Darlene Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I echo the sentiments of my colleague from California and thank her for her leadership on this issue. I will tell my colleagues that when I walk into a grocery store to buy produce for my family, I want to know where it is grown and that it is safe. This should be my right as a consumer. After all, we have laws on the books that say we have to have country-of-origin labeling whether it is our shoes, socks or auto parts. But for reasons beyond my comprehension, we do not know where the produce is grown. Food that is put in our body, we do not know where it is grown. There is not a single person in this Chamber who would disagree that in the United States we have some of the world's most stringent regulations for farming. Our growers have to comply with strict, exhaustive local, State and Federal regulations governing the use of land, water, labor and pesticides, rules that many of our trading partners do not have to comply with. As a result, our food is some of the safest in the world. I believe that Americans have the right to know that what they are eating is safe and where it is grown. Opponents of this amendment contend that the cost for industry, including retailers, to comply with country-of-origin labeling requirements are too great and the price of produce will rise as a result. This is simply untrue. We already have a great test case currently in place. Florida, which is the fourth most populace State in the country, has had the country- of-origin labeling requirement for over 20 years. The estimated cost of the mandatory-produce labeling law is less than a penny on a consumer's weekly grocery bill. Less than a penny. I want my colleagues to know that people will gladly pay that penny a week to know where their food is grown. Compliance can be achieved by simply placing signs near the produce bins or with price information. If it says apples, a dollar a pound, all that has to be done is to add, grown in Mexico, or wherever it is grown. 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. With 50 percent of our produce imports in this country coming from Mexico, I find it ironic that they have a labeling requirement and we do not. This amendment should be an easy ``yes'' vote. This is good for the consumers, good for our economy, good for our farmers, and this is something that the citizens of this great country want. It is time for Congress to close this loophole from 70 years ago and pass this amendment. I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in passing the Bono-Hooley amendment.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the chairman for his leadership and his commitment to our farmers and rural communities.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, under existing regulations, the Federal Government recognizes organic agricultural products as different from those grown conventionally. This distinction should be respected when considering the institution of a marketing order for caneberries. Produce that is organically grown is strictly segregated from produce that is conventionally grown and is labeled as a distinctly separate product in the marketplace. Often there are entirely different venues where organic goods are made available to the consumer. Oversupply problems do not plague organic growers. Growers have cultivated niche markets that are different from markets for conventional grown caneberries. A Federal market order system that does not allow an exemption for organic caneberries would place and unnecessary and unwelcome impediment on a small but healthy sector of American commerce. It is my understanding after talking with the chairman that my amendment would be setting a precedent, and an exemption could be achieved through the rules process within the AMS. I respect the chairman's concerns and, therefore, I withdraw my amendment. However, I ask for his and the committee's commitment in addressing organic growers concerns in relation to the new Federal marketing order.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, as part of an effort to reduce the federal work force within the United States Forest Service, Forest Service employees were offered the opportunity to participate in a ``voluntary separation incentive payments'' program a few years ago. This program was included in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1997 (P.L. 104-180). As part of the agreement, employees were paid $20,000; in exchange, they agreed to retire and not be employed by any federal agency for at least five years; if they were re-employed by the federal government they would have to forfeit all or part of the money from said agreement. However, there has been a severe shortage of qualified firefighters to combat the extraordinary number of forest fires throughout the country over the past several years, specifically in the West. Many retired Forest Service employees have been asked to help fight many of these blazes, unfortunately many of them cannot without risk of forfeiting the payments they received through the buyout program. My bill will amend Public Law 104-180 to allow former Federal employees who received voluntary separation incentive payments under the Department of Agriculture program to accept employment with the Federal Government once again, without loss of their payments, as long as their employment is directly related to fighting forest fires. At a time when we need qualified, willing, well-trained individuals to fight these fires more than ever before, it's egregious if we do not change this law to allow these brave men and women to fight the fires that threaten our forests, wildlife, and our homes without having to worry about forfeiting past reparations they've received from the government.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, every fourth of July, we celebrate our national independence. It's a day when nearly all of us have the day off from work, a day when we can gather with our families for a cook out, and maybe attend the local parade or spend the day lounging by the pool. It's a day when we can see the latest Hollywood Blockbuster--this past year it was Pearl Harbor, a movie based on what, until this past Tuesday, was the most horrible attack ever on American soil. Because vacation days are so hard to come by, many of us base our vacations around the 4th. This isn't necessarily for the sake of the holiday, but to simply save a vacation day. And while there's nothing wrong with any of the above practices, time and prosperity have mellowed the significance of our national birthday, as they have Memorial Day and Veterans Day. Mr. Speaker, that's unfortunate for the simple reason that on nights like this one, we're reminded that no one gave us our freedom. No one gave us our liberty. And while their underlying principles were germinated in peaceful venues and distributed on pamphlets or word of mouth, ultimately they were borne through battle. Maybe our children don't understand, but the United Nations wasn't there to let our forefathers conduct a plebiscite on whether the 13 colonies should remain part of England. Maybe we've become so used to living side-by-side with African Americans we forget there wasn't any multi-national force willing to die by the tens of thousands to free their ancestors from slavery. And maybe we've grown so used to violence as entertainment the grainy images of Pearl Harbor don't affect us any more--now we need a Hollywood movie to convey the importance of a national tragedy. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this resolution tonight, remember this: our freedom, our unity, our very way of life exist because previous generations of Americans have time and time again been willing to place a higher value on our freedom than on their own lives. As much as I disdain the notion that taking human life is a decision for politicians to make--events of this week have placed us in a position where, as previous members of this body have done before, we must ask our fellow citizens to once again fight those who detest all we stand for. To all my colleagues assembled here tonight, understand this: there will be Americans who will not survive the fighting to come. There will be casualties, both physical and psychological. There will be parents who lose their only children. There will be spouses who lose their soulmates, and children who will be orphaned. There will be small towns who will lose the child who sang the best in the church choir, and big city neighborhoods who see young person always playing basketball come home without legs, or without arms. If we are going to send Americans to forever silence those working to sow terror and horror against our Nation, then let us do everything in our power to ensure they have the resources to achieve a total victory. Let us ensure that when they come home Congress honors their sacrifice, not solely with parades, but for the rest of their lives. Let us pledge tonight that veterans of this and every war are treated as first-class citizens, as well as the millions of Americans who served our nation without having to fire a shot in anger. No longer should they have to wait weeks for medical treatment. No longer should they be homeless on our streets or go without psychological treatment if needed. No longer should our retirees see their pensions hijacked to help balance our budget. War is a serious business, and we shouldn't take what we're about to do lightly. Yes, the attacks of September 11, 2001 require us to eradicate an enemy that has proven to be more deadly than any we've ever faced. Support this resolution, and support our men and women in the armed forces. But remember their sacrifices not just today, but years from now after they have won this war, when Memorial Day or the 4th of July are once again excuses to take a break from work or to spend an afternoon off enjoying ourselves with friends and family.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, simply put, in the annals of our history, September 11, 2001 will be forever remembered as a day of unprecedented barbarism. Perhaps most tragic, the Constitutional freedoms we enjoy on a daily basis--the same protections which allow us to serve in Congress and which millions of men and women fought and died to guarantee to every American--were cruelly exploited for a vile purpose: to simply slaughter thousands of innocents. Mr. Speaker, there's a good chance we'll never know how many Americans perished in these attacks. We'll certainly never comprehend the sheer terror they felt, nor the anguish their loved ones are facing today. But in our capacity as human beings we can certainly empathize with their plight. This was an act of war against the American people, as such, Congress must ensure our armed forces appropriately respond to this attack to quickly and decisively eliminate the individuals and their allies who would strike a blow against our liberty. We must set the same goals of previous generations of Americans, and seek an absolute and unconditional victory that ensures our sons and daughters wives and husbands, and friends and neighbors are never, ever again exposed to such an act of barbarism. We stand together as members of Congress and as Americans in our resolve to identify those responsible for conceiving and carrying out these acts of war, and to exact justice for this unforgivable assault. With that, I urge my colleagues to adopt this resolution.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Sandi Hansen who passed away on Sunday, August 26 at the age of 26. Sandi Hansen was a dear friend of Oregon who contributed passion and energy to the livability of the greater Portland metropolitan region. Throughout her career, Sandi kept her eye toward the future and worked to make our collective community one to be treasured by generations to come. Sandi spent much of her career teaching school at Humboldt Grade School and Ockley Green Middle School in North Portland. She was active in the Overlook Neighborhood Association and a strong supporter of the Peninsula Trail, a key component of the citywide network of biking and hiking trails. From 1990 to 1994, Sandi served as a Metro counselor at a time when Metro developed a 50-year growth guideline for the 24 cities and portions of three counties encompassed by the urban growth boundary. After the council approved the guidelines in December 1994, she said, ``It is a little bit like looking back on Rome.'' Those guidelines now serve to shape the growth of our communities for the next 45 years in a responsible and reflective manner and have been lauded nationwide. Sandi Hansen, a true community leader, made a difference for all of us. Sandi Hansen: friend, teacher, mother, and wife. Because of her commitment to our community and our State, we are all better off because of her. My condolences go to her family. Sandi Hansen will be sorely missed by all that knew her.

Ms. HOOLEY

Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have to admit I'm a little surprised the Administration has proposed an inadequate proposal to address our long- term energy needs. After all, both the President and Vice President have extensive experience in the energy sector. Quite frankly, I'd think they'd be a little more creative in their vision of America's future. After all, a national energy policy is supposed to be predicated on the assumption that we need to increase supplies to mitigate demand. And to some degree, the Administration's plan is geared toward that end. However, given their experience in the energy sector, we ought to expect that. But the cold hard fact is that the Administration sees drilling and mining as our only way to address our predicament. Personally, I disagree with the Vice President--conservation isn't a personal virtue. It's not only a proven method to increase energy supplies, but the costs to the taxpayer to fund research in this field is a drop in bucket compared to the huge taxpayer-funded subsidies this legislation bestows on traditional industries. Unfortunately, instead of debating a reasonable and prudent legislation, we have forfeited that option. Instead of making tough choices, we have before us a bill that too heavily focuses on oil, coal, and nuclear energy. This Administration simply isn't worried about giving equal consideration to promoting and encouraging energy efficiency, renewable energy, and conservation. That's unfortunate for a variety of reasons. Not only does it defy common sense, but it defies a Department of Energy report issued last November demonstrating increased efficiency and renewable energy can meet 60 percent of the nation's need for new electric power plants over the next 20 years. Yet the recommendations in the report are nowhere to be found in this legislation. Moreover, this bill grants billions in new tax breaks for the oil and coal industries--all of this in the wake of record profits for industry and record-high energy bills for consumers. Why are we providing ``royalty relief'' to the oil industry when, as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, the industry currently has more money than it can manage to spend? Why do they need royalty relief when they are making billions of dollars in profits from oil that is pumped from public lands and are more financially stable than ever before? Finally, in this bill is a provision that authorizes oil production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). According to proponents of this provision, we need to drill in ANWR as a solution to our energy crisis. Unfortunately, facts are stubborn, and the truth is we could have done more to lower our dependence on foreign oil by passing the Boehlert/Markey amendment that would have increased fuel efficiency in SUV's than we could ever get from pumping every drop of oil from the coastal plain in ANWR. For a bill designed to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, it seems strange to me that the sponsors of this bill would object to raising gas mileage standards. Doing so is not only completely feasible, but once completely implemented this step would reduce our oil consumption by hundreds of millions of barrels a year. But the amendment failed and again we regress. As such, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and let's work to create a comprehensive energy bill that is truly one for the 21st Century.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this legislation. In particular, I am extremely pleased the conferees have included $20 million in emergency assistance to farmers in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon and Northern California. The farmers and communities in this area have been devastated by one of the most severe droughts to ever hit the Pacific Northwest. While the federal government doesn't have any control over the weather, at the very least we should provide emergency aid to alleviate the situation. That said, one of the more troubling aspects of this legislation is that among the $1.8 billion in spending offsets the conferees have agreed to take away $178 million from dislocated worker-training funds. With layoffs and unemployment increasingly in headlines across the United States--and rising electricity costs threatening to further swell the ranks of dislocated workers--the decision to slash available funding to dislocated workers just doesn't make any sense. The underlying intent of block grants are to give states flexibility in how they spend federal funds. Crisis don't happen overnight, and it is unrealistic to expect states to expend or obligate all of their funds upon the beginning of the program year. In fact, Congress recognized this in the Workforce Investment Act, which explicitly gives individual states three years to expend their unobligated funds--the first year they are appropriated and the two subsequent years. As such, I bitterly oppose the decision to take funding away from Oregon and other states before they have had the chance to fully implement their employment programs. Currently, I am working with my colleagues Representative Mike Capuano from Massachusetts and Representative Jack Quinn from New York to ensure that the Workforce Investment Act receives it's full funding in fiscal year 2002, and invite every member of the House to join us.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, America has a long tradition of civic activism. From the anti-slavery movement to women's suffrage to the civil rights era, citizen activists have accomplished many important social reforms by working together through peaceful means to influence their friends and neighbors and building support for change. We Americans fight for change at the ballot box and in the halls of legislatures--not with incendiary devices and pipe bombs. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately violent acts in the name of protecting the environment are growing in alarming numbers throughout the western United States. Earlier this month I visited a timber company facility in Monmouth, Oregon that had been burned down in an arson perpetrated by the Earth Liberation Front. In the Monmouth attack, which roused firefighters out of bed on Christmas morning, the arson caused the roof to collapse only minutes after those who were fighting the fire pulled out. Paul Evans, the mayor of Monmouth and a volunteer firefighter who fought the blaze that Christmas day, told me he narrowly escaped injury or death in the fire. Ironically, Paul, who is now serving a military tour of duty in the Persian Gulf, was probably in more danger in his own town than he now is in Kuwait. Mr. Speaker, these are not victimless crimes, and they must be halted. That is why I'm introducing the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Act. The most challenging aspect of these crimes is that the perpetrators have been difficult to apprehend, leaving most of these crimes unsolved because with limited resources and manpower, local law enforcement officials have little success closing these cases. The Environmental Terrorism Reduction Act closes this gap by requiring the Attorney General to establish a national clearinghouse for information on incidents of eco-terrorism to help investigators stay ahead of the curve in preventing additional acts of terror. In addition, this bill establishes the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Program in the Department of Justice. This program would authorize the Attorney General, upon consultation with the heads of Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and the Governor of each applicable State, to designate any area as a high intensity environmental terrorism area. After making such a designation local law enforcement agencies could access funding to assist them in solving and preventing these types of crimes in the future. Mr. Speaker, I believe the provisions in the Environmental Terrorism Reduction Act will greatly aid our communities and industries that are vulnerable to eco-terrorism. It is high time the federal government addressed this situation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this measure and enacting it into law.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure. As a former teacher, I am proud to support this bill because it really starts to address the issue of leaving no child behind and closing that achievement gap. However, there is a piece that I would hope the conference committee would address and that is the funding for IDEA or Individuals With Disabilities Act. Unfortunately, year in and year out Federal appropriations fall far short of the Federal government's commitment to help meet the needs and the cost of educating students with disabilities. The lack of funding places considerable strain on entire school budgets as schools are forced to choose between raising local taxes or cutting other critical programs in order to provide Federally mandated special education services. To its credit, the Senate has recognized that students with disabilities and their families deserve more than an empty promise. By passing the Hagel-Harkin IDEA full funding amendment with strong bipartisan support, the Senate has taken an important step toward meeting the Federal government's commitment. Mr. Speaker, it will be a great day in this country when every child receives a first-rate education. I ask the conferees, I beg the conferees to address this issue of full funding for special education. I thank both the Chair and the ranking member for the terrific job they have done on this bipartisan bill to help every child. If they would just please address full funding for special education, I think we would go a long way in making sure that every child is educated.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Not only is the energy crisis in the Western United States impacting business and consumers, it is already eroding the meager budgets of our schools. The Oregon school administrators recently conducted a survey of school districts around the State to get a better understanding of what is happening. Mr. Chairman, the results of this survey are staggering. The average cost of electricity has increased by 29.3 percent. My colleagues have to understand, this is going to go up. There is going to be another increase in October. In fact, some of our school districts are facing 100 to 200 percent increase in their utility costs; again with another increase due in October. This is unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, we already have school districts that are barely making it on their budgets, and this is a horrendous cost to them. One of my schools, in fact the largest school, has budgeted another $850,000 for utility costs. This is money that could be spent on hiring 24 new teachers so they can decrease class size. It could be used to purchase text books or modernize our classrooms or even use it to perform professional development of teachers. School administrators from California to Massachusetts are having to make tough choices. Do we keep teachers on the payroll or pay the electric bill and keep the lights on. Schools are having to make these tough decisions in the midst of an energy crisis. I am sorry that we can not do this for our schools if we do not accept this amendment. This is a situation none of us foresaw, and that is what an emergency budget is for. This amendment speaks to what our priorities are in this Congress. I do not relish having to explain to my constituents that we could not do this for our schools.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with my colleagues a letter I received from William Massey, one of the three commissioners from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC has a responsibility by law to regulate energy prices when they are unjust and unreasonable. Californians spent $7 billion last year on energy. This year, the energy costs were $70 billion. The same thing is happening in Oregon. Can somebody explain to me what is just and reasonable about that? This administration has taken a hands-off approach to the energy crisis in the West and FERC has shirked its responsibilities to maintain a fair market for consumers. Recently, I, along with my colleagues, wrote to FERC commissioners and ask they take steps to ensure that energy prices out west are just and reasonable. So I would like to take a second and read Commissioner Massey's short but appropriate response. He says, ``Thank you for writing to express disappointment with FERC's wholly inadequate response to the Western energy crisis. My response will be brief. I completely agree with you. The commission must take additional steps to ensure that prices out west are just and reasonable.'' I just wish this administration would do the same.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Absolutely.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of the underlying bill, I am extremely pleased that the House is moving so expeditiously to give Oregon and other Western States greater resources to protect our Pacific salmon stocks. I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for all of their hard work on this great piece of legislation. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson.) The bipartisan manner in which they have brought this legislation before us is an example of how Members from both sides of the aisle can come up with a commonsense approach to a common issue. It shows that we can actually move forward and achieve a consensus that benefits our communities, our industries, and our surrounding environment. With that said, the amendment I have is a measure which I believe strengthens the underlying intent of this legislation. What it does is simply requires the Secretary of Commerce to report to Congress on an annual basis the effect that timber harvesting on public lands in British Columbia has on Pacific salmon stocks. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that ecosystems are not constrained by geographical borders. It is not just the rivers and tributaries of the Western United States that are an essential habitat for salmon; the Canadian province of British Columbia is home to hundreds of stocks of salmon as well. It is a vital component of the broader ecosytem that we are seeking to protect. I think it is completely reasonable for this body to, at the very least, consider the impact that logging practices on public lands in British Columbia have on Pacific salmon stocks. After all, we are authorizing up to $600 million over the next 3 years to protect these fish and their habitats, many of which are closely linked with our neighbor to the North. The truth is that watersheds in British Columbia vital to the survival of all stocks of Pacific salmon are regularly affected by logging practices that are expressly prohibited under Canadian law and International Treaty. Even though the Canadian Fisheries Act requires provincial governments in Canada to maintain buffers against fish-bearing streams on public lands, in British Columbia logging companies are not only allowed to cut right to their banks but to drag logs across them. This practice may destroy salmon redds, make habitat inhospitable for fish by destroying the food web. It also increases the sedimentation which clogs the gills of fish and smothers salmon eggs and raises water temperature which kills immature salmon. As a result, 142 stocks of salmon are now extinct in British Columbia, while another 624 are at high risk. Because these practices are harmful to all salmon, not just those in American waters, I believe it is well within the realm of authority for Congress to ask the Secretary of Commerce, in conjunction with other Federal agencies, to annually report to Congress the effects of this logging practice on specific salmon stocks. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment asking Canada to enforce its own laws. I am confident that if confronted with the damages its policies are incurring to salmon stocks, the Canadian government will begin to enforce their own act with the Pacific Treaty. Mr. Chairman, with that, I urge the adoption of my amendment

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

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, four months ago, a little boy in Salem, Oregon named Tyler Benton Bales lost his battle with a rare genetic disease called Hurler Syndrome. Although I never had the pleasure of knowing him, Tyler was somewhat of a celebrity in Salem. In fact, he was the subject of a front page article in the Salem Statesman Journal last December, when a silent auction was held to raise money to offset the cost of an expensive bone marrow transplant that was his only chance to beat Hurler Syndrome. Unfortunately, Tyler's heart wasn't strong enough to survive the rigors of his transplant and chemotherapy. He was only sixteen months old when he passed away. Mr. Speaker, there's nothing more tragic than losing a child. My heart goes out to Tyler's parents, and to all the other parents of children who suffer from Hurler Syndrome. Unfortunately, the heartache of Tyler's loss hasn't eased for his parents. As if it's not hard enough losing your sixteen month old child, the Bales recently learned--courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service--that someone is claiming Tyler as a dependent on their 2000 income tax return. As disturbing as that is, it gets worse. Because of disclosure issues, the IRS won't give out the name of the identity thief to the Salem Police Department, even though identity theft is a felony offense in Oregon. The thief could live right down the street or 3,000 miles away--but if the IRS has it's way, the Bales--and the Salem Police Department--will never know who stole their son's personal information. Mr. Speaker, we can't even begin to imagine the anguish this family is going through. Tyler Benton Bales was so much more than a name, a date of birth, and a Social Security number--he was a little boy who was surrounded by love during his brief time with us. His parents--and the countless of other people who loved him--should not see his memory dishonored by a common thief whose identity is actually being protected by the IRS. That's why I'm introducing the ID Theft Loophole Closure Act. This legislation simply requires the IRS to furnish the name, Social Security number, and address of a suspected identity thief to state and local law enforcement agencies for the exclusive purpose of locating that individual. Identity Theft is not a victimless crime. We must cut through the red tape that is preventing this and other thieves from being prosecuted for their crimes, and I believe this legislation is the right tool for the job. I urge my colleagues to support the ID Theft Loophole Closure Act.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise today in opposition to this rule for one particular reason: there are too many children being left behind. Time after time this year I have asked that we finally have a discussion about the Federal Government's underfunding of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Mr. Speaker, 26 years ago, the Federal Government made a promise to children with disabilities, their parents, their teachers and their schools, that we would pay 40 percent of the excess cost to local school districts to educate children with disabilities. I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, but I grew up in a family where when one made a promise, one kept that promise. Today seemed like the perfect opportunity to have this discussion. As I did earlier this year in the Committee on the Budget, I proposed an amendment that would have finally made sure the government kept its promise. This time, I was joined by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. I am sad to report that we were denied even the opportunity to bring this amendment to the floor. Once again, we are sending the message to our students that this legislation leaves no child behind, except for those with disabilities. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, Earlier today I did not register my vote for roll No. 115, Mr. Hyde's amendment to H.R. 1646. If present, I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

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

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, one of the things you do in a budget is you set priorities. That is what a budget is all about. One of the things you do when you set priorities is you put money where you say your priorities are. I mean, we do that in our home budgets; we need to do it in this budget. Again, this budget has been cut. It is even less than what the President asked for. The President's budget was inadequate. We have an opportunity at this time to fund special education. We promised about 26 years ago to our schools and to our children that we would provide up to 40 percent of the funding for special education. We have not done very well. We have only provided 14.9 percent. This is an opportunity to provide the funding we need for special education, and, in doing that, we help every single child, every single school district. But we need to make sure that our priorities are funded, and this budget does not do that.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show my deepest appreciation for some of the most dedicated people I know. This last weekend, I held an art competition for high school students in the 5th Congressional District called ``An Artistic Discovery''. Eight schools and over 50 children participated in the competition, producing some of the most creative, innovative pieces of art I've ever seen. All of these future artists deserve to be recognized. Today however, I rise to pay respect to the behind-the-scene heroes of ``An Artistic Discovery''--the teachers. The dedication these teachers have for their students, art, and for teaching doesn't come from a textbook, or from years of experience. The pride that radiated from these teachers faces when their students stood next to their artwork came from deep inside their soul. On this day, Teacher Appreciation Day, I would like to show my appreciation for the teachers who put so much work into making ``An Artistic Discovery'' a success. Several teachers helped to make this event possible, including: Karin Hughes from South Salem, Lynn Pass from West Linn, John Allgood from Gladstone, John Beck of Dallas, Judy Frohreich of Stayton, Wendy Edginton of Clackamas, John Widder of Tillamook, and Donna Hues of John F. Kennedy High School in Mt. Angel. Without these teachers, their students would have missed out on the opportunity to display their wonderful artwork and we would have missed the chance to enjoy it.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, hands are not for hurting. It is a simple phrase and a simple concept, but one that too many never learn. I rise today to spread the word about the Hands Are Not For Hurting Project started by Ann Kelley, a woman in Salem, Oregon, who is dedicating her life to violence prevention. Ann got the idea that if all children took a pledge that they would not use their hands for hurting and signed that pledge on a purple paper cut-out of their hand, then that simple idea may penetrate. She reasoned that because violence is a learned response, it could be unlearned, and we could teach more peaceful and constructive methods of showing anger or resolving disputes. Hands Are Not for Hurting is now being used by schools, churches, civic groups and government agencies in more than 20 States. Thousands of young people and adults across this country have taken the pledge to refrain from violence. Today marks one of the saddest anniversaries in America's recent history. To commemorate the life and goals of Martin Luther King, Jr., I would like to urge all of my colleagues to spread the word. Hands are instruments that can paint a masterpiece, sculpt a classic, or wipe a tear from a child's face, but hands are not for hurting.