Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I strongly identify with his comments, and it is a pleasure for me to share a few moments this afternoon with my colleagues, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who so ably led our delegation in the recent CODEL dealing with some of the economic problems of Southeast Asia. I have forever, I think, seared in my mind more than any of the other stops along the way during our visit in that troubled region, the visions of what happened in Indonesia. It has been already mentioned on the floor of this Chamber that this is a huge country. It is the fourth most populous in the world. It has the largest Muslim population. It is spread out over 15,000 islands, most of which are inhabited, but two statistics loom large in my mind: One is that of this vast population, over half are now at or below the Indonesian poverty level and that in this context they have moved forward to move from three political parties to over 140, and in three short months they are going to attempt without any real election infrastructure to administer their first democratic election in over 40 years. It is a country that is troubled on several levels. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) mentioned the tragedy of East Timor, where over 200,000 people have been killed in senseless violence in the last 25 years. There is also another violence that is occurring in this vast archipelago where we have a violence against the environment, where driven by economic imperatives and poor infrastructure they are exploiting the forests, the coral reefs, the endangered species and the fishing stock. If we are not active in this region, there will be environmental damage that will have impacts throughout Southeast Asia and the world for years to come. I strongly commend to this Chamber adoption of the resolution and our being forthright as to why these elections are so critical. Over 125,000 polling places are going to be staffed. We need to give our support for this effort. Second and implicit here, and I hope that we find ways to make it explicit on the floor of this House and with our own personal involvement, is the American pressure to deal with these forces of transition as they try and correct their economy, as they try and have a military that makes a transition to a civil society and dealing with these environmental and ethnic issues that have been mentioned. There is an opportunity for Members of this Congress to be active both in the observation of the election process and making sure that we step forward with the appropriate aid for this giant country. I cannot conceive of any place in the world where our time and our money will be better spent, will have more impact than in Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, for most Americans Indonesia is sort of the country that was the background for the movie, ``Year of Living Dangerously''. They have maybe some vague recollection of what has happened in East Timor. They may have some sense of this being the former colony of the Dutch East Indies. We must, on this floor, find ways to make this image more real and more impactful, because we cannot afford to avoid making our responsibilities known as we help them deal with the change to which they are being subjected.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to reflect for a moment this morning about the importance of our being able to provide livable communities for Americans. A lot of what we deal with on the floor of the House of Representatives at times seems a little obscure to citizens back home, but really what they care about is to make sure that their families are safe when they go out the door in the morning to go to school. They want those families to be healthy, they want them to be economically secure. I am particularly concerned about that element of safety, Mr. Speaker. I have been witnessing events around the country of late that give me pause. In the Pacific Northwest this last November, we had a tragedy where a bus driver was shot and the bus careened through the guardrail, plunging down below into an apartment house. Thirty passengers were injured. We had a situation just a couple of weeks ago in San Diego where a bus driver was attacked, was raped and we are still trying to solve that situation. Last year in Wisconsin we had a situation where a bus passenger boarded and splashed gasoline around and seriously burned several passengers. The point of this litany here is not that transit is inherently dangerous. In fact it is not. The statistics are clear that people are far safer taking mass transit than they are driving a car when you look at the accidents, drunk driving, drive-by shootings and carjackings. But we can and should make that transportation experience as safe as possible for the general public and the men and women who provide that service. The Federal Government has in fact already taken steps, for example, in the area of air traffic. The men and women who provide services to us on airline flights are covered under Federal law. It is important not just for the people who deliver that service but, of course, sending that important signal about what the expectation is from the Federal Government to preserve safety is also very important to protect the passengers themselves. That is why I am introducing legislation this week to fill this gap, because sadly there is no Federal protection, clear Federal signal about public safety as it relates to the employees who provide transit service by bus and by rail, nor do the 6 million Americans who take transit every day have the peace of mind that such a clear signal would afford. The legislation would make it a Federal crime to intentionally damage mass transit vehicles, impair the ability to safely operate the vehicle, commit an act that would cause the death or serious bodily injury to an employee or a passenger. It is a comprehensive approach to make sure that we do fill this gap, that we do make sure that we are doing everything we can to protect the workers and passengers of America's transit systems. I hope that my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this legislation. I think the 6 million riders who rely on mass transit every day to make their communities more livable expect no less of us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, people from across the nation are talking about ways they can make their communities more livable. Improving livability means better schools, safer neighborhoods, affordable housing and more choices in transportation. Improving livability also means preserving what makes each community unique, be it the farmlands in Oregon or the desert in Arizona. It is my pleasure to share with my colleagues the comments of Richard Moe, the president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, on this important and timely topic. The Sprawling of America: Federal Policy Is Part of the Problem; Can It Be Part of the Solution? (An address by Richard Moe, president, National Trust for Historic Preservation at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on January 22, 1999) America today is engaged in a great national debate. It's a debate about sprawl. The central question in the debate is this: Will we continue to allow haphazard growth to consume more countryside in ways that drain the vitality out of our cities while eroding the quality of life virtually everywhere? Or will we choose instead to use our land more sensibly and to revitalize our older neighborhoods and downtowns, thereby enhancing the quality of life for everyone? The debate touches every aspect of our lives--the quality of the natural and built environments, how we feel about the places where we live and work and play, how much time we have for our family and civil life, how rooted we are in our communities. I believe that this debate will frame one of the most important political issues of the first decade of the 21st century. Ultimately, its outcome will determine whether the American dream will become a reality for future generations. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which I am privileged to serve, works to revitalize America's communities by preserving our heritage--the buildings, neighborhoods, downtowns and landscapes that link us with our past and define us as Americans. Our mission is summed up in a short phrase: ``Protecting the Irreplaceable.'' Sprawl destroys the irreplaceable, which is why the National Trust is concerned about sprawl--and why I want to address the subject today. Preservation is in the business of saving special places and the quality of life they support, and sprawl destroys both. It devours historic landscapes. It makes the strip malls and subdivisions on the edge of Washington look like those on the edge of Albuquerque or Birmingham or any other American city. It drains the life out of older communities, stops their economic pulse and often puts them in intensive care--or sometimes even the morgue. Sprawl reminds me of Justice Stewart's remark about pornography: It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it. In simple terms, sprawl is the poorly planned, low- density, auto-oriented development that spreads out from the edges of communities. But it is best defined by the way it affects us in our daily lives. Winston Churchill said, ``We shape our buildings, and then our buildings shape us.'' The same holds true for communities: The way we shape them has a huge impact on the way we feel, the way we interact with one another, the way we live. By harming our communities, sprawl touches us all--and one way or another, we all pay for it. We pay in open space and farmland lost. Since 1950, the State of Pennsylvania has lost more than 4 million acres of farmland; that's an area larger than Connecticut and Rhode Island combined. Metropolitan Phoenix now covers an area the size of Delaware. It's estimated that over the next 45 years, sprawl in the Central Valley of California will affect more than 3.6 million acres of America's most productive farmland. We pay in time lost. A study last year reported that each of us here in Washington spends about 59 hours a year--the equivalent of a week and a half of work--stuck in traffic. The price tag for time and fuel wasted is roughly $860 annually for every man, woman and child in the Washington area. In Los Angeles, the average speed on the freeway is expected to drop to 11 miles per hour by 2010. A new term ``road rage'' has been coined to describe drivers' frustration over traffic. We pay in higher taxes. Over the decades, we've handed over our tax dollars to pay for infrastructure and services-- things like police and fire protection, water and sewer lines, schools and streetlights--in our communities. Now we're being asked to pay higher taxes to duplicate those services in sprawling new developments, while the infrastructure we've already paid for lies abandoned or underused in our older city center and suburbs. Even worse, local governments use our tax dollars to offer incentives and write-offs to sprawl developers--in effect, rewarding them for consuming our landscape and weakening our older communities. Finally, we pay in the steady erosion of our quality of life. Inner cities have become enclaves of poverty. Long, frustrating commutes leave us less time with our families. Tranquil neighborhoods are destroyed by road-widening. Historic landmarks get demolished and carted off to the landfill. Everyplace winds up looking more and more like Noplace. These signs point to an inescapable fact: Sprawl and its byproducts represent the number-one threat to community livability in America today. And in a competitive global marketplace, livability is the factor that will determine which communities thrive and which ones wither. Nobel Prize- winning economist Robert Solow puts it this way: ``Livability is not some middle-class luxury. It is an economic imperative.'' Sprawl is finally getting the attention it deserves. It was the subject of major initiatives announced by the President and the Vice President in recent back-to-back speeches. Bipartisan caucuses focusing on smart growth and community livability have been formed in both the House and Senate. Governors across the political spectrum have announced programs to control sprawl and encourage smart growth. The Urban Land Institute, the American Institute of Architects, the National Governors Association, and foundations and nonprofit organizations of every stripe hold seminars and workshops on sprawl. Last November, voters from Cape Cod to California overwhelmingly approved some 200 ballot initiatives related to growth management and urban revitalization. All this attention is welcome. Sprawl is a national problem, and it needs a national debate. But the debate shouldn't focus on finding a national solution, because there isn't one. There are two essential elements in any effective program to combat sprawl: sensible land-use planning and the revitalization of existing communities. These are issues traditionally and best handled at the state and local levels--and that, in the end, is where the fight against sprawl will be won or lost. But--and here's the main point I want to make today--the federal government also has a crucial role to play in the process. There are obviously many factors such as crime, drugs and bad schools and public services that have helped propel the exodus of people and jobs from our central cities, but that exodus has been greatly facilitated--even accelerated--by the effects of federal policies. Sometimes these effects have been intended and sometimes they have been inadvertent, but in most cases they have been profound. Because the federal government has contributed so heavily to the problem, it has a clear duty to help find solutions. It can--and should--do so in four ways: First, it should correct policies that encourage or reward sprawl. Sprawl-friendly policies and practices exist in almost every federal agency. I'll mention only a few examples. Nearly 17 million people work directly or indirectly for the federal government. With a workforce that size, decisions about where the government locates its offices can have a huge impact on a community's economic health. A 1996 Executive Order directs federal agencies to give first consideration to locating their facilities in downtown historic districts instead of out on the suburban fringe--but two years after it was issued, compliance is spotty. Right now, for example, in the small, economically-depressed town of Glasgow, Montana, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is putting its county office in a new building that will be constructed in pastureland on the edge of town. A suitable downtown building was available, but USDA rejected it because the parking lot is a block away instead of right next door. Relocating post offices to suburban sites can also deal a body blow to a small-town Main Street--and put historic buildings at risk as well. Because post offices serve an important role in the social and business life of many towns, the U.S. Postal Service needs to give communities more say in where these essential facilities are to be located. The federal tax code, in all its complexity, is heavily tilted toward new development and the consumption of open space. It needs to put at least as much emphasis on promoting opportunities for revitalization and stabilization of older communities. It needs to provide incentives--which are currently lacking--for middle-class and moderate-income households to become urban homeowners. Federal water and sewer grants were originally intended as a means of providing clean water and safe waste-treatment facilities in rural areas. In practice, however, the ready availability of this funding virtually invites development further and further into countryside. The list goes on and on, but the biggest offender of all is federal transportation policy, which can be summed up in a short phrase: ``feed the car, starve the alternative.'' As Jessica Mathews wrote a while ago in the Washington Post, ``Americans are not irrationally car-crazed. We seem wedded to the automobile because policy after . . . policy . . . encourages us to be.'' Transportation officials generally try to ``solve'' problems by building more roads--an approach which is often like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt. People need transportation choices and communities need balanced transportation systems. Federal policy hasn't done a good job of offering them--but that may be changing. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, or TEA-21, enacted last year, encourages planning that looks beyond irrelevant political boundaries and allows for greater citizen and local government participation in making transportation investment decisions. That's welcome news, certainly, but TEA-21 is a promissory note that will be redeemed only through hard work at the state and local levels. It offers a great opportunity for the federal Department of Transportation to take a leadership role in urging the states to take full advantage of this landmark legislation. Within the next few months, the General Accounting Office will release its study on the extent to which federal policies encourage sprawl, and I hope the report will prompt a serious examination of these policies. Second, the federal government should reward states and communities that promote smart growth and help revitalize existing communities. Being anti-sprawl is not being anti-growth. The question is not whether our communities should grow, but rather how they will grow. More and more people--private citizens and public officials alike--are realizing that the answer to that question lies in sensible land-use planning. Three states have recently launched different efforts to manage sprawl. Last May, Tennessee passed a law that requires counties and municipalities to adopt ``growth plans'' which, among other things, set firm boundaries for new development and public services. Closer to home, Governor Glendening's Smart Growth initiative in Maryland is one of the most innovative--and potentially one of the most significant--in the country. Under Governor Whitman's leadership, residents of New Jersey have approved up to $98 million in tax revenue annually for conservation and historic preservation; over 10 years this measure will protect a million acres of land--a marvelous gift to future generations. We should encourage efforts like these in other states. I suggest that we design a federal ``smart growth scorecard''-- a system that favors sensible, sustainable growth and evaluates the effectiveness with which states and communities meet that test. States that amend their building codes to make them more ``rehab-friendly'' or that remove their constitutional ban against the use of state gas tax revenues for mass transit projects, for example, are taking positive steps to fight sprawl and restore communities. They ought to be rewarded. The federal scorecard would give states credit for initiatives such as these and would give smart-growth projects an edge in the competition for federal funds. Third, the federal government should promote regional cooperation as a key to effective control of sprawl. Metropolitan areas now contain close to 80% of the total U.S. population. Half the people in this country now live in just 39 metropolitan areas. But governmental structures in no way reflect this reality. Urban decline and sprawl are practically guaranteed wherever there is a balkanized system of local jurisdictions. There's a perfect example right here in Washington, where our metropolitan area is a patchwork quilt comprising two states, the District of Columbia, a dozen counties and a score of municipalities--each with its own budget, each following its own agenda. When it comes to sprawl, city limits and county lines are often meaningless marks on a map. Limited jurisdiction makes it hard for local government to deal with an issue of this magnitude, and efforts to control sprawl in a limited area often just shift the problem from one community to another. It's like trying to stop a flood with a picket fence. States need to encourage local governments in the same region to better coordinate their land-use and transportation plans, and the federal government can help a great deal by simply providing basic information that regions need. Much of this information--dealing with things such as the geographic mismatch between workers and jobs and the extent of outmigration from cities to suburbs--already exists, but it is difficult and expensive for localities to obtain. That's a fairly easy problem to fix, and the federal government ought to do it. While regionalism by itself does not curb sprawl, it can moderate one of the engines of sprawl: the costly bidding wars between neighboring jurisdictions for sprawl-type development that holds out the hope for new tax revenues. Admittedly, the performance of some regional governments has been lackluster, but in other areas--Portland, Oregon, for examples--regionalism is making a difference in addressing the problems of sprawl and poorly managed growth. Encouraging and assisting similar efforts all over the country should be a cornerstone of federal policy. Happily, the current Administration is taking an important step in that direction. The ``Livability Agenda'' recently announced by Vice President Gore proposes a major initiative to reduce barriers to regional governance and to fund local partnerships that pursue smart-growth strategies across jurisdictional lines. This will be the first flexible source of funding provided by the federal government to promote smarter metropolitan growth. It's a very welcome initiative. Controlling sprawl is only half the battle, which brings me to the fourth thing the federal government should do: provide incentives for reinvestment in existing communities. Discussions about the plight of the cities often overlook a simple fact: When people leave the city it's not necessarily because they love sprawl or hate urban life, but because leaving is the rational thing to do. More than anything else, urban flight is an indictment of bad schools, crime and poor public services. As if this ``push'' weren't enough, people are ``pulled'' out of the city by policies and practices that make homes and infrastructure in the suburbs less expensive and easier to build. In place of this ``push-pull'' combination, we need public policy that favors existing communities. Fifty years ago the government began to offer economic inducements to families that wanted to flee to the suburbs; it's time to offer those same kinds of inducements to entice middle-class residents to return to, or stay in, the city. It all comes down to choosing where to make investments. If the federal government chooses to pour funding into more outer beltways and more suburban infrastructure, sprawl will continue to spread like an epidemic. But if the government makes a commitment to existing communities, it can have an enormous, positive impact on the critical need to keep people in urban neighborhoods and give others a reason to move back to the city. This is the missing piece of the administration's Livability Agenda, which includes a heavy focus on the preservation of open space. There's no question that we need to speed up our efforts to protect open space and farmland through land trusts, easements, the purchase of development rights and other means. Saving greenspace is a very good thing, but it's not enough by itself. We could buy all the open land in the country and still not solve the problem of sprawl. We also need to focus energies and resources on reclaiming the streets and neighborhoods where people live-- the towns, inner cities and older suburbs that we've neglected so badly for the past half-century. We must develop housing policies and programs that advance the goal of economic integration of our communities and lessen the concentration of poor households in inner-city areas. We must attract middle-income families back to the towns and cities, and we must improve the quality of housing for lower-income people. One way to do this is by enacting the Historic Homeownership Assistance Act. This legislation, which has broad bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, would extend federal tax credits to homeowners who renovate their historic homes, giving residents of older neighborhoods incentives to stay and invest in their community's future, and providing an incentive for others to move back into the city. By offering a way to put deteriorated property back on the tax rolls while making homeownership more affordable for lower-income residents, this law could greatly benefit communities all over the country. Obviously, this one act won't solve America's urban problems--but it can help, and a step in the right direction is better than standing still. In fighting sprawl, we're dealing with an issue that undermines many of the national goals and values that we've embraced over the years. The provision of affordable housing, improved mobility, a clean environment, the transition from welfare to work, the livability and economic health of our communities--all of these are undermined by sprawl. In fact, there is scarcely a single national problem that is not exacerbated by sprawl or that would not be alleviated if sprawl were better contained. We can continue turning much of our nation into a tragic patchwork of ruined cities and spoiled countryside, or we can insist on sensible federal policies that strengthen communities instead of scattering them randomly across the landscape. We can keep on accepting the kind of communities we get, or we can summon the national will to demand the kind of communities we want and need and deserve. The choice is ours, and the time to make that choice is now.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has worked for years on helping communities find ways to promote livability, I am excited to see the attention that has been accorded lately to the livable communities movement. It is clear that we do not need a lot of new rules and regulations and mandates and stipulations to be able to make sure that we achieve that goal. It is indeed the simplest step for us to take for the Federal Government to just be a constructive partner with State, local governments and the private sector, working with them to make communities work better. One small but important step would be to have Federal agencies like the post office obey the same rules and regulations requirements that we require on homeowners and businesses. There are over 40,000 post offices all across America who are these little outposts that bring communities together, and there are opportunities from coast to coast, border to border to be able to promote livable communities by being constructive partners. Unfortunately, the post office has not always lived up to that ideal. Today, in the USA Today, there is an article about Tully, New York, and their struggle with the post office. Last week, it was Byron, California, and Discovery Bay. Now, I bring this forward not with any animosity toward the Postal Service. To the contrary. I think it is terrific that we can, for less than a dollar, send three handwritten letters all across the country, have them be delivered in a matter of days, that they are delivered by employees who give back to the community, who usually do not just give the postal service but they do so with a smile. It is a critical function that helps unite and bring people together. In fact, main street post offices are one of the anchors of small town America that add to the business district, that add to the flavor of those communities; and, in fact, that is why it is so important that the post office be a good citizen and a full partner for livability. That is why my legislation has been endorsed by the Trust for Historic Preservation, by main street associations representing small- and medium-sized businesses all across the country, why the National Governors Association is concerned about this, why the post office itself has recently declared a moratorium on closing and is readdressing its relationship with the community. They claim far fewer problems than in the past and that there is a new era under Postmaster Henderson. I have met with the Postmaster General. I am impressed with his commitment, but I think the best way to express this commitment is to stop fighting this legislation and get behind it, to make clear its support for a new era of partnership. Why should the post office be exempt from planning, zoning and building codes that homeowners and businesses in communities across the country must adhere to? Why, since the post office is such a critical part of our community, should the community not be as involved with potential relocation issues as they are in helping pick which version of the Elvis stamp we are going to have? I have discussed on the floor of this House in the past problems we have had in Leon County, Florida, where the Postal Service decided that it would not abide by the same groundwater environmental standards for runoff on their parking lot as other private businesses; or where in Ball Ground, Georgia, the Postal Service was not going to abide by a comprehensive plan to help metropolitan Atlanta deal with its critical environmental problems. Well, after making, as it were, a Federal case out of it, the personal intervention, I think, of the Postmaster General, it looks like we are moving towards resolution in Leon County, Florida, and in metropolitan Georgia. But it should not have to be a major battle. It is time for the post office to stop fighting this legislation. It is time for the post office to institutionalize with us to make sure that the Postal Service is a full partner for the next millennium of livable communities in America. Mr. Speaker, this small step can lead the way for the Federal Government itself across the country to provide that sort of partnership for livability.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one aspect of livable communities is the global connections that we are facing today as trade interrelates our economies, world peace is affected as one destabilized area can have serious consequences for others, how environmental exploitation has global consequences for us all as we have increasingly destructive capacity in an increasingly smaller world. There is need for people who care about livable communities to focus on Indonesia, focus across four time zones, over 15,000 islands, and a population of over 210 million people. It is a spectacular, diverse, and extremely vulnerable region. It is one in political transition, moving from three political parties and really no Democratic election in the last 40 years, to approaching over 150 and its first election in two generations this June. We have seen in East Timor, home of tragic violence, as it was invaded by the Indonesian military 25 years ago, we have seen the death of over 200,000 people in an island that still has only perhaps a population of 800,000 and a situation that cries for a peaceful resolution. Indonesia is a nation of great financial turmoil today. Less than 2 years ago, it was one of those successful Asian financial tigers, so successful that we were on the verge of withdrawing our aid programs. Today, it is now an economic basket case, with half its population at or below the Indonesian poverty level and virtually not a single solvent financial institution in the entire country. We have seen long simmering racial, ethnic and religious tensions bubble to the surface, aggravated by the serious economic difficulties that have led to the death of hundreds of its citizens. Indonesia was the backdrop for the movie ``The Year Of Living Dangerously'' a third of a century ago when Sukarno lost power to Suharto. Today, in the post-Suharto era, Indonesia is still living dangerously. We have serious potential for violence even as the ray of hope dawns on East Timor and the government is talking about a potential for independence. Yet at the same time there is pervasive evidence that the military has provided weapons to paramilitary agents on the island, and there could be the potential for bloodshed upon their withdrawal. There continues to be the potential for violence in Indonesia's urban centers, and there is definitely violence that is being visited upon its ecology as the nation struggles to get economic gain at the expense of its forests, fishing stock, coral reefs and endangered species. I sincerely hope that my colleagues will put Indonesia on the radar screen. It will be on the radar screen for the administration and for the American public. It is time for the United States to take a strong and aggressive action to help resolve the situation in East Timor so that the potential news of the military withdrawal is not an open invitation for greater bloodshed against the Timorees. It is important that our Secretary of State, who is due to visit Indonesia after a China visit later this month, is prepared to put the full force of American attention into this area. It is important that we be thoughtful in terms of our economic assistance so the world environment does not suffer as a result of this economic collapse. We need to press for as much support, monitoring, and observation as possible for these critical elections taking place in June spread across over 100,000 polling places in a country that has no election infrastructure. It may be a little effort, a little time, it may be a little trouble for the United States to be involved in Indonesia during these troubled times, but I can think of no place in the world where our investment would have more impact on the global economy and on the lives of ordinary men and women.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday there appeared an article in The New York Times entitled, ``There's Plenty of Space for Suburbs to Keep Sprawling''. This article, I feel, represents a wrong turn in the discussion about our communities and how to make them more livable. The facts are true but beside the point. It is true that we have only increased the amount of developed land in this condition by two-tenths of a percent in recent years. It is true that we have a great deal of farmland. It is true that we are protecting more open space around the country. But I think it is important for us to take a deep breath, step back, and look at what those facts represent. To suggest somehow that we do not have a problem in terms of development in this country because we have a large inventory of land is a lot like suggesting that just because the earth is 78 percent water we do not have problems of water supply and quality. The fact is for much of the world, and many places in the United States, we often have too much water or we do not have enough or it is too polluted or sometimes we have a combination of all three of those problems. As it relates to the quantity of farmland, the fact is that we have generated this farmland in the past in ways that we are probably not likely to do in the future: filling in wetlands, irrigating the desert, destroying forest lands. Many of these practices today we now recognize are harmful. We no longer do it and, in fact, there is a very real question whether or not that is sustainable in the future, particularly given the lack of water supply in many parts of the country. It is also true that while we have added to the inventory of publicly protected forests and park lands, that is simply a reaction to the fact that we have more and more of this space imperiled. The good Lord is not making more forests and open space. We are having increasing pressure on those areas that we have now, and so we have taken this extraordinary step of trying to buy and protect more and more of it. That is not adding to the inventory. That is trying to just simply hold on to what we have. We need to look no further than the jewels of our national park system, the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone, to see that we are severely under assault. Even in the Pacific Northwest, in my home area, the Mt. Hood National Forest and the Columbia River Gorge are subjected to problems of pollution, overcrowding, traffic congestion and development encroachment. It is an indication of the problems that we need to face in the future. It is also suggested that government intervention has been part of the problem in the past, to which I say: Amen. But the question is, how are we going to proceed from this point? Even if sprawl were possible to sustain into the future, is this the pattern of development that we want for our country? Do we want to live this way? Increasingly, Americans from coast to coast, border to border are speaking out and suggesting that is not their desired approach. Citizens are taking matters into their own hands on State and local levels with initiatives to try and improve the quality of life. They know that there are better ways of spending our tax dollars, that just because we have failed in the past in comprehensive planning is no suggestion that we should not try and do a better job of planning in the future, and just because the government has not always been constructive in efforts that it has undertaken does not mean that there is not a role for the government to be a constructive partner in the future. It does us no good to pretend that we do not have problems of growth and quality of life in our communities. The citizens know that that is the case. The evidence is overwhelming. Now is the opportunity for us, under the banner of making our communities more livable, to engage the government as a constructive partner, to plan thoughtfully for the future involving our communities, spending our infrastructure dollars more wisely and engaging in a new generation of environmental protection that is performance driven. I look forward to the day when we can get away from the wrong turns of this debate and get back to a productive discussion of how we can work together to make our communities more livable.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express concern about an article that our friend, George Will, has in Newsweek this week, attacking the administration and Vice President Gore in particular for dealing with livable communities. With all due respect to the journalist, he has it exactly wrong. There is a national grassroots movement from coast-to-coast where people are now struggling to contend with the forces of growth, sprawl, pollution and congestion to try and have more livable communities. Contrary to the columnist's assertion, it is not about forcing people to do things, it is about giving Americans more choices. Today, too many people have no choice but to be trapped in congestion, soccer moms and dads forced to be out shuttling kids around, forced to burn a gallon of gasoline to buy a gallon of milk. What the Vice President, what the administration, what Americans across the country who are concerned about livable communities are promoting is the concept of learning from our past mistakes, organizing ourselves to make sure that our plans for the future will make our communities more livable. It is not, as some would suggest, an attack on the automobile. To the contrary, it is simply not surrendering our communities to the cars. At a time when the Berlin Wall has fallen, when there are capitalist markets in the former Soviet Union, in China, it is time to perhaps end socialism for the car by subsidizing the automobile more than other transportation choices. Planning makes it possible for people to do more with their lives and their time. In his article Mr. Will attacks Portland, Oregon, my hometown, as a place where we are trying to crowd people, where we are trying to have zoned-out things like big box development, to somehow force people to do things they do not want to do, calling it some sort of planner's paradise. Well, it is ironic that the city Mr. Will is attacking is held up as one of the best models in the country for working with our citizens to promote liveability, to give people more choices. It is a community where we have, in fact, not sprawled as much as other places around the country, but we have actually dramatically increased the housing stock without spreading out to farm and forest land. We have added 42 percent in population since 1979, but we have only increased the developed area 20 percent. Some of the most attractive housing, the most valuable housing, is to be found in newly redeveloped areas with loft housing, with townhouses. In fact, they are worth more in terms of actual value than the typical single lot subdivision. It is not about crowding people together. In Portland, like in most other communities, our neighborhoods are less densely populated today than they were 40 years ago when I was growing up. What has happened is because we have unplanned growth, exclusive reliance on the automobile, we have far more people driving and driving more miles, and as a result, it is the cars that people are upset about, not the citizens. This has resulted from not turning over industrially-zoned land to big box retail, like a COSCO or a Wal-Mart. We have protected it for industrial jobs. Portland has added 180,000 new jobs since 1990. I would suggest that it is hardly a failure, that there is a reason why people come and look at what we have done. Government has made many mistakes in the last 40 years that have contributed to the deterioration of the quality of life. It is time for us to take a step back, to learn from our mistakes in both government and the private sector, and plan for a better tomorrow. That is what the Vice President, the President, and not just his administration but people around the country are doing with the new livable communities movement. I strongly urge that people support these initiatives and what they can represent for a more livable future.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the most exciting issues that has arisen in this new year has been that of livable communities. It received prominence in the President's State of the Union address. Just this last week, on Friday, it was the feature article in the National Journal. The Saturday New York Times front page political memo had again an issue about livable communities. It is in large part an expression of how government can be a partner with citizens, with the business community, to try and really achieve what it is that Americans deeply care about because, at heart, Americans care when their children go out the door in the morning that they are safe, they want that family to be economically secure, they want them to be healthy physically and in terms of their environment. One example of that partnership that can make a difference for livable communities is the impact that the local post office has on small and medium sized communities particularly around the country. The post office is a symbol of how we connect to one another. The mail collection and distribution is vitally important in terms of community dynamic. Time and time again we find that post office on Main Street is an anchor for that Main Street business activity; it is a source of pride for people in the local communities; often it is a historic structure. Unfortunately, when it comes to the location of that service, historic post offices around the country are being in some cases removed from those historic downtown locations. In some cases they are being, the post office simply has not been the type of neighbor that our communities deserve, and it is sadly not unknown for the postal service to not play by the same rules that the Federal Government imposes on others. I have a series of examples in my office where these historic outposts have abandoned historic downtown locations to be located in a strip mall at the edge of town, perhaps without any paved sidewalks. Many communities in, for example, Portland, Oregon, where I am from, there is a lot of work to try and plan for the future to be able to promote a more livable community, and in fact the Oregon planning model is heralded by some as the most advanced in the United States. But despite the notoriety, despite the outreach, the Postal Service, for instance, was completely clueless to the work that we have been doing in our community to plan facilities for the next 50 years. It does not have to be that way. I am introducing legislation this week that would require the Post Office to obey local land use and planning laws, to have them work with the local communities before they make decisions that can have such a wrenching affect on the fabric of community. I find it ironic that in case after case the Post Office gives the public more input into what version of the Elvis stamp it is going to produce than decisions that really can be life and death for small town America. We also have a provision in this bill that makes some minor technical adjustments over what we had in the previous session of Congress because we have been listening to people in the Postal Service and we want to give them necessary flexibility. We do not want it to be a straightjacket, but we do want it to be a model of how America can and should work. I would hope that, as we are promoting livable communities around the country, that the Federal Government will lead by example, by acting the way we want other actors and actresses to behave to promote more livable communities. I would earnestly request that my colleagues join me in sponsoring this legislation to make the Postal Service a full partner in assuring the liveability of America's communities.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, one of the tenets of a livable community is control over one's own destiny. Unfortunately, sports franchises have held communities hostage, pitting one city against another as they have left fans in Brooklyn, Hartford, Baltimore, Houston and Cleveland for greener pastures. It does not have to be that way. Madam Speaker, that is why I am introducing Give-Fans-a-Chance legislation which guarantees due process for relocation and makes it at least possible for any city to do what little Green Bay, Wisconsin, has done: basically own their own team. But the NFL will not let that happen any more. Any league which does not abide by these rules does not deserve the Federal antitrust broadcast exemption worth billions of dollars. Madam Speaker, I strongly urge giving fans a chance and making their communities a little more livable by providing them with the opportunity to control their own destiny not subject to the whim of some absentee billionaire.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, during the 25 years that I have been privileged to work with communities across the country to help make them more livable, nothing has captured the imagination of the ordinary citizen more strongly than suggesting that our communities no longer be held hostage to the whims of billionaire sports team owners. The fact today is that a few dozen of America's richest people can decide for any reason at all that they are not making enough money, or they think they could make more money, or that they do not like the color of the stadium, or that perhaps they could squeeze more from the fans where they are by offering up the possibility that their team will be relocated somewhere else, perhaps to a town that some other owner has abandoned. The bidding war with threats, implied or explicit, for taxpayers and fans to cough up millions more in subsidies to a franchise is a fact of life for fans in more than half of America's metropolitan areas. It has been a sad spectacle that started in the 1950s when the profitable Brooklyn Dodgers and their compatriots, the New York Giants, both baseball teams, left for greener pastures in California. This has triggered a parade of franchise relocation, many times not because of a lack of fan support or financial support but simply because the owners felt they could get a better deal elsewhere. Witness the recent sad situation of the long-suffering fans in Cleveland, Ohio, who have been in that icebox of a stadium year in and year out to capacity and now the Browns are gone. The sad fact is that the Federal Government aids and abets this relocation process. It grants an antitrust broadcast exemption that makes franchises worth hundreds of millions of dollars and makes the leagues possible and extraordinarily profitable. The NFL alone in the most recent round of contract negotiations netted $17.5 billion. Still there is no stability for the American fan, and they continue to pay more for tickets, more for parking, more for taxes, more for seat licenses, more for concessions that make it less affordable, less comfortable for the community and ever more lucrative for the few who profit. It does not have to be this way. I have introduced the Give Fans a Chance Act which would require that leagues follow their stated rules on relocation and consider the community impact, actually involve the community in the decisionmaking process. My legislation would give local communities the opportunity, after this analysis takes place, to actually match a bid for a franchise that might otherwise be relocated. And, most important, it would not allow these professional sports leagues to have artificial restraints on who can own a team. The NFL, for example, has decreed there will be no more Green Bay Packers style community ownership. One has got to be a billionaire. Green Bay, Wisconsin, one thirty-fourth the size of Los Angeles, has one of the most successful franchises in professional sports, and it is owned by 1,950 shareholders. Little Green Bay, Wisconsin, does not have to worry that when they invest millions of dollars in their facilities, that somehow an owner is going to decide to relocate elsewhere, and it has made a profound difference in that community. The NFL and others argue that Green Bay is an aberration, a special case, that it cannot be replicated anywhere else, that people in other communities are not smart enough to figure this out. I disagree. I do not think Green Bay, as unique as that community is, is an aberration and a special case, and I think we ought to at least give other fans the same chance. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Give Fans a Chance legislation. I strongly urge long-suffering sports fans to lend their voice. If the American people are heard, truly we will give the sports fans a chance.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, we begin the new session on a note of optimism that has been sounded by Republican leaders, by our Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and by the President of the United States in his recent appearance in this Chamber. This is important, because we have been consumed by the dark cloud hanging over this Capitol. Over this past year, a few bright spots have indeed emerged. I am especially pleased with the progress and the attention given to the Livable Communities movement. Recently highlighted by the administration in the President's State of the Union speech, elements were previewed a week earlier by the Vice President, who is a major architect of this work. The Vice President's address last September at the Brooking Institute was one of the best statements I have heard on the importance of Livable Communities and how to encourage them. While I am pleased with their leadership, I want to caution that this is not just a partisan initiative of the Democratic administration. As an appointee over 25 years ago of Oregon's legendary Republican Governor Tom McCall to his Livable Oregon Committee, I know full well that making our communities livable does not have to be a partisan effort. Indeed, it should not be. Oregon's achievements in land use, transportation and environmental protection have made it a beacon for the Livable Communities movement. Our efforts were marked by a spirit of bipartisan cooperation. Nationally, we have seen an example of Republican interest when Governor Christy Todd Whitman made ``Livable New Jersey'' the theme of her second and final inaugural address. The most important strength of the Livable Communities movement is that it transcends even bipartisan politics. Over 200 local and state ballot initiatives faced voters this November from around the country signaling a new era of grassroots pressure to create more livable communities and to have government become a better partner in that effort. I would note that an overwhelming majority of those initiatives passed. For some it is too easy to discount the Federal role, citing local control, fear of regulation or simply misreading history. The fact is the Federal Government has been a partner with local government and the private sector in shaping the landscape and building communities since the Federal Government first started taking land away from the native Americans, who were largely hunters and gatherers, and gave it to European farmers, who cut and burned the forests for farms. Now that President Clinton and Vice President Gore have made Livable Communities a priority, raising new levels of interest, it is more important than ever that the problems of dysfunctional communities be addressed by we in Congress. This movement brings together communities, large and small, rural and urban, inner city and suburb. This Congress has an historic opportunity to rise above partisanship and business as usual to work together to improve the quality of life of all Americans. These proposals will not end up costing great sums of money; indeed, by and large, they will save money and create wealth. They are not going to put people at risk. They will indeed strengthen the lives of our communities and enrich them. It does not require picking winners and losers. Livable Communities do not discriminate against one another, they reach out to include people. There is something in it for everyone. During the work of the last Congress, on the ISTEA reauthorization to create T-21, I used a scriptural reference found in Isaiah, 58:12. If anything, it is more applicable for the Livable Communities initiative. Those from among you shall build the old waste places; you shall rise up the foundations of many generations; and you shall be called the Repairer of the Breach, the Restorer of Streets to Dwell In. In the weeks ahead, I will be suggesting simple, inexpensive steps that we can all take to make our communities safe, economically secure and healthy; from not having our communities held hostage to the whims of billionaire sports franchise owners, to making the Post Office obey local land use, planning and zoning codes and work with local communities before they make decisions that have the potential of tearing the heart out of historic small town America; to reforming flood insurance, to make it more cost effective and efficient. It is time for us in Congress to heed the Prophet Isaiah and to be about this important work of making our communities more livable.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, while the world is rocked by war and the spectacle of removing a president, our drama here is not about impeachment, it is what we have done to ourselves. We have managed to squeeze the life out of what is the most important vote we will ever cast, the overturning of a presidential election. Gone is any pretext of fairness or nonpartisanship, rendering us unable to do what a majority of the public and what a majority of this House wants to do, issue a harsh statement of condemnation and censure. In the final death throes of this Congress we have debased our powers, we have frayed our fragile bases for bipartisan cooperation, making the impeachment process just one more pathogen in the medical chest of toxic politics. We will long be judged by our failure to deal fairly, quickly, and decisively with the President's shameful behavior. It is with great sadness that I vote to oppose this flawed, tragic symbol of the continued unraveling of our political process. Mr. Speaker, the experts tell us there are five stages of grief from denial to bargaining then anger, followed by depression, and ultimately, acceptance. Most of us as Americans have been experiencing this sequence of emotions as we react to this tangled national soap opera. For some time now, I like many Americans, have been trapped somewhere between the stages of anger and depression. We have been in a large echo chamber dominated by many angry and frustrated voices, but are now at the central issue: ``What does Congress do?'' A vote to impeach the President is simply not warranted by the facts. It is, rather, a dangerous precedent that is completely inconsistent with our requirements and responsibilities under the Constitution. The President can and will be punished for his conduct. In part, that has already happened. No one in history has been the object of such world-wide scorn, anger and ridicule as Bill Clinton. The details are all known to anyone who cares to know about them as well as many who really don't have the slightest interest. Nor is the President, by any stretch of the imagination, through being punished. The public humiliation continues in Congress, in the press and on the late night comedy shows. As he leaves office he can be subject to perjury and further lawsuit just like any other citizen. The President has expended millions of dollars in legal fees with no end in sight. Of course, there has been a permanent loss in his reputation. Congress can and should censure his conduct and express the deep disappointment of the American people in his behavior. The reality is that it is not our role in Congress to deal with America's anger and sense of betrayal by adopting a very dangerous standard for impeachment. My research and consultation with constitutional experts convinces me that impeachment for ``high crimes and misdemeanors'' would not include an act that did relate to the official duties of the Office of the President. For example, one of the articles of impeachment that was drafted but not presented to the House Judiciary Committee in the Watergate Inquiry was Richard Nixon's alleged tax evasion. In that case Nixon would have been subjected to prosecution like any other citizen, after he left office. This is a difficult concept at best. It grates on us. We in Congress would like to right the wrongs of the world, especially if they are somebody else's wrongs. Yet there are some things that the Constitution does not permit us to do. It is with good reason that this threshold of what constitutes an impeachable offense should remain higher rather than lower. A lower standard of what constitutes an impeachable offense would severely weaken future Presidents of either party, allowing them to be manipulated for political purposes. I must agree with the constitutional experts that under the lower standard credible inquires into impeachment could have been launched against President Roosevelt about Lend Lease operations with Britain, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon about Vietnam, and Reagan and Bush about the Iran Contra scandal. I fear the use of impeachment not just for the paralytic effect it would have on the Executive Branch. It would have a corrosive effect on Congress, with the possibility of being constantly in a state of attack, because there will always be determined minorities who will be able to pursue these actions due to this dramatically reduced standard. Congress should guard the process of impeachment for the future of the Presidency, the integrity of Congress and the possibility of getting on with the business of running the Government. I cast my vote against impeachment with the hope to be able to express the will of my constituents that the President's conduct be severely censured.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, investigations and impeachment proceedings have dominated news of the 105th Congress. The disappointing reality is that, by scheduling less legislative business than any Congress in a generation, the Republican leadership has provided little else for the press to cover. People on both sides of the aisle will admit as much with little or no prompting. This year we have not even passed a budget resolution, the first time in 24 years that Congress has failed to provide this framework. When division and confusion arose in the Republican caucus, they chose to abdicate their responsibility rather than work with the Democrats to put together a budget compromise. Over what issues did the Republicans allow the budget process to be held hostage? Conservative extremists brought fiscal planning to a halt for days to fight over such policies as whether federal health insurance recipients should be guaranteed contraception coverage. Somewhat ironic for people who claim to be against abortion. Because of all the delays and infighting, I am now being asked to vote on one spending bill that encompasses a third of the entire federal budget. While we are still in the process of learning what is in the bill, what is known is alarming. This bill provide $7 billion in excess of last year's budget agreement and adds an additional $21 billion in so called emergency spending, stretching the definition of ``emergency'' to the breaking point. It also increases military spending by nearly $9 billion--too much, and for the wrong items. The Republicans chose to provide questionable funds for the ``star wars'' program, while ignoring the need for adequate compensation and retirement for military personnel. I must reluctantly vote against this omnibus bill. I say ``reluctantly'' because there are a few very positive provisions in the bill. Democrats have managed to win additional funds for new teachers and a number of environmental programs and these gains should not be minimized. However, I cannot condone the process by which this legislation was created or its misplaced priorities. I have searched for any rationale to justify this fundamental breakdown of Congress. There was, however, no national emergency, there was no physical crisis, and there was no attempt at bipartisan cooperation. Instead, inaction, special interest pressure, and members' desires to go home have allowed us to accept this unusual process. Hopefully, something positive will come from this episode. Perhaps the American public will pay more attention to how their tax dollars are managed. Perhaps these issues will become an object of attention during the election process. Perhaps these developments will even inspire future fiscal cooperation, similar to the cooperation which has successfully fended off environmental attacks and continues to attempt to restore some degree of civility to congressional operations. Every Member of Congress should be motivated to prevent a repeat of this failed budget process in the 106th Congress, regardless of which party is in charge. I am inspired to begin this conversation now, while the memories are still fresh. This bill be one of my highest priorities of the new year.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3888 today. I have had my personal experience, as a number of people have, in terms of being slammed. I find that I am not unique. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Committee on Commerce and the head of the ``Congressional Bow Tie Caucus,'' has similarly been treated, I understand, by the industry. So I am pleased today with the legislation that is coming forward. But I am concerned that there is one provision that we saw in the Senate that is not included, which I hope that before we are through the legislative process that there will be an opportunity to include. That is the truth in billing provision that was amended into the Senate bill unanimously. It is very similar to legislation that I have introduced in the House, H.R. 4018, that has over 50 cosponsors. Truth in billing would require that the telephone carriers provide accurate information to customers about both the increases and reductions in consumer charges resulting from regulatory action. There has been a great deal that has happened as a result of telecommunications deregulation, but I cite just one example: the confusion surrounding the e-rate that speaks to the need for more complete billing information. Consumers did not understand that the new line items were for all of universal service, including rural telephone service which has been in place for some 60 years. Nor did they understand that the cost to current phone companies had already been reduced by, we think, approximately $3 billion, which is far more than we were talking about with the e-rate, which would have provided access to the Internet for our schools and libraries. Madam Speaker, I hope that we will be able, as I say, to refer to the provisions of H.R. 4018, the truth in billing, because the FCC does have, although it has initiated rulemaking for truth in billing, it is a step in the right direction. But it is important that the FCC's action be grounded in specific legislative authorization. I would fear that we not be silent on giving consumers clarity on their phone bill. This Congress has much to be pleased with the progress that has been made. I think giving full disclosure about increases and decreases in the phone rates that are charged by the phone companies will give consumers the information they need to adequately make their assessments. Madam Speaker, I hope that the House will accept any Senate amendments to include truth in billing. As one who had my long distance carrier switched without my knowledge, I strongly support efforts to end this unscrupulous practice. I want to take a minute to talk about a consumer protection that the Senate included in its anti-slamming bill, that is not in the bill before us today, specifically truth in billing. Truth in billing requires that telephone carriers provide information about both increases and reductions in consumer charges resulting from regulatory actions--this is absolutely critical if consumers are to have a clear understanding of how deregulation of the telecommunications marketplace affects their pocketbook. The recent controversy over line item charges associated with the E- Rate is a perfect example of the confusion that can be caused by incomplete billing information. Consumers did not understand that most of the new line items were for programs which have been in place for 60 years to provide service to rural areas. Nor did they understand that costs to phone companies had already been reduced by more than they were being asked to pay the e-rate. My legislation to provide for some truth in billing currently has 50 cosponsors. Some might say that this legislation is unnecessary, since the FCC has initiated a rulemaking on truth in billing. I am hopeful that their process will be successful. However, I think this critical proceeding must be grounded in specific legislative authorization. Congress cannot be silent on giving consumers clarity about their phone bills. Should this bill come back from the Senate with this language, I urge my colleagues to accept it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the eyes of the capital and the news media are focused on the Judiciary deliberations and the scope and authority of impeachment inquiry, when others are struggling to deal with the slaughter in Kosovo, it is hard perhaps for us to give attention to the mounting global economic crisis and the role that United States leadership will play. Yet I sincerely believe that world peace, alleviating human suffering and poverty, and averting environmental disaster are all tied in the long run to the United States economic leadership far more than military might. Ten days ago we suffered a setback on the floor of the House of Representatives with the rejection of the fast track authority, not just the rejection of that authority itself, but how and why it was done. I do believe that America's Presidents need the ability to negotiate some treaties that Congress votes on on an up-or-down basis. Every President since Richard Nixon has had that power. Recently the authority for the Clinton administration expired, and it has been unable to be renewed. Last year we were close to a vote, but because it was deemed that we were short of the votes and we could not afford a defeat, the matter was withdrawn. This year with the world economy in turmoil, Asia in crisis and the United States stock market on a volatile roller coaster, a vote was scheduled and forced through without bipartisan leadership, without the discussion of the areas of concern, without administration backing. The result was to lose at least 20 Republicans from last year's tally, over a third of the Democrats, either changed their vote to no or present, and it froze a number of sympathetic lawmakers who had legitimate concerns into a no column without working either to accommodate or even to listen to their concerns. This will have consequences far beyond the fast track authority. At a time when over half the world's people are under some threat of sanction from the United States, we do not know how to evaluate them, how to stop them. For example, with the Pakistan-India situation, United States sanctions simply penalized American farmers and we quickly backtracked. The United States has more difficulty with its China relationship than any other country in the world, and we have significant global environmental concerns to be worked out with the World Bank, with the IMF. Mr. Speaker, these are not simple items, they are not items that we can ignore, and reckless partisan behavior, for example, as we had on fast track gets us nowhere. We need to start now to repair the damage in the remaining days of this session, and even more important, we need to be clear-eyed, cooperative and thoughtful in our approach to America's role as a leader in the global economy for the next Congress. The stakes are simply too high for us to be diverted by the media issue du jour or attempts to gain partisan advantage.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for the vocabulary lesson. I do not know whether to have that taken down or not, but I am going back and check. I have been following this legislation carefully, and I marvel at the hard work of the committee for bringing it forward. In 1994, the Department of Labor did, in fact, adopt a new interpretation of the Federal Child Labor regulations that effectively eliminated occasional and incidental driving by teenage employees of auto dealers. In my community in the Pacific Northwest, this interpretation that was adopted without notice or rulemaking led to the imposition of over $200,000 in fines against more than 60 auto dealers in the Pacific Northwest, people who in my experience are pretty straight-ahead folks, good public citizens and easy to work with. The process by which the new rule was adopted I think was bad; the fines were worse. I am pleased that we are taking steps here to eliminate the most severe consequence, which was the decision on the part of many auto dealers to no longer hire teenagers for after-school and summer service for porters and lot attendants. These were jobs that gave young people the opportunity to earn money and gain career- building experience. I personally benefited in my formative years with employment opportunities that were auto-related, and frankly, I do identify with the comments of my friend from New Jersey that in fact probably these young people were as safe and perhaps safer, because one is not going to entrust valuable property to people one thinks are irresponsible. Bear in mind these are some of the same young drivers that some would have us protect, who are out driving large machines without supervision, without the experience at times that they would have in the employment situation. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are taking steps to remedy this. I am sorry that it took so long. I do think that the job limits that have been adopted, the protections, the restrictions, are more than adequate. Some may argue that it goes a little further than necessary, particularly at a time when there are some in this body who are calling for the imposition of adult criminal sanctions against teenagers. I think what the committee has done, coming forward to provide employment opportunities, is sensible. It will remove the concerns that auto dealers and many business owners have for hiring teenagers for jobs that require limited driving, and it does give the Department of Labor clear and fair guidelines to enforce. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work that has been done.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago our community in Portland, Oregon celebrated an opening of a new light rail line, but what brought together the Vice President of the United States, numerous administration officials and over a quarter million Oregonians was not just an engineering achievement but it was, indeed, to celebrate another chapter in Oregon's success story of livable communities. It showed the power of careful investments in transportation and land use planning. For less than the cost of an additional freeway lane, which would have been very hard to build even if we had the extra money, we have been able to move over 25,000 people per day on the new line and, indeed, have the potential to double that capacity for the relatively modest additional investment of buying more rail cars. The investment has also sparked 6,000 new housing units that have been built, that are under construction or through the permit process along the light rail line and, indeed, has strengthened our downtowns, not just in the city of Portland but smaller communities along the line. This billion dollar investment in light rail by integrating engineering and artists into the planning process also provided fascinating public art which will enrich the community for decades to come. Vice President Gore clearly articulated the administration's commitment to protect our environment, avoiding sprawl, and giving more choices to families. That is an important part of why I am in Congress, so that we can deal with what America's families really care about, making sure that children are safe when they go out the door to school in the morning, that the families are economically secure and healthy, physically and environmentally. It is not too late for this Congress to address ways to promote more livable communities. We can begin by implementing the transit pass rule change that has been finally approved by the House so that we do not just give free parking to our employees, encouraging them to clog our already congested highways and pollute the air, but maybe an incentive to use the $10 billion transportation system that the Federal Government has helped invest in. The Federal Government can also lead by example, by having higher standards of building design. Maybe even the House will approve my legislation with an amendment in the Treasury, Postal bill that would require the post office to not build in floodplains, that it would not violate local regional transportation plans, and to work with citizens in the downtowns of our cities, large and small. Perhaps the national park system could be a laboratory in Yellowstone or Yosemite for how to plan the transportation and land use. Or I would hope that perhaps the Federal Government could address the foolish use of taxpayer dollars like the $114,000 home in metropolitan Houston that we have already spent over $800,000 repairing flood damage over the last 20 years. Every year we make huge expenditures for economic development, crime and education, which are in fact merely spending to fight the symptoms of dysfunctional communities. Last week in Portland we celebrated smart growth of a livable community. My hope is that we in Congress will do everything in our power to give every American community those tools.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, just weeks before the election, the Republican leadership has proposed an $80 billion bundle of tax breaks, and has asked the American people to pay for these breaks by dipping into future Social Security surpluses. I have worked my entire professional life to improve the fairness of the tax system--first in Oregon and now as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Unfortunately, the proposal before us today represents a scatter-shot collection of inefficient and poorly written tax breaks. For example, the so-called ``marriage penalty reduction'' gives further tax benefits to those married couples who currently pay less in taxes than they would as single taxpayers anyway. Yet other couples, who have lower incomes and do face a significant ``marriage penalty'' will get no relief at all. In total, this bill gives the top 2 percent of all taxpayers an average tax cut $1,709 a year. The 160 million taxpayers who represent the working poor to the upper-middle income (about 60 percent of taxpayers) will only receive, on average, a $34 cut. This is unacceptable. To make matters worse, rather than paying for the cuts as required under our budget law, the Republicans scheme targets the Social Security surplus. We know the baby-boomers' retirement is a serious threat to the federal budget and economy in the near future. We also know that we cannot assume our budget surpluses are going to last. If a recession occurs, our budget deficits would compound Social Security's long-term financing problems, putting in jeopardy our ability to provide for the millions of Americans who are counting on Social Security to be there when they retire. Perhaps we should not be surprised with the content and timing of this scheme. After all, this proposal is being put forth by the same people who vowed to scrap the entire tax code because it was too complex--only to add 285 entirely new sections of tax code through the passage of their 1997 Act. And, is it just coincidence we are considering this package five weeks before the November elections? Rather than continue to play these political games, it is time Congress made serious efforts to protect our Social Security system and make the tax system more fair, rather than just more complex.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. This is a sad moment for me because I came to Congress believing in enhancing the United States role in a global economy. I represent a State which has prospered mightily from trade. I have enjoyed working with my colleagues the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and with members on the other side of the aisle like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) in the development of a bipartisan trade policy. Last year I was part of an effort, and we came close, there were maybe 210 Members who were willing to vote. But because we were not quite close enough, the Republican Speaker and the administration pulled it back. Now, in an increasingly partisan atmosphere, the Republican leadership has recklessly endangered our progress and will produce not just fewer Democrats, there will be fewer Republicans that will vote for this bill than we claim to have had last year. It will undercut our progress on environment and labor. It is a blatant partisan effort that will freeze some of the positions on both sides of the aisle. It toys with Members who really do care about this issue. And by producing today fewer Republicans, fewer Democrats, we are going to send a negative economic signal both at home and abroad. Most sadly, it shatters the bipartisan trade leadership efforts that Members have worked so hard on on this floor. I will personally work to restore that bipartisan coalition, work to build bridges, listen to and deal with the legitimate concerns Members have. But this failure that is going to occur today does not underscore the weakness of this President. It talks about the recklessness of the Republican leadership that is not going to be able to produce the same amount of votes that they claimed last year. I am not going to dignify this political act with a yes vote. I will vote present, and I urge others to do similar or vote against it. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, it was my experience to come to this body in the midst of the 104th Congress right after the government shutdown, and passions were high, and I was thrust into an interesting situation. I felt like I was a high school freshman in a body of 435 senior class presidents. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) was one of the bright spots for me, somebody who helped me understand what was going on, somebody who took the time and patience that was certainly not merited by anything on my part. Mr. Speaker, I deeply appreciate what the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) represents. I am only starting to understand what he has done for this institution, and I have enjoyed listening today to the testimonies of many of the gentleman's colleagues, and I am sure that I will continue, as time goes on, to understand what he has done to make this a better place. But it is the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the man, in which I stand in awe. Despite difficult personal times, one of the more challenging districts in the United States and what I think most would regard as a near impossible task, chairing our caucus, he has always been a beacon of rationality, civility and thoughtfulness. Life in this institution is not a life sentence. The gentleman from California has earned the right to accept new challenges and opportunities for himself and his family. But I know my constituents got a Congressperson who is a little better because of the gentleman's thoughtfulness and knowledge, and I know that we are all better by dint of his service.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time. This resolution is very important to those of us in the Pacific Northwest. I must say as the only Member of Congress to be an alumnus of the Lewis and Clark College, as somebody who was born and raised in the Northwest and steeped in the culture of that expedition, I am very pleased and proud that this is coming forward at this time. One hundred years ago in our community, the centennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition was celebrated with a world's fair that had a tremendous impact on our community, on the Pacific Northwest and the West Coast. I am optimistic that we can have the same sort of national celebration along the 8,000-mile expedition route. I am pleased to commend the leadership of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for the hard work that he has invested on the front end of the journey, and we are hopeful that we will be able to have as much energy and activity in the Northwest to complement that effort. The acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase was more than something that simply doubled the size of the United States. It was a purchase that helped us change our perceptions of our country and how we related to the rest of the world. It was a first step towards the United States becoming a truly global power with its bicoastal borders and the critical mass it had acquired. It also triggered some activities that are not part of perhaps some of our proudest moments in terms of our attitudes towards Native American citizens that frankly haunt us to this day. Tied up in that struggle as well was the question of slavery and how we added different chapters with each State being added to the union. And it was an activity that expanded our concept of the science of the time, the exploration adding to the geology, the botany, the geographical knowledge of the United States. It is with the spirit of discovery, in fact, the expedition itself was labeled the Corps of Discovery, that I am hopeful over the next five years that this planning process will be something that enables people from around the country to admire, to be involved with themselves. I look forward to the work that all of us in Congress can do, taking advantage of the cultural and geologic resources along this route to make it worthy of the historic journey that took place almost two centuries ago.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 1560, the Lewis and Clark Expedition Bicentennial Commemorative Coin Act. I'd like to thank my friend and colleague Rep. Bereuter for his leadership on this historically significant legislation. H.R. 1560 calls for the minting of dollar and half dollar coins honoring the astounding accomplishments of ``The Corps of Discovery.'' The proceeds from the sale of the coins will be distributed to the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council and the National Park Service to defer the costs of bicentennial events and celebrations. Passage of this Act is in keeping with our ongoing commitment to this important expedition which opened the American West, making it possible for me and my constituents to call Portland, Oregon home. In 1803, Congress appropriated twenty-five hundred dollars to fund a small expedition whose mission it was to explore the uncharted west and to find the quickest water route to the Pacific Ocean. Thomas Jefferson entrusted his Secretary and good friend Meriwether Lewis and William Clark to embark on America's most historic journey. On May 14, 1804 Meriwether Lewis, William Clark and their ``Corps of Discovery'' departed Wood River, IL on a journey to explore the uncharted wilderness west of the Mississippi River. Over the next four years, they would travel thousands of miles, encountering lands, rivers and cultures that no Americans ever had before. Although they did not return from their journey with a direct water passageway across the continent, what they did bring was an invaluable wealth of knowledge. From Illinois to my home state of Oregon, and back to St. Louis, the Expedition covered 8,000 miles exploring what would become 11 future states. Their extensive journals and detailed maps depicted a rich landscape for those who until then could only imagine what lay beyond the Mississippi. Their expedition also exposed them to never before seen species of plants and animals. As well, Lewis and Clark succeeded in building and fostering friendships with the American Indian tribes they encountered during the Expedition. From 2003 to 2006, through the efforts of the National Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Council, the National Park Service, State and local entities and several other interested groups, Americans will have various opportunities to join in the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Passage of H.R. 1560 is an important first step to ensuring that citizens all across this country have an opportunity to pay their respects to the history- shaping achievements of Lewis and Clark and ``The Corps of Discovery''. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1560.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, sometimes the action of this Chamber can confuse or disappoint even those of us on the floor. We find occasionally people switching sides of debate on the great issues, seemingly to suit their mood or whim. Everybody agrees, at a time of great need for the wise use of Federal dollars, that too much is not used as wisely as possible. Despite the rhetoric about Washington living by the rules that we impose on the rest of America, we still have some very frustrating things happening, like the Post Office building in Flood Plains. I am pleased that the House leaves to return to our districts this week having done one thing that benefits everyone, that saves money, improves the quality of life in Washington, D.C. and its environs, without acrimony or micromanagement. I am pleased that this week the Committee on House Oversight took action on a proposal that I have been working on here for the last 2 years. We have acquired some 256 cosponsors, enlisted the assistance of dozens of people around the country and an alliance with able Members of this Chamber, like the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). That proposal that was approved will enable us to provide transit passes for our employees. It is a small step towards improving the quality of life and having us do what we ask the rest of America to do. It gives, for the first time, employees on the House side the choice between free parking or subsidized transit. It provides savings for hundreds of our employees who already use transit and incentives for hundreds more who will, in fact, take advantage of it. It is a smaller step for clean air. It is a nudge for people to live nearer to where they work or near transit stations and not drive on the streets of the second most congested area of the country that are sadly in need of repair. It is a move for us to have more authority behind our urging America to be more sensitive in how we use our environmental resources. Last but not least, it is an important step towards uniformity in Federal transit and parking policies for our employees. But in a sense, Mr. Speaker, it is a very important part of a larger picture. It shows how the Federal Government can use its great powers and solemn responsibilities as a partner for a more livable community. In the final analysis, America often sort of looks askance at what we talk about on the floor of this House, when what they care about is making sure their children are safe when they go out the door to go out to school in the morning, that they are economically secure and healthy. I look forward to more steps, in this Congress and beyond, where we harness our resources planning for a more livable future, using the land, the infrastructure, environmental protection, and housing for more livable communities. This transit pass is an important step in showing that we know how to put the pieces together. I appreciate the steps that the Committee on House Oversight has taken on behalf of our employees and a better environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment. I rise in strong opposition to the Hefley amendment. Executive Orders 11478 and 13087 are based on the notion that job performance should be the sole measure of a person's fitness to work. Supporters of this amendment want us to believe that this fundamental tenet of our American culture is radical and subversive. Somehow, they want us to believe, making it clear that the Administration will hire and retain the best people for the job is dangerous. By adding sexual orientation to the list of factors irrelevant to hiring and promotion decisions, President Clinton simply clarifies a long-standing interpretation of an Executive Order issued thirty years ago by President Nixon. This is hardly a change in policy, but if this small clarification improves the comfort and morale of one federal employee, it is worth our fervent support. I believe this Executive Order will have a more tangible impact, as well. Anyone who has ever run a business knows that good morale improves productivity and attracts the brightest, best people. I am proud to say that throughout my public service career, at Multnomah County, and in the City of Portland, we have had similar policies of non-discrimination. In 1991, the Portland City Council, believing that what was good for workers was good for work, prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. I believe that policy had a significant impact on the effectiveness of employees throughout the City. The continuing assault on gay and lesbian citizens by some of my colleagues is unfortunate and undeserved. No employee should be discriminated against because of sexual orientation. The government should lead by example. I applaud Executive Order 13087 and urge rejection of the Hefley amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, at times I fear we are losing our perspective on the telecommunication issues. Yet again this week, we see that the e-rate is in the cross hairs. I want to be very clear that I am a strong supporter of the e-rate. I believe that this Congress made a commitment to assist schools and libraries across the country in their efforts to provide America's school children with access to the Information Highway. Thousands have taken us at our word and we must honor that commitment, a commitment that is grounded in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, where we extended a part of the universal service program, in place administratively for the past 60 years, that provides telephone services to high-cost rural areas to extend that service to be clear that the e-rate is a part of that fundamental responsibility. In 1997, the FCC issued its first notice of proposed rulemaking to make this expenditure a reality, capping at 2-and-a-quarter billion dollars per year, resources for eligible schools and libraries who would receive discounts ranging from 20 to 90 percent, depending on whether that school or library is disadvantaged or located in a high- cost area. Unfortunately, due to a variety of controversies, we found that this program has been dramatically reduced, and yet there are some who feel that it should be eliminated altogether. What were the controversies that initiated this problem? Well, it was first and foremost I think brought about by those pesky surcharges that appeared on items of the bills. Those surcharges appeared to be for the e-rate only, but in fact, those were phone charges that would be responsible for the entire range of universal service activities. For example, only 19 cents of AT&T's 93 cent surcharge would go to schools and libraries. But it did, in fact, stir up 2 fundamental issues, one dealing with the administrative problems associated with the program; and the second, the question about whether or not this was somehow a new tax to provide Internet services. Mr. Speaker, it is true that there have been administrative problems associated with the e-rate, and, in fact, I agree with the critics who have called it into question. But the fact is that the FCC has taken steps to put in place the recommendations that have been required at the same time that they have cut the program down to $1.9 billion. The second issue here is whether or not the e-rate is a tax. I think it is important for us to look back in history. The United States Appeals Court has already examined the administratively established universal service program and have concluded that it did not represent a tax, it was not an inappropriate delegation of the power to tax. The court found that instead, it was ensuring affordable rates for specified services, not designated primarily as a means of raising revenue. The addition of a support mechanism for schools and libraries does not change that fundamental nature of the universal service, and I think it is, indeed, a great stretch of the imagination to suggest that this is attached. At times I fear we are losing our perspective on the telecommunication industry. At a time when long-distance bills are now at their lowest point in history, when AT&T and MCI, GTE and Bell Atlantic have agreed to or are looking at mergers that total $100 billion, at a time when the industry has saved billions of dollars as a result of the telecommunication reform, controversy has erupted over this little, tiny element which would represent less than 1 cent per day, per customer to provide Internet access for America's schools and libraries. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we do not abandon our commitment that Congress has made and that we support the e-rate in the course of this week's deliberations.