Darlene Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of the rule today, and really for two reasons; and there are probably tons of other reasons, but two reasons. First of all, this was done in the middle of the night, this conference report. Nobody has had a chance to really look at this, and to vote on an issue of this importance without having a chance to know what is in it I think is a wrong way to do this. If we want to meet our deadline, we can still meet that deadline tomorrow, but we have today to look at this. I called this earlier a bait-and-switch budget because that is what I think it is. For example, the other reason that my colleagues should oppose this rule is there are claims that Social Security and Medicare are saved, and yet this is riddled with provisions that we could drive a Mack truck through. There are all kinds of sunset provisions. There are exceptions to these protections. It does not do anything to add one day to the life of Social Security or Medicare. Not one single day does it extend that solvency. I think we have to stop these railroaded through tactics. Let us have time to look at it, make sure we know what it says. And then if we are going to be serious about saving Social Security and Medicare, let us make sure we do that and we add days to the solvency. Please oppose this rule, give us a chance to look at it. I do not think we could continue to irresponsibly move legislation through the House of Representatives in this manner.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, when one offers with one hand and takes away with the other hand, that is called bait and switch. If one were an advertiser in the public sector, one would be fined for what is going on in Congress today. This Congress is trying to tell the American public that all is well with the veterans. Yet, the Republican budget cuts veterans over 10 years by $2.3 billion. They are trying to tell us that crop insurance is okay at a time when farmers are out there in deep trouble. They are saying it is okay, we are going to take care of you. Yet, there are cuts of $4.9 billion. Health care, medical research, oh, yeah, we are increasing the budget. But guess what, it is being cut by $25 billion. Bait and switch. Worst of all to me, this Congress is telling Americans that because we add money to one part of the education budget, that we are increasing the education budget. The problem is they are taking it away from another part of the budget. Again, bait and switch. We are hearing the argument that Social Security and Medicare are first in the budget, Mr. Speaker. Bait and switch. Tax cuts are first here, nothing else. I support a tax cut that we can afford. But first we must extend the life of Social Security and Medicare. This budget has loopholes the size of the Capitol dome. To protect Social Security, we should make sure that we extend the life of Social Security. Do not deceive the American people with bait and switch sound bites when my colleagues do not have the information to back it up.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I used to be a teacher. I can guarantee my colleagues that smaller classroom sizes, you have much better performance by the students. Do not take just my word for it but go out and look at all of the research on this subject and you will find if we can get our classroom size to 18 and under, that students' performance goes way up. Not only does it go up, it stays up. We are trying to get it down in K through 3. But if you get it down, get that ratio down, the performance goes straight up and that performance stays up throughout their years in school.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member of our Committee on the Budget for the terrific job he has done. Mr. Chairman, if I could yield first of all to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that I find interesting about this budget is we were told absolutely education is increased. They did increase it for elementary and secondary education. But what they do not tell us is that they are cutting it in all other parts of education. They do not say specifically where they are going to cut those budgets. But it is cut over 10 years from this level by $36.5 billion. So they are cutting programs like Head Start and Pell grants and work-to-school programs. That is where the cuts are. And so again it is one of those bait and switch budgets that they tell us we are doing great things over here and then they do not tell us what the other hand is doing, which is cutting education. This budget does not reflect that our school facilities are in a crisis situation. There was a study done by the engineers that said of all of our infrastructure, our school infrastructure is the one that is in the greatest need. We would not work in the schools that we send our children to.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Right.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, one of the other things that I think is interesting to note, not only are schools in bad shape right now and we have talked about trailers. We have first graders that have to walk across an open area in Oregon where it rains all the time. This is not a wonderful thing to do to wash their hands or go to the bathroom. And some of the rooms are in such disrepair. Again, my colleagues would not work in that facility but we expect our children to learn in that facility. The other thing that I think is interesting is there have been studies that have been done that show that, in fact, students do better in schools that reflect our society and are not in such disrepair. They do better when our schools are repaired.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have worked well with the Republicans since coming to Congress. I think it is important to try to work together. But what this Republican budget does is cross that line of reason. This is a bait and switch budget. Republicans are saying with one hand, look at all the good things we are doing over here and then with the other hand they are cutting programs and not telling you what they are doing. Let me give my colleagues an example. Education. They say, ``Well, we're increasing education,'' and they are in spots. But on the other hand they are cutting in the year 2000 $1.2 billion of the education budget. Democrats are extending the life of Social Security to the year 2050. The Republicans make doing nothing about extending the life of Social Security just sound good. The same is true for the Medicare budget. The life of the program is not extended one day under this bait and switch budget. All of this so they can talk about a tax cut. Now, I support tax cuts, but I think a $779 billion tax cut is too much while we have ignored the fact that we are not adding one day to Social Security or Medicare solvency. Oppose the rule on this bait and switch budget.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I spent much of last week wondering why the majority party has chosen to move forward with a budget that is clearly divisive. This morning the Washington Post reported, ``Congress is set to begin a week of partisan bickering today over a budget that Republican congressional leaders expect will provoke a veto shutdown with President Clinton later this year when it results in appropriations bills.'' It baffles me. Why start out on such a sour note? The majority is clearly welcoming a partisan battle without first trying to find some common ground and some room for partisan cooperation. The American people have seen enough bickering to make them wonder what we are doing in Washington. The people I talk to want to make sure that we extend Medicare and Social Security. They want us to fight crime. They want us to help our schools. And they want us to create an even better business atmosphere. And the list goes on. There are many things the American public wants us to accomplish, but partisan bickering is not one of them.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, economists and the Congressional Budget Office agree: We have a budget surplus starting in the year 2001, which will grow to $164 billion by the end of the year 2009. Let me tell my colleagues when I talk to people in Oregon what they say about the budget. First of all, Oregonians believe we need to keep our budget balanced, we need to pay off the huge national debt, and we need to make sure our future generations are not left holding the bag for our generation's party. Leaving behind a debt that we did not have the moral fortitude to pay off is simply wrong. Reducing the national debt now, economists predict, will result in a further decline in interest rates. Now, let me tell my colleagues, lower interest rates are good for the homeowner, they are good for the businessperson, they are good for the farmer, and they are good for the student in the classroom. Mr. Speaker, last year we spent, listen to this number, $243 billion, billion, of Federal taxpayers' money on the interest. That is four times what we spent on education. Four times. As a member of the House Committee on the Budget, I want to take this opportunity get our fiscal house in order.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to officially introduce an important piece of legislation, The Technology Education Capital Investment Act of 1999. In the 105th Congress, The Technology Education Capital Investment Act of 1997, H.R. 2994, which I introduced, received a great deal of support from colleagues. I hope that my fellow Members will be as supportive of this important piece of legislation in the 106th Congress. I am introducing this bill because I am more concerned than ever about the shortage of well-trained high-tech workers in our work force today. The Information Technology Association of America released a report in March that documents the shortage of information technology workers across the nation. The report concluded that there are about 190,000 unfilled information-technology (computer and software development) jobs in the United States. Similar shortfalls have emerged in other technology industries as well. As one of the fastest growing export sectors in the economy, the continued expansion of the high-tech industries is critical to the strength of our nation's financial well being. However, if we do not address the significant shortages of qualified technology workers, including engineers, the growth of this sector will inevitably slow. Responding to this serious problem, I have drafted legislation that would stimulate technology education and increase the output of engineers and technology workers from United States Colleges and Universities. My bill would increase the authorized spending on some existing programs, provide funding to encourage more students to seek a math and science education, and extend a tax break for companies to help pay for expenses related to the continued education of employees. Specifically, the legislation creates a scholarship for students, entering math, science, and engineering degree programs. The bill establishes a one-time, start-up grant for university programs that offer ``hands-on'' internships with high-technology firms to higher- education students, giving priority to those programs that are primarily industry-financed. It also permanently extends the ``Section 127'' tax exemption for employer-provided educational assistance, and applies the exemption to graduate-level coursework. Furthermore, this bill increases federal support for National Science Foundation informal science programs that encourage math and science education at the K-12 levels and it augments community-college based programs that promote improvement in technician education, placing emphasis on programs for worker retraining programs. Finally, this legislation establishes a Congressional commission to examine the workforce shortages in technology industries. I have listened to many people in Oregon and around the country who are adversely affected by the shortage of qualified high-tech workers. I have worked hard to develop this legislation and I believe that, if passed, it could improve our national workforce and products help as we move forward into the 21st century. I hope my colleagues will join with me today in supporting the Technology Education Capital Investment Act of 1999.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, Americans now are looking at the longest peacetime expansion of the United States economy since the start of the 20th century. The outlook for our future is rosy. Economic growth is expected to continue to rise, and unemployment is predicted to stay below 5 percent. Inflation is expected to remain low, and it is believed that the interest rates on mortgages and loans will continue to remain attractive. This booming Federal economy has passed on some benefits to the Federal Government. The most notable are the increased tax revenues and Social Security dollars that result from a fully employed workforce. With this economy, Congress is faced with a new and interesting predicament of deciding what to do with those Social Security surpluses. If we look only at the short term, we might be tempted to spend those funds on what later generations would call reckless tax cuts. Now, I support cutting taxes and I hope we can find some room this year to do just that. But the American public is more savvy and will not condone irresponsible use of projected budget surpluses. My constituents, if they retired, would not go out and spend all of their retirement on a new sailboat the day they retired. Well, I think they want us to show that same fiscal restraint and discipline. While economists are predicting good times ahead, our future also holds a growing number of baby-boomers who will be moving from the work force into retirement. They have paid into Social Security and they should know it will be there for them in the future. The youngest citizens of our Nation also need to know that we are thinking ahead. If we work to save Social Security and Medicare now and pay down our national debt, we will leave them with a healthy economy and the resources they need to move this nation ahead. This year, as a member of the Committee on the Budget, I will be looking forward to working on these issues. We know that the part of our national debt ``held by public'' will be 42 percent of our Gross Domestic Product this year. This is the term we use to describe the money the Federal Government has borrowed from banks and pension funds. With a Federal debt in the area of $5 trillion, we need to focus on paying that down and end the process of borrowing. The budget proposal sent to Congress by the President does just that. It makes sure that we save and makes sure that Medicare and Social Security are there for the future, as well as it pays down the debt. This is a home run for all of our citizens. If my colleagues look at this chart, we look at the interest again, 14 percent. If we have the discipline, the fiscal discipline, to make sure we have Social Security there for the future, that we have Medicare there for the future and pay down that debt, we will get that down to about 2 cents per dollar. With that kind of a reduction, I want to tell my colleagues, there will then be real money for tax cuts and real money for investing in a lot of programs that people want. I am looking forward to working on this agenda that will be healthy for the future economy of the United States.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I am sick at heart as I stand before this body today. I believe in this institution of self- government and that good people can disagree on issues and that we must respect that disagreement. But I believe in order to have legitimate self-government that the process of making institution's decisions must be fair, and I am frustrated with a process that is not fair and that will not allow some of us to vote our conscience, a vote on censure. Under the guise of rebuilding the public trust, this body is tearing it down. The vast majority of Americans are also frustrated by the process. They want this to be over with and they have expressed their support for a bipartisan solution, a vote on censure. What they do not want is for us to make a decision of this historical magnitude purely on a partisan basis. It is very clear to me that the President's actions were wrong. But I do not believe that they rise to the level of crimes against the state that the Constitution requires in order to impeach. We are not voting to protect our democracy from clear abuses of power. We are voting on misleading and lying statements relating to a private matter. It is wrong. It is reprehensible. But it is not impeachable.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4326 because I think that this is a noncontroversial package that will help address ongoing resources needs in Oregon ranging from wastewater treatment to land transfers. I am particularly pleased that this package includes a measure to authorize the Willow Lake Natural Treatment System project which will reduce wintertime sewer system overflows to the Willamette River in Salem and local creeks. This initiative will also provide a source of irrigation water for the farming community and improve the river habitat for fish. Mr. Speaker, this is just one of the win-win initiatives in this important package. This package also includes a common sense land transfer arrangement between O & C counties and the BLM, a land exchange between the BLM and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at Hart Mountain in eastern Oregon, in addition to other measures that have widespread support. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, when I watched the 104th Congress--the partisanship and the petty games--I was sickened. I was frustrated by the willingness of a Congress to shut down the entire Federal Government for political gain; and I was frustrated by the proliferation of environmental riders that were attached to spending bills; and I was frustrated by the attacks of that Congress on public education. Mr. Speaker, we started this Congress on a different note. I am proud of the bipartisan balanced budget that we passed last year, and I had hoped that we could do that again this year. However, I am deeply disappointed by the process that has been provided for the consideration of this bill. We will vote shortly on a bill to fund over half of the Federal Government. It combines 8 funding bills into 1, and is over 4,000 pages long. And it is a bill that few people, if anyone, has read entirely. In fact, most Members have been granted only a brief glimpse at the text and have gained most of their information second hand. And we're at this point because this Congress failed to draft a budget document and to pass the customary 13 appropriations bills. But while the process has been fundamentally flawed, I will support the passage of this bill today. To my constituents, it is critical that we maintain the operations of the Federal Government; * * * that we keep channeling the money to our schools, to our farmers, to health care research, and to building transportation systems. And there are some positive aspects to this bill: It finally provides the funding for 100 thousand new public school teachers that we've been fighting for throughout the last two years; it expands after-school programs, Head Start, Summer Jobs, and it funds a substantial increase in the maximum Pell grant award; and it provides the funds to put an additional 17,000 police officers on the streets. Despite shortcomings in this bill and the flawed process of the past few weeks, I think it's critical that we vote today to make this funding available.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, based on the evidence, I believe that we should proceed with an impeachment inquiry that has a clear time line, not an open ended inquiry that could drag on and on for the next two years. The Republican proposal does not set any deadlines at all. If it were to pass, we could be debating this issue into the next millennium. One way or another I feel that we have to move forward with the impeachment process in a timely manner. In order to do that, I believe that it is crucial that we insist this inquiry be deliberate and focused. The inquiry should also be limited to what the Starr report focuses on. Unfortunately, the Republican proposal is not limited in any fashion. According to the structure of the inquiry as outlined by the Republicans in the Judiciary Committee, it may include a re- investigation of Travelgate, Filegate, and campaign finance even though we have already spent four years and $40 million investigating these matters. I voted for a motion that was forwarded by Rick Boucher to modify the Republican proposal. Mr. Boucher's motion would allow the House to proceed with an impeachment inquiry that focuses on the material that Mr. Starr referred to the Congress and his proposal would require Congress to complete this inquiry by the end of the year unless there were compelling reasons to continue it. This is the sort of common- sense, fair-minded inquiry that I believe will bring this issue to a timely and appropriate conclusion. The sooner we resolve this issue the sooner we can begin to deal with issues that make a difference in America's everyday lives. I hope that soon we will move toward bringing the Lewinsky matter to an appropriate close so that we can begin to re-focus our energies on issues like saving Social Security, cracking down on gang violence, and providing tax relief for middle class families.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this never-ending impeachment inquiry resolution.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time allotted to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to congratulate the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for the work they have done, and the entire task force. Let me talk a little bit about how this came about. When we came here as freshmen, we said one of the things we wanted to do, let us look for some commonality amongst our freshman class. All of us were elected in a year after the 104th Congress. We said there was too much finger pointing, too much bickering. Let us find our commonality and our common goals. We said campaign finance reform, we are coming in with new eyes as freshmen, let us deal with campaign finance reform, and let us deal with it in a bipartisan way. So we had a task force literally from the first month we were in session begin to work on campaign finance reform, and they worked and worked and had hearings and had hearings, and when the leadership said, well, we are not too excited about campaign finance reform, the freshmen pushed and the freshmen pushed and the freshmen pushed. I have to say congratulations to all of the task force for the work that they have done. We would not be here today without the freshmen and the work that they have done. It is time to give elections back to the people.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to enter into a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman regarding a program that is important to the coastal communities in this Nation. Mr. Chairman, less than three weeks ago the world witnessed one of the most devastating natural disasters in history. A giant wave known as a tsunami struck the shore of northwestern New Guinea, killing over 2,000 people and injuring thousands more. Some of us in this body may recall the tsunami that struck Alaska, California, Oregon and Hawaii in 1964, that killed over 120 Americans. Tsunamis are a real and extremely dangerous threat to life in the United States, as well as other countries. In light of the recent New Guinea incident, it is essential that our Nation evaluate its preparedness for a similar event. Over the last 2 years, NOAA has been developing a plan to mitigate the effects of such an event. I look forward to working with the chairman to see that the Federal Government is prepared for such an event.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I thank the chairman for the willingness to study this problem, and am anxious to work with him in conference on this issue.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say thanks to Capitol Police Officer Jacob Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson for being there when we needed them the most. I really shudder to think of how much worse this tragedy could have been if these two men had not been there to make the ultimate sacrifice at their posts. Today, as we honor them, I want to take a moment to recognize the reassuring presence of the Capitol Police who guard their institution with their lives every day. Thank you. As Friday's events so vividly demonstrated, without you, the exercise of democracy in this House, the People's House, would not be possible. You do a great service to your country. I ask for God's blessing to the family, to friends, to the other officers in this time of tragic loss.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the leadership he has shown on this issue. Let me tell my colleagues a little bit about this issue. I look at these two bills and I see mirror images. The Hastert bill takes us a step backwards, at least in Oregon, in protecting patients, and the Ganske-Dingell bill moves that agenda forward. I want to tell my colleagues how backwards this takes us. In Oregon, our State has already adopted model patient protections. Make no mistake: I would like to see us move forward on patient protection. This, in fact, moves Oregonians backwards. It repeals protections Oregonians already have been guaranteed by the State. Cervical cancer, mammogram screenings, minimum maternity care, mastectomy stays, breast reconstruction, alcoholism and drug abuse treatment, well child care. In the last session of the Oregon legislature they worked in a bipartisan fashion, held extensive hearings, took the data and opinions of everyone concerned, and what they got was a model piece of legislation. They had hearings on it. What a contrast to this. Please support the Ganske-Dingell bill.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

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