Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the McGovern-Campbell-Hoeffel-Holt amendment and add $30 million to the Land and Water Conservation Fund state-side program, a program that funds local community needs, such as purchasing land for parks within a city itself. These funds come from Outer Continental Shelf oil drilling revenues. They are intended to be funded by $450 million annually for Federal land purchases and $450 million annually for state-side purchases. However, we only see a small fraction of that money for those intended purposes. Since its inception in 1995, the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been invaluable in protecting wetlands, wildlife refuges, endangered species habitat and creating parks and open spaces as well as providing land for recreation. Stateside has protected more than 2 million acres of recreational land and helped develop more than 27,000 basic recreation facilities nationwide. This year the President asked for $200 million for Stateside, but for the fifth consecutive year Stateside was zeroed out by the committee. It is time we invest in the Stateside part of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This could mean more than $2.5 million for my State, California, and this amendment would mean a lot to most of the States in this Nation. As our Nation grows, we must fund preservation because funding preservation is smart growth. If someone has land in one of my colleagues' areas, in their community, that could be purchased in their district for everyone in the district to enjoy, because I know I do, and I bet all of my colleagues do, actually, they should support this amendment. Open space preservation is smart growth, and it is a bipartisan idea that has generated great support across the Nation. In the last election, there were 148 ballot measures from coast to coast regarding open space. Amazingly, 84 percent of these measures passed, showing the strong support that American people have for open space and for Stateside programs; and hopefully my colleagues will also support the Resources 2000 bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller), H.R. 798, which would fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanently. Please support the McGovern amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time that this Congress gets smart and starts to invest in our 39 million Medicare beneficiaries. I urge my colleagues to stop hemming and hawing and take heed of the needs of our seniors. Plainly speaking, the President has a plan to save Medicare by dedicating 15 percent of the Federal budget surplus. The plan modernizes Medicare by adding a vital drug benefit, eliminating the copay on preventive services, providing a buy-in option for the vulnerable and offering needed assistance for low-income beneficiaries. The Republican leadership has no Medicare plan and really has only one choice. Roll up your sleeves, work with the Democrats, save Medicare. Mr. Speaker, we need to protect our seniors. We can do it and we can do it now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this so-called Child Custody Protection Act. Last year, the far right majority here in this Congress wanted to make it a crime to help a pregnant young woman, and now it is the same story over again. What we really should be doing is helping our teens. Teens need people that they can count on when they are really in a serious situation. In situations where parents are abusive or absent this bill would make it criminal for a young woman to turn to a trusted adult, a family member, for help. Let us face it. Some teenagers will have sex without parental consent, and we all know that teenagers can continue a pregnancy, receive prenatal care and deliver a baby without parental consent. Teens can also give the baby up for adoption without parental consent. The only thing that is prevented from doing is deciding to end a pregnancy. This bill does one thing. It seeks only to further isolate young women who dare not or cannot involve their parents. Remember, one-third of our young women who do not notify their parents of a pregnancy have been victims of family abuse and violence. This bill is all wrong. Instead of criminalizing freedom of choice, we should be providing our teens with better education, better health care and support services. Mr. Speaker, this bad legislation died in the Congress last year because it was not good for young women. Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Child Custody Protection Act.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution and to express my personal outrage over the recent arson attacks on three synagogues in the Sacramento area. It is hard to imagine a more depraved and senseless act of violence than the destruction of a place of worship. These arsons struck at the very heart and soul of the Jewish community, but the pain and anguish of these fires can be felt here in Washington as well and throughout our Nation by people of all religions, all races and all creeds, people who value acceptance, who value diversity and religious freedom. Whether or not these arsons were coordinated, it is clear that hateful hostility was the driving force behind these reprehensible incidents. They must and they will stop. Every family has a right to expect that when they walk into a church, a synagogue or a mosque or any place of worship, they will find a place of prayer and quiet contemplation and not the charred remnants of a hateful act perpetrated by cowards in the night. We must work together as a Nation to safeguard the right of every American to pray in safety in their own house of worship. That is what America stands for. That is why thousands of Americans have laid down their lives over the centuries, Mr. Speaker, to protect the lives of all Americans; to protect their right to worship as they choose, if they choose; to worship in safety; to worship in peace and free of violence. To succeed in making our society free of hate, racism and discrimination, we cannot tolerate random acts. We must punish these folks based on hateful crimes. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. I want the rest of the Congress to support this resolution and to pass legislation that will help prevent and put a stop to these hate crimes once and for all.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, 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, less than 10 percent. In 1994, there were 209 tenured faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Fifteen of those 209 were women. Of course these figures are not at all surprising when we learn that in 1985, women earned less than 30 percent of the bachelor degrees in the physical sciences and less than 10 percent of the bachelor degrees in engineering. You do not even want to hear the percentage of Ph.D.s in the science and math fields that are earned by women. Just to give Members an example, about 8 percent of the Ph.D.s in physics in 1988 were awarded to women. Eight percent. My colleagues may be asking themselves, ``So what? Is this some national problem?'' The answer is yes, this is a big problem, a big problem for employers, a big problem for women as 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 fast as men. Yet a recent study of school-to-work projects found that 90 percent of girls are clustered in five traditionally female occupations. 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, a data analyst can expect to earn $45,000 a year while a licensed practical nurse makes less than $25,000 a year. Men become analysts, women become nurses, and a kindergarten teacher, mostly females, make only $18,000 a year when they first get started as compared to a starting engineer at over $30,000 a year. In addition, the National Science Foundation reports that the jobs facing workers in the future will require higher skill levels in science, math, and technology than ever before. The NSF report is verified by a letter that I recently received from the American Electronics Association. The AEA wrote to me to tell me that today the high tech industry is facing a critical shortage of skilled workers, and the future looks even worse they say. A recent AEA report showed that the number of degrees in computer science, engineering, mathematics, and physics have actually declined since 1990. Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is no way that America can have a technically competent work force if the majority of students, females, do not study science, math, and technology. That is why today I am introducing a bill to help school districts encourage girls to pursue careers in science, math, and technology. Although my bill is titled Getting Our Girls Ready for the 21st Century Act, it will be known around here as Go Girl. Go Girl will create a bold new work force to energize young women in math, science, and technology. Go Girl is modeled after the TRIO program which has successfully encouraged 2 million low-income students to attend and graduate from college when their parents never attended college. Similarly, the lack of female role models hampers female interest in studying science, math, and technology. Girls and their parents first must be able to envision a career in these fields. Then they need practical advice on what to study and how to achieve the necessary academic requirements. Go Girl follows girls from the fourth grade, the grade when girls typically begin to fall behind boys in math and science, and they are followed through high school to encourage these young women to be interested in math, to care about science, to want to learn 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. The issue is: Go Girls.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, at first it was campaign finance reform, then it was gun safety and school violence; now it is health care reform where we see an unfortunate recurring pattern taking place by our Republican leadership. Mr. Speaker, on issue after issue, the leadership uses its power to stomp out any real discussion on the House floor. Once again, those of us who care about patients' rights have no alternative, no alternative but to sign a discharge petition to force a discussion on managed care reform, because, my colleagues, serious proposals for meaningful health care reform have been rejected by the Republican leadership. Why? I am not sure, but it certainly looks like they are trying to protect the profits of the managed care industry. And that is protecting managed care industry's profits over the protection of all of our constituents, every single Member of the House of Representatives and the people we work for. While they claim reform would actually allow the Federal Government to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, our families are left unprotected. Democrats in Congress have been waiting 2 years to pass a Patients' Bill of Rights, because we are ready. We are ready to improve Americans' access to health care. On the other hand, the leadership in this Congress has taken their sham bill from last year, broken it into eight pieces, eight pieces that they want to sell this year as health care reform. Well, we have to be clear about this. There is no real change in their piecemeal approach. Their same refusal to protect doctors and patients from the insult of an insurance clerk's ability to dictate medical treatment procedures remains. The American Medical Association, in fact, says that their package falls short of the mark; says it does not solve any of the problems our doctors and patients have. It is time, Mr. Speaker, to put doctors and patients back in charge of our health care system. There must be enforceable rights to make consumer protections real for all Americans. Mr. Speaker, we know that many States have passed legislation making a patchwork of protections. This patchwork does not provide a good fix. This fix does not work for over 160 million Americans who need a real effort to fix the problems of managed care. While there are many top-notch managed care organizations, many in my own district; I represent Sonoma and Marin Counties in California, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge; in other areas, there are too many horror stories that we hear across this country. Doctors tell us horror stories about how they are gagged by insurance companies, companies that dictate what they can tell their patients, what they can tell their patients about their patients' treatment options. They tell us that a patient's treatment decisions are often overruled by a clerk, and that patients are denied a specialist's care, and that patients are shuttled out of hospitals before full recovery. Americans are demanding, they are demanding that this Congress take action and that we do it now. But instead, the Republican leadership has provided legislation that does not ensure that patients have the right to see a specialist, nor do they prevent insurance companies from continuing to send women who have had mastectomies home early, against the advice of their physician. Under the Republicans' bill, if patients are denied care, they would not have the right to a meaningful external appeal. That is why we need to debate managed care reform. That is why we need a Patients' Bill of Rights. This legislation will make sure that doctors and patients are free to make decisions about the patient's health. The Patients' Bill of Rights will ensure that patients can openly discuss with their doctors their treatment options. The Patients' Bill of Rights will ensure that patients receive uniform information about their health plan, and they will be able to go to emergency rooms when the need arises, see a specialist, and seek a remedy from the courts when the claims have been unfairly denied. It is time to put doctors and patients back in charge of our health care system. I urge my colleagues to support a full debate on managed care reform and support a Patients' Bill of Rights. I urge the Speaker and I urge my colleagues to give the American people what they want. I urge my colleagues to work for managed care reform.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, first it was campaign finance reform, then it was gun safety and school violence, now it is health care reform. There is an unfortunate pattern taking place here with the Republican leadership. On issue after issue, issues that are important to the people, the Republican leadership uses its power to stomp out real discussion. Fortunately, we have an alternative, and that is the discharge petition, and we are signing it here today. Democrats have been waiting for 2 years to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights, and today we step forward to improve Americans' access to health care. Let us not be fooled by breaking last year's sham bill into eight pieces. The Republican leadership wants health care reform to be in small pieces. This will not sell. The American Medical Association says that the Republican package of bills falls short of the mark and it does not solve any of the problems of doctors and patients. It is time to put doctors and their patients back in charge of health care reform.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it was pretty outrageous last week that the Republican leadership had the nerve to offer a watered-down version of the Senate gun safety legislation. It was clear to all that watched and listened that 80 percent of the Republicans were willing to wait until there is more blood on our hands before passing real gun control legislation, legislation that would make it harder for kids to get guns. But thankfully, 80 percent of the Democrats and 20 percent of the Republicans know that our children should be worrying about hitting their books, not about getting hit by a bullet. They know that our children should see Gunsmoke as an old TV rerun, and not a reality in their daily lives. And they know that our children must be safe in their schools, their neighborhoods, and their homes. Increased gun safety measures will save the lives of thousands of young people every year. Regardless of our political agendas, we have to put our children first. Fortunately, last week good sense prevailed and the legislation that would not close the gaping loopholes in our gun laws and would not make our children any safer failed. Mr. Speaker, now we have another opportunity, an opportunity to consider meaningful anti-violence legislation, rather than legislation that sounds helpful but rings hollow. We need commonsense anti-violence legislation, and we need to now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, some of the most effective programs that we should and could be considering would begin at the preschool level. We know that the early years of a child's life are pivotal in determining their personality, determining their values and their conscience. So we must stop Band-Aid approaches that put guns in the hands of youth and put criminals behind bars after the fact. Instead, we must do some real crimefighting at the source through effective prevention programs. In other words, let us not do what we have been doing with the staggering amount of money and a staggering lack of success. Let us not lock up people behind bars, never mind where they bought their gun. Never mind where they bought their gun or never mind what made them so crazy in the first place because today's kids are trying to be older faster, and they do not know how to do it, and they should not have to do it. A lot of them come from homes with only one parent, and a lot of them live in poverty. Unfortunately, the clear connection between poverty and antisocial behavior continues to be an afterthought. We think we can stumble our way to make sense of security by some puny legislation, by putting people behind iron bars instead of protecting them and preventing them from being in trouble in the first place. Mr. Speaker, we must address the problem of youth violence in terms of prevention and in terms of effective punishment. We should be implementing solutions based upon what research, what judgments, and what other practitioners have indicated about what is needed to reduce juvenile crime and delinquency. That is why we must step forward with real solutions. Following the good sense of 80 percent of the House Democrats and 20 percent of the House Republicans, we can strengthen gun control laws, and we can invest in prevention programs so our children will not result in violence to settle their problems.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy amendment to protect our children and to plug the gun show loophole. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the McCarthy-Roukema- Blagojevich Amendment. I am outraged that the Republican leadership has the nerve to offer the NRA's water-downed version of the Senate gun safety legislation. We should not have to wait until there is blood on our hands to pass real legislation to make it harder for kids to get guns. Our children should be worrying about hitting their books--not about getting hit by a bullet. Our children should know that ``Gunsmoke'' is an old TV rerun, and not a reality for many of them. and our children should be safe in their school, their neighborhoods and homes. Increased gun safety measures could save the lives of thousands of young people every year, and I believe that regardless of political agendas, we have to put our children first. Unfortunately, the Republican gun control or the Dingle legislation will not close the gaping loopholes in our gun laws and will not make our children any safer. We have heard all the statistics. We know that the American people overwhelmingly support these reforms. We know how many people have died from gun violence in this country. However, sometimes I think that opponents of gun safety are no longer affected by these statistics, because they have heard them over and over again--but Mr. Speaker, this is not about statistics. This is about lives--the lives of the people who were killed because there were no safety locks or background checks, and the lives of all the people who are going to be killed if we don't pass real gun safety laws. Mr. Speaker, I am especially outraged at the tactics being used to try and derail enactment of sensible gun safety and gun control measures. That is because I resent bullies--I always have and I always will! And I think that the NRA leaders are the bully's of all bullys! Today, I find myself fighting once again their threats against members of this body who support sensible gun control and plugging the gun show loophole. Years ago, as a member of the Petaluma, CA city council I was threatened by these same individuals who promised to post my name in their place of business if I voted for local gun control. Well, let me tell you I let them know I would be proud to be on their list, so I told them how to spell my name W-O-O-L-S-E-Y. Today, I am proud to stand for the McCarthy gun legislation to keep our children safe. Any bully who wants to hold that against me needs to spell my name right. W-O-O-L-S-E-Y! Mr. Chairman I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks in support of the McCarthy amendment to plug gun show loopholes and protect our children!

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for introducing the Goodling amendment and bringing it here today, which is a true bipartisan effort. No matter where Members stand on guns, no matter where they stand on the First Amendment, they must, they must stand for activities that prevent youth from committing crimes. If Members do, they will vote for the Goodling amendment. The Goodling amendment provides funds for the States to enact a comprehensive system of juvenile delinquency prevention. These funds can be used for a variety of prevention activities, such as after school programs, counseling services, anti-gun activity, mentoring, and tutoring. All of these programs are needed and wanted by our youth. Mr. Chairman, one of the biggest problems we have in this country is that we have too little time for our youth. We are not taking care of them, and we are not listening to them. If a child is lucky enough to have two parents, probably both of those parents are in the work force. They not only work an 8-hour day, they probably commute at least 2 hours beyond that every single day, which results in not nearly enough time for our children and our families. When youth are ignored, Mr. Chairman, that neglect turns into frustration, which turns into anger, which oftentimes results in violence. This bipartisan amendment expands our community's resources to correct this problem, to work with our youth, to provide needed programs and support for them. It helps juveniles before they get into trouble. It uses Federal funds to prevent juvenile crime, rather than spending money to punish juvenile offenders. The Goodling amendment invests in our children, and that is the soundest investment this country can make. Stand for our children and vote for this bipartisan amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I resent bullies, and I always have. I think that the leaders of the NRA are the bullies of all bullies. Today I find myself once again fighting against NRA threats, threats against Members of this body who support sensible gun control and plugging the gun show loophole. Years ago, as a Member of the Petaluma City Council in California, I was threatened by these same individuals, who promised to post my name in their place of business if I voted for local gun control. Let me tell the Members, I told them I would be proud to have my name posted in their businesses, and I told them how to spell my name. I did not want my name up there unless it was spelled right. Today I am proud to stand for the McCarthy, et al., amendment, and I am proud to stand for the Conyers-Campbell amendment, amendments that keep our children safe, and any bully who wants to hold that against me needs to spell my name right: W-O-O-L-S-E-Y.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday returning from my congressional district. Had I been present for rollcall Vote No. 204, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 1400, the Bond Price Competition Improvement Act of 1999.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am back. I am back because our country continues to lose farmland at an alarming rate. I am back because I again have introduced legislation to protect the beautiful farmland near the Point Reyes National Seashore in my congressional district just north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge. This land is 40 miles from San Francisco. It is under heavy threat for development, and because of that, I am introducing the Point Reyes Farmland Protection Act of 1999, H.R. 2202. This bill establishes that a local-Federal partnership, completely voluntary, will make it possible for landowners to sell their conservation easements, and that these local landowners are willing sellers. The goal is to protect the productive and pristine family farms that are a way of life in my district. In the last Congress I had similar legislation that was supported by 228 bipartisan cosponsors. Please join me to protect agriculture. Sign onto the Point Reyes Farmland Protection Act, H.R. 2202.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, a peace has been negotiated in Kosovo, and are we not relieved? And are we not proud of our troops, and are we not proud that we did not do this in a unilateral effort, it was a multilateral effort? But at the same time, we must not overlook the United States' share of the burden to reach this agreement. In this effort, the United States forces have flown about 65 percent of the air sorties, including combat and support operations. The U.S. is also providing at least 25 percent of refugee and migration assistance, shouldering the major burden of the Kosovo conflict. Even when this conflict is right in their own backyard, as the situation in the Balkans takes its toll, many of our allies are continuing to enjoy higher standards of living than our constituents, the American people. These nations can support education, health care, child care, and vital social programs because we pay their military bills. Our Europeans have gotten used to the American taxpayer picking up the tab for their defense. When they are allowed to do this, we cheat our children, we cheat our seniors, we cheat ourselves. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for our allies to pay their fair share and come to the United States with that share so that we can invest in our children, our seniors, and our environment. Vote for Shays-Franks this afternoon.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that today's defense authorization bill does not address the defense burden which the United States continues to shoulder for our European allies. My colleagues, I think we need a history lesson. Lesson number one: The Second World War ended more than 50 years ago. Lesson number two: The Cold War ended 8 years ago. And in case we forget, we won. We defeated fascism and we defeated communism. But the defense bill completely ignores this reality. Right now many of our European allies enjoy a higher standard of living than we do here in America. Somehow these nations can support education, they can support health care, child care, and vital social programs because we keep paying their military bills. It appears that our European allies have gotten used to American taxpayers picking up the tab for their common defense and they do not feel obligated to increase their contributions. I do not know about my colleagues, but I am tired of Uncle Sam acting like Uncle Sucker. Right now, one U.S. Army division in peaceful Europe costs the United States taxpayers $2 billion a year. With that money we could fund 50,000 new teachers. With $2 billion we could offer a college education, including tuition, fees and books to 500,000 students who could not otherwise afford college. The time has come. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, for our allies to share the burden of their own defense. The time has come for shared responsibility. The time has come for the United States to reap the investment that we have made in our country so that we can invest in our children, our seniors, and our environment. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the Shays-Franks amendment to increase burden sharing.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This issue is about equal treatment for servicewomen stationed overseas. This amendment is not about Federal support for abortion services, it is about giving women who have volunteered to serve their country abroad the same protections and choices they would have here at home. When a woman in the military is stationed overseas, the best medical facility is most often the base hospital, a hospital that is clean and safe with well-trained doctors. However, this amendment denies military women, those who serve and protect our country, access to this base medical facility, even when the woman pays for and is willing to pay for the treatment. Regardless of your position on choice, ask yourself a question: What would you want for your daughter, for your sister or your wife? If she were stationed overseas, would you not want her to go to the hospital of her choice? Would you not want her to go to an American military facility? Mr. Chairman, these women fight for our freedom every day. Let us not take their freedom away. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, how much longer do families have to live in fear before Congress acts? How many more memorials must our Nation have before Congress passes sensible gun control? Those are the questions. It appears that the answer is that some politicians would rather have the National Rifle Association invest in them than for our Congress to invest in our children's future, investing with a sensible gun control measure. Millions of families across the Nation agree that we need to tighten gun control laws. So it is time for the House to act. The Senate has done the right thing. Now the House must do the same. If that means coming to the floor every day demanding that the Republican leadership bring debate on child safety locks, on background checks at gun shows, and a prohibition on the import of large magazines, so be it, we are going to do it. We must pass gun safety legislation, we must make our schools safe, and we must do it now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment. In my first term in the House of Representatives in 1993, during the Year of the Woman, with my good sisters and a good number of men, we fought here on the House floor so that the United States could have expanded healthy alternatives to surgical abortions. We supported research development and availability of drugs for medical abortions, like RU-486, in the United States. Since then, I have witnessed RU-486 being made available in Europe, while here in our country in the United States, here in this Congress, we have had to fight back the far right's constant blows against RU-486 and women's health in general. I am saddened to say it, but this is the same attack by the conservatives as last year and the year before and the year before that. This amendment seeks to deny women the right to early and safe drugs, such as RU-486, when faced with a crisis pregnancy. Further, because it bans the Federal Drug Administration from approving drugs like RU-486, it represents an unprecedented threat to the FDA's approval process. Let us make no mistake about it. These repeat attacks are an unwarranted intrusion on a woman's life and a woman's right to good health, and this attack is by the extreme right. Let us get the far right out of women's health, get politics out of science, and allow the FDA to determine what drugs are safe for women. Once again, I urge my colleagues, vote against the Coburn amendment, vote for women and women's health.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this shortsighted amendment which would have a huge impact on the constituents in my district, Sonoma and Marin Counties in California, a district where some of the world's finest wines are produced. If this amendment passes, our world famous wine would certainly have a more difficult time competing in the world market. So would our neighboring districts, Napa County, Mendocino County and neighboring States, Oregon and Washington, and States across the country, like Arkansas. This amendment would impact the small wine producers, those who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete in the global marketplace. Let us be clear. The playing field in the world export market for wines is not level. Unlike Europe and unlike South America, U.S. wine producers receive no production subsidies, no subsidies whatsoever, for their production. Furthermore, our competitors outspend the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1. Mr. Chairman, small California wineries suffer in such a lopsided marketplace without some marketing assistance. Let there be no mistake, this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses. Eighty-nine percent of the wineries that participate in the Market Access Program are small wineries. Furthermore, the Market Access Program is not a handout. It is a partnership, a partnership between small businesses and the USDA. And it provides funds on a cost-share basis. The European Union export subsidies amounted to approximately $10 billion last year, Mr. Chairman. In fact, the European Union spends more on export promotion for wine than the United States does for all of our agricultural programs combined. We need only look at last year to see this unfair disparity. Market promotion funds for the American wine industry totalled approximately $5 million. The heavily subsidized European wine industry received $1.5 billion. That is $5 million in the United States and $1.5 billion in Europe. The money we spend to increase the markets for American agricultural products is money well spent. Because of assistance from the Market Access Program, U.S. wine exports had their 14th consecutive record-breaking year in 1998, reaching $537 million. This level is $100 million over the year before, which means that each Market Access Program dollar generated a $20 increase in exports. Just as important, California wines can now be found on the retail shelves of over 164 countries. In the last 10 years, an additional 7,500 full-time jobs and 5,000 part-time jobs have been created by exporting wine. This is not only good for the American balance of trade, it is good for the American economy. Mr. Chairman, we should help export U.S. products, not U.S. jobs. Oppose this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this silly toy has safety regulations, yet today in the United States, guns, that is right, guns do not have child safety regulations. What is wrong with this picture? The message we are sending to the American people is that toys, this silly stuffed toy, is more dangerous to children than a gun. That is outrageous. It is outrageous that we do not have child safety locks on guns to protect our children from hurting themselves and hurting others if they get a gun in their hands. How many more accidents, I ask my colleagues, will it take? How many more school shootings before we do something about this? How many lives will be taken? How many children will be killed before we have safety locks on guns? We must pass gun safety now. We must prevent senseless tragedies from happening to our children, our families, our communities. We must schedule a vote on gun safety legislation and we must do it immediately.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentlewoman.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, today I am disappointed and I am outraged. I am almost at a loss for words. I am angry because this bill does not include the school breakfast pilot program. The school breakfast pilot program tests the benefits of making breakfast available at school to all children in early grades. It was authorized in the William F. Goodling Nutrition Reauthorization Act, and it is included in the President's budget. As this Nation searches for ways to make our schools safer, surely, surely we want to consider all reasonable ways to improve students' behavior. Well, two studies have already shown that kids who eat breakfast improve both their grades and their behavior at school. So why are some of my colleagues opposed to an official study to evaluate what happens in a school when all the students start the day with a good breakfast? I plan to fight this and I plan to keep working with the committee, but I want to talk about the whys on this. The answer may be because we already know that school breakfast should be offered by schools as a learning tool, just like a book, just like a computer. It may be that some of my colleagues are too concerned with keeping our schools just the way they have always been, so they fight against any proposals for change. Or it may be that children just do not count enough. Mr. Chairman, as this Nation, as this body searches for ways to make our schools safer and better for our children, surely we want to consider all reasonable ways to improve students' behavior. The school breakfast program would help us with that, so I will continue to fight, I will continue to work with my colleagues in support of the school breakfast program on the appropriations committee.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is very important, and it is particularly significant to me due to the tragic murder of Polly Klaas that occurred in my home town of Petaluma in 1993. Polly Klaas was taken from her home at knife point during a slumber party while her mother slept in the next room. Richard Allen Davis, the brutal kidnapper, was later stopped by police in a nearby community. The officers did not know that there was a suspect being sought at that moment, so unfortunately they let him go. Could Polly have been saved if a more sophisticated computer system had been in place allowing different police jurisdictions to communicate? We'll never know. What I do know is that--thanks to a COPS grant recently awarded to the Sonoma County Police Consortium--such a computer system will soon be in place. This $6.2 million grant will permit the agencies in my district to upgrade dispatch systems, connect mobile police units, and increase the efficiency in filing incident reports. This is just one important step in improving our safely net for children. I am forever heartbroken that we were not able to save Polly, but I know that the best way we can honor Polly and other missing children is by doing our utmost to prevent such atrocities from happening to another child, another family, another community. This bill today, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children Protection Act, will allow such vital assistance programs as the Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the national toll-free hotline to continue. Without such resources, it is nearly impossible to conduct a responsive, nationwide search that could be the key to the missing child's survival. I am also proud to be a Member of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus in Congress, because it heightens awareness that we must continue to make progress in protecting our children. We cannot let our guard down. Saving the lives of the most vulnerable in our population should be our most important priority. Children are 25% of our population, but they are 100% of our future.