Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for organizing this special order tonight because the timing is absolutely perfect. We have just returned from the July 4 district work period and House committees are gearing up to tackle energy policy. Since passing the national Energy Policy Act in 1972, Congress has generally ignored energy issues, but energy problems in California and higher prices for natural gas and oil throughout the country have brought energy back to the top of our Nation's agenda. We are finally beginning to realize that the debate over the Nation's energy policy will probably be, if not the, one of the most important issues addressed in this Congress. The energy shortage we are experiencing in California is a signal to be heeded by the rest of the country. The signal is that the Congress must raise the stakes in search of a sensible energy policy because, obviously, what we are doing is not enough. I am here tonight to remind my colleagues that as Congress and the administration work to forge a long-term energy policy, it is absolutely imperative we make a true commitment to renewable energy sources, to efficiency, and to conservation in order to prevent a future energy crisis and to protect our environment. As the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, I am working to do just that. In fact, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) mentioned, earlier today I introduced CREEEA, the Comprehensive Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Act of 2001. It is to be used as a blueprint for renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures. It is to ensure that we make renewable energies a more important part of any national energy policy we put in place in this country. We can no longer afford to make large investments in outdated energy technologies, like fossil fuels, coal, and nuclear. Increasing our reliance on 20th century technology is not in the best interest of the 21st century, and it is certainly not an answer to our energy future. Instead, with the energy challenges we are experiencing across the country, it is more important than ever that we take this opportunity to craft a more responsible policy. By leveling the playing field for renewables and efficiency measures, we can and must ensure that our national security becomes more safe and secure through diverse energy sources. Of course, we cannot expect renewable energy to meet all of our energy needs right away. I wish we could, but we cannot. We can make it a Federal priority to give renewables a more prominent role among energy sources. Unfortunately, Federal investment in renewables and energy efficiency has declined over the last 20 years. That is why CREEA, my bill, aims not only to reverse that harmful funding trend, but also to set a goal for our Nation that at least 20 percent of the energy generated in the United States be produced from nonhydro renewable energy sources by the year 2020. CREEA calls for new investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency research and development, as well as competitive grants to help bring these green technologies to market. In the bill, regulatory provisions will eliminate barriers to development to put renewables on par with traditional energy sources. Aside from energy efficiency provisions for schools, homes and vehicles, CREEA also calls on the Federal Government and the Architect of the Capitol to set an example here in Washington by adopting renewable energy standards and improved energy efficiency measures. After all, the Federal Government must do our part, its part, to use more clean, renewable and efficient energy resources and technologies. CREEA also offers tax incentives to both individuals and corporations for increased investments in renewable technologies and for embracing energy efficiency products, buildings and technologies. With smart, aggressive policies, we will encourage the development of green industries. Mr. Speaker, putting a priority on forward-thinking domestic options like renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies and encouraging conservation is smart public policy, policy that will protect our environment and provide a secure energy future for our children, and I urge my colleagues to support this approach as we debate the national energy policy for the future of this Nation. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon for including me in this special order.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this week I introduced the ``Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Act of 2001'' (``REEA''). This bill is a blueprint for the House Science Committee as we develop legislative priorities for the renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at the Department of Energy (DOE). The Committee's role in the national energy debate is unique, because we are required to envision the future energy needs of our country, and determine the direction of DOE's research, development and demonstration (RD&D) programs. As the Ranking Member on the Science Committee's Energy Subcommittee, this bill is my statement on our priorities. We must establish a more level playing field for renewable energy sources, so we can reduce our reliance on coal and fossil fuels. We must encourage the development of `green industries' through increased emphasis on energy efficiency technologies. We must expand those energy sources that will contribute to a more sustainable, long-term energy future. Increased federal investment in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency technologies is smart public policy because for every dollar invested in current DoE sustainable energy programs, the benefits total $200. My vision for our energy future is that by the year 2020, twenty percent of our energy will be generated from renewable sources. Environmental groups agree, because we cannot continue to focus our priorities on limited fossil fuel sources. Unfortunately, our federal commitment to the RD&D programs that will help us meet this goal has declined significantly since 1980. This bill is a bold effort to reverse this funding scenario by outlining a robust R&D program and fund an aggressive energy efficiency agenda. The comment I've heard most often from the renewable energy community is that a critical element of any successful R&D program is a stable funding stream that gradually increases over time. That's why over the next five fiscal years, ``REEA'' authorizes total funding for DoE renewable energy programs at $3.735 billion, and energy efficiency at $5.185 billion with an additional $300 million for NASA to work on aircraft energy efficiency. If Americans are to have a secure energy future, with reliable, clean and environmentally-friendly energy sources, we must invest in renewable energy sources and make great strides in energy efficiency, so we can reduce our overall energy consumption. This means increasing support for wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy sources. We must also ensure that promising renewable energy and energy efficient technologies, like hydrogen fuel cells, are given commercialization assistance so that individual consumers can afford to use them. My bill establishes a competitive grant program at DoE so that private sector entities can help advance development of new technologies. Many creative and entrepreneurial individuals need only access to financial assistance to demonstrate the successful application of their renewable energy or energy efficiency technology. That's why this bill directs that at least fifty percent of the $1 billion provided for such assistance goes to small businesses and startup companies. Mr. Speaker, for too long we have overlooked renewable energy sources when setting our energy priorities. Now is the time for a responsible energy policy that makes significant investments in clean energy sources to supplement current energy supply. We must ensure that we prevent a repeat of the energy shortages Californians and West Coast residents now face. ``REEA'' will be a big step toward protecting our environment, and guaranteeing a better future for our children.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, with two oilmen in the White House, it is no surprise that this administration has turned its back on consumers and sided with big oil special interests, but that certainly does not make it acceptable. What is acceptable is this: recognizing that we need to increase renewable energy sources while reducing demand for electricity. We can do this by promoting and using more efficient energy technologies. These are the policies that will protect our environment, will guarantee a better future for our children. Since passing the National Energy Policy Act in 1992, Congress has generally ignored energy issues, but power problems in California and higher prices for natural gas and oil are going to impact our entire country. These changes have brought energy back to the top of our Nation's agenda. The energy shortage we are experiencing in California is a signal to the rest of our Nation. As goes California goes the country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, what an embarrassment. Once again, the House of Representatives is considering an appropriations bill that includes level funding for the arts, the humanities, museums and libraries, programs that teach us to think; programs that encourage us to feel and to see in a new way; to speak. The arts and the humanities help us to grow. The Slaughter-Dicks-Horn amendment to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the other programs is a small investment with a return as vast as one's imagination. Last year, we increased funding for the National Endowment for the first time since 1992, and this year we must increase the funding again. Anyone who has ever managed a budget knows that level funding means a decrease in funds. Opponents of the NEA cry ``fiscal discipline,'' as if the richest nation in the world need be the most culturally impoverished. The dollars we invest in the NEA leverage matching grants and multiply many, many times over. The nonprofit arts industry generates more than $3 billion annually. It supports more than 1 million jobs. In fact, the arts industry is a money maker, not a money taker. In addition, funding for the NEA supports programs like Challenge America, which brings art projects to underserved areas across our Nation. It funds programs like Positive Alternatives for Youth, which lowers the rate of juvenile crime by creating artist-led after school programs for our youth. When we deprive the NEA, the NEH, our museums and libraries of adequate funding, we deprive this entire Nation of an active cultural community. It is a battle as old as the stockades in Puritan times, and it is just wrong-headed. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1157, not only because I was born and raised in the Pacific Northwest, but because I have lived all of my adult life in California along the coast and know how important the Pacific Salmon Recovery Act will be and how much support we must give it. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for his hard work to bring this bill to the floor and to my colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), for their work and support. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, because, like the three gentleman that I just mentioned, I and our Pacific Coast colleagues in a very bipartisan manner know that salmon are in trouble. Over the past decade, we have witnessed a huge decline in salmon population, and the listing of salmon on the endangered species list is a clear warning that we must take this seriously. That is why communities and local officials in my district of Marin and Sonoma Counties, just north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge in California, are actively supporting Federal efforts to help with salmon restoration. We are fortunate that Marin and Sonoma Counties combined have received almost $850,000 from the current salmon recovery initiative, which was formed under President Clinton; and even better, these Federal dollars are available and are being leveraged at State, local, and nonprofit levels for resources that will bolster the recovery efforts even further than that $850,000. Next month, these Federal funds will begin to bear fruit. I do not think I should say that. They will begin to bear fish, not fruit. Projects that are under way will eventually return our salmon runs to their former abundance. For example, the Kelly Road Stabilization Project in my district will help stop erosion from going into the nearby waterways that harm salmon habitat. Also in Sonoma County, through the county ecology center, a program will focus on bringing private landowners, government agencies, and environmental groups together to work on restoration efforts. Other exciting habitat restoration efforts in my district that are getting under way include the Lagunitas Sediment Management Project, the Willow Creek Restoration Project, and work on Pine Gulch Creek. Mr. Chairman, expanding habitat restoration efforts is a key component of any recovery effort, but we all know that money is another key ingredient to making these programs happen. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Reverend James Coffee's 38 years as Pastor of the Community Baptist Church in Santa Rosa, California. Reverend Coffee came here in the midst of the Nation's civil rights struggle--and from the start he has fought to break down barriers between the races. He established the Bridge Builders Organization, a group seeking racial reconciliation and the Diversity Forum, a group meeting to understand and embrace the diversities among us. He's served as President of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday Celebration Committee, and is a founding member of the 100 Black Men of Sonoma County. Service on Citizens Against Domestic Violence, the Salvation Army Advisory Board, and Citizens For Balanced Transportation highlight Reverend Coffee's commitment to civic life. He is recipient of numerous honors from service clubs and professional organizations, including a community builder award presented to him on Diversity Day two years ago. Because of his strong belief in the power of education, Reverend Coffee established a scholarship and a mentoring program at Community Baptist Church. Mr. Speaker, Reverend Coffee is truly the perfect embodiment of one of his favorite sayings, ``Make a difference one day at a time.'' For 38 years Reverend Coffee has made a difference--with strength and persistence, with humor and compassion every day of his life.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Bernice A. Peterson. Bernice's retirement as Recorder in Sonoma County is an appropriate opportunity to honor her for her 24 years of successful leadership in this position. Bernice was the first woman to hold the Recorder's position and is the most senior department head in the County. She will be the last Recorder in the State of California; this office will now be combined with another county office as is the case around the State. Ms. Peterson began working for Sonoma county in 1973 and was appointed to serve as Recorder in 1977. She won election for six additional terms. During that time she has transformed the Recorder's Office into a state of the art electronic operation with a staff dedicated to friendly and efficient public service. Ms. Peterson was the guiding force behind the establishment of the County's records management division, and her work has preserved and restored valuable historical records of Sonoma's illustrious past. A nationally recognized leader in a variety of organizations that promote records management and preservation, Ms. Peterson's skills have had an impact beyond Sonoma county. Her community service involvement includes the Soroptomists Club, League of Women Voters, United Way, Sonoma County Museum, Salvation Army Advisory Board, and Women's History Month projects. Mr. Speaker, Bernice Peterson's career is a model of the importance of commitment and high quality work performed with good humor and skill for the benefit of many.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the fiscal year 2002 Coast Guard reauthorization bill. I commend the work of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Coast Guard Caucus in bringing this bill to the floor today. Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard has five training facilities across the country that prepares its members to perform their jobs so ably, and I am proud to represent the only Coast Guard training facility on the West Coast, the Two Rock Training Facility in Petaluma, California. Several years ago, my constituents and I fought hard to keep Two Rock Coast Guard Training Facility open. The Coast Guard's most modern, spacious and environmentally clean training facility survived, and we were delighted. This decision to keep Two Rock open ensured the Coast Guard that the Coast Guard continues nationwide the technological, environmental and global economic challenges of the 21st century. I am pleased that today's bill will give Two Rock and the Coast Guard the financial tools they need to meet their challenges. The Coast Guard does a top notch job of enforcing maritime law and safeguarding the lives and property of Mariners throughout the coastal waters of the United States and its possessions, and its territories. Through this bill's provisions, the Coast Guard will continue its program, operations, including search and rescue, marine environmental protection, defense readiness and drug interdiction. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman from California for organizing this special order to highlight the energy crisis facing Californians and the west coast. Like my colleagues, I rise this afternoon in outrage, outrage that my constituents in Marin and Sonoma County and across California are still dealing with rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy bills while the power companies are raking in record profits. We need a responsible energy policy that helps in the short term by allowing, insisting, that FERC do its job, FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, do its job by imposing cost-of-service based wholesale rates, at least temporarily, to stabilize this situation. And in the long term by making significant investments, time, money, incentives and focus in clean energy sources to supplement our current electric supply so that we can ensure that we never repeat these shortages. In the short term, the Federal Government must take action to protect California consumers and stabilize our market. But despite repeated and urgent requests from California Democrats and Democrats from the Pacific Northwest, President Bush refuses to order FERC to impose wholesale cost-based rates in California and the western region. It is outrageous that the President dismisses this straightforward action that would protect 34 million California consumers, consumers who are being gouged by big energy producers. With two oilmen in the White House, it is absolutely no surprise that this administration turns its back on consumers and sides with big oil special interests. But that certainly does not make it acceptable. What is acceptable is this: recognizing that we need to increase renewable energy resources while reducing demand for electricity. We can do this by promoting and using more efficient energy technologies. These are policies that will protect our environment and guarantee a better future for our children. Since passing the National Energy Policy Act in 1992, Congress has generally ignored energy issues. But power problems in California and the higher prices of natural gas and oil throughout the Nation have brought energy back to the top of our Nation's agenda. The energy shortage we are experiencing in California is just a signal. It is a signal to the country that Congress must raise the stakes in search of sensible energy policy. Obviously what we are doing is absolutely not enough. As Congress and this administration work to forge a long-term energy policy, it is imperative that we make a true, honest commitment to renewable energy sources, to energy efficiency and to conservation so that we prevent future energy crises and we protect our environment. When President Bush stood before Congress in this very Chamber and told the American people in February that he would pursue environmentally sound policies, including renewable energy sources that would help solve our energy crisis, I thought that was too good to be true. Unfortunately, I was right. As soon as the cameras went off, the commitment went away. Sadly, the Bush administration's budget reneges on the commitments the President made to pursue renewable energy sources. Critical R&D programs were cut. Energy efficiency and technology deployment programs were cut between 35 and 50 percent. That is unacceptable. And it is a disaster for our energy future. Actions speak louder than words. That is why I am outraged but not surprised that the administration's commitment to environmentally friendly sources of energy lasted only as long as the television cameras were rolling. I would say to our President, if he were here, now is the time to increase funding for national energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. It is absolutely not the time to cut funding. Cutting funding for vital energy efficiency and renewable energy programs is a step backward, a step in the wrong direction, and a serious blow to our efforts to craft a sensible national energy policy. This is especially frustrating because we do have bipartisan support for renewables and clean energy policy. In fact, it is pretty overwhelming. As the lead Democrat of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, I am preparing energy policy that is environmentally sound, that will result in lower cost solar energy, wind power, bio energy and geothermal energy. Relief for the American people, in the short and long term, is where our Federal priorities should be, not on increasing our dependence on fossil fuels as the administration intends to do. This dependence on fossil fuels got us into this situation in the first place. Like my constituents and my colleagues, I strongly believe there is an important role for the Federal Government to encourage sensible short-term and long-term policy in order to solve the energy crisis. As this Congress debates energy policy, we must broaden our horizons by thinking out of the box. We must encourage policies for the future. I urge the Bush administration to rethink their recent actions to join us in this endeavor because, after all is said and done, what happens in California, the sixth largest economy in the world, will happen across this Nation. It is time to step up to the problem now. It is time to make a short-term commitment to California to make sure we stabilize this situation. And it is absolutely time to look at smart energy policy for our future so that we will no longer have blackouts. I very much thank the gentleman from California for doing this and for letting me be part of it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me, and for putting this all together. He has done us all a great favor this evening. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, HIV and AIDS was thought to affect only gay, white men. Time has proved otherwise. We now know that HIV and AIDS does not discriminate. It reaches out to men, women, and children of all ages in every social and economic group of every race and in every country in the world. I live in Petaluma, California. A good friend of mine was the first woman to die of AIDS in Sonoma County 10 years ago. I can remember when the subject of AIDS first came up 10 years before that. She and I had lunch together, and we were sitting and talking, and trying to figure out actually what this disease was and how to prevent it, and why it was spreading so rapidly around the country. Twenty years ago, people afflicted with HIV-AIDS had little or no chance to enjoy a good quality of life. Thankfully, scientific research has led to successful life-prolonging therapies, but the epidemic is far, far from over. I am proud to represent a district that is committed to fighting the spread of the HIV virus. Marin and Sonoma Counties, the two counties just north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge, have one of the Nation's highest incidences of HIV/ AIDS. But these counties provide comprehensive services for people living with HIV/AIDS. They have consistently pushed forward aggressive public policy initiatives such as the needle exchange programs. The boards of supervisors in both Marin and Sonoma Counties passed needle exchange regulations and acceptance when it was illegal in the State of California. Advances in treatment, coupled with effective public policy, remind us that good things happen when government and the public health community work together, and when education is made abundant so that people understand what they are up against, what the challenges are, and what prevention must be taken. Today we must recall the lessons we have learned in the 20-year-long fight against HIV/AIDS, and pledge to build upon that knowledge to take us forward, not backward. The treatment of HIV/AIDS has changed, but its fatal consequences have not. It is time to reeducate our Nation. A new generation faces the threat of HIV/AIDS, a generation that never knew the devastation that this disease creates. We must not allow them to repeat the mistakes that contributed to the rapid spread of HIV/AIDS in the first place. Nor can individuals currently receiving HIV/AIDS therapies believe that their medications are in any way a cure. That challenge still awaits us. Until then, we must exercise every precaution to slow the spread of this disease. As we debate HIV/AIDS policy and funding, we must be motivated by the many changes that still lie ahead. If we do, we will accomplish more in the next 5 years than we did in the last 20 years. And Mr. Speaker, we must, because lives depend on it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in outrage, outrage that the White House is working on a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this Nation, while my constituents in Marin and Sonoma Counties in California are still dealing with rolling blackouts and skyrocketing energy bills; while the greedy power companies are raking in record profits. The White House can and must take action and they must protect California consumers from runaway prices, but despite repeated and urgent requests from the Democratic California delegation, President Bush refuses to order FERC to impose wholesale cost-based rates in California and the western region. With two oilmen in the White House, it is no surprise that this administration has not turned their back in the direction of the consumer, has instead turned their back on the consumer by siding with the oil special interests. This is not acceptable. It sets a precedent nationwide and not only threatens California's economy but also threatens our Nation's economy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, my objection is not because I object to the Boy Scouts. My objection is to intolerance. Since the Boy Scouts of America fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to discriminate, school districts, county governments, businesses and charitable groups like the United Way chapters have been breaking their ties with the Boy Scouts of America. This effort to stand up to the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policy is not a fringe movement; it is part of the mainstream belief that intolerance in any form is un-American. It is amazing to me that the proponents of this amendment support intolerance by revoking Federal funds unless a school or school district supports discriminatory policy and at the same time would take local control away from a school or a school district. Whether one agrees with the Boy Scouts or not, anyone who believes that local communities should have local control over their own schools will surely want to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time and, in closing, I would like to point out I have a letter before me that has been signed by 22 organizations, such as the National PTA, the National School Boards Association, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, and the National Rural Education Association, among many others. Mr. Chairman, we should vote against this because it is not necessary in the first place, but a vote against this amendment would be a vote telling our children that all children are important, not just some children. Mr. Chairman, the letter I referred to earlier is submitted for the Record as follows: May 22, 2001. Dear Representative: We are writing today to urge you to reject the ``Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act'' which was offered as an amendment to the Leave No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (H.R. 1). This amendment would deny all Federal education funding to any school district or state education agency that has been found to ``discriminate'' against the Boy Scouts of America, or any other youth group that denies membership to gays and lesbians. The Hilleary amendment is an unnecessary, unwarranted intrusion into a local school district's ability to set standards for the use of their own facilities, and bestows uopn the Boy Scouts and other youth groups unique rights that are not available to student-led groups. The amendment is unnecessary because the First Amendment already guarantees the Boy Scouts the right to use public school facilities, to the same extent and in the same manner as any other group allowed to use those facilities. At the same time, the amendment is an unwarranted intrusion into the decision-making of local school boards because it mandates the creation of an ``open forum'' any time a school lets one community group use their facilities. The Hilleary amendment decrees that such an action transforms the school into an ``open forum,'' therefore requiring the institution to allow the Boy Scouts and any other anti-gay youth group to use school facilities or premises--regardless of the school's intention or the local school board's decisions on the matter. We, the undersigned organizations, strongly urge you to oppose this amendment. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Nancy Zirkin, Director of Public Policy and Government Relations--American Association of University Women (AAUW) or Jamie Pueschel, Government Relations Manager--AAUW. Sincerely, American Association of School Administrators American Association of University Women American Counseling Association American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment that, if those words are believed by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) on the other side of the aisle, then it would make sense that all boys, not just some boys can be members of Scouting. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a sound public school system is the backbone of our Nation, and it is the way to prepare all children for the high-skill, high-wage jobs that will ensure America's leadership in the world marketplace and will prevent at the same time dependency on welfare here at home. Public education is the backbone of our country. It is why we are a great Nation. Public education is available to all. It does not discriminate, and it must be strengthened, not weakened. Why is it that voucher supporters go on and on about our poor- performing public schools and do not have a plan to make all schools the best in the world? Instead, they support vouchers that take precious education dollars out of our public school system and give them to private and religious schools. I have no quarrel with private schools, but we cannot forget that private schools are allowed to self-select their student body, while public schools educate all students. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to speak up for public education in America. Sure, it is not perfect. Democratic amendments would have helped in this bill, amendments that were not made in order. These amendments would have improved the public school system by reducing class size and repairing old school buildings. This amendment does not improve public education. It should be defeated. If it passes, then H.R. 1 must be defeated.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, let me add my compliments to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member, and the staffs on both sides who have worked so hard on this bill. Mr. Chairman, as it stands now, H.R. 1 is good enough. It is not great, mainly for what it leaves out. It would be a better bill if it included my amendment to keep coordinated services as part of the act. That way, children and their families would have a safe place, at or near their school site, in order to have access to services, the services that they need when their lives are so very, very busy. It is also too bad that my ``Go Girl'' amendment to bring more females into the math, science, engineering, and technology workforce was not included. When women, who are one-half of our population make up only 19 percent of our science, engineering, and technology workforce, we must encourage more girls to study these subjects. ``Go Girl'' would have done that. On the other hand, H.R. 1 includes testing provisions, provisions that must be removed from this bill. Two good things about H.R. 1 are what have been excluded in the bill; that are not in the bill. These good things are no private school vouchers and no block grants. Block grants would take education funds from students and schools which need them the most. But if these amendments pass, adding vouchers or block grants, then I would suggest that we defeat H.R. 1. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues, keep H.R. 1 clean so we can pass it. Otherwise, H.R. 1 is good enough to vote for. It would be better, however, with coordinated services, ``Go Girl'' programs, school construction, and smaller class size.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. In negotiations, we were pretty much assured that Democratic amendments would be included on the floor. Good Democratic amendments, such as my amendment to create safe havens at or near schools, and my amendment to bring more females into the high-tech and science workforce, should be part of today's debate, and we should be talking about school construction. But these ideas were, obviously, inadvertently left out. Instead, Republican amendments that will destroy our bipartisan effort by taking funds from the students and the schools that need them the most are being considered. This rule definitely fails the fair play test. Let us vote it down. Let us give the whole issue back to the House, so that some day soon we can pass a real bipartisan bill that will debate all of the issues that are important to this House in general on both sides of the aisle.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, I plead with my colleagues, to oppose this amendment that would put the Mexico City policy back into this bill, that would put the language that gags foreign private organizations from using their own funds, and I want to repeat this, using their own funds to educate women and families about reproductive choices and options, including birth control options. International family planning operations provide women in foreign countries with access to maternal care, clinic health services, education and counseling, programs that reduce the need for abortion in the first place. At the very least, we should allow organizations that participate in family planning programs to use their own private funds to provide information and services for women and their families. Mr. Chairman, if we truly care about women and children, we will support international family planning. Without it, women in developing nations will be forced to make unconscionable choices.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that this week Congress will vote on a budget that threatens the future of our Nation's most valuable asset: our children. No wonder the Republican leadership tried to rush the budget to the floor last week without allowing adequate consideration. But then I believe they thought they could pull the wool over our eyes by misplacing two of the pages of that budget. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the two missing pages contained the details of the $1.35 trillion tax cut. It appears that those two pages are the essence of how the Republican leadership will pay for their massive tax break; by cutting funding for vital services for American women and their families, including temporary assistance for needy families, workforce training and employment programs, community anti-violence and anti-drug programs, and overall education for the funding of our children. Moreover, by prioritizing tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is signing away the future of Social Security and the Medicare Trust Fund. In addition to harming children, it appears they want to undermine the future of grandparents, too. This is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule to recommit; vote against this budget.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Francine Levien. Francine Levien was a model in our community for the value of activism. Diagnosed with breast cancer in 1995, Francine founded Marin Breast Cancer Watch to investigate possible causes for the epidemic of this disease in Marin County. As a long-time advocate of safe and nutritious foods, Francine was aware of the potential negative health consequences of various substances in our environment. With Marin's breast cancer rate the highest in the nation, Francine pioneered a movement here that has spread through the Bay Area and beyond. Her work also explored the links between toxins and other illnesses, and her interest in human rights led to concern for people with breast cancer world-wide. Mr. Speaker, Francine was instrumental in securing federal funding for a breast cancer study in Marin. Her spirit and vision will continue to inspire not only the search for a cause and a cure for this disease but also the focus on a healthier environment for all of us. She will be sorely missed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, family planning saves lives. Whether we are talking about Sonoma County, California, or Somalia, women who have control over their reproductive health are better off, and so are their families. That is why we must repeal the global gag rule. Denying women around the world access to a full range of reproductive choices not only limits their health care options, it leaves women trapped in abusive relationships; held back by a lack of education and financial stability, and unable to care for themselves and their families. That is not acceptable. Today, the Committee on International Relations will take up the measure offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to end the global gag rule. I urge my colleagues on the committee and throughout this House to vote ``yes'' on her legislation and vote ``yes'' for women's rights around the world. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the global gag rule will cost women around the world their lives. Women in the United States may enjoy reproductive freedom today, but our rights are only as safe as the rights of all women.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my wholehearted support for the Lofgren amendment and strong opposition to the underlying bill without that amendment. We must be clear on one thing. H.R. 503, the underlying bill, is a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade, and there is no question whether it would threaten a woman's right to reproductive choice. At the same time, this bill does nothing to address the real need for Federal measures to prevent and prosecute violent crimes against women. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that the loss of a pregnancy through violence to a woman is a tragedy for the woman and for her family. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the Lofgren amendment. The Lofgren amendment recognizes that a crime causing the end of a pregnancy is a crime against the woman. If my colleagues truly care about women and children, vote for the Lofgren amendment and vote no on H.R. 503 if the amendment is not included.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) for putting this special order together and bringing us together to talk on this first 100 days of President Bush's presidency. Actually, I am going to talk about energy. But it is clear to me, when we look at the energy policies that have been brought forward or not been brought forward since President Bush's election that in his first 100 days in office, President Bush has made it very clear that the only promise that he intends to keep is his commitment to leave no special interests behind. Nowhere is that more clear than in his actions and in his inactions surrounding energy and the environment. In spite of all of his campaign promises and catchy speeches since taking office in January, President Bush has made it clear that our environment is not one of his priorities. On the campaign trail, however, Bush vowed to strengthen carbon dioxide regulations to keep factories from polluting our air further. Within 2 months of taking the oath of office, he went back on his word, refusing to toughen carbon dioxide standards, making it easier and more effective for big industry to pollute. Shortly after breaking his word on CO2s, President Bush repealed tough new regulations that would have reduced the arsenic in our drinking water. Instead of acting to protect the water that our children drink, the President acted to protect mining companies from having to clean up their act and keep our water clean. In these first 100 days, the President also unilaterally withdrew U.S. support from the Kyoto Treaty, seriously undermining our role as a world leader in environmental protection. Most alarming to me as a Californian and as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science is the President's lack of commitment to environmentally smart solutions for our energy crisis. All Americans want and deserve reliable, affordable energy. Increasing our reliance on fossil fuels is not the way to solve our energy crisis or protect us from future problems. A serious Federal commitment to renewable energy sources, energy efficiency, and conservation is the only real solution. But let us face it. The President and his Vice President are oilmen. Enron and other power companies were among Bush's campaign's biggest donors. The bottom line is that Bush-Cheney and their campaign contributors have a lot to gain from maintaining the stranglehold fossil fuels have on our power supply. Despite the fact that the President stood before this country and said in his State of the Union Address that he was committed to renewable energy research, he has done nothing in his first 100 days except move to further increase our reliance on fossil fuels. In fact, in his budget, President Bush slashed the funding for renewable energy research by $200 million. Under the President's plan, 50 percent of the geothermal technology development funding would be cut, 54 percent of the solar energy budget would be cut, and 61 million dollars would be cut from energy efficiency research funding. Once more, the President's budget ties future funding for renewables to Federal dollars raised from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That is an outrage. Destroying one of the most pristine expansions of wilderness in our country for a limited supply of oil is not a solution to the California or our Nation's energy crisis. It is one more environmental problem. It is a problem that he would leave for the future generations to solve. So while Californians suffer through more blackouts and the Nation struggles to pay skyrocketing energy bills, President Bush has his billionaire oilman Vice President meeting in secret to craft a national energy policy. If it is anything like the Bush budget, and one can be sure it will be, it will be heavy on oil and nuclear energy and light on safe, sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and geothermal. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) knows as well as I do that 100 days may be a good benchmark for politicians and pundits to assess new presidencies. But it is only a fraction of the time that our President actually spends in office. If President Bush continues this pattern for the rest of his term, big business may be smiling, but the American people will not be. Over the next 3\1/2\ years, President Bush may make good on his commitment to leave no special interests behind. But after 4 years of his antienvironment pro oil company stance, the American people will be ready to leave President Bush behind.