Darlene Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to recognize someone in my district, John O'Brien, who is the sheriff of Lincoln County. It is in honor of his 30 years of law enforcement in Lincoln County. I extend a sincere thank-you to Sheriff O'Brien on my own behalf and on behalf of all of the citizens of Lincoln County. Our laws are of little utility if no one makes sure they are followed. Seldom do we take the time to recognize the routine achievements that allow our Nation to function as it should. Many times it is only the pitfalls, the unfortunate breakdowns in our system, that draw attention to law enforcement. Such fickle evaluation of our law enforcement officers is manifestly unjust. The fact is that the grand majority of our days are without incident. The rule of law reigns. The people reject upheaval. These points demonstrate that the greatest victories of law enforcement are its contributions to regularity. We never recognize the people who give us plain, old, ordinary days. Perhaps we should. Accordingly, it is with great pride that I congratulate Sheriff John O'Brien. His bravery, dedication and service in building a safer and stronger community have provided the people with Lincoln County with thousands of wonderfully uneventful days. Sheriff O'Brien's career demonstrates a commitment to public service to which every officer of the law should aspire. John O'Brien began his career as a sheriff's deputy on February 6, 1973. The people of Lincoln County elected him to the office of Sheriff in 1994 and have subsequently seen fit to elect him to second and third terms. As all of us are aware, voters are properly cautious in selecting the people who represent them. An official's first election often indicates a willingness in the people to chance their own best interests on someone who has shown that he has the ability to succeed. That official's second election is very often a barometer of the official's contact with the electorate during his term of service. With his third election comes proof that he has served his constituents to their satisfaction. This is the satisfaction of Lincoln County reflected in its overwhelming choice of Sheriff O'Brien as the public face of law enforcement in their community. The confidence of Lincoln County's voting public in Sheriff O'Brien attests to the success of his efforts and his responsiveness to the people he serves. I would like to tell a little story about John O'Brien. Every time, at the coast, at Lincoln County, John is always at my meetings. And I keep asking him, ``John, you are always here.'' He says, ``I just want you to know that we are here, what our needs are, and I want you to understand about our community.'' To this day, John O'Brien remains an active protector of Lincoln County's public safety. He has risen to meet the challenges of an increasingly difficult job. Changing times have altered the issues with which Sheriff O'Brien is faced, but he has shown the ability to adapt and battle new problems with modern solutions. Lincoln County has in recent years encountered an increase in the manufacture and sale of methamphetamines. Sheriff O'Brien has turned this growing problem into an opportunity to spearhead innovative new crime-reduction strategies. Through his work with the federally supported Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team, Sheriff O'Brien has encouraged the sharing of resources and information between county agencies with an interest in reducing drug traffic. This work not only demonstrates Sheriff O'Brien's desire to get results, but also his complete disregard for who receives credit for those results. His willingness to work with other agencies in facing down a dangerous trend is evidence of a cooperative spirit and a will to succeed that we honor here today. Mr. Speaker, Sheriff O'Brien is worthy of recognition today for more than simply putting in his time. While 30 years of service in the public interest is a feat in itself, Sheriff O'Brien's true contribution has been in its effect on Lincoln County. Today we recognize that Lincoln County is a better place to live, to work and raise a family because of the devotion of Sheriff John O'Brien. I thank John for his 30 years of service given in the pursuit of safety, justice and peace.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of privacy protections for consumers nationwide as we consider the Do-Not- Call Implementation Act. My home state of Oregon is one of a growing number of states that have recognized the growing importance of protecting consumer privacy. Oregon's legislature has parlayed its respect for individual privacy into legislation regulating telemarketing calls. Like those in more than two dozen other states, Oregon's lawmakers have seen fit to compile a list of individuals who no longer wish to receive unsolicited telemarketing calls. And, they have vested the attorney general with the power to levy harsh sanctions on those firms who call listed consumers anyway. Oregon's law is powerful and effective because it allows for the local enforcement of telemarketing rules with narrow exceptions. Only political organizations and a few not-for-profit groups are exempt from the restrictions on calls placed to listed consumers. It is important to me that Federal legislation authorizing the creation of a national ``do not call'' registry does not unnecessarily widen the carefully carved exceptions of state laws like Oregon's. States that have developed strong protections on privacy should not see their rules watered down. I sincerely hope and expect that FTC will show deference to determinations made by states as it coordinates the national ``do not call'' registry with existing state lists. Consumers deserve the continued benefit of well-designed state laws. Though Oregon has a strong ``do not call'' system in place, I realize that many consumers live in places without state law protections. It is for these consumers that creation of a national ``do not call'' database is most vital. In Oregon, more than 125,000 people have added their names to the state managed ``do not call'' list. This is evidence of the widespread public appeal of being able to vastly reduce the number of sales calls to which one is subjected. Subsequently, I have no doubt that many Americans would consider a national ``do not call'' list a welcome weapon in fending off nightly invasions of their peace and privacy by telemarketers. In short, a national ``do not call'' registry would extend to all Americans the benefits already realized by subscribers to similar lists in varying states. I've heard firsthand from Oregonians about the success of their ``do not call'' list. I would very much like the expanded opportunity for privacy of ``do not call'' lists to be available nationwide. In the twenty-first century, our names, addresses, phone numbers and spending habits have all become commodities for commercial trade. Our telephones often function as much as a marketing tool for salesmen as a tool for our convenience. As a rule, unwanted sales calls come at the most inopportune time, steal our time from our families and children, and reduce the quality of our lives. We should make sure that Americans have real tools for mitigating the damage that telemarketing calls can have. That is why I support a national ``do not call'' registry that respects strong state privacy protections. That's why I support the recognition of those state lists by the FTC. And that's why I support the rights of consumers to control telemarketer access to their phones.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, today we rise to congratulate the University of Portland women's soccer team and Coach Clive Charles, on their 2002 Division I national title. As a former coach of young women athletes in Oregon, I recognize the commitment to endless practice and debilitating repetition that winning requires. The University of Portland Pilots women, in addition to making the sacrifices necessary for victory, represent the competitiveness, resolve, and success that collegiate athletics exist to foster. I urge the recognition of their recent feats as evidence of the triumph of the American spirit through sporting achievement, as well as the positive influence of Title IX on American society. The Pilots' road to the national championship required them to defeat seven squads that held coveted national rankings, proof that their opponents were among the Nation's finest. Those seven wins serve as a testament to the Pilots' collective commitment to playing hard, even against competition of the highest caliber. Surely there is no greater evocation of the collegiate athletic spirit than the competitiveness exhibited by the University of Portland women in those hard-fought wins against well-respected opponents. After a solid regular season, the Portland women entered the championship playoff as an eighth-seeded longshot to earn the eight- seeded longshot to earn the title. Nevertheless, they emerged as the lowest seeded team ever to win the tournament. The resolve necessary to prove rankings obsolete and critics wrong does not come without effort. In fact, many of us encourage our daughters and sons to participate in athletics with the express hope that they might develop a touch of that trait. With the University of Portland's women's soccer championship, we are reminded that resolve, the persistence in a goal despite exorbitant odds, is at least as important as size, talent, or experience. Undoubtedly, the Portland women have drawn on the strength and perseverence of their coach and leader, Clive Charles, whose battle with illness illustrates the victory over circumstance that we admire in collegiate athletics. Finally, in developing a national championship program, the University of Portland women's soccer team was animated by the desire to stack the building blocks of victory upon one another, to complete a project born of the architecture of accomplishment. A national title came to the University of Portland not through unprecedented fortuitous circumstance, but from the execution of a plan for success. Concentration on conference titles and tournament berths provided the women's soccer program a foundation of achievement on which it has placed a structure of greatness. In doing so, the Portland women have made the most important point about collegiate athletics. These women display the character built by extended effort, the satisfaction reaped by the tireless pursuit of a goal, and the success within reach of all who are given an opportunity. Let us also take this moment to remember that opportunity seized is dependent upon opportunity granted. Without Title IX, our discussion of women's soccer at the University of Portland might center on its lack of a team, rather than on its team's national championship. When women have the chance to compete in scholarship athletics at the collegiate level, we introduce into society a more competitive, balanced, and healthy universe of graduates. Title IX has extended the opportunity to compete to thousands who would not have had it otherwise. The University of Portland women attest to the potential of opportunities granted by Title IX. Again, I ask that we salute the 2002 National Champion University of Portland women's soccer team. May we look to them, now and in the future, as an exemplary symbol of what we hope to gain through our commitment to collegiate and scholastic athletics.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Just a few hours ago, this body overwhelmingly voted to give our President the authority to go to war in Iraq. The least we can do is give the same level of overwhelming support to our veterans. It is time to keep our promises to the men and women in our Armed Forces, the men and women who made a career of the military service, the men and women who have paid their taxes and were promised a pension. It is time to keep our promises. If Members want a list of offsets, I would be happy to go over those. The bottom line is, it is time to do what is fair. It is time to keep our promises to our veterans.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, the September 11 attack claimed the lives of thousands of Americans, and dozens more have perished in our war against terrorism. Just yesterday, a U.S. Marine was killed in Kuwait by al Qaeda-trained terrorists. According to press reports, our Marine was killed in a supposedly secure area, and Kuwaiti authorities are baffled over how the terrorists were able to carry out their murder. I bring up the death of this Marine because it should serve as a reminder that there are no guarantees in war. We must think through the consequences of a war in Iraq and get answers to our questions. Because if we do not ask the tough questions now, in a few short weeks, while Americans are comfortably at home doing their last- minute holiday shopping, hundreds of thousands of our troops are going to be deployed to another combat zone. That, in turn, makes each and every one of us taking part in this debate responsible for our national security and the welfare of our troops. This vote is undoubtedly one of the most important that many of us will ever cast. This is not a vote on whether the President of the United States should be able to broaden our war against terrorism to include Saddam Hussein. It is a vote on whether now is the best time to attack, given that we do not yet have a new U.N. Security Council resolution or the support of our closest friends and allies in the international community. It is a vote on whether now is the best time to attack given that we have not used the full weight of our economic and diplomatic might to avert a war. It is a vote on whether we proceed with war when we have not determined what its objectives are, how long it will last, how much it will cost, or what kind of a regime will be set up afterwards. This is not Desert Storm, where Iraq invaded Kuwait, where we had clear goals and the support of the international community, and we only paid about 10 percent of the cost of that war. Mr. Speaker, I would not raise any of these questions if Congress had been informed that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the security of the United States. We have not received that information. And I have many more unanswered questions, such as: How will the war affect our economy? How will the war affect our homeland security? What happens to international cooperation in our hunt for terrorists? What happens if Iraq lashes out at Israel? Are we prepared to recast our military as an army of occupation for the entire Middle East? I am raising these questions because they are the same ones posed to me every weekend back in Oregon. While there has been a lively debate on this resolution, it has been far from persuasive. Nobody seems to have the answers. And, trust me, I have tried, through briefings, through talking to experts, through going through classified materials. At this time, I cannot go home with a clear conscience and explain why I voted to broaden this war with so many questions left unanswered. So I will oppose the resolution. And for those who have committed themselves to voting for this measure, please consider asking these tough questions. It is easier to ask questions before we go to war, not after we commit ourselves and our young people to battle. When we have received answers to our questions, and when we have received assurances that we have tried everything, and that the only way left to nullify Iraq's threat to our national security is military action, only then would I vote to use force. We do not have the answers to the questions. We do not have those assurances, and so I will vote ``no'' and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Grand Teton National Park Land Exchange Act (S. 1105) and specifically its amended version that includes legislation that I introduced named the McLoughlin House Preservation Act (H.R. 3434). Standing six feet four inches, John McLoughlin cast a giant of a shadow on the early development of the Oregon frontier. For twenty-one years his powerful voice was the only influence of law and order over an empire two and a half times the size of Texas. He had absolute control, and he maintained it peacefully and profitably with a balanced sense of justice. With an overwhelming sense of compassion and generosity beyond reproach, it's of little wonder that he was regarded by Native Americans as, ``The Great White Eagle.'' John McLoughlin, did indeed, walk taller and cast the greatest shadow that ever fell so humbly on the changing face of Oregon. McLoughlin was born in 1784 outside of Quebec, Canada. When McLoughlin was only 14 years old, he began an apprenticeship with a doctor and in 1803, at the youthful age of 19, was granted his license to practice surgery and pharmacy. Shortly thereafter Dr. McLoughlin obtained an appointment as medical officer for the North West Company, fierce competitor of the Hudson's Bay Company in the fur trade. McLoughlin continued his employment and partnership with the North West Company until 1821, at which point it was absorbed by the Hudson's Bay Company in a merger. In 1824, McLoughlin arrived at Fort George, now called Astoria, Oregon near the mouth of the Columbia River, to further establish an administrative headquarters and supply depot for the ever expanding Hudson's Bay Company. In part, his duties were to create a mercantile arm of the British government, to monopolize the fur trade business, and maintain peace among the numerous tribes of Indians. Finding the facility at Astoria to be grossly rundown, unfertile and too far from inland trade facilities, in 1825 McLoughlin moved the northwest headquarters to a more favorable location on the northern side of the Columbia. He built the new site at Belle Vue Point in what is now Washington State and named it, Fort Vancouver. The new fort was nearly 750 feet long and 450 feet wide with a stockade about 20 feet high. There were about 40 buildings inside the fort. The fort housed a school, a library, pharmacy, power house, chapel, officers, warehouses, workshops, a blacksmith shop, and the largest manufacturing facility west of the Rocky Mountains. Fully contained, behind the fort were fields of grains, an orchard and a vegetable garden. The Indians, with whom Dr. McLoughlin maintained a very good relationship, were not allowed inside the stockade and would conduct their trading through a porthole in the door. In 1829, a ship arrived from Boston bringing with it a horrible fever which broke out among them. Dr. McLoughlin spent much of his own time tending to the ills of the stricken, but within four years over 30,000 Indians lay dead. The fort flourished under the leadership of Dr. McLoughlin. Without any type of military force, he was able to maintain law and order by his own personality and by the cooperation of his officers and employees. There were no Indian wars in the Oregon Country until after his resignation. Dr. John McLoughlin was so revered for his work in the Oregon Country that in 1841 McLoughlin was knighted by Queen Victoria at Buckingham Palace. By the 1840's, the British knew that they couldn't keep the American settlers out of Oregon, but they wanted to control as much of the land as possible. Discouragement came in the form of tall tales of fierce Indians, poor farming conditions, and terrible weather. Even though it was against the policy of the Hudson's Bay Company, Dr. McLoughlin was sympathetic to the plight of the settlers and offered them aid. Often arriving sick, hungry, and without provisions, his kindly heart extended them credit, fed and clothed them, cared for the sick, and supplied them with seed for farming. His personal decision to provide supplies and support to the American settlers coming over the Oregon Trail, contrary to his orders from the Hudson's Bay Company Governor, proved to be critical to the peaceful settlement of the territory in favor of U.S. claims. In 1845, no longer able to stomach company policy toward American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin resigned his position with the Hudson's Bay Company. After his resignation, he purchased Hudson's Bay Company's land claim at Willamette Falls in Oregon City, and he and his family moved into his newly-built house (The McLoughlin House) in 1846. McLoughlin remained a public figure during his retirement and became a U.S. citizen in 1849. He donated land for a jail and female seminary, and in 1851 he was elected mayor of Oregon City. He died in his home only six short years later. In 1941, the McLoughlin House was designated a National Historic Site, the first one in the west, and in 1957, Dr. John McLoughlin was named ``Father of Oregon'' by the Oregon State Legislature. As you can see, Fort Vancouver and the McLoughlin House National Historic Site have a long and storied history together. The intent of this legislation is to see that history continued by expanding the boundaries of Fort Vancouver to include the McLoughlin House National Historic Site. Currently the McLoughlin House National Historic Site is maintained and managed by the non-profit McLoughlin Memorial Association. When the McLoughlin House faced demolition in 1909, the Memorial Association was formed and money was raised to move the house to a public park atop the bluff. McLoughlin's home opened as a museum in 1910. For almost 100 years, the association has done admirable work to preserve and maintain this historic treasure so thousands of people can continue to tour the site annually. However, over the past several years, the association has been unable to raise the funds required to provide the needed maintenance and upkeep of the property that is now in jeopardy of failing into disrepair. The McLoughlin House National Historic Act would do what I believe should have occurred over 60 years ago and that is include these properties as part of the National Park System to be managed by the National Park Service. Again, it is my intent that this would be done, not by creating a new unit of the National Park System, but rather by simply including the McLoughlin House into the boundaries of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site which is already administered as part of the National Park System. I believe that including the McLoughlin House into the boundaries of Fort Vancouver is the only way to preserve in perpetuity the cultural, educational, and historical benefits of this historic site for future generations. In closing I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to Chairman Hansen, Ranking member Rahall, and Chairman Radanovich for so generously agreeing to work with me on this bill and helping to move it forward. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Luke Johnson and David Watkins of the Resources Committee staff for their tireless efforts on behalf of this bill. Thank you to John Salisbury and the McLoughlin Memorial Association for all your hard work to preserve this Oregon treasure. And lastly I'd like to thank Tracy Fortmann for her advocacy on behalf of the McLoughlin House over the years. She's done wonderful work and we are extremely lucky to have her at Fort Vancouver. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation today.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation and specifically the amended version of S. 1105 that includes H.R. 3434, the McLoughlin House Preservation Act. The McLoughlin House Preservation Act will extend the boundaries of Fort Vancouver to include the McLoughlin House National Historic Site to be managed and maintained by the National Park Service. Fort Vancouver and the McLoughlin House have a long and storied history that goes back to the early 1800s and the early settlement of the Oregon Territory. Since the early 1900s, the McLoughlin House has been maintained and managed by a nonprofit McLoughlin Memorial Association. For almost 100 years, the association has done yeoman's work to preserve and maintain this historic treasure so that thousands of people could tour the site. By extending the boundaries of Fort Vancouver to include the McLoughlin House, we will continue to build on a relationship that began over 180 years ago; and we will preserve in perpetuity the cultural, educational and historical benefits of this historic site for future generations. In closing, I would like to convey my sincere appreciation to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for so generously agreeing to work with me on this bill and in helping to move it forward. I would also like to extend my gratitude to all the staff that helps out here, Luke Johnson and David Watkins of the Committee on Resources for their tireless efforts on behalf of this bill, thanks to John Salisbury and the McLoughlin Memorial Association for all of their hard work to preserve this Oregon treasure; and lastly I would like to thank Tracy Fortmann for her advocacy on behalf of the McLoughlin House over the years. She has done a fantastic job. We are extremely lucky to have her at Fort Vancouver. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, the Rules Committee Wednesday was presented with a tremendous number of amendments to the Homeland Security Legislation. Their task was certainly a monumental one. However, the Committee did not allow my amendment to be considered on the floor or be included in the Manager's amendment, which I believe to be an erroneous decision. As such, I have converted that amendment into a bill, the ``Secure Identity Protection Act of 2002.'' This bill would effectively prevent the theft of Social Security numbers of the deceased by requiring the White House to issue a report on the advisability of requiring State DMVs to subscribe to the Social Security Administration's Death Master File. The report, in turn, must be submitted to Congress. This bill is not a mandate. It is not a proposal to create a national ID card, nor is it an effort to ban Social Security Numbers from general usage. Rather, it is a common sense proposal that would greatly benefit our national security, as well as prevent billions of dollars in fraudulent charges by identity thieves. Identity theft is not just a financial crime, it is a threat to our national security. An individual suspected of training four of the September 11 terrorists used the Social Security number of a New Jersey woman who died in 1991 to establish his identity in the U.S. Untold numbers of other terrorists may have done the same. The financial services industry, the medical community, the insurance industry, educational institutions and state and local governments rely upon our Social Security Numbers as a means to uniquely identify us. Each of these entities reproduces our Social Security number within their own files and generates documents that make this information available to others in some form. That's why the vast majority of us have our Social Security numbers emblazoned upon our medical insurance cards in our policy numbers or on our driver's licenses as our license numbers. Even more alarming is that by using the Internet, the ability to gain access to personal identifying information such as Social Security numbers is growing at a tremendous and frightening pace. The ability to exploit that information has empowered a new generation of identify thieves who have in turn made identity theft the fastest growing crime in the world. Unfortunately, only 18 state DMVs currently subscribe to the Death Master File. So, if a terrorist provides a Social Security number of a deceased individual to a state DMV, it is highly likely that terrorist will be successful in his or her endeavor to obtain a driver's license or identification card. We should all shudder to think of the consequences. Compounding the problem, Congress has already recognized the need to improve the current system in ensuring states certify the identities of commercial truck drivers, and included $5.1 million in federal funds for states to access the Death Master File in the FY '02 Supplemental appropriations bill. Unfortunately, not every terrorist is going to apply for a CDL. We have failed for too long to address the problem of identity theft. We have failed to help protect the citizens of the United States from additional terrorists illegally gaining identification and access to numerous resources to plot their attacks. My bill is a step in the right direction, and I urge all my colleagues to assist me in ensuring our government takes common sense steps to safeguard our national security.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Chairman Oxley and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for finding the willingness to simply do what is needed to fix the problem in our accounting system and to restore investor confidence in corporate America. I also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for their foresight and early leadership. We needed to restore the public confidence in the market. Tens of millions of Americans invest in the market and tens of millions more work in publicly traded companies. It is these individuals and these individuals alone who this Congress must protect. After all, this is the people's body, not the Fortune 500 body. So I thank my colleagues for sitting down with the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and Senator Sarbanes and delivering on a bill that puts the interest of the public first. My colleagues' actions prove that bipartisanship is a tangible commodity. I would hope that the consensus we were able to reach on this bill can be replicated in other badly needed measures. Before closing, I would like to point out that no one, no one has worked harder on this bill than our ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). While we have not agreed on everything, the gentleman's efforts to protect consumers and investors has been unfailing and will be sorely missed in the 108th Congress.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, there has never been a period in U.S. history when the economy grew and the stock market shrank at the same time. They have always gone hand in hand. I think our government must inject a sense of calm into our capital markets, and it is going to take more than just cheerleading. It is actually going to require Congress to pass legislation that not only removes the ability for the greedy to cut corners and defraud investors, but make sure they go to prison, just like any other thief. I think we are on the right track. Four months ago, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) offered a substitute to the accounting reform bill in the House that sought to do many of the things the other body has agreed to do unanimously. Four months ago, the proposal of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) did not get a single vote from our colleagues on the other side. But yesterday morning, most Members voted for a bill that would send someone to prison for 25 years for securities fraud, and I think that is good. I think we are on the right path. But the Members know and I know that tougher criminal penalties for wrongdoing are not the solutions to the market's deficiencies. So let us get serious and let us make it nearly impossible to pass fraudulent information along to investors. Let us have more transparencies. Let us clean up the mess. Let us get a bill to the President next week and restore the trust and confidence of the public in the markets.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and I applaud the leadership of this body for bringing this bill before us. Let us not kid ourselves. Three months ago the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) offered a substitute to the accounting reform bill that called for better corporate governance and it did not receive a single vote from the other side. Let me say that again. It did not receive a single vote from the other side. Now we are considering a bill that would send CEOs to prison for up to 25 years for securities fraud or accountants to prison for 5 years for shredding their paperwork. We are making progress, but we have got a lot more work to do. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) called for better corporate governance a long time ago. President Bush on March 2, that was 5 months ago, called for better corporate governance, and yet we have had no action from this body. So I applaud the leadership for bringing this bill forward, but we must also get to conference committee and put that on the President's desk by next week. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to bring a sense of perspective to this debate on corporate accountability. Our economy is fundamentally solid. It is productive, and inflation is low. As I am speaking, Alan Greenspan is delivering those same sentiments to our colleagues in the other Chamber, and he will do the same tomorrow to the Committee on Financial Services in the House. Hopefully, his remarks will inject a sense of calm into our capital markets and do what even the President could not do: staunch the hemorrhaging on Wall Street. Our colleagues in the other body should be commended. They have done what our leadership in this House has failed to do: empathize with anyone who is too scared to even open their monthly 401(k) statement. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to act. We need to go to conference committee on a bill to clean up corporate America, and we need to do it now.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the Republican no- benefit prescription drug proposal that is harmful to seniors in my State.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues in calling for the expansion of national service opportunities on National Service Day. Creating a strong system of voluntary national service has been a signature New Democrat idea since the founding of the Democratic Leadership Council. National service promotes the New Democrat tradition of opportunity, responsibility and community. In Oregon, more than 37,000 people of all ages, all backgrounds are helping to solve problems and strengthen communities through 95 national service projects across the State. President Clinton's AmeriCorps program, the domestic Peace Corps, will provide over 700 Oregonians with the opportunity to spend a year serving in their local communities. In return, AmeriCorps participants will receive up to $4,725 to help pay for college. Seniors can also contribute their time and talents to one of three programs that make up the Senior Corps. National service volunteers have served their communities by providing tutoring, mentoring to students, giving support and information to new parents, repairing the homes of elderly and disabled residents, and establishing additional volunteer programs in the community. This should not be a special chance for a few but a way of life. We should all volunteer.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today for the fourth time to again plead for the safe return of two missing girls from my district, Miranda Gaddis and Ashley Pond. Those who saw the May 23 People magazine cover story on the plight of these girls surely understand the pain and anguish the families of the girls are facing, and also realize that Oregon City, as any small community would be, has been changed drastically by the tragedy. Unfortunately, these types of abductions are not as rare as we would like. While the vast majority of missing children are due to those who have gotten lost, run away, or been abducted by a parent embroiled in a custody battle, roughly 4,400 are taken each year by nonfamily members who often release them a short time later. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says parents should urge children to remember three steps: No, go, and tell. They should know it is okay to resist adults and make noise. They should run away if they can; and if they break loose, they can help identify their abductors by remembering details and telling a trusted adult. Mr. Speaker, we need to protect America's children; and if anyone has any information about Miranda and Ashley, please contact the local FBI office.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, there is little arguing about the macroeconomic benefits of free and open trade. International trade agreements lower prices, they encourage higher productivity; and ultimately, they improve consumer choice. But these gains, no matter how significant to our economy, are net gains, because increases in imports usually contribute to a plant closing and worker layoffs. That is because the gains from international trade tend to be very large and are widely distributed throughout our economy. The U.S. economy's ability to create jobs is virtually unmatched by any other Nation. Unfortunately, that is a simplistic view. The cost of imports are heavily concentrated by industry, location, and worker demographics. And while our economy has demonstrated an ability to create jobs, job creation does not always take place at the same location where jobs are lost. One need look no further than our last census for proof. New jobs are in different industries than jobs lost. The vast majority of trade-related job losses are in the manufacturing sector. Between 1979 and 1999, 17 million American workers lost their jobs from manufacturing industries. However, during that same period of time, the United States added 39 million jobs. So essentially, for every job lost in the manufacturing sector, more than two jobs were created in the economy. Almost all the net new jobs created have been in the service sector, which require new skills and, in many cases, do not provide the same wages or benefits which existed at a previous job. So, yes, the fact remains that the macroeconomic gains from international trade almost always outweigh the cost. However, these costs are significant for individual workers and their families and to the towns and communities in which they live. As we have seen in the past several years, the costs can undermine efforts to further liberalize trade, which is the position we find ourselves in tonight. Ours is a Nation built on commerce, and I support giving the executive branch the authority to negotiate with foreign nations to lower trade barriers. We do not need 535 trade ambassadors. What we do need is a mechanism which allows the executive branch to negotiate on behalf of Congress and to ensure the will of Congress is respected in those negotiations. So far, the legislation granting the President fast track trade negotiating authority has not lived up to this requirement; and as such, I have not supported it. One of the reasons the administration has not been able to rally support for fast track is because of the lousy job we have done in remedying the casualties of trade. Now, by the way, this has gone on for a long time, for 40 years. Forty years ago, President Kennedy spoke of the need to ensure American workers who lose their jobs to imports are retrained for other careers. Quoting President Kennedy, he said: ``Those injured by trade competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government. There is an obligation to render assistance to those who suffer as a result of national trade policy.'' Those remarks culminated in the enactment of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, or TAA, in 1962. At the time, the United States had an enormous trade surplus, imports only comprised 5 percent of the gross domestic product and manufacturing comprised 30 percent of total employment. Fast forward to today, 40 years later. The share of imports of GDP has tripled, trade surplus has turned into a huge trade deficit and the manufacturing share of total employment has fallen to 13 percent. Despite our strong economic growth, it appears President Kennedy's comment is more relevant today than it was 40 years ago. While TAA may not erase all the economic pain caused by dislocation, it has made the adjustment to a new job a little easier, and represents small compensation for the losses they and their families have experienced. However, there is a lot of room for improvement in the TAA program. We need to expand the program and ensure that it will offer financial support, retraining and relocation benefits as Americans work to upgrade their skills and transition into more complex jobs that offer them the best opportunity of reclaiming old earning levels. The other body has made substantial inroads into improving the program in its consideration of fast track legislation, especially in the area that concerns most of us, and that is affordable health care. Mr. Speaker, as millions of Americans have discovered, losing a good- paying job is bad enough; but losing health insurance is a straw that can break the camel's back. Health insurance is very expensive, which is why nearly one in seven Americans, or 39 million people, do not have health insurance. Currently, workers who lose their jobs are eligible for extended health care insurance which enables them to retain the health insurance they had at their jobs, but at four to six times the amount they formerly paid while employed. The other body's proposal would remedy that situation by ensuring that TAA eligible workers would have a tax credit of 70 percent of their health insurance premiums. Workers would actually be able to afford health insurance as they seek retraining assistance, a key to ensuring that they finish their retraining. The other body's TAA tax credit provision guarantees that workers will have access to the coverage they need at a price they can afford. Forty years after the creation of the TAA program, it is high time Congress gave it the resources it needs to be better prepared to better prepare the American workforce for the challenges and opportunities of a global economy. I hope we can all approve of an expanded TAA program that includes health care.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my sincere appreciation for those men and women currently serving in our armed forces, in particular those who are engaged in the war against terrorism. My home state of Oregon welcomed ships from the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard and the Canadian Fleet during our annual Rose Festival held this past week. I would like to thank Captain Terry Bragg, Commodore Destroyer Squadron One, his staff and crew aboard the USS Paul F. Foster. The Paul F. Foster and crew will soon be deployed in support of Enduring Freedom. Also I would like to thank Rear Admiral Erroll M. Brown, District Commander of the 13th Coast Guard District, the Men and Women aboard the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Hamilton for their appearance at this event. I can assure you that the leadership, morale, and dedication of all the officers aboard these ships were of the highest caliber as well as those men and women who serve aboard these ships. I can truly, say, the defense of our nation is in good hands when we have such professionals as those aboard the ships that visited Oregon this past weekend. All serve our country with pride and all Americans should be proud of them. 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. Once again I want to extend my gratitude and pride to all the men and women who serve our country, in the armed forces. You make us all proud.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, foreign trade has long been a critical component of our economy. So long, in fact, that it predates the founding of our Nation. And despite the ups and downs of the local global market, there is absolutely no doubt that the American economy is dependent on trade. Yes, we import far more goods than any other nation; and, yes, we have a trade deficit. I do not like it. No one likes it. But the only way to remedy it is to enhance our export sector. But when we examine the trade deficit, let us remember that we already export more goods and services than any other nation. Those exports represent 10 percent of the United States' GDP; and they support 12 million jobs, including one in five manufacturing jobs. They are not all huge multinational conglomerates like a General Motors. The overwhelming majority, 97 percent, are small- and medium- sized businesses. In Oregon, these businesses and family farms are the backbone of our economy. They provide good paying and rewarding jobs, and it is my goal to make sure that there are a lot more of them. If there is a company that wants to sell its goods to a new market, particularly one that poses some degree of risk as well as profitability, then all too often the only financing for them is from the Export-Import Bank. Furthermore, Ex-Im financing does more than support jobs at exporting companies. It creates an enormous ripple effect in the supply chain. For many companies that export, tens of thousands of U.S. suppliers around the country are indirect exporters, many of which are small businesses, supply component services and technology providers. Madam Speaker, the evidence is clear. Overseas sales are no longer optional for most U.S. companies. To compete and succeed, they must play on a global stage, and Ex-Im Bank can provide the U.S. companies with the financing tools they need to accomplish this. While not perfect, it is the best tool for the job at hand, and I ask my colleagues to support the conference agreement.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Speaker, on June 3 People Magazine featured two young women. I come before this House again today to alert those who may be watching in Oregon and across the Nation to the tragic plight 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 missing now for almost 3 months and 5 months. Ashley disappeared January 9; Miranda, March 8. Oregon City was shocked by the abduction of Ashley in January, and paid extra attention to keeping their children safe. Two months later and with their guard still up, the unthinkable happened and Miranda disappeared. Both Ashley and Miranda were last seen by their mothers early in the morning as they left their homes at the Newell Village Creek apartments to catch the school bus. The FBI has confirmed that the disappearances appear to be related and that foul play is likely to be involved. If Members have any information regarding Ashley or Miranda's whereabouts, I ask them to please contact their local FBI office. Let us not forget about our children. Let us not give up hope about our missing children.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, most of this body is aware of the so-called concurrent receipt penalty affecting our military retirees with service-connected disabilities. While Congress has undertaken gradual steps to remedy this situation, numerous veterans in my home state of Oregon have contacted me about a situation which I feel is equally unfair. With the conclusion of the Cold War, the Department of Defense employed numerous separation programs to comply with Congressional mandates and decrease the number of active military personnel. The DoD implemented the Special Separation Benefit (SSB), and the Variable Separation Benefit (VSI) which were both designed to award servicemen and women with immediate compensation in return for early retirement from the Armed Services. What many of these servicemen and women did not know is that by agreeing to leave active duty and accept the SSB or VSI payment, they were effectively signing away the right to receive future service- connected disability payments from the Veterans Administration. As it currently stands, any service member who accepted the SSB payment and is diagnosed with a service-connected disability must repay their payment in full before he or she can receive disability pay. Likewise, members who receive the VSI payment cannot receive the full disability payment to which they would otherwise be entitled. I find this practice reprehensible. Many service-related disabilities might not become apparent for several months or years after separation. Consequently, everyone who made use of these programs could not have possibly known the way in which they would be affected by the offset provisions. What's more, many service members made the decision to accept the separation pay only because the alternative would be an eventual, forced retirement. To remedy this problem, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Congressman Richard Baker from Louisiana and Congressman Jim Gibbons from Nevada which would revise current law and allow for full concurrent receipt of separation and disability pay. Additionally, I urge all of my colleagues to join us in ending this objectionable practice.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, most of this body is aware of the so-called concurrent receipt penalty affecting our military retirees with service-connected disabilities. While Congress has undertaken gradual steps to remedy this situation, numerous veterans in my home state of Oregon have contacted me about a situation which I feel is equally unfair. With the conclusion of the Cold War, the Department of Defense employed numerous separation programs to comply with Congressional mandates and decrease the number of active military personnel. The DoD implemented the Special Separation Benefit (SSB), and the Variable Separation Benefit (VSI) which were both designed to award servicemen and women with immediate compensation in return for early retirement from the Armed Services. What many of these servicemen and women did not know is that by agreeing to leave active duty and accept the SSB or VSI payment, they were effectively signing away the right to receive future service- connected disability payments from the Veterans Administration. As it currently stands, any service member who accepted the SSB payment and is diagnosed with a service-connected disability must repay their payment in full before he or she can receive disability pay. Likewise, members who receive the VSI payment cannot receive the full disability payment to which they would otherwise be entitled. I find this practice reprehensible. Many service-related disabilities might not become apparent for several months or years after separation. Consequently, everyone who made use of these programs could not have possibly known the way in which they would be affected by the offset provisions. What's more, many service members made the decision to accept the separation pay only because the alternative would be an eventual, forced retirement. To remedy this problem, I am introducing bipartisan legislation with my colleagues Jim Gibbons from Nevada and Richard Baker from Louisiana. Please, join me in helping bring an end to this reprehensible practice.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, what a year it has been. We now have proof that Enron was manipulating West Coast energy prices to simply gouge consumers of their hard-earned money while its auditor, Arthur Andersen, took the term ``cooking the books'' to a whole new level. We have also learned how Fortune 500 companies take out life insurance policies on their rank-and-file employees to enhance compensation for senior executives. Speaking of corporate tax avoidance, try and keep a straight face when you tell your constituents that it is perfectly legal for a company to rent a post office in Bermuda and avoid paying taxes. This is utterly ridiculous. One of the effects of corporations not paying their taxes is that we cannot give seniors and working families a prescription drug benefit, or that we cannot fund the President's education bill or hire more cops. Moreover, we are in the middle of a war, and we are effectively permitting U.S. companies to place a higher value on earnings than on patriotism. Mr. Speaker, it is time to close this loophole. It is time to crack down on tax evasion. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 3884.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I supported H. Res. 392, however I would have favored a more balanced resolution. As one of 435 members of Congress and one who does not serve on the International Relations Committee, I offered my views beforehand by respectfully suggesting that my colleagues incorporate into their views portions of a similar measure put forward by my colleague from Oregon, Representative Peter DeFazio, H. Res. 394. While I do not agree with every provision of Mr. DeFazio's resolution, I think each one of us can agree this Congress should: Unequivocally condemn acts of violence against Israeli and Palestinian civilians, urge all parties to recognize that continued military attacks and terrorist activities will only lead to escalating violence and the potential destabilization of the Middle East and neighboring regions, and urge all parties to stop using state- controlled media to incite hatred and violence. These are reasonable provisions, and should have been included in the text of H. Res. 392.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. This, again, should be a simple matter. We have heard from Florida, where it literally costs a person a penny a week or less. This can be achieved very easily by placing signs near produce bins or with price information in the stores displaying their items in their original shipping cartons. This does not have to be a tough issue. It should be mandatory that we know where the food that we put in our mouth comes from, and I urge the support of this motion to instruct.