Darlene Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I rise to engage the distinguished chair from California in a colloquy. I want to highlight the merits of an innovative approach to water-management related plant research and wastewater system management that has been initiated by a terrific project called the Oregon Garden Project in Silverton, Oregon. It has national implications and is a national model. By publicly showcasing how wetland functions as a natural water filtration system, and demonstrating unique water conservation techniques within a world class garden, the project provides an outstanding public education opportunity. The garden, a $16 million construction project, is being funded by $8 million in private dollars and contributions from a partnership of State, Federal and local government. In fiscal year 1999, I am requesting a final $1 million to be provided within the EPA account for completion of construction, complementing the $2 million already federally invested. The Oregon Garden holds a great deal of promise for teaching the public and developers about the critical role wetlands play in habitat and ecosystem management. While developed wetlands will never be able to replace preservation of existing wetlands, the reality is that wetlands must be restored and created. Developers must know how they function to accommodate runoff from community growth. The Oregon Garden will also serve as an educational site for horticulture, wetland management, and wastewater processing. The nursery industry in the State of Oregon is the fastest growing industry in our State. It holds great potential for job development. We feel like the more than $9 million that have already been invested in this project makes us an excellent partner. I recognize the chairman cannot grant every request, but I wonder if the chairman would work with the other body in the conference and try to find funding for the Oregon Garden.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 318, H.R. 1689--Securities Litigation, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I join with my colleague from Oregon in his concern about extending this so-called pilot program that charges due fees for patrons who recreate in our national forests and our national parks and use the Bureau of Land Management lands and Fish and Wildlife Services' wildlife refuges. I have to tell my colleagues that when the subject of pilot projects comes up in my State, people sort of roll their eyes and they go, ``Is that Washington-speak for a program that we say we will evaluate and it is supposed to go away but never goes away?'' This user demonstration fee program is a perfect example of why so many of my constituents distrust what we do in Washington, D.C. Again, this program was scheduled to last no more than 3 years. It was to be used in a limited number of sites. These tests were there to provide us with a snapshot view of what happens when we do a pilot program: What does this look like? What are the things good about it, what are the things wrong about it? But since the time that this pilot program was initiated, it is like somebody added a little bit of yeast and a little bit of sugar and it has just grown and grown and grown. They probably put it in a hot oven, too. Now it is used in over 100 sites and it is a program that is so confusing. I mean if we want to go and use the bathroom, we have to buy a 3-day pass. I support the parks, and I know we have huge needs in our parks. But what happens is in one of our programs it is not about building new trails, it is not about building new bathrooms. We have somebody who is getting rid of the volunteers so they can add a new person to collect the fees. And what do we get for these fees? Well, unbelievably, we do not know. Now, of the four agencies that have jurisdiction over this bill, the Forest Service, has made their numbers available to us, and what they show is this program barely pays for itself. So far, 53 percent of the funds that are collected has to be spent on collection costs. I do not think that is a very good deal. Now, maybe the other three agencies are doing a terrific job, but we do not know, and we will not find out until March of 1999. I would like to have the information before we continue this program. But what I do not think we should do is continue this program. It is sort of like saying, well, what we do not know will not hurt us and we are going to extend the program for another 2 years. I have to tell my colleagues that makes no sense to me. I think it is time to step back, take a look at the program, look at what works and what does not work. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, last year, after 3 years of intense debate and two separate ballot measures, the State of Oregon became the first State to implement a physician-assisted suicide law. This was not an easy decision for the people of my State. It was the subject of intense debate and media coverage, and the issue was so thorny that the legislature even decided to send it to the voters twice, and both times it was approved. Despite this level of scrutiny in the State of Oregon, the Committee on the Judiciary will begin work today on a bill to overturn the Oregon law. I came to the well today to say that I understand there are a number of Members of Congress who have very personal concerns about this issue. I have deep personal reservations about the concept of assisted suicide; and, as a private citizen, I voted against it at the ballot box and in this House of Representatives. I voted against Federal funding of assisted suicide. But I understand this is not an issue about personal feelings. This is an issue about respecting the judgment of the voters of Oregon. This is about leaving Oregonians' business to Oregonians.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act and increased funding for the Older Americans Act programs. These programs, like Meals on Wheels, Senior Employment Service, Elder Abuse Prevention, they work. They help meet a critical need in a cost-effective fashion. The OAA helps seniors help themselves and provides a host of necessary services. Let us use Meals on Wheels for example. The last numbers we have are from 1995. They show that this program fed 2.4 million people 127 million meals, with about $470 million. What that works out to is less than $4 a meal. That is delivered to their home, and that is about half of that senior's daily food supply. Mr. Speaker, 41 percent of Meals on Wheels programs have waiting lists, meaning a lot of seniors are not having their needs met with the current level of funding. Without Meals on Wheels and the volunteers who help run it so cheaply and efficiently, millions of seniors would be forced to leave their own homes for nursing homes. That is not good for them and it is not good for us. Or worse, they would go hungry. But we do not need this as an example. We know this is a successful program. I have worked with and talked to hundreds and hundreds of these volunteers who are out there volunteering every day helping other seniors. It is a program that works. It is a program that is so efficient, I cannot believe we have not increased the funding for this or reauthorized it. We have thousands and thousands and thousands of volunteers across this country. Just in one senior center in one tiny part of my district, there are over 800 volunteers that work in programs that are authorized under the Older Americans Act. Multiply those in my district many times over, and then in the State, and across the Nation, and we have thousands. But a successful program is one that is continually updated in order to work efficiently. We would not buy a car and never put gasoline in it. We would not buy a computer and not buy software for it. So why would we as a government allow a program like the Older Americans Act to go on and on without revising and improving its functions? We knew in the last Congress there were some problems with the current act. We knew there were some programs that would work more effectively if streamlined and coordinated on the local level. We knew there was an increasing demand on this act to deal with the concerns of the expanding senior population. We knew it was in our best interest to continue to support the programs that successfully allow seniors to live independently, healthy and productive lives. We still know all of those things. Now it is time to act on that knowledge. The longer we put off action on this matter, the more endangered those precious services become. An increase in the Older Americans Act funding is also essential in order to accommodate the additional individuals and responsibility that come under its care. If we do not increase the funding now, we cripple OAA's ability to respond to our senior needs just as we enter these baby boom years. OAA funding has not even dealt with inflation nor the number of seniors coming or its expanding duties. Without an increase in funding, we cannot expect to continue to provide the services that we value in our communities in the years ahead. We must look toward reauthorization as a chance to make needed changes in the Older Americans Act. It is a chance to streamline programs and make what is already government's most cost-effective programs even more efficient. We can also direct the resources toward current and new programs that they desire most. These adjustments are critical. We cannot afford to wait any longer. We have a responsibility to the seniors of this Nation and to the communities that benefit from the programs like Meals on Wheels, long-term care advocates, and elder abuse prevention that the OAA provides. Mr. Speaker, it is time to reauthorize the Older Americans Act and turn our knowledge into action.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule which I do not think moves us forward, but in fact takes us a step backwards in addressing an issue that is vital to our national security. The year 2000 problem is a far cry from some Orson Welles spoof. Rather, the inability of many government and in fact private sector computers to correctly recognize the date after the year 2000 is a problem that can have dramatic impacts on our financial markets, payments of Social Security, Medicare benefits, and certainly our national defense system. The Committee on Appropriations wisely made the decision to provide $1.6 billion for the so-called Y2K reprogramming in this legislation for a very good reason. If the computer problems are not remedied, the change could cause total shutdown of many systems upon which the defense community relies. There are approximately 2,800 critical computer networks and systems at DoD. So far, less than 30 percent of those systems have had the year 2000 problem fixed, including those that control the Global Positioning System, the ballistic missile attack early warning system. We have heard all of these before. Some of my colleagues have suggested that we repackage these funds into a so-called emergency spending bill much like the one introduced earlier this year that, frankly, has been sitting untouched for 6 months. We cannot wait 6 months. We cannot wait 6 weeks. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we need to address this problem now. The GAO estimates at current pace it will take more than 3\1/2\ years for DoD to fix the problem in the remainder of its systems. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. We cannot wait. This critical problem needs to be addressed now. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. No.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly end by talking about this is really something the American public wants. It is something that we have with the Shays-Meehan bill. We have a bipartisan bill. All you have to do when you talk about influences, all you have to do is look at what has happened to the tobacco bill. Somehow or another, we have to restore the faith in the American public so that everyone has a voice in our system. We need campaign finance reform, and we need it now. The Shays-Meehan is our best chance.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is the ``Little Engine that Could,'' and it is picking up steam. Last night, the leadership on the other side of the aisle once again tried to derail this train with a cynical commission bill that was heavy on talk and light on action. When that failed, real reform was pulled from the schedule while the leadership discussed new ways to use parliamentary tricks to stop action on the Meehan-Shays bill. Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to matter to the leadership on the other side of the aisle that the American people are crying out for reform. It does not seem to matter to the leadership on the other side of the aisle that both Democrats and Republicans want reform now. It does not seem to matter to the leadership on the other side of the aisle that we were promised an open, honest debate on campaign finance reform. Because when it comes to campaign finance reform, the leadership on the other side of the aisle seems to be all about promises made and promises broken, because it is time to pass real campaign reform now.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, it is time for Congress to get its head out of the sand. Just how out of touch is this place? Will we look real campaign finance reform right in the eye and blink? I hope not, because the American people have lost trust in the system. They firmly believe that elections are bought and sold. We all know that soft, unregulated money plays an enormous role in this disillusionment of the problem. This campaign financial loophole allows virtually unlimited contributions from wealthy special interests, and almost every dollar garnered from this is raised at the Federal level. Madam Chairman, let us be clear: Soft money can lead to the threat of corruption, the appearance of corruption, or real corruption. Let us ban it.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, saving Social Security is absolutely critical. Social Security is one of the cornerstones that has made our country great. It was 50 years ago, or more than 50 years ago, when it took great courage on the part of FDR to stand up and say that too many older Americans were living in poverty and that we needed to do something about it, just as it takes great courage on the part of this President to stand up and say, we cannot let the Social Security program become unglued at this time. It is time to ensure that Social Security will exist for generations to come. Today I want to thank the Members on the other side of the aisle who have followed the President's lead and said that our budget surplus must be reserved for saving Social Security first. I look forward to working with leaders from both parties to develop solutions that will ensure the continued success of Social Security without putting the retirement benefits of current and future citizens at risk.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit an article to the Record entitled ``Digital Watch; The Big Picture'' by Jerry Meyer, the Chief Executive and President of Tektronix, a global high- technology company based in Wilsonville, Oregon. This article describes the challenges and implications of the transition to the digital transmission of television, telecommunications and information technology signals. Directed by Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission mandated a ten-year period for the transition from analog to digital broadcasting. This industry imperative to disseminate the new technology has not necessarily created an instant demand for digital products, but it has driven the development of remarkable new interactive technologies. Mr. Meyer, whose firm is a global distributor of high technology components, including testing and interactive video equipment, is in an ideal position to observe trends in the digital industries. While emphasizing the unpredictability of these new markets, his article offered me a clear perspective on the possibilities that digital broadcasting creates and the scramble now taking place to capitalize on those opportunities. Thus, I am inserting this article into the Record and commend it to all of my colleagues for its reasoned approach to the new digital era. Digital Watch: The Big Picture (By Jerome Meyer) Even if you've heard the hype and seen the product demos-- amazing color and clarity, images so real they look almost 3D--chances are you haven't given much thought to their consequences. Most people never worry about how a broadcast signal reaches their television set or computer terminal, and most don't have to in order to lead profitable, happy lives. Yet the move from a world of analog signals to a digital version, raises a host of questions. Just how much will consumers shell out for enhanced quality? Who will deliver it to them? With telephone companies, Internet service providers, and media powerhouses all scrambling for a ride on the wave, what will the much-heralded ``digital world'' of the future really look like? Now You See It, Now You Don't A virtual hurricane, the digital revolution is sweeping the worlds of telecommunications, broadcasting, and multimedia, carrying consumers from the analog world of The Ed Sullivan Show to the digitally supercharged computer games of Sega Saturn. Like all transitions, this event isn't monolithic, and it isn't pre-programmed. As the laboratory tools of digital conversion and compression become available at a price that makes them salable, programmers, movie studios, producers, and advertisers are applying their creative genius to the new delivery system. A simple comparative glance at a digital television picture and an analog picture will give you a hint of how drastic the improvement really is. The superfine visual and audio quality is brought to you thanks to a technology chain that links satellite makers, cable operators, content providers, and electronic manufacturers. Even telephone companies like GTE (which recently bid to buy Internet service provider BBN Corp. for $616 million) and US West are fast expanding beyond their traditional delivery mediums. Digital technology will make packaging offerings of wireless services such as paging and data transfer more widely available. In a sense, the perceived needs of the consumer are driving this revolution into a digital state of high quality and dependability. It is no longer enough to deliver the consumer to another technology barrier. Motorola's global scale Iridium project is just one attempt to deliver digital technology into a world marketplace. Are consumers responding? Without a doubt. Although just 150 commercial satellites spin overhead today, you can expect to find the sky cluttered with almost 2,000 of them in just seven years. When you consider that that could provide a market of more than 1 billion people, it's no wonder media moguls like Rupert Murdoch are running hard to put in place the content and capability to service those markets. There are an estimated 50 million people surfing the Internet. Last year, computer sales outpaced those of televisions. At the same time, it is clear that the consumer is not wedded to a particular delivery system and will shop for price and quality. The mad scramble for digital conversion has created dynamic responses, but it has also caused some confusion. From my vantage point at Tektronix, I am able to measure the needs of the people who are using digital technology everyday. As demand grows for better ways to test and measure the digital stream of information--whether into a TV or onto a computer screen--I see some patterns and possible pitfalls. The debate over whether consumers will use their televisions or their computers for digital images ends up being about ease of use. Whether my ``network appliance'' is made by Sony or Philips or comes mail order from Dell or Compaq doesn't really matter. What matters to the consumer is: Is it better than what I already have? Does it cost more or less? What programming or content will it give me access to? Some pundits and news media would have us believe that 90 million television owners are going to drive down to the store Monday morning and buy brand new digital televisions. Current prices for the screens make that unlikely, but just as with the VCR, when consumers finally get a glimpse of something that is demonstrably better--and digital is-- computer makers and consumer electronic makers will have a great opportunity. Most large-scale manufacturers are already making plans for the 10-year analog to digital changeover mandate by the FCC. Already, computer makers and their chip allies, like Intel, see an advantage to being on the consumer's desktop. And, of course, our Pacific Northwest neighbor, Microsoft, has taken advantage of the way your appliance works in order to serve up information, news, and data. Microsoft recently demonstrated its desire to be part of the ``screen experience'' by paying $425 million for WebTV and $1 billion for a stake in cable operator Comcast. Your future Internet experience--whether at home or at your place of business--will not be rooted in the appliance, but in the value it adds to your work or social life. Business- to-business on-line commerce is already beginning, and structures are now being built to handle grocery shopping, educational material, and banking for consumers. The growth in e-mail tells me that people want to communicate with each other, but it also offers a way to transform learning and education. Applications will continue to drive the digital marketplace, with technical solutions always playing catch-up to the needs and desires of the consumer. Continuing price pressure and the persistent need to lower costs--whether through falling chip prices or sinking telephone charges-- will also spur the digital conversion. But this urge to go digital isn't without its pitfalls. Intense efforts and great spending by some of the best and brightest companies has yet to secure a business model where the consumer will pay enough money to make sophisticated, costly technology a worthwhile business investment. Interactive television trials are now showing the promise they once had, though other kinds of digital interactive technology is securing a market. Digital editing and digital transmission of images and sound are no longer revolutionary. The fact that it is my own inclination to actually go to the movies with my wife, rather than rent a video as our children do, underscores the point that all consumers--and all businesses--don't embrace change at the same speed. The ``rush'' to replace the analog technology of vacuum tubes with the high-speed elegance of chips and computers has taken time, and that will continue. My perspective is perhaps a little different than most, because I've been able to see how technology has become more and more a consumer product. Turning out oscilloscopes for the U.S. Navy--our old business--isn't exactly the kind of thing that gets you headlines, unless there is a war on. But the initial concept of testing and measuring the quality and consistency of technology is at the root of this digital revolution--and that just happens to be our business. The Digital Watch When you see a digital television picture you'll know it. The clarity and quality is downright amazing, and some digital broadcasting currently being received by digital set- top boxes looks almost 3D. Even with current standard televisions, signals transmitted digitally via a satellite make Thursday night's Seinfeld episode shine even brighter. The big question has never been, ``Gee, is this neat stuff?'' The real question that keeps companies like Intel, Sony, and TimeWarner up at night is: ``How much will consumers pay for this technology?'' Several events have coincided to make this a particularly exciting shift for the industry. Not only are huge sums of money being spent on a variety of new delivery systems, but government deregulation also throws these new technologies into the push-and-pull of the marketplace. When telephone deregulation started back in the mid-1980s, the personal computer was outside the reach--and want--of most people. Technology issues revolved around speed, size, and standards. By embracing open standards of technology--a concept similar to that of everyone agreeing on grades of gasoline--the PC business boomed; even the Goliath IBM learned a lesson trying to hang onto standards, while companies like Dell Computer, Compaq, and Microsoft gave new meaning to the mixing of technology and growth. In terms of going digital, Murdoch's Fox television network is the most aggressive entertainment company. They are using the digital shift to bring costs down as well as to build a satellite distribution network that stretches around the globe. I get a first-hand look at what these companies want to do because they've got to know what the technology can do before they deploy it. Whether transmitting stock prices or television programs, you have to use technology to deliver it to the customer. Right now, other broadcasters (CBS, NBC, and ABC) are steering a conservative course. There's some good reason for this. They have all been through the cable wars and were told that their traditional dominance would be washed away like Gilligan and his friends. With a massive capital spending campaign to finance this government-mandated switch-over from analog to digital transmission, no one wants a false start. The market players know that digital will be the de facto standard in the next century. Ditigal technology will allow companies to provide more information to consumers as well as create challenges relating to costs and development. The digital world will blur the lines between data and video on a computer screen and the entertainment and news we have grown accustomed to on our television sets. Switching Channels One clear benefit of the digital world will be greater choice. Individuals will be able to personalize the kinds of information they receive as well as the medium they want to use. Hand-held digital telephones with news, messages, Internet connections, as well as the more mundane tasks of scheduling, telephoning, and electronic files will be packed into small cost-effective devices. Companies such as Motorola, Ericson, and Sony will lead the consumer charge in this area, but an entire behind-the-scenes technology deployment will have taken place--unseen by the average customer. Digital standards provide the framework for all the information traveling the airwaves. As broadcasting, production, and distribution players battle for consumers, they will all be using digital tools for combat. Traditional broadcasting will be using two-way technology to connect with viewers; production companies will have new video and audio capabilities to engage the audience; and distribution will follow the customer from room to room and from city to city. Imagine video technology at a reasonable price, bundled, as part of a wider array of technology information choices. One channel might be news; another might be a conversation with co-workers or family members. Digital technology literally unleashes whole new combinations of images and sounds that can go anywhere and be transported for a fraction of their traditional cost. While the corporate landscape will be dominated by some of the same players competing today, it is fair to say that everyone is watchful of new entries. As digital technology becomes more and more pervasive, it also will present new opportunities for startup and new ventures. Whether it is video browsers that let computer users watch full motion, digital video with sound, digital signals sent via satellites, or new digital transmission towers, the consumer will be clamoring for the best technology at the best price. The challenge for the consumer electronics industry is to deliver it.

Ms. HOOLEY

Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening when the House was voting I missed rollcall votes number 64, 65, 66 and 67 because my flight to Washington from Oregon was cancelled. I respectfully request that the record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted yes on 64, yes on 65, yes on 66 and yes on 67.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, while I rise today in opposition to this resolution, I want to clearly state my desire to bring our soldiers home from the former Yugoslavia. I am deeply concerned whenever our troops are sent into harms way, especially when the mission takes them to foreign shores. We must offer the highest respect for the sacrifices that those soldiers, our sons and daughters, are willing to make to protect our nation and maintain our role as the leader of the free world. Furthermore, we should commend them for the remarkable achievements that they have made in the former Yugoslavia. This resolution, unfortunately, does just the opposite. By pulling our troops out of Bosnia, just as the Dayton Accords and the peacekeeping mission is beginning to take effect, would send a message that we do not think that our troops are playing a critical role in keeping the peace in that region. It would also indicate to nations across the globe that the United States is unwilling to help implement the foreign policy agreements that it is involved in crafting. If the United States withdraws its troops, our allies are certain to follow. And without a strong international presence in the region, hostilities in Bosnia will inevitably resume. How can we stand by and watch this tenuous peace deteriorate, nullifying the extensive efforts of our soldiers and the diplomatic achievements of the past several years? The fact of the matter is that the President has a plan to reduce the number of troops in Bosnia and, as much as I want to bring the remainder home immediately, I truly believe that this would be irresponsible. Additionally, this resolution would relegate vital foreign policy decisions to the courts. While some Constitutional questions regarding the War Powers Act remain unclear in the view of many of my colleagues, Congress must not delegate its responsibility to decide on whether or not to continue a particular peacekeeping mission. This resolution shirks our duties as elected representatives. I cannot support a resolution that is both irresponsible, weak on U.S. foreign policy, and inhumane to the people of Bosnia. Thus, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my congratulations and recognize the stellar achievement of Jeff Golimowski, a senior at Newport High School in Newport, Oregon. Jeff has been named the first place National winner of the Veterans of Foreign Wars ``Voice of Democracy'' essay competition. In his winning essay he gave ample proof of his good citizenship, and he showed his concern for making his voice heard in our democracy. Out of over 100,000 students participating in this, the 51st year of the competition, his essay was singled out. I can see why. Jeff embodies the ideals that we as a society try to teach our young. As a product of our public school system, he represents a commitment to patriotism and high-minded idealism. As an American, he displays a respect for our collective past and a shining enthusiasm for our future. Jeff, if you ever want a job as a speech-writer, give me a call. Congratulations and good luck in all your future endeavors.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, sometimes standing on the floor of the House of Representatives is like standing in an echo chamber. As soon as one member says they want to do something to help rebuild our public schools and provide a better education for our children, everybody starts saying it. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop talking about it and to start doing something about it. That is why we have introduced legislation that would reduce class sizes by hiring an additional 100,000 qualified teachers, and legislation that would give states and local school districts help with new school construction and new renovation. I believe these bills are a great opportunity for every legislator who says they care about education to follow up their words with actions. If Members are serious about making improvements in our education system, I urge them to cosponsor these bills.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, as a mom, my children used to love for me to read the Alice in Wonderland story. They used to ah and ooh and giggle as I read it, because left meant right, up meant down, and nothing was what it seemed to be. While I participate in the campaign finance reform debate in the House I cannot help but think back to those days of reading that story to my children. They would have laughed and giggled because we have got reform proposals that do not reform anything and a lot of people screaming about a broken system, but unwilling to do anything to fix it. The trouble is, this is not Alice in Wonderland, so it is not funny. It is time to stop playing games and bring real and honest campaign finance reform to the floor for a vote.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, after more than a year of stalling, the Republican leadership has finally agreed to schedule a vote on campaign finance reform this spring. I am thrilled about that. The question, though, is a vote on what? Will it be a vote on real reform, which includes a ban on unregulated soft money and more disclosure, like the American people want? Or will it be a vacant or destructive bill that is soft pedaled as reform? Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge you to do the right thing by bringing a bill that includes real reform to the floor for a vote. The American people will not settle for anything less.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for their excellent work in bringing this legislation before us today. As many Members know, I had some concerns about this legislation, so I have had the opportunity to work closely with, again, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. We share the same concerns about Oregon and he has worked very hard on this issue. I want to thank the gentleman for all he has done. I am pleased that this resolution has been reached, and I appreciate the fine work of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], and to the extent that he has worked in good faith with us on this concern, I thank the gentleman very much. I support charter schools as a means of providing expanded educational choice for parents, and I support the intentions of this legislation. This will allow us in Oregon to continue to offer parents and teachers that have previously benefited from this program an opportunity to continue benefiting. I strongly support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, it's time to overhaul the Internal Revenue Service--the most inefficient and the least user-friendly Government agency in America. If any Member of this Congress still has doubts about legislation to overhaul our Nation's tax collecting agency, they should consider two cases of IRS abuse that I have been confronted with in the last few months. The first involves a woman whose bank account was frozen because her ex-husband died owing a tax debt that he had accumulated after the couple's divorce. The second involves a single mother who is working her way through college. The IRS lost the rebate check she was owed. The check was deposited in someone else's bank account, and 8 months later she still hasn't gotten her money--let alone the interest she would have earned on the refund. These women are representative of the myriad of miscalculations and errors which have plagued the IRS in recent years. My district is not alone in facing an out of control IRS, naturally, and the difficulties that have cost these two women money, time, and peace of mind are repeated daily with alarming regularity around the country. Reform of this beleaguered agency can no longer be postponed, and I believe that the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act accomplishes this task in a fair, efficient and bipartisan manner. Once this bill becomes law, I am confident that taxpayers will soon be blessed with a fairer, more user-friendly Internal Revenue Service.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express some reservations that I have about this legislation. But first of all, I would like to thank my colleague, I would like to thank members of the committee, especially the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], chairman of the subcommittee, for the excellent work in bringing this bill before us today. I agree with the sponsors of this bill that we must give States the flexibility to help foster the kind of innovation that charter schools provide while maintaining high levels of accountability. Parents, teachers, and administrators throughout the Nation have indicated again and again that they want the flexibility to try different approaches of educating their children, and we should support their efforts. Public charter schools expand the choices for parents, students, and typically they incorporate a great deal of input from our local communities. There is a bipartisan agreement that charter schools have been effective in many cases, and the best way to continue this progress is to provide the additional start-up support for new charter schools. The primary role of the Federal Government is to provide the support by sending money back to the States for the planning and the implementation of these new schools. However, that role is not to dictate to the States how they should run their charter school programs. Mr. Chairman, I intend to offer an amendment to this legislation that would maintain existing language regarding State laws required to receive support from the Federal program. Charter schools, by design, are experiments in systemic reform. I am sure that the provisions in this bill were designed to increase the number of charter schools nationwide. We have heard that many times tonight. However, this legislation puts Congress in the role of deciding how State legislators should write their laws. This bill does provide support for that innovation by extending the authorized amount for the program. But, at the same time, those States that already have enabling legislation, this bill says they must write new statutes or lose their funding. We should stick to providing funds that help establish new charter schools. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment that I will introduce tomorrow and resist imposing new standards on these States.