Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize California's Sesquicentennial. I am very proud to represent California's Sixth Congressional District. This district includes all of Marin and most of Sonoma County, the region north of the Golden Gate Bridge. The District, initially the home of Native American Tribes, has been under seven sovereign flags: England, Spain, Russia, Mexico, the Bear Flag Republic, California and the U.S.A. The Sixth Congressional District has been home to a wide variety of businesses and agricultural endeavors. Sonoma County recently earned 3rd place in a nationwide Forbes magazine that ranked the best cities in which to do business. Since 1987, the area from Novato to Santa Rosa has earned the nickname ``Telecom Valley,'' for the large number of telecommunications companies that the area has produced. Marin and Sonoma Counties are also home to many other high-tech firms. In the agricultural arena, Sonoma County contains dozens of vineyards, wineries, and apple orchards. Both counties have a long and proud history of dairy and poultry farming. The Sixth Congressional District also has a rich musical and artistic history. From the Great Depression through the 1950s, the Russian River area of Sonoma County was the venue for Big Bands. The Kingston Trio began their career in Marin County in the 1950s. Their ownership of the Trident in Sausalito brought other famous and soon-to-be-famous to the country. In the 1960s, Marin resident Bill Graham's productions engendered poster art that defined much of the nation's art of that decade, just as his concerts defined the popular music and culture of the times. Today, Sonoma State University is building the Don and Maureen Green Music Center--a music, dance, and drama performance center on the level of Tanglewood, that will become an international destination for its summer festivals. Film arts in the District are highlighted by the Mill Valley Film Festival, long known as the springboard for new talents. The District has often been chosen as a filming location for such movies as Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds and Vertigo, as well as Star Wars and others. Marin County is also home to George Lucas, a frequent Oscar winner over the last several years. Sonoma and Marin counties' residents are notable for their environmental consciousness, and a look at the natural treasures of the District makes the reason obvious. The District is home to half of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, the nation's most visited National Park; Point Reyes National Seashore; the breathtaking Russian River recreation area; plus several state and county parks; mountains and valleys; redwood groves and miles and miles of coastline. Truly, the Sixth Congressional District is a place we are all proud to call ``home.'' More information about California's Sixth Congressional District can be found in the Local Legacies collection at the American Folklife Center for the Library of Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to the Sixth Congressional District in honor of California's Sesquicentennial. I am very proud to be representing such an accomplished and beautiful area of California in Congress. Happy 150th Birthday, California!

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, no, I have not made that request at this time. I was hoping for hearings and a markup and to bring this issue that is important to full light to this Congress with a full debate.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not. As a matter of fact, I was surprised. We heard about this suspension at 6 o'clock last night D.C. time when I was in California. And the idea that we would bring a controversial, important issue like this onto the Suspension Calendar was a total surprise to me, because I think of suspensions as noncontroversial issues, such as naming a post office.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the comments of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) that we are attacking the Boy Scouts. Indeed, the Boy Scouts do good work. My point and our point is that all boys should be involved in Scouting, not just some boys; and it is perfectly all right as a private organization to do as you choose. It is not all right for the Federal Government to support intolerance.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, absolutely. A hearing was necessary. A markup is necessary to bring an issue of this importance to our Nation in the dark of night instead of in the light of day is a mistake. To suggest that it is noncontroversial and could pass with a two- thirds vote is very short-sighted.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because I support H.R. 4892, the Scouting for All Act, an act to repeal the Boy Scouts of America's congressional charter. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in sending a clear message that the civil rights movement is alive and well in the United States of America, and that this Congress does not support discrimination in any form. Contrary to what some of my colleagues on the other side are alluding to, we are not saying that the Boy Scouts are bad. We are saying that intolerance is bad. I was a Girl Scout. One of my sons was a Boy Scout. I know the value of Scouting, and that is why I believe that Scouting should be available to all boys, not just some boys. I am not standing here today to override the Supreme Court. The unchangeable fact is that towards the end of June the Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policy. So I stand here not to ask if the Boy Scouts have a right to a discriminatory policy but to ask if their discriminatory policy is right. In 1939, Marian Anderson, an African American opera singer, was invited to perform at Constitutional Hall, then operated by the Daughters of the American Revolution, another chartered organization. The DAR said that Marian Anderson could not perform at Constitution Hall because she was black. As a result, then First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt resigned her DAR membership and coordinated a concert for Marian Anderson at the Lincoln Memorial. 75,000 people attended and ultimately the DAR changed its policy of discrimination. Simply because an esteemed organization holds a belief does not make that belief right. It was wrong for the Daughters of the American Revolution to discriminate against African Americans then and it is wrong for the Boy Scouts of America to discriminate against gays today. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle suggest that they speak for the average American; that the vast majority of Americans support intolerance. They are wrong. This poster alone will show the headlines from the newspapers across this Nation that are reporting the reaction to the Boy Scouts' position of intolerance. It is clear that opposition to the Boy Scouts' intolerant policy is not a fringe movement. It is part of the mainstream belief that intolerance in any form is un-American. From Fall River, Massachusetts, to Broward County, Florida, from Chicago to San Francisco, American cities, American private corporations, nonprofit organizations, schools, churches, families are saying no to intolerance. In the city of Chicago, the Boy Scouts can no longer use city parks, schools or public sites because their policy, the Boy Scout policy of intolerance, conflicts with the city's existing nondiscrimination policy. In Fall River, Massachusetts, the local United Way voted overwhelmingly to withdraw support from the Boy Scouts. Private companies are also finding that the Boy Scouts' intolerance is unacceptable. Among other corporations, Textron, Inc., Knight Ridder and others have pulled their support from the Scouts. Because when people stand up and say intolerance is wrong, they do make a difference. One of those people is Steven Cozza, a teenager from Petaluma, California, where I live. Steven, as a 12-year-old Boy Scout, working to earn his Eagle Scout badge, became aware of the intolerance policies against gays in Scouting. And as a Scout, he decided, he was 12 years old, he decided to do something about it. That was 3\1/2\ years ago. Since then, Steven and his dad, Scott Cozza, neither one of them is gay, they have nothing to gain except they know that intolerance is wrong, they started an organization called Scouting for All. Scouting for All is a campaign, a national campaign, encouraging the Boy Scouts to change their policy. To date, they have gotten more than 53,000 signatures to support change of the policy. Steven Cozza supports abolition of the Scouts' prohibition on gays. He knows that it is wrong. It is wrong to exclude some boys based on sexual orientation, and it is wrong to teach other boys by example to be intolerant. Perhaps some of my colleagues believe that intolerance is okay. I do not, and neither do millions of people across the Nation who live in the cities that have stood against intolerance, or worked for the companies that have withdrawn their support or made contributions to the organizations that no longer support Scouting. My colleagues would do well to get outside the Chambers and talk with parents in Montclair, New Jersey, who are circulating a petition opposing the Boy Scouts' policy. They should also talk with the elected officials of San Jose, California, who say that Boy Scout intolerance is incompatible with their city laws. Repealing the Boy Scouts Federal charter is a sensible and reasonable way for this Congress to take a stand against intolerance and not have it look as if our Nation supported intolerance. A charter is an honorary title that Congress awards to organizations that serve a charitable, patriotic, and educational purpose. But to me, there is nothing charitable, there is nothing patriotic; and it certainly is not a value we want our children to learn. Mr. Speaker, revoking the charter does not cut off Federal funding for the Boy Scouts. It does not change their tax status. Revoking the charter sends a clear message that Congress does not support intolerance. Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4892. Together we can show the American people that like them, this Congress does not accept intolerance. As a representative of the people, let us make their message of support for tolerance heard throughout this House. We are not saying that Boy Scouts are bad; we are saying that intolerance is bad.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4678. I commend my colleagues the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for their efforts to improve our country's child support system. As many of my colleagues are aware, I know firsthand the importance of child support. Thirty years ago, I was a single, working mom with three young children. In fact, my children were 1, 3, and 5 years old. My children's father did not pay court-ordered child support, and my salary alone was not enough to make ends meet. As a result, we were forced to go on welfare. Had we received child support, we would not have been on welfare. Today millions of American families still rely on welfare for the exact same reason, a deadbeat parent. That was not fair to my family 30 years ago. It is not fair to families today. And it is certainly not fair to the American taxpayers. But it is also not fair when child support is paid and the family never sees a penny because the State and the Federal Government keeps it. This bill before us today will change that. The CBO estimates that the improved ``pass through'' provisions in H.R. 4678 will get more than $1 billion of child support every year into low-income families and help children in need. It is hard being a kid today, so we must show them that they are important. Kids who know that their dads and moms care enough to see that there is food on the table and shoes on their feet get the message loud and clear: they are cared about and that they matter. While it is not a perfect bill, H.R. 4678 does help to send the message to our children, our children all over the country, that they do matter. I urge that my colleagues support and vote for H.R. 4678.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this House Concurrent Resolution 372, because I too am proud to recognize the 210 years and the 210th anniversary of the United States Coast Guard. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my colleagues that I have confessed to Admiral Loy, the Commandant of our Coast Guard, that I have a crush on every man and woman in the Coast Guard. I so admire what they do and what they provide to our country and how well they do it and what a proud group of individuals that they are. I am especially supportive of this resolution because I have the only Coast Guard training center on the West Coast in my district, the Two Rock Coast Guard Training Center. We know firsthand what good neighbors Two Rock Coast Guard training center is, how much they participate in our community, what wonderful neighbors they are, and what an important role they play in protecting our country and making sure that people are safe and saved when they have accidents out in the waters. Mr. Speaker, through my time in this Congress, I have supported the efforts to modernize and maintain this important Two Rock Training Center. We have received strong community support in doing that because my community is proud that these Coasties live in our community, work in our community, and participate in our community and serve our Nation so well. I am proud that we are taking the time tonight to thank all of the members of the Coast Guard who have continued to dedicate their lives to making our country a safer and cleaner place. Let us continue our commitment to supporting the Coast Guard. Let us say happy birthday on their 210th anniversary, and I urge my colleagues to vote for H. Con. Res. 372.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, there are about 1.2 million women of reproductive age who depend on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program for their health care, and our congressional staff makes up a large number of those women. So I ask Members to look at their female staff who work so hard for all of us, who serve our districts and ask how they can stand not to provide these young women with reproductive health services, health services that would allow their health plans to cover abortion services. How could they not allow them to be covered even if their health or future fertility were at stake? As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to offer women in public service a full range of reproductive health options, including abortion services. I want all of us to vote for the DeLauro amendment to allow Federal plans to offer health services to cover abortions.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it makes good sense to have the OPM study the best ways to give Federal employees paid leave following the birth or adoption of a child, and to study the effect paid leave will have on the Federal work force, because it then can be a model for the rest of the country. Today if a child is fortunate enough to have two parents living with them, chances are that both parents work long hours and commute long distances. So then we have to ask the question, who is taking care of our children? Compared to 33 years ago, parents spend 52 fewer days a year with their children. That is almost one day a week. We must do something to help parents bridge the gap between work and family, especially when they have a new baby. The Maloney-Gilman-Hoyer amendment is a good first step that will let American parents respond to the question, who is taking care of our children? Then we can have a simple answer. That answer can be we all are.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I introduced a bill, the Scouting for All Act, to repeal the Boy Scouts of America's Federal charter. The bill's cosponsors are sending a message to the Boy Scouts and to all Americans that the Congress of the United States does not support intolerance. As my colleagues know, a charter is an honorary title Congress awards to organizations that serve a charitable, patriotic, or educational purpose. But to me there is nothing charitable or patriotic about intolerance, and it is not a value we want our children to learn. Revoking the charter sends a clear message that Congress does not support this value, this value of intolerance. The supporters of my bill are not saying that the Boy Scouts are bad. We are saying that intolerance is bad. I was a Girl Scout. One of my sons was a Boy Scout. And I know the values of scouting, and that is why I believe it should be available to all boys. The decision handed down by the Supreme Court last month shocked me; but, most of all, it saddened me. Yes, the Boy Scouts fought hard to win their right to discriminate. But for me and the bill's supporters, this is not a question of whether the Boy Scouts have a right to establish anti-gay policy. It is a question of whether the Boy Scouts' anti-gay policy is right. We believe that choosing to do nothing in response to the court's decision would only compound the injury and would reaffirm the Boy Scouts' message that intolerance is okay. As I said, the Boy Scouts fought hard to win their right to discriminate. While they may have won this right, we strongly feel the Government should not be a participant in any policy that promotes discrimination or intolerance. I truly believe that when brave people step up and say intolerance is wrong, we will and can make a difference. One of those brave people is Stephen Cozza, a teenager from my hometown of Petaluma, California, who founded Boy Scouts For All, which is a national campaign to change the Boy Scouts' anti-gay policy. To date, Stephen Cozza and his father, Scot Cozza, have gotten more than 51,000 signatures on a nationwide petition supporting the change in the Boy Scout policy and making scouting inclusive for all boys. As Members of Congress, we also have a part to play. We have an opportunity, an opportunity to let the Boy Scouts of America know that we do not accept their exclusionary and intolerant policy. I dread the implication and the repercussions should Congress choose not to act. If both the Court and Congress convey the message that discrimination is okay, I fear we encourage other organizations to discriminate as well. Mr. Speaker, we are halfway through the first year of the new millennium, and we are still debating the pros and cons of discrimination. Did we not learn anything from the last century? All of our children need a tolerant environment in which to grow and learn. Straight kids and gay kids need to know that they are accepted. We must make it clear to those children that the Federal Government supports them and does not support intolerance. I urge my colleagues to support our children. Join with me and the bill's cosponsors and support repealing the charter of the Boy Scouts of America. But let me repeat. We are not saying that the Boy Scouts are bad. We are saying, and we are saying in absolute terms, that intolerance is bad.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every day the Republican leadership wastes not taking action on gun safety, 12 to 13 children die as a result of gun violence. That is 13 children gone forever. This is not a game, this is about our children's lives. Yesterday a 13-year-old boy fired a gun in a cafeteria at his middle school in Seattle. How many more children's lives need to be jeopardized before this Congress acts? Our children need safety locks on guns, they need effective background checks, and they need the NRA to loosen its grip on the Republican leadership. They need all of this now; not tomorrow, not next year, now. With just 2 weeks before the August recess, I urge my Republican colleagues, stop playing politics with our children's lives. Start working on a meaningful gun legislation package. Our children's lives depend on it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lee amendment. This amendment will provide the funds needed for finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Sadly, HIV/AIDS infects more than ten million young people around the world, making it the largest crisis children face. Just as awful, this horrific virus has left millions of uninfected children orphaned by parents who have died of HIV/AIDS. AIDS is destroying the lives and futures of our children here at home, and our children around the globe, and we are not doing enough to turn the tide. What kind of crisis does it take before this Congress realizes we need to take immediate action against the global AIDS epidemic? Immediate action requires measures of prevention and treatment. Prevention must include world-wide educational and awareness campaigns. Our youth can't protect themselves if they don't know the facts about HIV/AIDS. I find it extremely disturbing that many children don't know how the virus is transmitted. Like prevention, we must make treatment for AIDS a high priority. The availability of certain drugs can make the difference between the death of a parent, child or individual and the possibility of a bright, healthy future. Mr. Chairman, we need to mobilize every available resource, sparing no effort to fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Our Nation and those across the globe need help and they need it now. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 25th Anniversary of Panamax of San Rafael. Panamax, the country's foremost designer and manufacturer of power protection equipment, is deserving of special Congressional recognition. What started out as a one room, single employee operation has become a multi-million dollar enterprise that provides employment opportunities to over one hundred individuals. Panamax has been a strong supporter of small business and has a record of hiring employees from the 6th Congressional District. Panamax has earned a reputation for innovation and service to producers and users of a wide variety of high-tech equipment. The company has developed an important niche in the area of devices that provide protection from power surges and spikes. It also provides a complete guarantee on every unit produced. Panamax has strongly supported international trade and has substantially expanded its trade with Canada, Latin America and the Pacific Rim countries. It continues to be an innovator and leader in the power protection field in the United States. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to congratulate Panamax as they mark two decades of service. I am very proud to be representing such a fine company in Congress. I extend my best wishes to Henry Moody, and the Panamax family, for continued success in the years to come.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we, the Representatives serving Santa Rosa, California, rise today to recognize and celebrate the retirement of Ken Blackman. Ken Blackman served as City Manager for Santa Rosa for 30 years. He was a dedicated and effective public servant. During his time of public service, the city grew into a community that Forbes Magazine named the third-best place to do business in the country. The Press Democrat also ranked Blackman among the 50 Sonoma County people whose leadership and contributions shaped the county in the 20th century. Ken Blackman helped create Annadel State Park and Santa Rosa Plaza, lobbied for improved services for the homeless, kept city finances stable and helped start the country's wastewater agricultural reclamation project. All of Ken Blackman's efforts have succeeded in his goal to make Santa Rosa a better place. Mr. Speaker, it is our great pleasure to pay tribute to Ken Blackman for his many years of service to Santa Rosa. We are proud to represent such a fine citizen. We extend our best wishes to Ken Blackman and his family for continued success in the years of his retirement.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I rise, Mr. Chairman, in strong support of the motion to strike this gag rule from this bill, because congressional support for reproductive health services in developing countries becomes more important every day. Voluntary family planning services increase child survival, promote safe motherhood, and give women around the globe the help they need to control their lives. Without international family planning, women in developing nations face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and more despair. Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the same people who deny women the choice of an abortion also seek to eliminate support for family planning programs. These are the programs that reduce the need for abortion. These same people would not allow organizations that participate in family planning programs to use their very own funds to provide information and services to women around the globe. Give women around the world the help they need and vote for the Greenwood-Lowey amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment. Since being elected to Congress eight years ago, I have been working with many of my colleagues for the right of all women in the United States to have safe, healthy alternatives to surgical abortions. While we've seen RU-486 become available in Europe, we're still fighting for expanded research, development, and availability of drugs for medical abortions, like RU-486, here in the United States. Even worse, in Congress we continue to face these outrageous efforts by the far right to block the Food and Drug Administration's approval of RU-486. I'm sad to say it, but the Coburn amendment is the same attack that conservatives have tried every year. Mr. Chairman, pure and simple, the Coburn amendment is an attack on a woman's right to make decisions that affect her health. It seeks to deny a woman's right to safe medicines like RU-486 even when faced with a crisis pregnancy. Furthermore, I ask my colleagues to realize that by prohibiting the FDA from approving these medicines--This amendment will also have a life-threatening impact on other women and men. It harms those who have medical conditions, such as tumors, that can be treated with drugs like RU-486. We cannot let the far right stand in the way of women's health or patients' lives. I urge my colleagues--vote against the Coburn amendment!

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in absolute opposition to the Sanford amendment, which would prohibit the Department of Agriculture from completing the School Breakfast Demonstration pilot project. The School Breakfast Demonstration program is a scientific study to measure the effect of providing breakfast at school free of charge to all children, regardless of income, on a broad range of student outcomes, including grades, attendance, tardiness, and also behavior and concentration. Mr. Chairman, yes, we should be providing breakfast for all of our children at their homes in the morning. But we are sure that parents in this busy world we are living in are commuting long hours, they are working long hours, and they leave the house before their children have had breakfast. Every child needs to go to school ready to learn on a full stomach. The Meals for Achievement Act that I authored has already received half of its needed funding. The first $7 million was appropriated last year. The program is already under way. After a nationwide competition, six school districts have been chosen to participate. As we debate, these school districts across the country representing a wide variety of schools, school districts, and students are already setting up their programs. Why would we today take that funding away from them? Mr. Chairman, as a Nation, we are searching for answers to the many challenges our schools and our children face. Numerous studies, including one by Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, show that children who eat breakfast improve both their grades and their behavior in school. But I can assure my colleagues, if I came to this floor and said to them that it is absolute that children who eat breakfast do better in school, one would say to me prove it. I want a scientific study, and I want that study to be a government, a Federal Government-paid and -monitored study. That is why we need to do this pilot program. But because children need to have breakfast is one of the reasons why many school districts and some in my district provide breakfast at school to all of their students on the mornings before standardized testing. In today's world, if a child is lucky enough to have two parents living at home, chances are that both parents are working and commuting long hours. More and more parents are out the door on the road early in the morning with no time to sit down to breakfast. That does not mean they cannot afford breakfast. It means these children do not eat breakfast because there is nobody there to insist that they do. The breakfast program is voluntary. Nobody has to go to school and eat breakfast. It will be available for all children no matter when and if they want to eat breakfast. Whether we like it or not, many children do not eat; and they do arrive at school hungry. And when they are hungry, they are not ready to learn. So unless we want to pass a law requiring every family to ensure their kids eat breakfast before school, and then hire a bunch of breakfast police to enforce our law, we need to understand the benefits of a universal school breakfast program. That is why we must allow the Department of Agriculture to use the funds included in this bill to complete the School Breakfast Demonstration program. Along with most educators and scientists, I believe that previous experience and studies will hold true and that the School Breakfast Demonstration program will prove once again that school breakfast is not a welfare program, it is an education program that will benefit all students. Just as we do not charge the wealthy students for their books and their computers because they can afford it, we must not charge students for breakfast. Because like a book or a computer, breakfast is a learning tool, a tool that must be made available to all.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Royce amendment. The Market Access Program, or MAP, is a valuable program and it serves our Nation's agricultural growers and our producers well. MAP has been a tremendous asset in opening overseas markets and keeping U.S. agricultural exports competitive in the world market. They do not play on an even playing field without the help of MAP. As many of my colleagues know, I am privileged to represent Sonoma and Marin Counties, one of our Nation's premier wine-making regions of the country; and the wine industry is vital to my area. But it is not just vital to the people I work for in my congressional district, it is also vital to the entire State of California. In fact, California produces more than 90 percent of the United States' wine exports. While our wine speaks for itself, we still need help crossing the borders. The same is true with fruits and almonds and the many other products where the U.S. excels. We also face uneven trade barriers around the globe with these products, and we need assistance from USDA. This assistance is very important. This is why I am a steadfast enthusiastic supporter of this program. I regret that the program has been a perennial target for budgetary cuts, but I am very pleased that Congress each time, time and again, has understood the worthiness of this program and has, in their wisdom, continued to fund the MAP program. I urge my colleagues to continue its support for the Market Access Program and to vote against the Royce amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Salmon- Udall amendment to increase funding for renewable programs. Renewables are a clean energy source and renewables are good for our environment. It is no secret that current sources of energy, nuclear and fossil fuel-burning power plants, produce emissions and pollutants. These harmful by-products include long-lived radioactive wastes, greenhouse gases, and the air pollutants responsible for acid rain. By increasing our support for renewable energy sources to meet our Nation's electric needs, we can significantly reduce our contribution to the release of these pollutants. Supporting renewable energy is a powerful and direct way to help protect the environment, and it is also a way to make a long-lasting commitment to our children's future and to the future of our planet. It is only responsible, and it is prudent that we support the technological development of renewable energy sources, especially in light of the current oil price crisis we are all experiencing across this Nation. I firmly believe that we already rely too heavily on foreign oil. We must develop a responsible domestic energy policy. We must shift our focus to domestic fuel sources, like wind, like solar and geothermal; and we must assure a guaranteed supply of available and affordable energy. Yet in order for us to have options other than foreign-produced fossil fuel in the future, we must have genuine investments in renewables today. This amendment is a key step in that direction. It is also a statement of what our energy priorities must and should be. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. We must develop renewable sources of energy that our children can depend upon.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, once again it appears that some individuals on the other side of the aisle would put politics before people, particularly our children. If the tobacco companies have nothing to hide, then why do they care if we have a lawsuit? Well, since the landmark State lawsuit settlement in 1998, tobacco companies have actually increased the amount of advertising aimed at our children. They lure our children with glossy ads. They become addicted to nicotine. It leaves millions of Americans sick and dying, while the tobacco companies continue to rake in the profits and the taxpayers of this Nation pick up the tab for the health care. Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department must have the funding to investigate big tobacco. I encourage my colleagues, vote for the Waxman amendment. Our children's lives depend on it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I strongly rise in support of the Serrano-Ramstad- Delahunt amendment. America has a 25-year commitment to helping those who cannot afford legal assistance and it is outrageous that today's Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill severely cuts back on this commitment. For my colleagues who are not satisfied that every single mistake has been corrected that this legal assistance group has made in the past, I ask my colleagues, do we cut the Defense budget by 50 percent when the Defense Department loses their records and costs this country millions and billions of dollars? Of course, we do not. By providing the Legal Services Corporation with less than half of its current funding, 50 percent less, this bill is effectively denying low-income individuals, including women, seniors, and veterans access to legal advice and representation that they need, help that they must have. Mr. Chairman, Legal Services funding has a direct impact on thousands and thousands of peoples' lives, and this amendment will put some of the money back. It will help low-income individuals. It will particularly help low-income mothers, mothers who are victims of domestic violence, mothers whose fathers, husbands, their children's fathers who have abandoned them. It will help these individuals fight back and regain control of their lives. Legal Services Corporation-funded programs provide these women, victims of domestic violence, with more legal assistance than any other organization across this Nation. This base legislation tells women and tells their children that they are not a priority. How can we do this? I urge my colleagues, join together and vote for this amendment. Vote to increase funding for legal services to help veterans, to help seniors, to help mothers and to help their children.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment. Quite simply, this amendment offers women in prison, who are solely dependent on Federal health services, their constitutional right to reproductive services. Women in prison have no resources, no means to borrow money, very little support from the outside. In fact, 6 percent of incarcerated women are pregnant when they enter prison; and we know that women become pregnant in prison, from rape or from having a relationship with one of the guards. This ban to deny abortion coverage is another direct assault on the right to reproductive choice. It is time to honor the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade by acknowledging it is every woman's right to have access to safe, reliable abortion services. We must stop the rollback on women's reproductive freedoms, we must provide education and resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and we must vote on the DeGette amendment and protect all women's rights to reproductive choice.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest we can do better by our budget and by our children by investing the Space Station money in more worthy, reliable programs, both at NASA and in other areas of the science budget as well as reducing our national debt. Mr. Chairman, what could we do with $2.1 billion? We could fund the National Institutes of Health for 16 years. We could provide low-income heating assistance for thousands of families; or fund child immunization programs nationwide. We could also clean up our Superfund sites, fund drug prevention programs, provide Head Start to our children in need, pay our debt to the United Nations, and provide a tax cut for working families. These are investments we should be making for our children and for their future. I strongly believe that the Space Station is a case of misplaced priorities. With the many needs here on Earth, the Space Station is just too expensive. We need to shore up our Social Security system and protect Medicare and Medicaid. This amendment must be passed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of my bill, H.R. 946, the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act. I would like to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and their staffs for the work that they have put into bringing this bill to the floor today. I appreciate that the full Committee on Resources unanimously voted this bill out of committee on May 16, and I thank them all for the earlier hearing where the Bureau of Indian Affairs testified in support of the bill. Today I am appreciative that H.R. 946 is on this floor. The bill before us today seeks to correct a decades-old wrong by restoring Federal recognition for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. This rancheria is composed primarily of the California Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo Indian tribes in my congressional district. My district is located north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge, and it consists of Marin and Sonoma Counties. Joe Saulque, who chaired the advisory council on California Indians in the 1980s, stated that luck often determined whether a tribe got recognized. I am glad that today the House is taking luck out of the equation and voting on restoring the tribe's status, because it is the right thing to do. The tribes of the Graton Rancheria are a rich part of the San Francisco Bay area's cultural heritage. The earliest historical account of the Coast Miwok peoples, whose traditional homelands include the California communities of Bodega, Tomales, Marshall, and Sebastopol, located along the west coast of my district, dates back to 1579. Today, there are almost 400 members of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. In 1966, the United States Government terminated the tribe's status along with numerous other tribes. This was under the California Rancheria Act of 1958. Almost 2 decades later, the advisory council on California Indian policy was established to study the report and to come up with special circumstances facing California tribes whose status had been terminated. The council's final report, which was submitted to Congress in September 1997, specifically recommended the immediate restoration of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Following the report's recommendation, the tribes promptly decided on a course of action for their restoration. Since then, I have been working with them on the bill that is before us today. This consensus bill restores Federal rights and privileges to the tribes and its members and makes them eligible for benefits, such as Native American health, education, and housing services that are available to federally recognized tribes. Madam Speaker, it has been a long journey for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. On behalf of their hard work and the support they have received from the local community, I ask that the House restore the recognition they deserve.