Greg Walden

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, as the parent of a third grader in public schools in Oregon, I am absolutely committed to smaller class sizes. But the best way to do that is to fund the special education mandate, not to create more federal mandates and programs. Coming from Oregon, which is one of the ed flex pilot States, I can tell my colleagues that our local parents, teachers and school boards can make the best decisions for our children, but it is time Washington kept its word and funded its mandates. I think unfunded federal mandates have done quite enough harm already to our public schools. It is time to expand ed flex all Americans. It is time to allow local schools to make their own decision about how best to spend Federal education dollars. That only makes sense. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the ed flex legislation that will be on the House floor later today.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to explain why I joined 89 of my colleagues from both parties in voting against the Peace Corps Reauthorization Act. But first, let me say that I did not vote against this bill because I oppose the noble function that the Peace Corps serves. I have the utmost respect for this program, and for the people who choose to give two years of their lives to help others. Furthermore, I recognize the successes the Peace Corps has had in helping impoverished, struggling communities gain a foothold in the modern world. I voted against passage of the Peace Corps Reauthorization Act because I don't believe that authorizing a substantial increase in funds for this program is the best use of federal money at this point. This bill will increase funding for the Peace Corps from $241 million this year to $365 million in 2003, an increase of 51 percent. Because I recognize the value of the Peace Corps, I would have voted for a measure that reauthorizes the Peace Corps at the existing funding level, or at a level that provides for a small increase to account for inflation. I believe that a major increase in funding for a program such as the Peace Corps is unwise at a time when the federal government continues to cut Medicare funding for rural hospitals and patients and the U.S. Forest Service is unable to protect our nation's federal forests from catastrophic wildfires and destructive beetle infestations. While the additional Peace Corps authorization is small, relative to other outlays by the federal government, we must be careful to prioritize our spending to direct it toward those programs that benefit Americans who need assistance. Many Members of Congress, as well as the President, have committed themselves to saving Social Security and Medicare. These efforts will require substantial investments, and we must be prudent with our spending now so we can fulfill our obligation to current and future retirees. I believe that my vote was the right choice in my efforts to help my constituents solve the serious problems they face every day, and I look forward to continuing to address the needs of Oregonians with my votes in the House of Representatives.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for their support of this legislation, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this measure. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 609 will help expand export markets for our Nation's pear growers. The Export Apple and Pear Act passed in 1933 required that apples and pears meet certain standards prior to export to ensure that only the top quality pears and apples were exported. The United States Department of Agriculture has stated that, because of private contractual arrangements between buyers and sellers, increasingly those arrangements are controlling the quality of U.S. pear exports. The USDA believes that mandatory Federal quality standards, as currently established under the act, are no longer needed to assure the high quality of exported pears. As new markets have opened up in the last decade, opportunities for sale of lower grade and less expensive pears have arisen. Because of the 1933 act, U.S. producers and exporters of pears have been unable to meet the demand for lower grade pears in other countries without receiving a waiver of the act from USDA. The pear industry has on two occasions over the past decade petitioned and received a waiver from the USDA to sell non-U.S. Grade Number One and Fancy Grade winter pears in the emerging markets of Central and South America and Russia. The waiver for Russia allowed the industry to sell 200,000 cartons of pears to that Nation in 1997. Past experience indicates that when these markets can afford it, they will move on to purchase our higher grade fruit. As world economies improve and barriers to trade continue to decrease, new market opportunities for fresh pears arise. This legislation will allow our pear growers to get a foothold in emerging foreign markets. In order to provide the flexibility to meet the requirements of these two opportunities without having to seek new exemptions, the fresh pear industry is seeking to be removed from the 1933 Export Apple and Pear Act. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as I mentioned, has the support of the USDA, pear industry and is not opposed by the apple industry. Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that this legislation would not impose any costs on the Federal Government. H.R. 609 is sound policy that allows U.S. pear growers and exporters the flexibility to compete in emerging foreign markets. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important legislation to our pear growers, especially those of the Northwest, and I commend and thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) of the House Committee on Agriculture for passage of this measure to the floor.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of our Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, for bringing forth this important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to speak to the importance of ensuring that Federal agencies create incentives for debt collection contractors to obtain voluntary payments from debtors before instituting involuntary collection actions such as wage garnishment or litigation against that debtor. I say that because I have learned that under the Department of Education's contract, for example, the contractor has a greater incentive to collect a debt through involuntary administrative wage garnishment procedures rather than through voluntary payments from the debtor. This is because the methodology used by the Department of Education to evaluate the performance of its contractors, allocate accounts among contractors and pay bonuses is weighted in favor of wage garnishment rather than voluntary collections. The preparation of cases for litigation is also given substantial weight. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from California and I have discussed, I would like to see the Debt Collection Act amended at some point to require that voluntary collections be given greater emphasis and these coercive methods, give them less emphasis. In my view, the performance of a debt collection contractor in achieving netback collections for the government should be in the order of 75 percent, if not more, of the weighting in the evaluation methodology and the preparation of cases for litigation or wage garnishment should receive no more than, say, 20 percent combined. These reforms would help, I believe, the Federal Government to do a better job of debt collection in a fair, efficient and voluntary manner which I think would be preferable. However, given the administration's objections to such an amendment and in the spirit of trying to minimize our differences in an effort to pass good and meaningful legislation, I will not be offering that amendment. But it is a topic that I hope we can discuss in the future. While I understand the desire of the administration to have unfettered discretion as to how these contracts are administered, I have trouble accepting the suggestion that the infliction of wage garnishment or litigation on a debtor is more preferable to a more voluntary action convincing that debtor to pay. As everyone knows, it is just this sort of approach to collections that caused our friends at the IRS problems at times with the public. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Texas and the administration and members of our committee to address these issues and make Federal debt collections both more voluntary and more effective.

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Chairman, I want to follow up on the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts that this bill does not reduce one piece of paperwork that has to be filed. Well, I would say this is a good step in the right direction. And if that gentleman would like to work with us, I am sure there is a lot of this sort of unnecessary and burdensome paperwork that maybe we could strike a bipartisan effort to eliminate. That should be our absolute goal. My wife and I, for nearly 13 years, have owned and operated a small business. We have been on the forefront, right there on the battlefield with our neighbors and friends in a small rural town who are trying to make ends meet and employ people and fill out the forms, and risking the fines and the penalties because we did not do it right. Now, there are those in big companies who can go down the hall and turn to a legal staff or an implementation staff at some point and they can fill out all the forms for them. But in a small business, in a small town, the owner of that business becomes that legal staff. That owner becomes that personnel department. The owner becomes everything in that business. The owner is trying to make ends meet, he or she is trying to meet a payroll and trying to serve their clients and trying to serve their community. And then the government comes along with another form or another inspection or another penalty. I am regulated by the Federal Government in the business I am in. I have a one-week window to pay the fees each year to that government. And my colleagues can smile about it. I understand that. But this is serious business, because we have a one- week window to fill out the form and send the fee to the Federal Government. If that form is filled out incorrectly or if that fee arrives late, it is a 25 percent penalty that I may be subject to. I cannot send in that form or fee ahead of time. It has to be done in a 5-day window. This government of ours, unless an individual is right there on the forefront, they cannot appreciate the number of forms and the number of inspections. And not that they come in, in each case and drop the hammer and issue a fine on first-time offenses, but the threat is always there that they will. And in some cases there may be an overzealous inspector, an overzealous bureaucrat who decides to drop the hammer and do that. That is what we are trying to say here. Give us a break in small business. Give us a little relief. Give us the benefit of the doubt that what we are doing is trying to follow the rules, trying to follow the government's regulations, and do it honestly and fairly. I do not believe that most small business people in my town, in my district, are trying to circumvent what the government wants them to do. Indeed, the farmers and ranchers and small businesses are trying to follow the rules. But I tell my colleagues what gets unfair is when a fruit grower has farm housing, and OSHA comes in and fines him $75 because the toilet paper is out in the toilet paper dispenser in the bathroom. There is a roll on the tank behind, but that does not count. Madam Chairman, we need to pass this measure and pass it today.