CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H3528

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSEH3528 May 23, 2000

Smokies think it is huge. Yet I am

talking about forests that cover more

than 300 times the Great Smokies, and

this does not count any of the land in

our national parks or the land the Bu-

reau of Land Management controls.

The Federal government owns over 30

percent of the land in this Nation

today. State and local governments

and quasi-governmental agencies own

another 20 percent. Half of the land is

in some type of public ownership.

What is most disturbing, though, is

how government at all levels has been

taking over private land at such a

rapid rate in the last 30 years, and per-

haps even more dangerous, putting so

many rules, regulations, restrictions,

and red tape on the shrinking amount

of land that still remains in private

lands today.

Yet, there are some of these environ-

mental extremists who are not satis-

fied with half of the land and want

even more.

There is something known as the Wildlands

Project, which I first read about in the Wash-

ington Post, which advocates taking half the

private land in the U.S. and placing it in public

ownership.

This may sound OK until some bureaucrat

comes and takes your home or your property.

Also, we could not emphasize enough that

private property is one of the main keys to our

freedom and our prosperity. It is one of the

main things that has set us apart from coun-

tries like Russia and Cuba and other socialist

or communist nations.

These national forests are not national

monuments. They are natural resources, re-

newable resources.

Whenever some of these extremists are

confronted by loggers who have lost jobs or

communities that have been devastated, they

always say just promote tourism.

Well tourism is an industry filled with min-

imum or low wage jobs. Even more impor-

tantly, it is just not possible to turn our whole

country into tourist attractions or base our

whole economy on tourism.

I know these environmental groups have to

scare people and continually raise the bar so

that their contributions will keep coming in.

I know, too, that many big companies, and

particularly big multi-national corporations are

helped by extreme environmental rules be-

cause they drive so many small and medium-

sized businesses out of business or force

them to merge. So many contributors for these

groups come from these big companies, often

headquartered in other countries.

But, Mr. Speaker, if we want to continue

having a strong economy, with good jobs and

half-way reasonable prices, and especially if

we want to have a free country, we must use

our natural resources in an environmentally

balanced way.

We cannot stop cutting trees, digging for

coal, and drilling for oil and continue to have

the good life that we fortunately enjoy today.

LIVABLE COMMUNITIES AND

SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of Jan-

uary 19, 1999, the gentleman from Or-

egon (Mr. B

LUMENAUER

) is recognized

during morning hour debates for 5 min-

utes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, my

goal in Congress is for the Federal gov-

ernment to be a better partner in mak-

ing our communities more livable, to

make our families safe, healthy, and

economically secure.

One of the indicator species of a liv-

able community is the pedestrian. Ear-

lier this week, people in Montgomery

County were shocked, I am sure, to

read that in their community pedes-

trian deaths were as high as homicides.

In 1998 and 1999, 25 people were killed in

pedestrian accidents, the same as those

that were killed in homicides.

Really, this is not news. The statis-

tics are that Americans are 160 percent

more likely to be killed by a car than

to be shot and killed by a stranger. It

is the equivalent of an airline crash

every 2 weeks in this country, and for

every person who is killed, there are

another 20 who are injured; 6,000 dead

in all, and 110,000 injured.

The seniors of our community are at

the highest risk, almost twice a likely

to be killed or injured. Walking for

them is more important, not just as a

form of exercise, but it is an important

part of their transportation system, be-

cause many of them no longer drive.

Mr. Speaker, it is important because

everyone at some point in their jour-

ney is a pedestrian. But there are les-

sons to be learned from our experience.

We are finding that some of the sprawl-

ing unplanned communities that are

primarily auto-oriented are the most

dangerous places for people to walk,

places like Fort Lauderdale and Miami;

Atlanta, that we have talked a lot

about on the floor of this House is sort

of a poster child for unplanned growth

and sprawled; and Tampa, St. Peters-

burg, and Dallas, Texas.

Ironically, many of the older, more

pedestrian-oriented are the safest.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, by one ac-

count, is the safest place to walk in

America.

It does not have to be this way. There

are opportunities for us to plan for peo-

ple, not just for cars; to put uses closer

together, not mandate that they be

separated from where people work,

where they live, and where they shop.

The Federal government itself can be

a partner by not taking an historic

Post Office in downtown small town

America and locating it by a strip mall

out at the edge of town without even

paved sidewalks.

There is a whole philosophy that has

developed, an engineering approach

that is called ‘‘traffic calming’’ that we

had great success with in our commu-

nity in Portland, Oregon, to be able to

make a difference for the way that peo-

ple live.

The Federal government in the

ISTEA–T–21 legislation has set aside

significant funds for traffic safety, but

sadly, many of the States are not using

those resources in ways that will make

pedestrians safe. Fourteen percent of

all motor vehicle-related deaths are pe-

destrians, yet only 1 percent of the

highway safety money from the Fed-

eral government is used for pedestrian

safety.

It is important for us to use the tools

that we have available, that we are

sensitive to putting people into the

planning process to make our commu-

nities more livable and make our fami-

lies safer, healthier, and economically

secure.

KOSOVO AND BOSNIA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of Jan-

uary 19, 1999, the gentleman from Flor-

ida (Mr. S

TEARNS

) is recognized during

morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, 1 year

ago the United States and many of our

NATO allies were engaged in an air

campaign against Yugoslav forces.

Next month will mark the 1-year anni-

versary of the agreement providing for

the withdrawal of Yugoslavian troops

from Kosovo and the deployment of

international peacekeeping forces.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we not

forget the American troops who con-

tinue to languish in Kosovo, or those in

Bosnia, and other fellow citizens scat-

tered throughout the world on various

deployments. We should also consider

the cost of these deployments both in

dollars and in reduction of our military

capability.

President Clinton’s decision to at-

tack Yugoslavia and to maintain

peacekeeping forces in Kosovo were

based upon the mistaken notion that

military forces can turn ethnic and re-

ligious hatred into peaceful coexist-

ence.

As a participant in the Kosovo peace-

keeping operation known as KFOR, the

United States has 5,000 troops in

Kosovo, 450 in Macedonia, and 10 in

Greece. While working to achieve this

harmony, U.S. troops have been fired

upon and assaulted in many instances.

Census figures collected by the U.N.

High Commission for Refugees and the

Yugoslavian government indicate that

93 percent of the population of Kosovo

is ethnic Albanians now and 5 percent

Serbs. In essence, American troops are

in Kosovo to protect the Serbs from an

angry majority. This makes the Presi-

dent’s plan to build a peaceful, multi-

ethnic state all the more daunting.

This situation begs the question,

when will our troops leave Kosovo? If

the Clinton administration has its way,

the answer is, no time soon. All we

need to do is to look at Bosnia to ex-

plain this conclusion.

Remember Bosnia? In 1996, the

United States sent 16,500 troops to Bos-

nia and some 6,000 support troops to

neighboring nations. The President

stated that the deployment would last

about 1 year. Mr. Speaker, the troops

are still there, and the administration

has requested $1.4 billion for the next

fiscal year to continue this 1-year mis-

sion to Bosnia.

Mr. Speaker, it seems that much the

same is expected for Kosovo. Two

VerDate 24-MAY-2000 06:28 May 24, 2000 Jkt 079060 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4634 Sfmt 0634 E:\CR\FM\K23MY7.002 pfrm06 PsN: H23PT1