Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment because two wrongs do not make a right. In fact, our actions today regarding section 907 will be a message to Russia and other countries regarding U.S. foreign policy and what we mean and that we do what we say and what we mean. Mr. Chairman, I am outraged that Azerbaijan continues to block distribution of much-needed American aid and assistance to the Republic of Armenia, and to the break-away Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. Meanwhile, thousands of Armenians are still without adequate housing as a result of the 1998 earthquake. This is unacceptable. Not only is this blockade clearly immoral, it is illegal, according to U.S. law. The time has come that we stop making excuses for Azerbaijan. The time has come to quit playing politics with humanitarian aid destined for Armenia. Human rights must be protected. No one has the right to flaunt the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act, no one, period. There should be no business as usual with Azerbaijan until their illegal, life-threatening blockade is lifted. I urge my colleagues, vote yes on the Pallone-Radanovich amendment. This is a vote for the people of Armenia. This is a vote for peace. This is a vote for solidarity.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Tiahrt amendment to the foreign operations bill. Each year in the developing world, 600,000 women die of pregnancy- related complications. Maternal mortality is the largest single cause of death among women in their reproductive years. That is why, Mr. Chairman, our support for reproductive health services becomes more important every day. Voluntary family planning services give mothers and families new choices and new hope--increasing child survival and promoting safe motherhood. Without our support for international family planning, women in developing nations will face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, and more despair. Mr. Chairman, I find it to be extremely ironic that often the same people who would deny women in the developing world the choice of an abortion, would also seek to eliminate our support for family planning programs that reduce the need for abortion. Without access to safe and affordable family planning services, there will be more abortions, not fewer. The abortions will be less safe and put more women's lives in danger. Mr. Chairman, I wish that I were here today to support legislation that would allow our foreign aid dollars to pay for a full range of reproductive health services, not just the limited services that get a rightwing seal of approval every year. But at the very least, we should keep the doors of more family planning clinics open for the women who are desperately in need of their information and services. This will help reduce the number of abortions and improve the lives of women and their children. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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, I am pleased that this rule makes the ranking member's amendment, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), to reduce class size in order. H.R. 3248 continues to be a bad bill. It is not that I do not trust the schools and the school districts, as my good chairman would make us think. I do not trust the Congress and our funding priorities. Claiming that Dollars to the Classroom Act will increase education funding really means that we need some remedial lessons in math and history here on this floor. The only way dollars to the classroom can increase funds for schools is for Congress to appropriate more money for the block grant. Then each individual program can get more. We already know that that is not going to happen. We have seen the fiscal year 1999 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. We know that the programs being block granted in the Dollars to the Classroom Act are being cut by 20 percent; 20 percent. That comes as no surprise to those of us who know our history. We know that block grants historically lose funds. A 1995 GAO report found that when Congress created a series of block grants in the early eighties funding for those programs declined significantly. Here is what the State Superintendent of Public Education in California, Delaine Eastin, wrote to me about H.R. 3248. She said, and I quote, ``H.R. 3248 leaves future education funding extremely vulnerable at a time when schools are managing record levels of student enrollment. Growing populations of students with special needs, increased demand for teachers, staggering school construction needs and changing educational technologies.'' I urge my colleagues to listen to the lessons of professional educators in their States and in mine. Mathematically and historically, block grants mean less dollars, not more, for our schools and for our students. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am against this rule.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Norton amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. Since the far right has controlled Congress, there have been a shameful 94 votes attacking abortion and family planning here on the floor. These are truly cynical and mean-spirited times. This same Congress, these same leaders on the Republican side, tell us that they believe in local control. Yet when it comes to women, when it comes to the District of Columbia, suddenly the Federal Government is in control. Congress should be providing women with the tools to make good educated decisions about their reproductive health. Where is that support? Where is the support for family planning? Where is the support for educating youngsters and young women on how not to become pregnant in the first place? The Norton amendment is fair and just and I urge my colleagues vote for it.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, when we are talking about AIDS, we are talking about an epidemic. This should not be a discussion that is an opportunity to play politics. Banning needle exchange will not help save our children, or anyone else. In fact, a ban on needle exchange actually threatens lives. More than half of all children with AIDS contracted the virus from mothers who were intravenous drug users or the partners of intravenous drug users. That is right, we are talking about how our children contract AIDS. In 1995, the National Academy of Sciences found that needle exchange programs do reduce the spread of AIDS and do not lead to the increase of drug use. In fact, do not overlook the fact that a drug user ready to take the first positive step through a needle exchange program is apt to take further steps towards recovery. As well, this amendment prevents communities from using their own private funds, and that is what I call a violation of local control.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, there was an interesting article in a newspaper in my district this week, August 6, I would like to quote, because it does pose a question about conflict of interest and why one of our Members on the other side of the aisle is so invested in vouchers for private schools. I take just a piece of this article. I will read just a part it and put the rest into the Record. Frank Riggs, a one-time member of the Windsor school board who opposed vouchers as recently as four years ago, has recently said he will become a board member and spokesman for CEO America, which is a group that finances private voucher programs in 31 cities. It goes on and on. I am telling my colleagues, we have heard over and over from one Member of the other side of the aisle why vouchers are so very, very good for this country. I think it is because it is good, possibly, for somebody else.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is nothing more than an effort to use the Federal Government to enforce the narrow views shared by a few members of the radical right. Two months ago the civil rights movement in this country took a major step forward when President Clinton signed an Executive order to prevent the Federal Government from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Mr. Hefley's amendment would negate this expansion of civil rights by blocking the President's Executive order. There is a lot of misinformation being offered about the President's effort to extend civil rights to all Americans, so let me start by telling you what the Executive Order does not do: It does not establish ``affirmative action'' for gays and lesbians. Simply put, it does not require Federal agencies to hire gays. It does not apply to private companies. Only Federal civilian employees are covered by the order. It does not condone incest or pedophilia. ``Sexual orientation'' is defined as ``heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.'' Now that we've got that clear, let me go on to tell you what this Executive order does do: This order prevents sexual orientation from being used to deny Federal employees a job or promotion. This means that Federal employees must be evaluated on the basis of their performance on the job--not by their sexual orientation. Whatever reasoning the radical right uses in support of this amendment, I think their real motives are abundantly clear: They want to promote discrimination against gays and lesbians. To make matters worse, they are willing to sacrifice the appropriations process in an attempt to further this narrow cultural war. The fact is, sexual orientation is not a choice any more than skin color, gender or ethnicity. And despite what some might think, the Federal Government does not have the right to dictate how people should live their lives or who they choose their partners to be. I urge my colleagues to support civil rights by voting against this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeGette amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, because this allows women in prison the option of abortion services. Quite simply the amendment offers the coverage of abortion services to women who are solely dependent on Federal resources. Mr. Chairman, 6 percent of incarcerated women are pregnant when they enter prison. Many are victims of physical and sexual abuse. Women in prison have no resources. They usually have no means to borrow or little support from the outside. It is time to honor the Supreme Court's decision of Roe v. Wade by acknowledging it is every woman's right to have access to a safe, reliable abortion. Restrictions placed on incarcerated women are especially mean-spirited. These women are totally dependent on the Federal Government for all of their basics. Why should the government put a limit on what is constitutionally every woman's right? Mr. Chairman, we must stop the rollbacks on women's reproductive freedoms. We must provide women with education and the resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Let us vote for the DeGette amendment and address the desperate conditions these women face.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, 5 years ago, as a new Member of the House of Representatives, I was so proud to support the motor voter bill, a bill which made it easier for people to vote. It made it easier by allowing more convenient access to voter registration for new voters or for voters who had moved to a new area. The motor voter bill is a symbol of our country's belief that it is every citizen's right to have access to the ballot box, every citizen's right, not just some citizens. Today, I am ashamed that some in this body would turn the clock back, back to a time when the Federal Government would make it more difficult, not less difficult, for every person to vote in this country, every legitimate person. For example, the amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) would unreasonably burden some would-be voters by requiring them to show proof of citizenship at the polls on election day. Because of what? Their appearance? The color of their skin? That they have an accent? I would ask my colleagues, at a time when voter turnout is embarrassingly low in this democratic country of ours, do we really want to make it more difficult for citizens to exercise the right to vote? Of course the answer is no, which is exactly how we should vote on this ill-conceived amendment: ``No'' on the Peterson amendment, ``yes'' on the Shays-Meehan bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, an amendment designed to prevent San Francisco from requiring their contractors to offer domestic partner benefits. This legislation is discriminatory, hypocritical, mean-spirited and ill-conceived. This legislation is hypocritical because it blatantly denies local control. In essence, it says local officials are free to make decisions about local issues, unless we, the Federal Government and individuals in the Congress, do not agree with that local decision. I thought Republicans wanted more, not less local control. I guess I was wrong. This amendment is discriminatory because it once again singles out one group, gays and lesbians, for second-class treatment. This legislation is mean-spirited because it will deny thousands of people living in domestic partnerships the funds that they need to have health care for themselves. Finally, the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) is ill-conceived because it is an attempt to play politics with the vitally important appropriations process. This amendment, which has wide-reaching implications for our country through precedents, if through no other way, was rushed to the House Floor without going through the normal committee process because the right-wing element in this country wants to score some political points. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, San Francisco chooses to view domestic partnership as a legitimate life-style, a choice that thousands of people make. The Federal Government has no right to tell San Francisco what is right or what is wrong. The Federal Government has no place in interfering with local decisions. This Congress has no place in judging another person's lifestyle. I urge my colleagues to make this truly moral choice and vote against this amendment and support the principle of home rule.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is truly a sad time for the United States Congress and for the American people. Today we mourn the tragic loss of Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. We mourn for their families and the children they leave behind. And as we look back on their lives, let us also look forward. Let us look forward to the time when no individual needing mental health treatment falls through the cracks in our health care system. Let us look forward to the day when guns cannot find their way into our streets and our public areas. Today we are united not just in our grief but in our respect, our admiration, and the utmost gratitude to these two officers. At this time of deep sorrow, words can never be enough to erase the pain we are feeling or to capture the full meaning of the selflessness and the bravery of John Michael Gibson and Jacob Joseph Chestnut. Words are not enough, but in our hearts and in our minds, their heroism will never be forgotten.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Camp bipartisan amendment. And to my colleague from California, the subcommittee chairman that I respect so very much, I think we should know that maybe the reason this discussion is ongoing from year to year to year is that each year we are trying to make it clearer to those who are voting here on the House floor that our investment, that of the United States, and Russia's investment is going deeper and deeper in the hole and, in turn, it is negatively affecting our very own domestic budget. And those of us that keep talking about this do it for a purpose. I mean, bad money after good money does not make sense when we have such tight budgets. I oppose further funding for the Space Station because I believe it is wasteful. It is wasteful spending that drains resources from our Nation's most urgent needs. This project, I believe, is an unwise investment for our Nation, not only fiscally but also scientifically. To date, the Space Station has experienced cost overruns resulting in billions of dollars that our taxpayers are paying, and it comes out in bills to them. Even worse, Russia's inability to pay its fair share of the project is extremely troubling to me. This is an international project. I mean, it is supposed to be. I think that is one of the things we should be deciding, is it or is it not an international project. Also, supporters of the Space Station say we can learn many things from microgravity research. We just heard that. Well, with $1.6 billion savings from this amendment, we could offer college education, including tuition, fees and books to 500,000, a half a million, students who could not otherwise afford college right here on earth. With $1.6 billion, we could provide prenatal care to pregnant women who do not have access to routine health care right here on earth. With $1.6 billion, we could expand the WIC program so that all eligible pregnant and nursing mothers can get the food supplements; and we would still have money left over. Supporters of the Space Station make claims that research in space will advance health research. Well, with $1.6 billion, we could fully fund the National Heart, Lung and Blood institutes right here on earth. 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 on a project that is clearly lost in space when we have needs not met right here on earth. Let us cancel the Space Station. Do it now. Stop wasting money. Vote yes on the Roemer-Camp amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman from Oklahoma would answer a question, I would appreciate it. My question is does the gentleman consider the story that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) was telling us about his wife and his lost baby infanticide?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, there truly is no rest for the weary, and I tell my colleagues the women of this country are weary. They are just plain tired of the constant stream of attacks on their health decisions launched by the Republican leadership in this House. Today's assault on women is an especially dangerous attack because it is part of a bigger conspiracy which puts politics first and women's health last. I rise in opposition today, Madam Speaker, because this veto override is dangerous. It does not safeguard the health of women in this country, and that is what this bill should be about, not about whether the government or Members of Congress are allowed to poke their nose into the middle of decisions best made between a woman, her family, and her doctor. First, my colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), tells us late-term abortion is never necessary. Then, after hearing the compelling story of our colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), he tells us that it is sometimes necessary. It is that ``sometimes'' that makes it the reason that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Nurses Association, and the American Medical Women's Association are strongly opposed to this legislation. It is because sometimes that is the right decision to be made between the mother, the family, and their doctor. It continues to amaze me, Madam Speaker, that Members of this House have so little faith in women, the very people who bear and raise the children of this country, that they would deny them access to life- saving procedures out of an outrageous notion that pregnant women would elect to abort a child in the late term of that pregnancy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, last week a very good friend of mine went to the hospital to have a malignant tumor removed from his bladder. It was extensive surgery. It was outpatient surgery. He was sent home 5 hours after the surgery with a catheter and a bag at his waist line. This is outrageous. Later in the week, he did get a fever from an infection. We cannot let this happen to the people in our country. We must have real patient reform. We have to protect the patients in our health care system. Do not vote today for a faux reform, or tomorrow, faux Republican reform. We need the Dingell-Ganske bill. We need to let doctors and patients decide when to send a cancer patient home from the hospital after extensive surgery.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from California (Ms. Pelosi) for her leadership in this regard. I rise in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, we have been told and we are hearing today that economic engagement will solve China's abuses of human rights and that China has made progress in many areas. To that I ask, what progress? Repression of religion is not progress; forced abortion is not progress; nuclear proliferation is absolutely not progress; and repression of peaceful expression is not progress. Mr. Speaker, we have been told that revoking MFN status would discourage progress or a change in China. Well, I do not believe that for one second. The Chinese bluster, they bully, and if they believe we are committed to progress, they will progress themselves because they want to sell their products to the United States. To ensure that China makes real progress in labor rights, religious tolerance, basic human rights and the end of nuclear proliferation, vote for H.J. Res. 121.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, what an embarrassment. Once again NEA is under attack here in the House of Representatives. Opponents of NEA cry fiscal discipline. The majority party employs procedural wizardry, as if the richest Nation in the world needs to be the most culturally impoverished. We know that the dollars we invest in the NEA multiply many times over. So what are we really witnessing here? We are witnessing an assault on free expression, a war on culture, a rule that denies the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) his earned right. This is a battle as old as the stockades in puritan times and just as wrongheaded. I urge my colleagues, oppose this rule, support a bipartisan effort to fully fund the NEA. It is a small investment with a return as vast as your imagination.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when are we going to address campaign finance reform? When are we going to talk about the way campaign finance works? Particularly when are we going to talk seriously about taking soft money out of campaigning? Soft money disenfranchises the average person. The reason we do not have 80, 90 percent voter turnout is that the people of this country, particularly the young people, believe that they have not invested money in our campaigns, therefore, they do not think they should come to the polls. They do not have a voice. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. We have to address campaign finance reform, we have to do away with soft money, and we have to get everybody in this country that is eligible to vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3874 for the reauthorization of the child nutrition programs. I also rise to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), our ranking member, for a very positive effort. This was a bipartisan effort that has resulted in a very good bill. This is a good bill that will benefit children in schools and children in child care facilities across America. I am pleased that it includes my pilot program for universal school breakfasts. It also includes a provision from my bill to increase the number of schools that can participate in the Child and Adult Care Food Program and raise the age of students who are eligible for snacks in these programs. The school breakfast pilot project will allow five elementary schools nationwide to make school breakfasts available to all of their students free of charge, not based on economic status, all students. We already have two studies which prove that children who eat breakfast improve both their grades and their classroom behavior. But in today's world, where two working parents are the norm and long commutes are common, more and more families are out the door and on the road early in the morning with no time to sit down for breakfast. Whether we like it or not, many of these children arrive at school hungry. So, unless you want to pass a law requiring every family to feed their children breakfast before they go to school in the morning and then hire a bunch of breakfast police to enforce it, we need to look at schools and school breakfast programs in a different way. Of course, I believe that this will be a better bill if, in the end, it includes the Senate's language on the school breakfast program. Both the Senate and the administration support a fully funded pilot program, so the House can, I hope, agree and defer in conference. Mark my words, Mr. Speaker, the next time we reauthorize child nutrition programs, the legislation will include school breakfasts for all elementary school children, because I am confident that this pilot project will prove that school breakfast is not a welfare program. It is an education program. I am also pleased that H.R. 3874 will make it easier for schools and community organizations to offer after-school programs to teenagers. This bill does this by raising the age of eligibility for after-school snacks from 13 to 18 years old, which makes it much more affordable to offer programs. We know that the vast majority of juvenile crime and teen pregnancies occur after the school bell rings and before the dinner bell rings. We desperately need more after-school programs for adolescents. But feeding adolescents, even when it is just a snack, can be very expensive. H.R. 3874 will open the Child and Adult Care Food Program to low-income teens and to more after-school programs. This is not ``Twinkies for teens''. The Police Athletic League and other law enforcement organizations have strongly endorsed the benefits of after-school programs for adolescents. H.R. 3874 will make more of these programs possible. Before my enthusiasm causes any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider their support of this bill, thinking that it might be too generous, let me say that it certainly does not do everything that I would want it to do and everything that I think should be included. In particular, I hope that we can continue to work together to expand the Child and Adult Care Food Program to more low- income children, those who are in for-profit child care centers. H.R. 3874 is a good bill. It is a bill that will benefit millions of children. Children are 25 percent of the population in America, but they are 100 percent of America's future. This bill is a sound investment in our children and our future. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of the time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 4 years ago, the Republicans defeated President Clinton's health care bill, claiming it would allow the Federal Government to interfere with doctor-patient relationships. Well, now the Republicans are offering legislation that does nothing to protect the choices made by doctors and their patients. Their legislation, for example, does not ensure that patients have the right to see a specialist, nor does it prevent insurance companies from continuing to send women home early immediately following a mastectomy. What our health care system needs, Mr. Speaker, is the Dingell- Daschle bill, a patient protection bill that ensures doctors and patients are able to make the decisions about the patient's health care, not insurance company bureaucrats and clerks. A patient protection bill must ensure that patients have the right to choose their doctor, see a specialist, and seek a court remedy when claims have been unfairly denied. It is time to put doctors and patients back in charge of health care. I urge my colleagues to support the Dingell-Daschle patient protection bill.