Darlene Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague from South Dakota for his great words about how important this is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman), one of the States that has had mandatory labeling for the last 20 years.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today with the support of my colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), I bring a motion to the floor to instruct conferees to the farm bill regarding country-of- origin labeling. Our friends on the conference committee have an incredibly difficult job to do, and I know they have been working hard. This is not an easy piece of legislation to agree on. However, one thing they should all be able to agree on is country-of-origin labeling. This is something that farmers want, this is something that consumers want, and this is something that your constituents want. There are hundreds of local, regional, and national organizations that support country-of-origin labeling. These include the American Farm Bureau, National Farmers Union, United Stockgrowers of America, National Consumers League, Consumer Federation of America, Public Citizen, and hundreds of other organizations. I have in front of me a potato and an onion. These were purchased at the grocery store last night. Where were they grown? I have not a clue. Now, I have a hat. I know exactly where this hat is made. This I just wear on my head; this is what I put in my mouth. Which is the most important to know where it is made? I think it is the food you put in your mouth. It is my right to know as a consumer where that food comes from. When I walk into that grocery store to buy food for my family, I want to make sure that it is grown in a place that is safe. What if I want to support American agriculture and buy American? I guess I just have to hope that it was made in the United States or grown in the United States. Our food is some of the safest produced, and the men and women that produce that food want Americans to know where it came from. Our growers have to comply with strict, exhaustive local, State and Federal regulations governing the use of land, water, labor and chemicals, rules that many of our trading partners do not comply with, such as worker safety, sanitation, environmental protection. Opponents of this amendment contend that the costs for the industry, including retailers, to comply with country-of-origin labeling requirements are too great and the price of the products and produce will rise as a result. This is simply untrue. We already have a great test case currently in place. The fourth most populous State in the country, Florida, has had the country-of-origin labeling requirements in place for over 20 years. If you take a poll of the people in Florida, they will tell you by 96 percent, they love it. Thirteen of our biggest trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, Japan, France, and the United Kingdom, require country-of-origin labeling on produce imported into their countries. When the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) and I brought an amendment to the farm bill on the floor that would require all fresh fruit and vegetables to clearly be marked with its country of origin, this body responded overwhelmingly; 296 Members, almost 300 people, supported our amendment. All we are doing today is asking our colleagues to honor the wishes of its Members and retain these provisions as written into the House and Senate bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for all of his hard work on this piece of legislation. I guess I am a little different from some of the speakers so far because I think that this legislation before us is an improvement over the current system. Is it perfect? No. Does it go far enough? Probably not. Will it prevent another Enron? Who knows? I do not think it is within the realm of possibility that we will ever be able to prevent people from being greedy and deceiving shareholders. Every single one of us knows that if this bill was introduced before the Enron scandal, it probably would have had a handful of cosponsors and probably never seen the light of day. But now we are being told that it is completely inadequate and does not do anything to address the problems that led to the collapse of Enron. I disagree. This is the bottom line. H.R. 3763 is going to strengthen our financial reporting system which in turn will strengthen our capital markets. It is a huge step in the right direction. However, that does not mean that this legislation is comprehensive or that it could not stand improvement. For example, it completely ignores the President's call for corporate governance reform. It simply calls for a study on whether CEOs who engage in fraud should surrender their stock options. The President does not think we need to study this matter. He has publicly stated that they should disgorge those earnings. The President also does not think corporate officers who engage in fraud should be permitted to serve on another board. But again H.R. 3763 is silent on this matter. Is this bill better than what we currently have? Yes. But I want to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who truly want to protect the interests of investors to also support Ranking Member LaFalce's substitute.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2646.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2646. The form of the motion is as follows: The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to bill H.R. 2646 be instructed to agree to the provisions contained in section 1001 of the Senate amendment and section 944 of the House bill, relating to country of origin labeling requirements for agricultural commodities, but to insist on the 6-month implementation deadline contained in the House bill.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, we will not find a Member on this side of the aisle who is not 100 percent supportive of winning this war against terrorism and bolstering our homeland security. However, we cannot forget our domestic priorities. Over the next 5 years, we will cut over $96 billion below what it costs to maintain these programs at their current level. For the next few minutes what I would like to do is put a human face on some of these funding cuts, and maybe people watching this debate back home will have a better understanding of what this budget does. For example, everybody knows that health care costs are skyrocketing on an annual basis. As a result, 40 million Americans cannot afford health insurance. That includes 9 million children. This budget pretends that these people do not exist. Compounding that situation is the fact that there are some programs that provide some minimal health care. For example, the rural health care program, it is cut by 41 percent. Telehealth programs are cut by 84 percent. Another problem is the freezing of funding for the Healthy Start program. It is for expectant mothers for prenatal care. I cannot think of any Member here who thinks that depriving mothers of prenatal care is something that we should be doing. Then there is the matter of our homeland security. The people on the front line are police officers. Yet this budget completely eliminates, not cuts, eliminates the Department of Justice local law enforcement block grant, which is designed to put more cops on our streets. As a result, hundreds of communities across the United States, large and small, will see less cops on the street, meaning we can expect an increase in crime because this budget, as I just stated, eliminates this program. Then there are our public schools. Every State is having problems with revenues and high enrollments. Just a little over 2 months ago, we had the No Child Left Behind Act signed into law. Most people voted for it. If Members will recall, President Bush made this a pillar of his State of the Union address and rightly so, ensuring that every child has a right to a first-rate education. So what happened to this program? You can see that is what is authorized, that is what we enacted last year, and this is what we are proposing, a $100 million cut just from last year. As a former teacher, I have also talked to educators in Oregon. One of the things they begged me not to do was pass another Federal program and another Federal mandate without the funds. We are not giving them the funds. Then there is special education. We are funding that at 18 percent. What did the Federal Government promise to do? Twenty-seven years ago we said we would fund it at 40 percent. Are we doing that? No. We are now starting down the same path with the No Child Left Behind Act. Again we make a promise we are not going to keep. Mr. Chairman, to talk further about education, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), a former teacher and principal.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget so we can go back to work and put together a genuine bipartisan plan that truly addresses the ever-growing needs of our country.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to once again alert those who may be watching in Oregon and across the Nation to the disappearance of two young girls from my district. Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond, both 13 years of age, students of Gardiner Middle School in Oregon City and teammates on the school dance team, have been reported missing. Ashley disappeared January 9, and Miranda vanished March 8. Both were last seen by their mothers early in the morning as they left their homes at the Newell Village Creek apartments to catch the bus to school on South Beaver Creek Road. Investigators continue to hold out hope that the girls will come home. They believe that the girls may have been abducted by a person or persons that they knew. If Members have any information regarding Ashley and Miranda's whereabouts, I ask them to please contact the FBI office or the Oregon City Police Department at 503-657-4964.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Oregon National Guard's 42nd Air Ambulance Company, headquartered in our State capital, Salem, Oregon, received word it had been activated in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. The Air Ambulance is no stranger to call-ups. They were last activated to serve in Bosnia, where they garnered heavy acclaim. Nor is the Oregon Guard a stranger to call-ups. Although we have just over 6,000 Guardsmen and women, Oregon trails only Texas and Georgia in the number of activated troops, and each of those States has 20,000-plus soldiers and airmen. That is a testament to the Oregon Guard's military readiness, especially in light of the fact that we do not have any active duty military bases in our State, except for Umatilla Depot, which is largely a repository for chemical weapons. As I speak, F-15s from the Oregon Air Guard are patrolling the skies above North America, being assisted by air traffic control units. All this is happening while an additional 500 Guardsmen are preparing for a lengthy deployment in the Sinai Desert, and a military intelligence company from Lake Oswego is rotating through Bosnia. Madam Speaker, these deployments come at a high personal and professional cost. Activated Guardsmen and women not only leave behind their families, they leave behind careers and their own businesses. Additionally, the Pentagon often activates these units for 179 days, a day short of the 180-day-period which would give nonprior-service Guards VA benefits. Many of these activated troops lose their private health insurance, forcing their families to enroll in military health insurance plans, which means a whole new set of doctors, dentists and pharmacists to deal with. The list of hardships goes on and on. They are well known to anyone who cares about the impact this war is having on our local communities. That is why I think it is important that our Guards and Reservists receive more than just a pat on the back for the job they are doing in this war against terrorism. I am developing comprehensive legislation which would remedy some of the concerns I just mentioned. The Citizen Soldier and the American Patriot Relief Act recognizes the sacrifices made by our citizen soldiers, and I look forward to sharing it with my colleagues. Until then, I ask that every American keep all of our troops in their thoughts and their prayers. It is because of our military men and women and their service, and their service alone, that we enjoy the privilege of meeting in this institution, free from terror and other failed attempts to strip away our liberty. I thank all of our military men and women for their service.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to alert those who may be watching in Oregon and across the Nation to the tragic disappearance of two young teenagers from my district. Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond, both 13 years of age, students at Gardiner Middle School in Oregon City and teammates on the school dance team, have been recently reported missing. Ashley disappeared January 9, and Miranda vanished last Friday, March 8. Both were last seen by their mothers early in the morning as they left their homes at the Newell Village Creek apartments to catch the bus to school on South Beavercreek Road. The FBI has recently stated that Ashley and Miranda's disappearances appear to be related and that foul play may be involved. If anyone has any information regarding Ashley or Miranda's whereabouts, please contact your local FBI offices or the Oregon City Police Department. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of these girls and law enforcement as they continue to work tirelessly for the safe return of these girls.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would either withdraw this proposal today so that, in fact, we could do this amendment as a stand- alone bill.

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

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in complete support of the idea behind my colleague from Pennsylvania's amendment to H.R. 2341. It seems perfectly logical to want to know exactly whether or not this legislation is really needed by requesting a report on Federal class action settlements. We need to know what we are doing. This report would include recommendations on how to ensure settlements are fair, that they are in the best interests of the plaintiffs, and that the expenses awarded to the lawyers are appropriate. I end up asking myself, why are we considering this as an amendment? Why not its own legislation? Why would we pass legislation and then amend it with a requirement that we be told whether or not the legislation was actually necessary in the first place? That makes no sense. I propose today that we work together and pass this amendment as stand-alone legislation and then revisit this whole area of class action reform when we have the recommendations from the report and can act accordingly. To date, we have not been provided with comprehensive data justifying the changes proposed in this legislation. The report would give Congress a chance to really understand whether or not these reforms are even necessary. I offer today to spearhead an effort in this body to quickly adapt stand-alone legislation introduced by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) that would require such a report.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, the American School Counselor Association has declared the first full week of February as ``National School Counseling Week.'' Congress recently recognized the importance of school counseling through the reauthorization and appropriation of the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling Improvement Act of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. School counselors have long advocated that the American education system must leave no child behind. Even though students face myriad challenges every day, including peer pressure, depression, and school violence, school counselors help develop the total child by guiding their students toward academic, personal, social and career development. In addition, school counselors are usually the only professionals in a school building trained in both education and mental health. For this reason, school counselors were instrumental in helping students, teachers and parents deal with the trauma of the aftermath of Sept. 11. Nevertheless, the role and responsibilities of school counselors are often misunderstood and as a result, under budgetary constraints, the school counselor position is often among the first to be eliminated. The school counselor shortage is prevalent today, as evidenced by the fact that the current national average ratio of school counselors to students is 1 to 561. The American School Counselor Association, the American Counseling Association, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and other organizations recommend a ratio of 1 to 250. I urge my colleagues to support National School Counseling Week during the first full week of February and I urge communities across the country to participate with appropriate ceremonies and activities. The American School Counselor Association recommends that parents and students should develop a collaborative relationship with their school counselors. School boards and administrators should continue to support students' academic, personal, social and career development through school counseling. Mr. Speaker, our students' futures are important to us all and school counselors work every day to ensure that our students are well-rounded socially and academically. Let us take a moment to thank our school counselors for their ongoing work in our schools and communities during times of national crisis or students' personal crises by supporting National School Counseling Week.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, hopefully today will be a day where the American public wins. Five years ago as a freshman class president, I joined new Members of the 105th Congress view this institution and the way they view the White House. We pledged that no matter what or how tough the going got, we would clean up the way elections are run. We knew that massive amounts of unregulated money have a corrosive influence on our political process. In fact, unregulated soft-money giving has increased by 137 percent since we made our pledge. And so here we are, on the verge of finally doing something about it by passing campaign finance reform. But if we do not pass a clean version of the Shays-Meehan bill, the campaign finance reform obstructionists will once again rest easy, knowing that the will of the public will be subverted by special interests, only this time in conference committee. It is time we kept our promise. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on the Ney substitute as well as any poison pill amendments that will be considered.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the committee for the terrific job they have done on a piece of legislation that we need to pass. I rise today to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from Maryland. Millions of Americans now enjoy the convenience and security of voting at home by absentee ballot or, in my State, through an all vote by mail system. Is there anything in this bill that would define the home as a polling place with the intention of stopping or curbing absentee and at-home voting or, as we know it, vote by mail?

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

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter for the Record: State of Oregon, State Capitol, Salem, OR, December 3, 2001. Hon. Darlene Hooley, House of Representatives, Longworth Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Hooley: It has come to my attention that H.R. 3295, the Ney-Hoyer elections reform bill, may come to a vote in the House as early as this week. I support this legislation but I request your assistance in seeking clarification on one section of the bill prior to a vote of the House. Clarification of this section could be very important in protecting Oregon's vote-by-mail system, which as you know is supported by an overwhelming majority of Oregonians. Subtitle B--Voluntary Elections Standards, Section 221 (a)(1)(B), states that ``The Standards should provide that voters have the opportunity to correct errors at the precinct or other polling place, either within the voting equipment itself or in the operational guidelines to administrators for using the equipment, under conditions which assure privacy to the voter.'' I believe we need a clarification or assurance from the sponsors that they do not define the home as a polling place in a vote-by-mail or absentee voting environment. If the standard above were interpreted as applying to a home, it would have the effect of banning Oregon's vote-by-mail system for federal elections and absentee voting for federal elections in all states that allow it. It is hard to believe that the drafters intended to do such a thing, but a clarification could clear up any potential questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, contact Deputy Secretary of State Paddy McGuire or me at 503-986-1523. My Best, Bill Bradbury, Secretary of State.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a very special group of students from Molalla Elementary School. Like the rest of America, these girls and boys were shocked by the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. After a great deal of brainstorming, they agreed to raise $1,000 to send to the Families of Freedom scholarship fund which has been set up by former President Bill Clinton and former Senator Bob Dole. This fund will provide education assistance for postsecondary education to financially needy relatives of those killed or permanently disabled as a result of the terrorist attacks. I know that the students worked extremely hard to raise the $1,000. Some of them, I know, made great sacrifices to do this. I am so proud to represent the students of Molalla Elementary and thank them for their generous, heartwarming gift.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Earlier this week, the National Bureau of Economic Research announced the U.S. economy had been in recession since last March. This is not really shocking news for Oregon. Over the last year our economy has been battered, and right now we have the highest unemployment rate of any State outside of Alaska. Yesterday the Feds announced economic growth across the United States is continuing to lag despite our best efforts of slashing taxes and cutting interest rates. Well, in about 7 weeks, about 70 percent of reinsurance contracts will expire. The unavailability of terrorism coverage for commercial businesses could have devastating results for businesses and consumers. For the past several weeks the Committee on Financial Services worked to bring a bill to the floor that actually stood a chance of passing. In normal times it would take years, if not decades, to find a workable solution to this problem. Yet we were able to negotiate, we were able to pass a bill by voice vote, a bipartisan bill, to get us where we needed to be. Unfortunately, we find ourselves in a familiar place, a place that mocks our legislative process. Out of the clear blue sky, a half hour before the Committee on Rules met yesterday, a new bill was introduced. No committee hearings, no work sessions, no markups. A new bill. Not only did it shred the bill which came out of the Committee on Financial Services, it comes to the floor of the House loaded with legal reform, something that has no bearing whatsoever on the health of our economy. Someone once again decided that politics were more important than the good of business, the good of consumers and the good of the Nation. This is no laughing matter and this should not be business as usual. Even as I speak, primary insurance companies have started filing petitions with State regulators, seeking to exclude terrorism from commercial and personal policies. Do we really expect banks to loan cash to businesses who are not insured against acts of terror? Mr. Speaker, I stand here able and willing to reach across a political divide to bring a bill to the floor which makes sense, which will have a positive effect on our economy. But until then, I have no other choice than to oppose the rule, the underlying bill, and urge my colleagues to support the LaFalce-Kanjorski substitute.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, nearly 83 years ago, our Nation signed an armistice agreement that ended the First World War. Though many bright-eyed optimists heralded this as ``the war to end all wars,'' just two decades later the world was plunged into another war more brutal and bloody than the first. In both world wars, as in the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, millions of men and women answered their country's call to defend liberty at home and abroad. And now America finds itself embroiled in yet another war, a new conflict in which we stand together against the enemies of freedom and order. Just as we have so many times before, we send soldiers sailors, airmen, and Marines forth in the cause of liberty for which so many have given the last full measure of devotion. For their service and sacrifice our Nation's soldiers and veterans deserve our eternal gratitude. But they deserve more than gratitude, for our government has promised veterans that it will provide them health care both during and after their service. Yet we are constantly confronted with our failure to honor these promises. Our failure to meet our obligations to our veterans can be seen in the decision by the Portland Veterans Administration Medical Center (VAMC) to cut hundreds of staff and reduce services to thousands of veterans because of a multi-million dollar budget shortfall. Anyone who has used the VAMC in recent years knows that the center is already understaffed; hundreds of veterans contact me each year complaining about their inability to get in to see a doctor at the Portland VA. These cutbacks will affect the VAMC's new outpatient clinic in Salem, for which the community, veterans groups, and I have labored so hard to secure funds. Though the clinic was designed to save veterans from having to travel to Portland for care, the clinic will now take only a fraction of the patients it was meant to serve. Mr. Speaker, although many pay lip service to helping veterans, too few put the money where their mouth is. For example, President Bush campaigned extensively on veterans issues, but essentially requested the same amount of funding for the VA (when adjusted for inflation) as appropriated last year under President Clinton. Likewise, in this Conference Agreement, Congress plans to scarcely spend a billion dollars in excess of President Bush's request. I for one am tired of this charade and refuse to stand idly by I know that I am just one member of this body, and that I can't halt the inevitable passage of this spending bill. However, I will not lend my approval to a bill that ensures veterans in Oregon are worse off than they were at this time last year--especially when hundreds of Oregon Guardsmen and Reservists have been called up to fight in and support our first war of the 21st century. As such, I will vote against this spending bill, and I urge every single one of my colleagues to work with me to seek the allocation of more funding. Moreover, in the coming months, I plan to continue using my position on the House Budget Committee to fight to keep our promise to veterans. When we ask people to put their lives on the line to protect our country, we have a profound obligation to honor our promises to those whose service has kept our Nation free. The men and women who have served our country so honorably know best that freedom is never free, that it is only won and defended with great sacrifices. And we should honor those sacrifices by keeping our promises to our veterans.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

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