Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Lowey amendment to include contraceptive coverage under all Federal Employee Health Benefit plans, allowing, of course, exceptions based on religious beliefs. It seems like the beginning of the appropriations process signals the beginning of hunting season on a women's reproductive rights. Figure it out--contraception means prevention of pregnancy . . . rubbers, gels, pills, IUDs . . . Unwanted pregnancy and abortion rates drop when women have access to the preventive reproductive health care they want and need. Voluntary family planning gives mothers and families new choices and new hope . . . increasing child survival and safe motherhood by offering choice in their method of birth control . . . providing choice of contraceptive options. Prohibiting Federal workers from using their health care coverage for prescription contraceptive coverage as they see fit discriminates against women just because they work for the Federal Government! This is a disgrace! Mr. Chairman, I urge a no vote on the rule.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 3862. The idea that a girl who has a good relationship with her parents would face an abortion without parental support is absolutely absurd. Some young girls are forced to go behind their parents' back. They have to do that for their own safety. A third of the young women who do not notify their parents have been victims of family violence. They do not consider it safe to involve their own parents. I am outraged. Here we are, with the far right majority in Congress wanting to make it a crime to help pregnant girls, when we know that not all parents are loving. Some pregnancies are even caused by a family member. Some parents are in denial. Some are not knowledgeable. They cannot help that young person. But let us face it, even teenagers can have sex without parental support or consent. 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 they are prevented from doing by this bill is making the decision to end the pregnancy. This bill seeks only to isolate young women who cannot involve their parents. We should be helping our teenagers. We should be helping our young women. Instead of criminalizing freedom of choice, we should be providing the support services that teens need. They need a better education. They need health care. They need support services. Many of the same people who are supporting this bill today and oppose a young woman's right to choose constantly oppose teaching our children about birth control, about their options to prevent pregnancies in the first place. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Coburn amendment. Make no mistake about it, this amendment is one more unwarranted intrusion to tell the Food and Drug Administration how to do its job. It is also one more time when Members of Congress step up here and act like they know more than the scientists and the experts, and they are going to tell scientists what their conclusions are before they even get there. And it is one more step in the far right's campaign against a woman's right for reproductive choice. In 1993, following my election in 1992, I led the effort to bring RU- 486 under FDA. I did that so that RU-486 would be tested here in the United States to ensure its safety and its effectiveness. My action and my concern was that women in the United States have access to a safe and effective method regarding unwanted pregnancies. I only wanted them to have access when it was deemed safe by the FDA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would set an alarming precedent by allowing the unwarranted interference in the FDA's decision-making process. It would prevent the FDA from testing, developing, or approving any drug such as RU-486 for the chemical inducement of abortion, no matter the wishes of the women in this country. Let us get the FDA out of politics, let us get Members of Congress out of the rights of women in their reproductive choice, and let us let the FDA determine which drugs are safe, which drugs are effective, and which drugs are good public health. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. WOOLSEY

Mr. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, when we talk about the minimum wage, when we were voting to pass and raise the minimum wage a year or so ago, my very favorite delicatessen in Petaluma where I get my coffee, because it is the best any place, the owner came to me and said, ``Oh, Woolsey, don't raise the minimum wage. How am I going to stay in business?'' And all his workers were very quiet, and I said, Steve, just think how many more people could come in and afford your coffee lattes if they earned enough money so that they could have this privilege to come in here like I do. And all of his workers cheered.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding, and I would like to thank our wonderful minority whip for pulling this evening together and being so absolutely passionate about workers of this country. I thank him for leading the way. Mr. Speaker, I knew the American workers were in trouble when one of the first changes that the Republicans made as the new majority was to completely eliminate, to remove the word ``labor'' from the committee that I served on. It was called the House Committee on Education and Labor. First they called it the Committee on Education and Economic Opportunities. Absolutely removing the word ``labor.'' Then 2 years later, even the Republicans had trouble totally ignoring American workers so they changed the name again. This time it was to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Again, no mention of labor. The new name they tried to make them look softer, of course. But it did not. It did not change their negative attitude an iota. In fact, one Member of the new majority on the committee kept probing and pushing and insulting workers and those of us who supported American workers. One meeting, one hearing we had, and I will never forget it, this Member on the other side of the aisle referred to the Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, as he was testifying before us, the Secretary of Labor, he referred to him as a Marxist and told him that he had read all of Carl Marx's writings and he had read all of Secretary Reich's writings and he saw no difference. This is the same Member who referred to me on the committee as a Communist because I was defending organized labor. So that was a heads-up, and let me know what kind of year we were going to have and how hard we had to work, because working Americans were not going to be represented by the majority at this time in our House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, well, it was all right for me. He can call me anything he wants, because I want to tell my colleagues, I am one person who is very proud to speak out for organized labor, for the working men and women of this country. It is because of organized labor that we have a middle class in the United States. That is why we are the country that we are. That is why we are this great Nation. It is because of organized labor that American workers have been able to afford to work and raise a family on their wages. And they get benefits, if it is part of organized labor, pensions as part of organized labor. Today, some of these expectations that people have that they were able to count on are eroding. We need labor unions more today than ever before. In the ``Education and Anti-labor Committee'' that I sit on, we are marking up a series of OSHA reform bills that will weaken the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. If these bills were to become law, American workers would be at a greater risk of on-the-job injuries and health effects and death than ever before. Well, not ever before, but since we have had OSHA in place.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, that is right. But since OSHA was passed in 1970, the job fatality rate has been cut in half and injury rates have also declined significantly. That ought to be example enough that we do not weaken it. If anything, we strengthen and learn from mistakes and we fix errors and we go forward and make sure that more people are safe than fewer. But Republicans in both the House and the Senate are pushing legislation that will make it more difficult for OSHA to issue protective standards; that will limit OSHA's ability to enforce our current standards, particularly in case of willful or criminal violations. Their legislation would weaken workers' right to know about unsafe workplace conditions, and would make it harder for them to address their own safety concerns within the workplace. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to think that American workers have too many safety and health protections. Last year, 6,112 workers were killed by traumatic injuries, and that is a Bureau of Labor Statistics figure. Another 50,000 workers died, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said, from occupational diseases. And that is a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH, statistic. And more than 6.2 million workers in the private sector were injured on the job. That is an AFL-CIO statistic. Thank goodness workers have unions to help them fight the Republicans' effort to turn back the clock on worker safety. These bills should be called ``OSHA deform.'' It should not be called reform. They are trying to undo the progress we have made instead of build on the progress and go forward. Unions are also speaking up for American workers against legislation that would diminish workers' wage and hour protection under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We have comp time legislation. We have sales incentive compensation acts that have been passed out of this House. Both of them would be all right if the worker had a choice. If they wanted to participate in a comp time program, then it would be their choice, not the employer's. If the worker wanted to go without overtime pay to work in a less than $20,000 a year job, that would be the worker's choice. But, no, it will be the employer's choice. They are also working on legislation that would legalize company- formed and controlled unions, and that is called the TEAM Act. Legislation would make it impossible for unions to speak for workers in the public arena. And that is the Paycheck Fairness Act and campaign finance reform. The gentleman spoke about the wage disparity between American workers and their bosses. He said that this disparity has never been greater. In 1960, we will go there first, the average pay for a chief executive officer of the largest U.S. corporations was 12 times greater than the average wage of a factory worker. That was in 1960. Today those CEOs receive wages and compensations worth more than 135 times the wages and benefits of the average employee at the same corporation. In 1960, it was 12 times greater. In 1998, it is more than 135 times greater. We wonder what is happening to our middle class. It is all going to the top and the working poor are getting greater and greater. Today, millions of Americans came to work. They came on time. They did a good job. They worked in the workplace to the very best of their ability. And they did not earn enough money to bring themselves and their families above the poverty level. These workers and millions of others all across America need to join together, need to organize so that they can have better lives and so that the lives of their families will be more secure. They join labor unions so that they can improve their wages, their working conditions, their benefits, their safety conditions and their future pensions. I am proud, because I am supported and I do support nurses and teachers, firefighters, truck drivers, waitresses, carpenters, electricians and all the other working men and women of this country, and those who belong to labor unions. Union members work every day to keep America strong and to keep America safe. I am proud to work here in the Congress for them and for all working men and women in this country. I thank the gentleman, again, for pulling this evening together.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman that the Speaker is the same Speaker that shook hands with the President of the United States 3 years ago, and we still do not have campaign finance reform.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that some figures my staff worked up today are accurate. In fact, it might be worse than what they worked up. With the rule that we passed today, 258 nongermane amendments to stop any real sense of taking campaign finance reform forward and actually passing it, with this rule brought to the floor by the opponents of campaign finance reform we can keep talking for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for more than 385 days, and we will not be voting still on campaign finance reform. That is what we allowed today. That means in mid-July 1999, we could be voting on campaign finance reform. Tonight proves, if we keep this up, this is exactly what is going to happen. We are going to kill this thing with all of these amendments. We can talk day in and day out about nonseverability. We can pull it apart, we can look at it under the microscope. What it is all about is stalling real campaign finance reform votes. The real vote is for the Shays-Meehan bill. If you care about your constituents, you will get to it and vote on it, and then we can get on with the rest of the needs that we have for our government. How did I get to this place? It was really kind of an awakening. A couple of years ago, I had a meeting in my offices in the district I represent, the two counties north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge. The League of Women Voters came to my office along with some Common Cause folks and members of the Democratic Central Committee to talk to me about campaign finance reform. I was not where they were. I was more like where you are over there, I was whining and whimpering and arguing that, ``Well, if we can't have caps on what an individual can spend of their own money, people like me will never get reelected, or elected in the first place, because I don't have any money of my own.'' The people that came, they are wonderful people, they always support me, but they argued with me. They argued about the need to have regular, everyday people feel like they were part of the election campaign system, like they belonged to the political process. They argued with me about soft money, which of course I agreed with. The thing I did not agree was that what are we going to do if millionaires like Huffington, multi-multimillionaires, can spend their own money? They laughed and they said, ``Woolsey, you know, we agree with you on everything, so we're going to forgive you this,'' and they left, and I won my election well in 1996. But as they left and as I started remembering the things they said, I realized that we do not have to do this perfect. We do not have to have all of it. We have to start. And we have to prove to people that we care that they are part of the process, that it is just not big money, that we are not paying soft money so that the money is not accountable, and that we ban soft money. Shays-Meehan does that. Also, and they pounded this home, and they were so right, that we have to stop having advertisements and mailers without accountability, third parties sending out information without anybody knowing who it is that is sending that information. So because of these wonderful people that came to my office several years ago, and because they liked me enough that they thought they could give me a good kick in the fanny, I came from the slow class to the fast class. I am here now. I get it. We need to take a step forward. Shays-Meehan does that for us. Yes, we want to have a commission. We should add that amendment to the Shays-Meehan bill so that we can have the commission watching and going forward and making it even better. But we have to stop disenfranchising the people in our districts that we work for. I do not understand who these people that are opposed to campaign finance reform work for, the people that are your constituents, the people that elect you, the people that are your employers, do they listen to you when you say you want more money in campaigning instead of less? Mr. Chairman, if we respect the people in our districts and the people we work for, we will get on with passing campaign finance reform.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, due to United Airlines flight #200 from San Francisco being delayed as I was returning from my congressional district, I was unavoidably detained on vote numbers 232 and 233. Had I been present on June 15th, I would have voted yea.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today is the third anniversary of President Clinton's handshake agreeing with Speaker Gingrich to have real campaign finance reform here in the House of Representatives. Last night, the majority whip actually said when he was talking about campaigning, and I quote him, he said, ``We don't spend enough money in campaigns.'' While he and his cohorts talked against a constitutional amendment that he himself brought to the House of Representatives, it was absolutely clear to everybody listening that they do not get it. They do not understand that the people of this country want a real debate about campaign finance reform. They do not want a ruse. They do not want stalling. And the people of this country want back into the election process.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, before coming to Congress, I spent over 20 years as a human resources professional; 10 years as an H.R. manager of a high-tech manufacturing company, and 11 years as a human resources consultant. Did I earn more than $22,000 a year? Yes, I did. That is because I know something about the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows employers to exempt employees from overtime if the employee has specialized skills, a high level of education, advanced training, and/or a minimum level, a professional level of compensation. This bill would allow an employer to exempt certain jobs from overtime regardless of the credentials of the person filling that job. The job title in H.R. 2888 becomes more important than the person. Some time ago, as my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) mentioned, Congress passed legislation to exempt certain computer industry jobs. They exempted them from overtime. That was if that job paid $57,000 or more a year. I voted for this. I voted for it because a salary in the $50,000 range does not need overtime nearly as much as the jobs we are talking about tonight. This bill exempts employees who make less than half that amount. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the median income for nonretail positions is $40,000 a year. At the very least, the income limitation on this bill should be $40,000 to ensure that overtime taken from workers would be a much less significant loss, to ensure that these positions are truly considered professional. This bill would be acceptable, perhaps, if the decision to work overtime was left to the employee, if it were totally voluntary, but this is not how H.R. 2888 works. This bill takes away overtime, gives the employer the right to insist on overtime work and insist that the employee work at their straight rate of pay, really, within that week's salary. If they are paid for a 40-hour week, they get paid for 40 hours. Whether or not they work 42, 44, 46, 48, they get paid for 40. No wonder, Mr. Chairman, we have heard from employers all over the country telling us how employees benefit from this bill, while, I want my colleagues to know, I have not heard yet from one worker that this is what they would prefer. I ask my colleagues, unless we make overtime voluntary, unless we raise the salary floor to at least $40,000, which is the average for nonretail sales jobs, that we vote against 2888.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think I am probably going to be one of the last people to speak tonight. I was over in my office preparing for the next issue we are going to be debating and listening to this charade that is supposed to be a debate on campaign finance reform, finding myself extremely embarrassed, embarrassed for the majority party, embarrassed for the people of this country, embarrassed that my colleagues would think people could listen to this and think they were serious; that they would bring before the House campaign finance not reform, but what they would call a constitutional amendment that they do not believe in, and then they would stand there and talk against the amendment that they brought forward. I think my colleagues must think that the people of the United States of America are not very bright. They are wrong. The people will listen to this. They will know it is a ruse. They will know that what my colleagues cannot bear is to have us debate the Shays-Meehan bill, that they do not want to talk about doing away with soft money, that they do not care whether we have accountability with our issue ads. At the same time, when somebody comes before us that speaks well, like my colleague, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), and others, my colleagues bring forward those who have contributed to them and think that will embarrass us, think that because all they do is bring forward our labor contributors, to think that we are not proud to be supported by nurses and teachers and by truck drivers and electricians and the workers of this country, how dare they think that that would be an insult to us. We are proud of that. Those are the workers of the United States of America. Those are the people that also support campaign finance reform. Let us get over with this this evening. Let us get started. Tomorrow is the anniversary of 3 years that the Speaker and the President shook hands on bringing campaign finance reform to the floor for a vote that will have real meaning on the people of this country so they can support and buy into our political system.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in last year's balanced budget, we had a bipartisan agreement to protect the environment. But this year the Republicans in their budget proposal throw away that commitment, out the window. The Democratic alternative, however, does restore the vital environmental funding that we know as Members of Congress we have a responsibility to fund. We must fund projects to ensure clean air and clean water, to ensure that our public lands are preserved, and that our toxic and hazardous sites are cleaned up. The Democratic budget provides funding for water quality improvement, because 40 percent of our Nation's waterways are too polluted to swim or fish in. The Democratic budget provides assistance to States and communities to reduce non-point pollution, clean up streams and improve coastal water quality. The Democratic budget provides vital funding for our Superfund cleanup sites. One in four children under the age of 12 live within four miles of a Superfund site. It is time, time for Republicans to join us and clean up the toxic waste dumps near our schools, our parks and in our neighborhoods. The Democratic budget includes funding to enhance national parks, national forests and other public lands. The final and crucial environmental area addressed by the Democratic budget provides funding for water infrastructure improvements. These improvements give localities greater ability for compliance and construction of much needed wastewater and other facilities. Mr. Chairman, as we consider this budget resolution this year, we must also protect our environment. But as usual, when it comes to our children's future, the Republican budget is way off course. By supporting the Democratic alternative we create a budget that moves this country forward without leaving our environment and our children behind. I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic budget alternative.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, am I a church member? Yes, I am. Is my church important to me? Absolutely. Do I go to church as often as possible and get the good community that is there for me? Absolutely. Do I want the Federal Government to be involved in my church? No. Do I want the government to prescribe prayer in our schools? No. Today we allow already for Bible groups, individual prayer and campus meetings at our schools. That is absolute. We cannot pretend that is not already possible. Today we will vote on a resolution that would undermine the first amendment, undermine religious freedom. Today support Madison and Jefferson and vote for religious freedom and against school sponsored prayer. Do not politicize religion. Vote no on the Istook amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer amendment. These new requirements are misguided at best. I ask the gentleman on the other side of the aisle if a college does not drop a particular course if not enough people have enrolled in it after people have already started their school year? The reporting requirements added in H.R. 6 are nonsense. Hearings in the Committee on Education and the Workforce have clearly shown that men's minor college sports do not need this protection. Not only are reporting requirements not needed, they also will not work. Dr. Ruben Arminana, the president of Sonoma State University in my district, tells me that these requirements will have just the opposite effect. President Arminana says that by forcing colleges to announce 4 years in advance when they plan to reduce or eliminate funds for a sport, we will restrict a school's flexibility in decision-making. I quote President Arminana's response to this provision. He said: Sports teams will suffer irreparable damage, and institutions will be unable to retain the program should circumstances change at a later date. These reporting requirements place unreasonable and inappropriate demands on institutions of higher education. It is an unwarranted Federal intrusion in college and university affairs and ignores efforts to curb college costs. Colleges and universities do not budget for 4- year cycles, they budget 1 year at a time. They need the flexibility to make decisions that are in the best interests of their students and campuses that year. Who are we, here in this Congress, to insist that colleges justify their budget decisions to us? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Roemer amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind my colleague that what I referred to is one African-American enrolled in Boalt Law School in the fall. One thing. There is a difference between inviting admissions and enrollment, because there are a lot of steps in between. Part of that step is feeling welcome.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we have worked hard in this country to create the best colleges and universities in the world. I have actually devoted much of my time in Congress to expanding access to higher education for every student in America. In fact, is that not what this higher education bill is supposed to be about, expanding education to every student in America? I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs). Quite simply, this amendment, which was modeled after California's Proposition 209, blocks opportunity to higher education for women and minority students across the country. It is not a mystery that dismantling affirmative action destroys needed opportunity for America's college campuses. Look at my own State and the State of Mr. Riggs, California, where the rollback has already begun. The University of California Boalt Law School, one of the best public law schools in America, enrolled only one African-American student in its freshman class last fall. Also at UC-Berkeley African-American admissions have plummeted by 66 percent. Latino enrollment fell by 53 percent. At UCLA, African-American admissions in the freshman class dropped by 43 percent while Latino enrollment fell by 33 percent. At California graduate schools, where the clock has already begun ticking and been turned back, both medical schools and law schools experienced a significant decline. This is what I call stepping backward in our goal, our goal to make higher education accessible to all Americans. Mr. Chairman, women and minorities in America simply cannot afford to have this crucial support chipped away. Let me review a few simple facts with my colleagues. Women earn 71 cents for every dollar compared to a man. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to please not vote to roll back affirmative action.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I say to all my colleagues that public education is the backbone of our country. Let us not forget that. It is why we are a great Nation. Public education is available to all. It does not discriminate, and it must be strengthened, not weakened. Yet this bill before us today will do just that. It profoundly harms our public schools. This bill makes it easier for a chosen few, and the word is few, to go to private schools, schools that self-select their student body, schools that have no responsibility to special education and no concern for students with unique educational needs. This is not acceptable. I am proud to speak for public education in America. Sure, it is not perfect, but the solution to any problems of our public school system will not be solved by providing vouchers to a few chosen children. The solution is to fix our public schools so that all families would choose public education unless they choose to go to a religious school that they would pay the tuition from their family. S. 1502 hurts our kids, hurts our schools and our country, and it must be defeated.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning, which crafted this bill, I am truly proud to rise in support of H.R. 6, the Higher Education Act. This is a good bipartisan bill. It makes higher education more available and more affordable for all students. H.R. 6 also makes higher education safer, particularly for women on college campuses, because H.R. 6 includes grants to combat violent crimes against women on campuses. Currently, 20 percent of college women will be victims of sexual assault at some time during their college years. These are our daughters, our sisters, even our mothers. College is hard enough. Women should not have that added worry of sexual assault. These grants will be used for education, for prevention, for collaboration with local public safety departments to reduce violent crimes against women on college campuses. I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), and I want to thank them both for their willingness to work with me to include these grants in this bill. And at the same time, we should all be thanking the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their leadership on this bill. Good job, my colleagues. On the other hand, I urge my colleagues to reject any amendment that will jeopardize final passage of this bill and to join the members of the Committee on Education and Workforce from both sides of the aisle and vote for a bill that puts the best interest of students and parents first.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), for her leadership in this effort. When we talk about AIDS, we are talking about an epidemic, not someone's narrow-minded cultural war. Maintaining the ban will not help save our children or anyone else. In fact, the ban on needle exchange actually threatens lives. More than half of all children with AIDS contracted the virus from mothers who are injection drug users or the partners of injection drug users. That is right. We are talking about our children. Do not forget that. In 1995, needle exchange programs were found to reduce the spread of AIDS and not to lead to increased drug use. I want to at this point note that my district, Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, not the inner cities that my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), referred to, provides free needles through the public health system. This is not just a problem for poor inner city districts. This is a problem, AIDS is a problem for every single district in this country. This bill would ignore the science by denying public health experts a tool in the fight against AIDS, a tool that has been proven to slow the spread of this deadly disease. And those of my colleagues who are worried that free needles increase drug usage have to stop and think. We have to be reassured that knowing that the positive step by a drug user to choose clean needles is actually a first step in a very positive way towards their recovery. Just think about it. This is an opportunity to begin the healing process. I urge my colleagues to vote against this flawed piece of legislation. Support needle exchange and stop the spread of AIDS.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today is the sad and solemn day on which we remember one of the greatest tragedies that humankind has witnessed. Today marks the 83rd anniversary of the Armenian genocide, the first genocide of the 20th Century. I have come to the floor of the House to acknowledge the atrocities suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. On April 23, 1915, over 200 Armenian religious, political, and intellectual leaders were massacred in Turkey. Little did anyone know that April 23rd, 1915, would signify the beginning of a Turkish campaign to eliminate the Armenian people from the face of the earth. Over the following 8 years, 1\1/2\ 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 today as it should 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 since. Thus, ignored by many, the valuable lessons which might have been learned from this Armenian genocide went largely unnoticed. If more attention had been centered on the slaughter of these innocent men, women, and children, perhaps the events of World War II, the Holocaust, might never have taken place. As George Santayana reminds us, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Perhaps this, above all, is the valuable lesson each of us must learn from the Armenian genocide. As a result of the failure of some nations to acknowledge this horrible tragedy, the Turkish crimes have remained unpunished. An international court yet to condemn the holocaust of an entire nation, and this impunity has permitted the Turks to repeat similar crimes against the Greek inhabitants of Asia Minor, the Syrian Orthodox people, and, recently, people living in Cyprus. However, despite the unmerciful efforts of the Turks, Armenian civilization lives on today. It lives on in the independent Republic of Armenia. And it lives on in communities throughout America, particularly from my home State of California. Today, we honor the innocent Armenians who tragically lost their lives. Today, we acknowledge that the Ottoman Turks committed genocide against the Armenian people. Today, we demand that this undeniable fact be accounted for by the current leaders in Istanbul. I look forward to the day when the world says in one united voice we remember the Armenian genocide. Until that day comes, I will continue to stand up here before the House of Representatives and remind all of us of our responsibility to learn from the past and our responsibility to prevent any such atrocities in the future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is truly tragic that some Members of this body do not fully recognize the outstanding record of contribution of the AmeriCorps program. In community after community, across the entire nation, AmeriCorps volunteers are providing a wide range of essential services that are truly making a difference in people's lives. And, at the same time, these young people are making a difference in their own lives. They are becoming leaders who understand the importance of giving back to the community around them. They are earning a valuable educational benefit that will help them achieve their goals for the future. Yesterday, we saw another unconscionable attack on AmeriCorps' funding by Members who have yet to acknowledge AmeriCorps' record of success. I am confident that these Members would not launch these politically motivated attacks if they would simply look at the successes around them--and admit to the important contributions that AmeriCorps is making in almost every community in the nation. These members should talk to their local nonprofits. They should talk with their community leaders. And they should read their local newspapers. Because all around them is the evidence that AmeriCorps is making this nation a better place to live in and is cultivating an ethic of civic responsibility and community. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record one piece of this evidence--a news article from one of my local newspapers, the San Rafael/Terra Lina News Pointer, from February 4, 1998. This article demonstrates, once again, how AmeriCorps has become an important community resource in Marin County, California, which I am privileged to represent. Recently, a bipartisan group of Members of Congress joined First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in endorsing new legislation to reauthorize our nation's national service programs, including AmeriCorps. I urge all members of Congress to join together, in a bipartisan fashion, to reject politically motivated attacks on AmeriCorps' funding, and to pass essential reauthorization legislation that will preserve AmeriCorps and other essential national service programs well into the future. Partnerships that pay off Marin.--AmeriCorp, praised by President Bill Clinton in his 1998 State of the Union address, is an important community resource in Marin. The Marin Conservation Corps (MCC) is one of 1,500 designated AmeriCorps sites nationwide. To date MCC has trained and graduated three classes of AmeriCorps volunteers who have in turn provided valuable volunteer service to Marin's non-profit agencies. Full-time corpsmembers commit to one-year of service to their community in exchange for job training and employment opportunities. Ten individuals, who worked at least 1,700 hours, participated in the Marin Recycling-Education and summer camps programs. These AmeriCorps volunteers taught environmental education, mentored kids after school and served as role models for at-risk youth. Hand-on activities included bottle biology, reusable art projects, a peek at packaging, and making your own paper. Ardis Ashton, Ricardo Diaz, Juanita Edwards, Ryan Holland Russel Lamerson, Erick Linares, Beau Siebler, Buna Soma, Gina Watkins and Walter Williams gained valuable job skills and work experience. In addition, they received $4,725 education scholarship, which they can use to pursue educational goals or vocational training. And thousands of Marin school children learned the ``three r's''--Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!