Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, while we haggle over tax breaks and F-22 bombers, 13 children are dying each day in this country as a result of gun violence. While we play politics with spending caps and budget priorities, 13 children will be killed by guns. So I ask who is taking care of our children? Nearly 5 months after the tragedy at Columbine, we have done nothing to strengthen gun laws or to enact commonsense gun regulations, but while we have done nothing, 13 families every day are faced with burying a child. This is disgraceful that we have not passed gun safety legislation this Congress, and it would be even more disgraceful to pass a bill that actually weakened current gun laws. This is not a game. We are talking about children's lives. I urge my colleagues to support the Lofgren motion to instruct; and after that when we tighten gun control laws, then when we ask who is taking care of our children, the answer can be and will be: We are. But until then our children remain at risk.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Costello) for accepting this amendment. I rise in support of the Udall of Colorado amendment. I rise today in support of the Udall amendment. It is so important that we plan for our children's future, which includes making certain they have a clean environment and a sustainable energy source in years to come. Our current dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels can not continue indefinitely. Regrettably, this bill increases nuclear energy by $3.4 million above the President's request, but does not fully fund the Renewable Energy Program. This is an outrage. How can we take care of our children and their future with such a short-sighted approach? Renewable Energy is efficient, cost effective, and unlimited in its capacity. We need to capture these resources--wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal--and put them to better use. Not only do we solve our energy problem, but we save our environment as well so that our children and their children can grow up in a clean, safe and healthy world. As a member of the Science Committee, I fought for this funding increase during our committee markup. It failed by a narrow margin. We can not let that happen again. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Udall amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two remarkable individuals, Bill and Millie Davis and to recognize them for achieving an extraordinary milestone--their Golden Wedding Anniversary. I truly wish I were able to join with them as they gather with so many wonderful family and friends in Corte Madera to celebrate their 50th Wedding Anniversary. Bill and Millie Davis have lived in the Congressional District I am privileged to represent for close to 40 years. Their first date was at the old Rose Bowl in Larkspur, California. And it is no wonder they chose to return and live in this community many years after they were married on September 11, 1949, in Berkeley, California. It is testament to them both that most all of their original wedding party will be on hand in Corte Madera to again celebrate this wonderful occasion 50 years later. Bill and Millie are now residents of Rohnert Park, California. It seems like just yesterday that we were at their home helping to surprise Bill for his 70th birthday. On June 2, 1992, Millie had the great sense to have a birthday the very same day that I won my first primary election. You can be sure we were celebrating together that night. Bill and Millie purchased their first home in Walnut Creek, California. Unfortunately, after an unusually wet winter flooded their new home they needed to move to San Francisco. Over the years, Bill and Millie designed and built two beautiful homes, one in Mill Valley, California, the other in Larkspur, California, where they raised their three children, Blake, Grant and Diane. They are also proud new grandparents, of Grace Louise Davis born on January 8, 1999. I had the pleasure of meeting their beautiful granddaughter when she was less than a month old at my home during my annual Chowder feed this year. Prior to joining the faculty at City College of San Francisco, Bill taught junior high school in Pittsburg, California. He spent roughly 30 years teaching at CCSF, where he also helped to build the art department. Many of his fellow faculty members and several of his former students are also helping to celebrate this tremendous achievement. Since his retirement, Bill has researched and co-written, Manjiro, a colorful story about the first Japanese person to visit, and later open relations with the United States. He has produced a number of multi-media presentations and video documentaries. Most recently he started, ``Gift of a Lifetime'' in which he produces special personalized video biographies. Bill is also a real family man and as you see today, managed to capture many of our favorite moments on film. Millie is truly a special, one-of-a-kind person who is constantly taking care of others. She has been a devoted mother and very involved in her community over the years. Besides volunteering on numerous campaigns, she has been quite involved in the Parent Teachers Association and the American Association of University Women, to name just a few of her activities. After the children were in school she went back to work at the James Irvine Foundation in San Francisco, where she was the Executive Assistant to the President for over a decade. After 50 years of marriage, Bill and Millie are life-long companions that truly complement each other. They are a wonderful example for others and an inspiration to us all. I would like to congratulate them both again on this truly significant achievement.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Goodling amendment is a clear attempt to silence the voices of working women and men, to stop their participation in the political process. Labor unions are voluntary democratic organizations in which the members vote on the union's political activities--as in a democracy, the majority rules. But, what about private corporations which, by the way, outspent unions in the 1996 elections by 17 to 1? I notice that no one is suggesting that corporations need to get written permission from their shareholders before they participate in the political process. The Goodling amendment will give corporations an open line to the candidates while disconnecting the teachers, nurses, carpenters, truck drivers, firefighters, and other American workers who count on their labor unions to speak for them. This amendment must be defeated.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if we sweep campaign finance reform under the rug, what legacy will we be leaving our children? Political mistrust, apathy? Or today, will we take a giant step forward in reforming a political system and leaving a system that our children can be proud of? Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. The American people want campaign finance reform. They want it now. The American people are weary of the glaring abuses and outrageous sums of money spent on political campaigns. The American people believe big money is destroying our political systems. Campaign reform is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It is a Democratic and Republican responsibility. Mr. Speaker, it is time to come to this House floor and honestly address campaign finance reform. Let us do it and let us do it once and for all. Let us vote yes on Shays-Meehan. Let us vote no on all poison pill amendments.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Thompson of California, and I rise today to recognize the Drug Abuse Alternatives Center, a private nonprofit organization in Sonoma County, California that has been providing drug abuse counseling, education, and rehabilitation to local residents for thirty years. The organization began operation on September 18, 1969 as the Sonoma County Drug Abuse Advisory Council with a staff of five people who recognized that there was an unmet need in Sonoma County for drug education and counseling. It expanded into rehabilitation and treatment when it merged with Turning Point, a residential treatment facility. In 1988, the name of the organization was changed to the Drug Abuse Alternatives Center. In 1992, the organization began providing services in Lake County for pregnant and parenting women and in 1993 opened the Lake County Transition house of the perinatal program. Today the Drug Abuse Alternatives Center provides perinatal day treatment, outpatient treatment, family and individual counseling, awareness and choices training for students at the Santa Rosa secondary schools, HIV and Hepatitis C education outreach, support groups for parents and teens. It also operates Bay Area Recovery Services, the Turning Point residential treatment center, and the Redwood Empire Addictions Program for methadone maintenance and detoxification. The Drug Abuse Alternatives Center also collaborates with the Sonoma County Health Services Department, the Sonoma County Sheriff's Department and the Sonoma County Courts to operate the very successful Drug Court program that makes it possible for non-violent offenders to get needed drug treatment and counseling. It also works with the Sonoma County Office of Education to operate a Clean and Sober high school program for teens who are in recovery. Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that we recognize today the tremendous work of the Drug Abuse Alternatives Center in helping to combat the epidemic of drug abuse in this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Nadler-Crowley amendment and oppose any measure that would reduce HOPWA funding from last years level. When is this Congress going to come to its senses and start thinking about individuals and families living with AIDS? Today, due to the success of effective drugs, the number of people and families living with AIDS has tremendously increased--so too have their needs. The good news is that new medications are proving effective to combat this deadly virus. On the other hand, the bad news is that people living with AIDS are homeless and moving from shelter to shelter. To conquer the most tragic epidemic of our generation, we must provide the 240,000 people infected by AIDS in our communities with the basic necessities, particularly shelter. The reality is, as this epidemic grows, so does the need for housing. If we neglect the housing needs of those living with AIDS, our children and grandchildren will bear the brunt of our folly. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Nadler-Crowley amendment and restore necessary funding to HOPWA. We all know someone suffering from this dreadful disease. We must demonstrate basic human compassion and provide them with a decent place to live.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1972 Sue Weinreb and her three children Kara, Dana and David, and Edmund Smith and his three children, Corrie, Peter and Eddie moved to thirteen acres in Sonoma County, California to begin a life together. She was 29, he was 37. Together they had little money, no electricity, no running water, no house, and six kids between the ages of three and nine. Three boys and three girls. The original Brady Bunch. That summer they began the first of many do-it-yourself projects--building a home which would eventually take eight years to complete. Meanwhile, during that first year together, the 8 of them lived in a 24' trailer, a tent, and a Datsun, and took baths once a week at the neighbor's house down the road. Two years later, on June 29, 1974, they left the kids with a babysitter and snuck off to a rare weekend alone to get married. They planted eight redwood seedlings in the yard, to honor the new family. In 1976 Sue and Ed started an environmental consulting business which they ran out of the barn. Over the next 12 years they grew the business into a full service analytical testing laboratory which employed 50 people in an 11,000 sq. ft. building in Santa Rosa. Other ventures followed. Meanwhile, they somehow managed to attend every one of their children's swimming meets, awards ceremonies, dance concerts, football games, and school plays. They made Halloween costumes and birthday crowns, helped with science fair projects, and joined in the wooden spoon duels in the kitchen. They volunteered when the community, built a playground, and they were involved in local politics. Because of their busy schedules, they made sure the family ate dinner together every night. And, they made sure to pass on their special interests to their children: sewing, woodworking, fishing, photography, science, art and travel. Later, after the youngest had left home and they'd sold their business, they traveled to Africa, Australia, and Europe. No lazing around fancy hotels for them. Pictures show them kayaking with orca whales, riding donkeys, carving wooden masks, scuba diving, feeding giraffes and monkeys, and rock climbing. This summer, Sue and Ed Smith will celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary with friends and family under those same eight redwood trees, which now tower over the house they built. Those 25 years haven't always been easy. There were especially terrible times--a separation, the death of Peter at age 28. But, there were especially joyous times--the births of their grandchildren Nick Smith Shafer and Scott Anderson Shafer (with their oldest son recently announcing that a third is on the way). Sue and Ed's marriage is a testament to what can be created when a couple has a shared vision and a commitment to do whatever needs to be done to do the job right. They have always provided support for each other, their community, and their kids, to help, to listen, and to do. Their greatest accomplishments thus far? The creation of a family, not without its strains and difficulties like all families, but a family where the grown children--now a teacher, a legislative assistant for a member of Congress, a stay-at-home mom/sex educator, an accountant with a fledgling business, and a lighting director/ screenwriter--genuinely enjoy and care for each other and their parents. And, after 25 years of marriage, Sue and Ed Smith are truly best friends who treasure each other's company. They are a wonderful example of family values and an inspiration to all of us.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I am privileged to represent a caring and proud community that cherishes freedom and deeply respects the men and women who have fought and died to protect those freedoms. As I think about the tremendous service veterans have provided our country, I am outraged that this rule does not make in order an important amendment to improve health care for veterans. This amendment would increase funding for veterans' health care by $730 million, which would help 140,000 veterans. I can think of few things more important than making certain that our veterans receive the medical care they deserve and medical care that they were promised. This bill and this rule do not meet this challenge, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation that would criminalize the efforts of the small wineries in my district in responding to their consumers. This bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is not about State's rights, it is not about combating the problem of underage drinking. Instead, this bill is about wholesalers and distributors that do not want small wineries to move into their turf. Make no mistake, I firmly believe that we have a national obligation to take care of our children and protect them from threats to their health and safety. Nobody speaks more to that than I do. Too many young people are starting to drink at an early age leading to alcohol and other substance abuse problems. That is why I have fought so strongly in this Congress to support the passage of zero tolerance legislation for underage drinking and driving. But this legislation does not address that pressing issue. In fact, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD, will not even endorse this bill. That is because they recognize this bill for what it is: A power grab by wholesalers and distributors. This power grab involves a 65-year-old regulatory scheme that grew out of prohibition and stands on three legs: Politics, policy, and profits. Through the three-tier system, manufacturers are required to sell their beer, wine, and liquor to licensed wholesalers who are the sole suppliers for stores, bars and restaurants, sports arenas, and other retailers. They have got it all tied up and they do not want to give any of that up. But guess what, this distribution system does not work for consumers who want to access hard-to-find good wines from small wineries. The wineries in my district in Sonoma and Marin Counties, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, produce some of the world's finest wines, and we will have to say Napa too, because that is where my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) is from, but many of them cannot get their products to markets the traditional ways. Wholesalers and distributors will not carry their products because the wineries are not big enough. These winemakers now are joining the point-and-click-world of Internet commerce to get their products directly to the consumers. So, do not inhibit their ability to sell their product. At another time support efforts to ensure that children and teenagers do not buy alcoholic beverages, but today is not the day to address that. Vote against H.R. 2031.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, back in the seventies, I was the human resources manager at an electronic manufacturing company. At one point we started to see a large number of repeated stress injuries. It was not hard for us to figure out why the problems were occurring, because our printed circuit board assemblers were using the same motions repeatedly to insert electronic components into their printed circuit boards. But it was difficult to figure out why it was happening and what was the solution. So I did something that most of those who speak so negatively about OSHA on the other side probably would think very odd. I asked CAL OSHA to come to our company and help us work through our problems. With their help, we changed some of our assembly processes and the symptoms stopped. Mr. Chairman, we knew that it was important to protect our workers from injuries because if we did not, our company was not going to be able to become a Fortune 300 company, which, by the way, it did. But it would not have without a healthy workforce. Mr. Chairman, all businesses and all employers and all employees will benefit from ergonomic standards. We already have sound science regarding the problems caused by repetitive motion. The problem appears that, when the Republican majority disagrees with science, they insist on more studies. They hope that science will eventually support what they want it to say. H.R. 987 is an inexcusable delay tactic. It is a tactic that benefits no one, not business, and certainly not workers. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. A vote against H.R. 987 is a vote for workers.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment to the foreign operations bill. Over the last 40 years, the world's population has doubled, and at the rate we are going it will double again by the year 2050. The number of people on Earth will increase by 78 million a year. It is 156 congressional districts. Think of that. We must ask ourselves, if we continue to grow at this pace, who will be taking care of these children? What will happen to them? The answer is that they will face water shortages, famines, global warming, infant mortality, and political and economic instability. Supporting family planning services gives the children of the world a chance for the quality of life that we want for our very own children; a quality of life, by the way, that is threatened equally when the population of our globe expands to the extent that it is anticipated. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, some on the Republican side treat D.C. like their own conservative petri dish, and based on the results, they figure out how to impose their ideological agenda elsewhere. It makes no sense. We know that AIDS spreads through the sharing of needles by injection users. We also know that more than half, up to 75 percent, of all children with AIDS contracted HIV from mothers who are intravenous drug users or the sexual partners of intravenous drug users. Scientific evidence has shown that these programs work. Scientific evidence also makes clear that needle exchange programs do not lead to greater drug use. In fact, do my colleagues not know that an individual that will sign up for a free, clean needle is taking their first positive step in many, many years, and this is often the beginning for their commitment to a healthier drug-free life? I suggest, I beg my colleagues, do not vote for this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. This amendment will strip from the bill the harmful riders that would reduce protection for our valuable wetlands and would make it very difficult for a great number of Members of this Congress to vote for the bill without it. With those riders, it will not work. In my district just north of the Golden Gate Bridge on the north edge of the San Francisco Bay, we spend a lot of time and a lot of energy reconstructing, restoring wetlands that have been destroyed in our area. A lot of that comes through matching funds from the Federal Government and from the State and from local investment and from private investment, because it is very, very important to my district. In fact, we are going to reconstruct a wetland that is now an old, unused Air Force landing pad, Hamilton Air Force Base. It is going to be the largest restored wetland in the State of California. We would not have to do this if wetlands were not disappearing at nearly 100,000 acres a year in this Nation. In fact, in my State, California, we have lost nearly 90 percent of our original wetlands. This is extremely alarming. Wetlands provide a home to wildlife habitat, filter pollutants from our streams and lakes, help control floods and give us more recreational areas. These wetlands are a spawning ground for fish and provide homes for more than 138 species of birds and also for every amphibian and reptile in the United States. The riders in this bill undercut key Clean Water Act protections for wetlands. They would invite increased litigation, they would waste Federal dollars, and block revised wetland permits designed to limit wetland destruction and the flooding of homes and businesses. The Visclosky amendment would allow the Army Corps of Engineers to revise their permit process, providing more protection for our wetlands. Developers may say, and they do, they will say, and they will say it over and over, that this is a long, drawn-out process that would become much longer. However, the reality of the situation is that 82 percent of permits are approved within 16 days of submission, and less than half of 1 percent are denied in the end. The Corps of Engineers has been in the process of developing these replacement permits for more than 2 years. The process involved two public notice and comment periods in which more than 10,000 people and businesses have participated. These comments ran 9 to 1, Mr. Chairman, in favor of stronger wetland protections. We need to protect our remaining wetlands. The people of this country know it. They know that the wetlands are among our most valuable environmental resources. These antienvironmental riders must be removed before our wetlands disappear entirely. I ask my colleagues to support the environment by supporting the Visclosky amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we have been told that, with MFN, China has made progress in many areas. To that I ask, what progress? Right now, as we speak, thousands of Buddhists have been and are being arrested and jailed, jailed and arrested for their beliefs, and that is their only crime. Repression of religion is not progress. Just last year, last year, three founders of the China Democracy Party were jailed for expressing opposition to China policy. Repression of democracy is not progress. Child labor and the forced labor of political prisoners continues to be business as usual in China. Denial of workers' rights is not progress. Forced abortion, nuclear proliferation, and an expanded trade deficit is not progress. Extending China's NTR status amounts to rewarding China for continuing its human rights violations. Vote to support real progress. Vote for H.J. Res. 57.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to honor the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for her good works on Title IX and everything else she does here for women and children and families and all Americans. Mr. Speaker, last Monday night I had the chance to see in person the effects of Title IX firsthand. And let me tell my colleagues, I was impressed. Last Monday night, a number of my colleagues and I flew to Florida with the U.S. Women's National Soccer Team and with the First Lady to watch the space shuttle launch. While we were there, we met with female astronauts and we met with other women involved with the space program. Of course, I do not have to describe the American women's soccer team to anyone that is listening here tonight or anybody in this Chamber. I cannot imagine that there is an American who has not heard of their skill, their power, and their success and does not hold them in awe. These women, these young women are the products of Title IX. They are the perfect example of the importance of Title IX. They are an example for every female player on every women's sport team in the Nation. But less well known are the benefits of Title IX for women like the women astronauts that I met. Title IX says that no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded or discriminated against under any educational program or activity receiving Federal aid. So it is not just sports. Before Title IX, most institutions of higher education, as the gentlewoman from Hawaii told us, refused to admit women or have strict quotas on the number of women admitted. Since Title IX, however, there have been significant increases in women's educational achievements, particularly in what were traditionally all-male fields like science, engineering, math, and technology. So while we were gathered there the other night to celebrate the very real achievements of women on and off the playing field due to Title IX, we must also be aware of how much there is left to do. According to the National Science Foundation, the low participation of women in math, science, and engineering is a true and serious national problem. Too many girls lose interest in science and math during elementary and middle school and refuse to take, or fail to take advantage of these courses that they will need to prepare themselves for technical and science degrees, and technical and science high-paid careers. Too few women earn college degrees in science, engineering, math, and technology. Even though women make up slightly more than 50 percent of our population, they are less than 30 percent of America's scientists. My colleagues may be asking me, so what? Is that some national problem? Well, the answer is absolutely yes, this is a big problem. A big problem for employers, a big problem for women as future wage- earners, and a huge problem for our Nation as we compete in the global marketplace. Quite clearly, there is no way for America to have a technically competent work force if the majority of students, females, do not prepare themselves and study for science, math, and technology careers. That is why I have introduced a bill to help school districts encourage girls to pursue these technical careers. My bill is formally entitled, Getting Our Girls Ready for the 21st Century Act, but it is known as ``Go, Girl.'' Go, Girl will encourage a bold new work force of energized young women in science, math, engineering, and technology. Go, Girl funds programs in elementary and high school to encourage girls to study and pursue careers in those fields. Today, women are big winners on the soccer field, and that is with the help of Title IX. Now we need to get Title IX and Go, Girl into the classroom to make more girls and their future employers winners by preparing girls for careers in science, math, engineering, and technology. Mr. Speaker, Title IX says, no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded or discriminated against under any educational program or activity receiving Federal aid. Our job now is to encourage all girls and young women to take advantage of Title IX opportunities and like the American soccer women and the women astronauts, become all that they can be.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party's risky tax plan is a threat to our economy, and it is a failure from the start. These are the same folks who told the country in 1993 that the Democratic budget would destroy the economy, so they did not vote for it. Not one of them. They did not vote for a budget that has resulted in the best economy in decades. Now, they have a tax plan to undo the good works that we did in 1993; a plan that lavishes cuts on the most wealthy 1 percent of the Nation, but does not pay down our national debt and does not secure our Social Security nor Medicare. This bad bill gives the top 10 percent of taxpayers two-thirds of the tax benefit. This is outrageous. So again, we must ask, who is taking care of our children? Who is taking care of our retirees? Who is taking care of our veterans? Because we know who is taking care of millionaires and billionaires. Mr. Speaker, vote for the Democratic tax bill substitute; vote for American values.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, congratulations to teachers. At last, Members on both sides of the aisle in the House of Representatives agree on the fact that teachers are important. Congratulations. It is about time. But one side, through the Martinez substitute, provides more funds to reduce class size with a guaranty that educators and parents can count on. The Martinez substitute maintains the class size reduction program as a separate program with a dedicated stream of funding, while H.R. 1995 puts all funds in one pool for governors to spend as they will and at their will. We need a democratic triangle of learning, with dedicated funds to hire qualified teachers on one side; class size reduction on the second side; and in a separate proposal, the third side of the triangle needs to fund school construction and modernization. Mr. Chairman, we do not need to know rocket science to know that the Martinez substitute is the better choice for our students and our schools, just simple geometry. Vote for the Martinez substitute so our students will have 100,000 more qualified teachers and smaller class sizes. They need and deserve both, not one or the other.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1995. It is an okay bill, but it is not okay enough; and our children, their parents and our teachers deserve something better than okay. H.R. 1995 walks away from last year's bipartisan commitment to reduce class size in the early grades. H.R. 1995 combines the funds that would reduce class size with other funds, leaving school districts without the guaranties that they need to hire new teachers. H.R. 1995 creates a block grant for teacher training and includes class size reduction into that very same block grant. Yes, they permit reducing class size, but they do not guaranty smaller classes. Anyone who knows the history of Federal funding knows that once programs become part of a block grant, they lose their funding. It just happens that way, and it happens that way every time, particularly programs for the most needy. Our students and their parents are counting on us to reduce class size, and they are counting on us to bring qualified teachers to their schools. They need and they deserve no less. They need and they deserve both smaller classrooms and qualified teachers, not either/or. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Martinez substitute and against H.R. 1995.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, last year 99 percent of our teachers participated in at least one professional development activity. But Mr. Chairman, too many of those activities are piecemeal, a day here, a couple of hours there. In fact, only 12 percent of the teachers who participated in limited professional development activities said that they improved their teaching. What a shame. What a shame for those teachers and what a shame for their students. The Mink amendment treats teachers as the professionals they are by providing enough time to become great teachers, having time off to learn more, to upgrade their skills, to come back to the classroom ready to teach with more than they knew before they left in the first place. I urge my colleagues to support teacher sabbaticals. Support the Mink amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, each year in the developing world, nearly 600,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications. Maternal mortality is the largest single cause of death among women in their reproductive years. That's why we must support the Campbell/Gilman/ Gejdenson/Porter/Maloney amendment to H.R. 2415 which would remove the prohibition against the U.S. contribution to the United Nations Funding Population Fund (UNFPA). This amendment would authorize critical funding so that voluntary family planning services, like the UNFPA, can provide mothers and families in over 150 other countries new choices and new hope. Further, these services increase child survival and promote safe motherhood for nearly 900,000 women around the world. Without our support, women in developing nations will face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and more despair. It is extremely hypocritical that those in Congress who would deny women in the developing world the choice of an abortion, would also seek to eliminate our support for family planning programs that reduce the need for abortion. Without access to safe and affordable family planning services, there will be more abortions, not fewer, and more women's lives will be put in danger. I wish that today we could be voting on legislation allowing our foreign aid dollars to pay for a full range of reproductive health services, not just the limited services that barely get a right-wing seal of approval. But what is most important now is that the House of Representatives oppose the Smith anti-family amendment and support the Campbell/Gilman/Gejdenson/Porter/Maloney amendment to restore funding to the UNFPA. Let's keep the doors of more family planning clinics open for the women who are desperately in need of this information and these services. We will reduce the number of abortions and improve the lives of women and their children. I urge my colleagues to support the UNFPA.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the contraceptive coverage provisions in this bill. Last year, Congress got smart and voted to give women who work for the Federal Government access to contraceptives. But now it seems like the appropriations process is signalling the beginning of another hunting season on a woman's reproductive rights, particularly if that woman works for the Federal Government. Go figure it out. Unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates drop when women have access to preventive productive health care. I ask Members to look at their female employees. Look at the staff who work so hard for them to serve their district. Look at those women and tell them that we do not care about their reproductive health. Then look at the millions of Federal workers that work for the Federal Government, who work day in and day out to serve the people of this country. Go ahead. Tell them that we do want to deny them the rights that are made accessible to other women but not to them. Contraceptives give women and their families new choices and new hope. They increase child survival. They increase safe motherhood. Prohibiting Federal workers from using their health care coverage for prescription contraceptive coverage as they see fit discriminates against women just because they work for the Federal Government. This is a total disgrace. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support contraceptive coverage for our Federal employees.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro- Morella amendment to strike the ban on abortions in this bill. I applaud this stalwart commitment to stop discrimination, discrimination by the far right that would place 1.2 million women in the Federal government that work for this government, discriminate against them and them alone. The reality is that the Congress' political antics have no place in a woman's health care decisions, reproductive or otherwise. Let us be very clear about this, a woman's health decisions should be made between herself and her doctor, not by the Federal government, and certainly not by Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, women in public service deserve a full range of reproductive health care services, including abortion. They deserve this in their Federal health plans, no different from a worker in private industry. Please vote for the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am embarrassed. I am embarrassed as a Member of Congress. I am embarrassed for this House of Representatives. I am embarrassed for our country. Because, once again, this House is inadequately funding the arts and the humanities. This is the fourth year in a row where funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for Humanities has been held level. We all know that what that means is that it is a cut in the funding. Opponents of NEA cry fiscal discipline as if the richest nation in the world needs to be culturally impoverished. I fear that money is not what this is all about, because we know, we absolutely know that every dollar we invest in the arts leverages matching grants and multiplies the same dollar many, many times, 11 times for every dollar that is spent on the arts through the NEA. With flat funding and with the proposed cuts in the NEA that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) will propose later today, I fear that we could be witnessing an assault again on free expression, a war on culture. It is a battle as old as the stockades in Puritan times, and it is a battle that is wrong headed. The arts teach us to think. The arts encourage us to feel, to see in a new way, and to speak. The arts help us to grow. I hope that all of my colleagues will support the Slaughter-Horn amendment to increase funds for the NEA and the NEH. It is a very small investment. The returns are vast. They are vast in many, many ways, including being as vast as our imagination.