creatively. I think it is important that we allow the fee demo program to be able to work its way out and to look at the impacts. I hope that, in the words of the Chair and the ranking member, that what we are seeing here, although we will not be perhaps debating in heated form some amendments that may come forward, I hope that we will keep in mind what we are trying to do in terms of this being a starting point. I am hopeful that this Congress will give the subcommittee the resources they need for today and tomorrow to be able to make the investment in protecting this legacy, not just for today but for the next half century. I appreciate the hard work the committee has done and look forward to building upon it in the course of this Congress to be able to realize that vision.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I see this conversation this afternoon as an effort to restart an important discussion. It is about keeping faith with our commitments with the States, keeping faith with the needs and the programs that they have. As the gentleman from California mentioned a few moments ago, we rightly owe billions of dollars to the very States under the terms of the 1964 act. There are, indeed, other reasons. Not every State with a surplus, for instance, is responding in a way that deals with the park and recreation and open space needs. In my own State, I am ashamed to admit, despite the strongest economy in anybody's memory, despite having perhaps the strongest one, in fact, for 2 years running we had the strongest economy in the country, and despite having a large ballot measure majority in support of parks and open space, I am finding our State legislature backing money out that has been approved by the voters, in efforts to shift it elsewhere. So there are lots of reasons, lots of variations around the country that I have seen as I have worked with communities across the country dealing on livability issues. But there is something else going on here. There is a massive grass roots effort where citizens at the State and local level are seizing control. In 1998 there were 184 initiatives on the State and local level. Eighty-seven percent passed, usually with overwhelming majorities. Citizens understand, in the words of our chairman and the ranking member, that it is important to invest in this timeless legacy. The time is now. There are very complex and intricate funding packages that we are seeing developed across the country that have State funds, that have local funds, that have Federal funds under enhancements and transportation. We have land trusts. We have individuals coming forward, foundations. It is exciting to see people step forward to try and fill if the gap at this critical time and meet this critical need, sometimes moving past the politicians. This $30 million is critical, not just because it will leverage literally hundreds of millions of dollars across the country. It is important because it restarts the discussion here about keeping our commitment with the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think it is going to be the start of something that is very big. As we discussed at the initiation of the debate on this bill, we want to start the discussion of the budget with a 50-year vision for this country. Everybody in this Chamber knows that we are going to add money to the budget process before we get out of town at the end of the fall, or the summer, or whenever we are finally set free. We are going to add more money. Everybody knows it. Voting today to keep our commitment to the States, to the localities, to this massive national grass roots movement to try and restore our legacy, is going to give leverage to our subcommittee to be able to fight the good fight, and it is going to give heart to people across the country who are working to try and make their communities more livable. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to share my biases.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I just wanted to say that I think it is an inappropriate choice to cannibalize our national parks to keep a commitment that we have to State and local governments for their half of this fund. I will work with the chairman, with the ranking member, as hard as I can to make sure that the gentleman has adequate resources to invest for the future without making a foolish decision to shortcircuit the next half century of preserving these great national treasures.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy under the leadership of this subcommittee to look for ways to provide more explicit guidelines to help make sure that we get the most bang for the buck. I would be loathe, however, to tell some States and localities that have very particular needs for park and recreation that they could not have the restoration of a marina or for some type of open space. I think we have seen dramatically different projects emerge as a result of this grass roots effort. I think it looks different than some of the things that frankly would raise my eyebrows from a few years ago.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Michael Pollan in the New York Times Magazine article this weekend, ``The Land of the Free Market and Livability,'' is certainly correct that government can and should be thinking of ways to align our polices for the types of communities that our hearts desire. What I find disappointing is the assumption somehow that the choices consumers are making now based on their pocketbook are somehow solely the result of benign, inevitable market demands. Having worked my entire career on the promotion of livable communities, I am struck by how the increasingly dysfunctional communities that are facing Americans across the country are a result of direct government interference in the marketplace. Consumers are behaving rationally by investing in ways where their incentives are skewed by government. The most dramatic example is to be found in our treatment of the automobile. Seventy-five years ago, communities all across the country had profitable, private transit streetcar systems privately owned and profitable. Massive government spending, literally trillions of dollars, were used to promote automobile traffic, while at the same time there was no support given to transit; and indeed in many communities government contributed directly to the decline of transit and in some communities its demise by refusing to allow fares to increase with inflation and for capital investments to keep the systems healthy. While the money from the road funds is perhaps the most visible, there were also huge subsidies for overseas defense to protect oil supplies and public ownership of oil and gas supplies. There were dramatic subsidies for public safety, for policing related to the automobile, and the removal of huge tracts of land in the tax rolls and for roads and road right-of-way and, of course, parking and tax subsidies. All of these combined to tip the playing field in favor of the automobile. Consumers responded rationally for themselves but in ways that very much skewed the pattern of transportation development. Now, these clear transportation subsidies are but a small portion of the overall government interference in the market system. Our investments in public housing concentrated poor minority populations in central cities. We dramatically subsidized utility rates and sewer and water expansion that routinely hid the profits, from providing service to local inner cities, from increased costs associated with expansion into suburbs and greenfields. It resulted in many central city residents paying more for their own utilities and subsidizing lower rates for people outside the cities. The most direct and obvious interference in the market was the emergence of single-use zoning in metropolitan areas where we made it illegal for the family owning, say, a restaurant or a drugstore from living or having their clerks live above that activity. People were zoned out of mixed-use neighborhoods and literally forced into their cars since the drastic separation of uses forced many Americans to rely increasingly on automobiles, and again that was very rational behavior. The list goes on and on: flood insurance, water supply, brownfields programs, the Federal Government's own policy of locating facilities out further and further from concentrated uses, or the post office refusing to obey local land use laws and zoning codes. These are all examples of the government's own activities to destabilize neighborhoods in our central cities and our older suburbs. It is hard for me to imagine any rational observer being able to characterize what has transpired in American communities over the last three-quarters of a century as benign, neutral, inevitable market forces. The challenge today for those who would have livable communities is not to overcome market forces but allow the market forces to work. This is an appropriate use of the political process. It is not a trivial point, as critics attempt to paint efforts for promoting livable communities on the part of the administration, those of us in Congress, or the vast grassroots efforts around the country as somehow social engineering or forcing people to do what they do not want to do. It is essential to give legitimacy to the aspirations of thousands of activists in hundreds of communities across the country that are trying to promote livable communities. Just as we have established a pattern of unplanned growth for dysfunctional communities and regions, we can level the playing field to promote livable communities. I look forward to this Congress and this administration taking steps to be partners to promote these more livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is to make sure that the Federal Government is a constructive partner in promoting livable communities. Today, increasingly, an important part of promoting livable communities deals with the Internet connection that our cities and counties have with the rest of the world. The Federal Government has played a very constructive role in assisting schools and libraries with the E-Rate. It has provided an important resource for over 32,000 communities over the last 3 years and potentially up to $4 billion in these first 2 years. Just as important as the leadership for schools and libraries with the E-Rate, Congress and the FCC now has the opportunity to ensure that communities have access to the Internet service providers of their choice with cable broadband networks. This leadership is going to be increasingly important in the future as cable systems are concentrated around the country. Only L.A. and New York are expected to have more than one cable system provider in the next year. An important chapter of this discussion is being played out in my community where the city of Portland and Multnomah County became the first local jurisdictions in the country to require competition on this high-speed Internet connection. As part of an approval for AT&T's purchase of the local TCI cable, the city and the county required that they allow nonaffiliated ISPs access to their broadband network. They argue that this step was necessary in order to preserve consumer choice. Without open access, consumers who wish to use high-speed cable modems for their Internet access, and who did not want to use the AT&T Excite at-home service, they would have to pay double, in effect paying twice. AT&T sued our local governments, arguing that they had no right to break AT&T's monopoly over this access. The Federal court has ruled that the city was entirely within its power and could promote competition. Now AT&T is appealing that decision. Now, most people feel that the local jurisdiction is expected to prevail. But it appears that the FCC, based on recent comments from Chairman Kennard and an article recently in the Wall Street Journal, that the FCC is not yet ready to argue against AT&T's proposed monopoly. As a result, I am exceedingly concerned that consumers across the country may be in the bizarre situation where they have competition on the horse and buggy aspect, the two wires that come in over the telephone; but that they will have only one choice when it comes to the 90 percent that is the communication of the future the broadband. The whole point behind the judge's ruling was that we ought to have this competition. Some are arguing that we need a uniform system to prevent 30,000 jurisdictions from around the country to have the possibility of each having their separate technical specifications. If that is indeed a problem, then let us deal with that problem specifically by providing technical standards through the FCC. Solving the problem of technical standards by granting only one company monopoly status sounds a lot like using communism in order to assure that there would be uniform gauges for the train tracks. We can do better. I urge that the FCC and Congress keep an open mind on the question of the impact of this local decision on the development of broadband communication infrastructure. Let us work to solve the real problems with the goal of ensuring consumer choices. We do not have to limit the access simply to the 10 percent where there is the technology of the past on the telephone wires; and we certainly do not need to use a Communist approach in order to make sure that we have full access for technical standards. I hope that we will be able to support local governments in this important aspect of promoting livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I support the modernization principles in this long overdue financial legislation. It has been years in the making and this legislation is about as good as it is going to get. On balance, it will improve the competitiveness of our financial system and provide more choices for consumers. There has emerged a growing concern about protecting the privacy rights of Americans. These concerns are independent, but related to financial services. Privacy is a major issue in business practices generally and in the health care system in particular. I am disappointed that the Republican Leadership did not allow several provisions to be discussed that would have strengthened the protections and I believe they would have made H.R. 10 a better bill. Nonetheless, these concerns are not going to go away. They will be a part of the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation and may be the subject of a comprehensive stand alone bill that will spell out what protections Americans can expect from their government regarding sensitive and personal data. Even though we were denied an opportunity to deal with these issues in connection with H.R. 10, I hope the attention and the controversy will spur this Congress to action and that we will not adjourn until we provide a vehicle for understanding the rights and responsibility surrounding individual privacy.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1218. There is nothing more important in parent-child relationships than for parents to be involved in the healthcare decisions of their children. The basic parental right and responsibility is perhaps most critical in the case of pregnancies of young woman. In most American homes, no one cares more about the welfare, health, and safety of a child than her parents. Although a young woman may be frightened or feel or ashamed to share with her parents, parents are usually best able to provide support for these most personal decisions. Unfortunately, not all young women are able to confide in their parents should they become pregnant. A victim of family violence or incest is often not in a position to share her pregnancy with her parents for fear of further abuse. This bill, although laudable for its intention to encourage communication between parents and children, does not provide alternatives for a young woman who is unable, for fear of physical or emotional abuse, to involve her parents in her decision. In addition, the bill would criminalize the actions of close family members who might seek to assist a young woman who is struggling with this monumental decision. For troubled American households, grandparents, estranged parents, aunts, uncles, or siblings often serve in the parental role. The bill unfortunately does not make provisions for such circumstances. In fact, it may put these young women in a more dangerous situation should they feel compelled to turn to illicit providers of abortion services or travel alone. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the need for more parental involvement in their children's lives, but for these reasons, I must vote ``no'' on H.R. 1218.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is for the Federal Government to be a better partner with State and local governments, the private sector and individual citizens to make our communities more livable. This issue is moving to the center of the American political scene in part because of the attention that has been given to this by the administration, Vice President Gore in particular, but even more important because of the large grassroots pressure that has been building around the country as evidenced by over 240 local and State initiatives in the last election. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Part of the evidence of this growing movement for livable communities has been the attention that has been given by the national media. One of the best and most prominently featured articles was on the front page of the Sunday Washington Post this weekend which cited the new citizens, the new economy, and the new issues that are part of a new and growing awareness in the State of California. Yet despite this characterization of all this being new, quality of life is truly one of our oldest and most enduring issues. But whether it is a new emerging issue or one of timeless political concern, it is time for Congress to address livability now. We need to get beyond the soundbite focus that are driven by partisan politics catering to narrow special interests. It seems, sadly, to dominate our activities here. So far this month we have had some of the worst of examples, where Americans concerned by violence on our schoolgrounds saw us respond by attempting to weaken our gun safety laws and by posting the 10 Commandments in school yards, something that is not going to inspire much confidence in the minds of most American families. We do not have to make up issues or shy away from real problems. There are simple, common-sense approaches for dealing with livable communities. In the area of gun violence, we can approach it the same way that we have reduced auto deaths and injury on our roads. We can make a huge difference in the three-quarter million Americans who have been killed by gun violence since 1960. An American government that has been able to take action to childproof aspirin bottles and cigarette lighters ought to be ashamed that there are more product safety protections for toy guns than for real guns. We can start by simply passing the legislation already approved by the United States Senate to close the gun show loophole and make it harder for children to get their hands on guns. We can make strides to make our communities more livable dealing with the built environment. All the time and money the Federal Government spends on physical infrastructure can be planned regionally and coordinated with our State, local and private partners. We can make the problems of air quality and traffic congestion better, not simply throwing money at them and in some cases actually making them worse. We can help manage the entire water cycle rather than have a flood insurance program that pays people to live where God does not want them despite being flooded out repeatedly. Most important, we can have the Federal Government practice what we preach, where we locate Federal buildings, how we manage our land. We could even take the radical step of having the Post Office obey local land use laws, zoning codes and work with local communities across the country before they make locational decisions that can have a devastating impact on Main Street America. Making our communities more livable is everybody's job, and it ought to start with Congress doing our part. We will feel better, and America will be better for our efforts.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, the authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights gave us a wise and enduring framework, one that has guided this Nation for over 200 years. We should but rarely and in moments of absolute necessity alter their work. I can say unequivocally, that this flag burning amendment does not meet that test. Americans cherish their flag and all it represents. It is fitting and proper to honor this symbol. This proposed constitutional amendment however, is the wrong way to attempt to protect the flag. Ironically, the fastest way to take the very rare occurrences of flag burning and make them more frequent would be to pass this amendment. Once it is illegal, and after all the publicity surrounding ratification by the states occurs, we will have made our flag the target for every publicity-seeking kook in America. Burning the flag will be the fastest way to go to court, to jail and onto the evening news. Regardless of how distasteful burning or otherwise desecrating the flag is to most Americans--it is important to note that flag burning is not a major problem today. What is clear is that making flag burning illegal would backfire. The First Amendment doesn't need any help from this Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the modest provisions that we have before us today have sent the gun lobby into a frenzy because it explodes the myth that we are powerless to act only to pass foolish symbolic legislation. We can explode that myth. We can stand up to the gun lobby. Every day in America we have another Littleton. It is just that the dead children are scattered across America rather than concentrated in one place for the media. I pray that our hearts are not so hardened that all the carnage has to be in one place before we have the courage to act. Please vote for the Conyers amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, we all want to protect children and provide them with safe communities in which to grow. To achieve this worthy goal, we must work with local governments, schools and libraries. The amendment before us is not helpful. A new mandate would set regulations that would be nearly impossible to meet and would deprive schools of sorely needed funds. The most important action Congress has taken to promote both the goal of quality education and connections to the broader world through the Internet is to be found in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This special education rate, known as the E-rate, was part of the Federal Universal Service Fund providing important discounts of 20 to 90 percent on telecommunications services, Internet access and internal communications for public schools, public and private, as well as our library systems. It enjoys broad bipartisan support. No one advocates allowing children access to pornographic materials, but this amendment is simply too draconian. Assuring that the children's Internet activity is safe is most appropriately made at the local level, not one by a new Federal mandate. There is no need for the amendment. We should recognize that students accessing the Internet from their local library or schools typically are receiving as much or more supervision than what occurs commonly in some homes. This amendment imposes extraordinary financial and administrative burdens on schools and libraries as well as the risk of liability for the technical and constitutional shortcomings of filtering technology. The purchasing, installing and maintenance of this software is expensive and administratively burdensome at a time when most schools and libraries are struggling just to connect to the Internet. It allows only 30 days for districts and libraries to comply with the law after the FCC has promulgated the rules. With every State setting different procurement laws, there is no possible way schools and libraries all across the country could come up to speed, write an RFP, wait the allotted time for incoming bids, choose a provider, install the software, and provide the training, all within 30 days. After giving us an impossible deadline, the amendment requires schools that fail to meet the requirements repay the full amount of universal service assistance back to the date the failure began. Retroactive repayment of universal service support for noncompliance is unrealistic. Across the Nation, communities are already working to assure that children's Internet access is properly guided. They are utilizing all the options available to them and choosing those that best meet the needs of those local communities. We ought to trust our local library boards and school boards. Imposing a Federal mandate is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is a sad day when the Speaker of this House is unable to deliver on his promise of a deliberative process on efforts to reduce gun violence. This bill bypassed entirely the substantive committee process, despite the promise of the Republican leadership; a pointless delay, which has only allowed the NRA and other gun violence apologists to politick and fund-raise to their hearts' content, while distorting the effects of this modest Senate provision. We have an opportunity to support these provisions rather than weakening them further and show that there is a way to give voice to the concerns of the overwhelming majority of the American public on this issue. If we care about families, we should enact Federal child access laws like 17 States have done. We can close the gun show loophole rather than make it worse. These are modest steps, but they start us in a new direction to make America a little less lethal. The victims of gun violence are not just the children in schoolyards, classrooms and America's neighborhoods. We are all being held hostage. It is time for a majority of the Members of this Congress to stand up and start in a new direction.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman. I support the legislation. I hope we will be concerned in its implementation to make sure that we can do a good job of putting these pieces together.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might engage in a very brief colloquy with the ranking member. I would say to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), I strongly support Air 21 because an adequate air transport is a key component to a livable community, to make sure it is healthy and well- functioning. Yet in most of the communities one of the most harrowing parts of the journey is trying to actually get to the airport, and not just for passengers. There are problems for the many thousands of employees that work there, and the timing of freight is increasingly difficult. Yet, the Federal government invests hundreds of billions of dollars on the ground, and Air 21 means tens of billions of dollars in the air. I would ask the gentleman if, under the implementation of Air 21, if there are ways to assure better coordination between air and ground transport, either coordination with the FAA, spotlighting the facts that have been done, or ways to get more representation of air issues on MPOs?

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, gun violence against children in this country has reached a point where even Congress can no longer ignore its consequences. Even though there still have been the 10 to 15 children, victims of violence across the country, finally it was some very stark school shootings that focused the attention. I sat on the floor of this Chamber and heard the Speaker articulate from this well how finally Congress and the House of Representatives would be coming forward. We could not rush to judgment before Memorial Day bringing something to the floor of the House. We had instead to take a more deliberative course of action. Well, we have seen what has been the result of that more deliberate course of action. After the NRA has been spending hundreds of thousands of dollars per day over the last couple of weeks, even more in their fund-raising efforts, we now have coming before the House of Representatives a rather confused set of provisions, and we are poised to pull another Kosovo where we cannot go right, left, sideways or forward. Mr. Speaker, that is unfortunate because there is, in fact, a very simple answer for the House of Representatives to move forward. First and foremost, it is to refine and pass the provisions that did secure approval in the U.S. Senate restricting the magazine clips, having child access protection and dealing with the gun show loophole to the Brady bill. These are modest steps, but the American public supports it, and it would be an opportunity for us to show that we have got the message and can work together. The next step would be to consider Representative Carolyn McCarthy's comprehensive bipartisan bill to reduce gun violence amongst our youth. The Child Gun Violence Protection Act, H.R. 1342, with bipartisan support, contains provisions that will make a difference and should be considered in short order before this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, finally, and I think most interestingly for me, is an opportunity for us to take a step back and look at the same sort of approach that made a difference in reducing the carnage on our Nation's highways. If we would have taken a step back in history a third of a century, we would have heard the same arguments against being able to make a difference in auto safety that we hear today about gun violence. The Americans have a love affair with the automobile that, if anything, is more pervasive than the attachment to firearms. There is no single step that is going to make the total difference, that is going to solve the problem. Some of it may actually cost money investing in making things safer. Well, we heard all of those arguments, but Congress finally was provoked to act, and it did so in a comprehensive way. It produced legislation, consumer product safety-oriented, that made automobiles safer. We had manufacturers, instead of fighting auto safety, understand that it was important to produce the safest possible product and competed in terms of providing the amenities of a safer vehicle. It was a selling point. We found that the American people would rise to the occasion, and, even though it was inconvenient for some or perhaps a modest infringement on their lifestyle, we have seen dramatic changes take place in terms of attitudes of people; driving and alcohol, for instance. We have changed America's patterns. A third of a century later, we have cut in half the rate of death and destruction on our highways. I am absolutely convinced that we can do the same thing dealing with the reduction of gun violence with our youth, that we can have as much consumer safety for real guns as we have for toy guns. The key will be whether or not the Members of this Chamber are willing to stand up for our families and for our children to look at the apologists for gun violence, look past their misrepresentations and political threats and do what is right. If we were able to do it to change a climate of carnage on our highways, I think we can do the same thing to reduce gun violence for our children. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to Congress this week taking this important first step to avoid a debacle like we had, an inability to make some decisions on Kosovo, and send clear statements about our commitment to reduce gun violence for our children.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress with a goal to help the Federal Government be a better partner working with State and local governments, the private sector and individual citizens to promote livable communities. In that capacity I am used to people who are confused or are perhaps even hostile to looking at doing things differently. Change is not easy. Some have difficulty imagining different patterns of development in our community. The latest example of either confusion or hostility was an article that appeared in the New York Times this weekend entitled The Scourge of New Jobs. It was taking my community, Portland, Oregon, to task for supposedly discouraging new jobs by having a modest surcharge on potential increase in jobs as a result of an agreement with the high tech company Intel. The article was replete with errors. First and foremost, Portland does not limit building permits, although it does, I think very logically, focus on where building and development should take place. In fact, we have seen over the better part of this decade dramatic increase in building and development in our community. Our area does not limit jobs; in fact, to the contrary. We have had rapid growth in employment in the Portland metropolitan area; over 180,000 jobs since 1990. But what we have found is that the quality of life is the key to attracting good jobs and keeping them in our community. Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is that development seldom entirely pays for itself through increased sales or property taxes. Indeed, in our community, as in many, when you have industrial expansion like Intel, the strains potentially on schools, public safety, roads and the environment far exceed a modest increase in the property tax. In this case, the local government had agreed to place a limit on the amount of property that could be collected for the new development. In exchange for this limitation there was a thousand-dollar surcharge that was going to be assessed against Intel if it exceeded an additional thousand jobs. But put that in perspective. We are talking about $12.5 billion of new investment. We are talking about a $200 million tax break. If somehow the company increased employment by more than a thousand, that would only be a million dollars to help the local community defer the increased costs. It was clearly a good deal for the company, which is why they jumped at it, and it reflects the fact that we want to have balanced growth, not deteriorate the quality of life for the businesses and the individuals who already live there. At a time when suburban dwellers are increasingly concerned about the erosion of their quality of life, at a time when small towns across America are struggling to be economically viable and retain their unique identities, when central cities are struggling to come back from years of economic decline and decay, when a town like Atlanta wakes up one day and looks at the price of its unplanned growth, losing job opportunities, for example, in high tech, it makes what we are doing in the Portland metropolitan area worthwhile not just to look at, but to carefully examine. Mr. Speaker, I would be the last to suggest that this ought to be a cookie-cutter approach that everybody ought to apply, but at a time when the American people demand and deserve more livable communities, we ought not to ignore any good examples.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, part of why I am in Congress is because I believe that the Federal government has an opportunity to be a better partner with the rest of America to promote livable communities. This is a very small item in the large scheme of things in the debate that is going on tonight, but I think it speaks volumes to the level of hypocrisy that goes on in Washington, D.C. There was a provision that was inserted in the Committee on Appropriations by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) that would require a meaningful recycling program to be developed for the House of Representatives. I have been stunned at what we do not do in the House. We have the worst performance of any agency in the Federal government. I have Boy Scout troops in my district that have made more money recycling cans, bottles, and Christmas trees than the House of Representatives has done in the last 3 years that I have been in Congress. There are homeless people within the sight of this Capitol that make more money in a day than the House of Representatives was able to surplus for all the tons of paper that pass through this place in the year 1997. We are repeatedly assured that we have a recycling program. We have the funny little blue cans and cannisters, but it simply does not work. The Committee on Appropriations stepped forward to try and help encourage it in this bill. I note that under this rule, the only provision that is not protected is this requirement that we get serious about recycling. It seems to me that we have an opportunity to lead by example, to try and promote more livable communities. This does not cost any money. In fact, if we would grow up and do what we ask the rest of America to do, it would mean tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in terms of increased money that we make to this House, and it would save disposal costs. A little thing? I do not understand what is going on tonight with some of this folderol. Somebody will explain it to the reporters and I can read about it tomorrow. But I do know that it is embarrassing that we do not have a recycling program, that the House of Representatives is the worst performer in the Federal government; that we are being outperformed by homeless people and Boy Scout troops. We deserve to do better. I would ask that people not play games with this provision, that it be not struck down under a point of order. I think that it would be an important signal for us to send to the rest of America that we are serious about promoting livable communities, and we are willing to lead by example and not be hypocritical about it. If Members are going to do this, then for heavens sakes get rid of all the things that pretend to be recycling, throw them out. Do not have staff waste the time and money.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, at home this last week, and in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this weekend, I heard from people from all across the country who want the Federal Government to be a better partner in promoting livable communities so that our families can be safe, economically secure and healthy. Reducing the threat of gun violence is at the core of what will make communities more livable, yet the apologists for gun violence have been hard at work during our recess seeking to derail the modest steps that would make our children safer from guns. People of conscience should push back. During my 3 years in Congress, there have been nine multiple shooting deaths on our school campuses involving children shooting other children and their teachers. The epidemic of gun violence amongst our youth has tragic consequences in terms of loss of life, physical safety and the health of our communities. Yet for all the media attention given to Jonesboro, Springfield and the Littleton massacres, tragedies like this occur daily, with over 12 children being killed in a typical 24-hour period. The only difference is that unlike Littleton or Springfield, the pain is scattered from town to town in isolated bursts. Even though these tragedies occur without massive media attention, they nonetheless produce pain every bit as real and lasting in communities across the country. This Sunday, in Milwaukee, the papers were full of a tragic example of a young man shooting his best friend. While I was reading that on the plane, a 3-year-old in Baltimore shot himself in the head and he lies in the hospital now, critically wounded. These numbers are staggering and uniquely American. Each year more than 5,000 children are killed by firearms. By contrast, only 15 people in the entire Nation of Japan were murdered with handguns last year. At the same time, the apologists for gun violence contend that there are no useful government initiatives to reduce this violence other than simply stricter enforcement of the laws, more prison time for criminals and wider use of firearms. I strongly disagree. We in the House of Representatives should vote and pass the three gun safety elements in the Senate legislation, which would require safety locks on all new handguns, background checks for sales at gun shows and a ban on the sale of ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds. These are minor steps, but meaningful if they serve as a starting point for a more deliberate and comprehensive approach to ending gun violence. An important bill which I was pleased to cosponsor with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) includes several measures designed to keep guns out of kids' hands. H.R. 1342 is being supported by a growing number of people of conscience on both sides of the aisle. It should be the vehicle that deals comprehensively with these concerns. Another important approach is legislation that I just introduced today that takes a page from our successful efforts at reducing death and injury on our highways. Thirty years ago Congress started simple, common-sense legislation that has cut the death rate on our highways in half. We can do the same with handguns. My legislation would, for instance, assure that the Consumer Product Safety Commission devotes as much time to regulating real guns as it does to toy guns. It would require new guns to have an indicator to show it is loaded. It would extend the Brady law to deny people with a history of violent and reckless behavior the ability to purchase and own firearms, and it would require the Federal Government to establish a date in the near future when all the guns that we purchase for our Federal employees are personalized so that those guns cannot be used against them or stolen. The Speaker of the House has argued against extraneous riders dealing with gun safety laws. I find this ironic when we just passed an absolute abomination of a spending bill supposedly to finance our troops in Kosovo and other emergencies, but included everything from defining reindeer as livestock to relaxing environmental regulations on mining. Why is it that when it comes to the special interests we are willing to make exceptions, but not when it comes to our children? They should be at least as important as well-connected lobbyists. It is time to pass comprehensive legislation to protect our children, our families and our communities from senseless gun violence, and we ought to do it now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I too rise out of a note of optimism and, frankly, a little sadness, having listened to the Speaker's comments on the floor of this House. I have been in Congress only 3 years, but over the course of those 3 years we have been attempting repeatedly to have the Republican leadership allow us the opportunity to vote on simple, common-sense approaches that will make a difference for the epidemic of gun violence in this country. We, in fact, know that it will make a difference. There are about six times that I have taken to the well of this Chamber after tragic shootings, not to try to take advantage of them, but thinking that for a moment there might be an opportunity that this would touch the conscience of the people who control what the Members of this body will be able to vote upon. Nine times since I have been in Congress there have been multiple shooting deaths on school campuses around this country. One of them, tragically, was in my State of Oregon. I do not know how anybody who looks in the eyes of the families who have suffered this tragedy, who have looked in their souls to realize that we have taken steps in this Congress to deal with things like auto safety, yet we will not take the same simple approach to try and make a difference to reduce the carnage from gun violence for young people. The concept of a livable community, from where I sit, is what the Federal Government is about. It ought to be a partnership with State governments, local governments, with the local communities, school districts, to try to make sure that when children go out the door in the morning that they are safe, that the family is economically secure and they are healthy. Gun violence has a wrenching impact on all three of those factors. The economic costs are staggering, costing billions of dollars each year for the thousands who are dead and maimed, victimized directly and indirectly. It has a significant impact in terms of public safety and crime, and it certainly makes a difference in terms of people's sense of security. In the last Congress we pleaded just to act on the child access protection legislation. Give us a chance to vote on it. Fifteen States have enacted it, including the State of Florida, the home State of the Chair of the Subcommittee on Violence, and it has made a difference in terms of making children safer. I would think that, at a minimum, the Members of this body ought to come forward and demand that we vote at least on the three elements that are in the Senate legislation, pass those things out today, make that progress real; then we can come back after the recess and deal with the Speaker's more deliberative approach on a longer-range term. We have legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) that a number of people on both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, people of conscience, have signed that could be the vehicle that would deal comprehensively with these concerns. I have legislation that I will be advancing that deals with making sure that the Product Safety Commission spends as much attention with real guns as it does with toy guns; that we would extend the prohibition against criminals having access to weapons under the Brady bill to others who have demonstrated a consistent pattern of violent behavior. This is overwhelmingly supported by the American public. And last, but not least, that the Federal Government become a leader in personalizing guns to make sure that, for example, they cannot be used, the law enforcement service revolvers cannot be used against that man or woman in uniform. The Federal Government has a chance to make a huge difference in advancing this technology. I find it a little ironic that the Speaker takes to the well of this Chamber urging caution and arguing against extraneous riders when we just passed an absolute abomination of a spending bill that was supposedly for the defense of our troops in Kosovo and, instead, included everything from reindeer to mining regulations. When it comes to special interests, we are willing to make exceptions, but not when it comes to our children. I think our children ought to be the special interests. We ought to come forward with comprehensive legislation and we ought to do it now.