Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the proponents on the narrow terms of the waiver. But more importantly, I feel that they are also wrong on the big picture. This very day, my daughter, a college-age young woman, is in Vietnam going anywhere she wishes, marveling at the friendliness of the people, over 60 percent of whom are under 25 years of age with no connection to the war, other than to live with its horrible consequences. They are looking to America for a new relationship. This decision today is about whether we on this floor can exemplify the spirit of our late colleague, Walter Capps, about learning and reconciliation. It is about equipping our friend, Pete Peterson, in his mission as Ambassador to move the relationship between these two countries into the future in the spirit of healing and rehabilitation. And most important, this debate is to assure that we, as Congress, can learn from this experience so that our children, their children and grandchildren will not be trapped by the web that so ensnared three generations of Americans. Please, reject the resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, last night the House voted on Mr. Parker of Mississippi's amendment No. 18 to strike certain provisions of the Interior Appropriations bill, H.R. 4193. These provisions direct the Indian Health Service to allocate contract support costs funding on a pro rata basis to all tribal contractors. I voted against that amendment in error. Removal of this provision is vitally important to the Tribes in my district and throughout the Northwest which are working to identify thoughtful, participatory solutions to an inadequate system of health care provision. I wish the record to reflect my support for the Parker amendment and the tribal self- determination it encourages.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is very hard for me to disagree with the gentlewoman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mrs. Fowler), my good friend. I had the opportunity to work with her constituents for years and admire their concern and their interest. But with all due respect, I have a little difficulty with some of the characterization. I think it was clear when President Clinton signed the legislation in effect in the last session that he was not agreeing to it. In fact, my reading of that indicated that there were grave reservations on the part of the administration. I am here, I guess, because of my grave concerns about the process that have been raised by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest). The way that we handle water resources and development in disaster- prone areas in this country is itself a disaster. Despite spending over $40 billion, for instance, to prevent flooding since 1960, flood-related costs adjusted for inflation are about triple what they were in the early 1950s, before we started the program. Total Federal disaster payments between 1977 and 1993 topped $100 billion. Disaster costs have increased 550 percent in the last 10 years. Recently, this last week, we were here debating remedy to the Salton Sea, which was itself part of an engineering failure on the part of efforts to try and impact the environment. I appreciate that disasters are not always predictable, but too much development occurs directly in harm's way with the taxpayer footing the bill. In 1982, as the gentleman from Maryland outlined, the Reagan administration and a Democratic Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. I am not going to go through the details that the gentleman from Maryland pointed out, but it has saved the taxpayers an estimated $11 billion, keeping Federal investment out of millions of acres of barrier islands and coastline. Mr. Chairman, if people want to build where God does not want them, then they ought to step up and pay the price, not the American taxpayer. The bill before us invites Federal investments back into the path of disaster. I personally have reservations in terms of dealing with this as a technical amendment in terms of a rider. There is substantive legislation that has been considered in the past in the Committee on Resources. I would like that dealt with in that fashion. I too have reviewed the various parcels. It seems to me that there was, in fact, an argument made that they were in fact properly categorized. But it seems to me that what we need to do on this floor is to be more aggressive in the protection of these issues that protect the taxpayer. And, in fact, we should be pushing back, whether it is water reclamation projects in the West, mining costs, beach nourishment, disaster relief, flooding, levees. Time and time again the taxpayer has been stuck with the bill. We have been very, very slow to adjust our policies over time. And I am reluctant to see us this evening, through the process of the rider process, expand that. I would rather this go back to substantive committees.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I do identify very strongly with the comments we just heard from the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of shaping our relationship with China for decades to come, but we are also in the process of defining what kind of international leadership in the post-Cold War era we are going to have, moving away from military might and trying to thoughtfully exercise our role in a changing economy. Our annual ritual of threatening to revoke normal trade relations is understandably mystifying, not just to the Chinese, but to many others around the world. But looking at the Chinese, this ancient culture can appropriately be baffled by the many voices of Congress and the administration that happens every year in this debate, when they and every Member on this floor is aware that there are problems in many other countries that enjoy normal trading relations, in Asia, in the Middle East, in Africa, that have problems with human rights, environmental issues, religious persecution, and enjoy routinely normal trading relations. Normal trade relations is in fact a blunt instrument which does not advance our agenda of integrating the Chinese into the community of nations with whom we share economic, environmental and human values. We also need to pause for a moment on this floor to reflect upon the important and complex relationship that this country has in fact enjoyed with China over the course of this century. The Chinese were a key ally in dealing with the former Soviet Union, and it was as a result of that relationship that we hastened the end of the Cold War. They continue to be a moderating influence in the area where the American troops are most likely to be engaged in armed conflict, the Korean Peninsula. We also need to realize the environmental value to the United States of remaining engaged with the Chinese. Strengthening our relationship will help influence their decisions on controlling pollution and development. I do not think anybody should accept Chinese behavior assisting rogue nations or denying that we should do all in our power to encourage greater freedom for the Chinese people. There is, in fact, much more that needs to be done. But, as the President's recent trip to China highlighted, significant progress has been made over the course of the last couple of decades. There have in fact been gains, even in areas of religious freedom, and there are the stirrings of grassroots democracy, unthinkable only a few years ago. Mr. Speaker, the environmental progress, progress on human rights, greater freedom for the Chinese people, peace and stability in Asia, greater economic opportunity for the United States, these are all key long-term goals that are in fact shared by the vast majority of people on this floor. I strongly urge the rejection of the resolution before us. I would just make one brief reference to a dinner I had in my district two weeks ago with a variety of representatives from high tech companies. One small high-tech company admitted that their software was in fact continuing to be pirated by the Chinese. They stepped back for a moment and said to me, ``Yes, it is true. But, you know, the way we are looking at it, we have them hooked on our product. Ultimately they are going to be relying on us for the product, in the long run.'' I think this is the sort of approach we could engage in this debate as well.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the goal of those of us here in Congress should be to be a full partner for the American people, who really care about the essentials. They want their children to be safe when they go out the door to school in the morning, they are concerned about the family's economic security, and they want them to be healthy, physically and environmentally. This well-being of our families depends upon the health of our schools. There are some in Congress who would turn their back upon the historic responsibility that the Federal Government has had with education, claiming that this is exclusively a State or a local responsibility. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Federal Government has always played a major role in education, starting from the Land Ordinance Act of 1785 through the GI bill to school lunches today. There are three critical areas that we must address here in this Congress: assistance for the children who are the most difficult and expensive to educate; the reduction of gun violence, so that families can have peace of mind when the children go to school; and the promotion of computer skills and access that are so essential for success in today's world. Congress mandated, appropriately so, in the 94th Congress that there would be special education access for children with severe learning disabilities, but along with that mandate came a promise of 40 percent funding from the Federal Government, appropriately, for these children are the most difficult and expensive to educate. Yet, we are contemplating only 9 percent Federal funding in place of that 40 percent commitment. In the area of gun safety, we have seen example after example across this country where carnage has erupted on our schoolyards. Yet, at the same time, this Congress has a number of bills before it that are designed to reduce the incidence of gun violence. So far, not one has been scheduled to come to this floor. Finally, in the area of Internet connection, that promise was to be made through the mechanism of the E-Rate, a heavily discounted fee that would be available particularly to inner city schools, rural schools, but all American schools and libraries would benefit, to some degree. This was the promise of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and yet this promise has yet to be fully implemented. Indeed, today there are some in Congress who are threatening to repeal that provision, leaving behind the most needy children from the information superhighway. There is no reason for us to shrug our shoulders, no excuse for inaction. We know the problems. We in Congress have made the commitments. We currently have the strongest economy of a generation. Indeed, some of my friends in the Republican leadership feel we have so much money that they feel comfortable contemplating a $1 trillion tax cut over the next 10 years. I would suggest that, first and foremost, we tend to knitting by first fully funding our commitment to special education; by passing commonsense legislation to reduce gun access, the cap laws that would mandate safe storage and responsible gun ownership; and finally, keep our commitments to our schools and libraries by fully funding the E- Rate. Americans and their children deserve no less from this Congress.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3682. There is nothing more important in parent-child relationships than for parents to be involved in the healthcare decisions of their children. This basic parental right and responsibility is perhaps most critical in the case of pregnancies of young woman. In most American homes, no one cares more about the welfare, health and safety of a child than her parents. Although a young woman may be frightened or feel ashamed to share with her parents, parents are usually best able to provide support for these most personal decisions. Unfortunately, not all young women are able to confide in their parents should they become pregnant. A victim of family violence or incest is often not in a position to share her pregnancy with her parents for fear of further abuse. This bill, although laudable for its intention to encourage communication between parents and children, does not provide alternatives for a young woman who is unable, for fear of physical or emotional abuse, to involve her parents in her decision. In addition, the bill would criminalize the actions of close family members who might seek to assist a young woman who is struggling with this monumental decision. For troubled American households, grandparents, estranged parents, aunts, uncles, or siblings often serve in the parental role. The bill unfortunately does not make provisions for such circumstances. In fact, it may put these young women in a more dangerous situation should they feel compelled to turn to illicit providers of abortion services or travel alone. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the need for more parental involvement in their children's lives, but for these reasons, I must vote no on HR 3682.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the authors of the Education Rate are distressed by the current controversy, since the discount was supposed to be paid for through the hefty savings the telephone companies received as a result of deregulation, almost $3 billion as of July 1998. That is why I have introduced H.R. 4018 to give consumers ``truth in billing.'' It would require a GAO report on how much money has actually been saved as a result of deregulation and how much of that savings has been passed back to consumers. In addition, it would require that those companies seeking to put additional line items on their bills reflect the full and accurate picture of both costs and savings that have resulted from the Federal regulatory action. There is no reason for confusion. At a time when the majority of classrooms in America do not have Internet access, and when the numbers for the poor and the rural areas are even worse, it is important for Congress to cut through the confusion, keep our commitment to our schools and libraries, and most important, to America's children.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The issue here today is not whether or not we are going to be honoring our former colleague, Congressman Bono. I think all of us who had an opportunity to serve with him are committed to having an appropriate memorial of that nature. Nor is there a lack of interest on the part of Members of this Congress dealing with the environmental problems associated with the Salton Sea. The issue that I am concerned about, and I hope the House will take a step back and look very carefully at this, is that we are moving ahead with a significant sum of money to try and deal with what in and of itself was a failed project in the past. This water resources project years ago was well-intended, but has moved in the wrong direction. It is an issue that I am personally concerned with. As we speak today, this Congress has not exercised appropriate oversight for other water resources projects where we have not laid an appropriate foundation environmentally in engineering terms to make sure that we are not spending good money after bad. My colleagues will hear in the course of the debate, both on the rule and on the measure itself, that there is not at this point a clear understanding of the exact nature of the problem, and despite years of study and engineering research, there is not a good plan in hand right now. To go ahead with a preauthorization of a third of a billion dollars for something that this House does not really understand fully and will not have control over is a step clearly in the wrong direction. Not only would we be wasting it, there is a probability that it could even be made worse. I am pleased that our friends on the Republican majority have rediscovered the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Annually only about $260 million of this fund is spent on this purpose intended for the purchasing of conservation funds. It is a dramatic stretch, I think, for this House to dedicate resources of this order of magnitude in one little portion of the United States when we have hundreds of projects that go begging around the country. I hope that we will have a more thoughtful discussion about the utilization of this resource. I really do hope that we will approve the Miller amendment, have an opportunity to look at this in a more thoughtful fashion, and provide really a truly appropriate memorial in the long run.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if a modern day Rip Van Winkle tuned in today after napping for 25 years, who could fault him for immediately tuning out this debate on campaign finance reform? In 1971 and 1974 Congress passed campaign finance reforms that limited the amount of money in politics and, for the first time, required candidates to disclose the source of their money. The wisdom and application of those reform efforts have been debated by Congress ever since--annually, emotionally, and with futility. So, for the last 25 years, Congressional campaigns have been conducted under a set of rules that have become unenforceable (through systematic defunding of the Federal Elections Commission), weakened (by court decisions), and yet located at the heart of the American distrust with elected officials. The Harris Poll showed us earlier this year that 85 percent of Americans believe special interests have more influence than voters on this institution. Who can fault them when total campaign spending has risen from $115 million in 1975, to $450 million in 1985, and almost certainly to over $1 billion in this election? Is it any wonder that voter turnout is at an all-time low, and that respect for Members of this institution seems to rise only when we are not in session? In my relatively short time in Congress, I have seen how campaigns are financed, and how that distorts the decision making process. We would not have nearly the number of people who die each year from tobacco related deaths if it weren't for the influence of tobacco money in politics. I see negative ads from anonymous sources tearing at the fabric of our society. I see honest men and women trying to buck a system that distorts and creates negative consequences. And I see my colleagues, including Mr. Allen, Mr. Shays, Mr. Meehan and others, devoting enormous time and creativity to meaningful reforms that don't tilt in favor of Republicans or Democrats, don't unduly help incumbents, but does cut down the pursuit of campaign money. We now know how cynically the deck has been stacked yet again against reform. Those who look at the current system and see nothing wrong have a rule that permits them to call up 258 non-germane amendments, essentially talking reform to death. Those who argue that we need more money in politics are using their control over the calendar to prevent a House bill--should one miraculously pass--from reaching the Senate before adjournment. Despite these shenanigans, Mr. Chairman, we are not going to give up. The opponent of reform may succeed in pushing campaign finance reform into the 106th Congress, but reform is not going to die. The American people know the system is broken, and at the very least, we are going to give them a series of votes so after all the debate, after all the stalling tactics and parliamentary maneuvering, it will be perfectly clear who squandered this opportunity, and why.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, one of the most difficult decisions we in Congress routinely face on the Federal level is choosing where to act or intervene in a decision that is reached elsewhere. There are some that are relatively easy decisions for most Americans, as in the case of where there is active discrimination or a failure to protect the environment. People feel entirely comfortable with the Federal Government moving to assure equity and environmental protection. Many, however, are decisions that are very much in a gray area, which some choose, unfortunately, to use for political reasons. One of these gray areas, the decision that affects the end of life, is perhaps one of the most difficult and personal. In the State of Oregon, which I represent, we have struggled, debated and agonized over this issue for the last 4 years. The end-of-life issue is a very complex one, and, with the advent of new medical technologies and our rapidly aging population, it is getting more so for more of us. There are a wide range of ways to impact on these decisions, but none, as near as I can tell, require Federal help or interference. Yet today, the House Committee on the Judiciary is poised to have one of its subcommittees deal with legislation that would do precisely that, undermine a decision that has been agonized over in my State of Oregon for these last 4 years. There are, in fact, some very technical problems of a serious nature with this legislation. It would, in fact, interfere with the practice of medicine, of pharmacy, of pain management, of hospice management, in ways that would have profound effects on rights that many in America have taken for granted, and that is why there are large numbers of the medical profession that have come forward with their opposition to legislation of this nature. In Oregon, our legislation, Death with Dignity, is still a work in progress, but the fact is the preliminary evidence suggests that this option may actually reduce the incidence of violent suicide while easing the burden of both the individual and their family. Rather than having a flood of people to our State to take advantage of the provisions of the Death with Dignity law, it appears that individuals, having the knowledge that they, their families and their doctors can control this decision, gives a sense of peace and contentment that enables some people to move forward, enduring the pain and the struggle, without resorting to taking their own life. At this very moment, there are people in America who are struggling with this question in their family, and, before the day is out, there will be someone in America who will, in fact, hasten their death. As Americans struggle with these issues, mostly hidden from public view, it is important that we not have that personal tragedy, that agony, that frustration made more difficult by laws that ignore the realities of modern medicine and the range of legitimate personal medical choices. As we age as a society, exponentially, with the increase of the elderly population, and just the growth in our population, this will become more serious. As medical science continues to advance, the difficult decision points are going to be made more difficult and more complex. The evidence suggests that Americans support the principles of Death with Dignity. But whether you are a conservative and supportive of States' rights, or you are characterizing yourself perhaps as more progressive and feel that the government should be involved with more innovative policy development, it should be a point of common agreement that the Federal Government should allow Oregonians to continue their struggle in the implementation of Death with Dignity and avoid unnecessary Federal interference.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker I voted for the initial IRS reform bill, and there are many elements of the bill before us today that I continue to support. I am concerned, however, with several new elements which were introduced into the bill by the majority. I am concerned that if we are going to reduce the burden on taxpayers, lower-income working families should be included. After all, the taxes these families pay have a much bigger impact on the quality of their lives. This would have been easy to achieve with an increase in the EITC, or even better, with an across the board reduction in social security taxes which would benefit every working American. Unfortunately, those with higher incomes have been singled out for tax reductions in H.R. 2676. Since it is our struggling working families who have the roughest time making ends meet, I hope the next time we vote on tax relief we won't leave them out.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I believe the U.S. House of Representatives has a great opportunity to save the American taxpayer money. From the General Services Administration's FY96 Waste Management Report we have learned the U.S. House of Representatives recycled over three million pounds of paper and earned $761. The same reports shows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Recycled 1996 (lb.) Earned ------------------------------------------------------------------------ USDA.......................................... 1,020,000 $29,730 DOE........................................... 754,000 15,992 HUD........................................... 746,000 22,413 NRC........................................... 458,000 10,728 U.S. House of Representatives................. 3,460,000 761 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The House earned less money because the paper collected from offices which voluntarily participate in recycling becomes contaminated after it is collected by the custodial staff. Many Congressional employees who work late at night can attest that the custodial staff who collect the waste are not properly equipped with receptors to keep the waste sorted. I understand that the House has been trying to implement a voluntary recycling program since the late 1970's and suggest that perhaps there needs to be more support and oversight from the committee to implement the program effectively. With proper oversight and direction the U.S. House of Representatives will not only save money by making money when it recycles, but it will save money by avoiding the dumping fees on waste that is sent to the landfills. Unfortunately, the preliminary indications for FY97 are even worse. The preliminary numbers being complied by GSA suggest that the House earned only $7.51 for recycling 4,400,000 pounds of paper. Congressman Sam Farr's amendment makes the necessary steps to help solve the recycling problems in the House. I support his efforts and hope my colleagues will do the same.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I have been disappointed as a Member of this body to discover that, unlike most other Federal agencies, unlike what we have done for thousands of employees in private corporations around America, that we are unable to extend a transit benefit to our employees. It has been Federal policy since the early 1990s that we encourage this balanced approach to transportation. It has been occurring in the Senate since 1992. I was pleased when I found that the Committee on Appropriations had added the provisions of House Resolution 37 that would have extended this program that were amended into the bill. Evidently there may be some procedural problem or point of order that is raised that would pull this item from the bill. I would hope that it would be possible for the House leadership to come together to make sure that we ultimately have provisions that have already been supported by over 230 Members of the House that have cosponsored the legislation. I would hope that at a time when we are talking about spending billions of dollars to try and somehow resuscitate the Washington, D.C., area and to fight the congestion in the second-most congested area in the United States, I would hope that we would be able to adopt this simple program that is already available to most of the employees on the Hill, because it is good for the environment, because it is good for reducing congestion, but, most important, because it extends an important benefit to some of our lowest-paid employees who want to do the right thing. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that my colleagues would join with me, in the event it is not part of this proposal, that we could make sure that this is fixed before we adjourn for the year.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in my previous life as the public works commissioner for the city of Portland, Oregon, it was my pleasure to work with our community to implement programs to promote transit as has been encouraged for years by Federal policy. These programs enjoyed widespread support from the business community, from private citizens, from government, and they have made a difference in promoting the quality of life in our city. When I was elected to Congress a couple years ago, I was surprised; no, let me say I was shocked, to find out that what the Federal Government had been encouraging local communities to do, what the Federal Government had been encouraging other people in the Washington metropolitan area to do, what the United States Senate had done for the last 6 years, I was unable to do as a Member of Congress. I could give free parking to everybody who worked for me, worth over $1,500 a year, but I could not give a partial transit subsidy for the people who choose not to drive to work. I set about trying to find out why this was and to fix it. I have introduced legislation, House Resolution 37 that has now been cosponsored by a majority of the House, indeed 230 people already, that would make it optional for Members to at least provide this for their employees who wish to do it. I have surveyed every one of the House agencies, there are 15 of them, to see if they support it, if they could afford it, if they want it, and I have been told unanimously that they thought it was good for the institution, that it was good for their employees, it was good for the environment. I am pleased to note that this bill before us today, the rule of which we are debating, would finally, by an amendment from the Committee on Appropriations, would have put this in place, and I commend the committee and the Members who brought it forward so that we can short-circuit the legislative process and get on with business. I appeared before the Committee on Rules, trying to protect this provision because I heard a rumor that somebody may object. Evidently that may occur. I think it would be unfortunate if the welfare of our employees gets caught up in some sort of jurisdictional battle. This has been authorized by Congress for the last half dozen years, and many of the employees on the Hill, as well as 100,000 Federal employees, already benefit from it. I would hope that we would find a way in our wisdom to not hold our employees hostage to the machinations of the House, and, as a new Member, I plead guilty of maybe not understanding them in their entirety, but when we have the second most congested area in the United States in metropolitan Washington, D.C., when we are crying about traffic congestion and parking on the Hill, when we are talking about throwing billions of dollars to try and repair Washington, D.C., I would hope that the Members of this House could somehow find it in their conscience or their creativity to make sure that we implement this little piece of Federal policy so that the Members of Congress will not be the only ones who deny it to their employees.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have worked my entire life to improve the fairness of the tax code--first in Oregon and now as a member of the House of Representatives. I also know how politics work. It is irresponsible to vote for a massive change without telling the American people how this will impact them. No one knows what would replace the current tax code--who is going to win, who is going to lose, and why. Improving the tax code is of critical importance and I welcome an open national discussion and full congressional debate on the merits of real proposals. However, I cannot support H.R. 3097.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, an important step was taken last week in our efforts to assure that America's schools and libraries share in the full power of the Internet. The Federal Communications Commission made its E-rate decision on Friday June 12. To their great credit the commissioners withstood tremendous pressure to end the program and decided to continue funding the discounted rate, the E-rate, but at a reduced level from what was anticipated. The new funding level is an almost 50 percent reduction from what schools and libraries anticipated and planned for based on what the Congress had previously decided. Organizations from around the country are understandably disappointed. Thirty thousand schools and libraries took Congress at its word and submitted significant effort through their applications to the FCC. But in fairness I think the FCC did the best it could with this difficult situation. There are several reasons why the political climate has become so charged. Yes, there is considerable confusion, but the solution is clearly not to end or put a hold on the program. We must recognize that much of this controversy is manufactured based on misunderstanding. It is a misunderstanding about the origin of the program. It did not come from the FCC, it was not an invention of the Vice President, although he was clearly an advocate for Internet access to schools and libraries. This is an element that was part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 passed by a Republican controlled Congress and supported with overwhelming bipartisan votes. There is some confusion over whether adding subsidies into the telephone rate is actually a new idea. In fact it is not. The E-rate is simply an expansion of the existing universal service program which has been around for 60 years and which was an important tool to assure that rural America had telephone service at affordable rates. There is some confusion as to the actual cost that is borne by the phone companies, although it is quite clear that as a result of the benefits of deregulation the phone companies have saved in the neighborhood of $3 billion as a result of deregulation to date, far more than is contemplated by keeping Congress' commitment to our schools and libraries. There appears to be some confusion over this surcharge on the telephone bills. Is this simply an effort to recoup some of the costs of the E-rate, or are they trying to layoff some of those costs that the phone companies have, in fact, borne since 1934? There is confusion over what the E-rate can be used for. It is, in fact, very narrowly drafted to include only a few services, not new computers and the so-called goldplating. There is even confusion on the part of some as to whether or not this program is needed. Well, the allegation is made that most of our schools are already hooked up to the Internet. This, of course, misses the point completely since those connections in the vast majority of cases are simply to an administrator, a principal's office. Fully three-quarters of our classrooms are yet to be hooked up to the Internet. We in Congress need to make sure that we fulfill this commitment. I agree that legislation may be needed, but that is why I have introduced a Truth in Billing Act, H.R. 4018, to have a GAO study to clarify exactly what the telephone companies have saved, how much has been passed on to consumers and what additional costs, if any, have resulted from the Telecommunications Act. We in Congress will provide that information to those who need it in order to make the informed decisions. And under my legislation companies that want to put extra line item charges on the telephone bills could do so, but they would also have to fully disclose all the savings that have resulted. This is not a debate about over whether or not phone bills are going to go high, because in fact telephone bills are at their lowest point in history as a result of deregulation. What this debate is about is whether we as a Nation are going to meet the commitment we made to share the benefits of the deregulated telecommunication industry with the education system and our libraries and keep the commitment to those 30,000 schools and libraries.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, although the Sherman amendment is well intentioned, I voted against it because of the real danger it will undermine efforts at the local level to identify sexual offenders. This amendment, which establishes a national hotline to access the FBI's database of sexual predators, is opposed by the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. There are a number of problems inherent to a national name-check system. Such a system could result in many misidentification and cause the government and any misidentified individuals much embarrassment and unnecessary complications in their lives. Perhaps more serious is the possibility of failing to identify a convicted sexual predator, providing a false sense of security for the American public. This amendment only complicate local efforts to deal with sexual predators.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, over the course of recent months, I have taken to this floor in support of one of the critical elements of the 1996 Telecommunication Act, which was an agreement that was forged between Congress and the telecommunications industry for the benefit of our schools and libraries. It was decreed that the concept of universal service, which has been employed since 1934 to subsidize the cost of extending service to rural areas, areas that provide very high costs, would be extended to include the Internet access for our schools and libraries through a mechanism known as the E-Rate. It was determined that the E-Rate would be paid for by the savings that would be received by the telecommunication industry as a result of deregulation. Over the course of this last year and a half, 30,000 schools and libraries across America are seeking to capitalize on this provision in the agreement. They have put tens of thousands of dollars into developing technology plans and applying for the discounts on services they need to give America's school kids access to the information highway. This is an important opportunity to remedy the fact that barely a quarter of America's classrooms have Internet access today. Through a mechanism that would provide discounts ranging from 20 to 80 percent based on the cost of providing service and the poverty level in the individual community, this access would be provided. Of late we have seen a certain amount of controversy arise surrounding the FCC and its handling of the new E-Rate authority. I will be the first to admit that there are a host of management and universal service issues. There are concerns, perhaps, about the mechanism chosen by the previous FCC Chair to pursue application approval. But as evidenced by the recent surcharges that have been imposed by some of the giant telecommunications companies, and the people's reaction to them, there is also some controversy over whether adequate savings have materialized to cover the E-Rate costs or whether phone companies are seeking to recoup costs they have already recovered under deregulation. I have received and examined information from the FCC that suggests that there are already over $2 billion worth of savings that have been granted to the telecommunications industry with hundreds of millions of dollars more underway; more than enough to offset the proposed $2 billion that is currently in the pipeline of applications from our schools and libraries. But my concern, Mr. Speaker, is that we cannot let these controversies derail the promise of Internet and the benefits for schools that were approved under the act in 1996. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today that would call for a General Accounting Office study on the actual savings and give consumers some truth in billing. It would show how much money has been saved by the telecommunication carriers as a result of these hundreds of millions of dollars in reduction. It would show how much has been passed back through to the consumers, and how much additional cost telecommunications carriers will have to bear, if any, in the implementation of the E-Rate. In addition, my legislation would require that for those companies that seek to add additional line items to their bills, that these line items reflect the full and the accurate picture of both savings and costs to the carriers as a result of the Federal regulatory actions. Similar language has already passed in the United States Senate, a part of their antislamming legislation, by a vote of 99-to-nothing. The complex arguments surrounding implementation of a complex bill are hard for everybody to follow, but it will be lost on the thousands of representatives of our communities who are now operating in good faith to take advantage of what they understood to be a promise to help our schools and libraries. We cannot end up holding our kids hostage to an intergovernmental dispute. This Congress will end up doing very little for education, the number one priority for most Americans. We must ensure that America's school kids have access to the information resources they need.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, here in this Chamber we just finished bidding farewell to our pages, young men and women from around the country who had an opportunity to expand their horizons serving in our Nation's Capital, really being in touch literally around the world. And it is a marvelous experience that they have. We are all pleased that they were able to accommodate it. But the fact is that we have it in our power today to extend that same rich experience, being connected around the world, to every young person in America, and through our library systems extend it to every American, and the magic of the Internet will provide that worldwide connection. Today, I call upon the Federal Communications Commission to reject the calls we are hearing from some to delay funding the E-Rate program, to do the right thing by America's schoolchildren and library patrons by providing full funding for the E-Rate. The Federal Communications Commission is within days of making a decision that can bring the power of the Internet to all of these constituencies. If some telecommunications companies have their way, unfortunately, the Commission would back down in the face of a last- minute campaign of threats and innuendo in an effort to discredit the E-Rate. As a result of this campaign, the full importance of the E-Rate and its potential impact on consumer phone rates really has failed to be heard. Mr. Speaker, the E-Rate is not a new tax imposed by Congress on an unsuspecting populace. In fact, the E-Rate program was included in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was passed by a Republican Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support. As part of that act, added by again a bipartisan initiative that included Senator Rockefeller and Senator Olympia Snowe, it built upon the Universal Service Fund established in 1934 that was used to help provide access to poor and rural areas for telephone service to provide an extension of the E-Rate on the same basis. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 extended universal service beyond residential customers to include our schools and libraries, and expanded that service available for universal service beyond simply the plain old telephone service and added access to the Internet. To suggest that this obligation is new seems ludicrous, since the telephone companies have been paying for universal service since 1934. With these facts in hand, I cannot condone the action on the part of some companies who are adding customer surcharges of up to 5 percent and blaming the E-Rate for increased costs. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contemplated full payment of the E-Rate by the other cost savings that would be passed on to the telecommunications industry. In fact, the latest research indicates that they have already received far more than the $2.4 billion that is contemplated. In my community, Buckman Grade School was the third grade school in the world to have its own web site. It was able to do that by its cadre of dedicated parents with bake sales, spaghetti dinners, but access to the Internet should not be dependent upon bake sales. We have 30,000 applications now pending from schools and libraries all over the country to give this Internet access. The E-Rate is good for business, it is good for United States global competitiveness, it is important for our central cities and our rural areas. Our schools and libraries are trying to educate tomorrow's leaders with decade-old technological tools far too often. The E-Rate has a potential of putting all of our young people on the same par with the interns that we just celebrated. It must be supported. Our future depends upon it. I call upon all of my congressional colleagues to raise their voice to the FCC to make sure that the E-Rate is fully funded.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly disappointed that Members of the House are presented on an ongoing basis with false legislative choices that distort problems rather than seek to solve them. H.R. 3989 is the latest example of this approach to policy- making, where serious policy questions are demoted to merely political ones. This vote is meaningless when devoid of the larger context of a budget resolution, and everyone here knows that. I refuse to participate in this legislative charade, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Join me in voting ``present'' on H.R. 3989. The sooner we stop the pointless political gambits, the sooner we can deal with the people's business.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday for the seventh time in the 2 years that I have been in Congress we have been witness to what can only be described as a massacre on one of America's schoolyards, for the seventh time in less than 2 years. This experience struck a little close to home because it was in my State of Oregon. I am finding already the connections with family and friends of people who knew people who were victims of this event. But in a sense, I hope all of us in this country who look at those anguished faces, the terror-stricken young people, the sense of what was happening in what should be a sanctuary for our youth, causes us in Congress to reflect on what we are prepared to do to try and make a difference. Last fall we were unable to secure the right for Members of this assembly to vote on a simple piece of legislation in the juvenile crime bill that would have provided for child access protection against access to guns. This is not something that is some sort of bizarre, hard-edged gun control proposal. These efforts have already been successful in 15 American States, starting with the State of Florida, to make it clear to gun owners at the point of purchase that they have a responsibility to keep that deadly weapon from the hands of children. It requires the person who sells the gun to make available at point of purchase a lockbox or a trigger lock. We reflect on what happened almost exactly 2 months ago today in Jonesboro, Arkansas, where there was another massacre in a schoolyard. Those two young men who are allegedly the people who inflicted that attack tried first to get the guns from one of the parents' homes. They even tried using a blowtorch, but because it was in a lockbox, they could not get access to it. Their next stop was at the home of someone who had the guns readily available to them, and the rest was history. Five people were dead. There is no reason that we in this Chamber have to sit back and assume that there is nothing we can do to make America safer for our children. Is it going to take an example like this in the home district of some member of leadership that has denied the House the right, and then be accountable to people they know personally because of a massacre? If it makes a difference stopping one of these multiple tragedies, it will be worth it. Survey research indicates that over 80 percent of the American public support this legislation. I have been involved with a voluntary program with my sheriff in Multnomah County, Portland, Oregon, Dan Nolle, who has been so enthusiastic supporting lockbox initiatives that he has decreed that every deputy who takes a loaded gun home at night has a lockbox. There are things that we can do to make sure that this is not something that is replicated across America. I would hope that the leadership of this Chamber would look into their heart and soul and relinquish for a moment and allow the Members of the House to vote on noncontroversial, meaningful proposals that will reduce the carnage of gun violence in this country. Our young people deserve it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, today, tens of thousands of Americans are celebrating Bike to Work Day by using bicycles to get to their place of employment. They are reinforcing the notion that using a bicycle can be fun; it can provide a healthy and convenient alternative to the private automobile. It will illustrate the impact that small steps can take to improve our quality of life. At a time when we in Congress are worried about the health of the District of Columbia, when we are concerned about the funding of the Washington Area Mass Transit Authority, when we are looking at almost a billion dollars just to replace the Wilson Bridge here in the metropolitan area, and when, in Washington, D.C., consistently, the congestion is ranked in the top five in the country, bicycles make sense. There is another simple step that we can take to improve the quality of life, and that is using more effectively the $10 billion investment that we have made in the Washington Area Metro System. It, too, is a way to save money, protect the environment, and improve the quality of life. It has been part of the Federal policy for years to promote the use of transit as an alternative to the single occupant vehicle. In my community of Portland, Oregon, we promote that alternative by using transit passes as a way to make it easier for employees while we save money. There are over 60 individual companies that provide transit passes to over 45,000 people in the community. Just this last month, the largest private sector employer in Oregon, Intel, developed a program that is providing free passes for all 11,000 of its employees because it makes sense for the company and for the community. Here in Washington, D.C., we have over 1,000 employers in the private sector, over 100 Federal agencies that together provide transit checks for over 50,000 commuters in the metropolitan area. Even the United States Senate for the last 6 years has provided transit passes for its employees who do not get free parking. I would suggest that it is time for us in the House of Representatives to take a step back and look at our policies to get in step with what we suggest the rest of America could do. If only 5 percent of our employees used the transit program, one-half the percentage in the United States Senate, we could eliminate this parking on the parking lot immediately adjacent to the Washington Capitol South Metro Station. We could obviously save the upkeep, the 24-hour-a-day staffing that is there to protect the cars, and we could convert that block into a higher and better use. Certainly there are a number of opportunities for one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in Washington, D.C. I have introduced House Resolution 37; and, currently, there are over 180 of my colleagues that have cosponsored it. I would suggest that it is time for the remaining people in the House to take a step back, think about what is good for the environment, think about what is fair for our employees, to not simply provide up to $2,000 a year of free parking but provide an alternative for our employees who decide to do the right thing, protecting the environment by using mass transit. It is good for the environment. It is good for our employees. It is a simple step to use our land more thoughtfully. Most important, it gets the House of Representatives in step with the Senate, with the rest of the Federal bureaucracy, and with what we are telling the private sector to do. I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring House Resolution 37.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Congress has a role to play in the design, preservation, and livability of our nation's capital. The land that houses the nation's congressional offices, the Botanical Garden and several of the administrative offices is under the stewardship of the Architect of the Capitol. In the past, Congress has exempted the Architect of the Capitol from meeting the same building, design, and community notification guidelines it requires other builders in the city and nation to meet. These exemptions have not worked to the public's benefit. In the early 1960's Congress spent over $100 million to build the Rayburn House Office Building. It was designed by the Architect of the Capitol of the time, J. George Stewart. The building sits on 50 acres and is widely considered a waste of precious space. Only 15 percent of the building is used for hearing rooms and offices. Forty-two percent is used for parking. The appearance and design of the building since its inception has been considered architecturally void and barely functional with its hallways that end without warning. Again, in 1997 the Architect of the Capitol, without consulting the public, demolished an historic row house built in 1890 to construct a $2 million day care center. The location was bitterly opposed by residents and local groups. The Architect demolished the historic house and constructed a new structure with what appeared to be an act of very little coordination with the people who lived in the neighborhood. Sadly enough, today the structure is nonfunctional due to a deadly toxin which developed on site. Fortunately, Representative Joel Hefley's bill H.R. 1522 takes steps to bring the Architect of the Capitol under the same guidelines as other builders who are required to abide by the National Preservation Act. I am pleased and hopeful the mistakes of the past will not have the opportunity to be repeated due to the building guidelines in this bill and other efforts currently in process by my office. The Architect of the Capitol needs to update their services by including the public in their decision making process and by following building guidelines established by Congress. Currently, I am working to expand the efforts put forth in H.R. 1522 with legislation that would address several areas of the operation of the Architect of the Capitol. The major elements of the bill provide for community notification, a community comment period, annual auditing of their expenditures, historical impact statements and environmental impact statements for new buildings and a separate department of recycling with public reports as to the success of the recycling program. In addition, I would like to add that H.R. 1522 successfully addresses the codification of Executive Order 12072 and 13006. By drawing investment away from our cities, urban sprawl has been sucking the life out of our downtowns. Sprawling development leads directly to traffic congestion, decreased air quality, loss of farm and forest land, decreased water quality and the need for costly new infrastructure. As land development continues to press further and further out, many of our older suburbs have begun to deteriorate as well. Despite the fact that Executive Order 12072 and 13006 require federal agencies to try to locate in our cities, strong evidence suggests that federal agencies continue to abandon our cities in favor of suburban locations inaccessible to urban workers and urban transportation services. I am extremely pleased to see the codification of these Executive Orders, so that our federal agencies will no longer contribute to the blight of urban sprawl.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the ``Freedom From Religious Persecution Act'' because of conversations I had with religious leaders from around the world who convinced me this approach would not stop religious persecution, but could actually backfire. During a meeting with a variety of Christian religious leaders organized by the National Council of Churches, I had the opportunity to visit with a number of bishops and ministers from Indonesian, Pakistan, the Middle East and the former Soviet Union. They were unanimous in their fear that the United States had very little cause to force countries to be more tolerant with different religious faiths. They were unanimous in their fear that this bill could be perceived interference by the United States and could actually make things worse for the members of their faith. Since I've arrived in Congress I have been working to understand the role the United States plays as the remaining superpower, militarily and economically, and I would hope morally. I have met with religious and business and political leaders both overseas and here in the United States including Aung San Suu Kyi, the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize winner from Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) and known dissidents in Thailand. I am convinced we do have a constructive role to play regarding religious persecution, but this legislation does not meet that goal.