Darlene Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, ever since coming here to Congress, enacting common-sense tax relief for the people I represent back in Oregon has been one of my biggest priorities. So, it should hardly be surprising that I am going to vote for H.R. 6 today--just as I voted for it last year--and just as I'll continue to vote for any bill that effectively ends the marriage penalty. The sole purpose of this bill is to ease the federal income tax burden on married couples and low-income families with children. By easing this burden, we're making sure that families will have more money to save up for a mortgage down payment or additional income to set aside for college expenses. I do want to talk about a troubling aspect of our tax code that is going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later, and that's reforming the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. Originally adopted in 1969 to ensure the wealthy pay their fare share of taxes, the AMT hasn't been indexed for inflation since the early 1990s. And as incomes and deductions have risen in recent years, middle class families are more often than not receiving a love letter from the IRS after they've filed their returns notifying them that they owe the AMT. Now H.R. 6 does include some AMT relief--specifically, it wouldn't cancel out the gains of the bill for married couples. But the problem is that the minimum tax requires a different set of calculations and disallows many deductions--including deductions for state and local taxes paid. For Oregonians, who pay some of the highest income taxes in the nation, that means that more and more families over the next decade are going to receive a notice from the IRS saying that they own money-- and not receive much of the relief we're promising to give them right now. That's a big problem for me, and it's going to be a big problem for tens of millions of middle class Americans. For example, as of 2006, a family of four in Oregon with a combined income of $72,747 will be liable for the AMT--while the same size family in Texas, which has no income tax, will only be liable if their income exceeds $146,307. So while I am in favor of reforming the marriage penalty here today, I strongly urge my colleagues to keep the AMT in mind when or if we conference this legislation with the Senate. I understand the Senate Finance Committee chairman has indicated that he intends to include comprehensive AMT adjustments in the tax reform legislation his Committee will write. We can work together to ensure our tax code is a fair one.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), my colleague, and I am going to talk about something very specific tonight. When you do a budget, whether you do it at home or you do it for any agency, one of the things you do is you have priorities, you put money into those priorities. For example, you just watched the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my colleague, go through the budget. The Republican budget tax cuts are a priority, they have $1.6 trillion over a 10-year period on estimated surpluses, that is coming in over 10 years. They also talk about a priority being education. Part of the problem with that priority is they have not put any money in that priority. We had started a program, for example, to reduce class sizes. Well, why do you want to reduce class sizes? You want to reduce class sizes because if you do that, particularly in kindergarten through third grade, kids learn better. They do better in school and they do better in school, not only in kindergarten through third grade, but they do better in school throughout their educational career. We started a program saying let us put 100,000 new teachers in the schools to help reduce class sizes. That program is going away. When you talk to school districts, they say what is really important. We have across this country about $100 billion worth of school repair and modernization that needs to occur. Again, this budget diverts $1.2 billion out of that program, and then it eliminates it for the next year. There are still things in the budget. For example, President Bush has suggested testing, vouchers and so forth, that all has to come out of their budget, but their budget is only a 5.7 percent increase, which has to take care of inflation, new programs and population increase. Mr. Speaker, one of those programs that I am terribly concerned about is a promise that we made 26 years ago to our school districts and to our students and to the people in our districts that said those students that have disabilities are special needs students, they need an appropriate free education like every student does. And the Federal Government said, school districts, if you do this, we are going to pay 40 percent of those excess costs. Well, we have not done that. I grew up in a family that said if you make a promise, you have to keep a promise. If you make a commitment, you have to keep a commitment. We have said we want to fund that at 40 percent and, yet, right now, we are only at 14.9 percent. So we have a long ways to go. The Democratic budget is $129 billion over 10 years more than the Republican budget. We have put our money where our mouth is and we say education is important. Here is what we want to do for our school districts. We wanted to reduce the classroom size. We want to help with modernization for schools, because that is a perfect program for the Federal Government. We have said we want to help with special education, with students with disability. So we put money into those programs. And you heard from the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), my colleague, talking about that money that is left over, which is $200 billion over the next 10 years. If you funded the disability excess costs to our schools and you did it over the next 5 years, getting up to that 40 percent level, which is what the Federal Government promised, just that program alone is $3 billion a year each year for the next 5 years. If you divide that 10 years into the $200 billion, $20 billion a year, and you are trying to in one little program take $3 billion out of it, you can see that money does not go very far. Again, if you believe that education is a priority, then you show that it is a priority, not by just talking about it, but by putting your money there. I know that is what the Democrats have done. They have put that additional money into education. We have set it as a priority. We need to have the best education system in the world. We are the richest Nation. We are the most powerful Nation, and that is one thing that we should do for all of our students is to give them opportunities by funding education. I would like to see us increase that education budget. I would like to see us keep our commitment to individuals with disabilities. And, again, I think if you make it a priority, you have to put your money there.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, we need to invest in our future; and we can do that by investing in education.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

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

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, we have got a problem with school construction. Our schools are bursting at the seams. One cannot go on a school tour anymore without looking at a classroom or closet that has been converted to a classroom or students sitting on the floor, radiators, windowsills because the classroom is overcrowded. The Republican budget diverts $1.2 billion in school construction that this Congress provided last year and then eliminates construction funds for the next year. This comes at a time when we have a crisis in this country. We have $100 billion worth of projects for new school construction and renovation. The Democratic budget provides $4.8 billion more than the Republican budget for education and $129 billion over the next 10 years. We have said education is a priority, and we have put our money where our mouth is. Our budget also provides more than the Republicans for special education, an issue that is near and dear to my heart. The Democratic budget moves our country closer to a promise we made 26 years ago when we first passed the Individuals with Disability Education Act. We said we would pay 40 percent of the excess cost. Well, we need to do that. The Democratic budget does that over a 10-year period, adding $1.5 billion each year. Since coming to Congress, I have visited every school district, large, small, rural, urban; and despite their geographic and economic differences, every school is struggling to provide the necessary services to children with disabilities. We have a historic opportunity to meet our Federal commitment to our local schools. It is time that we keep the promise that we made 26 years ago that we invest in education of every child. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

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

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Madam Chairman, our farmers once again are facing a crisis as they have in the last 3 years. Our farmers are facing a recession, record low prices and rising energy costs. We have the opportunity during the budget markup to show some leadership and commitment to our farmers. However, this committee dropped the ball. Over the past 3 years, Congress has appropriated emergency funds for our farmers to the tune of $27 billion. We already know we are going to have to provide emergency assistance once again. But where is it in the budget? It is not there. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, testified before the Committee on the Budget, and I quote, ``We recommend that rather than providing additional assistance on an emergency ad hoc basis the budget allocation for agriculture needs to be permanently increased.'' This budget has left agriculture to compete with what is left of the surplus and to depend on supplemental emergency assistance. This is not how the farmers of this country deserve to be treated.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I am here today as a member of Congress is that I was inspired by some excellent professors as a college student. These professors taught me new ways of looking at the world, and kindled an excitement about learning that still burns today. Where all of my professors helped me acquire knowledge common to liberal arts students of my era, these select few not only taught me, but also ignited my passion for public service. This nation is blessed with many excellent professors, but one sector of higher education has a harder time than others attracting the best and the brightest. This sector is the tribal college and university system. The average salary for teachers at tribal colleges and universities is approximately $25,000--one-half that of the salary of a teacher at a state college or university. A sad consequence of these low salaries is that tribal colleges and universities are a training ground for new teachers to get their feet wet; they make short stops before moving on to better paying jobs at other colleges and universities. As a result, the students suffer from both a lack of good teachers and good curriculum. The Tribal College and University Loan Forgiveness Act gives tribal colleges and universities a tool to attract and keep excellent teachers despite the salary gap. By providing loan forgiveness, tribal colleges and universities can bring something additional to the negotiation table. Teachers who commit to working in a tribal college or university that have Direct, Perkins, or Guaranteed Loans that are not in default, are eligible for loan forgiveness for up to five years. Total loan forgiveness will be provided for up to $15,000 in the aggregate of the loans the student currently has. Tribal colleges and universities, teachers, and students will all benefit from this bill. Furthermore, the Native American communities who send their tribal members to these institutions also benefit. Tribal colleges and universities not only prepare students for jobs both on and off the reservations, but they also offer programs to the local communities such as adult education, local economic development, and remedial and high school equivalency programs. The passage of this bill, with bipartisan support, will help these institutions continue their work of not only educating, but bringing out the very best of tribal students and communities.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, anyone who's ever been to Oregon knows that the backbone of our local economy are small businesses and family farms. Unfortunately, the time and money required to keep up with government paperwork prevents them from growing and creating new jobs. For example, I recently heard from a local funeral home owner whose business has been in his family for three generations--and was astounded to learn of the increasing mountain of paperwork that he's had to deal with over that time period. And according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), this individual isn't alone--paperwork counts for one-third of all total federal regulatory costs (over $230 billion a year). I think it would be great if we could get more agencies to work with small businesses to solve their differences instead of immediately taking an adversarial relationship with them. That's why I support the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act, because it gives Oregon's entrepreneurs some much-needed relief from federal redtape. Specifically, it would put on the Internet a comprehensive list of all the Federal paperwork requirements for small businesses organized by industry, and it would establish a paperwork czar in each agency who is the point of contact for small businesses on paperwork requirements. Finally, it would establish a task force, including representatives from the major regulatory agencies, to study how to streamline reporting requirements for small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 391.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak briefly about an issue that has become very near and dear to my heart. I spent the last several months speaking to superintendents, teachers, parents, and community leaders across my district, and one of the issues they say is the most important to them is full funding. When I talk about full funding, this is for the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, full funding which, in this case, means going up to 40 percent of the excess cost. Mr. Speaker, we began this discussion 26 years ago when we agreed with States and local education agencies that we should provide a free and appropriate education to every child who has a disability. We knew this was going to require a large investment, not only by the States and local school districts, but by the Federal Government as well. The Federal Government made a promise. They said, we are going to pay up to 40 percent of the excess costs for every student. However, we have not done that. In fact, this year we are doing the most we have ever done, and we are up to less than 15 percent. I participated in a lot of conversations regarding full funding of IDEA in the past couple of months with my colleagues, committee staff and leadership. Full funding is a large investment, I understand that, and it raises some concerns. One of the concerns I have heard is that if we increase the amount of money going to the States to educate children with disabilities, that the school districts will over- identify these children to get more money. Well, I want to tell my colleagues that that is simply not true. Let us talk about the real situation that is happening in our schools. Again, the Federal Government right now is giving a little over one- third of the money that they promised 26 years ago; and as a result of this underfunding, what has happened is schools have had to pull money out of other programs to make up for it. They have had to pull money out of textbooks and after-school programs and additional teachers. As a consequence, what we are seeing is an under-identification of children with disabilities. School districts hesitate to label a child with learning disabilities or behavioral problems or mental disorders because they cannot afford to provide them the services they need. Fully funding IDEA will not result in a mass frenzy of school districts to label as many children as they can with disabilities. In fact, just the opposite will happen. If we can get young children the services they need early on, we may prevent a need for more drastic intervention later on. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced bipartisan legislation with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and many of my colleagues here today. Our bill would authorize funding to bring the Federal Government's share of educating children with disabilities up to the 40 percent mark by 2006, so we are trying to do it over a period of time. It is expensive. This increase will cost about $3 billion a year. It is a large investment, but we must remember, if we do not pay our fair share of the cost, our share does not just go away; someone else is covering for us. Mr. Speaker, it is time we kept the promise that we made to our children 26 years ago and invest in the education of every child.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. As we talk about this issue, the gentleman is right when he talks about our not burying this pot of money somewhere in Washington, D.C. We send it out to our districts, and we send it out to our States and to our local school districts. And as we talk about the needs of special education, again the gentleman mentioned that this is a program that is 26 years old. We have said that we should fund 40 percent of the excess costs; yet we are up to under 15 percent. And this is the best we have ever done. And if we do not pay our fair share, then the burden goes someplace else. Again, as the gentleman has gone across and talked throughout his district and throughout his State about what is important to them, I too have talked to people in my district. This is important to school administrators, it is important to teachers, it is important to those that have special-needs children, it is important to the general population because we are all impacted by this. This issue, plus the issue of smaller classroom sizes. We know if we have fewer students in a classroom between kindergarten and third grade that kids do better, and when they do better in those grades they also do better in the upper grades, high school and even into college. But tonight we are talking about special-needs children, children with disabilities. And one of the things that is happening, particularly in our rural communities, and I represent a lot of small rural communities, is that there can be a special-needs child that will cost over $100,000 if they have multiple disabilities. I have one with autism and also has other disabilities that costs about $120,000 a year. If this is a small rural community and there is only one student with disabilities, all of a sudden, to give that child a free and appropriate education, which is what we should be doing, we have to hire a teacher for that child, and we have to provide transportation for that child. For some of our small schools, it really does break the bank. The reason it breaks the bank is because we are not paying our fair share. It is a little easier for some of the larger schools, where they may have several students and so they can have one teacher for several students, or transportation for several students. But it is still expensive and we have to acknowledge that. I think no one can deny that it is an expensive program, but it is an important program. And some of the special-needs children are not that expensive, some are $400 or $500 or $600 a year. What has also happened is we have waiting lists in our schools. Now, we have guaranteed a free and appropriate education for every child, including those with disabilities; but we have a waiting list where some children cannot get their needs taken care of because we have not paid our fair share. As a result, all of us have to deal with this problem. Again, this is a huge unfunded mandate that we made an obligation to fund. I think we need to do it, and this is the time to do it. I have introduced a bill, and I know there are a lot of bills with special education trying to get IDEA funding, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, but the bill I have introduced is H.R. 659. I have introduced it with the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). And what we are trying to do in our piece of legislation, and the gentleman talked about we need $11 billion this year, this piece of legislation would ask that over the next 5 years we get up to the point that we are paying the full 40 percent of our obligation. That takes about $3 billion a year. Is that a lot of money? Absolutely. Do we need to do it? Yes. This is a promise we made. And I am one of these people that believe when promises are made, they should be kept. So we made this promise 26 years ago, and I think it is time that we invest in every single child and make sure that they have an appropriate education.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Let me try to put that in some perspective. I talked about my piece of legislation. Whether it is this or something else, it really does not matter as long as we live up to the obligation. If we look at fully funding it over the next 5 years, it costs an additional $3 billion a year. In the budget this year that was presented to us, the number in there to take care of inflation, just sheer numbers of additional people in the entire Department of Education, is $2.4 billion, and there are several new proposals that President Bush has for education. So it gives you an idea, just to fund this is $3 billion. In the budget for everything is $2.4 billion. So we have not really put our money where our mouths are, and we need to do that and to live up to those commitments.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition of this resolution. Coming from Oregon, I represent an area of the country where small businesses and family farms are the backbone of our local economy. As such, I'm extremely sympathetic to the concerns of the men and women who own these businesses, many of whom have contacted me in the last couple of weeks. After all, you can't have jobs without businesses. I know that the OSHA regulation which we're about to kill is going to have unintended consequences. Any time a business is faced with further government regulations you're looking at increased paperwork and having to deal with federal employees who, lets be honest, sometimes can be difficult to work with. For example, just last week I talked with a friend who owns a small hotel. Anyone who's been to Oregon knows it's one of the most beautiful places in the world, and we're heavily dependent on tourism. This person was overwhelmed by the proposed standard and rightly worried that he'd wind up being fined or lose his business because Washington had implemented a better mousetrap for Oregon. He didn't know if his employees would be limited in the number of bags they could pick up or how many stairs they'd be limited in climbing and hadn't had any luck in finding out the answers to his questions from OSHA. Now when you're in my position and you're trying to do what's best for your district and for everyone who lives and works there, it's impossible not to be affected by legitimate concerns about the cost and application of the ergonomics standard. That said, even with the potential problems that are posed by this regulation, I can't in good conscience vote for this resolution. That's because ergonomic injuries and the pain they inflict on hundreds of thousands of workers and retirees are not a feat of the imagination, and if we don't act, they're not going to go away. In the past 4 years, there have been three comprehensive reviews of the science identifying the cause of these injuries. Their conclusions have been consistent: exposure to ergonomic hazards in the workplace causes injuries, and these injuries can be prevented through interventions in the workplace. In fact, no less an authority than the National Academy of Sciences was ordered by Congress to report on ergonomics and whether the related injuries actually existed, and if so, if these injuries were preventable. For those of you who don't know, the Academy was created by Congress nearly 140 years ago to provide scientific and technical advice to our government. Since its inception, the Academy has made recommendations to our government that vary from using long-lasting metal for the name markers on fallen soldiers' tombstones to creating the U.S. Geological Service and the National Forest Service--both of which play an important role in Oregon. Well, in its congressionally mandated report, the Academy of Sciences found there is ``clear and compelling evidence'' that musculoskeletal disorders (MSD's) are caused by certain types of work--and that those injuries can be reduced and prevented through workplace interventions. Add that report to the past 10 years in which the Department of Labor-- in consultation with business, labor, and Congress--has worked to enact a fair, enforceable rule to protect America's workers from the real harm caused by ergonomic injuries. But now, in the face of unrelenting pressure, we're not only about to cast aside 10 years of hard work, but Congress is about to prohibit OSHA from issuing a similar ergonomics rule in the future. And it's not just the 600,000 workers who every year are injured by repetitive motion that would suffer, but their families and their communities as well. Thanks to carpal tunnel syndrome she acquired at her job at city hall, Mom might not be able to pick up her infant when he is sick or his older sister if she gets scared of the dark or correct homework because she can't hold a pencil. Dad might not be able to play catch with the kids or help them finish that science project because of the repetitive injuries he's suffered to his back after years of working the same saw at the local mill. And because maybe Mom or Dad can no longer work the hours they used to or even stay in the same jobs, they can't buy as many groceries or another car or give their kids spending money to go see a movie with their friends or buy a comic book at the local mall. So there's more to this issue that whether or not the OSHA regulation is confusing or that it will cost money to implement--in the long run, we know that employers will recoup the costs by providing a safe workplace and that consumers will have more money to spend. While I certainly sympathize with the business owners and entrepreneurs who feel this rule infringes on their rights, the evidence is clear that by doing nothing we're not only harming millions of Americans, but harming our economy as well. This is the biggest occupational health crisis affecting American workers today, and I urge my colleagues to allow OSHA to protect them from ergonomics injuries and to oppose this resolution.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the strength and compassion of Woodburn, a small town in my district, when they faced a tragedy. On December 4, 2000, Karina Gonzalez, a high school student, and her mother, Martina Meza Gonzalez, were walking home after receiving an outstanding report in her parent-teacher conference. While the mother and daughter were crossing the busy Highway 214, they were hit and killed. This was a senseless tragedy that could have been avoided by a proper crosswalk and lighting of this popular crossing area. This was not the first time that an accident such as this had happened on that same stretch of highway. In response to the accident, students conducted a survey of students who cross that busy highway in order to get to school. They wrote letters to State leaders, testified before State legislative committees to encourage change. Because of the students demanding a solution, improvements have been made to the highway by creating a pedestrian island with a promise of lighting and other solutions. The action the community took proves that when people work together, they can make positive changes. Mr. Speaker, in light of the tragic death of two special people, the Woodburn community banded together to make their voices heard and to prevent this kind of accident in the future. I commend the courage of the students of Woodburn High School, the Woodburn community and the family of Karina and Martina Gonzalez for their activism in face of this tragedy and their willingness to be involved in the democratic process to make positive change. My congratulations to them.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), for bringing this important issue to the attention of the Congress. As a former teacher, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the class size reduction program. There is overwhelming data to demonstrate the single most significant factor in boosting academic achievement in the classroom is the presence of a fully qualified teacher in smaller classrooms, and in conjunction with high standards. What this means is that we can search out the very best teachers in the country. We can send them through top-of-the-line training programs. We can give them the latest technology and textbooks, but if we do not do something to reduce the size of the classrooms, particularly in kindergarten through third grade, which exceeds over 30 students in many of our schools, we will not be giving our children the education they deserve. In the 1999/2000 act, due to the class size reduction program, schools in my district received the following: 17 new first grade teachers; 14 new second grade teachers; 12 new third grade teachers; and 3 new teachers for other grades. When I visit with school administrators, when I visit with parents, when I visit with teachers, they like this program. They say it works. This is a program that makes a difference in their schools. Altogether, this program has helped our Nation's schools hire 29,000 highly qualified new teachers. If we eliminate this program, we not only jeopardize the gains we have made but we will prevent schools from hiring additional 20,000 qualified teachers to serve over 2.9 million children. As the end of this session draws near, hopefully it draws near, this is a program that we cannot let fall through the cracks. We talked this session a lot about having a surplus. We need to use that surplus to pay down the debt. We need to use that surplus to shore up Social Security and Medicare. We need to use that surplus for reasonable tax cuts, but we need to use that surplus to continue the investment in our children. I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know if he supported CARA?

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. It used to be.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman talks about that, again, we have to say well, so what, it is the smoggiest place; but how does it affect people? Well, asthma is now the number one reason that children miss school, the number one reason for absenteeism in our schools today. That is directly related to what the gentleman was just talking about; it is our air and whether or not it is clean air or dirty air.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am going to go back to clean air for just a minute. I know we have been talking about clean water. I want to go back to clean air for just a minute. The gentleman was talking about the voting record of Governor Bush or the State he presides over, and the gentleman talked about when the pollution went up in Dallas, not wanting to do emission tests because it was inconvenient and it was costly. I had the privilege, I guess, of going to school in Southern California for a couple of years, and the first 2 months I was at school, September and October, I was sick the entire time. I did not know what was wrong with me. Finally, I went to a doctor, then I went to another doctor, because I had no idea why I felt so lousy. And then one day, I woke up, and there were mountains behind the college. I said, where did they come from? A miracle has happened. There are mountains back here. We finally discovered it was the air pollution that had made me sick for 2 months. Mr. Speaker, in our State, where we do have mandatory vehicle emissions, I go have those. And, yes, it is a little bit inconvenient. It costs me some money, but having had that experience of what happens when you have dirty air, I now gladly go and get my car tested to make sure that I am driving a car that does not pollute. I just think that is what happens to people every single stinking day that you have that kind of air pollution. People become sick, and it may be inconvenient to go and get your car tested, but let me tell my colleagues, it is a lot more inconvenient to be sick, it is a lot more inconvenient to be in the hospital, and when you look at the number of students that miss school every single year because of their asthma problems, I will tell my colleagues it is well worth it. I cannot imagine having a President who would not care about our clean air.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. They have done it with their dollars, by the way.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, going back to talk about CARA for a minute and, again, a program that really provides open space, provides public lands, makes sure that we take care of our coastline and our coastal resources, and, again, it does not cost the taxpayers money because it comes from the drilling offshore. I believe that program, not only was supported in a huge way here, in a bipartisan way, but supported by most of the Governors in the states. Now, I do not know, and maybe one of the gentlemen know, whether Bush supported that as Governor of Texas. I am asking my colleagues that because he keeps talking about, ``well, I want to work in a bipartisan way, and I can get the job done.'' I cannot tell my colleagues how many times I have heard ``I can get the job done. I can go work in a bipartisan way. I will get results.'' I wish he would pick up the phone and make a call to the Senate President and the Speaker of the House if he cares about that issue or any other issue that we have been dealing with here. I mean, we can go into real Patients' Bill of Rights. He says he supports that, even though he did not.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. He vetoed it, right.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Oh, he did not know about it. That is right, he did not know about it. When all the other governors supported it, he did not know about it.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. But he says he supports it. But I am just saying he keeps talking about how he can get this done in a bipartisan way. I wished he would pick up the phone and call some of these people.