Adam Smith

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. I thank the gentleman very much. We also have, for a Midwest perspective, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). As has been mentioned frequently, but I do not think can be mentioned often enough, this is a national problem that we need to step up to. It will have a profound effect on our economy if we do not figure out some way to provide affordable energy sources to our Nation for a long time to come, which will be a big challenge. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), from my home State. As Washingtonians, we know this is not just a California problem. It is certainly not even just a West Coast problem.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on a couple of points that the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson) made. First of all, in the investments in alternative energy and conservation programs, the cut in the President's proposed budget is 36 percent from what was already a fairly meager amount. It was $373 million last year. It goes down to $237 million in the President's budget. On something that is so important, we can certainly make a better investment and move, hopefully, forward towards finding some of these new technologies and finding that balanced approach. The second thing is I think it is critical to point out that this is not a one-sided problem, either on the conservation, new technology side. We do have a problem in locating plants. We did a bad job over the course of the last 10 years in preparing for what somebody should have seen coming, which was the offset of supply and demand that we currently are experiencing. Part of that problem is what the gentleman said, not knowing what the rules are. It is not a matter of we want to be able to build whatever power plant we want wherever, we just want to know what the rules are so that people can make an intelligent investment decision to build the plant where we want them to build it in the manner in which we want them to build it. There are a variety of different things we can do in that side of the technology, too. I mean, the way we have the system set up now, it costs more money to bring new plants online in terms of the sort of pollution credits that one has to buy, basically buying the right to pollute, but at the same time one is generating energy. That is the way we do it. But the newer plants are more efficient and more environmentally sensitive. The older plants that are not do not have to buy those credits, or at least they do not have to buy as much and pay as much. So. There is a whole lot of things we can look at, both on the generation of typical fossil fuels and conservation and new technology. It is a balanced approach that we really need to take to make this work. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) who is going to give us some further perspective on the issue.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk about what is fast becoming one of the largest problems our country faces, and that is the energy crisis. It is not just a California problem. It has spread certainly to the Northwest, where I am from, but also throughout the country, as we see prices for all sorts of energy consumption, from gas at the pump to electricity in the home, go up considerably. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very good that the President has focused a large number of resources on deciding what to do about this problem. He has put together a task force and the Vice President is taking the leadership role on that. I think this is a problem that we need to focus on. I am not as excited about the initial reports from the Vice President and the President about the direction they need to go in, but I feel, and so does the new Democratic coalition, which I rise tonight in part to represent, that it is a good first step and we can get there on the policy. But where should we go? The Vice President's approach and some of his initial remarks were, first of all, that we are going to need to build a power plant a week for the next 20 years, and that conservation, while a personal virtue, is not an energy policy. The vision that is laid out from those initial statements is that we are going to be building a lot of power plants and power plants that are focused on existing fuel sources, fossil fuel, oil, natural gas, coal, and we are simply going to try to burn and drill our way out of the problem. Is this a good solution to our energy crisis? I would argue, and my fellow new Democrats also argue, that this is not the best solution. There are a lot of damaging side effects to taking that approach, and what is more, there is a better option, a better approach. Building a power plant every week for the next 20 years is going to be an incredibly costly endeavor, costly in terms of money and costly in terms of the impact that it has on our environment. When you are drilling for oil all over the place, you have a tendency to damage the environment and have an impact. When you burn that oil, when you burn those fossil fuels, you have a very damaging impact on the quality of our air and on the overall quality of our environment. This is not the best direction to go in. One final reason why I do not think it is the best direction to go in, it has been a constant focus on our dependency on foreign sources for our energy. In fact, ironically, that is one of the arguments that the administration gives for drilling in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve and the Gulf of Mexico and a variety of different places for oil domestically: to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Drilling for more oil is not going to reduce our dependency on foreign energy sources. As long as we have a fossil fuel base system, as long as we are dependent on oil, we are going to be dependent on foreign sources for that oil, because you could drill the entire country and you would not come up with as much oil as they have in the Middle East and Russia and in a variety of other places that we are dependent on. The only way to reduce our foreign dependency on energy is to come up with new sources of that energy, and that is what we and the new Democrats are talking about doing. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear; we need more generation. Some of that generation will have to be traditional natural gas, coal-burning, fossil fuel-generating plants. We understand that we cannot simply tomorrow shift to new sources of energy and get off of this, but we would like to be able to do so as soon as possible, for all of the reasons that I stated. What are the possibilities here? Is it simply a matter of generating a megawatt here, a megawatt there? It is much better than that. The possibilities of what we can accomplish in terms of shifting our focus and energy dependency away from fossil fuels towards greater conservation and new technologies is far greater than I feel most people realize. Even before we get into the new sources of energy discussion, even focusing on conservation, the thing the Vice President said was a personal virtue but not an energy policy, if we were to improve in homes and businesses the way we consume energy, electricity, natural gas, a variety of different things, improve conservation, we could save an unbelievable amount of energy. A recent survey on conservation just cited a couple of things that we could do: tuning up residential air-conditioning, tuning up commercial buildings, more efficient air-conditioning systems in those commercial buildings, and more efficient commercial lighting. All of those things combined could save sufficient megawatts to save us well over 100 of those new power plants that the Vice President has proposed that we needed. If we could then move on to new technologies, solar, wind, fuel cell technology, biomass, a variety of different programs that are out there, we could save even more. By a very conservative estimate, we could cut in half the number of new power plants that we need; maybe more if we went out and spent the money and experimented and found out what we could do. This is a much better, more balanced approach. It is better for the environment. It is better for domestic security, so that we are not dependent on those foreign sources of energy, and it will build us a long-term sustainable energy policy, instead of thinking that we could simply drill our way out of it by depending on fossil fuels. We need this balanced approach. What I sincerely hope that the President and the Vice President do is engage Congress to work on this, to balance out this approach and come up with a sustainable long-term policy. A lot of people will say on a number of these subjects that I talked about, whether it is wind, solar, fuel cell, increased conservation, it is just not cost effective. It does not work. In other words, it is too expensive right now to generate wind power, and you do not really get that much. Conservation will not really save you that much because you have to spend a lot of money to get there. We do not have the technology to accomplish this. I would like to draw an analogy to another topic that we have been debating here recently in Congress, and that is the national missile defense system. The President has also recently come out and said we need to build a national missile defense system, basically a system where we could protect at least some portion of the United States, actually, I think it is all of the United States, by being able to shoot down one or two rogue ICBMs if they are fired at the U.S. We will not find a scientist in this country right now who says that currently that can work at this moment. You will find some who say it will never work. You will find some others who think we can work our way out of it, but the bottom line is the President is saying that whatever you think about this policy, that it is so important to this country that we be able to protect ourselves from a rogue missile or ICBM coming from a rogue nation, that we should spend the money and find out. Figure it out. He is willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to come up with this solution. Like I said, I am not speaking against that policy. He may well be right. That may be such an important policy to do that, but transfer that to energy. Why not spend at least a fraction of that developing some of these new technologies? If we can figure out in the President's estimation how to hit a bullet with a bullet, with the national missile defense system, by spending enough money, why can we not figure out how to conserve energy better and develop new sources of energy so that we are not relying on the fossil fuel system we have right now? The answer is that we can. We can develop those technologies, wean our dependence on fossil fuels and better use conservation so we have a cleaner future in addition to ones that generate the energy that we need. We need to take this balanced approach. It is not enough to simply say, coal, natural gas, oil, that is all we have, that is all that works, let us move on and not change, not look at conservation, not look at alternatives. We need to strike that balanced approach. I have some colleagues here who are going to participate in the debate as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the help from the gentleman, and support and work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, now I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy), also a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, we are joined by another freshman Member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), who has also worked on education issues on the State level and now is taking that expertise to the Federal level.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on one of the points that the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) mentioned about the accountability provisions and how they are currently in the Federal law and what we would like to do to change them to. Ironically, right now, there is no accountability in terms of the Federal money spent. That means that the Federal Government does not periodically do audits of school districts, but when they go in, what they look at is, did you spend the money the way we told you to, and did you fill out the paperwork that proves that. The one thing that those Federal audits do not care about is whether or not the children are succeeding, whether or not the school is working. That is a ridiculous situation, putting process over results. What we try to do here is we change that. We will give them the flexibility to spend the money to succeed, but we are also going to keep track of whether or not you are succeeding and if you are not, we are going to figure out a way to help all schools succeed. It is much better than the paperwork approach used right now. Mr. Speaker, I yield to a new Member of Congress, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, that concludes our presentation. I am going to conclude with a few remarks of my own, but I want to thank my colleagues who joined me here today to introduce our proposal on Federal education policy, the RRRs proposal that was introduced today as a bill. I particularly want to thank the new Democrats and the work that they have done to forge this middle ground on education, to stop the either/or partisan rhetoric that has been going on and focus on something that will really work and will give us the results that we want. We have a great challenge over the course of the next few months. Our President has made education his top priority and that gives us a tremendous opportunity to make some long-needed changes in Federal education policy. But the devil is always in the details and the difficulty is not in talking about it, but in getting it done. So I hope that we will work hard to make sure that we get there and do what we need to do on education. We need to make an investment, but in order to make that investment, we need to show the taxpayers that they are going to get results for their dollars. That is sort of the battle I think that has been going on in this country, and a lot of skepticism about the ability of government to get anything done. There are those who believe that government should just sort of get out of the way of everything, and we are not going to change their minds. However, I think there is a larger group of people out there who recognize that particularly in an area like education, government can have a real positive impact on improving the quality of our lives in this country. These taxpayers just want their money's worth. They do not want us to simply say we are going to throw more money at the problem. They want to know that they are going to be accountable for results that comes with that money. If we can push the three Rs bill that focuses on local control, flexibility and results, I think we can get the public support we need to spend the dollars we need, but that is going to be a real challenge. It is a challenge as new Democrats that we put down for the President to work with us, certainly to get the accountability and the results- oriented focus. But once we have done that, make the investment that is necessary to get it done, I mean, I wish we could improve the quality of education without spending any more money on it, that would make all of our lives more easy. We would not have to find the dollars and make the more choices when you look at the crushing needs out there, particularly in impoverished communities, rural communities, some urban communities, areas that do not have the dollars to get the basics of what they need, you know that they need help in the resources department. They need some money from the Federal Government to help meet the needs of their children. And if the philosophy is leave no child behind, you better be prepared to step up to that commitment. We will give them the accountability and the results, but let us make sure that we go out there and make the investments necessary to educate our population to the degree that they deserve. I am joined by the person who has done more work on this than anybody, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman and I actually introduced this bill last session of Congress. It did not go anywhere then, but it is moving now. There is some change here and I think we have a real opportunity to move forward on that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) to conclude our discussion today.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), who is the prime sponsor actually of the 3 R's proposal. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all of my colleagues once again for their broad support. I think we have the opportunity in the next several months to make some very positive changes in Federal education policy, and I think this bill is an excellent place to start. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on that with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to come before the Chamber today to talk about what is the most important issue facing our country today and certainly in the future, education: How can we prepare our children to become adults with the skills and the knowledge that they need to succeed and compete in the world today. It is a challenge that we are presently not meeting to the degree that we should, and it starts with K-12 education. Right now we are losing too many students before they even make it through high school, too many students who are not developing the skills and the learning experiences that they need. How can we go about fixing that problem? Well, for the most part, this is a local issue. This is something that States, school districts and local communities are going to be the primary drivers on in terms of fixing the problems, investing the resources and making the decisions. And I think we should keep that in mind, as the United States Congress, that we want to make sure that we empower the locals to do the job that they are in the best position to do. But the Federal Government does have a role. There is a lot of people that say that the Federal Government does not have any business being involved in K-12 education because it is a State and local issue, period. I disagree. On the single-most important issue facing our country, the quality of our child's education, I think all taxpayers would like to know that some of that money that they pay in taxes to the Federal Government is going to help improve our K-12 education system since it is such an important issue to all of us. But the question that we are addressing here today is, what is the proper role for the Federal Government? How can they best use the money that they spend? Right now the Federal Government is responsible for about 7 percent of the school district's budget. Are we getting the most we can for those dollars? Are those dollars going to the right places? Are they coming with the proper amount of flexibility? I do not think so. Myself and a number of colleagues of mine have introduced a bill on education called the Three R's bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and others have cosponsored this to try to shift the focus of the Federal role in education to improve it and to make it work better. There are some basic principles that we want to outline today that we are headed towards on this program. First and foremost is we do need to make an increased investment in education. And have a chart here that lays out what our goals and priorities are, and that is the first time. There are many people that would like to believe, I guess, that we do not need to spend more money to make education better. And I will agree that we do not need to only spend more money, we have to make it more efficient, more effective and more accountable as well. But when we look at our crumbling classrooms in one end of this country to the other, the crushing need for school construction, at the coming shortage of teachers that we have, at the growing class sizes, at the growing needs for technology in our schools, there is no question that we as a Nation need to make a greater investment in K-12 education, and that is something that we ought to start with. But the other thing is, when we are looking at the Federal Government, where should we send our money? Those Federal dollars should be targeted to help where we can best help, and that is driving those dollars out to the communities that are in poverty, to the poorer communities that frankly do not have the same access to education that other communities have. If they live in a wealthy or tax-rich community, they have a number of options for funding the programs that they need in school. If they do not, they do not have as many options, they cannot simply raise a $100,000 from the parents or pass a levy or bond issue to generate those dollars. The Federal Government should target their dollars that they send to get to those poor communities. We do not do a good enough job of that right now. Too many of those dollars are not going to the communities that truly need them. Our bill adjusts those formulas to drive them out primarily based on need, based on those poverty-based communities that we are headed towards. The other major problem of the Federal role in education right now is that it is too bureaucratic and there are too many strings attached to those dollars that are sent out. That is a problem in a couple of different areas. First of all there is insufficient flexibility. The needs of one school district may not necessarily be the same as another. The needs in Seattle may not be the same as Chicago or Spokane or South Bend, Indiana, there may be differences in what they want, but the Federal Government is very prescriptive in how we send the dollars out. They have to be spent in a certain way. That reduces the flexibility of those local communities to best use those dollars. But the other problem with it is the bureaucratic nightmare that goes with it. The way the Federal structure is currently set up, there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 different Federal programs, pots of money of varying sizes that all school districts in the country have to compete for. They fill out grants to go get these dollars. There are a whole series of problems with this process. First of all, the communities that need these dollars the most, the poor, the rural communities, they do not have the money for grant writers. They are struggling just to provide the educators they need in their school districts. So it becomes a snowball effect. They do not have the money to hire the grant writers so they cannot get the additional money the Federal Government is providing and the dollars do not get driven out where they are truly needed. But even in communities that have large school districts, you do not want your school district personnel to be grant writers. You want them to be educators. There is a school district in my congressional district that estimates in 1 year they spent 900 person-hours filling out Federal grants for money. Think of what those 900 person-hours could have been better used for to help educate our children. We need to give them that flexibility and freedom from the grant writing that is currently required of so many school districts. We drive our dollars out in a way that does not require that, that gives them that greater flexibility and lifts them away from that bureaucracy. The last issue I want to touch on is accountability. As I mentioned, we certainly need to invest more in education. But we also need more accountability, more effective results. The biggest reason for that is you cannot fix a failing school. You cannot educate a child that is not learning to read or write or develop the math skills that he or she needs if you are not aware of it. If we are not measuring the results of our schools and our students, we do not know where they are at. Now, this is something that should be State driven, no question. But I believe it should be the policy of the Federal Government to require States to keep track of how their schools are performing, so that parents can know what is going on and so that, most importantly, we can meet the needs as they come up. So that is another important part of our bill is we require States to measure performance at least three times during the course of K-12 education. In my home State of Washington, we do it in the fourth, seventh, and tenth grade. Different States do it at different places, but there needs to be a measurement so we know how the schools are doing. But the second most important part about accountability is the part that I think we are doing the weakest job on as a country, and, that is, once you find out the schools that are not succeeding, the students that are not succeeding, what do you do about it? Are you then investing and making the changes necessary to fix the problem? It is nice to know, but it is far more important to get in there and fix the problem so that all of us, all of our children, have access to a quality education. What our bill does is it requires that measurement and then once you find out what schools are not performing, we set aside money for the States to go into those specific schools and improve them and make them work better, to get the results that we need. Our bill is a significant change in Federal education policy. It is a change that reflects the need to spend more money certainly but to target those dollars in an appropriate place, to increase local flexibility so that they are not filling out Federal paperwork but, rather, educating our children and to have accountability, to measure results so that we know how our children are doing, how our schools are doing, so hopefully we can step up and improve them. I feel there is no more important issue that this Congress will deal with. I am pleased that the President has shown an indication to move in this direction. We have some differences on the proposal that he has outlined. But we also have a lot of similarities. I think there is a good chance that this Congress will make a significant change in education policy. With that, I am joined by several colleagues today who are cosponsors of this bill and share with me in our desire to get it passed and change this role. I would first like to call on the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows).

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I just want to, before calling on my next colleague, amplify the point that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) made about where the new Democrats are coming from on this issue. For years, there has been this sort of frozen public debate going on between Republicans and Democrats, with Democrats arguing that more money needs to be spent and Republicans arguing that there needs to be more accountability for results; and that as a consequence we have not done anything. We really have not moved forward significantly in either area. What this bill represents and what the new Democratic Coalition has worked so hard to do is a way to find a middle ground to bridge the gap and recognize what we ought to do is both. We certainly ought to have a more accountable education system that measures results, that tells us who is succeeding and who is not. We also need to invest resources; and that is going to be a major, major topic of conversation between us and the White House, is how much money are they willing to put into this to help make sure we do not leave any child behind. If we are talking about ratcheting up the tax cut from a trillion to $1.6 trillion to $2 trillion to whatever it winds up as being, think about what we could do with some of those dollars if they were invested in education if we actually made a difference on things like class size and school construction and investing in those poor communities that do not have adequate access. I think we need to make sure that the White House shows us a commitment on the investment side as well as on the accountability side. We as New Democrats are trying to do both because we recognize that both need to be done. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), who is also a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and has been working on these issues for a number of years.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. It is now my pleasure to call on one of our new colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) who worked in her State on educational issues and now has the opportunity to bring that knowledge to the Federal level.

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) who serves on the Committee on Education and the Workforce and has been a leader on education policy for the full decade he has been in Congress and is one of the prime drivers behind this legislation.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I particularly want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) for her outstanding leadership on this issue. She has been working a long time at it and has done a tremendous job, and this is very important to the future of our economy. I too regret a little bit the way this bill has come to the floor, but it is still a critical issue if we are going to move forward with the high-tech economy and keep our economy moving. We all know that the long-term solution to the skills gap we have in this country is not going to be immigrants from other countries. The long-term solution definitely involves improving our education system, and we are working to do that and we must work to do that. But in the short-term it is to our country's advantage to go out and take the best and brightest from the rest of the world and bring them to the U.S. to help grow our economy. I guess the strongest disagreement I have with the opponents of this legislation is their claim that it is going to cost us jobs. It is going to create jobs. In the Seattle-Puget Sound corridor, every high- tech job has an incredible multiplier effect. It creates jobs. Bringing in people who can fill these jobs is going to allow not just the Microsofts and the Boeings, but hundreds, if not thousands, of small companies in my district and my region to grow, by getting the skilled workers they need to enable them to continue to compete in our global economy and grow and actually create jobs. It is in our best interest to bring the best and the brightest from the rest of the world here to help our economy. That is the competitive and wise thing to do. This bill moves us in the right direction. There are many other immigration issues that need to be addressed. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) once again has been an outstanding leader on all of those issues. We should address them, and we will work on them. But expanding the number of skilled workers that our businesses in this country have access to is the most critical issue facing business. Every business I go to, when I ask them what issues are most important to them, they always tell me the same thing: workforce. ``We can't get the people we need to grow to the level that we could be growing if we had those employees.'' This is a critical issue. I urge this House to pass this. It is not a perfect process. Nobody ever said Congress was a perfect process. But it is a good bill that we should support.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the conferees for their excellent work in bringing this Energy and Water Appropriations Conference Report to the floor today. It is my understanding that the conference report under consideration provides $125 million for the regulatory program account of the Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2001--an increase of $8 million above the FY00 appropriation for this program. This funding is necessary for the Corps to carry out its permit-related responsibilities pertaining to navigable waters and wetlands under the Clean Water Act, the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act, and the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act. I am pleased that the conferees have added these important funds in an effort to help address the growing backlog of permit applications in need of Corps review and decision. In my district and State, there is increasing concern about the number of permits that are awaiting final agency action, a number more than double what has been achievable in recent years. This growing permit backlog is unnecessarily delaying projects that are vitally important to local and regional economies. I believe the Corps must redouble its efforts to reduce this permit backlog to more reasonable levels as expeditiously and professionally as possible. I am confident that this is the intention of the conferees when they added $8 million to the regulatory program account. I also expect the Corps to review its current program procedures and to revise those procedures through streamlining, partnering with other public entities, or other appropriate measures that will expedite permit review and decision without jeopardizing the quality of that review and decision or the interests of the public. Again, I thank the conferees for taking real steps to address this crucial need and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that the Corps effectively reduce the current permitting backlog.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, of the many challenges that our country faces in this new century, there is none greater than education, educating our populace so that we have a skilled workforce and so that everybody has the level of education that they need in today's economy. When I go around my district and go visit businesses and it does not matter what size or what level of skill they are looking for and I ask them what their greatest challenge is, the answer is always the same, finding employees. This is particularly true certainly of high-skilled jobs, computer, engineers, math, science, but it is also true across the board of just about any level of job that you could need in any business. We are not educating our population to fill the jobs that are available in our country. If we are going to maintain the economic growth that we have enjoyed for the last 7 or 8 years, we are going to have to start doing that. Increasingly, the battle over education has broken down into an either/or partisan debate that is not benefiting either party or certainly not benefiting the people of this country. On the one side you have people saying that all we need to do is spend more money on public education and the problems will be solved. On the other side, you have people saying all we need to do is privatize the system and it will magically be solved. The truth is that neither answer really works or really applies to the challenge we face in this country. I rise today to talk about a new solution to this that will bring some of the ideas from both sides and hopefully forge a bipartisan solution to the education crisis that we have in our country. As a member of the New Democrat Coalition, this is something that Members like the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), myself, and many others have been working on to forge a solution to our education problem that gets away from the old partisan polemic, that gets away from the idea of trying to score political points on education and to actually work towards a solution. And it blends together a couple of very basic ideas. Yes, we need to support public education. Ninety percent of the students in this country, more in most places, are educated in public institutions. They need our support. Anyone who says money does not matter in education is not being realistic. I do not think you would hear any businessman say that money does not matter in his or her ability to run their business. It matters. But it also matters every little bit as much how you spend that money. Not only do we need to support public education, we also need to make sure that there is accountability and choice at every level of the education establishment. Right now in K-12 education that really is not true. Either for the students or the employees, whether it is administrators, teachers, principals, students, whatever, we really do not have many methods to measure results, to measure how well our students are doing, how well our teachers are doing, how well our administrators are doing. The people of this country are demanding that accountability. They will support public education, they will support lower class sizes, better school construction, mandatory preschool, a variety of different things but they want to make sure they are getting their money's worth. What we need to advocate is programs that give parents and students reasonable reason to believe that we are going to have that sort of accountability within our education system. We need to measure results. I understand that nobody is excited about having their results measured. If you show up to work and someone says, ``Okay, today we're going to do a 2-week evaluation of how well you're doing at your job.'' It is not something that anybody is looking forward to nor is it easy to do. I am not advocating that we simply have one multiple choice test fits all. It is a complicated process to evaluate. But some evaluation has to be done. It is not enough for those of us who advocate public schools to stand up and say, ``Well, it's too tough to evaluate. We can't really tell you what schools are working and which ones are not.'' We need to figure that out. We also need to give parents choice. Expanding charter schools in this country would give parents realistic public school choice. They could mold and shape their local community school and be invested in it. Those options would help improve public schools. But at the end of the day, we also need to fund schools. If we are going to tell teachers that we are going to hold them more accountable, we are going to have to pay them more. You will not attract people to the teaching profession if they know they are starting out at $24,000 and topping out at $50,000 when they have other options. Another good idea, something that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has worked on a lot, is the idea of alternative certification, the idea of taking people who have been working in the business world, have developed skills and giving them an alternative method to allow them to teach perhaps for a short period of time to help fill that quality issue. So we are going to have to increase quality through increasing pay and increasing accountability if we are truly going to move forward in education. In this election year, I ask both parties to step up to this problem. This should not be an issue where we try to advance an idea or a piece of legislation for the political purpose of making the other party look like either, A, they do not support public schools or, B, they do not support accountability. We need people working together who both support public schools and support accountability and choice. I think that is the majority of this body, frankly. We just need to forge that coalition and work on that so that we can move forward. Mr. Speaker, one final point. Local control is going to be a critical aspect of this. This cannot be solved from Washington, D.C. Local schools have to make the difference, and we have to empower them to make that difference.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was granted a leave of absence and missed votes during the month of July, I would now like to enter into the Record how I would have voted had I been present. I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 373: H. Amdt. 962 to H.R. 4461. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 374: H. Amdt. 963 to H.R. 4461. Had I been present, l would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 375: H. Amdt. 964 to H.R. 4461. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 376: H. Amdt. 966 to H.R. 4461. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 377: H. Amdt. 967 to H.R. 4461. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 378: H. Amdt. 971 to H.R. 4461. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall 379: H. Con Res. 253. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 380: H.R. 4442. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 381: H. Res. 415. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 382: H. Amdt. 973 to H.R. 4461. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 383: H. Amdt. 976, to H.R. 4461. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 384: H. Amdt. 977 to H.R. 4461. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 385: H.R. 4461. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 386, approval of the journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 387 H. Res. 545 to H.R. 4810. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 388: H.R. 3298 Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 389: H.R. 4169. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 390: H. Amdt. 979 to H.R. 4810. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 391: to H.R. 4810. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 392: H.R. 4810. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 393: H.R. 4447. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 394: On Agreeing to the Resolution related to consideration of H.R. 4811. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no,'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 395: On closing portions of the conference related to H.R. 4576, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2001. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 396: H. Amdt. 997 to H.R. 4811. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 397: H. Amdt. 982 to H.R. 4811. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 398: H. Amdt. 983 to H.R. 4811. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 399: H. Amdt. 1001 to H.R. 4811. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 400: passage of H.R. 4811. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 401: H. Res. 534. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 402: H. Res. 319. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 403: H. Res. 531. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 404: H.R. 3125. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 405. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 406: passage of H.R. 3113. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall vote No. 411: H.R. 4517. If I had been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall vote No. 408: Motion to Instruct to H.R. 4810. If I had been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 409. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 410: H. Amdt. 1010 to H.R. 1102. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 411: Recommit to H. R. 1102. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 412: H.R. 1102. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 413: on passage of H.R. 4576. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 414: on passage of H.R. 4118. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall vote No. 415: Motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4577. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall vote No. 416: H.R. 2634. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 417: H. Res. 559 to H.R. 4810. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 418: H.R. 4810. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 419: H. Res. 4871. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 420: H.R. 4871 If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 421: H. Amdt. 1013 to H.R. 4871. Had I been present, l would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 422: H. Amdt. 1017 to H.R. 4871. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 423: H. Amdt. 1021 to H.R. 4871. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 424. H. Amdt. 1023 to H.R. 4871. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 425: on passage of H.R. 4871. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 426: H. Amdt. 1031 to H.R. 4871. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 427 H. Amdt. 1032 to H.R. 4871. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 428: Passage of H.R. 4871. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I unable to vote on Rollcall No. 429, H.R. 4700. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 430: H.R. 4923. Had I been available, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 431: H.R. 4888. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 432: passage of H.R. 4864. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 433: H.R. 1651. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 434: H.R. 2919. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 435: S. 1910. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 436. H.R. 4806. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 437: Passage of H. Con. Res. 372. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 438: H.R. 4868, If I had been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 439: H.R. 4033. If I had been present I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 440; H.R. 4710, If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 441: H.J. Res. 99. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 442: H. Res. 563 to H.R. 4942. If I had been present I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 443; Journal vote. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 445: on closing portions of the conference to H.R. 4205, Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 446; H. Res. 568 to H.R. 4516. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 446; H. Res. 568 to H.R. 4516. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 447. H. Res. 564 to H.R. 4865. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 448. H. Res. 565 to H.R. 4516. If I had been present, I would have voted ``no.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 449; H. Amdt. 1041 to H.R. 4865. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 450; Passage of H.R. 4865. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 23, I was unable to vote because of family issues. Had I been present, I would have voted: ``Aye'' on the Waxman amendment to H.R. 4690; ``Aye'' on the Davis amendment to H.R. 4690; ``Aye'' on the Coble amendment to H.R. 4690.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on the evening of Thursday, June 8, and Friday, June 9, I was unable to vote for family reasons. If I had been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' on rollcall No. 250, the Traficant amendment to H.R. 4577; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 251, to approve the House Journal; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 252, the Rangel substitute amendment to H.R. 8; ``yea'' on rollcall No. 253, the Motion to Recommit with Instructions on H.R. 8; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 254, final passage of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of PNTR for China and for this rule. Without question, China has a horrible record on a whole series of issues: human rights, labor standards, religious freedom. That is not the question before the House today. The question before the House today is what path is most likely to make it better? And what we have seen, from Presidents Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Clinton, is an embracement of the policy of engagement, of bringing them into our world with our values to help improve the system. Giving China a stake in a different world order than the one they subscribe to now will have the best likelihood of moving them forward. I want to make one critical point. However we vote on this, I do not think we should kid ourselves that this is going to solve the problem with China one way or the other. The problem of improving China's human rights record, their labor standards, their religious freedom, is going to take a whole lot of work for decades to come. This one vote is not going to cut it down or set it up. We have to keep working on the problem. As human rights leaders in China, as Taiwan and a lot of people recognize, we are not going to make any progress whatsoever if we isolated China and cut them off from the rest of the world. Then they have nothing to lose by behaving in a way that the rest of the world does not like. On the annual vote that we are giving up, we hear how great this annual vote is. It is kind of interesting in listening to the debate I have heard people say the annual vote has made no difference whatsoever but we cannot afford to lose it. That is sort of a contradictory argument. The bottom line is, whatever we do here in the U.S. has a minimum amount of impact on moving China forward. But the question is, what is going to move it forward or backwards? We are not going to stop talking about China's human rights record just because we do not have an annual vote. I mean, who is kidding who on that? We are going to continue to talk about it, on a whole series of issues. But by not taking this vote, we lose the opportunity to pull China into the WTO, to pull them closer to the rest of the world, so that we have some hope of moving them forward. This is not a guarantee. Anyone who stands up and says voting for this is somehow going to make democracy and freedom appear in China is kidding us, but it is going to move it in the right direction, and we should take this vote.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the FY01 Transportation Appropriations bill, and in strong support of the funds allocated for Washington State's Sound Transit Program. The funding provided in this legislation will help Sound Transit deliver a regional high-capacity transit system to the citizens of urban King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. As anyone who has traveled to my home state knows, bad traffic is the one thing that can make even the beautiful Puget Sound area seem less inviting. In fact, the Central Puget Sound Region has the 4th worst traffic in the country. It is estimated that bottlenecks on both the highways and on the train tracks costs our local economy billions of dollars every year. That's why this investment in our infrastructure is so crucial. The Sound Transit system--which employs a combination of commuter rail, electric light rail, HOV Expressways, and regional express bus service--will go a long way toward relieving congestion and, importantly, improving quality of life for citizens throughout the Puget Sound. On behalf of the citizens of my district, I also want to thank the Chair, the Ranking Member and the Members of the committee for their support of Sound Transit. This program will truly be one of the crown jewels of America's public system and I'm proud to stand in support of this program.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for bringing this issue forward. The issue of pipeline safety is one that touches the entire country. Those of us in the State of Washington experienced it in the worst way possible a year ago, but it is by no means isolated to our State. Pipelines run throughout this country and have been very loosely regulated for a number of years. The system of regulating pipelines quite simply does not work. As the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) mentioned, there are a variety of different ideas for how to change that. But I rise today to make it clear to my colleagues how important it is that those changes are made, first of all; and, second of all, how important the issue of hydrostatic testing is doing that, the idea of testing the pipes to see if they can withstand the pressure that they have to withstand in order to protect our communities. It is of critical importance. I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) to bring this issue up in the transportation bill and any other place that we can do it. This is a threat to our entire country. As I said, in the State of Washington, several children tragically died as a result of this. It is also an environmental hazard that has struck many different parts of our country. We need to do something to improve pipeline safety in this country. This amendment is a great first step, and I look forward to working with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the rest of the body to hopefully give us a sound pipeline safety policy in this country that will protect all of our citizens.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of shortening from 180 days to 60 days the Congressional review period for changes to the thresholds for export controls on high speed computers. While I have consistently maintained that the review period should be 30 days, this amendment represents a workable compromise. It is good for America's security and good for our Nation's economy I have worked hard to update and improve our export controls since almost my first day in Congress. I am proud to have consistently supported loosening export controls--even when, at times, I was the only voice in favor of doing so. Clearly, we've come a long way in the last few years. As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am particularly sensitive to the need to protect and maintain national security. This measure not only ensures our country's national security, but also allows the technology industry to deliver their products to overseas customers and remain the world's leader in high speed computer production. One of the best ways to protect security interests is to ensure that American companies continue to develop and sell the most advance computer systems in the world. According to the independent Defense Advisory Board, allowing foreign competitors to replace us in key markets, could ``. . . have a stifling effect on U.S. military's rate of technological advancement.'' At risk is nothing less than the technological edge that is driving America's military and security superiority. One of the best ways to keep our economy vibrant is to promote the export of technology. Industry needs the predictability of a 60 day review period to execute their business plans and to move products that have a three to six month innovation cycle. I am confident that this measure will allow U.S. computer firms to deliver their products to market in time to stay on top of foreign competitors. I have been proud to fight this fight over the last several years, and I am proud of the gains we have made today.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, trade has become an issue that is very divisive in this country, and I rise today as a Democrat and a member of the New Democratic Coalition to urge this body to remember the importance of expanding access to overseas market, the importance of trade to the growth of this Nation. I do that mindful of some of the protests that have been out there about our global trade policy and even somewhat in support of some of the complaints that people have said about trade policy. I think it is absolutely correct to look around the world and say what can we do to help improve human rights, to help improve labor standards, to help make sure that the entire globe protects the environment. And I think these issues need to be brought up more often in international discussions, not just involving trade, but in all discussions with other countries. Mr. Speaker, what can we do to help improve those things? I rise today just to remind people that even though those issues are important, we cannot forget the importance of open markets. It starts with the simple fact that 96 percent of the people in the world live someplace other than the United States of America, while at the same time, here in the U.S., we manage to account for 20 percent of the world's consumption. If we are going to grow economically, if we are going to create more jobs, those statistics make it abundantly clear that we are going to have to get access to some of those other 96 percent of the people in the world. We need to get access to their markets. We need to reduce barriers, open access to trade to help grow the economy. And I do not think people understand completely the benefits that trade have brought and the role they have played in the strong economy that we now enjoy. I just think that while we are working to improve labor conditions, working to improve human rights and environment, we can also open up other markets to our trade. And the best example of this, and I support the comments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley), my colleague who came before me, is the China PNTR trade agreement. All of the concerns we have heard about trade in previous agreements, a lot of them focus on the fact that it is a one-sided trade agreement. We open our markets, but other countries do not open theirs. This is actually the first trade agreement that goes the other way. China opens their markets by reducing their barriers across the board in a wide variety of goods and services that will increase our access to the single largest market in the world, 1.3 billion people. This is a great trade agreement that actually will help us here in the U.S., and we need to recognize it for that. We also need to recognize how engagement helps move us forward. Mr. Speaker, turning down PNTR for China will not do one thing to improve human rights, labor conditions or environmental standards in China. In fact, if you listen to the human rights activists over there, and if you listened to people over in that corner of the world, isolating China will send them in exactly the opposite direction. Taiwan, in particular, we have heard a lot about how we cannot support this agreement, because of how bad China has treated Taiwan; and I agree that there have been many bad actions by China towards Taiwan. The Taiwanese, the recently elected president, an outspoken advocate for independence for Taiwan, someone who has run against China many, many times strongly supports the U.S. favoring PNTR for China, because he understands that engagement is the policy that will best protect him from Chinese aggression if they choose to go that route. He wants China to be connected to the rest of the world so that they cannot afford to act in a way that forces the rest of the world to back away from them. So you can have a good trade agreement and also improve human rights, labor conditions, and the environment; but this argument goes beyond the specifics of the China Trade Agreement, even though I think it will be a watershed moment in this country to see whether or not we are going to go forward and embrace engagement and embrace overseas markets or drift back into a dangerous isolation that could push us into a bipolar world. It is a basic philosophy of whether or not opening markets is open and beneficial. I think there is a lot of statistics out there that show that access to trade helps improve the economy across the board. This is not an isolated few who benefit from it. When we have an economy with 4 percent unemployment, 2 percent inflation, and growth as high as 6 or 7 percent, that benefits everybody in this country. Mr. Speaker, we cannot lose sight of the importance of opening overseas markets to our goods. And it goes beyond economics. It is also a matter of national security. We should be concerned about the rest of the world, whether or not countries like Vietnam, Sub-Saharan Africa, other countries in the Third World grow and prosper. If they do not have access to our markets, their people will never be able to rise out of poverty. They will never be able to generate the type of economy that they need in order to have any level of prosperity whatsoever. This is important for two reasons. One, if we can grow a vibrant middle class in places like Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond, they are in a position to buy our stuff and help our economy grow as well. If they are in poverty, we cannot get access to those markets because there is no one to buy. Beyond economics, it is also important to keep the peace. If countries are impoverished, that is what leads to revolution and war. We have to help them grow up so that we can keep peace and stability in the world. Trade is important. Labor, human rights, environment, absolutely important. But let us not forget the importance of opening our markets for global stability and for a strong economy in the U.S.

Mr. SMITH of Washington

Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and commend the National Association of Letter Carriers [NALC] for holding the Nation's largest one-day food drive. In past years the NALC, through the personal contributions and service of its members, has collected more than 58 million pounds of food along various postal routes throughout the Nation. The NALC will be helping to feed American families and children again this year during their eighth annual food drive to feed hungry families and children across the country. During this unprecedented time of economic expansion, Americans have benefitted from low unemployment, rising wages, and low inflation. However, some Americans continue to suffer from hunger. According to the Journal of Public Health, an estimated 10 million Americans suffer from the symptoms of hunger--4 million of which are children whose growth and development is threatened by malnutrition. These hard working families fail to make ends meet for reasons ranging from institutionalized poverty to a lack of educational resources and inadequate health insurance. As a result, some families are left with barely enough resources to subsist on. In a nation of abundance, hardworking families should not have to experience the effects of hunger. Our postal carriers provide a valuable and much appreciated service through their hard work and contribution to the greater community. I commend the NALC for helping to feed the Nation's hungry and I encourage Members to help support the NALC in their efforts to feed America during their food drive on Saturday, May 13.