Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who is and has been facing this problem in her home State by organizing a successful billboard campaign that is showing results, and she has introduced H. Res. 4222 here in the House so that she can take her efforts national.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the list of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) of parental responsibilities that could prevent these baby abandonments in the first place, and that is child support. Possibly, if the mother who is considering abandonment did not feel abandoned by the father of the child, then there would be a team effort to make this child's life a life that the mother could then support. For certain, H. Res. 465 will give us the information we need on a local, a State, and a national level to prevent baby abandonment. My State of California is also considering legislation in Sacramento on this issue because, as we learn the real numbers, we will learn the real reasons and the causes for child and baby abandonment and we will move on to prevention, so that indeed the harmful effects of baby abandonment will stop and will stop forever. I heartily ask all of my colleagues to support H. Res. 465 and support the end of baby abandonment. I thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for letting me do this as his partner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we have always heard that there is no rest for the weary. Well, the women in America are weary. They are just plain tired of the constant stream of attacks launched by the Republican leadership against their right, a woman's right to make decisions about their health and their lives. Today marks the seventh time the House will consider this dreadful issue. Today's assault on women is dangerous. It puts women's health at risk and attacks the core principles of Roe v. Wade. Roe provides American women a constitutional right to make their own health choices and for women to terminate pregnancy up to fetal viability. Roe ensures a life and health exception. But this bill does not. It puts women's lives and health at risk. Roe clearly states that our government cannot force a woman to sacrifice her life or health to protect a pregnancy. Yet my Republican colleagues outrageously want the Government to proceed to prevent doctors from providing the best possible medical care to women. Let us be clear. Women do not choose late-term abortions as a casual form of contraception. Rather, late-term abortions are a last choice for a woman, when a woman's life or health or the baby's life is terminal or in jeopardy. Further, late-term abortions are the most difficult time and the most difficult decision for a woman and her family to make. Knowing this, it would appear that the Republicans want to set a precedent before the Supreme Court makes their decision on April 25th on the Nebraska law banning abortions. This law is very similar to this bill. Congress must not legislate on this matter. Congress must uphold the principles of Roe v. Wade and vote against this legislation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every day the Republican leadership wastes by not convening the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee, 13 children are wasted as a result of gun violence. That is 13 children gone forever. This is not a game, this is about children's lives. Our children need safety locks, they need effective background checks, and they need the NRA to loosen its grip on the Republican leadership. They need these things now. Guns kill. It is that simple. According to the Justice Department, Federal gun prosecutions are up 16 percent, State and local gun prosecutions have risen 22 percent, but our children are still dying. The Republican leadership must convene a meeting of the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee to expand gun safety measures and protect our children. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop playing politics with children's lives and start working on meaningful gun safety legislation. 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 rise in support of the Pelosi amendment, and I thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment because we desperately need to address the growing demand for drugs here in our own country, and we must address drug treatment programs. Today, we are spending time, a lot of time, debating whether to appropriate funds to fight the supply side of the narcotics problem in Colombia. This debate is not complete unless we also tackle the connection between America's growing demand for drugs from other countries, like Colombia. In order for our international drug control policy to succeed, our drug policy must be balanced. It cannot focus only on supply reduction. We must also include demand reduction right here at home. To do this, we must incorporate the Pelosi amendment, as it rightly addresses the treatment gap on this side of the hemisphere. This amendment will expand our country's existing infrastructure for treatment. This investment will leverage additional local and State funds. It will strengthen State and local coordination and help to integrate service delivery. This funding will help our youth avoid a life of drugs and treat current drug users to help them turn their lives around. The amendment focuses on youth, while allowing communities to invest these funds according to local priorities. Every day our children are bombarded with suggestive messages and opportunities to take drugs. Effective prevention programs engage youth interactively, involve parents and families, and start at a young age to build skills and reinforce a message over the long term. While children are only 25 percent of our population, they are 100 percent of our future. We must address their future. We must address the future of all children, particularly those involved in or at risk of drug abuse. Mr. Chairman, this Congress needs to refocus its priorities. Each $1 invested in drug abuse prevention will save $15 in reduced health, justice and other societal costs. Each $1 invested in drug use prevention will save communities $4 to $5 in costs for drug abuse counseling and treatment. Mr. Chairman, we need to put people before weapons systems. For the total cost of each of the requests of 30 Blackhawk helicopters, we could treat 5,173 substance abusers or provide prevention services to 111,494 American children. If this Congress can fund $1.3 billion for ``Plan Colombia'' to reduce supply internationally, we can surely afford to fund treatment services and prevention programs to reduce demand here in America. I urge my colleagues to support the Pelosi amendment and support our youth.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how this Congress chooses to spend our Federal funds says a lot about who we are as people and as a Nation. So what are we saying today? The Republican budget, which will cause 40,000 children to lose Head Start services by the year 2005, says that preschool services for low-income children just is not very important. On the other hand, the Progressive Caucus budget is the only budget resolution being offered today that will fully fund Head Start. And should this Nation not increase funds for child care subsidies by $4 billion, as the Progressive Caucus budget does, instead of causing over 12,000 low-income children and their families to lose their child care subsidies, as the Republican budget does? What priorities are being reflected when the Republican budget freezes funding for higher education, for training and employment programs? The progressive budget increases funding for education at every level, including education technology and after- school programs. The Republican budget, which increases defense spending, while making deep cuts in domestic spending, says loud and clear that weapons are more important than people. Is that what this Nation is really about? Is that who we are as people? I am not, and I say that this Nation's national security should be measured by how we invest in our children, not weapons. Our true national security depends on how well our children are educated. That is why I will be voting against the Republican budget resolution, and I will be voting for the progressive budget. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every policy decision we make here in the House affects our children, and today we are going to consider a Republican budget resolution that does not consider the needs of our children. Their budget resolution increases the national defense budget by over $17 billion in the year 2001, while increasing education spending by only $2 billion. That is $15 billion less. What a disgrace. We spend billions of dollars each year on nuclear weapons, but we have to scrape together money for new schools, we have to scrape together money for critical school breakfast programs. It is wrong. It is wrong for our children, it is wrong for our Nation. Our children need us to invest in their future. They need us to invest in education, they need Social Security and Medicare protected for their future, and they need the national debt paid down. By the way, this works to help our seniors also. The Republican budget resolution takes care of millionaires and their risky tax breaks, but it does not take care of our seniors and our children.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority and the National Rifle Association keep blaming everyone but themselves for this country's epidemic of gun violence, but the American people know that the tactics of the NRA have misfired again. Guns kill; it is that simple. Until the Republican leadership takes aim at the real culprit, the proliferation of guns in the United States, 13 children a day will continue to die as a result of gun violence. According to the Justice Department, Federal gun prosecutions are up 16 percent and State and local gun prosecutions have risen 22 percent. But still, our children are dying. Our children need effective background checks, they need child safety locks, and they need the NRA to loosen its grip on the Republican leadership, and they need this now. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop playing politics with children's lives and start working on meaningful gun legislation. Our children's lives depend on it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, March is Women's History Month, a time to reflect on the contributions that women have made to our heritage, but today I want to talk about how we here in Congress can actually make history for women. The United States can make a difference in women's lives all around the world by ratifying CEDAW, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Right now the United States is the only industrialized democracy in the world that has not ratified CEDAW. That is a disgrace. Currently, the treaty is being held hostage in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where one man refuses to bring CEDAW forward for a vote in the Senate. Even though our colleagues in the other body must act to ratify CEDAW, we in the House can make a difference and we can make a difference by signing H. Res. 107, which calls on the Senate to take immediate action on CEDAW. One of the most important lessons, Mr. Speaker, that we can teach the world during this Women's History Month is that the United States is truly committed to protecting women's rights.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes Nos. 29 through 33 on March 8, 2000, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in just 25 years the number of seniors in California will nearly double, from 3.4 million to 6.4 million, but the limited prescription drug benefit that the Republicans have proposed would leave nearly half of those seniors behind. Low-income drug benefit plans include seniors who are considered middle class if they earn between $15,000 and $50,000 a year. These plans ignore the fact that due to the high costs of prescription drugs, many seniors must choose between buying food and buying medicine. That is not right. Mr. Speaker, in the case of Ivera and Roy Cobb, residents of my district, paying for medications that they both need is absolutely impossible. Roy goes without some of his prescription drugs so that Ivera can have her medications. The Republican leadership must stop dragging its feet and must enact a meaningful prescription drug benefit that will eliminate price discrimination against our seniors.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor of the House this evening to salute the women of this country on the first day of National Women's History Month. This year is particularly special because it marks the 20th anniversary of the National Women's History Project. In my heart and in my mind this occasion is unique because Sonoma County, in my district, is the birthplace of the National Women's History Project, the organization responsible for the establishment of Women's History Month. This year's theme is ``An Extraordinary Century for Women--Now Imagine the Future.'' The Project, as it is known, is a nonprofit educational organization founded in 1980 and committed to providing education and resources to recognize and celebrate women's diverse lives and historic contributions to society. The Project is repeatedly cited by educators, publishers, and journalists as the national resource for information on United States women's history. Thanks to the Project's efforts, every March, boys and girls across the country recognize and learn about women's struggles and contributions in science, in literature, business, politics, and in every other endeavor. As recently as the 1970s, however, Mr. Speaker, women's history was virtually unknown, left out of school books, left out of classroom curriculum. In 1978, I was the Chair of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women. At that time all of us involved in the commission were astounded by the lack of focus on women. Because of that, we worked together with local women to push for awareness. Under the leadership of the chair of the commission that followed right after me, Mary Ruthsdotter, a group of hard-working women in Sonoma County put together a celebration of International Women's Day. That has since expanded through the Congress to National Women's History Week and now National Women's History Month. Together, the women in my district and the Project succeeded in nationalizing awareness of women's history. As word of the celebration's success spread across the country, State Departments of Education honored women's history week, and within a few years, thousands of schools and communities nationwide celebrated National Women's History Week during the month of March. In 1987, the Project first petitioned Congress to expand the national celebration to the entire month of March. Due to their efforts, Congress issued a resolution declaring the month of March to be Women's History Month. Today is the first day of March, the first day of the Women's History Month for the year 2000. Each year since, nationwide programs and activities in schools, workplaces, and communities have been developed to commemorate women's history in the national and international arena. In honor of Women's History Month, I want to praise Mary Ruthsdotter, Molly MacGregor, and Bonnie Eisenberg who are the birth mothers for this very notion. And I want to acknowledge Cindy Burnham, Donna Kuhn, Sunny Bristol, Denise Dawe, Lisa McLean, Molly Henrikson and Kathryn Rankin, the women now at the Women's History Project Office. All of these women serve as leaders to educate Americans of all ages about the contributions of women in our society. Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to these women's achievements, I have reserved Statuary Hall on Wednesday, March 22. Proud mothers and daughters, educators, activists, historians, and other women across the country are invited to come to the Capitol to celebrate the 20th anniversary of women's history. Further, the project has been recognized for outstanding contributions to women's and girls' education by the National Education Association for Diversity and Education, by the National Association for Multicultural Education, and for scholarship service and advocacy by the Center for Women's Policy Studies. I am truly grateful to all the devoted women at the Women's History Project for their continued commitment and for making an indelible mark on our country. However, Mr. Speaker, we still have a long way to go on women's issues. Sadly, America is also poised to cede its position as a world leader in the international fight against discrimination against women. We need to pass CEDAW, the Convention to End Discrimination Against All Women.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to pay tribute to the Honorable Patricia Hilligoss, a community leader, who after years of fighting for Petaluma, California, recently lost her battle with Lou Gehrig's disease. It's hard to think of Petaluma without thinking ``Madam Mayor,'' as Patty was called. During my eight years as Petaluma City Councilwoman working with Madam Mayor, I came to respect her hard work on behalf of our city. Even when we didn't see eye to eye, I knew that Patty was doing what she thought was right and what she considered best for the city. Two of her legacies to our city include affordable housing for seniors and an award-winning general plan. These will continue to make a difference for Petaluma well into the future. For 12 years, Madam Mayor pounded the gavel at City Council meetings and made numerous trips to Sacramento and Washington to advocate on behalf of our city. Outside Council Chambers, Madam Mayor continued her advocacy for the residents of Petaluma. She was active with the Petaluma Valley Hospital Foundation, Boys and Girls Club, Committee on the Shelterless, and the Petaluma Visitors Bureau. Whenever there was an event in Petaluma, you knew Madam Mayor was part of it. From parades to ribbon cuttings to Eagle Scout ceremonies, Patty Hilligoss was a part of Petaluma's life. She may be gone, but her work for the residents of Petaluma will survive for many years to come. You will be missed, Madam Mayor.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) for doing such a great job, in providing leadership in helping seniors get the medicines they need and to get them at fair prices. The gentleman is outstanding. Thanks a lot. Mr. Speaker, prescription drugs are not affordable to the people who need them the most, and that is our seniors and other people on Medicare. That is not acceptable, point-blank, unacceptable. For many seniors, prescription drugs for arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease are simply a fact of life or death. However, because of the high cost of prescriptions, many seniors are forced to choose between buying food and buying medicine. That is not right. In the case of Ivera and Roy Cob, residents of my district, paying for the prescriptions that they both need is impossible. So, Roy goes without some of his medications, medications he also needs, but he does that because he believes Ivera needs her medications more. They cannot afford his and hers. Seniors like Roy and Ivera should be deciding how much time to spend with their grandkids, not deciding who is going to get the medications they need to survive. One reason many seniors cannot afford the drugs they need is because as the gentleman from Maine told us, the Nation's largest drug companies favor HMOs, insurance conglomerates, and government buyers with negotiating power, those who pay much less for prescription drugs, while many, many seniors on Medicare pay much higher prices for the same drugs. According to a study I requested of the House Committee on Government Reform, seniors in my northern California district are being overcharged for the drugs they need to survive. In Sonoma County, California, seniors pay, on average, 145 percent more for the commonly used drugs than the favored customers pay. That is 145 percent more. In Marin County, California, just south of Sonoma, also my district, seniors pay 137 more. Take, for example, Zocor, a drug used to lower cholesterol. Favored customers pay $35 for a dosage, but Sonoma County seniors pay $119, a price difference of 242 percent. That is outrageous. The Republican leadership must stop dragging its feet and enact a meaningful prescription drug benefit for our seniors, a benefit that eliminates price discrimination. Our seniors do not have time to wait for the Republicans to play their political games. They need their medications and they need them now. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I will join my colleagues in signing a discharge petition to bring prescription drug legislation to the floor. The longer the leadership stalls, the less time one more child will have to spend with grandma or grandpa. Providing a prescription drug benefit and eliminating price gouging is a big job. It is a job that we must do, because treating our seniors with respect is our responsibility. It is time for the majority leadership to step up to the challenge and give our seniors a break. It is a small measure for them to have prescription drugs that they can afford, but it is a measure that does not even compare to what they have done for us. I thank the gentleman for making this possible tonight.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. On Saturday night, millions of Americans lost their security blanket. Life will not be the same without Charles Schulz. The touching human stories he told every day through the Peanuts characters in his cartoons gave us such warmth that old and young understood how Linus felt holding his trusty blanket. Now our friend is gone, and we will have to rely on memoirs. Fortunately, Charles Schulz left us plenty of these. I knew Sparky as a silver-haired man who spent time every week at Redwood Empire Ice Arena in Santa Rosa, California, located in my district. I also knew him as a hard-working artist who traveled from his home in the district of my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), to his studio in Santa Rosa. But my colleague from California and I are not the only people who shared Charles Schulz; neither is our colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), who represents the district that Charles Schulz was born and raised in. Charles Schulz left a piece of himself with every single person whose day was brightened by one of his cartoons. We let Peanuts into our lives on a daily basis, and the cartoon characters came to feel like a part of our families. Like so many Americans and people around the world, I delighted in following the ups and downs of Snoopy, Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the rest of the gang. My kids grew up on Peanuts. In fact, my daughter's first Christmas, her very favorite, favorite gift that she has probably ever had, was ``Noopy.'' She carried ``Noopy'' around on her shoulder for about a week, and ``Noopy'' is still in a trunk, cherished, in our garage. In a way, we all grew up with Peanuts; learning a little something about ourselves and about life from those lovingly drawn cartoons: Learning humility, learning to win, learning to lose, learning to care, learning to express ourselves through the eyes of these children in his cartoons. It was through Charles Schulz's characters that we felt his spirit, and it is through those characters that his spirit will live on. Beyond the pages of America's newspapers, Charles Schulz also touched the lives of his friends and neighbors in Santa Rosa. Our children are better off for the smiles they shared at his ice rink. Our community is stronger for the friendliness he added to it. It is only fitting that a man who has touched so many lives be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. It is with great pride that I have worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to secure the high honor for Charles Schulz. I only wish that he had lived long enough to receive this award himself. But I know that wherever he is today, Sparky is smiling just to know that his dream of drawing cartoons has given so many people the pleasure of laughter. I look forward to a unanimous vote for this Congressional Gold Medal for Charles Schulz today.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, as one of the few members of both the Science and Education committees, I rise today in support of Mr. Larson's amendment to H.R. 2086. As a member of both committees, it's of particular importance to me that our children have the access to technology in order to succeed in school and in their future endeavors. Congressman Larson's amendment is a step in the right direction to ensure that students have access to information and internet technologies and also that schools can better use these available technologies. However, as we strive to make technology more available and effective, let's not focus only on the physical barriers, but also consider the cultural and social barriers as well. The emerging ``digital divide'' that we are all concerned about will not only break along economic lines, but social lines as well. For instance, girls generally do not continue to use technology as they get older the way boys do. It won't do us any good to procure the best computers, and completely wire our schools, if there is a group of students who aren't encouraged to use this technology. We need to create education and outreach programs to promote opportunities for girls in high-tech futures. In fact, I've authored legislation that tracks girls from the 4th grade through high school in order to find ways to increase their awareness of high-tech careers and provide them with mentoring and hands-on experience to help them succeed. Like my colleague from Connecticut, I believe all our children deserve every opportunity to succeed as they face the challenges of the 21st century. It is time we focus on getting our children ready to learn and ready to succeed by making certain schools have the technological tools and equipment. I urge my colleagues to support Congressman Larson's amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2086. As a Member of the Committee on Science and as a representative from the North Bay of the San Francisco Bay area, I am acutely aware of the enormous contributions information-technology research has made for the economies of my district and its positive impact on our State of California and the national economy in total. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues an amendment offered to this bill that was accepted by the full Committee on Science that is now part of the bill we are debating right now. As we all know, computer and information-technology know-how will be essential to our children's success in the 21st century. As I look at the limited use of technology in our classrooms, I wonder and have asked myself over and over, who is taking care of our children? Who is giving today's students the tools they need to be tomorrow's high-tech contributors and tomorrow's high-tech leaders? To help answer these questions, H.R. 2086 now contains an amendment that I wrote and creates a research program at the National Science Foundation to look at exactly how schools can better use available technology. Through the assistance of NSF, we will now be able to assess and develop ways to increase the use of computer technology in elementary and secondary schools. This provision links academic researchers and teachers who will be developing materials and teaching methods. It requires that demonstrations be conducted in a broad range of educational settings to assess the effectiveness of computer materials and methods, to gain evidence about which methods and programs work and which work better than others. Lastly, the program includes a provision to establish electronic libraries with access to this information in order to disseminate best practices and materials. We all know the first step is to wire our schools, Mr. Chairman; but until we develop meaningful ways to incorporate that technology into our children's education, the technical infrastructure will be of little benefit to most of them. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support research and development. Vote for H.R. 2086.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a math question for my colleagues today: If the Republican marriage tax proposal spends $182 billion and the Democratic plan is $89 billion, which one leaves more money to invest in our children? You do not have to know new math to prove that the Democratic bill provides relief for working families, while saving $93 billion to invest in the needs of our children. For example, if we adopt the Democratic plan, $25 billion could go to the States to improve child care, another $25 billion could be invested in children's health programs, and another $25 billion could be used for family services, with money left over to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Mr. Speaker, I want to provide honest marriage tax penalty relief to the 58,003 married couples in my district, and I also want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by 95,424 of my constituents and to reduce my constituents' $8.4 billion share of the Federal debt, but, Mr. Speaker, let us give working families the assistance they really need. Let us give them tax relief. Let us help them take care of their children. Tax relief any other way just does not add up.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment with this omnibus appropriations bill. While this appropriations bill is good for education and does make good on our commitment to the United Nations, this bill also contains a provision that compromises women's rights around the world. Republican extremists, in their zeal to limit women's rights, left the President no choice but to accept a budget compromise that links the payment of the United Nations dues with restrictions on international family planning. That is wrong. This compromise is a bad deal for women around the world. Family planning shouldn't be linked to United Nations dues. It has nothing to do with family planning. This is about our fundamental responsibility as the remaining superpower to support the United Nations. This is not a trade-off. Mr. Speaker, women are not negotiable. The Republicans need to stop attacking women's rights and they need to start living up to our international obligations--no strings attached. By adopting this appropriations language linking the payment of our United Nations dues to restrictions on family planning, we set a dangerous precedent. Once legislative language is adopted, it will be hard to remove. Further, the waiver provision will be meaningless in the future if there's an anti-choice President in the Oval Office. The waiver is only as strong as the President who would sign it. For every step backward that we are forced to take on family planning, we will have to take two steps forward to maintain progress. We are disappointed by the political posturing that created this budget deal that hurts women. But make no mistake about it, the women of this House are as committed as ever to protecting the rights of women around the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cardin amendment to allow custodial parents, usually moms with incomes below the poverty line, to participate in welfare-to-work programs equally with noncustodial parents, usually dads. While I was glad to get this limited amendment into the Committee on Education and the Workforce markup for access for low-income custodial moms, this is far better. In fact, it is far more fair and sensible to treat low-income custodial moms equal to dads. We know that more and more of the very poorest families in this country are not receiving welfare. These are families headed by single moms. It is not sensible, nor is it fair to give absentee dads greater access to welfare-to-work programs than it is to give these programs to the mothers, those who are living with their children and taking care of them day in and day out. If we want to help low-income children, we need to give both their parents equal access to the welfare-to-work program. That is what the Cardin amendment does, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) to make all parents count, rather than only fathers. We cannot overemphasize the value of having a father present and participating in a positive way in a child's life. Dads are invaluable. But so are moms. And most of the children we want to help with this bill live with their mothers. Mr. Chairman, if we want to change these children's lives, we must provide grants to help both their parents, their mom and their dad. Then the family can make changes. Why should we not offer parents counseling and job skills assistance, both the moms and the dads, and make sure that the custodial parent, the low-income mom, has the same opportunity as the noncustodial father? A recent study of 10 cities by the Institute of Children and Poverty showed that 42 percent of the poorest families in those cities do not get TANF benefits. We have census data that shows that the poorest one-fifth of single-mother families had a significant loss of income between 1995 and 1997, due largely to the loss of public benefits without any corresponding gain in earnings. The moms in these poor families would need to go on welfare in order to get the kind of benefits that are being offered to the absentee dads by the fatherhood grants. What sense does that make? Our goal is to get more people into work, not on to welfare.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the end of the session is almost here. Over this session, the last year, Congress has passed funding for the F-22, tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, and appropriations bills that busted the budget caps. But while the Republican leadership is taking care of special interests, I want to know who is taking care of our children. Our children continue to lack access to quality health care, attend dilapidated schools and die at a rate of 13 a day due to handgun violence. Mr. Speaker, our children are 25 percent of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future, and I ask my colleagues, who is taking care of them? They do not need rhetoric, they need action. So again, I ask my Republican colleagues, while they are taking care of special interests, who is taking care of our children?

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because I believe it should be an open rule. It fails to make in order an important amendment that I offered, which was supported by the Democrats on the Committee on Rules and all of the Democrats on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. My amendment increases the time that a person is allowed to receive vocational education or job training while participating in a welfare- to-work program from 6 months to 12 months. Six months of vocational education or job training is just not enough to prepare an individual for a job that will pay wages leading to self-sufficiency. I know that 6 months is not enough because studies that compare women's education to their earnings prove it. I know that 6 months is not enough because I have testimonials from training programs nationwide, the people in the field who work with welfare recipients day in and day out, and they all agree that more education is needed to make families self-sufficient. And I know that 6 months is not enough because there was a time when I was a young mother raising three small children without any help from their father. Even though I worked full time, I depended on welfare to supplement my paycheck to give my children the food, the child care, and the health care that they needed. Eventually, I was able to leave welfare and never go back. I was able to leave welfare because I was healthy, I was assertive, and I was educated and had good job skills. That education was my ticket off of welfare into a better job, into better pay, and into benefits that my family needed. It gave me the means to support myself and my family and, believe me, it cannot be done without education or training. My amendment would have given other families the same fair chance I had to move from welfare to work, a chance to earn a livable wage. Remember, my colleagues, we should not be giving opportunity only to those who have opportunity to begin with. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule until all individuals are given the opportunity to earn a livable wage.