Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for having this special order and starting this conversation on the House floor about the Cassini mission. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of space exploration and a strong supporter of NASA. NASA has made many exciting and valuable discoveries over the years, discoveries that have been important to all of us in one way or another, worldwide. The motto for NASA, which is supposed to be better, faster, cheaper, not risky, hazardous, and expensive, actually is not what we had hoped to have in this country. We want the better, faster, cheaper. We do not want the risky, hazardous, and expensive. The Cassini mission does not live up to this better, faster, cheaper motto, and NASA should delay and redesign the Cassini project. Mr. Speaker, the Cassini spacecraft, which is scheduled to launch from Cape Canaveral next month, carries an unprecedented amount of plutonium, 72.3 pounds of plutonium. That poses a danger to all of us. An accident at launch or in space during a swing-by around the earth could send the craft and its plutonium-powered batteries crashing down upon us. If an accident occurs during launch, it is possible that individuals may be exposed to radiation. If an accident occurs during the swing-by, the spacecraft may burn up during reentry, scattering over 70 pounds of plutonium throughout our atmosphere. Some argue that the chances of such an accident are slim, as my colleague said, and that even if one did occur, the health impact from exposure would be small. Prominent scientists and safety experts have questioned both of these assumptions, however. The Challenger disaster proved that NASA can still suffer catastrophic failures. In fact, three of the 24 U.S. space missions and six of the 29 Russian missions using nuclear power met with accidents. Given this track record, Mr. Speaker, it is understandable that notable scientists and even a former NASA safety expert, Alan Kohn, believe that risks in this mission are simply too high. Several scientists have also stated that the health impact from exposure to plutonium following an accident would be much higher than what NASA has claimed. Since plutonium is one of the most toxic substances we know of, these assertions deserve further scrutiny. We do not want to find out after an accident that these critics were right. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, alternatives do exist. An advanced solar- powered craft, while not available now, could be ready within a few years. Other alternatives are viable right now. NASA's discovery program has shown that the United States can launch a planetary probe without relying on vast amounts of plutonium, and they do not rely on it as part of their primary power source. For example, Mr. Speaker, instead of sending one large plutonium- powered spacecraft to Mars, NASA launched the Mars Pathfinder using a fraction of the plutonium Cassini is planning to carry. Over the next 10 years, NASA is planning to send six additional spacecraft to study the red planet using electrical energy obtained through solar panel technology. Not only are these planetary probes safer, they are also much cheaper. Considering that most discovery projects cost less than $200 million, NASA could launch several planetary probes to Saturn without using large amounts of plutonium. Even the old Voyager and Pioneer programs used much less plutonium for their deep space travel. It is just bad policy for the United States to rely on such large quantities when NASA can design missions at a lower risk and cost to the public. I would also note that in such controversial missions, public concern must play an important role. We must also note that experts have given us disasters like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, so possibly they are making a mistake with Cassini, too. However, NASA's predisposition to the use of plutonium as a power source has led the agency to simply reaffirm their position, rather than consider the concerns of the public. That is why I support the establishment of a neutral review panel, to provide a voice for both the public and scientific dissenters. Finally, we cannot ignore a tear in Cassini's heat insulation that has now delayed the launch. As a result, the window of opportunity for a successful launch is now much smaller. Quite frankly, NASA does not have the luxury of running into any new problems, because the agency is now scrambling to launch Cassini in time. Because of that, this rush could create additional safety risks. If NASA does not succeed in launching before November 4, this delay could cost taxpayers over $100 million, and the spacecraft will be required to travel 2 years longer than originally planned. In other words, for a lot more money, we will get much less data. In a little more than 2 years another launch window will open for a mission to Saturn. NASA should postpone the planned Cassini launch in October and use the time wisely to redesign the mission so it carries a safer power source. Even if it takes longer than 2 years to make this project safer, Saturn and its moons will still be there, waiting for exploration. They have been there a long time, Mr. Speaker. A few more years for the safety of our Nation and our world and our planet will make very little difference in the long run. Space exploration is vitally important, not only to the practical and theoretical sciences, but to humankind's very destiny. It is too important to squander the public's trust on a risky mission. Americans will support a NASA that instills hope for the future, but not fear of tragedy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcalls 416, 417, and 418 earlier today because of a mechanical failure of my airplane from San Francisco to Washington, DC. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these bills.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the American people are talking about the Republican leadership, and the Republican leadership just is not listening. The people are telling this Congress that they are sick and tired of big money flooding the Halls of their government. They are fed up with special interests taking priority over the national interests. Most of all, Mr. Speaker, they are fed up that the Republican leadership still refuses to act. Mr. Speaker, let us hold hearings, review all of the good bills that have already been drafted, and pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. Speaker, they say that ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' But, Mr. Speaker, I say that our campaign finance system is broke and it needs fixing.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the American people are talking, but the Republican leadership is not listening. Mr. Speaker, the people are telling this Congress that they are sick and tired of big money flooding into the halls of Government, and they are fed up with special interests taking priority over the national interests. Mr. Speaker, most of all, they are fed up that the Republican leadership still refuses to act. Mr. Speaker, let us hold hearings, review the good bills that have already been drafted, and pass meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. Speaker, they say that ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I say that our campaign finance system is broke and it needs fixing.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. His expression of support and his interest in this matter is very important to me. Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Engel

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for providing sufficient funding for the program of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. I would like to ask him to engage in a discussion with me regarding SAMHSA. The subcommittee has included language in the committee report urging the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment [CSAT] to assist corporations that are administering residential treatment for pregnant and postpartum women grants. These are programs that are experiencing difficulty complying with the match requirement. I understand that the committee's intention with this language was to encourage CSAT to explore utilizing existing administrative authority to waive the match requirement for these grantees. I also understand that CSAT has determined that they do not have enough existing administrative authority to waive the match requirement. So under these circumstances, would the gentleman from Illinois consider including in the conference report on H.R. 2264 legislative language providing CSAT the authority to waive the match requirement for PPW grantees?

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook- Manzullo amendment, because, quite simply, this amendment puts the life and the future of young women all across this country in danger. Mr. Chairman, it is time to stop pretending that unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases just go away if we do not talk about them. It is time to recognize that teen pregnancy and teen abortion rates actually drop when young people have access to the preventive reproductive health care that they need. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that those who call for greater responsibility from our youth are the same people who would deny young women the tools they need to be responsible. It is equally ironic that the Congress would consider interfering with young women's health care, when almost every major medical and public health organization in this country opposes the parental consent requirements in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, who do we listen to? If the Istook amendment passes, who will young women, those who do not have safe, supportive families, who will they turn to for sound medical advice? Who will help them avoid unwanted pregnancies and disease? Who will help them make responsible choices about their future? Mr. Chairman, let us stop playing with the lives and the futures of young women. Let us defeat the Istook-Manzullo amendment and adopt the Castle substitute.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I worry that this debate is not really about increasing funding for AIDS patients, but instead it becomes a cynical attack on other very deserving programs. For one thing, how anybody could say that we on this side of the aisle are stating that this is enough, they do not know the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi]. Have my colleagues ever heard the gentlewoman from California say we have done enough for AIDS prevention, AIDS research, and AIDS care? Never. This is not what this is about. This is about taking one deserving program and pitting it against another for funding and, on emotional value, against other deserving programs. We know there is an AIDS epidemic. But let us talk about funding AIDS programs by cutting the B-2 bomber program, $2.2 billion for each B-2 bomber that will not even fly in the rain. Would that not be a good way to fund AIDS programs, AIDS research, AIDS care, and AIDS prevention? Let us talk about AIDS prevention. Why are we not talking about education and programs that teach our children about safe sex and about contraception? Why are we not talking about needle exchange programs so that we will prevent AIDS in the first place? Let us stop talking about pitting one deserving program against another. Refugees are deserving. Civil rights programs are deserving. Veterans are certainly deserving. AIDS patients need care, we need the research, and we need to take care of every single AIDS patient in America. This is America. We have enough. We could take care of every AIDS patient if we chose, and we could do it without pitting these funds against other deserving funding programs. We must have the will. That is what is missing. It appears that we do not have the will to take care of deserving people unless we take away from other deserving programs and other deserving populations. I say, Mr. Chairman, let us vote against this amendment and let us make sure we support all deserving programs and not pit one against the other.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, there is no bigger champion of education and training in this House than I am: Training for our high school students so they leave high school ready and trained for a job that pays a livable wage, and training for our workers so they can stay in step with changes so they will be ready for the 21st century and do not lose their jobs because they are not trained adequately. When I first came to the Congress, I requested to serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities because I believed that is the most important committee in the House of Representatives. I have been a member of that committee for 5 years now. I work long and I work hard to make sure that all American students get a world-class education and that all students get the training they need for their future and that all workers are trained for the jobs of the future also. Our students need world-class training and education. They need that so they can get high-skill, high-wage jobs, and they need that to ensure that America remains competitive in the global marketplace. Because, of course, a vast majority of American students become American workers. When they are workers, they also require additional training. But to that end, Mr. Chairman, it makes absolutely no sense to pit education funds against funds that will keep our American workers safe. Funding for important protections for American workers must stay intact. Funding for OSHA is particularly important. Funding for labor is important in general. Mr. Chairman, we cannot leave American workers less safe. OSHA cuts, and by just adding 1 percent it is a cut, would mean more workplace accidents and injuries. Labor cuts will mean more American workers will become vulnerable to workplace discrimination and to the loss of important workplace protections. They need protections, not only for their own physical safety, their emotional safety, their mental safety, they also need the 40-hour work week. Mr. Chairman, much of today's rhetoric will place American workers at risk and that is just to make political points. That is what this debate is really about this morning. It is about pitting one deserving group of Americans against other groups of Americans for political gain. What my colleagues are offering in this amendment is not about the real world, because in the real world one group is not separate from another. American workers are not separate from American students and Americans that need training. American workers are students. American workers are requiring training, but many of them also expect and insist and need and depend upon OSHA for the protections they need to keep them safe on the job. They need labor protections also, so that they can earn a fair and livable wage and that they can go home every day and their children will know they will come home safe. They will know that they are protected because OSHA has been there for them. Americans will not fall for this obvious political cynicism, Mr. Chairman, and neither should my colleagues. We cannot vote to cut OSHA, because OSHA is important to the safety of our workers. It is important to those who we train as workers. It is important to the students of this country who are going to become workers. OSHA is the backbone for keeping American workers safe.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired. They are tired of special interests and big money wreaking havoc on our political system. And Mr. Speaker, they are tired of the Republican leadership's continued refusal to bring up campaign finance reform on our floor. We want to debate it, not stand here and complain about it. There are many proposals, Mr. Speaker, to clean up our political system, but at the very least we should agree on one small step and that is to ban soft money. Mr. Speaker, when we ban soft money we will tell the American people that in our political system the almighty dollar is not all mighty any more, and at the same time, Mr. Speaker, we will tell the people of this country that the bucks have stopped coming here.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, each year in the developing world 600,000 women die from pregnancy-related complications. Maternal mortality is the largest single cause of death among women during their reproductive years. That is why support for family planning services is becoming more important every year. Voluntary family planning services give mothers and families new choices and new hope. These services increase child survival, promote safe motherhood. Without support for international family planning, women in developing nations face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty and more despair. Mr. Chairman, it is ironic that the same people who would deny women in the developing world the choice of an abortion would also seek to eliminate support for family planning programs. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Pelosi- Gilman substitute.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Police Chief Dennis DeWitt. Chief DeWitt is retiring after 30 years with the Petaluma Police Department. I wish I could join his family, friends, and colleagues in celebrating his distinguished career. Dennis DeWitt attended Golden Gate University where he earned a B.A. in administration of justice and a masters in public administration. For the past 10 years, he served as chief of the Petaluma Police Department. Dennis DeWitt's devotion to the community is admirable. He serves as a board member on the Committee on the Shelterless, is a past president of the Boys and Girls Club, a former board member of the Family Education Center, and was a member of the Host Lions Club. As the chief of police he proved over and over that Petaluma and the citizens of Petaluma were his No. 1 priority. He was proud of the city, and, in turn, we were proud of him. Mr. Speaker, it is my great, pleasure to pay tribute to Dennis DeWitt. His service to the residents of Petaluma will be greatly missed. I wish he, his wife Tricia, and their family, the best.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bipartisan consensus that the committee has reached in this bill on the troubled Caucasus region in Armenia. Since Azerbaijan began its blockade of Armenia 5 years ago, the citizens of Armenia have suffered from lack of shelter, lack of heat, lack of food and lack of crucial medicine. In fact, the world food bank has described Armenia as a prefamine state. Even worse, Mr. Chairman, the Armenians in Nagorno Karabagh have been blockaded by Azerbaijan for 8 years. That is why we must maintain economic sanctions against them. That is why economic sanctions will send a clear and straightforward message to the perpetrators of this cruel and senseless blockade. It is a message that their actions will no longer be tolerated. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the committee on a job well done and in supporting this important consensus.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I support also the Shays-Frank-Klug-Hinchey-Ramstad-Luther amendment. It makes sense. Let us cut wasteful defensive spending and let us invest in our children and their education.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this shortsighted amendment which would have a devastating impact on the people I represent in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA. The wine and winegrapes from my district are famous worldwide, but vintners have to fight to enter and complete in the world market. The Market Access Program helps the small wine producers in my district compete with heavily subsidized foreign producers who still dominate the global agricultural marketplace. The European Union export subsidies amounted to approximately $10 billion last year. In fact, the European Union spends more on export promotion for wine than the United States does for all of our agriculture programs combined. We need only look at last year to see this unfair disparity in action--market promotion funds for the American wine industry totaled approximately $5 million, whereas the heavily subsidized European wine industries received $1\1/2\ billion. The money we spend to increase the markets for American agricultural products is money well spent. Because of assistance from the market access program, U.S. wine exports had their 12th consecutive record- breaking year in 1996, reaching $320 million. This level is an $85 million increase in 1 year, which means that each Market Access Program dollar being spent generated a $17 increase in exports. In the last 10 years, an additional 7,500 full-time jobs and 5,000 part-time jobs have been created by exporting wine. This is not only good for the American balance of trade--it's good for the American economy. Mr. Chairman, we should help export U.S. products, not U.S. jobs. Oppose the Schumer-Chabot-Royce amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Let me remind Members that training women for a livable wage for jobs that are nontraditional, for the same jobs their counterparts trained for, the men that earn a livable wage, by training these women for those jobs, we prevent welfare. In fact, we get people off of welfare. With welfare reform in our face, we now have the challenge to help women support their families, to help women who have children move from welfare to work. We must help these women by supporting them through vocational education programs that will get them into jobs that pay a livable wage, the same jobs the males in their lives have that can and will support a family. Mr. Chairman, if we do not train women for nontraditional jobs we are saying to those women, women, stay behind the typewriter, stay as a service worker, stay as a nurse's aide, but do not compete with the men, because the men have the jobs that pay a livable wage. We want to prevent welfare. We want to get families off of welfare. We must, we must, and we must give women a chance by supporting them in vocational education. Please support the Mink amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], my friend and colleague.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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. Mr. Chairman, assuming over 50 percent of the 75 percent of individuals not going to college are women, if we really want to reduce the number of families on welfare, we should thank our colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink] for offering this amendment. I am personally very proud to support girls and women in vocational education, and I am proud of the coauthorship of this amendment with my colleague from Hawaii, and the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald]. Clearly, this amendment proves that the real welfare reform for families, those who are on welfare, will get off the rolls if we take care of women and their children. This amendment prevents families not only from being on welfare and helping them get off of welfare, it prevents them from going on welfare in the first place. The Mink amendment is real welfare reform. It does that because it preserves vocational education programs that give women the skills they need to get jobs that pay a livable wage. Also, it provides women with the ability to support themselves and their families. These programs train displaced homemakers, single parents and single pregnant women for nontraditional careers, such as blue collar jobs, jobs that men usually hold, jobs that pay better than the traditional jobs women often take. The data of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Mr. Chairman, shows that young women who graduate from high school and go right into the job market earn less, 25 percent less, than their male counterparts. The reason for this? Again, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, it is that these young women are overrepresented in low-paying occupations. The Mink amendment does not require any local community to start any new program to train women for nontraditional jobs, it just maintains and holds harmless what is in place today. It simply says if we already have a program for displaced homemakers for single parents or for single pregnant women, we can and should continue the program. We know these programs work. The Department of Labor in Florida showed that over 70 percent of the women who participated in their programs in 1992 and 1993 doubled their income after completing the program. A study of the participants in Oregon's program showed that the graduates had expanded employment opportunities, increased salaries, and reduced dependency on public assistance. In 1992, less than 7 percent of all working women were employed in nontraditional occupations. Yet those women earned 20 to 30 percent more than women in more traditional jobs if they were in the nontraditional occupations. The Morella-Woolsey-Sanchez-Millender-McDonald sex equity amendment is good welfare prevention and good welfare reform, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and missed several votes earlier today due to mechanical failures on my scheduled flight. Had I been present, I would have voted: Yea on rollcall No. 267; Yea on rollcall No. 268; Yea on rollcall No. 269; Nay on rollcall No. 270; Nay on rollcall No. 271; Nay on rollcall No. 272; Nay on rollcall No. 273; and, Yea on rollcall No. 274. personal explanation

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding individual, Mr. Paul Chow. Mr. Chow is being honored by the Angel Island Association for his 25-year crusade leading the preservation and restoration of the Detention Barracks at Angel Island State Park. In addition to helping prevent the demolition of the barracks, Mr. Chow founded the Asian-American Immigration Station Historical Advisory Committee to restore the barracks and protect the Asian history and poetry carved in the walls. He was also instrumental in the creation of a museum at the former Immigration Station on Angel Island. In recognition of his accomplishments in the areas of historical, cultural and natural preservation, Mr. Chow was the recipient of the Phoenix Award, presented by the Society of American Travel Writers. He continues to volunteer his time to guide hundreds of people through the Immigration Station, relaying personal stories about the struggles of his own family during their time at the station as they became citizens. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Paul Chow. His dedication and success to preserve a piece of history is admirable. I wish Paul and his family the best.