Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to myriad amendments to the Commerce, Justice, State and the judiciary appropriation bill to either dramatically reduce or eliminate funding for the Advanced Technology Program [ATP] at the Department of Commerce. High technology companies play a key role in preparing our communities for the 21st century, and the ATP is critical to those efforts. The ATP program is one of the strongest links in the Government- industry partnership to enhance U.S. competitiveness in a global marketplace. The Government support provided through the ATP is especially critical for long-term, high-risk, pre-competitive initiatives where the initial investment will not be recovered for several or even decades. Without these essential technology programs, U.S. industries will be at a disadvantage to the rest of the world. The ATP provides the high technology industry with the ability to develop breakthrough technologies by allowing companies to close the gap between technology development and commercialization. I find it ironic that the $185 million designated for the ATP is being characterized as corporate pork, particularly since the House recently voted to order $5 billion worth of new B-2 bombers from defense contractors--bombers that the Air Force, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Commander in Chief all argued were unnecessary. If ordering five billion dollar's worth of unnecessary military equipment from defense contractors isn't corporate pork, I don't know what is. This is especially true given the fact that defense contractors don't kick any of their own money into the construction of a B-2, unlike those companies that participate in the ATP. Mr. Chairman, high technology companies: are the engine of job creation in the United States and contribute to the overall well-being of the United States economy. Nationally, the number of high tech jobs increased 6 percent from 1993 to 1995. In Oregon alone over 10,000 new jobs were created from 1990 to 1995; provide the greatest number of high-paying and high-skilled jobs to Americans, Nationally, high technology companies provide over 4 million jobs and provide an average wage of about $47,000, well above the national median. In Oregon high technology workers were paid an average of $46,319 in 1995, 84 percent more than the average wage of all private sector workers in the State; and contribute to improving the balance of trade in relation to our major competitors. Nationally, U.S. exports exceeded $140 billion-- about one-fourth of all U.S. exports, in 1995. In Oregon, high technology companies account for 46 percent of all State exports, for a total of $4.3 billion in sales. The Federal Government should be doing all it can to improve our Nation's competitive outlook, and a strong high technology sector in the economy is critical to meeting that goal. By cutting or eliminating the ATP, we would remove an important tool that high technology companies use in partnership with the Federal Government to hasten the speed of technological progress and bring new products to the marketplace. It's these type of partnerships that drive economic success in communities across the country. I urge my colleagues to oppose any attempts to reduce funds for the Advanced Technology Program.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my support for the rule that will in fact permit us to have hopefully a rational discussion dealing with the year 2000 census. I am afraid that part of this discussion that we have been subjected to is a very clear example of the cold hand of partisan politics on something that needs to be enshrined, I think, in a very positive and constructive fashion. The census is clearly designed to get an accurate count of the Nation's population. But according to the director of the census under President Bush, the current enumeration methods fall far short and simply ``cannot count everybody.'' Minorities and low income populations in cities are often underrepresented as a result, meaning that people who often need help the most are often not counted by their Government and are denied their fair share of government funding. It means billions in States like Texas and California. Rather than wasting taxpayer money and pouring millions of dollars into a census effort trying to deal with a head count which ultimately will in fact fail, we propose a commonsense solution to save the taxpayers money and come up with a more accurate count. Under the sampling plan, 90 percent of the population would still be counted using traditional methods. Sampling would only be used in those areas where the census response rate is dramatically lower than normal, and any adjustment would rely as much as possible on existing statistical information. The scientific community is overwhelming in their endorsement of this approach. The Justice Department in the last three administrations, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, has held that sampling is in fact constitutional. If we rely on old census methods, millions of Americans will be missed in the next census, tax dollars will continue to be wasted. Including census sampling in the next census will ensure we have the fairest, most accurate census in our Nation's history. The irony is that the politicians, who when the chips are down spend hundreds of thousands of dollars based on sampling techniques, are not willing to allow this methodology to be used to guarantee an accurate and fair census. That is an outrage.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I recently returned from a weekend visit to the metropolitan areas of Seattle and Miami, where I had an opportunity to visit with a wide array of individual citizen activists, academics, journalists, government officials, health professionals, people who are struggling with a variety of issues to make their communities livable. I was struck, Mr. Speaker, by the fact that those conversations were identical in those two communities, separated by our continent, and in fact would be indistinguishable from conversations that I have in my own hometown of Portland, OR. They are wrestling with notions of public safety, affordable housing, water resources, open space, how to make the most out of scarce land use resources, and, most of all, the defining issue they felt was one of transportation. It was a timely series of conversations, Mr. Speaker, because we are now dealing with the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act. Six years ago the Federal Government entered into a new era of partnership with ISTEA, a new way of thinking about transportation, of providing flexibility and community involvement. Stories from all across America attest to the success of this visionary process. We are now about to begin the next stage with the reauthorization. Congress has the opportunity to build upon this solid foundation. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we in Congress not be bogged down on some of the details that are not unimportant, that seem to be swirling about the issue. We need to be aware of the questions regarding donor and donee States, and continue to make progress toward more equitable and fair distribution. We need to be aware of the conflicts between individual motorists and the trucking industry, understanding their issues as well. But it is critical that we not be engaged in some sort of zero sum game, where we look at roads, rail, air and water as being somehow set off against one another. That way of thinking should be a thing of the past. Our goal is how do we make the pieces fit together. If, for instance, a community has determined that a rail line might be far more cost effective to provide transportation capacity, the Federal Government ought not to stand in the way of their making that decision. If a community determines that sound land use planning and arranging the land uses in a thoughtful way is the most cost effective alternative to building another freeway, the Federal Government should not stand in their way. Tomorrow in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure we begin the markup of H.R. 2400, the so-called BESTEA. It is a good bill, and it is in fact getting better. It is critical that we keep our eye on five essential elements: No. 1, we deal with an adequate funding level. These resources are, after all, trust funds that the American people have paid through user fees. We have a responsibility to make sure they get the resources they need. No. 2, we need to make sure that the enhancements that have meant so much to communities across the country are protected and encouraged. No. 3, we need to expand the community input in the decisionmaking process, which has unlocked creativity across the country. No. 4, we must continue to encourage the careful planning. We can ill afford to misspend these resources, when in fact we find out that improperly spent they can actually make the problems worse. Most important, we must work to promote a balanced transportation system to get the most out of the money, the land, and our existing infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pay careful attention to this next stage in the most important environmental and economic development legislation of this session.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Hefley and Crane amendments to reduce or eliminate funds for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The $300 million in the bill represents a slightly more than 2 percent increase in public broadcasting's buying power over the last decade. We should be investing more in this national cultural and information resource. I find it incredibly ironic that as we are debating whether to adequately fund one of the most critical cultural institutions of our time, we have recently simply handed over tens of billions of dollars' worth of spectrum to commercial broadcasters--are they going to use this spectrum to provide the depth and breadth of programs and services found in public broadcasting? I don't think so. Public broadcasters can and should play a significant role in preparing our communities for the 21st century. We need to give them the tools to do so. A Federal commitment to CPB is a commitment to partnering with our communities to invest in our future. The Nation's public broadcasting system is an outstanding example of the public/private partnership at work. Every dollar appropriated to CPB generates approximately five more from corporate donors, endowments, viewers, and listeners. That's a five to one return on the Federal investment--and the paybacks are in programs, services, and jobs all across the country. I can't think of another Federal program with such a high rate of return. Public broadcasters are holding up their end of the partnership. In fact, the CPB appropriation represents only 14 percent of the industry's total income. While some might argue that 14 percent is easily replaceable, I believe that the Federal component of the partnership serves as critical seed money to leverage private investments in programs and services. Without the initial CPB funds, many public television, and radio stations would be unable to develop a specific program or service concept to the point where other parties would be interested in investing. From improving the livability of our communities through programs such as ``Planet Neighborhood'' to providing emergency communication services, public broadcast stations use these funds to provide a breadth and depth of critical programs and services to our communities that are unparalleled elsewhere in the broadcast world. Public broadcasting programs and services are particularly critical for Oregon. Without OPB, critical educational services would be lost, including: The classroom TV service, which provides instructional television to 30,000 elementary and secondary teachers; college telecourses, which have reached 80,000 students, making OPB one of the top distance educators in America; and since 1987, OPB has prepared more than 3,000 Oregonians for high school equivalency exams, making it one of the State's most highly attended secondary schools. Public broadcasting is so important to Oregonian's that over half of OPB's operating budget comes from more than 100,000 members. OPB's television audience has the largest percentage of prime-time viewers of any American public television market. We have the tools, infrastructure, and innovative spirit to make communities across the Nation more livable through cultural opportunities. What we need is a national commitment to improving the livability of our communities by investing in culture. We won't be able to balance the budget by eliminating spending on our Nation's cultural heritage. In fact, the Federal Government spends only about \1/100\th of 1 percent on culture. If we attempt to use our cultural investments to balance the budget, we will lose much more than we would ever gain in deficit reduction. I urge my colleagues to recognize the long-term economic and social benefits an investment in culture convey to our communities and the Nation as a whole and oppose the Hefley-Crane amendments.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a column by Michael J. Volpe. Some members may recall Mr. Volpe from his bid in late 1996 and early 1997 to be a Free Agent Fan of major league baseball. Volpe used the attention generated from this effort to make the point that baseball fans felt neglected by owners, players, and their agents who were too busy chasing multi-million-dollar deals and forgetting the sportsmanship and fun of baseball. Mr. Volpe now writes a nationally syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate [UPS]. His column, entitled ``Fans May Get a Chance to Invest in Baseball Teams'' makes the connection between allowing public ownership of sports teams and improving the livability of our communities. Specifically, he points out that public ownership would help balance the private business interests of team owners with the public interests of communities who want to enjoy the direct and indirect benefits of having a professional sports team. Mr. Volpe notes that ``classic nine to five working stiffs [should] have the opportunity to own a piece of a major league baseball team''. Mr. Volpe and I see eye-to-eye on this issue. Earlier this year I introduced H.R. 590, the Give Fans a Chance Act, which Mr. Volpe describes as ``* * * the most promising opportunity for the average fan to become an owner of his or her favorite professional sports team.'' The bill is designed to give communities the tools to invest in their own livability by allowing them to purchase their home sports team. The bill eliminates league rules against public ownership, gives communities a voice in team relocation decisions, and ties the leagues' broadcast antitrust exemption to the requirements in this bill. Allowing communities to invest in their own livability makes sense for both the teams and the communities. The Green Bay Packers, founded in 1919, are a perfect example. In 1950, the fans saved the team from bankruptcy through a one and only public stock offering. Since then, this team from the NFL's smallest city has seen 175 consecutive sellouts, 11 championships, and three Superbowls, including the Superbowl they won this year. they have the best record in the NFL. The Packers aren't an ordinary football team. Their fans aren't ordinary fans. And their community isn't an ordinary community--because 1,915 residents of Green Bay and other Packer Backers own their football team. The Packers help hold the Green Bay community together. More communities should have the opportunity Green Bay, WI, has to invest in their home sports team. More teams should have the opportunity to develop a loyal cadre of fans who will support the team through thick and thin. I urge my colleagues to review Mr. Volpe's column and cosponsor my legislation. Fans May Get Chance To Invest in Baseball Teams (By Michael J. Volpe) The owners of major league baseball teams are all men and women of great wealth. George Steinbrenner, owner of the New York Yankees, made his millions through the shipping industry. Marge Schott of the Cincinnati Reds and Bud Selig of the Milwaukee Brewers are rich through auto dealerships. Blockbuster Videos helped make Florida Marlins owner Wayne Huizenga wealthy, while Peter Angelos of the Baltimore Orioles is an affluent labor law attorney. However, unlike other sports teams, there are no classic nine to five working stiffs who have the opportunity to own a piece of a major league baseball team. The Green Bay Packers football team, for instance, which won last year's Super Bowl, is owned by 1,915 individuals, most of whom are residents of Wisconsin. Fifty-eight percent of the Florida Panthers hockey team (ironically also owned by Huizenga), was sold to the public in 1996 at $10 a share. The Boston Celtics basketball team is also publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Major League baseball fans have been shut out on public ownership of teams until now. But two elected officials, who reside at opposite ends of the country, have quietly begun working to change that. H.R. 590, the ``Give Fans A Chance Act'', is the most promising opportunity for the average fan to become an owner of his or her favorite professional sports team. The legislation is authored by freshman Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon), and is cosponsored by 15 other members of the House. According to a summary of the bill, the Act is designed ``to give communities the tools to invest in their own livability of allowing them to purchase their home sports team'' through public stock options and local community ownership. Specifically, the bill prohibits any professional sports league from denying public ownership of teams. It requires a professional sports league, when considering approving the relocation of a member team, to take into account strict criteria. These includes fan loyalty; the extent to which the team benefits from public financing; whether the community is opposed to the relocation; and, whether there are bona fide investors (including fans) offering fair market value to purchase the team and keep it in the home community. If a league ignores the later provision, it will lose its sports broadcast antitrust exemption, a congressionally granted benefit which allows for sale to a single purchaser. Sports broadcasting rights bring millions of dollars in revenues to Major League Baseball teams each year. Blumenauer's bill, which awaits House action, is unique because his state has no major league baseball team. ``I don't have any particular bone to pick with the Leagues or their member teams,'' he said in a statement, so ``I can hopefully evaluate this issue from a public policy perspective, as opposed to a more parochial'' one. He quite simply wants to ensure ``that teams are playing it straight with their communities'' and are fair to the fans. A measure similarly designed to aid fans was introduced in the Virginia State House earlier this year by Delegate Robert G. Marshall (R-Manassas). Marshall's bill would have established the Virginia Baseball Authority as a non-profit organization which would sell shares in a Major League Baseball team in small denominations. ``You would be able to own a little piece of baseball heaven for as little as $100 a share,'' Marshall said. Although his bill was not acted upon this year, Marshall said he plans to reintroduce the bill in next year's legislative session. His bill is important because Major League Baseball has indicated that Virginia may be a leading candidate to get a major league franchise in the next five years either through expansion or relocation of an existing team. Although it is uncertain whether either piece of legislation will eventually become law, it is a fact that since 1950, there have been 68 franchise moves in baseball, football, basketball and hockey, 37 of which have taken place since 1970. Some existing baseball franchises are in financial trouble, including the Marlins, whose owner Wayne Huizenga now estimates his team will lose $30 million this year, forcing him to reduce his payroll next season or sell the franchise. Perhaps Huizenga could take a page from his hockey franchise, and sell the Marlins back to the team's fans. This would go a long way towards establishing a balance between the private interests of team owners to maintain a profitable business and the ability of the Florida community to enjoy the direct and indirect benefits of having a professional baseball team.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to join the administration and friends on both sides of the aisle in their acclaim for their tax and budget agreements, unfortunately, I don't believe a ``yes'' vote is in the best long term interest of our country. To be sure, the proposals are better than when the process started. They are more fair and do less long term damage. In fact, there are some elements I strongly favor: the adjustment of capital gains on the sale of residential property, certain adjustment inheritance tax on farms and small business, spending more money for education and the repair of obvious flaws in the welfare legislation passed last year. These are all worthy goals that I support. In the final analysis there are still three basic problems. First, the tax changes are premature. We have not done any of the hard work on balancing the budget. The tax changes are scattered and political rather than focused and economically driven. Second, people most in need, students and working families, don't get enough and that which they do receive is not efficiently delivered. For example, students around America are clear that there are far better ways to provide assistance to make sure that young people get the college education they need. The tuition credit for tax deduction is an expensive indirect way to help them. Third and most fundamentally, the long term structural problems remain unaddressed. Our challenges may be harder because we lose several years of potential progress while the long term problem gets worse. It continues the illusion that budget cuts and entitlement reform can be done effortlessly and without pain. While acknowledging the good intentions of the crafters of these proposals and the progress they have made, they are still at their core a short term political adjustment when we need long term fundamental change. I will continue my efforts in supporting any reasonable efforts to achieve that basic goal.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] for yielding me the time. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that a vote for this amendment is going to save one dime of taxpayer money. There is a big difference between subsidy and public guarantee. There are some things that are desirable that no individual company is going to take on themselves. Other countries have similar tools because they work. And in fact, there are a number of countries that invest far more proportionately than we do. Cutting this administrative program off could in fact have a perverse effect by putting more of this loan portfolio at risk. This amendment betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about how the program works. In terms of the notion of crippling our ability to oversee and manage this larger portfolio, it could have the perverse effect of losing taxpayer money and have these guarantees kick in. And last, but not least, it would make it impossible to enable this agency to move into some of the riskier markets where we need the power of the free market to help transform this society.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the Subcommittee on Legislative Appropriations included report language urging the Architect of the Capitol to conduct a feasibility study for the installation of adequate shower and locker facilities for congressional staff. Currently, there are only 14 shower heads for more than 7,000 employees. The employees of the House of Representatives are one of the hardest working, most dedicated corps of staff I have had the pleasure to work with. House facilities are designed to cater to these long hours, with food service, banks, post offices, a barber shop and a beauty salon available within the House complex so that errands can be taken care of with minimal time away from work. Adequate facilities to accommodate those who wish to exercise during the day or bike or run to work are not perks--they are important in helping our employees become more efficient and effective and they could actually save us money. Encouraging our employees to bike to work or exercise has several benefits: Health and Productivity.--Recent studies ranking adult physical activity levels in U.S. cities concluded that Washington, DC, has the highest per capita rate of sedentary adults in the country. At the same time, we are learning more every day about the importance of regular exercise and its impacts on overall health, productivity, and longevity. I know many of our fellow Members believe they are more effective when they exercise regularly--I see them every day in the Members' locker room. Time.--How many people will sit in their cars this evening, stuck in traffic on their way to ride a stationary bike or run on a treadmill? Combining the daily commute with exercise is an effective way to work out without taking extra time from already full days. Riding, skating, or running to work can actually take less time than driving from some parts of the District. Showers would make it possible for staff to use these modes. Congestion.--The Washington metro area has some of the most congested roadways in the country. Local traffic congestion may seem like an intractable problem, but by making it possible for our employees to ride or run to work, or at least to avoid that extra trip to the health club, we can do something to relieve traffic congestion. A Harris Poll conducted in 1990 showed that 43.5 percent of bike riders would ride to work if trip-end facilities--showers, lockers, and bike parking--were available, and in my district, where a 1992 survey found that 21 percent of bike riders would be motivated to ride to work if they had showers and parking, response to these improvements is enthusiastic. Private companies and public agencies around the country are retrofitting their buildings with these facilities to accommodate their workers. We should acknowledge the wisdom of these companies and take up their example. I look forward to working with the Office of the Architect to design this study, and again I thank the committee for their consideration.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1818 provides States with needed flexibility in addressing juvenile crime, and for that reason, it has my support. But this bill is, at best, a partial solution. In a country where kids and guns are a deadly combination, any juvenile justice bill which fails to deal with access to guns is seriously flawed. Earlier this year, the House had a chance to pass meaningful legislation that would have addressed this problem. By adding a simple child safety lock provision to the juvenile crime bill, we would have taken a significant step toward reducing access to guns and to dramatically reducing the number of accidental gun deaths in this country. But that vote never happened, thanks to pressure on the Republican leadership from the national gun lobby. And so a gun lock amendment, supported by 80 percent of the American people, still has yet to be directly voted upon by this House. This is an astonishing failure for this House. Shootings are now the fourth leading cause of accidental death of children, and for every child killed, four more are wounded. This is a national tragedy, and the House is doing nothing about it. While the House continues to bury its head in the sand, a group of concern citizens in my district is taking matters into their own hands. Together, we've organized the Oregon Safe Handgun Storage Coalition, composed of people and organizations concerned about this problem. Partnering with a similar coalition in King County, WA, the Oregon coalition is made up of a highly unusual mix of doctors, nurses, law enforcement officials, sporting good stores, neighborhood associations, gun safety advocates, and gun owner organizations. These organizations may disagree on some issues relating to gun ownership, but they all agree on these points: Guns and kids don't mix, and gun owners need to child proof their homes by safely securing firearms. The Oregon Safe Handgun Storage Coalition has the support of people and organizations across the political spectrum who are willing to work together in an attempt to reduce violence in our community. It is uniting parties on both sides of the gun control issue, by stressing one common concern--the safety of our children. Mr. Speaker, hopefully this House will vote on a gun lock amendment this year, but failing that, I encourage Members to start similar coalitions in their districts. By working together, we can do more than merely address the problem of juvenile crime, we can prevent it in the first place.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, if we eliminate the Federal commitment to the arts by eliminating or severely reducing the National Endowment for the Arts, I believe we do a great disservice to the American people. Likewise, if we eliminate our commitment to the Humanities, we do a great disservice to our entire democracy. Investments in our cultural institutions, like the NEA and NEH, are investments in the livability of our communities. For just 38 cents per year per American, NEA-supported programs help enhance the quality of life for Americans in every community in this country. For just 68 cents per year per American, NEH-supported programs to preserve our heritage by keeping our historical records intact and building citizenship by providing citizens to study and understand principles and practices of American democracy. In fact, Congress established the NEH because ``Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens.'' But the NEA and NEH do not perform this important function alone--the Nation's cultural support system is a complex structure pieced together from many different sources, including earned income, private donations, corporate donations, and government grants. The cultural heritage of our communities rely upon all those sources to remain whole--including the Federal commitment. It's the partnership formed by all these entities, from private investors, to cities, States, and the Federal Government, that makes the system work. Adequately funding the National Endowment for the Arts, in particular, is absolutely critical to the State of Oregon, which has suffered in recent years from cutbacks at the State and local levels. Portland and other cities in Oregon have managed to make this work by using public funds to leverage as much private investment as possible. Portland arts groups manage to attain about 68 percent of their financial resources from the box office, which is higher than the national average of 50 percent. Portland companies have stepped up to the plate--doubling their investment between 1990 and 1995. The public investment, particularly the investment from the NEA, is absolutely critical to preserving these opportunities. Why is it important to preserve these cultural investments? A commitment to culture pays many dividends--dividends that promote our economic development and our understanding of the world around us. Economically, an investment in culture as helped promotes tourism. People flock to cities that support the arts and humanities, benefiting hotels, convention centers, restaurants, and countless other businesses related to entertainment and tourism. In fact, the nonprofit arts industry generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity, supports 1.3 million jobs, and returns $3.4 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes and an additional $1.2 billion in State and local tax revenue. An investment in culture also helps previously disenfranchised groups gain access to new cultural experiences. The NEA, for example, provides fun and educational arts programs for children that help students and teachers develop arts, environment, and urban planning curricula. Public funds, like those from the NEA, are also critical to keeping ticket prices low, giving lower income individuals and seniors the opportunity to attend cultural events. If ticket prices reflected the entire cost of the event, cultural events would by necessity be denied many of our citizens, especially the young and elderly. We won't be able to balance the budget by eliminating spending on our Nation's cultural heritage--and if we do so, we will lose much more as a society and a nation than we would ever gain in deficit reduction. This approach is shortsighted and doesn't recognize the long-term economic and social benefits an investment in culture convey to our communities and the Nation as a whole. The President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities recently rleased a report that could help focus our priorities for American cultural resources, if we listen to their recommendations--restoring Federal funding for cultural activities; enhancing the ability of the Endowments to attract and accept gifts; and ensuring that our Tax Code helps encourage charitable contributions. We have the tools, infrastructure and innovative spirit in place to make communities across the Nation more livable through cultural opportunities. What we need to promote is a national commitment to improving the livability of our communities by investing in culture. We can develop and promote that national commitment through the NEA and the NEH.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank the gentleman for the patience that he and his staff have demonstrated in helping work through some of these issues, because these issues, Mr. Chairman, are complex. I think the American people who have listened to the debate so far this evening may be a little confused. Earlier in the evening I had one of my new colleagues confess that he was confused and in fact last year I confessed that since there were two votes, I actually ended up voting on both sides of this issue. I voted because I was attempting to determine what was in fact in the best interests of the areas that I represent but, most importantly, what would make the most difference in terms of the environment of our forests. I hope that this debate will spark a serious analysis and real action on the problems related to roads in our national forests. For people who care deeply about the environment and look beyond the rhetoric, it is sometimes hard to know the best way to protect that environment. In part, this confusion evidenced this evening shows why we should not attempt to legislate or set policy via the appropriations process. It is the blunt instrument that people have referenced. While the passage of this amendment may in fact slow or stop some roadwork, it will not achieve what some advocates claim. It will not stop logging roads, and it is not clear how much, if any, money this will save. What we need to do is focus on policy solutions that make sense for the environment and the economy. We do need, in fact, additional protections for roadless areas. We do need to use our resources more carefully. We do need to reduce the number of road miles and their impact on our national forests while we adequately maintain roads to avoid degradation of stream and wildlife habitat. We need to take this opportunity to bring the Forest Service, the administration, the industry and environmental advocates together to develop a plan that meets everybody's needs. This vote is a signal for Congress to provide the leadership and guidance to provide a road policy. Congress needs to provide leadership and guidance through the legislative process. I would like to work with my colleagues involved in this debate to help move that effort forward to create sound road policy in the next year--a policy that improves the environment and saves money--a policy that can be understood--and, importantly, a policy that allows us to monitor our progress toward an environmentally sound National Forest System.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I personally am disappointed and saddened with the turn of this debate on a tax cut proposal. In the rush to pass the Republican tax program, we are leaving behind the vast majority of Americans. It shortchanges working families, some of whom will end up paying more to concentrate the relief to the top 1 percent, who have already received the bulk of Congress' generosity over the last 20 years. Instead, we should be concentrating on provisions that would give all working families more equitable treatment. The most burdensome tax for working families is the Social Security payroll tax, which takes a bite out of everyone, but falls most heavily on those who make lower incomes and on small business people. The simple remedy of a credit against the Social Security tax would help those who need it most, still give the richest Americans a reduction, as well as, most important, create jobs, because employing Americans would be more economically advantageous. Another adjustment that would be simple, low cost, and make a huge difference would be exempting the profit from the sale of residential property from capital gains. This is the capital gains cut that would reach most Americans. It would cost the Treasury almost nothing, because most people do not pay that tax now. They simply hold onto their property or roll it over to buy more expensive property. Nobody pays it but the dumb, the distressed, and the divorced. This would enable families to make wiser decisions about homes that best serve their family circumstances, not the Tax Code, while it reverses a perverse tax incentive that promotes urban sprawl. Sadly, we are missing this opportunity to make America competitive and to help working families, while we read of the special interest provisions that are stuffed into this bill. How quickly the Republican Committee on Ways and Means have forgotten all the talk last year about tax simplification and fairness.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, this is a high water mark for me in the last 2 years I have been able to be in Congress, being able to be a part of this discussion on our relationship with China. It is bipartisan, it makes a difference, it is Congress at its best and its most exciting. Over the last 25 years, since President Nixon reversed our policy of isolating ourselves from China and the rest of the world, we have seen a safer and more prosperous world. It helped hasten the end of the cold war, it helps keep peace today on the Korean peninsula, where China is one of the few countries that actually exercises some control over the North Koreans. It has pointed toward more prosperity and freedom for the Chinese. Even the progress with American missionaries on the ground in China in the last half dozen years would have been unthinkable 20 or 30 years ago. Most important, it has planted seeds for a dynamic change in the future with access to information and to markets. The reason it sounds to people today that we are talking about a multiplicity of countries is the fact that China, although large and with an ancient culture, is complex and it is not monolithic. We cannot treat it as such. The notion that somehow MFN will force a monolithic Chinese ancient society to change and accommodate us is misguided. It did not work during World War II, when there were over 1 million Japanese soldiers on Mainland China and we were giving them billions of dollars. The Chinese risked nuclear war and fought us to a draw in Korea, and tens of thousands of Americans needlessly died because we thought we could force China. It does not even work with a two-bit dictator 90 miles away with Cuba today. We need to engage the world to work with us, not cutting ourselves off from China, but to work cooperatively, providing leadership. This Congress needs to support policies that enable the administration to continue the process of engagement and progress. We need to defeat this resolution.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute today to a place that is unparalleled in its beauty and wonder, the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area in the Pacific Northwest. With its abundant natural beauty, unique economic development opportunities, and cultural significance, the Columbia River Gorge is a national treasure. The Gorge stretches 85 miles along the Columbia River from the dry eastern region to the dense conifer forests and surging creeks of the west, dazzling wildflower displays, including species found nowhere else on Earth, cover hillsides and plateaus along the river. Diverse ecosystems within the scenic area range from temperate rain forests to arid, pine-oak woodlands. The scenic beauty of this area offers high-value, low-impact recreational opportunities for biking, hiking, windsurfing, and sightseeing to entertain residents and tourists. Multnomah Falls, the single most visited attraction in the National Forest system, is one of the region's many notable sites. These attractions, combined with the region's role as a source of the Northwest's renowned apples, pears, and cherries, allow unique opportunities to balance this valuable ecosystem with the pressures of economic development. The region also has a rich cultural heritage dating back to tribal life of 10,000 years ago. Ancient petroglyphs and village sites bear witness to thousands of years of Indian life and commerce. The Gorge figured prominently in the journals of Lewis and Clark, and later, travelers on the Oregon Trail navigated the area. The unparalleled beauty and geologic wonder of this area inspired Congress to pass the National Scenic Area Act in 1986. It was designed to protect the unique natural resources of the Gorge, while at the same time developing a sustainable economy for an area that had been economically depressed. The act promotes shared responsibility by Federal and local entities for land-use and natural resource management and regional economic development. Since the signing of the act, positive progress has been made toward that goal. Gorge economic development projects have spawned new jobs and increased diversification of the region's economy. The scope of public recreation has been increased through new trails and parks in the Gorge. Over 28,000 acres of wildlife and plant habitat and scenic vistas are now publicly owned. Conferences and workshops have been held to encourage and provide citizens and residents of the Gorge with the skills to take action in their own communities. Thanks to the commitment and effort of Northwesterners, the natural beauty and recreational opportunities of the Gorge will continue to be safeguarded for future generations to enjoy. Oregonians recently honored the Columbia Gorge during Gorge Appreciation Week in May organized by Friends of the Gorge, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of this incredible natural resource. This tradition was begun last year in honor of the 10-year anniversary of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act. Oregonians showed their appreciation of and commitment to the Gorge by participating in a series of restoration and cleanup projects. This year, over 200 volunteers undertook the job of repairing the damage done to the region by last winter's ice storms. In addition, they worked to restore native plants, re-establish wetlands, clean up the historic Columbia River Highway, and maintain hiking trails. Gorge Appreciation Week is an excellent way of involving citizens in the guardianship of the natural value of their community. None of this would be possible without the 2,000 members of Friends of the Columbia Gorge from across the country. Through the dedication of these individuals to the preservation of the area, the Gorge continues to be a wonderful place to live and work, as well as a unique place for visitors. The Gorge holds a special place in both our heritage and our future on a national, regional, and local level. I want to be a strong voice for those, such as the Friends, who support continuing the mission of protecting and enhancing this area. It is a national recreation destination and source of enjoyment and scenic beauty to the many who live, work, and vacation there.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, Americans cherish their flag and all it represents. It is fitting and proper to do everything in our power to honor this symbol of America. This proposed constitutional amendment is the wrong way to go about doing so. The authors of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights gave us a wise and enduring framework, one which has guided this Nation for over 200 years. We should but rarely and in moments of absolute necessity alter their work. This amendment does not meet that test. However repugnant burning or otherwise desecrating the flag is to us individually, flag desecration is not a problem in American society today. In the last 10 years, I cannot remember a single instance where anyone in Oregon walked up to me and raised this as an issue. To elevate a moronic but anachronistic and virtually extinct form of protest to the level of constitutionally defined crime, in my judgment, is likely to increase the incidence of flag desecration as people turn to burnings to gain attention for themselves. This serves the interests of absolutely no one other than the extremists who will have been handed a new tool for expressing their cause.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman, for his courtesies and for his eloquence a moment ago when he explained to America what this measure is about. We are talking about American economic competitiveness. We know that the Japanese are spending trillions of dollars, and we are debating here on the floor whether or not we are going to add $12 billion in order to meet our current priorities. It is a question of whether or not we are going to support our communities in terms of their livability agenda. It is an opportunity for us to think forward when others are looking back. This budget resolution amendment, if passed, will enable us to look forward as opposed to ducking issues that we know if we avoid are going to be worse 10 years from now. And I find a little incongruous people talking about the cost of this proposal because this is an investment in our future that will provide a half million additional jobs. I am absolutely convinced it will be self-financing, and if we do not, it will be self-destructing. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy, and I strongly urge the approval of this amendment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, due to a malfunction with the House paging system, which rendered inoperative the paging system used to notify Members of votes, I was unaware of the vote at approximately 12:30 p.m. today on the rule on the Supplemental Appropriations Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Johnson] be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 590.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a no vote on this rule. Every day 1 million children go home in this country to households with loaded guns. Fifty-five percent of the guns in this country are loaded, kept in homes. It results in the death of approximately 16 children a day, and for every child who is killed, there are approximately 5 who are seriously wounded. If this gun lock proposal would come to the floor, an element that both sides of the gun control issue agree upon, which 80 percent of the American public support, if the Committee on Rules in their wisdom would allow us to bring this before the House, it would overwhelmingly pass, and next year at this time there would be dozens of children alive, hundreds who would not be wounded, including the accidental deaths and use in violent crime. I strongly urge a no vote on the rule. Send this back, and allow us to give something that all Americans can agree on.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I do agree with my colleague the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], that we ought to learn from the past. But I am afraid that debate here today is largely beside the point. First and foremost, the bill today addresses something that simply is not a problem. The information I have received from my State, and we know something about flooding; if it is not wet, if we are not under water, we are wet in Oregon. We have had lots of flooding. But we have had our experience that the opportunities under the ESA right now, the emergency consultation, do provide adequate provisions in dealing with problems. To the extent that we think that it needs clarification, the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] here will address that. But I think the arguments that we are hearing today are reinforcing a tragic notion that somehow we are going to engineer our way out of the flooding. We have spent billions of dollars treating our water systems as machines and there is the notion, the false notion, that somehow by passing more levee construction, more money, that we are going to stop it. The fact is there are only three things that we should do to try and learn from the past, that will make a difference. First and foremost, we should stop having people build in harm's way and help move people who are there out, rather than spending money time and time again to rebuild where God does not want them. Second, we have to stop relying on building new dams and levees which simply make the problem worse, move the problem downstream. Why has the State of California had three floods of the century over the last 111 years? It is not getting better after $38 billion. And, last but not least, when we have paved 53 percent of the wetlands in the lower 48 States, you do not have any place for this water to go. It still comes down and we have floods. For heaven's sake, people who have simplistic ideas that we can go ahead and continue to pave our wetlands are sadly mistaken. Without changes in our thinking, we are going to continue to be wasting lives and money and coming back year after year with these sad, sad presentations. I urge adoption of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New York and California.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for many the Postal Service indeed represents the Federal Government. Post offices are the heart and soul of many small towns across America, and they are part of the heritage of every community. Yet, in many instances, people feel victimized by the Postal Service because the post office sometimes ignores local zoning laws and building codes in making decisions about their facilities. Additionally, citizens often feel shut out of the decision-making process, despite the massive impacts that post office closings and relocations have on our communities. Today I am introducing legislation to change this. My bill would outline minimum citizen involvement requirements that would apply to the renovation, relocation, closing, or consolidation of post offices and require the post office to comply with any local zoning or building codes which the State and local governments themselves must comply with. My bill is fair and does not place unnecessary burdens on the Postal Service. Instead, for the first time, the Postal Service would be treated as a responsible member of the community and not be above the local laws.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1122. This deeply personal and private decision is between a woman, her family, her physician and her beliefs, not the Federal Government. Without providing protection for the health and life of the mother, legislation that prevents doctors from providing patients with the most appropriate medical care is unacceptable. My position on this most sensitive of personal decisions is very simple. When the life or health of a woman is at stake, the Federal Government should not tell the family and their doctor what to do. Regrettably, the alternate bill introduced by Representatives Greenwood and Hoyer that provided an exception for severe health consequences will not be considered today. Instead, with this legislation, Congress is once again promoting an indifference to the health of women instead of rendering a serious policy determination on a matter of grave consequence.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations and support to the nation of Greece and Greek descendants everywhere in the celebration of Greek Independence Day. As a nation that has played and continues to play a dramatic and important historical role, Greece deserves our every respect and admiration on their day of independence. Ancient Greece served as a model for many ideas that have transformed the world for the better. Two of those ideas, democracy and the Olympic games, serve to bring people together in the spirit of friendly debate and competition, and bring out the best in everyone involved. When our Founding Fathers looked to the lessons of the ancients and their system of government in order to build a government that could both respond to the people's concerns and stand the test of time, they used the Greek system of government as their primary inspiration. When Thomas Jefferson wrote ``I consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation,'' he was building on the example that the ancient Greeks set over 2,000 years ago. This body's bipartisan retreat last weekend in Hershey, PA, was certainly an example of where the Greeks inspired us to work together. The Olympics have always been an opportunity for athletes to put aside their differences and compete honestly and in the spirit of fair play. Our work together in Hershey was an effort to bring that way of thinking back to this body, and I'd like to think that the spirit of the Greeks watched over us at that retreat and guided our actions to produce better and more civilized debate about the issues that we are working on. I represent a large number of Greek descendants, and the Greek community is a very active one in my hometown of Portland, OR. Their contribution to our culture and our community is an overwhelmingly positive one, and it is one I enjoy taking part in every year. Today, I am happy to honor not only the members of the Greek community in my district, but around the State of Oregon and the nation, by celebrating their nation's independence day.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, throughout the Capitol this week, we are being visited by men and women who are the leaders of our transit agencies around the country. I hope that as they are visiting with us today dealing with the things that make a difference to Americans, that we in Congress will be particularly aware of two pieces of legislation that they are seeking our assistance for that will make a difference for American families. After all, notwithstanding a lot of what passes for topical political rhetoric in our Capitol, really what American families care about most is they want to be safe, they want their families economically secure, they want them healthy. I am here today to argue on behalf of two of these bills that will do that in terms of having a more balanced transportation system. One, House Resolution 37, would give congressional employees here in the District of Columbia and in our district offices the opportunity to contribute to the livability of their communities by using transit. As local elected officials we have had the opportunity of implementing such programs in our community, and we found that transit passes made a great deal of difference. They improved morale of our employees, they decreased the demand for parking, they helped clean the air, they decreased congestion, and they actually ended up saving our employees money. Sadly, the House of Representatives is behind the curve in offering transit benefits. Since 1984, private sector employers have offered their employees transit benefits for their commute to work. Even our colleagues in the U.S. Senate have successfully operated a transit pass program since 1992. Today over 2,000 employees of the Congressional Budget Office, the Architect of the Capitol, and the Senate participate in an employer-sponsored transit pass program. With the passage of the Federal Employees Clean Air Incentives Act of 1993, the House is authorized to offer its employees the same incentive. Unfortunately, we have yet to do so. This is a bipartisan resolution, already with over 3 dozen cosponsors, that would give House offices the option to underwrite part of the cost of monthly passes for our employees. No additional revenue is needed to approve the program, since our employee transit passes would be funded out of existing transit office budgets. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA, is extremely supportive of this legislation, and is ready to help the House implement the transit benefit program here in the D.C. metro area as soon as we are willing to work with them. Additionally, we are hearing from our transit friends about another important piece of legislation. This is the Commuter Choice Act, H.R. 873, that is primarily sponsored by our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. Most of us understand that the overwhelming reliance on single- occupant vehicles is responsible for unsafe air, unsafe streets, and gridlock that is increasingly paralyzing our communities. Yet, sadly, our tax policy encourages commuting by car over any other means of transportation. It is not enough that in America we spend more advertising the automobile than supporting transit. We have a tax system that discriminates against people who would like to do the right thing and not use their private automobile. Employers can currently provide free parking up to $170 a month tax- free, but a transit pass or car pool benefits are allowed for only one- third of that value. The Commuter Choice Act would eliminate this imbalance, and encourage energy savings without penalizing drivers. It would increase the nontaxable transit pass benefit to the same $170 per month as the tax-free parking benefit. In addition, this bill will take away the disincentive for people who choose alternative transportation modes. Right now, if an employer decides that they are going to give $25 a month as an incentive for people to walk, run, or bike to work, that will make the other benefits that they provide potentially taxable, including tax-free parking. This bill would provide the opportunity for a stipend of $15 to $50 per month. This cash benefit would support employees who choose to walk, bike, run, rollerblade to work. We have had opportunities in the State of California, where this has been implemented by some employers. I urge my colleagues to support these two bills.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the statistics regarding kids and guns today are truly alarming. Every 90 minutes a child is killed with a loaded gun. Shootings are the fourth leading cause of accidental death for children. For every child killed by gunfire, four more are wounded. This is a tragedy we can and should do something about. The right to own a gun must be balanced with the responsibility of keeping guns out of children's hands. When people buy a gun, they should also be encouraged to purchase either a lock box, trigger safety, or similar device to make sure the gun cannot be accidentally handled or fired. Today I am introducing a bill that models itself after laws already on the books in 15 States and a number of localities. These laws, known as child access prevention [CAP] laws, make it the legal responsibility of gun dealers to provide--and of gun owners to use--gun safety devices. Best of all, we know from experience that this is an approach that works. Florida, the first State to pass such a law, showed a 50- percent drop in unintentional shooting deaths among kids the first year after passage. California has shown similar results after passing a CAP law. My bill would: require gun dealers to offer to sell a locking device or lock box for safe gun storage and post a sign stating that this law is in effect; making gun owners legally responsible for leaving a loaded firearm, or a firearm near ammunition, in a place where kids could gain access. People regularly child proof their home to protect children from harming themselves. By making potential gun buyers aware of these problems and by offering a solution at the point of sale, we can child proof guns in the home, leading to fewer gun-related accidents and a greater sense of awareness about gun safety.