Darlene Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced the bipartisan Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2000. Identity theft has become the latest coast to coast crime wave. This bill includes common sense measures that will allow consumers to work with creditors and credit bureaus to combat this growing problem. Identity theft occurs whenever someone uses your name, social security number, mothers maiden name, or any personally identifiable information to purchase goods or services--usually with credit cards. Victims of identity theft never realize they are victims until they receive a bill in the mail, or even worse, a notice from a collection agency for a purchase they never made on a credit card in their name that they don't even own. While credit issuers have been willing to refund fraudulent charges, victims are still faced with problems of ruined or destroyed credit, the time commitments of redeeming their name with multiple credit bureaus and credit issuers, and the fear and anxiety associated with knowing that someone is using all of their personal information to charge any manner of goods. As a result of identity theft, victims have been turned down for jobs, mortgages, and other important extensions of credit. Identity theft is a growing problem. Just look at the following statistics: Trans Union credit bureau's fraud victim assistance unit received just 35,235 complaints in 1992 but in 1997 received 522,922. That's a 1,400 percent increase! The Privacy Rights Clearing House estimates that there will be 400,000 to 500,000 new cases of ID fraud this year and the Federal Trade Commission's 1-800 number for ID theft receives an average of 400 calls a week from people like my constituent Paul LaLiBerte, from Clackamas, Oregon, who has been a victim of identity theft twice. One of those thousands of calls stated, ``Someone is using my name and social security number to open credit card accounts. All the accounts are in collections. I had no idea this was happening until I applied for a mortgage. Because these ``bad'' accounts showed up on my credit report, I didn't get the mortgage.'' May 18, 1999. This bill attempts to address these problems by empowering consumers and asking creditors and credit bureaus to do their part to combat fraud. For instance, the bill requires that any time a creditor receives a change of address form, the creditor send back a confirmation to both the new and the old addresses. That way, if a thief attempts to change your billing address so you won't find out about fraudulent charges-- you'll know. The bill also requires credit bureaus to investigate discrepancies in addresses, to make sure that the address for the consumer that they have on file is not the address provided by the identity thief. This bill codifies the practice of placing fraud alerts on a consumer's credit file and gives the Federal Trade Commission the authority to impose fines against credit issuers that ignore the alert. Too many credit issuers are presently ignoring fraud alerts to the detriment of identity theft victims. It also requires that fraud alerts are placed on all information reported by a credit bureau, including credit scores. Often when a credit score is issued without a full report, the fraud alert does not show up. This legislation also gives consumers more access to the personal information collected about them, which is a critical tool in combating identity theft, by requiring that every consumer across the nation have access to one free credit report annually. Currently, six States-- Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Maryland, Vermont, and New Jersey-- have such statutes. This act makes one free credit report a national requirement. In addition, consumers could review the personal information collected about them by individual reference services. With greater access to their own personal information, consumers can proactively check their records for evidence of identity theft and uncover other errors. The bill also restricts the type of information a credit bureau can sell to marketers to your name and address only. Currently credit bureaus can sell such personally identifiable information as your social security number or mother's maiden name. This sensitive information would be treated under this bill like any other part of the credit report, with its disclosure restricted to businesses needing the data for extensions of credit, employment applications, insurance applications, or other permissible purposes. I am introducing the Identity Theft Prevention Act with Representative Steve LaTourette (R-OH) and twelve other cosponsors. This bill has been endorsed by Public Citizen and the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and is a companion bill to S. 2328 offered by Senators Feinstein, Kyl, and Shelby. It is my hope that the House Banking Committee will take up consideration of this bill and that we can soon bring it to the floor for a vote by the entire Congress.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I represent thousands of Oregonians that work in the high- tech industry. They tell me that the best way to encourage expansion of the new economy is to minimize government regulation and maximize a freedom to innovate. That is why high-tech issues should be considered on a truly bipartisan basis, and to date we have done that. In October of 1998, we overwhelmingly passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act, a law to keep the heavy hand of government off the Internet. We passed this law because we all know that if e-commerce is overburdened by taxing it and crippling it with government regulations, then it will never achieve its full potential. Then we turned around and last October overwhelmingly approved another bipartisan measure, the Global Internet Tax Freedom Act, to keep the Internet from being taxed by members of the WTO and the United Nations. That is why I am so disappointed the House leadership would approve this proposal because it is nothing more than a back-door attempt to impose a new Federal tax on electronic commerce. We have absolutely no business scrapping our Tax Code and replacing it with up to a 59.5 percent national sales tax that would give the IRS jurisdiction over the Internet. I am not fond of the current system, and I will work to reform it; but this defies all common logic. It is a sure-fire way to ensure that we cripple the development of our high-tech industry. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and support common sense, bipartisan tax relief.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a familiar figure to the people in Newport, Oregon, one of the coastal communities in my district. After 37 years with the United States Postal Service, on March 30, Steve Bruns officially hung up his mail bag for good. Since 1963, Steve Bruns through wind and rain, and we have a lot of that on the Oregon coast, has always delivered. Mr. Speaker, he has been a fixture and a beloved member of the Newport community. Steve is one of the most personable people that you will ever meet, and he is going to be missed on his daily route by the thousands of people that he has touched over the years. Recently he was honored into the Million Mile Club by the U.S. Postal Service. To be inducted into this exclusive club, one needs to have walked or driven 1 million miles for the Postal Service. This would be equivalent to over 160 round trips from Newport, Oregon, to Washington, D.C. That is a quite a feat. I commend Mr. Bruns for a job well done and for the commitment and service to his community that he has shown throughout his 37 years to the Postal Service.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach), as well as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf), for their leadership in bringing to the floor today H.R. 4067, the Business Checking Modernization Act. This bill is very simple. It allows businesses to earn interest on their checking accounts. The ban on paying interest on commercial accounts was adopted during the Depression for policy reasons that are no longer relevant today. The banking regulators all agree that this legislation is overdue. This legislation will promote healthy competition within the financial services community for commercial checking accounts, which will benefit all businesses, especially small businesses who will now be able to earn interest on the business checking accounts. Currently, business customers are able to earn interest on their bank checking accounts only by placing their funds in banks that are able to offer sweep accounts. So this is really good for big businesses and big banks where they can afford to offer these sweep accounts. Other businesses use securities firms that offer liberal check writing services or ATM access or similar services through interest- paying transaction accounts. This compromise legislation appropriately provides a 3-year transition period so that financial institutions that offer sweep accounts or other concessions in lieu of interest can make necessary changes in their pricing to accommodate the repeal of this prohibition. Finally, during this transition period, all insured depository institutions will be able to offer interest through a 24-transfer per month, money market accounts. Again, this is a very simple bill, long overdue, that allows businesses to earn interest on their checking accounts with a 3-year period for implementation. Because the bill opens up competition in the business checking market in a fair and equitable manner, I urge my colleagues to support its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the leadership, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for the hard work they did on a bipartisan bill that helps increase affordability in housing for all Americans, and it hopefully will bring a lot of Americans hopefully closer to that dream of homeownership. I just want to highlight a few provisions in the bill that I think will help people in my district. With the help of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), I was able to insert a provision that sets aside money for a regional, affordable housing pilot project. The Portland metropolitan area has provided the Nation with a model in successful regional planning, and despite the area's growing affluence and increase in overall housing production, poverty and the need for affordable housing has not declined. The local governments of the Portland metropolitan region have recognized that these problems cut across county lines. They believe that housing and services for low-income people are better addressed by regional cooperation and are now working together to address these issues. The regional affordable housing pilot project would provide funds to encourage localities to reach across those boundaries, to work together to plan for and build affordable housing. I also want to commend the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and others for the hard work they did on manufactured housing. Our current laws really do not protect our consumers, and so what this bill does is inserts a protection for consumer protection for dispute resolution, so if there is a problem between the housing manufacturer and the installers this can go to dispute resolution so that the consumer is not bounced back and forth. I am also pleased with a provision that reflects H.R. 3884, the House Act, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), myself, and others. This bill would give teachers, police officers, and other municipal employees the opportunity to get a lower down payment FHA loan for a home in the town or county where they work. This will help address a tremendous problem in my district where city employees often have long commutes to work because they cannot afford to live in a home in the town that employs them. Once again, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the other ranking members on bringing a bill to the floor that will not only break down barriers in affordable housing but will create new housing opportunities for millions of Americans, and I urge support.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment upon one aspect of the changes to the manufactured housing language within H.R. 1776--and that is the composition of the Consensus Committee. First, let me say that I applaud the diligence of all those who contributed to the final provisions of title XI of H.R. 1776--both my colleagues on the Banking Committee and those in the private sector. I believe it is a product of which we should all be extremely proud. In the midst of modifications to the language, however, there was one change which I feel warrants brief comment during today's floor discussion. One result of the discussions which transpired over the last several months in order to reach the final version of Title XI, has been to change the makeup of the Consensus Committee so that it is in compliance with the American National Standards institute (ANSI) guidelines. Specifically, the formerly five subgroups of the Consensus Committee have been streamlined to three, with seven members serving on each. Mr. Chairman, as you know, it is important that the consensus committee is comprised of a balance of consumers, industry experts, and government officials who will advise HUD on safety standards and regulation enforcement. I am aware that consumer groups felt they had been underrepresented in the ``Users'' category. In the process of increasing their representation in the ``Users'' category, however, others--such as the home builders--fell out of the ``General Interest'' category. This industry's presence in this category in no way undermines the additional representation of the consumer groups. In fact, I believe they are a critical component of the consensus committee and that such industry members should be members.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. And the reason it is so important to hire 100,000 new teachers is because they are for kindergarten through third grade. And we know if children have smaller classroom sizes, they learn better and it follows them all the way through. So let us put our money where our mouths are and vote for a budget that funds education.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, one of the things we talk about all the time is how important education is. And what this budget does, the Democratic substitute, is actually put money where our mouths are. That is the most important investment we can make, is in our children. One of the things I find ironic about the Republican budget is that they cut 40,000 children out of Head Start, for example. And yet all the research shows us that that is the vital age for children to learn, and it is so important for them to have a good start.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. As a cosponsor of H.R. 3822, I agree that we need to engage in more forceful diplomacy with OPEC. However, this rule eliminates the section of the bill that authorizes the President to suspend foreign military and economic assistance to OPEC countries. That makes no sense to me. Getting tough with OPEC without touching their foreign aid is a little bit like dangling that carrot without a stick. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we are being taken to the cleaners by OPEC. In the last 15 months this cartel has made a concerted effort, regardless of our protests, to undermine the global supply of oil, with no end in sight. It is time for Congress to act, not to pass a bill that merely instructs the President to conduct additional negotiations. I cannot think of a better tool to leverage OPEC into boosting oil production than leveraging our foreign aid. Make no mistake about it, we send a lot of money and tens of thousands of young Americans to preserve the stability in the Persian Gulf every year. I am tired of waiting for the oil prices to drop to a reasonable level. If OPEC wants to play hard ball, we should too. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and support the original intent of H.R. 3822.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I am back. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), for all the work he has done in the leadership. Right now I do not think there is a bigger issue facing seniors in Oregon and elsewhere in the United States than prescription drugs. Two months ago, Mr. Speaker, a massive ad campaign was undertaken in the Portland media market attacking me for defending senior citizens who cannot afford the high cost of prescription drugs. The ads were paid for by Citizens for Better Medicare, a group that looks grass roots, an organization that claims to be representing interests of patients and seniors, but as we all know, looks can be deceiving. In reality, this ad campaign was primarily funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Speaker, let me set the record straight, I do not want to get in a shoving match with the pharmaceutical industry. These companies spend tens of millions of dollars to develop cures for diseases, and we should take great care to work with them and help them make these essential medicines more affordable for our seniors and working families. But in that same light, I am not going to let multi-million dollar ad campaigns prevent me from doing something in this Congress to act on this issue. As Members can see, I have heard from a lot of people in my district. This is just part of it. I could not carry it all over. Some of it is in my Oregon office. People have sent me letters. They have sent me copies of their drugs. I want to tell the Members something, in many cases they are paying 50 percent of their take-home income that is being spent on prescription drugs. They are demanding some kind of relief in Washington, D.C. This is just a month's worth of receipts from Harry Percy, a constituent of mine in Salem, Oregon. He had to pay over $200 this month for prescription drugs, even though he is enrolled in a health maintenance organization. The sad thing is, Mr. Percy is not any different from the thousands of other seniors I have talked to, or from the hundreds of letters that we see here. At my request, the staff of the Committee on Government Reform recently conducted a study to determine how much more people like Harry Percy in the Fifth Congressional District in Oregon are paying for their medication than customers are paying in countries like Mexico and Canada. I requested this study because I found out that a lot of my seniors were going to Canada to buy their drugs. I was surprised to learn that in the Fifth Congressional District of Oregon, they pay 83 percent more for the same drugs than consumers in Canada, and they pay 82 percent more, on average, for prescription drugs than Mexican consumers. These are the same drugs, the same amount, sold by the same pharmaceutical companies. For example, an uninsured senior in my district who had to take Prilosec to treat an ulcer must pay over $80 more than in Mexico or $86 more than in Canada for that same drug. I also did a study, a comparison of how much those uninsured seniors paid compared to the most favored customers that the drug companies sell to. In that case, they paid almost twice as much than their favored customers. We have to change this. Congress is having a hard time agreeing on how to make such an effort work. We need to work together, but lately the big drug companies have been getting into the mix. What they are trying to do is scare seniors into thinking that prescription drug costs will rise if the government tries to help those seniors in the middle. Yet, we know that over one-third of seniors have no prescription drug coverage, so they must pay for their medication with their own limited resources. As I stated earlier, they have made remarkable progress in finding new drugs, in helping people live a better life, but it does not do any good if they cannot afford to take those drugs. Seniors I know that do not take the drugs that have been prescribed to them live in pain and discomfort. Many times, if they do not take them they end up in a nursing home, or the worst case, a hospital, or they die prematurely. They also suffer anxiety and depression over the fact that they have a hard time paying for their medication. American seniors should not pay the highest prices in the world for their prescription drugs. Frankly, it is unfair, it is wrong, and it is time for this Congress to act. For any of my constituents that happen to be watching this, they can rest assured that I will remain committed to making prescription drugs more affordable and accessible. Tomorrow I will also sign the discharge petition to try to get this bill on the floor of the House. I know we can reach a solution through reasoned debate and bipartisan compromise, but it is time for Congress to act to assure that no older American anywhere has to choose between buying medicine or food, between paying their heating bill or their drugstore account, or between taking their medicine or living in pain and anxiety. Again, I thank the gentleman for his effort. He has been a great leader.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.R. 2005. Regardless of what we are being told today, this legislation will not help people back in Oregon or anywhere else in the United States find safer or better paying jobs. We have worker safety laws to ensure that people are not exposed to dangerous machinery at their place of employment; and, frankly, whether this equipment was bought last week or during World War II it should be up to our State government, not Congress, to decide what is best for their citizens and to regulate the statute of limitations as they pertain to industrial machinery. Mr. Chairman, in Oregon we already have workplace product liability laws and statutes of repose for durable goods in the workplace and they have done a terrific job in protecting the millions of people in my State that work with their hands for a living. So with that in mind, I will oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to join me in saying that it is okay for our State governments to run their own affairs, not Congress telling them what to do.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, credit card late fees are becoming an increasing burden on consumers. More and more of my constitutents are telling me that credit card companies are charging them $30 late fees when they shouldn't be. I believe some companies are abusing their ability to charge late fees. In fact, just recently, First USA, a company that has millions of customers, was caught charging its customers late fees regardless of when they sent their payment in. (ABC News, Nightline: ``Let the Borrower Beware.'' August 31st, 1999). In addition, many companies are shortening grace periods and imposing early morning deadlines for when a payment is due. One of the worst things they are doing is sending bills out just a few days before they're due, which makes it very difficult to get the payment in on time. Obviously, these practices do not help credit card customers maintain good credit ratings. Additionally, these practices can cost customers hundreds of dollars in charges each year. In order to address some of the problems that people are encountering with late fees, today I am introducing the ``Credit Card Customers Proteciton Act of 1999.'' This legislation would require credit card companies charging late fees to clearly disclose a date by which if your payment is postmarked, it cannot be considered late. Right now, most companies charge you based on when your payment arrives. But with passage of this legislation, if you mail your credit card payment in before the postmark date, you'll be okay. This is similar to what the IRS does with your tax return. Regardless of when your return arrives at the IRS, if it is postmarked by April 15, it is not late. To me, this makes perfect sense, since we do not control the internal bill collecting processes of the credit card companies, nor do we want to. And we do not control the time it takes for a letter to be delivered. This bill will put the balance of power back into the hands of credit card customers. I ask my colleagues for their support for this important legislation.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the ranking member for the hard work they did on this bill and moving it through the process and never forgetting that the consumer came first. Madam Speaker, with all the heated debate around the details of this bill, I fear that we have lost sight of what we are trying to do. We are, as the Washington Post recently pointed out, trying to reregulate the financial services industry today, not deregulate it. Banks already use loopholes and regulatory waivers to get their hands into new lines of businesses, supposedly barred by the old Glass-Steagall Act. While this bill gives banks, insurance companies, and security companies new powers, it also creates a sound, legal framework which addresses the actual condition of today's financial services marketplace. For those of my colleagues that are concerned about consumer protection, understand that the most important thing we can do to protect consumers is to create a strong regulatory system that oversees financial services as they are today, not as they were, and the bill does that. Why else have we worked so hard to create this bill? For four reasons: to create a more competitive financial services sector, to build a stronger economy, to create new opportunities for consumers, and to protect the consumer. When this bill is passed, companies will be more internationally competitive, will operate more efficiently at home, and will provide a broad array of new services and products to the consumers, and provide for the first time privacy protection for the consumer. As a conferee and a supporter of S. 900, I ask for my colleagues' yes vote today.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill. Many of my colleagues are concerned that this bill does not enact strong enough privacy protection for consumers, and I would like to address some of those concerns. Current law, today, current law provides no protection for consumers' financial privacy. None. Zero. Zip. A bank under current law can sell personal financial information to whomever they want, whenever they want, and however they want. They can even sell a customer's account number. There is nothing a customer can do. With the enactment of this legislation, for the first time ever, companies will be required to fully disclose how customer information will be used; and for the first time ever, companies will have to allow consumers to say no to the sharing of personal information with third parties. Could we have done better? Absolutely. But this is a step in the right direction. Today, we have the opportunity to enact a bill with new privacy protections. Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), and the chairman, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for the wonderful leadership they have shown, and I urge support of this rule and the bill.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I thank my colleagues for all their hard work on this important piece of legislation. When the Federal Government decided to reclaim the Oregon and California Railroad grant lands in 1916 and 1919, the Government took on a responsibility and made a promise to reimburse those counties that lost their tax base after these lands were reclaimed by the Federal Government. These counties, including six in my district, expend their local tax revenues on efforts that directly affect these Federal lands and the people that use them. But times have changed, people's attitudes have changed, and the way we manage our lands have changed. We realize that logging at will impacted our lands and clean water. The logging of the 1980s, that saw extensive revenue brought into my district for schools and roads, are long gone. Over the last 10 years, I have seen class sizes grow, teachers, after-school programs and many other services reduced or eliminated because, without the timber receipts, we simply did not have the additional money for education and infrastructure. In 1993, Congress recognized this trend and enacted an alternative safety net payment to 72 counties in Oregon, Washington, and California. Federal timber sales have been restricted or prohibited due to protection of certain species under the Northwest Forest Plan. This safety net is expected to expire in 2 years. This is not just a problem in the Northwest. This affects over 800 counties throughout the country from Oregon to Florida. The children in these 800 counties, including six in my district, deserve the same opportunity and the same quality of schools and education opportunities as the rest of America. We made a promise to them. We must extend the safety net for an additional 4 years while we work with these communities to draft a permanent solution to fund infrastructure and, most importantly, our schools. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting ``yes'' for education and voting ``yes'' on this bill.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Johnson-Rothman-Maloney-Hooley substitute amendment to 2260, and in opposition to the underlying bill. Several months ago, I introduced 2188, the Conquering Pain Act, with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to address the pain crisis, and we are having a pain crisis in this Nation. Most of the provisions are in this substitute. The Conquering Pain substitute addresses pain management from a medical perspective rather than law enforcement. It also expresses Congress' clear opposition to assisted suicide. Let me tell my colleagues what is in the substitute. First of all, patients, families, and doctors would have access to help 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our goal is to make sure that people, if they have a problem on Sunday, do not have to wait until Monday; that they do not have to be in pain. We want patients to know that they should expect to have their pain managed and to receive quality pain management. No one should have to live or die in pain because a doctor was afraid to give higher doses of pain medication. As introduced, the Conquering Pain Act also sought to identify any barrier in our regulatory pain system that prevents good access to pain management. We want the Surgeon General to provide us with a report on the state of pain in this country. We create an advisory committee to help us identify gaps in the Federal policy on pain management to force the different parts of government to speak to one another, to talk to each other, so we can create a coordinated agenda that builds on all of our actions of the Federal Government without wasting taxpayers' dollars. Under the Johnson substitute amendment, Congress again expresses its clear opposition to assisted suicide. Among the groups that sat down with us to help us write 2188, the Conquering Pain Act, from which this substitute is derived, and endorsed that bill, are the American Medical Association, the National Hospice Organization, American Society of Anesthesiologists, American College of Physicians, American Pharmaceutical Association. Among those who oppose the Hyde-Stupak bill and prefer the Conquering Pain substitute to the Pain Relief Promotion Act are the American Academy of Family Physicians, American Nurses Association, American Pharmaceutical Association, and the American Pain Foundation. And let me tell my colleagues one other group of people that is very important for us to understand. All of those associations that deal specifically with pain management and palliative care are opposed to the underlying bill and support this amendment. Ultimately, I hope we can agree that the amendment put forth by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman), the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and myself should be approved because it will make a difference in people's lives every single day who are struggling with these life and death issues. By improving care rather than by more closely scrutinizing care, we can reduce patients' hopelessness at the end of life. For a medical solution rather than a law enforcement solution, vote for the substitute.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues' recommittal of this bill. What I have heard around this place today are a lot of people talking about this group supports it, that group does not support it. What we are talking about are real people in every one of our districts. If that doctor feels a threat of law enforcement, the DEA looking over their shoulder, will they give one's friend, one's neighbor, one's son or daughter, one's wife, one's husband, will they give them adequate pain medication? That is what it is about. It is about whether or not we are going to let people that we care about suffer. Please recommit.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying bill and in support of the Johnson-Rothman-Hooley substitute amendment to H.R. 2260. All of us come to this issue of pain and end of life from very different perspectives. Some would like to effectively overturn Oregon's law that allows physicians to assist terminally-ill patients with less than 6 months to live in ending their lives. Since we passed that law, and we passed it twice, 15 terminally-ill patients have used such assistance. Undoubtedly, the proponents of H.R. 2260 are motivated by a heartfelt desire to eliminate a physician-assisted suicide. The Johnson substitute seeks that same outcome, but the difference is it addresses the problem as a medical problem and not a law enforcement problem. In the 6 months that it took the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and I to draft the Conquering Pain Act, H.R. 2188, from which this Johnson substitute is derived, not one expert concerning improving end-of-life care said we need to take away authority from the State. Not one expert recommended amending the Controlled Substances Act, in which the Pain Relief Promotion Act would. Not one expert said this was the best way to improve pain management. Interestingly, the American Medical Association and the National Hospice Organization were an integral part in our working group and ultimately endorsed the Conquering Pain Act, on which the Johnson substitute is based, never once raising the issue of the Controlled Substances Act. In fact, at a hearing in October at the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, where experts were asked where should we begin to improve management, every expert witness said we should begin with education and research. Not one expert said the best way to improve management pain management for patients is to amend the Controlled Substances Act. Dr. Richard Payne, Chief of Pain & Palliative Care Services at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and a co-chair of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research panel on cancer pain guidelines summed it up well. ``While H.R. 2260 is well-intentioned, it is counterproductive. It would have a chilling effect on aggressive pain management.'' Dr. Payne and many physicians and other health care practitioners, those who specifically specialize in pain management, not the generalist, are urging the support of the substitute based on H.R. 2188, ``the bill that would constructively promote end-of-life and palliative care,'' and urge a no vote on H.R. 2260 as reported by committee. I know others may disagree. But it is clearly not worth the risk that people will suffer, and people will suffer in more pain by passing H.R. 2260. Under the Johnson substitute amendment, Congress expresses its clear opposition to assisted suicide, makes every effort to reduce it. What is more important is the Johnson substitute seeks to address the reason a suffering individual at the end of their life might seek that dreadful option, fear and exhaustion of being in pain. I urge a yes vote on the Johnson substitute and a no vote on H.R. 2260.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill and to express my dismay at the bill that fails to fully fund the COPS program, the community policing program. Since Congress authorized the COPS program in 1994, the Justice Department has kept its promise by disbursing grants to hire 100,000 community police officers ahead of schedule and under budget. The COPS program has successfully put police officers in over 11,000 police departments and sheriffs offices. Fifty thousand officers are on the street and working in the communities to reduce crime today, and our streets are safer than ever. It is a program that works. It gives communities the ability to employ local solutions to fighting crime. Mr. Speaker, I have talked to a lot of sheriffs and police chiefs in my district. They tell me this is the one program that has done more than any other program they have received from the Federal Government to deter crime, to work with the community, to have the community involved in helping to reduce crime. Mr. Speaker, American communities are safer than they have ever been and COPS is one of the reasons why. Last July, 67 of my colleagues signed a letter with me asking the appropriators for full funding of this program. But most importantly, my local police support COPS, my county officials support COPS, my school districts support COPS, my neighbors support COPS, and so do I.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3081.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on several items today, the 1st of October. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 466; ``no'' on rollcall No. 467; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 468; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 469.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, a dear friend of some thirty years underwent brain surgery in Oregon this week. Because I desired to be in Oregon to support friends and family, I was unable to vote on several items today, September 30. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 460; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 461; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 462; ``no'' on rollcall No. 463; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 464; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 465.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Juvenile Accountability and Crime Prevention Act of 1999. This act will provide communities with the ability to take a comprehensive approach to holding first and second time non-violent offenders accountable for their actions. Additionally, the bill allows communities--in a coordinated effort--to treat offenders on an individual basis, maximizing the chances that a juvenile will not re-offend. The bill provides funding for Juvenile Accountability Coordinators who will: Conduct an in-depth assessment of juvenile immediately upon arrest; Contact the offender's parents or legal guardian, provide parents and guardians information on proceedings, needed services, and programs to help turn around the offender; and Work with the juvenile, their parents, school officials, and law enforcement officials to develop an accountability plan for the juvenile. Failure of the juvenile to adhere to the plan would result in a referral back to juvenile court. Sanctions in the plan could include restitution to the victim, victim/offender mediation, community service, drug treatment and counseling, and a commitment to remain drug free. In many localities, the courts are unable to provide swift accountability and individual attention to offenders. Sanctions specifically targeted to the individual juvenile which reflect the crime committed will decrease the likelihood of that juvenile re- offending. Additionally, bringing certain offenders out of the court system expedites the process and allows the courts to deal with more serious offenders. This bill will help ensure that first and second time juvenile offenders don't fall through the cracks. Unlike other juvenile diversion programs, Juvenile Accountability Coordinators are with the juvenile every step of the way--from the time of arrest to the disposition of the case. They remain the focal point between parents, DAs, judges, schools, and the offender. Should a second offense occur, coordinators provide consistency and detailed working knowledge of the offender and his or her circumstances. This program has proven to be extremely successful on a smaller scale in Oregon. I would like to give other communities the opportunity to provide swift accountability and intervention to troubled young people.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, as I was thinking about campaign finance reform last night, I also thought a little bit about the football game. Just imagine the headlines if teams started contributing to referees based on how that referee called their games. Sports fans everywhere would be absolutely outraged. But our democracy is in the exact same quandary. Every Member of this chamber knows that millions of dollars can flow in and out of campaigns from soft money sources depending on how we call the game in Congress. As a result, the family checkbook is playing a smaller role in our democracy. Special interests are gaining more influence than ever over who is in office, what they support, and what types of bills this Congress passes. Frankly, this is not what democracy is all about. I realize that money and campaigns are impossible to totally separate, but a fair and open campaign finance system can exist if we support the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. We have the opportunity to do that today. Please do not support the poison pill amendments. Please support the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.