Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Jane Small, one of the founding mothers of the National Women's Political Caucus. Jane recently passed away. In 1971, Jane worked to found the NWPC to recruit and support women seeking elected office regardless of party affiliation. During Jane's history, she guided the caucus through the ERA movement and the struggle to secure a woman's right for reproductive choice. As an inspired feminist and activist, Jane was a key player in electing numerous candidates across the Nation. I know Jane particularly for her leadership in California politics. She served on both Governor Jerry Brown's and Governor Gray Davis' advisory committees on women's issues. Jane was an activist. She was a leader. Women in the political arena live in her legacy. She will be forever missed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a most wonderful person, our former colleague and friend George Brown. I want to reflect on a comment from a poem that was read at Representative Brown's memorial service by his son. For me, the essence of that poem, ``How Do You Live Your Dash,'' sums up why I so respected and admired George Brown. George's ``dash,'' those 79 years between his birth in 1920 and his passing this summer is the symbol of a person who witnessed, participated in and positively impacted many, many of the most important events of modern American life. Years before George formally entered political life, he was actively engaged in the social and political issues facing our country. As a student at UCLA, George helped create cooperative student housing. He worked to break the racial color barrier by organizing the first integrated campus housing in the late 1930s. He was a conscientious objector during World War II and worked in a Civilian Conservation Corps camp in Oregon. Yet later he decided to join the military and served as a second lieutenant in the Army. After the war, returning to Los Angeles, he continued his work, organizing city workers and calling for veterans housing. In 1964, George was elected to the Monterey Park city council. Building on his past activism, his political work and style was a true reflection of his values. Always the gentleman legislator, as a city councilman, in the State Assembly or as a Member of this body, George was guided by his belief that through persuasion and reason, he could and he would build a better society. As we all know, Mr. Brown cultivated a polite and courtly style of debate, often tinged with humor and with self-deprecation. He believed that public service was a noble calling and he demonstrated in his ensuing 45 plus years in the political arena that one individual can make a difference. In 1962, he was elected to Congress. Thirty years later, I was fortunate to be elected to Congress and to become a member of his Committee on Science when he was the chair. In recent years, as chair of the Committee on Science, George began to challenge the scientific community to reflect on the social implications of their work and the ethical obligations that come with their high standing. Every day I mourn the loss of this gentleman leader. I sometimes wonder how we will meet the demands of a world and a Nation challenged by the need for a technically educated workforce without our leader George Brown. Mr. Speaker, it was truly an honor to have known and served with George. His years spent on Earth, his dash, as his son reminded us, is the story and legacy of a wonderful person.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove as cosponsor of my bill, H.R. 2907, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Republicans must take all of us for fools, standing on a soap box trying to convince the American public that they are the saviors of Social Security, when in fact they are like the thief who does not believe he has committed a crime until he gets caught. Then he goes, oh, I committed a crime. Instead of supporting Social Security, the Republican leadership has a long track record of hostility toward that good program. In fact, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, has maligned Social Security as a rotten trick and as a bad retirement for American people. Republicans have tried to eliminate Social Security. They have tried to privatize Social Security, and they are trying to steal from it. The Republican budget proposals before us this week and for the past few weeks would not add a single day to Social Security's solvency. We are already into the fourth week of fiscal year 2000 and the Republicans are covertly dipping into the Social Security program. The reality is that the Republican spending bills have already spent the Social Security trust fund surplus for fiscal year 2000. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, despite the majority's smoke and mirrors, they have borrowed more than $13 billion of the Social Security surplus up to this date. And by the time we are finished with all of the spending bills, CBO estimates, if we go in the way that they are proposing, that $13 billion will actually be $24 billion. How does this extend the life of Social Security and the Social Security trust fund? From past remarks, we know that the Republicans would be perfectly okay to let Social Security dry up and go away. Social Security, however, faces a shortfall over the long term and Congress must work, and we must work together, with real numbers, to secure the future of Social Security for Americans and for American families in the future. I say to the Republicans, stop talking. Start working. Work with us. Work with the President. Work on a plan to extend the life of the program. Actually, the President has a plan to shore up Social Security over the long term. His plan would reduce the national debt by $3.1 trillion over the next 15 years and eventually devote the savings to extend the life of Social Security. We have a responsibility to future generations, to ensure that Social Security remains the strong successful program it is and that our country's priorities are addressed at the same time. I have a message for the Republican leaders. You are not fooling anybody. Stop talking. Start working. Work with us. Work with the President and work for the people of this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this conference report. Let's look at how we got to this shameful place in the budget process. First, the Republicans tried to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans by billions of dollars. When that didn't sell, they decided on across-the-board cuts to programs that affect all families. I hope my colleagues look at what this bill doesn't do and the consequences it will have on families and children. First, this bill does not extend the life of Social Security by a single day. It also fails to provide one penny for a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Most importantly, this bill fails to take care of our children. It will leave children unable to participate in the Head Start; title I; before and after-school programs that families need. What does this bill do? Well, it does take $17 billion from the Social Security surplus. Robbing the Social Security surplus and not investing in our children--that's not a responsible and fiscally prudent way to run a government. I urge my colleague to oppose this conference report.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am here today because of an alarming pattern of inaction on the part of the Senate. After voting down the comprehensive nuclear test ban and trying to kill the nomination of Senator Carol Moseley-Braun to be ambassador of New Zealand, one Member in particular is continuing to hold the United Nations convention on eliminating all forms of discrimination against women, or CEDAW, hostage. CEDAW formalizes women's equality and promotes women's inclusion in business, government and other economic and social sectors. CEDAW has absolutely nothing to do with family planning or abortion, and more than 160 countries have already ratified this important treaty supporting basic human rights for women. The United States in fact is the only industrialized democracy that has not ratified CEDAW. This is a disgrace. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to cosponsor my resolution calling on the Senate to ratify CEDAW in this Congress.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) who said that the Council of Chief State School Officers supported this bill. I suppose maybe he has heard from one of the members of the organization, but I would like to read from a letter written by the executive director, Gordon Ambach from the Council of Chief State School Officers. I quote, ``On behalf of the Council of Chief State School Officers, I write to urge you to vote against H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act or Straight A's Act when it comes before the House for consideration this week.'' He also goes on to say, ``We oppose Straight A's because it undermines the following essential features of Federal aid to K-12 education:'' First, ``Targeting of Federal aid to elementary and secondary education to national priorities and students in need of special assistance to succeed.'' He wants that. He thinks it is important. ``Governance of education by State education authorities.'' He does not want that undermined. ``Accountability for Federal aid to elementary and secondary education.'' And it is signed, as I said, by Gordon Ambach, the executive director, Council of Chief State School Officers. This is a three-page letter. He said a lot more than that. The Council of Chief State School Officers is correct. The goal of Federal education programs must be to make it easier for students to learn rather than making it easier for States to spend Federal dollars. Under this bill, if a school district needs a bus barn, a shelter for their school buses, and if the State says yes, the district could use its Federal education funds to build that bus barn. If a school band needs new uniforms, and that school has the ear of the governor, Federal dollars can be used to purchase school uniforms. That would be perfectly all right. But those are local expenditures, not Federal expenditures. Federal funding is targeted for the neediest schools and the neediest children and those that are under the most duress in the school system, not for school uniforms, not for school bus barns. Because the purpose of Federal education funds is to fund national education priorities like the ones we set for Title I earlier today. Educating all of our children well must be a national priority. The people who I represent in Congress who live in Sonoma and Marin Counties north of San Francisco understand that. In fact, I received a post card just today; and it says, make sure that our children are taken care of.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it sounds like we are being criticized because we would throw money at our schools, and our accusers might be right. We do want to throw money at our public schools, and we know that by putting more money into our public schools, we would solve many problems. Think about it. We do not hesitate to throw money at the Department of Defense. We throw plenty of money to build roads and bridges. But when it comes to our schools and to our children, somehow it is rude to talk about spending money. Somehow all of our schools, regardless of where they are, are expected to give all of our students a first-class education on a second-rate budget. Mr. Chairman, it will not happen if we continue to do this. If this country, led by this Congress, does not begin to invest in our children and do it now, it will not matter how many fancy new weapons our defense funds buy, because there will not be enough soldiers with the education to use those weapons. And there may not be any new weapons at all because who is going to be educated enough to build and design these weapons? Who will be mixing the materials and operating the machinery to build all those new roads and bridges? Have my colleagues seen how high tech the equipment is these days? Mr. Chairman, I am going to be voting for the gentleman from Indiana's amendment to increase funding for Title I. $24 billion is barely what we need. That is what the Congressional Research Service says that we would need to fully fund Title I. Let us get with it, let us support our children, and let us increase the funding for Title I.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague, Mr. Ehlers', amendment to add science as one of the subjects that will require State standards and assessments. I am fortunate to serve with Congressman Ehlers on both the education and the science committees, so I know, first-hand, how committed he is to improving science education in this country. And it needs improvement! There's a good reason why the test scores of American students ranked No. 16 out of students in 21 countries on a recent international science examination. There is also a good reason why, just last week, Senator Robb introduced a bill in the other body to create a new category of visas for foreign nationals with graduate degrees in high technology fields. International graduate students would be eligible for the new ``T- visas'' if they had skills in science and technology and a job offer with an annual compensation of at least $60,000. What's wrong with this picture? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out! We must--we must, must, must--do more to ensure that more U.S. students pursue the kinds of studies they need to have a high-tech, high-paying career. According to the American Electronics Association, the American high- tech industry has created one million new jobs since 1993. At the same time, the number of degrees awarded in computer science, engineering, mathematics and physics have declined since 1990. And, of the degrees awarded in these fields, a large percentage are going to foreign nationals; 32 percent of all master's degrees and 45 percent of all doctoral degrees currently go to foreign students. Without doubt, one of the reasons for this decline is that too many American students are not studying science in the early grades. This is particularly true of girls and minorities, who are more than half of our student population. It is predicted that by the year 2010, 65 percent of all jobs will require at least some technology skills. We need to make science education a national priority. That's what the Ehlers amendment will do, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to pay tribute to AmeriCorps on its fifth anniversary. AmeriCorps is a program that gives volunteers the chance to grow while giving millions of others a helping hand. Thanks to AmeriCorps, 4 million children have been tutored, 10,000 homes have been built, 600,000 seniors have been helped today live independently, and disaster survivors have been assisted. That is what I call a successful program. Recently, some of my colleagues wanted to cut AmeriCorps and they want the funding to be killed. Thankfully they changed their mind. Now over the next 5 years hundreds of thousands of Americans can look forward to richer lives either through the opportunity to help others or through the good fortune of being helped. I say keep up the good work, AmeriCorps. Happy anniversary. America thanks you.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I, too, would like to compliment the chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the ranking member for a good bill. But I am here to make H.R. 2 better. I am sure that many of my colleagues are surprised, as I was, to learn that H.R. 2 eliminates the Women's Educational Equity Act, WEEA, and other gender equity provisions in the Elementary Secondary Education reauthorization. I knew that WEEA and other gender equity provisions were doing a good job. What I did not know was that their success could be seen as an excuse to eliminate a good program. It is hard to believe that some Members think that gender equity provisions should be eliminated from ESEA because more women are enrolled in college, graduating from college, or because boys have reading scores that are not as good as girls. But that is shortsighted. Women do earn more than half of all Bachelor's degrees, and WEEA and other gender equity provisions deserve credit for that. But women's degrees are still clustered in traditional fields such as nursing and teaching, fields that pay far less than jobs in science and technology. While women are more than 50 percent of this country's population, they earn only 36 percent of math degrees and just 7 percent of engineering degrees. That is why, Madam Chairman, in addition to reinstating WEEA and other current gender equity provisions, the Mink- Woolsey-Sanchez-Morella amendment includes my language to allow schools to use professional development funds to instruct teachers in how to work with students, how to work with their parents in groups from under-represented areas of our country. And they do that to encourage them to pursue careers in math, in science, engineering, and technology. Madam Chairman, just last week, Senator Robb introduced a bill to create a new category of visas for foreign nationals with graduate degrees in high-technology fields. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why the high-tech companies want these visas for foreign workers. It is because there just are not enough U.S. citizens with educations needed for these high-tech positions in our own country. In fact, the American Electronics Association, AEA, reports that the number of degrees awarded to Americans in computer science, engineering, math, and physics has been declining since 1990. One of the reasons for this decline is that girls and minorities are not pursuing these fields and they are not pursuing them in the early grades; and because they are not interested in the early grades, they do not get the background they need in elementary school to take the necessary precollege requirements in high school and they do not go on to major in these subjects in college. If our schools do not change, females and minorities will continue to dominate the low-wage jobs, while America's high-wage, high-tech jobs go to foreign undergraduates and foreign graduates. That is why Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-Packard, Intel Corporation, Motorola, Apple, AutoDesk, and Compac Computers signed a letter to members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce strongly encouraging members to consider proposals that ``not only strengthen math and science education broadly but that aim to target women, minorities, and other under-represented groups to pursue these courses of study.'' But unless we use WEEA and other gender equity provisions to address the problem that exists for girls in our schools, women will continue to have fewer economic opportunities than men and less access to the careers that will support themselves and their families. Without these opportunities, this country will be deprived of the highly educated, highly skilled workforce we need in the United States to compete in a global economy. Gender equity and education is not a women's thing. All Americans, men and women, have a stake in making sure that all students gain the skills and self-confidence they need in elementary and secondary school to become productive, self-supporting adults. The Mink-Woolsey-Sanchez-Morella amendment is vital to the strength of the Nation, and I urge my colleagues to please support it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, after fighting for almost 2 years, this House is finally poised to pass meaningful managed care reform. The American people want us to do this, and I am delighted that this House is rising to the occasion. We are almost there. We have been hearing some stories, though, about how HMO reform will make the sky fall. I want my colleagues to know that in my State of California our governor, Governor Gray Davis, recently signed landmark legislation that will provide HMO participants with major consumer protections and give health decisions back to 20 million patients and their doctors. Now Californians have HMO accountability. Now Californians have a fair, timely, external grievance process. It should be an eye opener for all of us here today, because California, a large and diverse State, in fact with the population and the economy of a country, has patients first when they think of health care.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas and would like to compliment him for sharing with us tonight the experience of Texas in health maintenance organization reform. It is particularly appropriate that we are here tonight, because tomorrow, after fighting for more than 2 years, the House actually has a real shot at passing a managed care reform bill. The American people want this. In fact, they are demanding that we pass managed care reform, and I am particularly glad that this House is finally rising to the occasion. I am also pleased that the Democrats and Republicans have worked together to support a common sense patient protection bill. It is bipartisan. It is called, in fact, the bipartisan Dingell-Norwood bill. And any of my colleagues who are saying the Dingell-Norwood bill will not work are very, very wrong; and they have to review what has gone on in Texas. If they will pay attention to the Texas experience, they will know that the sky will not fall if we take care of patients when they are covered by a health maintenance organization. I would like to share also some of the recent accomplishments from my State, the State of California, where just last week Governor Gray Davis signed landmark legislation that put health decisions back in the hands of 20 million patients and their doctors. This comprehensive package is made up of 19 bills, and it will absolutely overhaul the way HMOs do business in California. A key piece in the package includes managed care accountability. The State now has a new Department of Managed Care, which will act as a watchdog for patients with HMO providers. This State agency is devoted exclusively to the licensing and regulation of health plans. The legislation will also include a new Office of Patient Advocate, which will assist in enrollees with complaints, provide education guidelines, issue annual reports, and make recommendations on consumer issues. With this legislation, Californians now have the right to an external review of their health care coverage decisions by an independent group of medical experts. By January 1, 2001, this external review program will dispute claims when a patient's treatment has been delayed, denied, or modified. I am proud to tell my colleagues that the package also includes HMO liability, giving Californians the right to sue their HMO for harm caused by failure to provide appropriate and/or necessary care. This is a much-needed remedy for any family harmed by a decision made by the HMO or by a clerk working for the HMO. Any decision that would delay, deny, or modify medically necessary treatment will be under scrutiny. In addition, Californians can look forward, under this legislation, to new consumer protections. These protections will include a second medical opinion, upon request for patients; expanded patient privacy rights will prohibit the release of mental health information, unless patient notice is provided; and a prohibition on the selling, sharing or use of medical information for any purpose not necessary to provide health care services. This legislation in California sets procedures for HMOs to review a treatment request by a doctor to ensure that timely information and decisions regarding a patient's treatment needs come forward at the right time. Patients will be informed of the process used by a doctor when that doctor determines whether to deny, modify, or approve health care services. In fact, Californians are also guaranteed the right to hold an HMO accountable by seeking punitive damages in court if and when harm comes to a patient. Congress should take note that if California can do it, and if California can pass similar reforms as those in the Dingell- Norwood bill, then, for Heaven's sake, we can pass the same type of legislation for our country. Because California has the population and the economy of a country in and of itself. California has 33 million people, and the challenge has been met. Tomorrow, the Dingell-Norwood bill is a good starting point for the managed care reform we need in this Nation. The Norwood-Dingell bill provides Americans the ability to choose their own doctor, to get emergency room care, to see a specialist, and unleash their doctor from HMO gag rules on treatment options. And especially important for Americans is that the Dingell-Norwood bill holds HMOs accountable. This bill has bipartisan support as well as support from more than 300 health care and consumer groups. I am convinced that this bipartisan bill deserves a clean up or down vote. It does not need to have any amendments. The American people are counting on us to take heed of the Texas and the California accomplishments in HMO reform, so let us focus tomorrow on the consensus we have built. Let us accept no substitutes to the vital patient protections in the Dingell-Norwood bill, and let us again pay attention to what other States have been able to accomplish, such as Texas. We are going to hear from Wisconsin and North Carolina, and we will see that the people in this country are telling us that they want and they demand health care reform and managed care reform, and we must heed this and go forward tomorrow. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for having this special order tonight.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and remarkable individual, Paul Martin, and to recognize him for his commitment to riparian restoration and education on his Stemple Creek ranch in the community of Two Rick in Sonoma County, California, the district I am privileged to represent. I truly wish I were able to join Paul, his family and their many friends at The Bay Institute's ``Partners Protecting the Bay'' Celebration tonight as Paul accepts the Carla Bard Bay Education Award. Paul was the first rancher willing to work with the 4th grade students of the Shrimp Project of Brookside School. Today, because of his vision and enthusiasm, there are increasing numbers of students and teachers doing creek restoration on Sonoma and Marin ranches each year. It was in the winter of 1993 when the fourth graders asked Paul if they could plant willows at Stemple Creek on his property. They had begun a project to help save an endangered species, the California Freshwater Shrimp. Paul allowed the students to come on his property and plant willows, blackberries and other native plants along the creek. He worked with them every step of the way, digging the holes with the posthole digger, and watering the new plants with a bucket. He fenced off part of this land to protect the new plantings, temporarily giving up the land for grazing. I have been to his ranch on Stemple Creek many times and have seen the students' excitement as they plant the willow sprigs. Those sprigs are now full-grown trees, shading the creek and providing homes for Valley quail, yellow warbler, California freshwater shrimp, spiders, duck and more. We have learned so much from Paul. He is a marvelous teacher, and a great supporter of education. He is always thinking about how a particular experience will best benefit the children's education. He has taught suburban students and teachers about a rancher's life--the complex problems, the joys and the hard, hard work. He is wise and patient always taking time to explain things that are important. Paul is modest about his gifts and his involvement, preferring to allow others to shine, but his influence is widespread. He has affected people's ideas about what is possible in education, even at a national/ international level. The collaborative work begun on Stemple Creek has received local, national and international media attention and awards. Paul made this possible. The Shrimp Project shows that people who might have differing views--environmentalists, ranchers, students, biologists, teachers, businesspeople--don't have to agree on everything, but can still work together to achieve some common goals. These new relationships result in increased understanding, tolerance and appreciation of everyone involved. Because of Paul's generosity, his ranch is now a model of cooperation between a rancher and environmental project students and teachers. Because of his dedication to this community and to education, other ranchers and teachers are inspired to take part in this kind of cooperative effort. One class has become 90 classes. The Shrimp Project continues today as the STRAW (Students and Teachers Restoring A Watershed) Project, facilitated by The Bay Institute and the Center for Ecoliteracy. As the creek gets healthier, the community is enriched and enlightened. As the students plant at other ranchers in Marin and Sonoma counties, Paul continues to be an important voice for collaborative restoration and is a model for so many others

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina very much for organizing this special order tonight. It is a particularly important issue when we talk about our children and their education, and believe me, you are a big voice in this country, having been the Superintendent of Schools for North Carolina. You know as much as anybody in the House of Representatives what we need to be doing to get our children ready for the 21st century. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this picture. Females make up slightly more than 50 percent of this country's population, yet less than 30 percent of America's scientists are women. Even fewer engineers are women, in fact, less than 10 percent. In 1994, there were 209 tenured faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and only 15 of those 209 were female. Of course, these figures are not surprising when we learn that in 1985 women earned less than 30 percent of the bachelors degrees in the physical sciences and less than 10 percent of the bachelors degrees in engineering. Colleagues will not even want to hear the percentage of Ph.D.'s in science- and mathematics-based fields that are earned by women; it is too depressing. Just to give my colleagues an example: About 8 percent of the Ph.D.'s in physics in 1988 were awarded to women. My colleagues may be asking themselves: So what? Is this some national problem? And that was years ago, Woolsey. Yes, well, this is a big problem; and in some fields, the numbers are worse today than they were 11 years ago. In fact, this is a big problem for employers, a big problem for women as future wage earners and a big problem for our Nation as we compete in the global marketplace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that between 1994 and the year 2005 the number of women in the labor force will grow twice as quickly as men. A recent study of school-to-work projects found 90 percent of the girls clustered in five traditionally female occupations. That has not changed over the last years. These occupations that are chosen by young women are elementary school teacher, nurse, retail sales, travel, hospitality service, and service industries. My colleagues do not need me to tell them that careers in traditionally female occupations pay far less than careers in science, math, and technology. For example, Mr. Speaker, a data analyst can expect to make $45,000 a year while a licensed practical nurse earns less than $25,000 a year and a kindergarten teacher earns only $18,000 a year. The National Science Foundation reports that today the jobs facing workers require higher skill levels in science, math, and technology than ever before. The NSF report is verified by a letter I received from the American Electronic Association, and I hereby introduce that letter into the Record: American Electronics Association, April 27, 1999. Hon. Lynn Woolsey, 439 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Woolsey: The American Electronics Association (AEA) is the nation's largest high-tech trade group, representing more than 3,000 U.S.-based high- technology companies. I am writing to inform you of the high- tech industry's growing concern about our nation's education system. The U.S. high-tech industry has created 1 million new jobs since 1993, paying an average annual wage of more than $53,000. Recruiting skilled professionals is becoming increasingly difficult for most high-tech companies since the current unemployment rates for many key technology occupations are less than 2%. For instance, the unemployment for engineers is 1.6%; for computer scientists, 1.2%; and for computer programmers, 1.4%. Given the high salaries, rapid employment growth, and low unemployment, it would follow that more students should be entering these fields of study. Instead, the opposite is occurring. The high-tech industry is facing a critical shortage of skilled workers. Simply put, our nation's educational system is not graduating enough students to fill the workforce needs of the high-tech industry. Further, we are not producing enough students that are prepared to meet the challenges of a technology-driven economy. This week, AEA released a new report--CyberEducation: U.S. Education and the High- Technology Workforce--that provides a comprehensive overview of the education trends that affect the high-tech industry. The report provides a baseline for comparing high-tech education in each state. Key CyberEducation findings include: The number of degrees awarded in computer science, engineering, mathematics and physics has declined since 1990. Workers with these degrees perform critical research, design and develop new products, and create new jobs for the high- tech industry. Foreign nationals are earning a large percentage of high- tech degrees: 32% of all master's degrees and 45% of all doctoral degrees are awarded to foreign nationals. Although the test scores of American students in math and science are improving, American high school seniors ranked 19th in math and 16th in science and when compared to students from 21 countries. If these educational trends continue, the growth of the high-tech industry cannot be sustained. Congress has an opportunity to address the shortcomings in our nation's education system with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. AEA is currently developing a series of specific education improvement proposals focused on K-12 math and science and the use of technology in the classroom, which we will share with Congress in the near future. AEA and its high-tech member companies are prepared to work with Congress to improve our nation's education system. Sincerely, William T. Archey, President and CEO. AEA wrote to tell me that today the high-tech industry is facing a critical shortage of skilled workers and the future is even looking worse than it was in the past. Additionally, seven high-tech firms including Autodesk, Hewlett-Packard, and Microsoft sent a similar letter to all of the members of the Committee on Education, and I introduce that letter into the Record also, Mr. Speaker: September 24, 1999. Hon. William L. Clay, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Clay: Research has shown that the earlier girls are introduced to mathematics and science, the more likely they are to enter information technology (IT) careers. As such, we are writing to express our strong support for H.R. 2387, ``The Getting Our Girls Ready for the 21st Century Act (GO GIRL!),'' introduced by Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). The bill seeks to encourage young female students' interest in mathematics and science, and ultimately, into high technology careers. While the IT industry is thriving and continues to drive U.S. economic growth, we are in the midst of a critical high technology worker shortage. At the same time, 50% of the U.S. population is female yet women currently make up just 8% of the engineering workforce. Moreover, only 3 percent of top executive positions at Fortune 500 companies were held by women. Clearly, we are letting a valuable national resource go untapped. We need to work together to encourage more of our country's women to pursue carriers in technology. The GO GIRL! Proposal establishes a program that works with girls beginning in the fourth grade and stays with them through high school. It funds mentors, tutors and events to encourage their interest in technology. We support proposals that encourage young girls to be exposed to role models and develop an interest and self- confidence in mathematics and science as numerous empirical studies have suggested that girls tend to develop negative attitudes towards the ``hard sciences'' in middle school. While several of our companies employ a variety of mentoring, recruiting and training programs to encourage women to enter high technology fields, we strongly support federal initiatives that strike at the root of this issue in the formative years. In your consideration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the high technology industry strongly encourages you to consider proposals that not only strengthen math and science education broadly but that aim to target women, minorities and other underrpresented groups to pursue these courses of study. We urge you to consider co-sponsoring Rep. Woolsey's proposal by calling Lynda Theil at 5-5161 and appreciate your consideration. Sincerely, Apple Computer, Inc., Autodesk, Inc., Compaq Computer Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Motorola, Inc. In their letter these companies told committee members that without measures like Go Girl we will be jeopardizing the success of Americans' thriving technology industry by letting a valuable national resource go untapped. Quite clearly there is no way that America will have technically competent work force if the majority of students, females, stay away from science, math and technology. That is why I have introduced a bill to help schools encourage girls to pursue careers in science, math and technology. Although my bill is formally titled: Getting our Girls Ready for the 21st Century, it is known as Go Girl. Go Girl will create a bold new work force of energized young women in these technical fields. Go Girl is modeled on the TRIO program which has successfully encouraged 2 million low-income students whose parents never attended college, and these students now are attending and graduating from college. Similarly, the lack of female role models hampers female interest in studying math, science, and technology. Girls and their parents first must be able to envision a career in these fields for themselves and for their daughters. Then they need practical advice on what to study and how to achieve the necessary academic requirements. Go Girl follows girls from the 4th Grade, the grade in which girls typically begin to fall behind boys in math and science, through high school. To encourage girls' interest in math, science, and technology in the early grades girls will participate in events and activities that increase their awareness of careers in these fields, and they will meet female role models. Go Girl participants benefit from tutoring and mentoring, including programs using the Internet which is built on a program started by Carol Bartz, the President of Autodesk Software Company in my district. We can hardly turn on a TV or pick up a newspaper these days without hearing about the importance of Y2K preparations, but what good will Y2K preparation be if we do not invest in our future workers? And we have to ensure that all of our workers are ready for the 21st century. American girls are close to 50 percent of America's future work force. If they turn away from careers in science, math and technology, we will be shortchanging our employers, and our young women will be shortchanged as well. I hope that my colleagues will join me in sending a message to the Committee on Education that our young girls and young women must have careers in science, math, and technology. Say to these young women and young men: Go, girl. Go to a career in science, a career in math, a career in technology, and earn a livable wage so you will be able to raise your family comfortably. So, Mr. Speaker, that is my speech for today because where we are undervaluing all children in our education system by not passing the reauthorization of elementary secondary acts for this Nation, we are particularly undervaluing our young women.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, there is no mistake about this, the loss of a pregnancy through violence to a woman is a major, major tragedy for the woman and her family. It is absolutely necessary that we punish any violent crime committed against a pregnant woman who miscarries due to a crime against her. But, Mr. Chairman, we have to hear the words from the other side of the aisle. This bill is not about punishing criminals, it is about taking reproductive rights away from women. It is about abortion. The Lofgren substitute, however, recognizes that when harm comes to a pregnancy, it happens to the pregnant woman; and, yes, the violator must be punished. The underlying bill, however, is a sneak attack on Roe v. Wade and would threaten a woman's reproductive rights. Support for the Lofgren-Conyers substitute shows true concern about violence for women, and it must be passed. But let us not stop there. Let us take real steps to make our government work for women, for their families, and for their children in many other ways. Let us protect them against violence in the first place. Let us give them paid family leave, let us prepare them for the 21st century work force, and provide safe, affordable child care. But we can start, Mr. Chairman, by voting for the Lofgren substitute, which shows that we care what happens to women when they have been violated in any crime that would hurt them and their unborn child.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we are hearing rhetoric from the other side of the aisle that should make them ashamed of themselves for trying to deceive the American public. Because the truth is the Republicans had every intention of using the Social Security surplus to pay for their trillion dollar tax cut. I have some news for all of my colleagues. No one was fooled by it. And it is also no secret that the Republicans have already spent $30 billion of the Social Security monies before we even start debating the rest of the spending bills. And now they are scrambling to use every budget trick in the book to pretend otherwise. Well, I am here to tell my Republican friends that it just will not work. The people in this country know better. I applaud the President for vetoeing the Republican payoff to their wealthy contributors and preventing the majority party in Congress from dipping into the Social Security surplus even further to fund what they consider the most important benefit of this country, tax breaks to the very wealthiest people, the top 1 percent.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, so every year October 1 comes along, every 12 months. So while my Republican colleagues are running around trying to take care of the fiscal logjam they have again created, I want to know and we have to ask ourselves, all of us, when we do this, who is taking care of our children? Where is today's rule for our children? Our children do not need political posturing. They do not need budget schemes on Capitol Hill. They need more funding for education. They need quality, accessible health care. And they need the surplus invested in Social Security and Medicare. And most of all, they need our national debt to be paid down so that we will protect their future, and they need it now. So again I ask my Republican colleagues, while they are playing games with their future, where is the rule that says our children come first?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this is my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every October, without fail, the end of the fiscal year arrives. Yet, ever since taking control of the House, the Republican leadership has failed to meet this October 1 inevitable dateline, this deadline. Every 12 months there is an October 1.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not have enough time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I, too, am in support of this amendment, an amendment to bring the delivery of health care into the 21st century. Telemedicine is an innovative and fast growing field that provides real access and necessary access to medical care, particularly to areas that are not close to major medical facilities. That is why this year the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) and I requested funding for a telemedicine network located in Santa Rosa at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital to provide access to the children and families in northern California's remote and underserved population. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital is in my district, and the majority of the families that it would serve are in the district of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). Together, that was a partnership to take care of the children in our area in general. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has classified portions of our districts as medically underserved. Specialty and trauma care are often limited and episodic at best, making telemedicine the only viable answer to making care accessible to these families. The children who need state-of-the-art medicine, but do not have it in their rural communities, will be served greatly by this amendment. We have the technology to fix a problem. Now, let us have the courage. I hear on both sides of the aisle that the courage is there, and I appreciate it, to fix this problem permanently. Telemedicine has been in existence for over 30 years, and it is time to make it a priority so that it will work and so that it will work right. Again, I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my colleague from New York's motion to instruct. Once again, we are standing here having to remind Republicans that protecting our children from gun violence is the most important issue we should be addressing in Congress. And yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are sitting and doing nothing. We can not stand for this! Every day that goes by that we do not act is another day a child falls victim to gun violence. How many more deaths are we going to allow before we take action? Our children are scared and so are their parents. We cannot afford to let another child slip through the cracks. I ask you, who's taking care of our children? Let's address this issue once and for all. Let's not sacrifice the life of another child to indecision.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, almost 2 years ago, the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues held an important hearing on the subject of brain development from birth to age 3. One witness said something that day that really hit home with me. That witness was Dr. Edward Zigler, the sterling professor of psychology at Yale University, commonly known to all of us as the father of Head Start. Dr. Zigler said that there is nothing more important to a child's development than the bonding between the infant and parents during the first few months after birth. I remember how I felt listening to Dr. Zigler that day, because I knew how few babies get that kind of start in life. If today's children are lucky enough to have both parents living at home, chances are that both work outside the home, and it is just too hard, if not impossible, for new parents to take time off from work without pay for very long after the birth of a new baby. I decided right then and there that I would introduce a bill to provide paid family leave to all parents. First, I met with Dr. Zigler, however, and got his support. Since then I have spent 2 years meeting with parents, meeting with parent and child advocates, meeting with doctors, researchers, business and labor representatives, and meeting with my colleagues to figure out what is the best way to provide wage replacement as well as job protection for new parents. What I learned is that there is not one best way to meet the needs of new parents. In fact, there are many different opportunities to provide this benefit. Some States are already providing income-protected leave for new parents through their temporary disability insurance plans, such as my State, California. Several other States are looking into using a surplus in their unemployment insurance funds for this purpose. Others would like to build on the existing Family and Medical Leave Act. That is why I have introduced the Family Income to Respond to Significant Transitions Insurance, or the FIRST Act, which is a companion bill to legislation of the same name introduced by Senator Dodd in the other body. The FIRST Act gives States an opportunity to create paid family leave programs for new parents as well as paid leave for other family needs. The FIRST Act does not tell States how to provide income-protected leave, but it helps them carry out the program of their choice by authorizing $400 million to share in the cost of providing wage replacement for new parents. Mr. Speaker, the recent tragedies in our Nation's schools and communities compel me to ask the question, ``Who is taking care of our children?'' We all know that during those critical first months it should be the child's parents, the child's mom and the child's dad. But families are struggling to make ends meet, and our children are getting left behind. Sure, the Family Medical Leave Act gives parents the right to take leave when a new baby joins the family. The fact is, however, that a recent study found that nearly two-thirds of the employees who need family and medical leave do not take it because they just cannot afford to give up that income. New parents must not be forced to choose between taking care of their child financially and taking care of their child physically and emotionally. With the FIRST bill we are taking the first step, the step, to answering the question, ``Who is taking care of our children?'' For new babies, the answer will be, ``Their parents.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, there are other ways to take care of our children as well as gun control. The Republicans have tried for the past month to sell their $792 billion tax package to the American people, but American people are smarter than that. They know that the Republican tax plan is designed mainly to take care of billionaires. What American people want to know is: Who is taking care of our children? They also know that our Republican colleagues are not taking care of our children. Our children do not need tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, they do not need corporate tax breaks. Our children need the surplus invested in their future by protecting Medicare, Social Security, and paying down our national debt. They also need gun control for their safety. So I ask my Republican colleagues, while they are taking care of billionaires, who is taking care of our children?