Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise to put an end to a national disgrace. Plainly speaking, I am talking about price gouging, price gouging some of the most vulnerable members of our community, our seniors. Americans widely support programs to ensure the health and welfare of older Americans. We have Social Security, we have Medicare, as well as housing programs, nutrition programs and programs that really protect our low-income seniors. Seniors today have less fear of being taken advantage of because of consumer laws and senior abuse laws that protect them. But there is one area where we clearly have failed, and that is to ensure that prescription drugs are affordable, affordable to the people who need them the most, our seniors. The latest surveys indicate that 86 percent of Medicare beneficiaries take prescription drugs and that the elderly in the United States, who make up only 12 percent of our population, use one-third of the prescription drugs sold in this Nation. The need for prescription drugs to treat such diseases as arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, is simply a fact of life for seniors, or a fact of death. A few years ago, a survey of seniors reported that 13 percent of older Americans had to choose between eating or buying medicine. In Sonoma and Marin Counties, the district I represent, the two counties north of the Golden Gate bridge, two individuals that I have come to know, Roy and Ivera Cobbs of Sebastopol, have had to make some very difficult decisions around their prescription drugs. What they decided was, she would take her prescription drugs and he would not because they could not afford both. That is not the way we are supposed to be treating our seniors. Also in Sonoma and Marin County, the area Agencies on Aging and Green Thumb have told me some other stories. They tell me about cases where seniors just do not buy food because they have to have prescription drugs, or they take part of their prescription every other day instead of every day or once a day instead of twice a day, as prescribed by their doctors, because they cannot afford to pay for the whole dosage. And for the reason some seniors cannot pay for them keeps our seniors from having the best health care they can. This reason, I believe, is solely on the shoulders of the Nation's largest drug companies, because they engage in discriminatory pricing. If you are a favored customer, like an HMO, like a large insurance company, you pay less, much less for prescription drugs. But if you are an older person, on Medicare, you pay a premium price for your drugs. In the district I represent, Sonoma County seniors pay on the average of 145 percent more for the most commonly used drugs than favored customers pay for the same drugs. For one drug, they pay 242 percent more than favored customers. I know this, because I asked the minority staff of the Committee on Government Reform to look into prescription drug pricing in Sonoma and Marin Counties. I released the results to that report to my community and its central conclusion can be summed up in the report subtitle, Drug Companies Profit at the Expense of Older Americans. As Members can see by these charts, for Sonoma County alone, the study looked into five commonly used prescription drugs, charted their price at local pharmacies and compared those prices to what the Federal Government pays for the same drugs. The Federal negotiated price is nearly the same, you must know, as that charged to favored private customers, large insurance companies and HMOs. Senior citizens and other individuals who pay for their own drugs pay more than twice as much for these drugs than do the drug companies' most favored customers. For some drugs listed in the report, the price is even more outrageous. Synthroid, for example, a hormone treatment, costs Sonoma County seniors 1,738 percent more than it cost the manufacturer's favored customers. By looking at these charts, we can see that for Medicare patients, those who need the cholesterol drug Zocor, their costs are significantly greater than the favored customers. This comes out to $115 for Medicare patients and $34 for the favored customers. That is 231 percent different. The difference is not in price because the HMOs, the large insurance companies and government buyers are able to negotiate and buy in bulk. The difference is because they are charging seniors to make up the difference for what they cut for their most favored customers.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) to put caps on the Space Station spending, and I want to urge my colleagues to support his amendment and my amendment to cut our losses on the Space Station and to cancel that project. In fact, on this issue, to cut our losses and cancel the Space Station, I am very proud to be recognized, since the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is no longer in attendance at the Committee on Science meetings, I am proud to be recognized as Roemer in a skirt. First, though, it is important to point out the valuable work of NASA, the work that NASA does to push the envelope of technology in reaching out to space. But one project in particular, the Space Station, has cost us far too much, casting too large a shadow over our budget. Speaking of throwing money at a problem, when the Space Station was proposed in 1984 the estimated price tag was about $8 billion. That is a lot of money. Now that price has risen more than a dozen times to almost $100 billion over the life of the project. This is truly unacceptable. Let us see what we can do with that much money, Mr. Chairman. We could provide low income heating assistance for thousands of families. We could fund child immunization programs, clean up our Superfund sites, fund drug prevention programs, and pay our debt to the United Nations. To sway some of my colleagues, I would say that for the same amount they could buy three nuclear aircraft carriers, five Seawolf submarines and 30 B-2 bombers, although I would not recommend it nor would I vote for it. Mr. Chairman, with the immediate savings from this amendment, $2.4 billion in the year 2000, we could offer college education, including tuition fees and books, to over 500,000 students who could not otherwise afford college, right here on Earth. With $2.4 billion, we could provide prenatal care to pregnant women who do not have access to routine health care, right here on Earth. With $2.4 billion, we could expand the WIC program so that all eligible pregnant and nursing mothers can get food supplements, and still we would have money left over. Supporters of the Space Station claim that research in space will advance health research. Well, with $2.4 billion, we could fully fund the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, right here on Earth. And with $2.4 billion, we could make Medicare more affordable to nearly 3 million elderly women living in poverty. I do not question the ability of our outstanding engineers, Mr. Chairman, and our scientists who would bring this project to reality. However, I believe this is a case of misplaced priorities. With the many needs here on Earth, the Space Station is just too expensive. With limited funds available for programs right here on Earth, we must focus our resources on our Nation's most urgent needs in order to ensure a bright future for our children. Let us not send our tax dollars out in space when we have unmet needs right here. Let us cancel the Space Station program. I urge my colleagues to support the Roemer amendments.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report for several reasons. First and foremost, it is a runaway train of unauthorized spending that circumvents the regular appropriations process. There is additional spending in this bill I would support under the normal appropriations process such as the military pay raise. But there are many more proposals I would not support and I will not be railroaded into voting for them as part of a catchall spending bill. While I oppose our current intervention in Kosovo and I firmly believe we should stop the bombing right now and work towards peace, I understand and support the necessity of paying for our past commitments. But I do not support a blank check for unlimited defense spending, I do not support adding billions of dollars of pork barrel projects, and I certainly do not support trying to use this must-pass bill as a sneak attack on our environment. Yes, let's help the refugees and provide the limited funding originally requested by the President for the Kosovo crisis. Let's also provide the other emergency funding needed to pay for agriculture disasters and for the damage caused by Hurricane Mitch. And that's all we should be paying for. The fact that the majority is trying to use this bill to circumvent mining laws and line the pockets of oil companies is a perfect example of how this bill has gotten out of control. I for one will not stand for this assault on our environment. I call on the majority to take this bill back to the drawing board and remove these anti-environmental provisions as well as the extra billions of dollars in unrelated spending that they put in it. No to pork barrel projects, no to unlimited defense spending, and no to environmental riders. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this supplemental appropriations agreement.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time for this House to schedule a vote on gun safety legislation, legislation to keep guns out of the hands of children. Often children are their very worst enemy, especially when a gun is involved. Yet, only 16 States have child access prevention laws. In fact, in most States, there are no laws requiring proper firearm storage. Unlocked guns present an irresistible temptation to young adults and curious children. That is why we must pass legislation like the Children's Violence Prevention Act, to reduce children's access to guns, impose criminal penalties on adults who do not keep firearms out of the reach of children, and require manufacturers to make safe and child-proof guns. Gun safety legislation alone will not solve the problem of juvenile violence or make our schools islands of safety overnight, because our children's safety must be protected on many fronts. But our children and their schools will be much safer when guns are not available.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentlewoman for being here. I would like to point something out that the gentlewoman will find sad and yet interesting. As far back as 1997, the Henry J. Kaiser Foundation and Harvard University School of Public Health had a study. One of their questions asked was, in the past few years, did they or someone they know have an HMO or managed care plan deny treatment or payment for something a doctor recommended. Like the young woman the gentlewoman referred to earlier, the answer from 48 percent of the participants was, yes, denied care that was necessary from an HMO or a managed care plan. That 48 percent represents 96 million people who have had problems with health care, or know of someone who has. That is why we are here tonight. I thank the gentlewoman very much for coming and being part of this. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago the Republicans defeated President Clinton's health care reform bill. They claimed it would allow the Federal Government to interfere with doctor-patient relationships. Yet, when that same relationship between a doctor and a patient was threatened by a corporate bureaucracy, the managed health care industry, Republicans last year offered legislation that did absolutely nothing to protect the sanctity of choices made by doctors and their patients. It is the same story in the 106th Congress. Democrats have been waiting for 2 years to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights Act, the bill that is outlined here on this board. Right now we are ready to work to improve Americans' access to quality health care. There must be enforceable rights to make consumer protections real and meaningful for all Americans. Many States have passed legislation making a patchwork of protections. This patchwork does not provide a good fix for over 175 million Americans who need the Patients' Bill of Rights Act to be passed. We must remember, when we are talking about the Patients' Bill of Rights Act and managed care, that three of four people are in the managed care system. While there are many top notch managed care organizations, particularly in my own district, I represent Marin and Sonoma Counties, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge in California, there are good managed care systems in that part of this country, but we hear too many horror stories across the rest of this country. Doctors tell us the real life horror stories. They tell us about how they are gagged by insurance companies that dictate what they can tell their patients about their treatment options. They tell us that a patient's treatment decisions are often overruled by an insurance clerk, and that often patients are denied a specialist's care, or patients are shuttled out of a hospital before they are fully or adequately recovered and ready to go home. Americans are demanding that the Republican leadership take real action and take it now, but instead, today, the Republican leadership has legislation that does not provide better patient access to quality care, nor does the Republican bill provide an independent external appeals process to review complaints when a patient's life or health is jeopardized. Further, the Republican legislation does not ensure that patients have the right to see a specialist, nor does it prevent insurance companies from continuing to send women home after a mastectomy early, against the advice of their doctors and their health care providers. As important as all the rest, lastly, under the Republican bill, patients do not have the right to sue for damages. In the final analysis, the Republican bill will do little to prevent medical decisions from being made by insurance companies instead of by doctors. What our country needs is the Patients' Bill of Rights Act. This legislation will make certain that doctors and patients are free to make decisions about health. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act will ensure that patients have the right to openly discuss all of their treatment options with their doctors. The Patients' Bill of Rights Act provides patients access to important health care specialists, and allows specialists to be primary care providers. Under the Patients' Bill of Rights Act, patients have the right to receive uniform information about their health plan, go to the emergency room when the need arises, provide continued care to patients when a doctor leaves a plan, and seek remedy from the courts when claims have been unfairly denied. It is time to put doctors and patients back in charge of our health care system, and it is time for Congress to get out of the pocket of the managed care industry. The Republicans have the managed care industry on their side. They know it. But the Democrats have the support of the American people, and that is what counts. I urge the Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, to listen to what the people in this Nation are saying. They want a Patients' Bill of Rights Act, and they want it now. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we are going to speak today in our special order about managed care reform. To get started, I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for coming. I was wondering if the gentleman would like to consider with me the importance of this bill, H.R. 358, based on some data that we have. We all know that the way that most Americans obtain and paid for health care has drastically altered in the last few years, because a decade ago fewer than three out of ten health insurance companies were in managed care, three out of ten. Today more than three out of four people are in managed care plans. So while managed care has been successful, it has slowed down the increase of health costs temporarily, at least, this change has been quite unsettling, and therefore, that is why consumers are clamoring for a Patients' Bill of Rights Act that will control managed care providers.

Ms. WOOLSEY. And without those rules, the good managed care providers are having to slip and slide to the bottom of the rung of the ladder with the poorer providers, because they cannot compete in the marketplace. That is why we are here, and that is why we so support the Democrats' Patients' Bill of Rights Act, H.R. 358. One of the other reasons we support it so strongly is that, as of last summer, 1998, not one State had passed a comprehensive set of protection consumer laws. So leaving it up to each State will not make the grade. It will not help consumers. As a matter of fact, Vermont has enacted the greatest number of protections, 11; and South Dakota, the fewest, none. Sixteen States have enacted between five and 16 protections. The State I live in, California, makes the mark on six patient protections and misses the mark on seven of the key protection areas. Thirty-three States have enacted between one and four of these protections. About 30 percent of Americans with employer-provided plans, which is about 51 million people, are in self-insured plans. Self-insured plans are preempted from patient protections established by State laws. So what does that tell us? We are not protecting people under the managed care plans. Americans who have health insurance provided by their employers, of those Americans, 83 percent or 124 million Americans cannot seek remedies for wrongful denials of health care. So I want to make it clear that all of these individuals who are not able to seek remedy would benefit from meaningful Federal remedies and a good health care safety plan and one that would protect American citizens. By the way, when the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Maloney) was talking about what was going on, it is clear to me that if we do not do something very soon, the public, even those of how many millions that are covered, 124 million Americans who are covered by their company's health care plan, they, too, are worried about what health care means to them and where is it going to go when they pay more and get less. I think we are getting ever so much closer to a national health care system because we are being ever so irresponsible in providing good health care to the people of this Nation. A good health care reform plan like the Patients' Bill of Rights can protect them and may make that difference.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, as every Member in this body is well aware, the issue of Kosovo is an extremely difficult one and there is no easy answer. It would be easier for all of us if this issue were black and white. It would be easier for us if this supplemental spending bill was not mired in politics. And it would be easier if all of the funds in this bill were used for true emergencies. I supported the Obey amendment today, not because I support further military operations in Kosovo, but because it is the responsible thing to do. The legislation and the current amendment before us, does not address the real emergencies that need to be dealt with right away. Regardless of one's perspective on current United States policy and operations in the Balkans, our troops are in harm's way, and we have a responsibility to ensure that they have the resources they need. I do not support continuing the airstrikes and I do not support sending in ground troops. But we have already spent an estimated $1 billion on this operation. A responsible nation does not commit to something and then refuse to pay for it. I may oppose the policy that we've committed to, but I am not willing to say that the United States should break the promise America has already made to NATO. It is not that easy. But, I will not refuse U.S. aid for the tens of thousands of refugees expelled from their homeland. That is why I supported the Obey amendment today. Unfortunately, some Members are using a time of international crisis as an opportunity to load on billions of dollars in pork. No matter what some on the other side of the aisle might say, these additional funds are not going to help the men and women that are stationed in the Balkans. These funds will not go to the innocent refugees struggling for their very lives throughout the region. Here's what the pork will pay for: $47 million is going for a bachelor officers' complex in Bahrain; $1.34 billion is earmarked for spare parts unrequested by the Pentagon. Not only are these spare parts unrequested, but the Department of Defense is still overspending for these parts by as much as 618 percent. The Pentagon paid one contractor $76 for 57-cent screws. None of this wasteful spending is going to bring us closer to peace. Not one pork barrel project is going to end this terrible tragedy or help the innocent Kosovar refugees. And wasteful spending is not going to help the people in Central America or America's farmers hurt by falling crop prices. If some Members of this Congress are determined to provide additional funds for the military operation not requested by the President, those moneys should come from cuts to wasteful and redundant programs in the current Pentagon budget, through the regular appropriations process. By weighing this bill down with unrequested pork, we are also jeopardizing aid to our farmers. Our farmers are still faced with declining prices for their crops--threatening their income and their livelihood. It is essential that we rush this aid to American farmers to help them recoup losses resulting from natural disasters and persistently low commodity prices. Farmers need this funding now--but putting unrequested add-ons in this bill could delay and threaten that aid. We must also take the responsible path and include funding for Hurricane Mitch. Hurricane Mitch left behind a catastrophe of tragic proportions. Thousands died and millions of people were displaced throughout Central America. This disaster calls for a major humanitarian response from the United States and this Congress has let this issue twist in the wind. That is irresponsible and unacceptable. We can't turn our backs on our troops, the Kosovar refugees, American farmers, or the victims of Hurricane Mitch. We must address these important issues and be responsible.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, children are 25 percent of this country's population but they are 10,000 percent of our future. There is no better way to invest in our future than to make sure that every child gets good nutrition and health care, right from the very start. That is what the WIC program does, and that is what they have been doing for 25 years. At WIC clinics, low income, at-risk pregnant women get healthy foods, nutrition, education and access to health services. The outcome is strong, healthy babies. WIC stays with the new mother after her baby is born, helping to form good eating habits, health habits and a lifetime of good habits. For every $1.00 we spend on WIC, we save $3.50 in future costs for medical care, income support and special education. Talk about a good investment in our future, talk about WIC. Congratulations, WIC, on this anniversary of 25 years, and thanks for strengthening America's future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, like so many of all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am hearing constantly from parents and educators at home about the importance of meeting the Federal commitment to fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. Parents of children with special needs are absolutely frantic about their children's access to public education. They often feel like the schools are giving them the runaround, but schools are equally as worried about having the resources to do the job that they need to do. And the parents of students without special needs are more than fearful because they believe that special needs students are taking precious resources away from their children. This cannot continue. Congress must step up to our responsibility, and we should do it this year while the economy is good and we have a surplus. If we cannot do it now, we never will. But we should not be pitting one education program against another as this particular resolution does. When we do that, we pit students against students, parents against schools, and we pit schools against each other. However, there is a way that we can in this Congress meet the Federal commitment to fund IDEA. We can do this while continuing our support for other important education programs. We can do this by using some of the funds that have been set aside under the Republicans' balanced budget agreement for tax cuts to fund IDEA. The balanced budget agreement sets aside $778 billion for a 10-year tax cut. We would only need $11 billion additional in funds to fully fund IDEA this year. When this resolution was marked up in the committee, I offered an amendment that urged Congress to fund IDEA before funding tax cuts. It lost on a partisan vote. 100 percent of the Democrats voted for it; 100 percent of the Republicans voted against it. While I realize that no amendment can be considered on the floor this afternoon, I do want to point out that we can fully fund IDEA and we can do it without taking away from other education programs. Once again, I urge my colleagues to put education for our children with disabilities before tax cuts. Work with me. We can fully fund IDEA without taking funds from other important education programs.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago the Republicans defeated President Clinton's health care reform bill. They claimed it would allow the Federal Government to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. Yet when the same relationship was threatened by a corporate bureaucracy, Republicans last year offered legislation that did nothing to protect the sanctity of choices made by doctors and their patients. It is the same story in the 106th Congress. Democrats have been waiting 2 years to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. Right now we are ready to work to improve Americans' access to quality health care. Right now, today, we are ready to make consumer protections real for all Americans. Although many States have passed legislation making patchwork protections State-by-State, this patchwork does not provide a good fix for over 160 million Americans, Americans who need health care reform. While there are many fine managed care organizations in my own district, and they are good, Sonoma and Marin Counties, California, on the leading edge of health care reform, too many horror stories are all too well known across this country. Doctors tell us real-life horror stories about how they are gagged by insurance companies that dictate what they can tell their patients about 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. Or they tell us that patients are shuttled out of a hospital before recovery is complete. Americans know better. They want better treatment. Americans are demanding that the Republican leadership take real action on health care reform. But instead, the Republican legislation does not ensure that patients have the right to even see a specialist. Nor does it prevent insurance companies from continuing to send women who receive mastectomies home early, against the advice of their physician. Lastly, under the Republicans' bill, if patients are denied care, they would not have the right to a meaningful external appeal. In other words, they will not be able to sue. In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill will do little to prevent medical decisions from being made by insurance company clerks instead of by doctors and their patients. What our health care system needs is the Democratic Patients' Bill of Rights. This legislation will make sure that doctors and patients are free to make decisions about patient health. The Patients' Bill of Rights will ensure that patients have the right to openly discuss with doctors their treatment options, have the right to receive uniform information about their health plan, have the right to go to the emergency room when the need arises, have the right to see a specialist, and seek remedy from the courts when claims have been unfairly denied. It is time to put doctors and patients back in charge of our health care system. I urge the Speaker and my colleagues to support the Patients' Bill of Rights. I plead with the Republican leadership to bring HMO health care reform to the House floor for debate.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, first let me indicate my very strong support for H.R. 1184, which will reauthorize the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, NEHRP. Since its inception in 1977, and particularly in the last decade, NEHRP has been successful in assessing how earthquakes affect us and what we can do to prepare for the next one. Too bad they cannot prevent earthquakes from happening in the first place. NEHRP has been reaching out to State and local officials, improving building codes, and assessing the level of seismic risk in different areas across the country. This is a very important program, especially in my Congressional District, which has the San Andreas Fault running through it. During the Committee on Science markup of this bill, I was pleased that my amendment to H.R. 1184 was unanimously accepted and is in the bill today. My amendment directs FEMA to report on the element that addresses the needs of at-risk populations. Specifically, this includes the elderly, the non-English speaking, persons with disabilities, single parent households and the poor. There are risk factors that cannot be determined by seismological or engineering research and analysis. These risks deal with the social culture and the economic factors that are presented nationwide when there is a disaster. I am aware that the National Science Foundation, which is a part of NEHRP, supports social sciences research, and I am aware how this research relates to at-risk populations. This would be addressed in our report. Not only will this report provide valuable information on what has been accomplished to date, it also will bring into focus what needs to be done in the future to reach those populations that incur more damage in disaster because of their age or their economic status or their physical limitations. Because disasters affect us all, this bill is one that Congress, as a whole, should be very interested in and totally supportive of. I ask that everyone support H.R. 1184.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in the last weeks dozens of national health organizations launched a nationwide online petition demanding the passage of comprehensive Bill of Rights. This would protect the basic rights of patients enrolled in managed care plans. In my district north of the Golden Gate Bridge, even though we have some very good health maintenance organizations, people are telling me that they are very concerned about whether their health plan will be there when they need it. So they are getting on this petition, and they are asking the Republican leadership to bring the Patients' Bill of Rights forward so that we can debate it here in the Congress. They are calling on the Speaker of the House to bring managed care reform to the Floor of the House, managed care reform that will guarantee access to emergency room care, ensure that doctors and patients, not insurance companies, have the final word on medical decisions, and give patients recourse when care is denied. It is pretty basic, Mr. Speaker. In our health care system patients should be number one, not the almighty dollar.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as I have for the past 6 years, to acknowledge the atrocities suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Turks over 84 years ago. This Saturday, April 24, will mark the 84th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, the very first genocide of the 20th century. On that date, more than 200 Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders were massacred in Turkey. It is important that we take this time to remember one of the greatest tragedies that humankind has ever witnessed. Little did anyone know that April 24, 1915, would signify the beginning of a Turkish campaign to eliminate the Armenian people, eliminate them from the face of the Earth. Over the following 8 years, 1.5 million Armenians perished and more than 500,000 were exiled from their homes. Armenian civilization, one of the oldest civilizations, virtually ceased to exist. Of course, that was the Turkish plan. Unfortunately the Armenian Genocide is not as well-known in history as it deserves to be. Little attention was paid to this tragic episode in history by the victorious allied powers at the end of World War I, or by historians. So much of it had faded into our painful memories, and many people are beginning to forget what occurred in those terrible times. Even worse, as time passes by and people are distracted and distanced from the atrocities, naysayers and revisionists may prevail. In fact, some might say it is a waste of time to continue fighting to get recognition for this, the first genocide of the 20th century. Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree. This fight is not a waste of time. I believe it is a battle worth fighting, one where we have already made great strides. We are making great leaps forward in educating people as to what really occurred to the Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Turks, and also what is really happening with the widespread network of denials since the genocide. Still, because of the failure of some nations to acknowledge this horrible tragedy, the Turkish crimes have remained unpunished. An international court has yet to condemn the holocaust of an entire Nation. This impunity has permitted the Turks to repeat similar crimes against the Greek inhabitants of Asia Minor, the Syrian orthodox people and, recently, the people living in Cyprus. Fortunately, despite this unspeakable tragedy committed 84 years ago, Armenians today remain a proud, dignified and compassionate people. Despite the unmerciful efforts of the Turks, Armenian civilization lives on and thrives today. It lives on in the Independent Republic of Armenia, and it lives on in communities throughout America, particularly in my home State of California. In fact, every proud Armenian is the product of generations of perseverance, courage and hope, hope always for a better tomorrow. So today, we honor the innocent Armenians who tragically lost their lives. Today we acknowledge that the Ottoman Turks committed genocide against the Armenian people. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when the world says in one united voice, we remember Armenian genocide, and it will never be repeated. Until that day comes, I will continue to remind the House of Representatives that it is our responsibility to learn from the past, and it is our responsibility to prevent any such atrocity in the future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for putting this together and giving us a chance to speak on the important subject of science and math, and also for representing our subcommittee. I also want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas, our distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Basic Research, for bringing us here together today. I am very proud to serve on her committee, and under her leadership I am enjoying exploring important issues like math, science and technology education for our children. As one of the few members of both the Committee on Science and Committee on Education and the Workforce, how our children learn math, science and technology is extremely important to me and I consider it important for everyone in this Nation. Math and science have not only shaped our history but now, more than ever, will shape our future. I am concerned, however, that our students are not learning math, science and technology as well as students of other countries, the countries that we compete against in the global marketplace. This is reflected in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study, which measured fourth, eighth and twelfth grade students in the United States with comparable countries. Disturbingly, by the 12th grade our students were ranked among the lowest in math and science, and in physics we finished last. I know we can do better. We must do better and we will, but we first need to deepen our commitment to math, science and technology education. A recent President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, or PCAST, report recommended an applied research study to determine what has been effective and what has not been effective in teaching our children math, science and technology. The Ehlers report last year pointed out that we spend about $300 billion annually on education but only about 1/100th of a percent of that is spent on researching how our students learn. Again, I hope that the bipartisan desire to improve math, science and technology education will lead to increased funding for education research so that our children can grow into our country's current role as a nation of innovation. Even more concerning to me, however, is that too many girls have been largely left out of the technological revolution. A recent news story had a brother and a sister talking about their interest in computers. The girl said, and I quote, I do not like them. I only use them when I have to. The boy, on the other hand, saw computers as a tool to make his work easier. It is clear that there are inequities in the education system between boys and girls, and that this would be the worst time to step away from fixing those imbalances. We are finding that girls do well with math and science education until about the ninth grade. After that, they are largely absent in classes and programs that teach math, science and technology. As we talk today about the criteria to measure success, we want to include criteria for measuring the progress of girls and boys in these fields. We need to learn more about how girls and boys learn, both about math, science and technology; what makes it interesting and what keeps it interesting. We cannot expect girls to be motivated the same way as boys. We also need to improve what our students are being taught and by whom. Teacher training is a vital link in improving our students' math, science and technology education. Again, the Ehlers report saw this need and recommended recruiting teachers with a formal education in these disciplines. However, retaining quality math, science and technology teachers is very difficult. That is why I strongly recommend compensating them accordingly. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for convening this very important special order. Hopefully, through events like these and through our work on the Committee on Science, we can help find a direction that takes all students, girls, boys, wealthy and disadvantaged, younger and older, into the 21st century.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is tax day in America. On April 15 each year, each of us has dutifully fulfilled our duty. We have filled out forms, written checks, and stood or are standing in long lines at the post office. We do this because it is our obligation and because it is the law. Well, many parents have another obligation under the law, and that is to pay support for their children. But four out of five noncustodial parents simply do not pay, and they are getting away scot-free. Mr. Speaker, such irresponsibility not only hurts their own children but drains the Federal budget and causes the deficit that we fill with our tax dollars, a deficit that increases with increased demand on welfare and other Federal programs that our children need for those of us living up to our responsibilities. This is simply unfair. And most of all, it is unfair and outright cruel for the children involved. When a parent fails to pay child support, children hear a clear message. The message is that they do not matter. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I believe that it is time to show these children that they do matter, it is time for us as a Nation to care as much about our children as we do about the IRS. That is why today we unveiled legislation to put the Federal Government in charge of collecting child support. As many people know, I have a very special interest in reforming child support collection. I know firsthand about the difficulty of not receiving child support because 30 years ago I was left to fend for my three children, 1, 3, and 5 years old, when their father did not pay 1 cent of child support. With no means to collect child support, even though I was employed, I went on welfare to make ends meet. Had we received the child support that was due us, we would not have been on welfare. The legislation that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I are introducing today, the Compassion for Children and Child Support Enforcement Act, makes paying child support as important as paying taxes, and it makes sure that deadbeat parents know it. Simply put, our bill will federalize child support collection and disbursement. Court- ordered support payments would simply be withheld from an employee's pay, just like other payroll deductions. It is easy, it is efficient, and it will work better than the fragmented State-by-State system now in place. After billions of dollars of Federal assistance, States still collect only 22 percent of what children are owed. Now, to be fair, that is an increase, because 2 years ago child support collection rates were only 20 percent. But if we wait for collection to go up 2 percent each year, custodial parents will be collecting Social Security before they collect child support. Our kids cannot afford to wait that long. In my home State of California, our children will have an even longer wait under the current system. California is one of nine States without a State-wide tracking system up and running. California has wasted $200 million to build a system which has never gotten off the ground. Without a system in place, our State could face $400 million in fines by the year 2002 for failing to meet Federal deadlines. This failure is a shame. It is a disaster for California's children. But beyond that, it demonstrates the most fundamental flaw in the current system. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. One county, one State not quite up to par, and a deadbeat parent has an instant safe haven to avoid child support collection. With our legislation, deadbeat parents will have nowhere to hide. Cross a county line or a State border, and we still have a hold on the paycheck. I know it will surprise our fellow citizens who are standing in line at the post office to send their tax returns in as we speak, but the IRS has an 84 percent success rate. We can and must harness that success for our children.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I do that because I support achieving the most accurate census count, and H.R. 472, as written, will delay and destroy our chance to achieve the most accurate census count possible. Mr. Speaker, an accurate census does matter. It affects our communities, our families, and our children. In fact, inaccurate figures cost the State of California $2.2 billion in Federal aid during the 1990s. It cost my district $29 million in Federal aid by missing over 10,000 people in the 6th Congressional District of California. Ten thousand people were not counted. I happen to believe that every one of those 10,000, and 100 percent of the people nationwide, deserve to be counted and included in our census. An inaccurate count costs all of our communities literally millions of dollars for Federal highways, for child care, for foster care, for education, for aid to women and infants and children. We cannot make the same mistakes with the 2000 census that we made with the 1990 census. Our democratic system demands fair representation for all constituents and all constituent groups. This can only be achieved through the most accurate census possible. Fear is what really is stopping the opponents of an accurate census, fear that an accurate census will affect the political makeup of the House of Representatives. We should not play politics by blocking an accurate census. Vote ``yes'' on the Maloney substitute, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on H.R. 472.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained yesterday returning from my Congressional District. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following three roll call votes: No. 78 on H. Res. 135 regarding amendments to H.R. 98, Aviation War Risk Insurance Program Extension; No. 79 on H.R. 911, to designate the new Federal Building in Raleigh, North Carolina, as the ``Terry Sanford Federal Building''; and No. 80 on H. Con. Res. 68, instructing conferees on the FY 2000 budget to protect Social Security and Medicare.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues, and particularly my friend from New York, who put this together tonight and for all who have spoken so eloquently in honor of women and Women's History Month. I come to the floor of the House today to salute the mothers of Women's History Month, the National Women's History Project, known as ``The Project.'' The Project is from the Sixth Congressional District in California, the district that I am so very proud to represent. Almost 1 year ago, I traveled to Seneca Falls, New York, with a group of my colleagues to celebrate our Nation's women, the 150th anniversary of the Women's Rights Movement. This was truly a special occasion because Sonoma County, which is where I live, is the birthplace of the National Women's History Project, the organization responsible for the establishment of Women's History Month and a leader in the 150th anniversary of the women's rights celebration. The Project is a nonprofit educational organization founded in 1980. They are committed to providing educational resources, recognizing and celebrating women's diverse lives and historic contributions to society. Today, The Project is repeatedly cited by educators, by publishers and journalists as the national resource for information on U.S. women's history. Thanks to The Project's efforts every March, boys and girls across the country recognize and learn about women's struggles and contributions in science, literature, business, politics, and many, many other fields. As recently as the 1970s, women's history was virtually unknown, left out of schoolbooks and classroom curriculum. In 1978, as chairwoman of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women, I was astounded by the lack of focus on women in our education system. Later, The Project petitioned Congress to expand the national celebration to the entire month of March. Due to their efforts, Congress issued a resolution declaring the month of March to be Women's History Month. Each year since then, nationwide programs and activities on women's history in schools, in workplaces, and communities have been developed and shared. Under the leadership of Mary Ruthsdotter and through the hard work of these wonderful women, the celebration of International Women's Day was expanded and declared by Congress to be National Women's History Week. Together, the women of the Project succeeded in nationalizing the awareness for women's history. I want to acknowledge Molly MacGregor for her thoughtful leadership and Lisl Christy, Cindy Burnham, Jennifer Josephine Moser, Suanne Otteman, Donna Kuhn, Sunny Bristol, Denise Dawe, Kathryn Rankin, and Sheree Fisk Williams. They are the women that are at the Project presently. All of these women serve as leaders in the effort to educate Americans of all ages about the contributions of women in our society. I also want to pay tribute to the ``first lady'' of Marin County, California, just across the bridge from San Francisco, part of my district. This woman's name is Vera Schultz. Vera was the first woman on the Mill Valley, California, City Council and the first woman on the Marin County Board of Supervisors. Vera's career in Marin County during the late 1940's and early 1950's was a pivotal era in Marin's social and political history. As the area grew in population with the opening of the Golden Gate Bridge, Vera had an important vision and dedicated herself to the changing face of Marin County. Vera faced great opposition to reforming an unfair tax structure that would have taxed newcomers at a higher rate, and she also fought hard so that Marin County could have the very best possible civic center. Vera knew that Marin deserved the best, so she got the best. Due to her persistent prodding, in 1959, Frank Lloyd Wright submitted his plan for the Marin County Civic Center, and in 1960 construction began. Marin County now has another precious treasure to share with our country because of Vera Schultz. As I pay tribute to Women's History Month, I am truly grateful to Vera Schultz and to all the devoted women at the Project because of their continued commitment and for making an indelible mark on our country. We now understand the importance of women in our history.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on Budget, for doing a yeoman's job today. Mr. Chairman, the Coburn alternative is a sham, and the Republican budget is a failure. It fails our future retirees, it fails our veterans, it fails our families, and it fails our children and their education. The Republican budget increases military spending, yet fails to itemize veterans' pay and retirement benefits and at the same time cuts funding for Head Start and after-school programs. What is worse, now the Republicans are failing to use the projected $2.8 trillion surplus to extend the solvency of Social Security by even one day. Instead, the Republicans' plan gambles with the guarantee we have made to our seniors, our women, and our families by proposing tax cuts for the wealthiest in the Nation. Do not forget, the Republican budget fails to use one red cent for Medicare, which benefits mainly the middle income folks and retirees in this Nation. A responsible budget will save Social Security and Medicare, invest in our children and their education, support our veterans and our farmers, and give targeted tax relief to working Americans. The Republican budget fails in all of these areas and must be defeated. Vote against the Coburn amendment. Vote against the Republican budget. Vote for the Democratic alternative.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, March is Women's History Month, and I come to the floor of the House this evening to salute the mothers of Women's History Month, the National Women's History Project, known as ``The Project.'' The Project is from the 6th Congressional District in California, the district that I am proud to represent. About a year ago I traveled to Seneca Falls, New York to celebrate with my colleagues and our Nation's women the 150th anniversary of the women's rights movement. This was truly a special occasion because Sonoma County, which is my home district, is the birthplace of the National Women's History Project, the organization responsible for the establishment of women's history month and a leader in the 150th anniversary of the women's rights celebration. The Project, the Women's History Project, is a nonprofit educational organization founded in 1980, committed to providing education and resources to recognize and celebrate women's diverse lives and historic contributions to society. Today they are repeatedly cited by educators, publishers, and journalists as the national resource for information on U.S. women's history. Thanks to the Project's effort, every March boys and girls across the country recognize and learn about women's struggles and contributions in science, literature, business, politics, and every other field of endeavor. As recently as 1970, women's history was virtually unknown, left out of school books, left out of classroom curriculum. In 1978, I was the chairwoman of the Sonoma County Commission on the Status of Women. At that time, I was astounded by the lack of focus on women. Under the leadership of Mary Ruthsdotter and through the hard work of these women, the celebration of International Women's Day was expanded and declared by Congress to be National Women's History Week. Together, the women of my district and the Project succeeded in nationalizing awareness of women's history. As word of the celebration's success spread across the country, State Departments of Education honored Women's History Week; and, within a few years, thousands of schools and communities nationwide were celebrating National Women's History Week every March. In 1987, The Project petitioned Congress to expand the national celebration to the entire month of March. Due to their efforts, Congress issued a resolution declaring the month of March to be Women's History Month. Each year since then, nationwide programs and activities on women's history in schools, workplaces, and communities have been developed and shared. In honor of Women's History Month, I want to praise Mary Ruthsdotter, Molly MacGregor, and Bonnie Eisenberg, who are the birth mothers for this very notion, which makes me, by the way, the midwife. I want to acknowledge Lisl Christy, Cindy Burnham, Jennifer Josephine Moser, Suanne Otteman, Donna Kuhn, Sunny Bristol, Denise Dawe, Kathryn Rankin, and Sheree Fisk Williams. These are the women now working at the Project. All of these women serve as leaders in the effort to educate Americans of all ages. They educate them about the contributions of women in our society. Under strong and thoughtful leadership by Molly MacGregor, the National Women's History Project educated America about the 150th anniversary of the women's rights movement. The Project was repeatedly called upon by the National Park Service, in particular the Women's Rights National Historical Park, to help them integrate women's history into their exhibits. Their ``Living the Legacy of Women's Rights'' theme also made it possible for thousands of communities, local schools, employers, and businesses to support and celebrate the 150th anniversary. The Project also launched a media campaign which educated the press about the proud history of the women's movement. Further, the Project has been recognized for outstanding contributions to women and children and their education by the National Education Association; for diversity in education by the National Association For Multicultural Education; and for scholarship, service, and advocacy by the Center for Women's Policy Studies. As I pay tribute to women's history month, I am truly grateful to all the devoted women at the National Women's History Project for their continued commitment and for making an indelible mark on our country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous to take the time previously allotted to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, maybe I am just too simple, but today's debate, today's argument for an extended missile defense system, takes me back to the 1950s when I was in school. At least weekly while I was in grade school every student and our teachers went under our desks to practice protection against the atom bomb. Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleagues we have a false sense of security, and it all came from these exercises. Now I question just how safe we could be with this missile defense technology against rogue States. Mr. Speaker, what are we really investing in? I fear what we will be investing in is a false sense of security. I would suggest that instead we invest in true security. We can spend our scarce Federal dollars on technologies to protect us from the unknown, or we can use these scarce resources to keep our country secure by investing in humanitarian relations with other nations around the world. For example, if we want to get serious about our nation's defense, we should be investing in programs that will prepare us to confront the international challenges we actually face and keep nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. This is a more effective tool for nonproliferation than Star Wars will ever be. This is where we should be investing our scarce dollars. There is an even greater way that we can invest and that we can ensure national security. We can invest in our children. Education is truly the cheap defense of our Nation and all nations. By investing in education of our children, we will ensure that they are prepared for a high-tech global economy, they will be prepared to work for peace, and they will know that weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles can destroy every human being on this Earth.