Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I too support H.R. 2829, the Bulletproof Vest Grant Partnership Act. Our law enforcement officers deserve every protection available. Mr. Speaker, 62 percent of the officers killed in the last 10 years were not wearing bulletproof vests. This program helps police in every jurisdiction, large and small, to purchase body armor. In the face of the epidemic of gun violence in this country, there are, in fact, things we can do, and I sincerely hope that this legislation sparks other congressional action to make our law enforcement officers and the communities they serve safer. One area that I hear from law enforcement officials in my community is the access of crooks to getting body armor themselves. Another area deals with the safe storage of guns. Guns are kept in nearly half the homes in America, and a large percentage of these gun owners keep their guns loaded and ready for use. A million and a half children have access to guns when they get home from school every day. We can do more to ensure that children learn the lesson early that guns are dangerous and should be stored safely in lockboxes. The children accused of killing their classmates in Jonesboro, AR, tried to open a lockbox with a blow torch and failed, only to find other guns that were unlocked. If all of the guns had been locked away, these children may have gotten discouraged and their classmates and teacher might still be alive. If more guns were stored safely, think of all of the children who might still be alive today, some of whom might grow up to be police officers themselves. Think of the officers whose body armor might not be put to the test.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998, H.R. 6, and the tremendous help this bill will provide to our nation's higher education system. The students of today will be the leaders of tomorrow, and we owe it to them to provide the best possible opportunities for furthering their education beyond high school. In the global economy of today, our children will need more and better skills to compete with their counterparts from around the world. Congress can significantly help this effort by providing low-cost loans, more scholarship opportunities, and programs that encourage partnerships among all levels of government and educational institutions. There are a few provisions in H.R. 6 I would like to mention specifically that relate to the third district of Oregon which I represent. First is the Urban Community Service Grant program. Under this program, funds are made available to institutions to help link the assets of institutions such as Portland State University, attended by many of my constituents, to the needs of urban communities. This program is the only one in the Department of Education that speaks directly to urban institutions and has made a real difference for those institutions throughout the country. PSU's project is community-based and focuses on urban ecosystems. It serves more than 1,000 schoolchildren and demonstrates that learning the basics about mathematics, science, and social studies can involve ``real work'' experiences through community service learning. In this project, curriculum topics arise from real issues identified by people in the community. As a result, students perceive their classroom experiences as relevant and are more motivated to participate in educational activities. Some examples of the work students performed include: Building and monitoring bird boxes for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Discussing Portland's infamous combined sewage overflow problem with residents and disconnection of downspouts to help alleviate the problem; and Planting and maintaining a butterfly and bird garden. Parents, the business community, local government, and nonprofit organizations are involved in and contribute to the program's success. Volunteers work with students in an urban ecosystems environment to apply the fundamentals of science and math to projects that make a difference to the community. This program is unique because it addresses middle school children--those who are at an age when they will either succeed or fail in school--and their families. Second, I strongly support the Federal Financial aid provisions in the bill. I am pleased the bill ``fixes'' the independent student eligibility for Pell Grant issue. Last year's revisions to the tax code made one thing clear--access to higher education is key to the nation's ability to maintain economic competitiveness. Even more needs to be done to encourage those without financial resources to attend college. As Oregon's primary urban university, Portland State University serves many students who are independent or who have little or no family resources for a college education. At PSU, Federal financial aid means access. About 8,000 of our students receive financial aid, that's more than half of the student population. Clearly, more financial aid will mean more students will attend college. I also support the bill's position on lowering the interest rate on Student loans. PSU students are increasing their indebtedness to get a college degree. Since 1986-87, student borrowing at PSU has increased from $7.7 million to $43.9 million. This is due to a number of factors--the cost of education has risen, funding for grants has not keep pace with inflation, and loans are now available primarily to middle and upper income students. Although loans are made available to families who don't have savings or other resources for higher education, soaring amounts of debt are still placed on our students. The high level of indebtedness now associated with attending college is of concern to both myself and my constituents. I also support continued funding of the State student Incentive Grants (SSIG) program. This program is important because it provides needed financial aid dollars to low- and working class students and it leverages state funds. While the Federal SSIG funds have declined, the Federal match is needed to help states maintain their commitment to providing state aid for students. At a time when states are facing tight budgets, the Federal match has prevented cuts in the states' share of financial aid. It has often made the difference to state legislatures around the country looking for ways to trim budgets. However, I am concerned about any provision added to the bill which would have the federal government interfere with the ability of colleges and universities to choose students as they see fit, regardless of their racial or ethnic heritage. The Congress should take every precaution to not interfere into policies of this nature. Admissions policies that take into account racial, ethnic and gender actors have widely been recognized as constitutional by the Supreme Court, and should not be subject to further Congressional meddling. I am hopeful this bill is passed without such harmful provisions. Mr. Chairman, this bill will go a long way towards addressing many students' needs in their pursuit of a college degree. It is the least we can do to prepare our children for the demands they will face in the real world. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6, and hope for the bill's speedy passage by the House.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I came to Congress as somebody predisposed to support our Postal Service. I believe we have some of the finest men and women in the world delivering the mail, playing an important part in communities in many small and important ways. But the leadership and management of the Postal Service is fumbling one opportunity after another. One example is their years of insensitivity to relocation issues. Because of the tremendous concern expressed by people in communities across the country, I have introduced legislation to prevent the Postal Service managers from unilaterally abandoning historical buildings and moving to strip malls at the edge of town; that they must obey local land use planning and building codes and give local citizens as much say in how the post office relates to their community as which Elvis stamp we are going to have. If I ever needed additional evidence that the management of the Postal Service is out of touch with America, the evidence was delivered to my office last week. The Postal Service notified me that it is going to get tough with the Portland Marathon, the largest volunteer marathon in America, which raised over $600,000 last year to benefit the special Olympics, schools, service groups, the Leukemia Society, and many other charities. By letter, the Postal Service said that it has decided, despite a perfect record on the part of the Portland Marathon, no prior violations or complaints, despite an illegal search of the Marathon files by its postal inspectors; despite the preapproval of all the Marathon's mailings by representatives of the Postal Service, that the Portland Marathon, this group of dedicated volunteers, must pay a $5,000 fine or face Federal trial. What terrible scheme inspired the Postal Service to clamp down on the Marathon? What scheme so horrible that the Postal Service will pursue a case while paying many times the cost it will ever recover from the Marathon if it wins? What terrible scheme requires the Postal Service to bring down its full force on this dedicated volunteer organization without so much as a warning, with no exceptions or adjustments? The Portland Marathon offered T-shirts and other memorabilia to some runners without indicating an identification statement in some of its mailings. Somehow the U.S. Postal Service seems to have adopted the attitude that in its new status as a quasipublic agency, it is free to be dumb, rigid, and engage in behavior which wastes the resources of a dedicated group of volunteers. In the words of the fabled gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), ``Beam me up, Madam Speaker.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, this month a little drama is being acted out in New York City and the venue is Yankee Stadium. What should have been the glorious 75th anniversary of ``the house that Ruth built'' may in fact see the end of a tradition unless New York City comes up with perhaps as much as $1 billion. This is another example of professional sports, instead of being a source of civic pride, are to be often a symbol of what people do not like. The players now are the television networks, major corporate sponsors, athletic equipment and apparel giants. The fans appear to be almost an afterthought. This trend, some would suggest, started about 40 years ago when the Brooklyn Dodgers tore the heart out of that community by moving a very profitable franchise to the West Coast in pursuit of greener pastures. It continues today. I have heard from fans all over America: Houston, Chicago, Sacramento. New York is just simply the most recent and perhaps the most egregious example. And of course it has come full circle because recently the Dodgers were sold again, this time to Rupert Murdoch, and the trend is growing. Over 50 million people live in and around communities with sports teams which have recently moved or are threatening to relocate. The change of focus away from the fans has become more acute as these leagues have upped the ante. Between now and the year 2006, more than $7 billion will be spent on new stadiums, most of which will be public money. In comparison to the stadiums, teams are cheap. The stadiums currently under construction range in price from perhaps $250 million to, in the case of the New York Yankees, as we have mentioned, perhaps $1 billion or more. But wait a minute. The average value of a baseball team is only $134 million. The average for a football franchise, $205 million. Thus, these stadiums cost significantly more than the teams themselves; in the case of the Yankees, as much as four times as much. Madam Speaker, it would be cheaper for the community just to buy the team. Well, there is one city in America that does not have to worry about this little drama. Green Bay, Wisconsin, one thirty-fourth the size of Los Angeles, owns perhaps the most successful franchise in American sports. But the NFL will not let it happen again. They have passed rules against municipal ownership. The Federal Government must stop aiding and abetting this abuse. We are not innocent bystanders. Besides the massive tax subsidies that we provide for the construction of stadiums, we provide an antitrust exemption that enables professional sports franchises to make billions of dollars. The NFL, for instance, will earn $17.6 billion over the next 5 years. We have made the NFL rich, yet the NFL will not allow another community to own its franchise. That is why I have introduced the ``Give Fans a Chance Act.'' It would tie the sports broadcast antitrust exemption to the elimination of rules that prohibit public ownership. And it would give communities a voice in relocation decisions. The advantages are clear: It would end the franchise feeding frenzy; it would make stadium decisions based on what is good for a team and community, not on what looks to be blackmail; it will make it easier to get support for needed stadium expansions; and will help eliminate the cynicism that is permeating professional sports. Sports fans from coast to coast love this idea. There is a congressional responsibility to help these fans, since we helped create this monster. I urge my colleagues to give fans a chance and support H.R. 590.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, in honor of tomorrow being Earth Day, I think it appropriate for us to pause for a moment and consider one of these pictures that is worth 1,000 words. This photo of the block above the Metro South Station immediately behind the Cannon Building makes crystal clear how we in the House of Representatives can use our resources to improve the environment around us. Tens of millions of dollars are being proposed right now to help the District of Columbia, an area that is in decline, that is fighting road congestion, air pollution, with some rather elaborate proposals. Yet each day 5,000 people exit this transit station on their way to work in and around Capitol Hill, and it suggests a simple solution to encourage less traffic, less sprawl, and revitalize Washington, D.C. Consider for a moment the over 6,000 parking spaces the House reserves for those employees who drive. These spots are on hold, guarded, secure 24 hours a day. They cost the taxpayer approximately $1,500 a year per employee per parking space. On the other hand, employees who use public transportation are totally on their own. They have to meet the costs of their transportation, even though they work side-by-side with employees for whom the $1,500 per year worth of transportation costs are covered by the House. Now, I have no problem with people who want to or must drive to work. I do find it odd, however, that we encourage it over taking public transit, particularly after we have invested over $10 billion for the transit program here in Washington, D.C. As an employer, we are sending hardly an Earth friendly message to our employees that we will only help them if they drive their car to work. We are ignoring those who take transit, the MARC train, Virginia Rail Express; you are out of luck. Imagine for a moment what this would look like if 312 drivers did not park their cars, and instead it could be used for a park, an expansion of the Library of Congress, for that visitors center that we talk about. For years, we have encouraged in the Federal Government, the private sector to join in the fight for cleaner air by reducing single-occupant vehicle trips. In and around the District of Columbia alone, over 1,000 businesses are members of the Washington Metro Transit Authority's Metro Pool Program that provides a Metro check. Over 50,000 public and private sector employees in D.C. regularly use this service. Yet while we have encouraged private businesses to offer transit benefits, the House of Representatives is one of the few, and certainly the most visible Federal office not to offer transit benefits to its employees. It sounds a little bit hypocritical to me. The following Federal Agencies do offer these benefits: The Senate, the Senate of the United States Congress, the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, the Bureau of Public Debt, the Supreme Court. Did I mention the Senate? One hundred thirty- four other Federal employers provide over 30,000 employees benefits for the metropolitan area. I think it is time that we give House Members the same option that the United States Senate has had for its employees for over 5 years. I think we in the House are smart enough to do it, our employees deserve this modest tax benefit, and it is a low-cost option that will improve the livability for our Nation's Capital. I would suggest that it is time for us to look back here for a moment and imagine what would happen if we have only 5 percent of our employees who take advantage of this opportunity. We could have an opportunity to improve the environment, use our resources more effectively, and, in the long term, it would make a big difference in the budget of the House of Representatives. I would urge strongly my colleagues to join with me and over 150 other cosponsors to add their name to House Resolution 37 that would provide an optional transportation benefit for House offices; that would provide the same $21 per month tax benefit to our employees that has been given to the Senate. It was based on entirely using existing office funds; no additional requirement is necessary. I hope that this is something that we can take a small step to recognize our obligation to the environment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I was saddened that the Republican leadership, which Monday killed a chance for a vote on meaningful campaign spending reform, breaking Speaker Gingrich's promise, last night voted to deny the House even the right to vote on the .08 provisions so passionately supported by the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers volunteers. Fortunately, there is one element to reduce the carnage of repeat drunk drivers on our roads: Taking away their cars. Modeled on a program I started in Portland, which dramatically reduced the rate of repeat drunk drivers and is now used from North Carolina to Anchorage, H.R. 2400 provides incentives for all States to disarm these people who have no right on the road. Take away the cars of repeat drunk drivers. Use these provisions to save the lives of American families.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, since the founding of this Republic, the Federal Government has been integrally involved with developing an infrastructure system: railroads, freeways, airports, ports, and inland waterways. And it has provided us a national system that has made this country great. But today, it is fraying at the edges. This proposal, the turn-back proposal, I think is appropriately named, because just when we are on the verge of getting it right under the ISTEA formula, we would be turning back to States that have varied, highly restricted constitutional provisions on how they can spend the money. They would be turning their back on many of the environmental priorities, transit priorities, and the strong national system that we have for bicycles. We would be turning our back on many of these areas. Onerous Federal regulations that the gentleman from Ohio refers to strikes me as somewhat humorous. I am not running for President, but I have been in 30 American communities over the last year talking about ISTEA and transportation. I tell my colleagues to a certainty, in community after community, it was the ISTEA structure that enabled for the first time cities and regions to have a voice that were ignored by State transportation commissions in State after State. This is not a vote for the future. It is a turning our back on the partnerships that can make America great.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, there has been much talk about America's future and fiscal stability in the course of this debate. I rise to support H.R. 2400 because it gives the tools for America's communities to control their own destinies. You have heard and will hear more from the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and others about how this bill is good for the safety of the American public, how it provides important resources to improve vital transit programs. It is good for the environment, for rail passengers and freight. It is good for bicyclists. It is good for the motoring public, because it promotes the free flow of a balanced transportation system and, for those people who do drive their cars, makes it safer for them, more convenient, less congested. But I want to focus, if I could, on what difference this bill makes by making America's citizens and their local governments full partners in our transportation system, because BESTEA gives the tools for livable communities to stop sprawl and revitalize existing communities. Every year we spend billions of dollars dealing with the symptoms of dysfunctional communities. The Congress spends money on economic development, on crime, on education that is largely attempting to deal with what has happened after communities go over the brink. What is critical about BESTEA and the resources that are directed is that it gives communities unprecedented abilities to manage those resources in conjunction with State and local communities to strengthen them before they deteriorate. I posit, Mr. Chairman, that any careful analysis of the economic benefit that we will derive as a Nation revitalizing these central cities, preventing the deterioration of the first ring of suburbs and so on throughout the metropolitan areas, conservatively it is going to return far more money than any modest increase. When we couple that with the economic benefits from cleaner air, less congestion, and a wide range of important economic infrastructure investments for the next century, I think any short-term increase in funding is going to be dwarfed. BESTEA is good for the fiscal health of America. It is good for the health of American communities. I, too, add my thanks to the bipartisan leadership of this committee that has given this Congress the most important environmental legislation we are going to see for the remainder of this century and on into the next millennium.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3530, the Forest Recovery and Protection Act. First, I would like to commend my colleague Rep. Smith for his efforts to reach a compromise and his willingness to make some pretty significant changes to his original proposal. While the revised version of the legislation does not address all my concerns, I did want to take a moment to recognize Rep. Smith and his staff have really made an effort to accommodate a number of the issues that have been raised. Despite the revisions, however, I still remain deeply concerned about the impact of this legislation on our Nation's forests, as outlined below. Is the legislation necessary? Scientists disagree strongly as to the current status of our forests. While I don't fee qualified to pick and choose between scientific assessments of forest health, I do feel comfortable in my understanding that the Forest Service already has the authorization to undertake recovery projects along the lines of those proposed in this legislation. No one has adequately demonstrated to me that our forests are in such a deplorable state that the type of dramatic expansion of Forest Service authority as proposed in the bill is necessary. Will the proposed prescriptions do more harm than good? Under the bill, a recovery project is defined in a variety of ways, including options I strongly support, such as riparian restoration, soil stabilization and water quality improvement, and seedling planting and protection. However, also included are projects such as the removal of trees to improve stand health by stopping or reducing actual or anticipated spread of insects or disease. Although I do understand that in some cases, removal of trees can be a good prescription for forest health, this particular option strikes me as very open-ended-- especially the suggestion that trees should be removed to stop the anticipated spread of insects or disease. What if we're wrong as to the spread of insects or disease? Once the trees are gone, it is impossible to put them back. In addition, while I appreciate Rep. Smith's efforts to ensure that recovery projects could not take place in wilderness, riparian, or old growth areas, the bill, in my opinion, still leaves open the possibility that entire forests could be designated for intrusive and environmentally harmful recover projects. It simply does not limit the size or scope of these proposed actions. Is there sufficient time available for public comment and review of recovery projects? The time frames in this bill are very tight, especially considering the unlimited magnitude of the possible projects. The Secretary has only 210 days to propose standards and criteria, and only 45 days are allowed for public comment on the proposed standards. The Secretary then has only 30 days to assimilate the comments and issue final regulations. If we are to ensure that our actions actually improve the health of our forests, we must allow more time for analysis of the standards. Are there built in incentives for recovery projects that remove trees? By focusing efforts on options that are highly ``cost- effective'' and designating revenues from the recovery projects would go directly to the states, the legislation skews recovery prescriptions toward those that generate revenues. The revenue provision, in particular, builds in an incentive for State foresters (who must be consulted under this proposal) to suggest prescriptions that would provide revenue. Is the Scientific Advisory Board sufficiently oriented toward true Forest health? Under the proposal, the SAB is divided equally between individuals with natural science expertise who are leaders in the field of forest resource management, and state foresters who are versed in forest resource management. Obviously, this puts emphasis on those individuals who actively manage the forests, as opposed to those who might focus more on preservation. In addition, I am somewhat concerned about the politicized appointment process outlined in the bill. This could lead to less qualified individuals being members of the board, as well as an extremely slow selection process. Concerns on Advanced Recovery Projects. The bill also allows for the selection of Advance Recovery Projects, within 30 days after the enactment of the act. I am very concerned that this provision could allow for implementation of large scale recovery projects in a variety of forests with very little scientific or public review. Again, once we have cut down the trees in the name of forest health, only Mother Nature can bring them back. Concerns on financing of the projects and roadless areas. Financing for these recovery projects would be provided through annual Congressional appropriations and unobligated amounts in the roads and trails funds. Given the $10 billion backlog of road maintenance needs, I am not convinced that these recovery projects would be the best use of these funds. In addition, I am deeply concerned that while the forest recovery fund does limit the use of funds for new permanent roads, there is no limitation on the building of temporary or even semi-permanent roads--even in roadless areas. Mr. Speaker, again I recognize that Mr. Smith has really made an effort to craft a bill to which we all can agree. This is not that bill. For the reasons outlined above I will oppose H.R. 3530, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure will finish its consideration of H.R. 2400, which authorizes surface transportation funding for the next 6 years, better known as BESTEA. This is the most important domestic bill of this Congress and, indeed, well into the next century. It provides for rails, roads and pathways that bind our Nation's cities and regions into one country. In 1991, ISTEA, the groundbreaking legislation, promoted efficient use of scarce resources by encouraging balanced transportation systems and long-range planning. As a supporter of ISTEA's principles, I have been pleased with the progress of BESTEA through Congress. I want to thank our chairman and ranking members for their terrific work. Thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), H.R. 2400 is proof that in the spirit of bipartisanship, building on sound policy, everyone can win. BESTEA continues the ISTEA tradition of encouraging real transportation solutions. Our citizens know from experience that an unbalanced, unplanned transportation system can waste millions of their dollars while eliminating their choices and even destroying their communities. ISTEA contained a mix of incentives, instructions and opportunities for citizen participation that helped guarantee that Federal dollars will be spent wisely. Mr. Speaker, this is a comprehensive bill. Its greatest achievement is in promoting the two pillars of sound transportation: balance and local decision-making. A balanced transportation system is more efficient, cost effective, and it gives people choices about how they get to where they need to go to live, work, and play. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that in BESTEA all modes of transportation are supported. BESTEA does great things for bicycling with strong support of the Congressional Bicycle Caucus and a national campaign to promote bikes. It requires increased consideration of safety for cyclists. It adds important provisions to require that bike and pedestrian facilities be considered when new roads are planned, and it increases overall funding for the Enhancements and CMAQ programs, which have been the key to over $1 billion in cycling facilities. BESTEA does great things for transit and transit does great things for our communities, returning $4 in benefits in the environment, social and infrastructure for every dollar that we invest. Millions of us, whether we use transit or not, have reasons to be grateful for the record funding level of $36 billion over the next 6 years. BESTEA does great things for rail, one of the most cost-effective ways to move passengers and freight. Rail helps to relieve pressure on our crowded highways and airports, adding capacity at a fraction of the cost. BESTEA does great things for drivers. These funds are essential for badly needed maintenance and repair of our roads and bridges and to add capacity where it is truly needed. The best thing for motorists is that balancing the transportation system means giving people alternatives which in turn reduces congestion, pollution and even road rage. Even if we do not use the alternatives, the experience for the motorist is improved. BESTEA also maintains the local decision-making, one of the most important but underappreciated things the Federal Government has done for communities in the last 25 years. I have to say that one omission does, in fact, concern me. For in 1991, with the passage of ISTEA, Congress required States and larger communities to develop realistic plans that linked transportation and land use. Transportation plans were intended to avoid wasting scarce resources. Unfortunately, BESTEA takes a step backward by making this planning optional. This means, as a practical matter, some of the States which have the greatest need are less likely to do the integrating planning for the future. We have been working on improving the planning language for BESTEA for months and this struggle will continue through final passage. We cannot afford to throw money at transportation solutions that will only cause more problems in the long run. Planning does not mean dictating results; it simply ensures that communities cannot get away with ignoring problems, or worse, shifting them on to their neighbors. These are unarguably Federal priorities. I think the text that best captures the spirit of the ISTEA reauthorization is to be found in the 58th chapter, 12th verse of Isaiah: Those from among you. Shall build the 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. I think ISTEA makes progress towards this timeless goal and I, along with the prophet Isaiah, am pleased to support it.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Tuesday, January 27, people in my hometown of Portland, Oregon, were stunned by a series of events that stem from a drug raid gone bad. In the midst of this episode, one Portland policewoman was killed, another seriously injured, and a third received more minor injuries. Reflecting back on this episode, Mr. Speaker, there were two areas that gave great local concern. One was an activity involved with the coverage, the live coverage of this event by local news helicopters on the raid and the concern on the part of some that this might have interfered with the police activities at that event, both in terms of providing interference, in terms of communication with the noise that was involved, the police direct communication, one with another, and the potential that it was possible for the gunman in this case to have used live television broadcasts to be able to monitor the events at the scene. There was another area of great concern, and that was simply the firepower of this gunman. To say the least, it was disturbing that his private arsenal included a grenade launcher and numerous grenades, a crossbow with darts, a small arsenal of shotguns, rifles, handguns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, including 100-round capacity magazine with 80 rounds inside. That weapon actually used in the shooting was an SKS semiautomatic assault weapon. This weapon was powerful enough that the fatal bullet was fired through the front door, that it was possible that there were other bullets that went through the walls of the house and through both sides of police car parked outside. The weapon in question was not on the 1994 Crime Control Bill of banned assault weapons, although that bill did prohibit the manufacture of ammunition and magazines of more than 10 rounds. However, high- capacity ammunition magazines manufactured prior to September of 1994 were exempted, with the expectation that the manufacturers would sell off the stockpiles within a few years. Unfortunately, that 1994 ban allowed manufacturers to stockpile a seemingly unlimited supply of high-capacity ammunition magazines which are still being sold regularly today by manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers, 3 years after that ban went into effect. This is noteworthy because, although assault weapons account for a tiny fraction of the guns in private hands, they were used in over 13 percent of the 122 fatal law enforcement shootings that took place in a 21-month period in 1994 and 1995. Of those deaths, almost 20 percent involved high-capacity magazines. When faced with tragedy of this nature as we faced in Portland, it is important to reflect on what we learn from these circumstances. That is the true story today. The positive changes were a result of reflection on this episode. I am pleased that the local authorities and the news media came together to deal with an area of friction in the past to establish a voluntary agreement to be used in emergency situations in the future. This agreement will ensure a safe environment for our police, while guaranteeing that the public has an access to information. The stations will no longer show live shots of special emergency reaction teams. They will keep helicopters a mile away and at least 1,000 feet in elevation to prevent disturbance with emergency police communication. The police will provide a location as close as possible to the emergency event for a TV pool camera on the ground and to videotape the operation for later broadcast. The police in the communications activities with the stations have set up a special phone to give a direct link to the four local news stations. This senseless killing served as a wake-up call for Portland. I think the model agreement that we have developed can serve as a model for other communities in the future. I would ask my colleagues to reflect upon the situation that they may see in their community. Are there appropriate agreements in place between the news media and law enforcement in their hometowns? It is clearly not Congress' role to have to legislate news coverage. It is, however, our role to do everything in our power to make sure that this never happens again. Congress does have a role in dealing with the trade, distribution of and availability of dangerous weapons; and I hope we will readdress this in the future. I encourage my colleagues to learn from this Portland tragedy. To do so would mean that the sacrifice of Portland's finest will not have been in vain.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, late last year we passed legislation that was an important landmark in the debate over the resolution of private property rights disputes. In far too many parts of the country we have a patchwork system for resolving land use disputes that relies almost entirely upon legal maneuvering and political pressure. In many cases, this is because these areas lack comprehensive land use plans developed by local government with the help of their citizens and business interests. This is an exceedingly inefficient and often unfair way to resolve the important public policy decisions attendant to development. There needs to be a way to provide incentives to State and local governments to carefully codify their planning objectives in terms of zoning and development requirements, along with cost and fee structures that require development to pay its own way. A combination of sound land use planning and appropriate user fee structures makes good development possible. The legislation before us today is, in part, a logical addition to the steps we took in passing H.R. 1535. Members on both sides of the aisle see the wisdom of allowing both the claim suit and the compensation suit to be heard in one court opposed to two. But unfortunately, in attempting to fix this problem, H.R. 992 creates a new one which is, for me, decisive. H.R. 922 would severely weaken a critical component of our environmental and labor laws, the so-called preclusive review. Under the bill, suits regarding the proper use of land or water as those uses related to the Clean Water Act and other critical environmental statutes could be heard in any of the district courts, as well as the Court of Federal Claims. Such a proposal opens the door to the possibility of courts establishing different water or air standards for different parts of the country. Without a uniform standard, as currently protected by preclusive review, we undermine the entire purpose of our environmental status. I don't believe a provision of this sort belongs in a bill specifically oriented toward eliminating the burden of separate court filings for takings claims. By supporting the Watt amendment, we can eliminate the Tucker Act Shuffle without undermining our environmental statutes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Congress has agreed that it is imperative to allow our schools access to the Internet. That is why an E-Rate was established under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This provided a discount between 20 to 90 percent, depending on the need of individual school districts and libraries, to purchase information services. In my district, Portland schools alone would save $3 to $4 million a year in equipment and hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for operations. Across the country, schools and libraries can expect to save over $2 billion a year. Clearly, the E-Rate will make a difference in society's efforts to prepare our children for the future. Unfortunately, it is not clear that the FCC shares our commitment, having provided only one-third of what will be required by the FCC's own estimates. The FCC will fortunately reconsider its position in 6 months. It is time for Members of Congress to show their support for this critical program. I urge my colleagues to join me in a letter to the FCC in support of the E-Rate.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week I joined five of my colleagues in opposing HR 217, consolidation of McKinney Homeless Programs. While this legislation passed overwhelmingly, it has some clear ramifications for my district. I support the block grant concept as well as the effort to provide local flexibility for homeless programs. However, this legislation institutes onerous matching requirements and caps on supportive services which would seriously jeopardize Portland, Oregon's existing network of services. HR 217 specifically provides funds for the construction, rehabilitation, and acquisition of permanent housing. While I realize these funds are needed in other communities, this allocation is troublesome for those communities, like Portland, where many of the necessary capital investments have already been made. In these communities, federal homeless funds are needed almost entirely for the maintenance of existing programs and facilities, not necessarily new construction. I am proud of the investment my community has made in permanent housing and would like to see flexibility in the block granting process which will allow us to maintain existing programs.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the debate on HR 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, I voted for the Miller-Burton substitute amendment to the Solomon amendment, which passed, but against the final version of the Solomon amendment (as amended by Miller-Burton). I voted for the Miller-Burton substitute because it was vastly preferable to the underlying Solomon proposal. However, because I did not feel that any special ``English only'' provisions were worth supporting in the end, I opposed the Solomon amendment as amended by Miller-Burton. ``English only'' provisions are, as a rule, divisive, discriminatory, and serve no useful purpose. They simply have no place in this bill or this debate.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I support the Witness Protection and Interstate Relocation Act as passed by the House of Representatives today. I voted for the bill because I believe protection of witnesses is one of the most important principles of the judicial process. We cannot tolerate interference or tampering with witnesses at any level of the judicial process, and any effort the federal government can make to ensure greater witness protection is a step in the right direction. While I do not agree with some of the details of the bill, in my mind, the importance of protecting witnesses, a cornerstone of our system of justice, supersedes those concerns.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes, the Federal Government is called to spend billions of dollars to try and repair communities after they fall apart. It is far better for the Federal Government and its agencies to lead by example, and one of the ways that we can lead by example is best illustrated by the impact that the United States Postal Service has on our communities. Post Offices are the heart and soul of America's small towns, drawing people to main streets and preserving the core of these communities. Despite this vital role, the Postal Service continues to move post offices to the outskirts of town, leaving devastated communities in their wake. This is happening across the country, not just in my community in Oregon. I have heard similar stories from Washington, Montana, Colorado, Ohio, Louisiana, New York, and everywhere in between. Small downtowns across the country are being stranded despite the protest of town residents. Mr. Speaker, it is absurd that the Postal Service gives its customers more say in which Elvis stamp to issue than where the post offices are located. Residents of Christianburg, Virginia, know this story all too well. They used to gather at a post office in the center of town to collect their mail and talk about the events of the day. Today, their main post office has moved 3 miles from downtown leaving only a small contact station in its wake. The gathering place for the community has become this window in a grocery store next to the motor oil and the fuel filters. Fortunately, Christianburg residents refused to take this affront as the final word. Residents of the town, supported by the city council and their Chamber of Commerce, fought back and finally after a 2-year battle, it appears as though the Postal Service has conceded that a ``communications breakdown'' occurred and they are apparently ready to reverse this decision. Our Nation's governors know that these post office relocations are directly contributing to the decline of their towns and reducing the access of the elderly and disabled to post office services. The governors have now asked for our help. They have asked Congress to eliminate the loophole that is keeping citizens from having a voice in these post office relocation decisions. They have also asked that we require the Postal Service to comply with the same local zoning and building codes that apply to State and local governments. Governors made this request because they know firsthand the problems caused when the Postal Service claims immunity from the same laws that private citizens, businesses and local governments abide by. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the governors and have introduced H.R. 1231, which would meet their goals. The Post Office Communities Partnership Act strengthens the voice of local citizens in decisions to relocate or rebuild postal facilities. It would give at least 60 days notice before renovating or relocating. It would require the Postal Service to consider a number of additional factors, including the community sentiment, the extent to which the post office is a part of a core downtown, and the effect a new facility may have on a community. And it must comply with all local zoning, planning and land use regulations. The bill is fair. It does not place unnecessary burdens on the Postal Service. For the first time they would be treated as a responsible member of the community and not above local laws.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, my route to Congress was from State and local government. One of the legacies that I think is indisputable for President Reagan is that he focused more perhaps than any American President the attention of governance on the State and local level, his assertion that big government at the Federal level is not necessarily the best approach to solving our problems. I think history will note that this will be one of his most important and lasting legacies, refashioning partnerships with local governments. I can think of no more bizarre way to recognize President Reagan than to undercut that important part of his legacy when we have a designation of an airport, over the objection of the local business community, over the objection of the local airport authority, and where the Congress itself has no ability to go out and change the signs, to say Ronald Reagan Airport. We had our distinguished committee counsel explain that what we could do is simply withhold passenger landing fees and other Federal funds. We could basically force the local authority to bend to the will of the United States Congress, and in the alternative force them to put at risk the safe and orderly administration of that airport. Think about that extraordinary response. I have no doubt in my mind that if Ronald Reagan were President and a Congress came forward with a proposal like this that would thwart the will of the local community, establish a precedent that would allow the renaming of any airport in America; for instance, the John Wayne Airport, this principle could allow the John Wayne Airport to be renamed the Jane Fonda Airport by withholding the same revenue stream, force them to comply with the will. I think this is an embarrassment to our former President. I think it is actually the wrong way to go, and I hope that the Congress will not follow this path in a way that I think has a very dangerous precedent in the long term.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, due to obligations in my district, I missed rollcall votes 614 through 621, which occurred on November 7, 1997. I wish to be recorded as follows: Yes on rollcall 614 Yes on rollcall 615 Yes on rollcall 616 Yes on rollcall 617 Yes on rollcall 618 Yes on rollcall 619 Yes on rollcall 620 Yes on rollcall 621

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, like many in this Chamber, yesterday evening I was struck with a sense of unfairness and sadness, learning the news of Walter's passing, somebody who has worked so hard to get here. Yet, it seemed to me that Walter would have us focus on what that year meant, his passion for justice, his enthusiasm for what this body can mean. I do identify with the remarks of the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], that he is, indeed, a role model. I do not think he was out of place here at all. I think it is for us to reflect on the extent to which we measure up to the ideal that he has established for us, being reflective, honest, thoughtful, and having the enthusiasm for serving the people. I think his influence is going to be felt for as long as any of us who served with him will continue in this Chamber. I hope that he will accept the deepest sympathy for his family and many friends from Oregon. We would like to thank them for sharing Walter with us.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is really a mixed bag. There are many provisions I strongly support. There are others I just as strongly oppose. On balance, I believe I must oppose this bill because I am deeply concerned about the impact of some of these provisions on our Nation's public lands. This is a difficult decision for me, because I am impressed with the work of the conferees. They have agreed to some pretty wise investments that are important to me and my constituents. For example, I was pleased to see that the conferees agreed to fund the National Endowment of the Arts at $98 million, especially after the bitter disappointment arts advocates suffered during House consideration of this appropriation. An investment in the arts is an investment in our Nation's culture and the livability of our communities. As a strong advocate of the public/private partnership that characterizes arts funding, it is encouraging to see that the conferees have not abdicated their responsibility to our Nation's cultural heritage. In addition, the conferees included funding for land acquisition in the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. The Columbia River Gorge is a national treasure--rich in the historical, cultural, and resource legacy of the Nation. Among the countless waterfalls that spill from high hanging valleys is Multnomah Falls, one of the tallest in the United States and the single most visited attraction in the entire National Forest System. I remain grateful to conferees for providing funds to continue our Nation's commitment to preserving the gorge. The funds provided in the conference report will allow for the purchase of lands critical to the ongoing protection of this geologic, historical, and botanical wonder. However, in spite of all that is good about this conference report, I will be opposing this legislation. There are simply too many environmental riders that I cannot support, including: Language that effectively guts the 1990 law banning log exports from our National Forests and State-owned lands in the West; delays in funding Land and Water Conservation Fund purchases of the Headwaters and New World Mine; the use of $32 million in LWCF funds for payoff to Humboldt County, CA and for a road maintenance fund in Montana; language that eliminates any limits on the Forest Service's use of purchaser road credit. Congress needs to develop a comprehensive policy on the construction, reconstruction, maintenance and decommissioning of forest roads. These ongoing attempts to legislate forest policy on the Interior appropriation bill simply exacerbate efforts to develop a policy that makes sense. Mr. Speaker, I support much of this report, and applaud the work of the conferees in making critical investments in the arts and the preservation of our natural resources. I cannot in good conscience, however, vote for a bill that I believe will, in the end, cause more harm than good to our public lands. I urge the conferees to reassess the environmental riders and present to the House a conference report we can all support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I am here in Congress because I am absolutely committed to communities being able to achieve livable futures. I was present at the inception of Oregon's landmark land use planning laws, and I spent the last 18 years of my life in local government implementing some of the best and most far-reaching environmental protections in America and, as such, I would like to offer some observations about today's legislation. First, I am happy that so many of my Republican and business friends acknowledge that there is a legitimate Federal role in local and State land use planning. This is an important milestone for Congress. But I do fear that a number of people are avoiding the true circumstance that occurs in development in many parts of our country. In the absence of comprehensive land use plans developed by local government with the help of their citizens and business interests, we have a patchwork system that too often employs as a central part legal maneuvering and political pressure. I believe from the bottom of my heart this is the wrong way to go. Just because communities have not yet decided to have a comprehensive plan in place does not mean that people can do anything they technically or legally want with their property. Instead, there is an elaborate political legal tangle in most communities. This is an exceedingly inefficient and often unfair way to resolve the important public policy decisions attendant to development. There needs to be a way to provide incentives to State and local governments to carefully codify their planning objectives in terms of zoning and development requirements, along with cost and fee structures that require development to pay its own way. A combination of sound land use planning and appropriate user fee structures makes good development possible. I do not fear a wholesale legal assault on behalf of the development community. My experience is that State and local government have at least as many legal resources and opportunities as the private sector. In fact, over the years, I have seen local government better able to defend itself in this fashion than the private sector. We in local government pay our attorneys by the year rather than by the hour. I look forward to working with the development interests, local governments, and the environmental community as this bill works its way through the legislative process. I do see it as a step forward in the discussion of how we are going to direct and manage growth without undo legal and political wrangling.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, our decision to allow smoking in this Chamber, the Speaker's lobby and the cloakrooms impacts not just ourselves but hundreds of employees, many of whom are here on a regular basis. Reports from our employees that I have received indicate they suffer extreme discomfort in some cases, do not like it, but feel uncomfortable about speaking out. We should care as much for our employees as for other Federal workers who do get a smoke-free environment. They deserve it. Executive Order 13058 protects employees of Federal agencies from tobacco in the workplace. Agencies must implement the smoking ban by August 9, 1998. There has been much talk in this Chamber about playing by the same rules as everybody else. Unfortunately, there is rather a glaring gap between the rhetoric and action when it comes to providing a smoke-free workplace for our employees. It is time for the House to catch up with the rest of America and move to protect the health of our employees. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 247.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, one of the joys of serving in the House is being able to bring young visitors here to the floor, but when I bring children on the House floor, they are often surprised to see Members of Congress smoking here in the Chamber. My young guests ask if it is against the rules to smoke in the House, and I tell them there are some areas one can and some areas one cannot. I have no good answer as to why the rules are not enforced or why smoking is permitted here at all. I am concerned about this message we are sending to our children. We tell them not to smoke, and they watch smoking here in the House, the people's Chamber. A bipartisan group of Members and I have proposed House Resolution 247 which protects our guests from tobacco smoke. This prohibition would include the House floor, passageways and rooms leading to the floor, and the Rayburn Room. We need to lift the cloud hanging over the House and send a clear message to our children. It is time to have Congress join the rest of America and provide a smoke-free environment, especially for our young visitors.