Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to Congress, I have been focusing on the issue of livable communities and how we can create better partnerships between the Federal Government and our citizens. Unfortunately, one of the obstacles we face is the efforts by some people to create false choices. Last week, we saw two examples here in Congress, one dealing with efforts to reduce gun violence, and the other an important environmental announcement by one of our leading auto companies. Repeated throughout the discussion regarding guns in our communities have been people who have tried to paint very stark pictures that suggest that really there is nothing that we can do to take simple common sense steps. Hopefully, the action in the Senate indicated that there are things that we can do that bring people together that will make a difference. I am optimistic that we may be able to yet have that discussion on the floor of this House. At the same time, we find people trying to paint these same sorts of false choices as it relates to the environmental community. Some argue that we have to work against business or manufacturing when the government seeks to improve the environment. This simply does not have to be the case. Last week we had an excellent example of what happens when companies recognize that they are partners in our efforts to protect the environment and improve air quality. For the last 25 years, trucks and the SUVs have been allowed to produce 2.5 times as much smog-causing gas as cars, and next year, when stricter rules take place, these full-sized vehicles will be producing five times as much as cars under the new rules. Regulations for pickups and the sport utility vehicles were originally more lenient because they were used theoretically primarily by small business, yet today they comprise half of all family vehicles. Last Monday, Ford Motor Company announced that starting with its model 2000 year, its full-sized pickup trucks will meet current pollution standards for cars. All but the largest will meet the stricter new car requirements as well as the proposed truck requirements that go into effect between the year 2002 and 2007. Ford made their announcement a week after a Federal appeals panel, in a radical departure from established judicial precedent, invalidated air quality regulations set by EPA which were designed, in part, to decrease ground level ozone, a major contributor to smog. If that ruling is upheld, efforts like Ford's will take on much more significance. Ford is taking this initiative because they recognize that consumers want cars and trucks that are environmentally sound, and that by producing them, Ford will have a competitive advantage. Jacques Nasser, Ford's chief executive and president, said that Ford is doing this because it will benefit the company financially and because ``it is the right thing to do.'' As the use of pickup trucks and SUVs has increased, so has the amount of smog-producing gas they produce. Manufacturers cleaning up their trucks will allow for cleaner air and easier breathing. Ford's action on the national level will allow each individual driver to contribute less pollution to their community every day, and this new equipment will not adversely affect performance and will come to Ford customers at no extra cost, since Ford has agreed to absorb the $100 per truck cost. Clean air and a healthy environment benefit each of us and all of our communities. Ford has acknowledged that their industry must be a partner in our efforts to protect and preserve our environment. They are to be commended for this action, and I challenge other car and truck manufacturers to do the same. This example of the private sector stepping forward and acting on behalf of the environment should be a wake-up call to this Congress as well. We need to do our part by considering rewarding those companies rather than potentially even penalizing them. We must also work together to avoid the debacle that occurred last week with unrelated environmental riders that were added to the supplemental appropriations bill. Ford's action demonstrated that preserving the environment is a priority for the American people, and that we must do all we can to create an environmental record we can be proud of. I would hope that as we approach further efforts dealing with the environmental protection and, for that matter, the reduction of gun violence, we can avoid the false choices offered by the extreme.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I strongly associate with his comments. I have only been in Congress 3 years; but in the course of the time that I have been in Congress there have been eight multiple shootings on school yards. I look at my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), she and I were present earlier before tragic shootings in our State, seeking the attention of the Republican leadership and of this Congress to at least allow a vote on simple, common sense, direct approaches that would minimize the impact of gun violence with our children. We pleaded, for instance, to have the opportunity to at least vote on the most benign of child access protection legislation in the last Congress. We were denied the opportunity in the last juvenile justice bill to have any vote at all on any legislation, any amendment, even modestly taking the tack of trying to increase the safety of guns in the home. It was frustrating for me that we could have 15 States, starting with the State that was the home of the Chair of that subcommittee that had child access protection, the State of Florida, 15 States have followed, and yet we have not been able to have the most innocuous of votes in this Chamber. I am pleased that finally we are starting to see some movement, that we have seen some action on the Senate side, and perhaps the Republican leadership will find it in their heart to allow a vote on the floor of this Chamber. There are a number of proposals that have absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the hunting population around this country. In fact, they are supported by the overwhelming majority of gun owners. Why? Why do we still sell guns in this country that do not tell one whether or not there is a bullet in the chamber? There are dozens of people who are killed every year because of the so-called unloaded gun. Why is it that we do not spend a few cents, up to 75 cents or a dollar, to have a mechanism so that when the clip is removed from an automatic pistol, that it sweeps the chamber and unloads it? Why is it that there are more consumer protection devices for toy guns than real guns? Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for the people on this floor to seize control of this issue ourselves. If it takes a discharge petition in order to be able to vote on these simple, common sense steps that will save children's lives, that are in fact supported not just by the majority of Americans, but by the majority of the gun- owning Americans, I think that the time has come. I deeply appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) yielding me some time. I appreciate this discussion that is taking place here this evening. I hope the American public will add their voice so that they are in fact heard and this Congress takes its head out of the sand, takes simple, common sense steps that will in fact save the lives of children in America.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is to help the Federal Government be a better partner with State and local governments, with business and private citizens, to do everything it can in promoting livable communities, because what our families really care about is that their children are safe when they go out the door to school in the morning, that families are economically secure and healthy. There is a vital component to this livability movement that goes well beyond the crafting of Federal legislation. The most powerful livability champions out there make the message real. They are the folks who take the rhetoric one step farther and actually walk the talk. For the last 3 months I have been especially intrigued by one such person, Bette Midler, who first got my attention when she took to national syndicated television a few months back and confessed that if she had not gone into entertainment she probably would have pursued a career as an urban planner, and she certainly has moved to the forefront in promoting livability with her personal advocacy and investment. This was most apparent last week when she spearheaded the rescue of 112 pocket parks and community gardens in New York City from being sold for redevelopment. Had Miss Midler not stepped in, along with the Trust for Public Land and a group that she founded in 1994, the New York Restoration Project, a great number of New Yorkers would have lost the joy they have received from these gardens. Over a third of a century ago, author Jane Jacobs captured in her book, The Life and Death of Great American Cities, the importance of places for people to congregate over sterile formal parks, planned with even the best of intentions, in ways that do not speak to people's needs for diversity and connection. In threatening to auction these small gardens to the highest bidder, Mayor Giuliani not only added to the evidence that he does not get the revitalization taking place in New York City, that it needs to be about more than simply adding police officers on the corner, talking tough and bribing the New York Yankees to stay in New York City. Revitalization is most effective when it brings people together. When people invest in their communities, they feel that they have ownership in the neighborhood, and this feeling of ownership is undoubtedly the most effective deterrent to crime and deterioration. Community gardens take little enclaves that otherwise might be garbage dumps or staging areas for crime and turns them not just into green oasis but a place where people want to go. They define community pride, engagement and involvement. Under the guise of providing money and housing opportunities, Giuliani proposed selling off for a couple million dollars these little neighborhood gems. Put aside for a moment that the amount of money is minuscule compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars Giuliani has talked about subsidizing for a few selected businesses. Also ignore for a moment that there are thousands of run-down, dilapidated buildings and vacant lots that would be prime candidates for redevelopment in New York City. This case illustrates the strengths of partnership and why I for one do not trust any one single level of government on its own because there is clearly enough insensitivity and ineptitude to go around. The public which has fought so hard to establish these toeholds fortunately pushed back, and luckily the partners existed in New York City that make livable communities strong and vital. They provided not just money and interest but the spark that brought those pieces together. Today the community gardens are safe, New York City is richer and hopefully politicians like Giuliani have learned a lesson. Sometimes that just means listening to the people about what makes communities and neighborhoods work. Congress can certainly do its part by enacting legislation to make contributions to the public easier for things like scenic and conservation easement, agriculture and timberlands and wetland conservation. The public has learned, with the help of Miss Midler and others, that it can challenge city hall and win, which may be the most important lesson of all for livable communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. It is a sad day when, regardless of our feelings about the tragedy in Latin America and the continuing carnage in the Balkans, that the price that we have to pay on the floor of this House is to inflict damage on the American taxpayer and the landscape. There has been certain reference to the mining law of 1872, which has been an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars. Since that law was enacted, the United States Government has given away almost $250 billion in mineral reserves. In addition to robbing the Treasury, poorly managed mining operations have severely and permanently damaged public land. It is estimated the cost of cleaning up these polluted mines in the United States is between $32 billion and $72 billion, costs that will not be paid by those who profited from the mining operations. Finally, the Department of the Interior, not the Members of Congress, are attempting to correct some of the flaws in the mining policy, as Interior recently has denied an application for mining operations in the State of Washington which sought to dump tons of toxic waste on public land. This denial relied on a previously unused section of the 1872 mining law and could be applied to mining operations across this country. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has been attempting for the past 3 years to promulgate new mining regulations that would address modern mining practices, impose meaningful environmental standards, and help protect taxpayers from the cost of cleaning up abandoned mines. I am appalled that the legislation before us today to deal with disaster relief contains environmental riders which would prevent us from cleaning up mining in the United States. The first rider would permit the unsound mining practices to go forward not just in the State of Washington but allows similar practices throughout the United States until the end of the year. And for the third time in 3 years are riders included which delays implementation of the Bureau of Land Management's new mining regulations. I strongly urge that we oppose this legislation and move to support the motion to recommit.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Florida yielding me this time. One of the low points for me in my tenure in Congress is what we have visited as the Congress adjourned last fall. We dealt with an omnibus spending bill. I think people on both sides of the aisle, people of all different philosophical orientations were frustrated that we were doing the people's business in this fashion with billions of dollars, nobody really knowing what was in it; and it was something that none of us would be proud of back home in the smallest city or county. I personally feel that we need to take each opportunity to recommit ours to a thoughtful, reasonable, effective bipartisan approach to dealing with the people's money. I strongly support the motion to instruct by the gentleman from Michigan. I am pleased to hear that he does not think it goes quite far enough. I appreciated the colloquy clarifying the intent on some of these very destructive environmental riders. My sincere hope is that this will be the beginning in this Congress of our having a bipartisan approach to make sure that we do handle the budget in a more thoughtful fashion. I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) for his efforts. I like the spirit of bipartisanship that has been advanced. I hope that we can take every opportunity in the days ahead to follow up on this, because I think we can do a better job of discharging our responsibilities, getting more out of the tax dollar, and making people feel better about this institution. I think this is a very important part in this effort, and I look forward to it leading to new steps for our being able to work together to put more integrity in the budgetary process.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, our responsibility in Congress is to find ways for the Federal Government to be a better partner in making our communities more livable for American families, to ensure that they are safe, economically secure, and healthy. Since I have been in Congress just 3 years, there have been eight multiple shooting deaths on our school campuses, with young children shooting other children and teachers. The epidemic of gun violence amongst our youth has tragic consequences in terms of loss of life, physical safety, the health of our community, to say nothing of the tremendous financial costs that are involved. For all the attention to the Littleton massacre, this is, in fact, occurring every day. It is just that the pain is scattered from town to town, from city to city in isolated bursts that even without the massive national media coverage is nonetheless producing pain every bit as real. Yesterday there was a conference at the White House on reducing gun violence amongst our children. It was assailed by some because it did not go far enough in suggesting steps that virtually every other country has done to reduce gun violence. Over 5,000 American children are killed by firearms every year in this country. By contrast, only 15 people in the entire country of Japan were murdered with handguns last year. At the same time, it was attacked by apologists for gun violence, who contend that there really are no useful government initiatives to reduce gun violence other than stricter enforcement of laws, more prison time for criminals, and wider use of firearms. I am heartened by the meeting and the discussion yesterday, because most Americans know that the people who hold the most extreme views are simply wrong. Just as there is no single identifiable cause of the Littleton tragedy, there is no single magic solution. But it is defeatist in the extreme and an abrogation of our responsibility as Americans, and especially as Members of Congress, to fail to do everything in our power to make a difference. The research shows we can and that we will be supported by the vast majority of the American people if we do take action. For example, we must stop the travesty of allowing the gun industry to operate without protections for public health. There ought to be the same scrutiny applied to real guns as applied to toy guns as far as consumer protections are concerned. We should not sell one more new gun in this country that does not tell us if there is a bullet in the chamber. There ought to be no loopholes for the background check requirements of the Brady bill, which has prevented more than a quarter million known felons from buying weapons. We ought to extend that prohibition to deny people with a history of violent and reckless behavior the ability to purchase and own firearms. The Federal Government should select a date in the near future when it will require that all the guns that we supply to our thousands of employees will be personalized so that that weapon cannot be used against them. We ought to assure that people who manage their guns in a reckless fashion are held accountable. We ought to make the child access law pioneered years ago in Florida the law of the land, protecting families everywhere. The leadership in this Congress ought to have the courage to insist that the proposals be debated in the House of Representatives as they are this week in the Senate. Once this sees the light of day on the floor of the House, we will find that, in fact, there are men and women in both parties who have the conscience, have the conviction to stand up to the apologists for gun violence and take these simple, common-sense steps to reduce the tragic toll that gun violence has had in our communities. An important first step will be the Comprehensive Child Violence Protection Act introduced by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy). I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring her legislation and to urge the Republican leadership to finally find it in their hearts to allow this to be debated on the floor of the House. The carnage of Littleton will occur again today in dozens of instances across America. I hope that this is the last day that Congress is missing in action and that this Congress finally steps forward to do all it can to protect our families and their children from senseless gun violence.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this last week at the Conference on Sustainable Development in Detroit, Michigan, the administration announced the winners of the Transportation and Community Systems Preservation Program. The TCSP was a little noticed title in TEA-21, which really did not get the attention and recognition it deserved. There are a number of programs that spend far more than the $13 million involved, but there are few that will have more long-term impact. The program had its origin in the experience in my State of Oregon in the early 1990s, where citizen activists successfully petitioned the State Department of Transportation to consider an alternative to a traditional beltway that included careful land use planning, connecting the transportation links, and grouping uses in a way that might be able to achieve the transportation and congestion and air quality objectives without as much concrete. And the fact is that the alternative that they developed was more cost effective than simply building a traditional road. This LUTRAC program, helping communities design local initiatives to maximize their infrastructure investment, has found its way into ISTEA. Yesterday morning, I visited with Federal, State and local officials and local business people in my community dealing with FEMA's Project Impact. And here we found that Oregon's requirement of careful land use planning with local governments actually has made a significant impact in lowering the losses to flood damage. It has resulted in saving Oregon's homeowners and businesses millions of dollars as a result of disaster mitigation. The TCSP is designed to extend these principles beyond natural disasters to potential manmade disasters of needless loss of farmland, forests, unnecessary traffic congestion, and conflicts between residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Recently we had a presentation from the director of our State watchdog agency, the Land Conservation and Development Commission, which was set up to enforce and regulate the land use requirements that our Oregon voters have repeatedly supported. He presented the data that I found rather compelling that, in the 20 years that we have had our system, we actually protected an increase of 4 percent more agriculture land in the Willamette Valley in Oregon. The metropolitan Portland area, although it has increased in population 42 percent, the urbanized area has only increased 20 percent. Unlike what has happened in New York City, where the urbanized area increased eight times more rapidly than the population increase, in Chicago it was 11 times more rapidly urbanization in the population increase, Detroit 13 times. An even more interesting comparison is we have two fast growing counties in the Portland metropolitan area, one, Washington County, just to the west of the City of Portland, and one to the north in the State of Washington, Clark County. Both have been the fastest growing counties in their States. Clark County, in Washington, lost 6,000 more acres of farmland than Washington County, even though in Washington County we have increased more than 40,000 more residents than Clark County. Not only that, but the per-farm income actually dropped by 10 percent in Clark County, while in Washington County, with the land use and transportation protections, farm income rose by 30 percent, farm income rising in a county that is the home of Oregon's high-tech industry. The TCSP program is going to make a difference in localities that do not have the Oregon land use planning framework and it is going to make a huge difference in our community building on that system. There have been over 500 applications submitted around the country. This week, in Denver, there are people studying at a conference right now how to use the program. I strongly urge that each Member of Congress look at the applications from their district, understand how they work. These concepts of smart growth can include a number of programs that simply are not going to be funded without having the adequate support from our Congressional representatives. It will in the long run save far more tax dollars than the modest investment in planning; and, most important, it will include our citizens in helping shape impacts on their destiny.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, with its actions today, the Republican leadership continues its muddle of our Balkan policy. The vast majority of Republicans have already rejected both a declaration of war and a complete withdrawal of our troops, and voted against supporting current troop operations. However, the Republicans still want to spend twice as much money as requested for Kosovo, thereby surreptitiously busting the budget caps they've pledged to maintain. Ironically, this inflates the cost of the very effort on which they can't figure out their position. Simply being against the President and also claiming 20-20 hindsight on matters of diplomacy is not leadership. I supported the Democratic substitutes, which would eliminate much of the military spending unrelated to Kosovo. It would also have included the necessary emergency funding for the unprecedented hurricane damage in Central America, and provide much needed aid to the American farmer. It is shameful these funds have languished for months without action. Our troops deserve a bill that is not one dime less than our military obligations require. The American people deserve a bill that is not one dime more.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as someone who came to Congress because I believe that Federal Government should do more to be a constructive partner with our communities to help promote livability, I could not be more excited about developments that are taking place this week in Detroit. I just left the conference, the town meeting, on sustainable development where there were over 3100 people from around the country and more still registering. It was not so much a wrap-up of the President's Council of Sustainable Development, but rather a hand-off to citizen activists, students, business, government, nongovernmental agencies to deal with specific activities that they could do to help promote livable communities. There were a variety of workshops with people learning from one another, and the administration has announced 70 specific commitments to help promote that more sustainable future. One of the programs that I am most pleased with was the Transportation and Community Systems Preservation Act. This was a provision in our TEA-21 legislation, the Surface Transportation Act last year, that was born in the Oregon experience where a group of private citizens pushed the State and Federal transportation agencies to consider an alternative to simply constructing a traditional bypass to look at what would happen if we were more thoughtful about the ways that we put pieces together. The results of their research was stunning. It proved conclusively that by dealing with the integration of land use, transportation being more connected and giving people more choices that we could, in fact, reduce congestion more than simply having a pavement-only solution. That found its way into TEA-21. I was happy to have supported it in our House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The driving force in the Senate was my Senator, Ron Wyden, a former colleague here in the House, and it has opened the floodgates; over 500 applications from around the country totaling over $400 million from people who understand the power of being able to plan their community. Sadly we are only able to award a small portion of those programs, approximately 39, although there are opportunities in the horizon to increase those in future years. There may be some federal programs that obviously spend more money, but I think there will be fewer that will have more of an impact than helping citizens sort out the right investments and allowing them to be part of framing those solutions. The entire town meeting effort is an illustration of what livable communities are all about. It is not about Federal interference, but partnership. It is about giving people more choices rather than fewer and that will end up costing people less money rather than more. It is not the solutions for livable communities that are pushing people to the edge financially. It is the consequences of throwing money at problems in an unplanned way, problems that were first created by not carefully planning and thinking about what we are doing. A country that can put a man on the moon and bring him back safely over 20 years ago does not have to build a generation of failed infrastructure projects. It should not be illegal in most of America for a clerk working in a drug store to live in an apartment above that drug store rather than having to have to commute every day. The Federal Government should not pay people more to pave a creek than restore a wetland, especially if that wetland restoration will actually solve the problem as well or even better, and we should guarantee that people in communities, large and small, across America have a place at the table to discuss the impacts of infrastructure investments rather than being shut out by State bureaucracies. Finally, the Federal Government itself should do more to lead by example, whether it is finally requiring the Post Office to obey the same laws and codes that the private sector or that local government itself needs to follow or, for that matter, having the House of Representatives do as good a job in our recycling efforts as a couple of ambitious Boy Scout troops do back home. The bottom line is that the American public wants our families to be safe, economically secure and healthy. What is going on with the town meeting this week in Detroit is an example of how to do that. I hope that my colleagues will look at ways that each of us in Congress can do our best to help make our communities more livable.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this Chamber has been dominated with discussion over the course of this week dealing with the limitations and the costs of the use of force in trying to secure international peace. Yet, there is another very critical area. As we attempt to work our will on issues around the globe, we are finding it more and more difficult to gain leverage with other countries as we are dealing with issues that deal with economic sanctions. Our efforts are made all the more difficult by signals coming from inside this Chamber encouraging America to retreat from its role as the world's only remaining superpower. It is time for us to take a step back and reshape our thinking about how we can apply sanctions that are more in tune with what actually happens in the world. Well-intentioned sanctions are becoming less and less effective if we do it on an unilateral basis. Currently, it is estimated that half the world's population is subject to some sort of sanction on the part of the United States. Yet it is estimated that only one-fifth of the programs that we have applied previously in the last 20 years achieved their intended goals. The Institute for Economic Analysis estimated that unilateral sanctions have a very real cost for Americans and our businesses, perhaps as much as $20 billion per year in lost opportunities, which translates into a potential job loss of 200,000 American jobs. And those that are in the international arena turn out to be amongst the highest paying American jobs. We see persuasive evidence that unilateral sanctions simply do not work. The threat of sanctions not only failed to deter what happened in India or Pakistan regarding nuclear testing, but it would have cost people in the region that I represent in the Pacific Northwest a huge wheat sale if Congress had not acted quickly to grant a waiver authority to the President so he would not have to apply the sanction. Well, it rescued a potential loss of business but it made us look foolish, having this sanction out here and then not applying it when the chips were down. The example of Cuba is perhaps one of the most abject failure, where we have imposed sanctions basically alone in the world. Yet Castro continues to thrive after 40 years and, in fact, perhaps has been even more entrenched by our opposition to his regime. The simple fact is, if we are going to initiate sanctions, we need to have better information to make better-informed decisions. We need to look in a comprehensive way about what we are trying to achieve. When will we decide whether or not the sanction is effective, and how will we determine whether or not we have met that objective? I personally am embarrassed in conversations that I have had with people, parliamentarians from other more developed countries who have very thoughtful approaches that allow them to determine when they are going to be involved, how they are going to be successful, and when they conclude that effort. I was pleased to join former Representative Lee Hamilton and Senator Lugar, both of Indiana, last session when they introduced comprehensive reform of American sanctions policy. I am pleased that this legislation has been reintroduced in this session. I would strongly urge my colleagues to look at comprehensive sanction reform as an area for them to be involved. It is an area that we ought to know what we are doing. It will make a big difference for American business, and it will make our foreign policy much more effective in the long-run. At a time when we are dominated by the threat of war and, in fact, being actively engaged with American fighting men and women overseas, we owe it to them, we owe it to our constituents, we owe it to ourselves to make sure that we have all the tools that are available and that they are used in a thoughtful fashion. {time} 1330

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today I voted for the bipartisan Senate- approved resolution authorizing President Clinton to continue military air operations and missile strikes against Yugoslavia. I supported this resolution because it shows strong support for the troops while endorsing the NATO action as the best available way to convince President Milosevic that his campaign of ethnic cleansing is unacceptable. We in Congress must take care to be supportive and not limit our future military options in Kosovo, especially given that the situation may change faster than Congress can react. For that reason, I opposed the Goodling-Fowler resolution as it would have required Congressional authorization before using ground troops. Even though the Goodling- Fowler resolution will never find its way into law, the act of approval by the House sends all the wrong signals about our commitment to NATO's actions. We cannot afford to tie NATO's hands or broadcast our military intentions--especially at this important juncture in the conflict. I also opposed both proposals by Representative Campbell, one declaring war on Yugoslavia and the other demanding the removal of our armed forces from their positions near Yugoslavia. I believe both resolutions were extreme and not helpful in advancing NATO's efforts to restore peace to the region, in returning the Kosovars to their homeland, or in reducing or eliminating Milosevic's ability to threaten his neighbors or terrorize minorities inside Yugoslavia. However, I feel clarifying Congress' role in foreign conflicts under the War Powers Act is one worth considering at an appropriate time. We in Congress have continued to neglect what Congress' exact role should be in these situations. It is unfortunate that we seem to only visit this issue in the middle of conflicts, when such debate is confusing at best, and often inappropriate. I am hopeful we can schedule a full debate on this issue at a time certain before the end of this Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my goal in Congress is for the Federal Government to be a better partner with States, local government, business, and private citizens in promoting livable communities. This means helping our citizens guarantee their families they are safe, economically secure, and healthy. While we give much attention to the physical infrastructure in livability, roads, housing, transit, environmental protection, there is another fundamental building block of a livable community and that is a healthy education system. The Federal Government has, throughout our history, been a key partner with the States and local communities in education. Some mistakenly suggest that there is no Federal role. Yet from the Northwest Ordinance of 1789, which set aside land in each of the new States for educational purposes, to the GI Bill following World War II, to the important legislation in the 1980s that expanded educational opportunities to the disabled, the Federal Government has played an instrumental role in the development of American education. One of the most important actions Congress has taken in the last 10 years 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 Act mandated that some of the billions of dollars in savings for the telecommunications industry be returned to our community in the form of reduced rates for Internet access. Known as the E-Rate, short for educational rate, it is part of the Federal Universal Service Fund. It provides a 20 to 90 percent discount on telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections for public schools, both public and private, as well as our library systems. One of the major battles in the last Congress was to protect the E- Rate. There were some justifiable concerns about the initial start-up, but these were turned into political issues that threatened the future of the discount itself. Others tried to turn it for partisan advantage, attacking the Vice President in his work to develop the information superhighway, characterizing the E-Rate as a ``Gore tax.'' While it was a clever laugh line, it ignored the fact that the Universal Service Fund has been an accepted part of the Federal communication landscape for over 60 years. Adding the E-Rate to this mechanism simply brought it up to date, to the modern challenges faced by both rural and urban America. It was exciting to be a part of a coalition that included educational advocates, farsighted members of the industry, libraries across the country, and over 100 Members of Congress who put their names on the line as part of that effort. Although scaled back somewhat, and with some important adjustments and reform, we were able to hold the system intact. There were over 25,000 applications approved who received $1.66 billion. Well, the word is in for this year. There are even more applications than last year, over 36,000 from around the country, more applications, and the total requests are over $2.4 billion. Even though we successfully resisted efforts to eliminate the E-Rate in the last Congress, and even though public opinion polls show overwhelming support for it, we must not be complacent. Once again, there is legislation circulating in this session of Congress that would repeal the E-Rate and deny this essential program. I am optimistic that we will prevail in protecting it. I am optimistic that this administration and this Congress will approve more money for school construction, and that we will do a better job being a partner to provide more teachers in our classrooms. But it is essential, as we focus on education and livable communities, that we protect and enhance the capacity of every child in this country to gain computer skills and have access to the worldwide Internet connection.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my concern as a Member of Congress is that the Federal Government does everything it can to be a full partner in promoting the livability of our communities, because at the end of the day, what our families care about is that their children are safe when they go out the door to go to school in the morning, that the families are economically secure and healthy. Of those factors, the most important, I am sure, is the safety of those families. We have had within the last 24 hours another tragic reminder that handgun and firearm violence continues to be either the first or second leading cause of death and injury to America's children. It does not have to be this way. A few weeks ago I was honored to host a forum on this topic with several distinguished scholars who discussed ideas with Members of Congress of things we can do to reduce firearm violence with our children. For instance, we have the opportunity to make firearms safer. All we need here in Congress is the will to change Federal policy so that gun manufacturers meet consumer safety standards for their products. It is a shame and a national disgrace that toy guns currently have higher consumer product safety standards than real guns. It is outrageous in America that we cannot adopt the simple suggestion to require an indicator that will tell somebody whether or not a gun is loaded or require, for a few cents or maybe a couple of dollars, a device that will not let a gun fire if the clip has been removed, or requiring a trigger lock on a gun. It is sad that, given the tragic nature of gun injuries and violence, that there is not a single source of information in the entire United States Government to help us understand the pattern, to isolate the patterns and types of violence and be able to do something about it. It is not the case in other parts of American society. There are regulations that will in fact make a difference to disrupt this pattern of violence. We have demonstrated that by taking away the right to own guns from people who have demonstrated that they are not responsible gun owners; that we can make a difference in how those guns are used. We have shown that there are consistent areas of support to expand that pattern of denial to people who have consistently shown patterns of violent and reckless behavior. The vast majority of the American public supports it. The majority of gun owners support it. It is time for us to take that simple step to reduce unnecessary gun violence. It is time for the Federal Government to step forward and stop purchasing firearms for our use that do not have smart gun technology that ensures that that gun that we give to a law enforcement officer cannot be used against him or her, to personalize the weapon. Similarly, we would not think of having an automobile that did not have a key that personalized its use, so we should do the same with firearms. There are other important areas that we have tried to bring before people in this Chamber. Law enforcement wants us to help them tackle the all-too-frequent problems of firearm violence. Fifteen States have child access protection laws which make it harder for children to gain access to guns. We have had the tragic example of Jonesboro, Arkansas where the children's first stop was at a home that used safe storage of the weapons. There, even using a blowtorch, they were unable to get access to weapons. They went to the next home, and there the weapons were open and accessible. The rest is tragic history. The horror that we witnessed yesterday in Colorado is part of a larger pattern. How many more examples are we going to have to witness before we come to our senses on the floor of this Chamber and take simple steps? There is no one single solution to solve the epidemic of gun violence, but we have the responsibility to undertake these simple, common sense steps. I pray the Republican leadership will allow us to vote on some of them in the course of this session.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate Earth Day, Thursday, April 22. Many will use this occasion to highlight major policy issues, as well they should, issues dealing with greenhouse gases, the effects of global warming, and the pollution of our world's oceans. However, I feel that the real power to be demonstrated is at the other end of the spectrum, dealing with individual actions. Many of us here on Capitol Hill will celebrate Earth Day with a bike ride. People from the Capitol, commuters, business people from all over the region, will converge on Freedom Plaza on Pennsylvania Avenue, illustrating the impact that people can have dealing with this very simple and efficient mode of transportation. Yet, we do not need to have everybody trade their car in for a bicycle. If people in our community will choose to take just one less trip a week, whether that is by foot, by transit, by bicycle, or simply consolidating their other journeys to produce that one trip reduction, it can have a phenomenal impact in terms of reducing air pollution, congestion, and the requirement for more investment in infrastructure. The most important thing is for people to think about their behavior and think about the little things we can do to make things better: Shopping locally, or treating their own yard like they would like farmers and industry to conserve their property. Whether it is conserving water, dealing with native vegetations, using less toxic herbicides or fertilizer, we can all make a big difference. Mr. Speaker, I think there is plenty of room for us in Congress to have an impact on the environment. To be sure, I hope this session will deal with things like water policy, spending our money in more environmentally responsible ways, in Superfund reform, but I would hope that this Congress will also continue the effort to try and focus on the little things that we can do to make a difference. I am pleased that this year we have finally caught up with the rest of America, as the Federal Government has for years told the private sector to reduce employee commute trips by single-occupant vehicles. Congress has finally started to do what we have asked the private sector to do by providing an opportunity for our employees to have subsidized Metro passes. I am, however, continually embarrassed, as I know most Members of Congress are, when the reports come out, as they did last week, about our abysmal record of recycling here on Capitol Hill. In the 3 years I have been a Member of Congress, the total proceeds from all of our recycling effort for over 8,000 employees on Capitol Hill has been less than $27,000. I am sure that there are Boy Scout troops in my community that have raised more money from recycling Christmas trees, bottles and cans than the entire U.S. Congress did in those 3 years. For the year of 1997, the net proceeds was $7.51 for recycling high-grade paper. There are homeless people around Capitol Hill that make more than that in a day recycling bottles and cans. Mr. Speaker, I hope as we have a lot of rhetoric around Congress that we want to live by the rules that we apply to other people. I hope that in the final analysis we will apply that to our individual offices, and step up to behave the way we are asking the rest of America to behave in terms of recycling. I think our record ought to be something that we ought to be proud of, not something that makes us cringe, and I hope that each Member of Congress will dedicate themselves this Earth Day to make it a record that we can, in fact, show to the American people and be proud of.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, since I was elected to Congress I have been focusing on the issue of livable communities and how we create better partnerships between the Federal Government and our citizens. The livability movement is gaining dramatic momentum nationally as we watch officials from the Vice President, Mr. Gore, to local city and county commissioners champion goals for easing traffic congestion, promoting urban redevelopment and creating more open and green spaces. We have seen fundamental changes in how the Federal Government is approaching transportation once we acknowledged that trying to pave our way out of congestion simply did not work, and just as the ISTEA legislation and the recently-enacted TEA-21 are promoting innovative approaches to transportation problems, I suggest that it is time for us to take a new approach to how we manage water resources. It would begin with a vision and a framework for improving the way the Federal Government approaches water resource problems and management based on the same flexibility that we have seen in transportation. For too long, Mr. Speaker, we have treated our watersheds and rivers as machines, costing taxpayers billions of dollars as our communities continue to face increased risks from flood, decreasing numbers of fish and growing health risks caused by polluted rivers and streams. Forty percent of our Nation's waterways fail to meet drinking, recreation or fish habitat needs, and that number sadly is growing. Some urban streams and creeks and rivers are so degraded, people consider them dead and beyond recovery. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I joined with the America's Rivers program to announce America's most endangered rivers of 1999, a list of 10 such threatened waterways and what we can do about it. Well, Congress can help right now, and I suggest that we approach water issues in this session with what I would term Water Vision 2000. It would, first of all, suggest that the Federal Government deal fundamentally with watersheds. We must think more broadly and comprehensively about the missions and how they can work with local communities throughout the entire watershed cycle. Second, we must focus on increased Federal flexibility. We need more coordination and responsiveness from Federal agencies so local communities can be creative in how they meet their water challenges. In this way we can indeed make sure that we are spending each dollar two or three times over in terms of total benefit, and citizen involvement must be part of the solution and not simply an afterthought of the decision-making process. We have been using such an approach in Oregon. Last November we brought together over 300 people to deal with a summit on the needs of the Johnson Creek watershed, 54 square miles, to consider 45 separate plans that exist to deal with land use and regulatory issues in this area. It was a beginning for our efforts to deal more comprehensively and creatively together from the Federal level down to the local area. I have suggested in this Congress three additional legislative proposals. I have already discussed on this floor approaches to the Federal flood control program. I hope ultimately we will have municipal watershed management on Federal lands; and I hope that people will join with me this week in dealing with reforms to the National Flood Insurance Program. High-risk properties for flood insurance right now make up only 2 percent of all the national flood properties, but they claim 40 percent of all Federal flood insurance pay-outs. Over the last 18 years, repetitive losses from these properties have cost the taxpayers over $2.5 billion. My legislation would deny national Federal flood insurance coverage to people who file two or more claims that total more than the value of their property. It would suggest that people who refuse to use Federal money to take the precaution of flood-proofing their homes or relocating out of harm's way would no longer be entitled to continuous Federal payment. Now is the time that we in this Congress ought to dedicate our efforts at every turn to make sure that the numerous local and Federal water agencies are working comprehensively in the watershed, Mr. Speaker. The next great advance in livability, if my colleagues will pardon the expression, is to be found on the waterfront, and I call on my colleagues to join me in this Congress in a comprehensive approach to a new vision of water resources.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress can do many things to enhance the livability of our communities, giving a wide range of opportunities, whether it is requiring the Post Office to play by the same rules as the rest of America by following local land use laws and zoning codes, and maybe even having meaningful public input, or having more rational water policies to help protect and renew our communities' waterways. But no matter where we are in America and how we define livability, there are several visual indicators that will tell us right away whether or not we are in a healthy neighborhood. If we are in a community that is free from vandalism, it is a sign of a healthy neighborhood. If there are areas that provide access to walkways and sidewalks that are away from the rush of traffic, it shows respect for the residents. We are in a healthy neighborhood. If we have opportunities to move away from the blight that has been a plague for many communities, and there is renewal of deteriorated property and housing well-being, it is a sign of a healthy community. I would think the most basic indicator, however, is whether or not our children are able to move safely through their neighborhood. One simple thing we can do today to promote that livability is to support this resolution and the event that it will enable. It will be the culmination of a nationwide cycling education project. It allows for a youth bike summit to take place here within the shadow of the Capitol dome. It will be the final event of a campaign that has been sponsored, as we have heard, by Earth Force, involving children from all over America who will be in our Nation's Capitol for this event. These children were asked to devise safe bicycling routes through their communities and share their proposals with their peers. Earth Force has worked with Safe Moves, another nonprofit agency, to design the mock city for the children to ride through, and it teaches children in the ages from the fifth grade through the ninth grade about safe biking techniques. As we have heard the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) say, 350,000 children 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms for bicycle-related injuries last year. These collisions with motor vehicles account for 90 percent of all bicycle- related deaths, and 10 percent of all non-fatal related injuries. The nonpartisan Bicycle Caucus supports educating children early in life in safe biking techniques. I welcome the support of my colleagues on this resolution and I look forward to working with other Members of Congress on strengthening the Federal partnership in making sure that our communities are made more livable and the promotion of safety for our children should be at the top of our list from every Member of Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there are many individuals who have led the way to give us progress, framework and choices we now have known as a quest for livable communities. One who has dedicated his professional life to enhancement of the environment and preserving the American quality of life is Lawrence Nye Stevens, who is here with us today in the Capitol with his family and friends, having just celebrated his 84th birthday. We are honored to have him seated with us in the East Gallery. His curiosity, vision and good old American ingenuity to make this a better place have put him years ahead of his time. His experiences with soil erosion on a cattle ranch in Montana in the 1930's convinced him that something needed to be done to protect the land, and led him to earn a graduate degree in geography that focused on land utilization and soil and water conservation. This training was put to good use during World War II. Commissioned in the U.S. Navy, Larry was in charge of the study of military geography in the European Theater. After the war, he was Administrative Assistant to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs where he started a long career working in the Department of Interior in various capacities. In 1968, he was recognized by his peers and honored with the Distinguished Service Award by the U.S. Department of Interior. Under the leadership of Secretary Stewart Udall, Larry Stevens became Deputy Director of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. This commission had a profound effect on America's ability to catalogue our resources. For example, in 1966 an Outdoor Recreation Commission report was prophetic. I quote: But parks and other recreation areas are only part of the answer. The most important recreation of all is the kind that people find in their everyday life. Do they find enough of it now? Do children have to be driven to school, or can they walk or cycle to it safely over wooded paths? Are there streams for an afternoon's fishing, or have they all been buried in concrete culverts? Are the stands of woods all gone, or are a few left for a picnic or a stroll? What this means, in short, is an environment. Thus our challenge: Can we shape future growth so that recreation is an integral part of it? It will require a fresh approach. A third of a century ago is the first time that I found the word ``environment'' used in this fashion. It was the term President Nixon selected in the landmark National Environmental Policy Act. We sometimes forget the leaders who have shown us the way and the people who provide key research analysis and advocacy like Larry Stevens. He is a man of strong convictions. He has long been concerned about the waste that we see around us, waste of taxpayer money, waste of energy, minerals, food and fiber, and by the loss of prime agricultural land to unwise land use. He has cautioned us throughout his life that we cannot afford a ``quick fix'' philosophy that increasingly pervades our economy and society. He has truly been a pioneer in the area of planning and smart growth. He has also been a strong advocate in the use of cycling, and that is how I first met him. He was Executive Director of the Citizens' Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality when that committee authored a publication called ``From Rails To Trails.'' We all owe Larry and the citizens' committee appointed by the President a great debt of gratitude for highlighting this idea. Recently Larry wrote in the Harvard 50th Anniversary Report that ``Each day I try to ride at least a few miles on my 10-speed bicycle, an ingenious and remarkably efficient machine.'' I agree with Larry and acknowledge his active participation in the creation of the nationwide network of ``rails to trails.'' We who are in the business of trying to make communities more livable, providing tools for our citizens to thrive in the global economy, where citizens and private institutions work in partnership with government at all levels to ensure safety, economic security and healthy communities, we are all still living with the challenge of how we shape our growth so that recreation is an integral part of it and the preservation of the American heritage is not lost. Larry Stevens is one of those unsung heroes. It gives me particular pleasure to acknowledge Larry Stevens for his commitment to the environment as a private citizen, as a mentor to many of my friends and a professional public servant. His imagination, commitment to environmental quality and friendship have benefited our quest for more livable communities. America is in his debt.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I do identify with the comments of my colleague, a livable community where our families are healthy. I wanted to reference just for a moment a concern about the health of American families. One-third of a century ago, the automobile was the focus of our concern. Ralph Nader published a famous book on ``Safe At Any Speed,'' and this Congress, the Federal Government, the industry, embarked upon an aggressive program to make the automobile safer. As a result of extensive data collection, reengineering, legal regulation and, of course, the automobile for years has been personalized so it could only be operated by somebody authorized to use it, today we have seen spectacular increases in automobile safety and a reduction in deaths despite the fact that miles traveled have exploded. Today, in many communities, gun violence is now surpassing the automobile as the major source of accidental death. Today, I sponsored a forum on Capitol Hill with three leading experts to deal with gun violence. For every 90 minutes in this country, another child dies. The evidence was overwhelming from these experts that gun violence can in fact be reduced. We had testimony from Professor Stephen Teret of the Johns Hopkins Center for Public Policy and Research; Dr. Steve Hargarten of the Firearm Injury Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin; and Dr. Garen Wintemute of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis. What these gentlemen were able to demonstrate is that we can in fact take simple steps to do something about the epidemic of gun violence in our community. First and foremost, we can promote policies that promote safe gun storage. Starting with the State of Florida, 15 States now have enacted legislation that promotes responsible gun ownership and safe gun storage and we have seen a resulting reduction in firearm violence among children. Second, it does make a difference if we prevent criminals from gaining access to guns at the front end, and there is persuasive evidence that by extending the prohibitions under the Brady law to more criminals, to prevent them from access to guns, that we can have a reduction in their use of guns in their hands. Finally, there was attention given to something that is often ignored, the design of weapons in the United States. Indeed, it is a sad commentary that there are more restrictions over the product safety of toy guns than of real guns. There is no reason for us to manufacture and sell guns in this country today that do not tell you whether or not there is a bullet in the chamber. There is no reason today that we have to have guns with automatic clips that when you disengage the clip that it does not sweep the bullet from the chamber. For a few cents to a few dollars, guns can be built that provide this safety device. Many have it. Tragically, too many do not. Last, and I think most significant, there is no longer any reason for us not to personalize a gun just like we personalize a car with a key, so that somebody who steals that gun, somebody who wrestles a gun away from a law enforcement professional would have that gun disabled. The technology is available today and it is sad that we have not yet taken steps to make sure that it is available to us. The same strategy that resulted in a dramatic reduction in automobile fatalities in this country can be employed to reduce gun violence. Get good information instead of spreading it over a dozen different agencies in the Federal Government. Have the courage to use and analyze that information and to implement policies that will make a difference for America's families. It is my fervent hope that as we talk about ways to make our communities more livable that we will take safe, simple, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence for the sake of our children. I hope this Congress has the courage to act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the Republican budget resolution because I believe it emphasizes exactly the wrong priorities for America's future and does little to make our communities more livable. By approving this document, we are ignoring the negative effects this budget would inflict on the health of our communities, our infrastructure, and our economy for the next decade. If I had my way, I would place more priority on paying down the debt, saving Social Security and Medicare, avoid costly new tax cuts and unnecessary. Unfocused defense spending, and develop a capital budget to account for infrastructure investments for a more livable future. However, this budget resolution doesn't extend the solvency of those trust funds by a single day, and instead of paying down the debt, offers tax cuts that primarily benefit those who need help the least. It also calls for unfocused increases in some aspects of our military spending without assurances that any of this spending will increase our overall security. An example of this is the call for new ``Star Wars'' spending, an unproven system on which we've already spent over $60 billion in research with nothing to show for it. It fails to give America's communities the tools they need to improve their quality of life. The ``Building Livable Communities'' initiatives embodied in the Administration's budget offered increased choices for citizens in the areas of transportation, housing, regional planning, open space preservation, education, and crime control. The Democratic alternative recognizes the importance of these initiatives through a Sense of the House resolution. I believe we have a responsibility to do all we can to have the federal government be a better partner with communities and citizens in their efforts to improve very basic components of everyday life--getting to work and school safely, ensuring the quality of the water we drink and the air we breathe, and having economic opportunities for the future. It should also be noted that long-term budget projections are nearly always miscalculated, and have been overly optimistic by over $200 billion on average over the last 15 years. Even small errors and changes in the economic picture can drastically alter what the government collects and spends. A forecasting error of as little as 2% can alter the budget balance by as much as $70 billion annually. Future military conflicts, slower economic growth, stock market fluctuations, decisions by the Federal Reserve, currency values, natural disasters, and any number of other variables can also radically alter what the government spends and takes in. Therefore it is unwise to push massive tax cuts years down the line, when it is impossible to know what our economic situation will be. Only by remaining fiscally cautious now and investing in America's infrastructure can we make this a budget that helps make our communities more livable. This proposed budget would be a disaster if it were implemented. It siphons nearly a trillion dollars into tax cuts paid for with painful and unnecessary budget cuts, while ignoring key investments that need to be made in education, Social Security, and health care. The good news is that it won't be adopted in this form because even the Republicans have no intention of implementing it. The bad news is that it is a license to avoid responsible budgeting. I urge my colleagues to vote no and instead strive to produce a budget that promotes livable communities and fiscal stability.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think my friend the majority leader is a little bit confused. The President has identified some revenue adjustments. The difference is the Republicans, through their Committee on the Budget Chair, admit that the Republicans are going to have them but they are not laying out what they are in terms of the offsets and the pre-increases. I think, however, the more fundamental point is that they have it precisely wrong in terms of, unlike the President's proposal, they do not give tools to our communities to help them build more livable communities. Their budget fails to give the tools that communities need to help improve the quality of life, like the administration's budget does when it offers increased choices for citizens in areas of transportation, housing, regional planning, open space preservation, education and crime control. The Democratic alternative recognizes the importance of these initiatives. The proposal from the Republicans would be a disaster, if there was any chance that it would ever be implemented. It siphons off nearly $1 trillion in tax cuts and pays for them with unnecessary and painful budget cuts, while ignoring key investments that are needed to make communities more liveable. The good news is that it will not be adopted in this form, because even the Republicans have no intention of implementing it. The bad news is it is simply a license to avoid responsible budgeting. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and, instead, strive to produce a budget that promotes livable communities and fiscal stability.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the characteristics of a livable community is the desire to promote the safety, health, and economic security of our families. Today, in the newspapers around the country, people read of the expected flooding that is about to occur this spring. I, obviously, come from an area of the Pacific Northwest that will be particularly hard hit, although we are often under water even in the best of times, and it may be less of a wrenching experience for some of us than around the country. We are going to watch for an unusually harsh spring in the Pacific Northwest, in the Southwest, in the East, and it is an item that the Federal Government has been concerned about for a number of years. The Federal Government has been a partner working to protect against flood damage since 1960. Over $40 billion Federal dollars have been invested in this effort. Ironically, the losses from flood damage today, adjusted for inflation, are three times greater than before we started in 1960 and spent the $40 billion. Why? In part, because we have not been as wise as we should have been in the expenditure of these funds. We have taken rivers across the country, we have narrowed and channelized them, we have encouraged people to live up to the river's edge with a false sense of security, we have paved over half our Nation's wetlands and, consequently, in many of these areas, there is simply no place for the water to go. The result of our Federal disaster policy has been massive damage to a number of the same properties at a great cost to the taxpayer. One home in Houston that is appraised at less than $115,000 has received over $800,000 in federal flood insurance in less than 20 years. There is, in fact, a smarter way to promote community livability. I have introduced legislation today, with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), H.R. 1186, to bring the Federal Government up-to-date on water resource management. The current system simply does not work well. The Corps of Engineers does cost-benefit analysis that simply does not recognize the benefit of flood damage avoided by moving communities out of harm's way and it, consequently, produces a flawed analysis. Likewise, Federal financial assistance has a current cost-share formula that penalizes communities that make special efforts to develop and implement hazard mitigation and floodplain management. Lastly, we do not give communities enough flexibility to fine-tune the projects that we have previously authorized. As a result, on the books we have projects that are often expensive and do not adequately address the threat in today's needs, and communities are not allowed to be involved in this process directly. Our legislation, H.R. 1186, would correct all of these items. It changes the cost-benefit ratio to fully reflect the benefits including avoided costs of moving people out of harm's way. It will provide the same financial incentives for the low-cost, innovative, less intrusive approaches to floodplain management as if people are going to use traditional dams, dikes and levies. Finally, it will allow the private and public local partners, who are working with the Corps of Engineers and the Federal Government, to provide cost-effective solutions and to be able to refine and fine-tune those plans without having to go back through the reauthorization process. We talk a lot on the floor of this House about reducing Federal redtape. This is a simple item that we, by legislation, can permit our communities to avoid the costs and consequences of trying to crawl back through the legislative process or, worse, build simply a project that we know will fail. As we watch the flooding that is about to occur this spring across the country, I hope that we will think about how the Federal Government needs to be a more constructive partner for livable communities. I strongly urge my colleagues to join the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and me in the sponsorship of H.R. 1186.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned today that Congress is being asked to make a significant policy change, committing billions of dollars to unproven technology at a time when there are a legion of serious questions that have been raised about many aspects of our defense preparedness and national security. We live in a dangerous world beset with economic, social, political, and religious unrest. We are the most powerful Nation in the world and the most technologically advanced. Yet we simply cannot do everything. Security for Americans at home and abroad and keeping peace around the world involves making difficult choices. Rushing through this proposal, one whose costs and consequences are understood by no one, and is not integrated with all our other military and foreign policy needs, is not a policy I can support. This bill hardly seems the right thing to do in terms of using our defense dollars in the most effective way possible, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, one of the benefits of a livable community is that it provides a setting that high technology industries can flourish. Indeed, it works both ways. While a livable community attracts high technology, high technology can in fact provide the support for a more livable community, support via a more educated workforce, support in terms of having the financial resources that that community can pay for growth and development, support by having a workforce that is intensely sensitive to the requirements of livable communities. This has had a tremendous impact on our national economy. It is common knowledge to most Members of this body that high technology has been the fastest growing area of our national economic growth, over 4 million jobs, and it approaches almost $1 trillion in terms of our gross national product. In my State of Oregon, the effects have been even more profound. We are known, for example, for agriculture and wood products. Yet technology-based industries in the State of Oregon now provide twice the economic impact as agriculture and forest products combined. It provides an average wage that is almost twice the State average. There is every indication as far as the future is concerned that the impact nationally and in the State of Oregon in the years ahead is going to be even more profound. Yet the question is, how do we take maximum advantage of this growing economic and sociological phenomenon. It would seem to me that it is important for the Federal Government to have in place a series of policies that promote the full implementation of this opportunity. There has been significant indirect Federal support through the research and development tax credit that has helped invest in the future as far as these industries are concerned. Again, just taking the impact on a small State like Oregon where 8 percent of the total revenue is tied up in research and development, well over $1.3 billion. But it is time for us in the Federal Government to get real about what our policy is towards stability in the high-tech industry. We have had in place for years a temporary investment tax credit that we approve a year at a time. We are going to extend the investment tax credit, once again due to expire. I hope that this year is the last time we go through this charade of the 1-year extension. We know that it is critical for the future of the high-tech industry. We know that it is a benefit that is well-placed, that pays dividends far in excess of the amount of benefit that is granted. Indeed, there is every indication that, according to one estimate, over $41 billion of new investment would be unleashed by making the investment tax credit permanent. Nobody in the private sector, however, is going to make the long-term investments based on our good intentions. Even though we know we are going to extend it, even though they are certain we probably will extend it, it simply is not prudent for people to put millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars or more on the line based on our good intention. We have seen train wrecks on the floor of this Chamber before. I hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will come together quickly to make clear that we are going to make this a permanent extension. Livable communities, I have suggested time and again on the floor of this Chamber, require not so much rules and regulations as they require the Federal Government to be a constructive partner with State and local governments, with private citizens and business to help promote livable communities. The stability that would come from a permanent extension of the investment tax credit would be a very tangible expression of that stable Federal partnership, and I hope we are about that business soon in this congressional session.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, an important part of what makes livable communities is a broad concept of what constitutes the infrastructure that constructs them. That means both the natural environment as well as the built environment. And most important, it also means our people. Today I would like to focus for a moment on one of the most important parts of the human infrastructure in a livable community, our young people. They are a key part in our community in Portland, Oregon, not just young people at work learning to prepare for their future careers but making real accomplishments as they go. This week in Washington, D.C., one of my constituents, Jennifer Fletcher, from Grant High School, is being honored by Seventeen Magazine for her volunteerism. Jennifer is one of those extraordinary young people, although only 16 years of age, who has focused in on things that will make a difference in her community, I think in part inspired by a movie that was shot at her high school, ``Mr. Holland's Opus,'' a Richard Dreyfus story about how a music teacher was able to inspire a community to make investments for its future. Jennifer has done something that would make any screen writer proud. She has founded ``Arts Alive'' in our community in response to funding cuts for arts programs at their schools. ``Arts Alive'' is dedicated to providing funding for these schools, and she has exhibited extraordinary creativity in how to go about it. Her most recent accomplishment was to stage a benefit concert. She approached her favorite singer, Jackson Browne, to help her in the cause. She handled all the details from ticket sales, to securing a Portland concert hall, to arranging transportation and hotel accommodations for the band. And as a result of her dedication and marvelous skills, the concert was a huge success, bringing together people in the community to celebrate the arts, to be a part of a larger effort, and, by the way, raising almost $100,000. I am proud of the difference that Ms. Fletcher has made. I applaud her future efforts. But they are just the tip of the iceberg in our community. As I look at the Oregon Youth Conservation Corps, which has put young people to work improving the environment, hiring at-risk high school young people, giving them school credit for their work but giving them real-life activities where they were shoulder to shoulder with professionals in creating recreation trails, viewing areas, restoring watershed, preventing soil erosion, promoting recycling, and participating in wetland restoration projects, real work for real kids, learning kids, earning while they went. In David Douglas High School, I have seen young people solve very creatively a transportation problem between two of their buildings by creating their own light rail line, converting two buses, laying the track, all with volunteers and donated labor. The Northwest Service Academy, with 150 AmeriCorps volunteers, working with over 10,000 people in the community, dealing with issues of storm water runoff, roof drain disconnect, converting hundreds of homes to different approaches to solve this problem much more cheaply than if we were just building concrete underground cisterns. The goal of a livable community through smart growth and careful planning is to get more out of our scarce dollars, our land, and our people. By harnessing the creative power of our youth, putting them to work through education, employment, and environmental activities is one of the most creative ways that we can truly make America's communities livable. And for all our talk about smart growth and transportation initiatives and protecting the environment, I hope that we will continue to focus on ways to harness our young people to be full partners in making our communities livable.