Earl Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly object to the characterization of this bill as an effort to derail term limits. My goodness, nobody could derail term limits more than the so-called proponents have done today. Item after item after item has bit the dust. This is the one chance to pass a piece of legislation that will in fact provide term limits. There will be no chaos. We will have 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 years before it goes into effect, and then it will only impact people who have been here a dozen years, plenty of time for grown-ups to manage a transition. What this is about is to avoid the game playing that we have seen. If Members believe in term limits, come forward with the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, vote for this, put it out, get rid of the professional politicians, and find out if that is what the American people want, find out if that is what the people here want. But for heaven's sakes, stop the game playing. Vote for the antihypocrisy amendment that is before us now. I strongly urge Members' support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. On Sunday, January 26, the Packers won the Superbowl. When they returned home to Green Bay, their fans stood in freezing temperatures for hours to catch a glimpse of their heroes. 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 are a vital part of the glue that holds the Green Bay community together. Together, these fans saved the team from bankruptcy. They have plowed profits from 175 consecutive sellouts directly back into the Packers. They cheered their team to 11 consecutive championships--and this year's Superbowl. The Green Bay Packers are unique, because NFL rules prohibit any more public ownership of teams. Other communities should be able to invest in their own livability-- to define what the community wants of, and for, itself. Other communities should be able to own the local sports team. That's why we should give fans a chance to own their teams by: Eliminating league rules against public ownership of teams; requiring teams to listen to their fans and the community before moving--a requirement which is found in existing league rules, but seems to receive little real attention; and tying the leagues' broadcast antitrust exemption to the requirements in this bill. This congressionally granted benefit allows teams to collaborate on the purchase of national broadcast time. The NFL earned $1.2 billion on broadcast rights last year. This bill doesn't do anything new or radical: It will allow more ownership structures like the Packers, the Boston Celtics, and the Florida Panthers. It will ensure that the leagues follow their own rules when it comes to making decisions about team relocations, and it will ensure that the sports leagues do not squander the benefits they have gained under the sports broadcasting anti-trust exemption. Community ownership strongly encourages fan loyalty, financial stability, and strong TV audiences at a time when fan loyalty is being tested by franchise moves. It is in the long-term, best interest of any professional league. More importantly, it is in the long-term interest of the communities who support them. I urge my colleagues to give fans a chance by supporting this legislation. summary: give fans a chance act Sec. 1: This Act is called the ``Give Fans a Chance Act''. Its purpose is to give communities the tools to invest in their own livability by allowing them to purchase their home sports team. Sec. 2: Allow Public Ownership of Teams Purpose: To allow more communities the opportunities Green Bay, WI, has to own their professional sports team. In addition, to help the leagues by stemming the tide of loyal fans who are no longer glued to their TV sets or stadium seats to watch their favorite teams. Football fan loyalty is being tested by franchise moves and a proliferation of sports on specialty cable channels. If those fans had a chance to own their own teams, they would invest more time and money into their future. Description: No professional sports league (football, hockey, or basketball) may have a rule, policy, or agreement that forbids any public ownership of teams, either by the general public or by any governmental entity. Penalty: If the League ignores this provision, it will lose its sports broadcast antitrust exemption. The antitrust exemption allows teams to collaborate to sell broadcast rights, thus increasing their value dramatically. Expected Impact: The NFL is the only league that has specific rules forbidding public ownership of sports teams (NFL Ownership Policies para. 2). The NFL earned $1.2 billion as a result of the sport broadcast anti-trust exemption in the 1995-1996 season. Sec 3: Relocation of Teams Purpose: To require teams to consider the needs and interests of their communities in making relocation decisions. Description: Requires a professional sports league, in considering whether to approve or disapprove the relocation of a member team, to take into consideration several criteria; Fan loyalty; the degree to which the team has engaged in good faith negotiations concerning terms and conditions under which the teams would continue to play its games in the home territory; the degree to which ownership of management of the team has contributed to a need to relocate; the extent to which the team benefits from public financing, either federal, state or local; the adequacy of the stadium in which the team played its home games in the previous season and the willingness of the community to make changes; the current financial standing of the team; whether there is another team in either the home community or the community to which the team will seek to locate; whether the community is opposed to the relocation; and whether there is a bona fide investor offering fair market value to purchase the team and keep it in the home community. Expected Impact: All of the sports leagues will be expected to use these criteria in evaluating the movement of member teams. These criteria closely track current NFL policies under Section 4.3 of the Constitution and By-Laws (adopted in 1984). Case law since the adoption of these policies suggest that these criteria help bolster the NFL's ability to evaluate franchise moves without running afoul of antitrust law. Sec. 4. Opportunities for Communities to Purchase Team Purpose: To give communities a real opportunity to purchase their team. Description: This section requires that a team proposing to relocate give the affected home territory 180 days notice of the proposed move. During the 180 days notice period, a local government, stadium, arena authority, person, or any combination may present a proposal to retain the team in the home territory. The local community may also develop a proposal to induce the team to stay without actually purchasing the team. As noted under section 3, both the team and the league are required to carefully consider any proposals, and, if an ownership bid is successful, the league may not oppose membership in the league based on the new ownership structure. The team owner must provide a written response to the offer, stating in detail any reasons why the offer was refused. Penalty: If the team and/or the league refuse to abide by these provisions, they will lose the antitrust exemption under the Sports Broadcasting Act. Expected Impact: All Sports Leagues will be required to give communities an opportunity to purchase a home team in the case of proposed relocations.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, during my service as a local official in Portland, OR, we worked hard with employers, including government employers, to provide transit passes for our employees as an alternative to single occupant vehicles. We found that transit pass programs improved morale, they decreased the demand for parking, helped clean air and decrease congestion, while saving our employees money. Today I am introducing a resolution with broad bipartisan support that would give all House offices the option to participate in local transit programs, and employees here and at home, in every district, the opportunity to contribute to the liveability of their communities by using transit. I am embarrassed to say that the Senate has operated such a program since 1992, but be that as it may, it is time for the House to get on board. No additional funds are needed in this resolution, since transit passes would be funded from existing House budgets. When we are asking employers across the country to step forward in the fight for clean air, we in the House must be prepared to do our part and to help our employees.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, after the Green Bay Packers won the Superbowl, their fans stood in freezing temperatures for hours to catch a glimpse of their fans. The Packers are not an ordinary football team, their fans are not ordinary fans, and their community is not an ordinary community, in large part because 1,950 residents of Green Bay own their football team. The Packers are a vital part of the glue that holds the Green Bay community together, but they are unique because the NFL rules now prohibit any more public ownership of teams. At a time when fan loyalty is being tested by franchise moves, it is time to give fans a chance to own their own teams by eliminating league rules prohibiting public ownership of teams, requiring teams to listen to their fans and the community before moving, tying the league's broadcast antitrust exemption requirements to this bill. The NFL earned $12.2 billion on broadcast rights last year. If my colleagues agree with me that more sports teams should be owned by the public, like the Packers, and the fans should have a voice on where their team decides to relocate, I invite my colleagues to support my Give Fans a Chance Act.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, for me, the Gingrich episode represents much of what is wrong about the American political system today. It is unfortunately a failing which occurs on many levels. At its core is the behavior of the man twice removed from the Presidency. It is very difficult for anyone who has read the Cole report to reach any conclusion other than that Mr. Gingrich consistently did not tell the truth, in a desperate attempt to avoid responsibility for the misuse of taxpayer funds for partisan gain. In turn, Mr. Gingrich's transgressions engendered a series of behaviors from people in both parties and in the press that play to their worst instincts, and that undermine the confidence people have in their Government. Last but not least, the blame resides as well with the House ethics process, a process so open to perversion that it raises questions about its ability to protect individual rights. It has unfortunately become so susceptible to manipulation that the House leadership and committee chair can, and has, unilaterally distorted its most sensitive proceedings, denying the House and the American public the time to reflect. Over the weekend, I read the Cole report. I come away from it believing that Mr. Gingrich knew exactly what he was doing, based on his intimate familiarity with the 1989 case involving the American Campaign Academy. In that case, the IRS and a tax court found that the academy, which was run by Mr. Gingrich's closest personal advisor and which was represented by Mr. Gingrich's lawyer, was ineligible for tax- exempt status because it served private, rather than public interests. But Mr. Gingrich was not deterred by the lessons of the American Campaign Academy ruling. Far from it. Instead, over a million dollars was diverted knowingly and improperly from charities for political purposes in violation of the law and of House ethical rules. As revealed with great clarity by Mr. Cole, Mr. Gingrich engaged in a deliberate strategy to use money contributed for charitable purposes to fund his own partisan agenda. And it is impossible to read the Cole report without also understanding Mr. Gingrich's use of the enhanced power and prestige of the Speakership for personal enrichment. The evidence goes far beyond the salary and perquisites of the Speakership. A telling example is Mr. Gingrich's acceptance of a $4.3 million book advance, which flowed directly from his new position and the materials from what we now know was a taxpayer sponsored college course. Although Mr. Gingrich was eventually forced to give up the advance, he has collected royalties far in excess of any money involved in the case of former Speaker Jim Wright. Ultimately, this episode is about the failure to be honest. Nothing speaks more eloquently to that point than Mr. Gingrich's final and belated admission, not to guilt, but only to being naive. Everyone who reads the Cole report, and, I submit, anyone who carefully observes Mr. Gingrich's personal behavior during these last few days, knows how hollow this rings. Mr. Gingrich is not naive. He has devoted a quarter of a century in pursuit of political power for himself and his party. It has been at times brilliant, calculating, and shrewd. But it has never been naive. Mr. Gingrich pushed the envelop, and got caught.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as sure as we are standing here tragedy will strike again on America's roadways. Within the next few week there will be another national example where repeat drunk drivers lay carnage on our streets. Sadly, this is an all too frequent occurrence in our county. Over 17,000 people a year are killed because of drunk driving and hundreds of thousands are injured. I have a long standing commitment to doing everything possible to stop people from getting behind the wheel after drinking too much. As a member of the Portland City Council, I introduced the first ordinance in the country to take away the cars of repeat drunk drivers. This law has had a dramatic effect. In Portland we have confiscated almost a thousand cars and forfeited almost a third of those. Most importantly it has made a difference in terms of repeat drunk driving. From 1994 to 1995, drunk driving deaths increased nationally. During that same time period, we saw a 42-percent decrease in these fatalities in Portland. Empirical studies show when you take away the car of the repeat drunk drivers it does get their attention, and the recidivism rate has dropped. This is a program that works. Today I am reintroducing what was my first piece of legislation as a Member of the U.S. Congress. Currently States must meet five of seven eligibility criteria to receive a share of the $25 million in Federal drunk driving counter measure grants. My proposal will add another criteria to choose from, a program to confiscate the cars of repeat drunk drivers, like we've done in Portland. I'm convinced that this simple step is going to move dramatically and spread the forfeiture concept around the country. Already, over 60 cities and counties have requested information on our program. When so many issues pit one group against another, it is encouraging that taking away the cars of repeat drunk drivers has had such a broad coalition behind it. Law enforcement agencies, advocates like the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, beer and wine distributors, and others have all lent their support for Portland's program. I have begun to reach out to national coalitions and will continue to work with them on perfecting this bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, as we in Congress prepare to adjourn the 104th session, and we turn our attention to the next session and its business, we need to focus on the reauthorization of ISTEA. Citizens and local governments around the country are calling for the ISTEA reauthorization with enhancements programs and flexibility intact. Representatives from 118 cities asked me earlier this month to deliver to my colleagues a message that is signed, an open letter to this Congress. We need ISTEA and the money that it brings. But more important, to deal with the problems of our increasingly mobile populations, is the flexibility that that legislation entails. More important than money is the local planning framework that is involved. And most important of all is the public involvement that is entailed. Our citizens, our constituents, know what they need. If we engage them in the process of planning for our future, they will respond with innovation and nontraditional solutions. We in Congress talk a lot about empowerment and doing more with less. ISTEA is a chance to deliver on that promise.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, as sure as we are standing here tragedy will strike again on America's roadways. Within the next few weeks there will be another national example where repeat drunk drivers lay carnage on our streets. Sadly, this is an all too frequent occurrence in our country. Over 17,000 people a year are killed because of drunk driving and hundreds of thousands are injured. I have a longstanding commitment to doing everything possible to stop people from getting behind the wheel after drinking too much. As a member of the Portland City Council, I introduced the first ordinance in the country to take away the cars of repeat drunk drivers. This law has had a dramatic effect. In Portland, we have confiscated almost a thousand cars and forfeited almost a third of those. Most importantly it has made a difference in terms of repeat drunk driving. Last year when drunk driving deaths increased nationally, we saw a 42-percent decrease in Portland. Empirical studies show when you take away the car of the report drunk drivers it does get their attention, and the recidivism rate has dropped. This is a program that works. Today I am announcing what will be my first piece of legislation as a Member of the U.S. Congress. Currently States must meet five of seven eligibility criteria to receive a share of the $25 million in Federal drunk driving countermeasure grants. My proposal will add another criterion to choose from, a program to confiscate the cars of repeat drunk drivers, like we've done in Portland. I'm convinced that this simple step is going to move dramatically and spread the forfeiture concept around the country. Already, over 60 cities and counties have requested information on our program. When so many issues pit one group against another, it is encouraging that taking away the cars of repeat drunk drivers has had such a broad coalition behind it. Law enforcement agencies, advocates like the Mothers Against Drunk Driving, beer and wine distributors, and others have all lent their support for Portland's program. I have begun to reach out to national coalitions and will continue to work with them on perfecting this bill.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the challenge to the President's veto of H.R. 1833. Whatever one's belief on abortion, the late-term procedure most be viewed separately, for this is a procedure to be used only as a last resort to save a woman's life or to avoid a devastating deterioration of her health. Late-term abortion is not about choice. It is about saving women from grave damage to their health, to their ability to bear children in the future, and from death. The President, and the medical community, have assured us that abuses of this procedure can be avoided. Regrettably, those voting to override this veto would apparently prefer to score political points than to heed those assurances. This is being done with indifference to women who face grave circumstances, and in disregard to the potential of this institution to render a serious policy determination on a matter of grave consequence.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Before us today is a measure that means a great deal to us in Oregon, naming the new courthouse after Senator Hatfield. I know it is not going to be the last memorial as tribute to Oregon's senior Senator but in many ways it will be the most fitting. I wholeheartedly support this measure. In Oregon we have had a tradition of accepting unique elected officials to Congress and the U.S. Senate, men and women who have been known to take their stand, demonstrating a pioneering spirit which we think defines Oregon today. For more than a generation, Mark Hatfield has been a living exemplar of that tradition. Whether the topic under discussion was the war in Vietnam, when he was the only Governor in the United States who was willing to stand up and raise questions about our policy, to being the only member of his party who was willing to stand up and raise questions about the wisdom of a balanced budget amendment, he has proven time and time again his courage, his independence, and I would say, his vision. He is a man of vision, insight, compassion, and consensus, as the chairman mentioned. The word ``mentor'' is overused today, and it would be presumptuous on my part to suggest that Senator Hatfield was my mentor, but he was an inspiration. He has been a friend, and I have been honored to have had an opportunity to be a part of the Oregon delegation, to be a colleague with him at least for these few months. We, in Oregon, are a little apprehensive to lose such a trusted leader, but we are hopeful that his legacy for a generation of people in Oregon, inspired by his example to enter government service, will be found walking through the doors of this courthouse. I hope that their decisions will be marked by the wisdom and courage of this great Oregonian, this great Senator, this great American.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, last week Washington, DC, was host to an annual conference, Rail Volution, where over 700 people from 8 countries, 41 States, and 118 cities gathered. As impressive as those numbers were, what was more impressive was the purpose of that gathering, working together, learning how to build livable communities using principles of sustainable development. We are talking about light rail, intercity rail, managing the auto and transportation infrastructure, mixed use development. At a time when we are concerned about making our communities livable while dealing with the deficit, the Rail Volution message was a breath of fresh air: spending wiser, not raising taxes, making change, solving problems rather than creating them, and viewing citizen input as a valuable tool not citizens as an enemy. This is an important message for us in Congress to hear and to act upon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical Amendments of 1996. The Impact Aid Program was reauthorized during the 103d Congress. At that time, significant changes were made to the existing Impact Aid Program which greatly enhanced its operation. During this Congress, the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities held a hearing to review how the changes in the Impact Aid Program were being carried out. We discovered that on the whole, the Impact Aid Program is functioning much more effectively as a result of the changes made during the 103d Congress. However, we also discovered certain situations where there was a need for minor corrections, H.R. 3269 makes the necessary technical corrections to further enhance the operation of the Impact Aid Program and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, providing for their families is a daily struggle for the working poor. Basics like food, shelter and healthcare are out of reach for too many full-time employees and their children. Congress, so far, has not chosen to improve upon this sad situation. What we have seen is welfare reform which threatens the little assistance available for those with low-paying jobs. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that poverty may continue to be the reward many receive for their work. There are solutions to these problems--the proposed minimum wage increase being the most obvious. This simple act will do more to create self-sufficiency than any government program or bureaucracy. I am pleased to be a part of this long overdue adjustment.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support providing our troops the basic equipment they rely on in the field. Adequate military housing and medical facilities are also wise uses of our scarce resources. In providing for the defense of our Nation, there is no substitute for having well-trained, well-equipped military personnel. Besides providing for the needs of our troops, the bill before us today includes funding for exotic weapons systems and missile programs. Much of the high-tech gadgetry included in this bill was neither requested, nor is needed by the Department of Defense. While I will continue to vote to improve the lives of those serving in our armed forces, I cannot support this bill. The real military needs of our country, as well as pressing domestic concerns prevent me from doing so.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 123. This legislation is at best misguided; at worst, mean spirited, and does not reflect the America I know nor the community that I serve. If we wanted to simply declare the obvious and designate English as the official language, it would not be difficult. We could do it without controversy. It would be easy to provide necessary guidelines, if we feel some of the current legislation dealing with bilingual requirements need tightening up. But the trail of exceptions in this bill are an admission to the flaw that it is inappropriate to deny the tools to deal with citizens in the best way to help meet their needs. Monday this House unanimously declared that it is the sense of Congress that the government of Serbia should ensure the rights of its Albanian minority to be educated in their native language rather than in Serbian. Far more native born Americans of Mexican ancestry live in the former Mexican provinces of Texas and California than the 2 million Albanians which this Congress expressed their concern that they would be able to be educated in their native language. With this bill, we are saying that what is fair and just for the minority people of Serbia is just too good for the non-Engish-speaking minorities of the United States. The proponents of this English only legislation, Mr. Chairman, ought to acknowledge that we either believe that people have a right to be educated in their native language or we do not, either we provide English instruction to non-English speakers or we do not. Let us drop the hypocrisy, the doublespeak and acknowledge in plain English that at best this bill makes the business of government harder. At worst, it panders to prejudice.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, there is perhaps no more urgent issue in America today than ending welfare dependency. In place of a welfare program built around welfare checks, we need a program built around helping people get paychecks. We need to move people toward work and independence. And we need to be tough on work and protective of children. When the work on welfare reform started last year, the Republican proposals were weak on work, tough on kids, and the President was right to veto them. Unfortunately, the bill before us today, while a significant improvement on the earlier versions, still falls short in both regards. On work, the bill is, in fact, too weak, for it underfunds employment assistance by $13 billion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, a $13 billion shortfall is a guarantee that no State can meet the employment requirements in this bill. So we have missed an opportunity to make these poor families self-supporting. On children, the bill is, in fact, too weak in its child care provisions; it is too harsh in the manner children are punished for the failures of their parents; and it is far too extreme in its potential to push an additional 1 million children into poverty. I am also deeply concerned by the fundamental premise of this legislation. There are many Governors, in many States, who today are sincerely committed to using a welfare block grant to raise the well- being and quality of life of people within their States. And as I listen to them, I hear a haunting echo of a situation which occurred some years ago when many well-intended State legislators, myself included, voted to transition the mentally ill in Oregon into mainstream society. The concept seemed solid, as the welfare block grant seems to many Governors. But when the 1980's recession hit Oregon, the commitments we made to the mentally ill--similar in so many ways to the commitment the Governors today are making to their welfare recipients--simply came undone. And today, many years later, the mentally ill of Oregon still live on the streets, and Oregon's neighborhoods and local governments are struggling under the burden of serving this neglected population. This, Mr. Speaker, is what I fear we face when the next recession rumbles through this land. When times get tough, and resources grow scarce, and the contingency funds are drawn down, who will be hurt the most? Will it be our schools? Our ports? Our highway funds? Our economic competitiveness programs? Or will it be those who are struggling to find a route out of poverty? I fear without adequate planning, safeguards, standards, and funding, welfare reform will likewise turn into a nightmare not just for the poor, but for the people in our community ill-equipped to deal with the consequences of another experiment that backfires.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of passage of the substitute measure. The gentleman from California has proposed a bill that takes an important step in the direction of limiting the amount of money in Federal election campaigns. In so doing, this Democratic alternative goes in the opposite direction of H.R. 3820, which dramatically increases nearly every existing campaign contribution limit, and imposes no limit on spending. Mr. Speaker, it is a mystery to me why the subject of campaign finance reform is one that continues to divide this House along partisan lines. There is a fundamental congruence of interest on this issue between our constituents, who want to reduce the influence of large amounts of money on elections, and the members of this body, who must raise these enormous sums. It is demanding difficult, and demeaning to spend so much time in the pursuit of money instead of discussing and debating the issues during a campaign. The substitute measure would, for the first time, place a spending limit on candidates for Congress, with rewards for those who honor the limits and penalties for those who do not. The limit is generous--I would favor a more restrictive limitation--but it is a start, and it includes within it further limitations on expenditures of PAC contributions and large-donor contributions, ensuring that every candidate must turn to individuals of modest means for support. I sincerely hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join in adopting these limits. I hope, too, that we will view the substitute bill as a good first step, and return to this subject again, soon.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I strongly agree with the comments that my colleague from West Virginia has made regarding the bill and its benefits and deficiencies. Among other things, I appreciate the additional resources included in the bill for community policing, a program which has made such a difference in communities in my district and around the country. But, I do want to spend a moment speaker about a grave area of deficiency dealing with the Advanced Technology Program. This is one program that promotes partnerships and boosts competitiveness by encouraging innovation. It is worthy of bipartisan support and adequate funding. The partnerships created by the ATP allow the U.S. Government to work with businesses and universities, helping existing technological leaders to leverage their talent and expertise. I have seen this take place in my State of Oregon. In the last several years, we have watched as the companies--which must match Federal funds--have invested approximately the same amount in ATP projects as they have received from the Federal Government. These recipients are developing broad-based technologies, which will not only make them more competitive globally, but will be creating new industries and new jobs. In Oregon over the last 5 years, 10 Oregon participants have joined in ATP projects. Five of these participants have been small businesses. For example, Precision Cast Parts in my district is working on developing large-scale industrial gas turbines which can operate at higher temperatures. These higher operating temperatures mean increased fuel efficiency and the option of using a larger variety of fuels. At Tektronix, over the last 3 years they have been developing the ADVANCED Program, the Advanced Digital Video Network for Creative Editing and Distribution Program, a new technology which allows video to be used just like other electronic data. These programs attract expertise to the region and to the State. And they create new jobs. I hope we will take another hard look at this program as this bill wends its way through the legislative process. The ATP Program needs to be restored in order for this bill to be worthy of our support.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3845. I do so not because of the funding amounts specified in the appropriations, although they present difficult questions about the extent to which this Congress is honoring its constitutional and commonsense responsibilities to the District. Rather, my opposition is based on two overreaching and unwarranted interferences by this Congress in the lives of the people of the District. Those are the provisions of sections 129 and 130, which prohibit the use of Federal and local funds for abortion and for domestic partner benefits. It is time for this Congress to end its unnecessary interference with the District government's arrangements with its employees relating to health and other benefits. H.R. 3845 continues the shortsighted and narrow-minded prohibition on using any funds--even those raised within the District through local taxation--to extend health benefits to the domestic partners of District employees. The District should be free to pursue, through negotiations with its represented employees or otherwise, the same policies that many other municipal governments and businesses have successfully implemented. Extending the same benefits to domestic partners of employees as are enjoyed by the spouses of employees can be a cost-effective way to retain capable workers. In my district, the city of Portland, Multnomah County and Portland Public Schools have all negotiated domestic partner benefits packages with their employees. About 2 percent of the work force have enrolled their unmarried domestic partners as beneficiaries under this program, and the modest additional cost was offset by other benefit plan changes. As a result, these public employers, at no cost to the public, have been able to retain highly valued and productive employees to do the public's business. Gay and lesbian workers know discrimination and bias when they see it. If they are capable, motivated workers, they will look for a workplace that values them for the work they do, rather than penalizing them. Mr. Speaker, if we are operating on the premise that the District needs the best and the brightest to turn this city around, then let us not tie the District government's hands with this regressive, counterproductive and mean-spirited restriction. To my second point: There is also no sound reason for this Congress to interfere with the fundamental reproductive rights of women. Nonetheless, Congress has interfered prohibiting the use of Federal funds for most categories of abortion. In this measure, this body continues the even more outrageous practice of prohibiting the District government from using its own, locally raised funds to provide medical services that the Supreme Court of the United States has held are constitutionally protected. The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District would have restored at least some of the ability of the District government to fund necessary abortions for poor women. Its rejection makes the prohibition in this measure an unacceptable limitation upon the reproductive rights of those women. I regret that I must therefore vote to reject the measure as a whole. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, we have reached a point where there is a national consensus that is emerging that our No. 1 priority in social welfare is to protect poor children. There is a consensus that welfare, in fact, tracts children in poverty, and the key is to allow families to work to escape. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill hinders that progress that is so critical and undercuts that national consensus. I come from a State, Oregon, that is actually moving people off welfare into gainful employment. The bill that we have looming before us is going to undercut the progress of my State. First of all, by having inflexible work participation requirements, you will actually penalize the successful State as it ratchets down into the next century. By having all child support in a centralized bureaucratic system, which my State tried in the 1970's, found to be unnecessary, found to be expensive and found that we had better ways, we will be forced back into that unnecessary bureaucracy, unnecessary expense. By having a 5-year arbitrary limit on child care, we deal with the ironic situation of having some successful families who are fighting to remain employed to be forced back into poverty. This is lunacy. I appreciate at least having the Tanner-Castle amendment being put before us as an alternative. We need to keep this progressing so that the President and the Senate can work with people of good faith to have a bill that will work so poor children do not pay the price for our inability to square rhetoric with reality.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I have been listening to the debate here this evening and have been troubled by the perverse logic that this small, but important, 5 percent of the Nation's educational expenditure is dismissed. It is dismissed by people who obviously have not been talking to the struggling school boards, teachers and principals who are tying to make do, particularly in areas like this bill that would provide less per pupil at a time when many communities are struggling with growth, as has been documented by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. But most of my concern, I guess, is focused on the dismissal of the critical partnerships with State and local government. Every Member of this Chamber has benefited in the Nation's prosperity in the 25 years after World War II due in no small measure to Federal educational investment and unprecedented partnerships with local schools. Everyone benefited from that. This bill would turn its back, and I use just one example: The bipartisan effort, the Goals 2000 to promote educational reform that has made a great deal of difference in my State increasing academic standards for students, bringing technology into classrooms, fostering an increased relationship between schools and higher education, and developing those public private partnerships between schools and employers that people talk so much about; this has been done in my State using this. And somehow we could not find less than 1 quarter of 1 percent in this bill to fund Education 2000. It is a tragic mistake. It is shortsighted and counterproductive. Yes, it is difficult to balance the budget, but the issue is one of priority. I just want to say that turning our back on the Federal partnership and investment, ignoring our past successes, our current obligations and our children's future is no way to achieve that goal of a balanced budget.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I find myself in significant agreement with the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. This is a confused and misleading concept, MFN. It certainly implies no approval; otherwise, we would not have extended it to 184 nations, including such paragons of virtue as Syria and Burma. It is true that this is an important economic relationship to my State of Oregon. It means thousands of jobs in areas like technology and agriculture. But I do view China as being a threat to the world, primarily in a war on our environment, a war on the environment that frankly we in Oregon and in this country are poised to help the Chinese wage to protect it by the sale of products and services. Mr. Speaker, 33,652 Americans lost their lives in the Korean war in no small measure because we misjudged the Chinese and their intentions. I cannot agree more strongly with the gentleman from Michigan's hope that this is the last year we go through this exercise, and instead we work to manage our relationship with the world's most populous nation in a thoughtful and constructive fashion. The disapproval of this resolution and the continuation of MFN is an important step in that direction.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to add my support for the efforts of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon. One comment I want to make, it seems sort of bizarre for my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Cooley, to suggest that there were hearings on this. Seven hearings, yes, after the rider was signed into law, after it was passed. That is not how the rest of us in Oregon regard participation.

Mr. BLUMENAUER

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