Darlene Hooley

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. This, frankly, is an attempt to kill a good program that is having a positive impact on the American technology industry and the economy as a whole. There is a small company, not a billionaire company, in my home State, called Planar America that is working to establish a United States presence in the flat panel display industry. Partly as a result of the ATP program, Planar has developed a means of refining the color in a remarkable technology called active matrix electroluminescence, which could rapidly become the display of choice in commercial video and military applications. But they are competing directly with companies in Japan working to beat them to the technology. The ATP program has played a key role in speeding up the development of this technology in an industry where timing is critical to future profits. In addition, Planar has invested more than an equal share in this effort as required by the program. Let me be clear. The ATP is not a corporate giveaway. The government has a role in giving our Nation a jump start on certain high-risk innovations, and we have a responsibility to employ foresight in making our decisions. Obviously our economy and our workers stand only to benefit from this very nominal investment. I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's research and development and vote no on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. This, frankly, is an attempt to kill a good program that is having a positive impact on the American technological industry and the economy as a whole. ATP is not, as some of my colleagues will tell you, a hand-out to big American corporations. It is an investment that otherwise may not be made without the good sense and forethought of Members of this body. This is not about subsidizing individual companies; this is about the broad effects of the program on the United States economy. The purpose of the program is to benefit entire industrial sectors that, in turn, create good jobs for U.S. workers in the future. Furthermore, it's a program that largely provides grants to small U.S. businesses. In fact, 47 percent of the current recipients are small businesses, with 75 percent of those businesses employing under 100 people. For those who are less familiar with this program, let me give an example of how this program is making a difference for a particular industry, largely involving small companies. The flat-panel display industry has become one of the principal battlefields of international competition in electronics. While our Nation has dominated technology development in the computing industry, most of the flat-panel display technologies have come from foreign countries, especially those relating to color displays. Computer manufacturing has been one of the most valuable industries for our Nation's economic growth with booming exports of personal computers to international markets. Yet we're allowing one of the most important components of that growth to be performed outside of the United States. The market for flat-panel displays is expected to reach $14 billion by the end of the decade. Our Nation can't afford to sell off this technology to foreign countries that are willing to adequately invest in its development. One recipient of an ATP grant in my home State of Oregon, called Planar America, is working to establish a United States presence in that industry. Partly as a result of the ATP program, Planar has developed a means of refining the color in a remarkable technology called Active Matrix Electroluminescence, which could rapidly become the display of choice in commercial video and military applications. But they are competing directly with companies in Japan working to beat them to the technology. The ATP program has played a key role in speeding up the development of this technology in an industry where timing is critical to future profits. In addition, Planar has invested more than an equal share in this effort, as required by the program. Let me be clear. The ATP is not a corporate giveaway. The Government has a role in giving our Nation a jump start on certain high-risk innovations, and we have a responsibility to employ foresight in making our decisions. Obviously, our economy and our workers stand only to benefit from this nominal investment. I urge my colleagues to support our Nation's research and development and vote no on this amendment.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I would like to make several points very clear. This amendment is not about whether or not we should be providing free syringes to drug users. Like most of my colleagues, I would oppose any program that would promote any form of drug abuse, especially among intravenous users. However, let's speak to the facts, Mr. Chairman. There is no Federal needle-exchange program in existence at this point. There have been programs implemented in more than 100 communities around the country, and many of those communities have seen a significant decrease of new HIV infections as a result. This amendment, however, would not directly address these programs. Rather, it would preclude the Secretary of Health and Human Services from doing her job to identify public health issues and promote programs to improve the health of the U.S. population. This, Mr. Chairman, is a solution in search of a problem. If anyone here contends that we are no longer in a crisis situation concerning the spread of HIV in this Nation, then this Nation is in a state of denial. Approximately one-third of reported AIDS cases are related to injection drug use, as are most new AIDS cases among the heterosexual population. So I disagree with the sponsor of this amendment, my distinguished colleague from Illinois, that this is a behavior that the public health community should ignore. Current language in this bill already prohibits local communities from using Federal funds for needle exchange programs unless the Secretary determines that exchange programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV and do not encourage the use of illegal drugs. This effective prohibition has been in effect since 1990. I hope that my colleagues and the American public will see through this political gimmick and maintain current law. I urge a no vote on this amendment and thank the chairman for this time.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen]. First of all, I thank the gentleman for the leadership that he has shown in this area, Mr. Speaker, as the cochair of the bipartisan task force, the work that he did. I think it is important for people to know that this committee spent months hearing every group imaginable talk about this issue. What we came up with, and what I am proud to be part of, is a piece of legislation that actually hopefully has a chance to pass. And I guess I am just practical enough that I want something that can pass. I mean, Mr. Speaker, I would love to see comprehensive campaign finance reform. I wish we could make it happen; it is probably not. So how do we do it incrementally? And I think this piece of legislation that the freshmen introduced is a way to go. Mr. Speaker, when I got here people asked me, what is it like and who are the people that you serve with? I talk about my fellow Members of Congress and I talk about the fact that people are here, they have integrity, they work hard, they care about their districts, they really work hard to care about their districts. Yet, I find that three- quarters, according to a poll, and I know we are not supposed to listen to a poll, but when you hear a poll that talks about three-quarters of Americans believe that public officials make or change policy decisions as a result of money that they receive from major contributors, that perception tells me that this campaign system is morally bankrupt and that if we want to get back the confidence of the American public, we absolutely have to do something about campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, soft money came about. It was never intended to happen, and that is where so many of the large donors give large chunks of money. And I do not think they want to do it any more either. But it is a system that literally has exploded. Both parties collected twice as much as they did 2 years ago. What is it going to be like in the next year? What is it going to be like 3 years from now? We absolutely have to do something about soft money. There is no control over it. So banning soft money, which this bill does, I think is again a step in the right direction. There were a lot of ads on TV and most people have no idea where they came from. If it was our ad, we had to put our name on it and usually a little picture so that people knew who was putting that ad out. But we saw other ads on television for issues, advocacy issues, that said who it was sponsored by. But then there were ads, and it does not matter whether it was for or against us, there were ads that came from committees like the Good Government Committee. Mr. Speaker, tell me, who is the Good Government Committee? It could be anyone. The name is made up. Mr. Speaker, we have several donors. There is no disclosure on those independent campaigns of who those donors are. People say, well, what difference does it make if we know? I think it is important. People make decisions based on who financed; what do they really care about; what is the message they are really trying to get across; who donated the money to those independent expenditure campaigns? Again, Mr. Speaker, these ads are going to happen and it does not matter whether they are for or against us as Members of Congress, the fact is we need disclosure. We need to know who funds those campaigns. What this bill does very simply is it just says, if candidates are going to fund independent expenditures, they have the right to do that under the Constitution. They can do that. But if they are going to do it, then they must, they must tell who funds those campaigns. So it is a little disclosure piece. Mr. Speaker, the third part that I really like, campaign disclosure for candidates, how much is spent, where candidates get the money. We are back in the dark ages. It is the days of writing it out with a scroll and the pen and ink. Mr. Speaker, we now have computers. We have fax machines. We can or should be able to get the information to the Federal Elections Commission much quicker than what currently happens. Again, people have a right to know where candidates are getting their money and how they are spending it. So, I would like to see us get into this next century and do it in a way that makes sense for people. Again, this is not comprehensive campaign finance reform, which I would like to see happen, but it is an incremental step that has bipartisan support. I guess the problem I have as a new Member is when an issue like this is important, and it is important to the public's confidence in this institution, and I am very proud, as a new Member, very proud to be part of this institution. But when people lack faith in us, it is really an incentive for them to not vote and not be part of a system. This is a system of self-government and we want people to be involved in this process. It is critical to our democracy that we have people involved in this process. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to at least ban the soft money; at least have the disclosure of independent expenditures; and those of us that are candidates, let us make sure that people also know where we get our money and how we spend it. So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Allen] for all of the work. I guess I have a problem with not having this up for debate and a vote. I do not think there is any issue that is not worthy, or at least I cannot think of any right at the moment, that is not worthy of debate and a vote. This is a critical issue to our democracy and all we are asking for is that it be allowed to the floor before we go home for the winter recess and that we have a chance to vote on it. Up or down; any one of those bills. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his hard work.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, that is why I came.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, our finance system, campaign finance system is riddled with loopholes. Large corporate contributions are routinely spent on Federal elections despite legislation which is intended to limit them. Mr. Speaker, the leverage these big corporate dollars have on the political process limits the ability of the average citizen to make his or her voice heard in the political process. It is time for Congress to take campaign finance reform legislation out of limbo and pass substantive reform. With the introduction of a bill crafted by a bipartisan freshman task force, we have a good legislative vehicle to make this happen. This legislation would take an evenhanded step toward reforming the system. It bans soft money contributions, requires full disclosure of independent expenditure campaigns, and tightens up candidate reporting guidelines. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for an end to the stalemate on campaign finance reform. Let us bring this to the floor for debate and for a vote.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern with a provision in this legislation. I applaud my colleagues for their hard work in reaching this year's unprecedented budget agreement that successfully expanded the Pell Grant Program and provided new tax incentives for education. I also wish to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration. However, I am especially concerned that this legislation completely eliminates one of the most successful higher education financial aid programs in history. The State Student Incentive Grant Program, or SSIG, has succeeded in encouraging the development of need-based financial aid programs in all 50 States. It has not only provided the seed money that was intended at its inception 25 years ago, but has also helped maintain State commitments to need-based financial aid in subsequent years. This is a program that gives the neediest students opportunities to attend higher education institutions, through grants and work-study jobs. Yes, the Pell Grant Program is making a college education accessible for many low-income students, but SSIG helps States retain those students who absolutely could not afford college without the supplemental funds that pay the financial shortfall that Pell and other financial aid programs cannot support. It now serves over 700,000 students at 2- and 4-year colleges and universities nationwide, and it does so by leveraging over 780 million dollars in State matching funds. In speaking with students and program administrators in my State, I have been repeatedly told that the Federal funds are essential in encouraging policy-makers to maintain state funding levels. In 13 States, the SSIG funds comprise at least 25 percent of available student grant aid. Additionally, in an independent survey of State financial aid administrators, 86 percent indicates that the elimination of the SSIG would result in States reducing the number and amount of need-based grants. It is evident that an elimination of this program could have dramatic impacts on students in States across the Nation. The SSIG Program was never given a sunset date for a good reason: it continues to serve as an efficient and economical incentive for States to help make higher education accessible. As college costs continue to rise, and as the ratio of grants to loans continues to decline, it is imperative that we retain incentives for States to continue their efforts. I am disappointed that this legislation overlooks the essential benefits of this program. However, I urge my colleagues to join me in future efforts to restore this valuable program.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have the sad obligation today to join this House in mourning the death of the father of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell], my friend and colleague. Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure of meeting William Pascrell, Sr., but I understand that he embodied many of the personal qualities that we admire in this country. William Pascrell, Sr., was the son of immigrants, a self-made man, a life-long railroad worker. After retirement, he gave of his time freely to charity. We all know how difficult it is to lose a loved one, so I think I can speak for every Member of this House in saying that we are deeply saddened by this loss.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed to read in Tuesday's Congress Daily the top Republican lawmakers were not going to make passing campaign finance reform a priority this session. It is time to recognize there are no more legitimate excuses why this body has not acted on this issue. The American people want it, the political process needs it, and we have a good legislative vehicle to make it happen, thanks to a recently introduced bill by a bipartisan freshman task force. Our Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act would take an important first step toward reforming the political process by banning soft money contributions. Soft money contributions allow individuals, corporations, and other organizations to give unlimited amounts of money to influence Federal elections. It is time to close the soft money loophole and pass meaningful campaign finance reform.

Ms. HOOLEY

Ms. HOOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Representative Elizabeth Furse, in introducing legislation that will provide targeted capital gains tax relief to small business owners. Our bill would reward small business owners who reinvest their profits in American small businesses, and would demonstrate our national commitment to the health and welfare of our nation's entrepreneurs. In the state of Oregon, small businesses are a crucial part of the growing economy. In fact, more than 95 percent of businesses in the state earn less than $5 million a year. These growing businesses are providing quality jobs and economic opportunity for working families across our state. But this experience is not unique to Oregon. Small businesses across this country are providing the new jobs and economic growth that are driving our strong economy. As Congress continues to work toward balancing the budget and providing tax relief, it is essential that we maximize the benefit of tax reductions by targeting them to the people who need them most. This bill does just that by encouraging reinvestment in small business and creating a climate for continued growth and job creation. I am also pleased that the Oregon Bankers Association and the Pacific Northwest International Trade Association have joined us in support of the legislation. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this important small business legislation.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, we need to pass a tax relief package that works for working Americans. By the way, the method of calculating income by the Treasury Department was indeed devised by the Reagan administration. The tax reconciliation bill denies tax relief to millions of working families who pay Federal taxes but who earn less than $30,000 a year. These folks would be unable to claim the $500-per-child tax credit even though they pay Federal taxes. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about nurses, teachers, junior police officers who are trying to raise their families on limited incomes. We are talking about small business owners, family farmers, hourly wage earners. We are talking about people who put a significant percentage of their salaries toward paying Federal payroll taxes. We are talking about people who need tax relief. We are talking about people who get nothing under this tax plan. Let us not pass up this golden opportunity to provide tax relief to families that need it most. It is time to restore the full $500-per- child credit to working families.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this important legislation to reauthorize the Carl Perkins Act. These programs are making great strides in improving technical education in my State of Oregon and across this Nation. Most of my colleagues need no reminder that the high-tech industry has become one of the most important forces behind our surging, economy, and has produced millions of new manufacturing and information-technology jobs in this decade. In fact, the electronics and information technology industry employed more than 4 million American workers in 1995, and the average wage of a high-tech worker is nearly 60-percent higher than that of the average private sector worker. However, I am repeatedly told by high-tech companies in my State that we're still not educating enough workers with adequate science, math and engineering training to fill those jobs. The Carl Perkins Act educates over 10,000 students each year through a variety of vocational education programs that have been shown to be highly successful in helping to prepare students for high-tech careers. In my State, the number of Professional Technical students is increasing by 9 percent annually and should reach 35 percent by the year 2000. I am pleased that we have reached a reasonable compromise on the funding formulas and have partially restored the size of the minimum grants to local education agencies. While I do not believe that we should alter these formulas, it is beneficial that we have been able to reach a consensus and hopefully reauthorize spending on these vital programs. I commend and congratulate the distinguished chairman, the subcommittee chairman and the ranking members for their hard work in doing this. I would like to mention my satisfaction with one measure in this bill that would allow secondary and postsecondary schools to join in consortia to allow professional technical education to be delivered in a continuum from grades 9 through 14. Under a waiver granted by the Secretary of Education, Oregon has already developed 10 such regional consortia that serve half of the eligible students. These consortia are common sense and cost-effective means of improving vocational education. In establishing the consortia, we have not only increased the number of students involved in the programs, but have improved professional technical education by engaging the entire community, including local businesses, to provide continuous quality improvement. I am pleased that we have been able to address this bill, and continue providing these important programs to advance the technical educations of so many students across the Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my views on the Porter-Kennedy amendment. I have come to Congress to find solutions, to find ways to use the legislative process to help us resolve our differences. I know firsthand that forest issues can be extremely divisive. To be honest, I am very frustrated with the polarized options we are being asked to consider today. We need to work to find commonsense solutions, that balance conservation concerns with the tremendous need for road reconstruction and maintenance. What I find most troubling is that we do not have the means to maintain the massive road network that we have created. According to the U.S. Forest Service, this Nation has a forest road maintenance backlog of $440 million. In my district alone, it is a $20 million backlog. When we fail to maintain necessary road and decommissioned roads which have long been out of use, we create serious environmental hazards and threats to public safety. There is simply no sense in allocating scarce dollars to construct the new roads when we need to be repairing and reconstructing existing roads. While I plan to vote for the Porter-Kennedy amendment, I want to make it very clear that I do not think this amendment is the ultimate solution to our forest road dilemmas. I am supportive of the amendment's emphasis on not spending Federal Government moneys on new road construction. I think that eliminating purchaser road credits is a move in the right direction. The Bureau of Land Management timber purchasers have never used the purchaser road credits and have been able to build roads and access timber in an affordable and efficient manner. Forest Service purchasers should do the same. However, I find it disturbing that this amendment takes funding away from forest road reconstruction. In the forests in my district, reconstruction funds go to flood repair in damaged areas and roads that are badly in need of maintenance. While I commend this amendment for defunding new roads, I think that this amendment does not, take, as broad a view of the problems confronting our forests as it should. What we really need is comprehensive forest legislation which takes funds earmarked for new road construction and puts that money into road maintenance. I plan to do everything I can in the coming days to make sure our existing roads are safe and I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for this historic budget agreement. We have a remarkable opportunity to balance the budget while protecting our values, and I believe we should do everything we can to craft a budget plan that will be good for all Americans. Balancing the budget and putting our fiscal house in order is the single most important thing we can do for our children, and for our future. We have made important strides toward balancing the budget and shrinking the deficit while maintaining a healthy, growing economy. But there is still a long way to go. While I am voting in support of the measure, the bill is far from perfect. In the past 2 days important improvements have been made to the legislation. The leadership should be commended for continuing negotiations. However, further changes are needed in key areas including children's health care, reproductive choice and medical savings accounts. I am very concerned about the inclusion of the Hyde amendment restrictions in the children's health initiative. I believe the inclusion of this anti-choice rider is an inappropriate infringement on reproductive rights. I am pleased that the bill includes the $16 billion in funding for the children's health care initiative, as outlined by the budget resolution. Making health care affordable and accessible to our country's 10 million uninsured children must remain a core budget priority. Even though I believe we should provide States with much- needed flexibility in implementing the initiative, we must ensure that States use the new funds to expand health services for children in need. Many States have already acted in very aggressive and innovative ways to expand health coverage to uninsured kids. Unfortunately, the formula included in this bill is structured so it penalizes States like Oregon that have already taken action to provide health care to more children. The distribution of funds is unfair and it is bad policy. We should be rewarding Oregon, and other States that have already invested in creative policies for expanding coverage. Instead, the bill rewards inaction and punishes innovation. Finally, I must express some deep reservations over the inclusion of a large medical savings account demonstration project for Medicare beneficiaries. I am very concerned about the effects MSA's could have on Medicare beneficiaries. In my view, a 500,000-person demonstration project is much too large to test the impact of MSAs on Medicare. Because of the uncertainties associated with MSA's, any demonstration project must proceed with caution. Today is another step in this important budget process. I support this step, and urge my colleagues and the administration to continue our hard work for budget legislation that will best serve the American people.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this bill, which would fully reauthorize a program that has been vital to our Nation's oceanic industries. The Sea Grant Program was established in 1966 to improve our Nation's marine resource conservation and management efforts, and is modeled after the very successful Land Grant College Program. The fishing industry in the Pacific Northwest produces about 55 percent of the Nation's seafood, and is a critical component of many coastal economies in my State. The Oregon Sea Grant Program has been highly successful in its research and marine extension programs, which are oriented toward this industry. One example of its research activities involves the utilization of seafood wastes. Few people realize that between 30 and 40 percent of the seafood raw material is actually used in food products, while most of the remaining material typically goes to waste. The Oregon Sea Grant Program helps fund research which examines the potential for using some of this waste material in products such as fishmeal and bioactive products including enzymes. These efforts have spawned new, multimillion dollar industries in the Pacific Northwest. Researchers are also studying ways to remove bioactive components of seafood waste water to save money for both processors, municipalities, and customers. The Oregon program has also been very successful in assisting fishing dependent families adapt to the changing industry conditions, and has been a major force in the development of the Pacific Whiting Industry in Oregon. In addition, the Sea Grant Program is also involved in State and local efforts to restore severely degraded salmon and watershed habitats. Other programs around the Nation, working closely with industries, have developed new aquaculture techniques, designed improved coastal planning schemes, created new methods of saving cold-water drowning victims, and created a comprehensive data base on toxic contaminants in an aquatic system. And again, I want to stress that the benefits of Sea Grant extend beyond the applied commercial and environmental effects. This university program has been instrumental in educating future generations of researchers in the techniques and nuances of marine science. These successes clearly warrant support for fully funding the program at levels consistent with those in recent years, as this bill authorizes. I am convinced that these and many other basic research programs are wise investments in the Nation's economic future. We now have more than anecdotal evidence that research pays off handsomely for our economy over time, but it also pays off by significantly improving our quality of life. Scientists have been doing more with less in recent years. These advancements of efficiency should be commended and continued. However, we must continue to acknowledge the invaluable responsibilities shouldered by our research communities, especially on university campuses. We must maintain strong support for important scientific investigations and for the education of students across the science, math and engineering disciplines. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I support the measure because we cannot, in good conscience, continue to turn a blind eye to the undemocratic and often deplorable practices of a few rogue nations. The code of conduct legislation does more than just recognize the atrocities being committed by these countries. It directs the President to certify countries interested in purchasing weapons from the United States based on their ability to institute democratic practices. The code would prohibit sales of arms to nations partaking in human rights violations and acts of aggression. Former Senator Hatfield, one of the original sponsors of code of conduct legislation in Congress, stated that last year that ``it is time for Congress to assume a greater responsibility for our arms export policies.'' Those words still ring true. This week, we have voted on amendments to condemn various countries from involvement in terrorism, for brutal acts of religious or ethnic persecution, and to punish countries for acts of armed aggression. Yet, some Members would vote to allow continued sales of arms to these same countries which have raised our ire. It's time to stop talking about the horrific acts of these rogue nations and start doing something to curb the ability of those nations to acquire the tools to conduct their atrocities. Furthermore, how can we continue to sell arms to nations that may use those weapons against American soldiers? This practice puts our sons and daughters in further danger whenever our troops are deployed. Our soldiers have already faced forces armed with United States produced weapons in recent troop deployments in Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, and Panama. This is unacceptable. Let's finally bring some accountability to the process of selling arms on the international market. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the budget resolution today. Although not a perfect plan, and we have heard that many times before, the heart of this agreement is in the right place. Balancing the budget without making massive cuts to Medicare or Medicaid is a good thing. Crossing party lines and working together is a good thing. Providing $35 billion in education tax relief is a good thing. And that is what this agreement is all about. I agree with my colleagues who have expressed concerns about some of the tax cut packages. But what is the appropriate response to that concern? I think we should embrace this budget framework with cautious optimism, work with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the tax bills provide relief for the people who really need it, support tuition tax deductions for working families, and target estate tax relief for family farmers and small business owners. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this budget agreement.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, the two great certainties in life--death and taxes-- are making it difficult for heirs to hold onto family farms and small businesses. I believe that it is time to take action to reform the estate tax so that it will be easier for family farmers and small business owners to pass their operations on to their children. The Family Business Preservation Act is a targeted tax exclusion that is designed to have the biggest possible impact on family business owners with the smallest possible impact on the Federal Treasury. The bill would exclude the first $1.2 million of value in a family-owned business interest from a decedent's estate. The new exclusion would be provided in addition to the unified credit which currently lets heirs protect up to $600,000 of their inheritance from the estate tax. It is critical to take action on estate tax reform now. The $600,000 exemption to the estate tax has not been raised since the mid-1980's. And rising farmland costs coupled with an aging farm population makes swift action on this proposal critical. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Please join me in taking a step to ensure that when a family has to face personal tragedy, such as the death of a parent or a loved one, they will not have to worry that it will also lead to the loss of their family farm or business.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, during the vote on the Lofgren amendment to H.R. 3, rollcall vote No. 115, I was unavoidably detained in a meeting. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted ``aye.'' Announcement Regarding Amendments to Foreign Policy Reform Act (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to speak out of order for 1 minute.)

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues that our juvenile justice system is in desperate need of attention. There is no question that juvenile crime is on the rise. We must stop this violence. Now the question is: Are we going to sit here in Washington, DC, 3,000 miles away from our communities, and try to solve our juvenile crime problem, or are we going to trust our local communities and give them the resources they need to stop juvenile violence? Are we going to keep coming up with piecemeal quick-fixes, or are we going to look at a comprehensive program to stop juvenile crime? I have made a point to meet with the people of my district, people who really understand juvenile justice. I have talked with our sheriffs and our law enforcement officials, our judges and our prosecutors. They all agree that this proposal, which focuses on prevention, intervention and sanctions, is the only way to stop juvenile crime. We also need to look at programs that have worked. I can guarantee we will get more accountability from proven programs than we will from plans that we draw up in Washington. This proposal asks our community members to work together to share methods of decreasing crime in their neighborhoods. When people work together on a plan, I will guarantee that they will take a lot more interest and it will be much more successful than a plan that we dictate from thousands of miles away. Our proposal gives communities the tools they need to work together to support our kids before they become juvenile delinquents. Our proposal also has a strong intervention component for those juveniles who can be steered away from the path of crime. We can also stop our juvenile delinquents from committing more crimes if we make sure they have immediate consequences to their problems no matter how minor the infraction. They need to know they will be punished if they break the law. We must also get tough on kids that commit violent crimes and prosecute those kids to the fullest extend of our laws. This is a comprehensive juvenile justice plan that stops teenage violence by giving incentives to communities that work together and come up with a plan that works in their communities. We will measure the results and hold them accountable for decreasing juvenile crime. My question is, are we going to dictate solutions to juvenile crime from D.C. or are we going to trust our communities, invest in our future, and vote for a bill that will reduce juvenile violence?

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, for the record, on rollcall vote 103 I mistakenly pressed ``aye'' instead of ``no.'' My vote should have been recorded as a ``no.''

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Frank-Jackson amendment. As a former board member of the Clackamas County Housing Authority, I have firsthand experience in managing public housing. Having worked through the bureaucracy and redtape myself, I know that we need to restore some local control and increase efficiency. I agree with many of the underlying goals of H.R. 2. The sponsors of the bill have argued, and I agree, that we need to do more to increase flexibility for local housing authorities and reduce unwarranted rules and regulations. We need to ensure that our scarce resources are being spent to provide affordable housing and quality services in the most cost efficient manner. Unfortunately, H.R. 2 imposes a serious new unfunded mandate on public housing authorities in the form of a so-called self-sufficiency contract. While the bill would mandate that public housing authorities develop self-sufficiency agreements for each tenant and mandatory community service requirements, it does not authorize any funding to assist housing authorities in dealing with this administrative nightmare. I have spoken with many of the housing authority directors in Oregon, and they have all expressed strong opposition to this burdensome requirement which would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to implement. In fact, the Portland Housing Authority has estimated that the new self-sufficiency requirement could easily add $400,000 to the operating cost. This amendment would ensure that in the absence of sufficient funding to cover the costs of this mandate, public housing authorities will have discretion over whether to implement a self- sufficiency and community work program. This is not an issue of volunteerism and community service. I support the voluntary efforts to increase community service and participation that frankly are underway in many of the communities across this country. H.R. 2 cloaks the issue of costly unfunded mandates and compulsory work requirements behind the veil of volunteerism. Do not be fooled by the rhetoric. Self-sufficiency contracts impose a costly new burden on housing authorities that are already struggling to operate with shrinking budgets and increasing demand. If we insist on imposing standard community work and self-sufficiency requirements on local housing authorities, we then must provide them with funding to meet that goal. If we want to provide local control and increased efficiency, we need to listen to our local housing authority directors, who strongly support this amendment as an alternative to the unfunded mandate of H.R. 2. I urge my colleagues to take a stand against unfunded mandates and support the Frank-Jackson amendment.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Thank you Mr. Chairman. For almost 50 years, the National Science Foundation has worked to expand the core of knowledge that has broadened our horizons in almost every field of science, engineering, and mathematics. We may not always see such direct applications of most of the research, but advancements in understanding of our planet, the composition of life, and the elements of technologies enrich our lives. Equally important in the mission of the NSF is its dedication to integrating education into its activities. Obviously, future scientific successes hinge on society's ability to train students to understand the fundamentals of current knowledge. In conducting research, undergraduate and graduate students must have adequate opportunities to learn from direct experience. And precollege students should not be left out of the picture. I can tell you as a former educator--and I know that many of my colleagues will agree--that if our students do to learn the basics of science in their youth, we will be hard pressed to find interested and prepared students at the higher levels. We must also remember that scientific education extends beyond the immediate research community. If our Nation's populace does not understand the issues facing our national science policies, they cannot make informed decisions that affect those policies. I understood the rationale for keeping the education and human resources accounts in check, and I look forward to further inquiries by this body into the successes of the programs in this category. However, pending such a review, I think that we should further expand our educational programs within the NSF and other agencies. We have an obligation to do as much as possible to support education, and in particular, the improvement of our students' math and science skills. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, we are very frustrated by the slow start of this Congress. Even though we are about to pass the 100-day marker, this Congress is still stuck at the starting gate. To date we have only taken 60 votes compared to 2 years ago where we took 302 votes. I would like to think that this Congress is sort of like an old car that is just taking a little while to get warmed up, but the troubling thing about this session is we seem to be in a permanent stall. We are not working on issues that matter to American families now, and there is no plan to work on them in the future. The real tragedy is that these are issues both Democrats, Republicans and the Americans would like to work on, issues like reforming campaign finance, balancing our budget and improving our schools. We are not just working on them now, but they are not scheduled for the future. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to abandon the ``who cares'' legislative agenda that has dominated the first 100 days of this Congress and get to work on the issues that really matter to the American people.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Again, all I want is a chance for it to be brought up so we can look at all of the different ways. I think we can do it within the current system, but I would like to see it brought up so we can have that debate on how do we solve this problem, how do we cover our kids with health insurance, a critical issue, one facing an incredible number of families. Just think about it, three kids every single minute. We have been talking I do not know how many minutes, but three kids each of those minutes we have been talking loses their health insurance. It is an issue we just have to face.

Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Last weekend I was at home, Mr. Speaker, in Oregon, and I was at a community health program. I talked to some of the people there. I think it is helpful to hear some real life stories. I can give a lot of them, but let me just repeat a couple. I was talking to one woman who had three children, two smaller ones and a child that was 9. She had no health care coverage. She was working. She worked for $6.50 an hour. She was working about 26 hours a week. Her employer provided no health insurance for either her or her children. Her husband worked. He had a very low base pay. He worked on commissions. Some months he made better than others. In Oregon we have what is called an Oregon Health Plan, but because you have to be consistently at a certain pay level, some months he made more so he was not eligible, and then the months that he made less, by the time he got eligible he was into a month where he made more. But the fact is, they never had enough money for insurance. So they have three children, both parents are working, he is working full-time, she is working more than half-time, neither company provides insurance for their children. They are living really month to month, and in this instance, they were able to go to a community health program where they paid on a sliding scale and got some attention, but it is very difficult. It is a community health program that has too many patients, no more room to expand, so they are also restricting the number of people they can see. Another person I talked to was a father of four kids, two sets of twins, and his youngest child got sick, one of the younger twins. He took that child, he said, all day long from clinic to clinic to clinic, and he was turned away. He was turned away at the emergency room, trying to find some place to take his child. Again, no health care. He was a person that worked hard, worked full-time. He worked three different jobs, but he traveled, so he worked 3 months or 4 months or 5 months on one job, another 4 or 5 months on another job, and so again the employer did not cover the cost because he was not there full-time. But he was not a person that was not working very hard at what he was doing, but barely able to make ends meet. That is a very common story.