Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this special order and allowing us to talk about the presidential tax proposal because it is absolutely crucial what comes out of this tax vote. It is absolutely crucial to our children and to our Nation. We know it. That is why we are here tonight in the middle of the night making sure that our public knows this. What is the key to the President's proposal and why is it so much better than the proposal that the Republican majority put forth? Well, it is pretty simple. Our plan provides more tax relief for middle- income Americans. It is that simple. If you want to provide a huge April bonus to the very richest in the Nation, it is clear that the Republican bill will make that happen. If you want to explode the deficit in the coming years, then the Republican plan is actually the best choice. If you want to go back to the good old days when huge profitable corporations paid no taxes, then the Republican bill is the one. That is what we are talking about tonight. But if you want to ensure that the bulk of the tax cuts go to the middle-income American and if you want to make sure that we provide our kids with a real tax break for education, then the President's plan is it. After all, the Republican bill gives only a third of its tax breaks to middle-income individuals. We have said that tonight many times and in many ways. But the Democratic alternative provides more than two- thirds to the middle class. Let me tell you something else that is absolutely urgent for all of us to understand. The Democratic bill gives our kids the tax breaks that they need to get ahead in school and get ahead in life. Almost every Member of Congress acknowledges on a bipartisan basis the importance of education. So why, why then does the Republican majority skimp on the key education tax breaks proposed by the President? Why does it break the deal that we reached on a bipartisan basis earlier this year? Just listen to the differences between the two proposals. We have said them tonight. I am going to say them again. The President's plan provides a much larger tax credit for the first 2 years of college. The President's plan provides a significant new credit for lifelong learning. Unlike the congressional plan, the President's plan covers all students, including part-time students, graduate students and workers who are improving their job skills. It makes student loan interest tax deductible once again. It provides tax incentives for the construction or rehabilitation of schools in distressed areas. It provides tax incentives for the private sector to donate much needed computer equipment for schools, something we all know we desperately need to prepare our kids for the jobs of the future. It creates terrific Kidsave accounts that allow parents to make tax- free withdrawals for higher education costs. And let us look at the numbers for education. When you add it all up, the President's plan contains $45 billion for different education initiatives, while the bill we passed in the House, the majority's plan, the Republican plan, provides only 31 billion. Now, I am a true believer that the best way we can move our Nation forward is by providing quality education and training to every person in this country. After all, when we strengthen education, we prepare our young people for jobs that pay a livable wage, jobs where they will be paying taxes. We prevent families from relying on welfare. We reduce crime and we reduce violence and we increase respect for our health, our environment and respect for each other. I am a true believer that our families need help with the costs of higher education and all education. After all, the annual cost of a public college education increased from 9 percent of a typical family's income in 1979 to 14 percent in 1994. Middle-income families are struggling to pay these costs, and they deserve some real assistance. But we cannot do this by talk alone. No, we can stand here every night and talk about taxes. But we have to get behind proposals that really make a difference for our kids. The President's plan is the one that does this. The difference between the President's proposals and those of the Republican majority are so significant that they could truly mean the difference between success and failure for our kids, the difference between economic success and failure in the coming years. I have two words for those on the other side of the aisle who think that it is okay to pass a tax plan that provides most of its help to corporations and the super-rich and, too, to those who believe it is okay to pay lip service to education without getting behind the tax proposals that will give us the best education system in the world. Those two words are ``get real''. The American people are crying out for real tax relief. They are crying out for real education benefits. They do not want us to abandon the bipartisan budget plan. They want us to live up to it. And that is what the President's plan does. It gives middle-income families what they need and deserve: lower tax bills and a big boost in their education. We still have a chance to make a real difference in the lives of local families. Let us get 100 percent behind the President's plan. We will all reap the long-term rewards for our kids and our Nation. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely certain that we knew when we passed the balanced budget that the devil would be in the details. Well, this bill is full of devils. I would urge everyone who really wants to help working families and to support educational opportunities to vote it down.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, why is it when the majority proposes spending cuts, it is women and children first? I voted for the balanced budget agreement because I was really hopeful that roughneck politics had been passed aside to reach a grander goal. Democrats and Republicans were willing to give some to gain a lot. It was a textbook example of the art of compromise, actually. But somewhere between the House floor and the committee rooms, the deal unraveled and this unacceptable bill emerged, a bill that undermines the budget agreement and adds new provisions that were never even discussed and, in fact, have little to do with balancing the budget in the first place. The bill sends funds that we targeted for child health coverage to States as block grants. This means Governors can spend the money for programs that have nothing to do with providing children with basic health care. Under this plan, less than half a million kids will get coverage. Talk about a sellout. But that is not even the worst of it. The same leadership who shut down the Government and held flood victims hostage has once again included an extraneous, divisive issue in its must-pass legislation. The majority is using this bill to codify into law the Hyde amendment. The Hyde amendment takes away reproductive rights for hundreds of thousands of poor women. Roe versus. Wade does not exist when you cannot afford to pay the bill. This bill also takes away other rights from poor women. It drops women who are in welfare-to-work programs into a new under class of employees not entitled to protections, protections against sexual harassment, discrimination, unsafe workplaces, and unfair labor practices. I cannot support this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the introduction of a bill that is crucial to my district. It is very important. It is the Point Reyes National Seashore Farmland Protection Act, H.R. 1995. Just 45 miles north of San Francisco lies the Point Reyes National Seashore, a peninsula containing 71,000 acres of the most beautiful vistas and pristine wilderness in America. Across Tomales Bay from the seashore lie 38,000 acres of privately held land that is used for agriculture, primarily for dairy ranching. In Marin and Sonoma Counties, we like it that way, since we know that farmland makes our community economically strong and economically diverse. The national seashore likes it that way because the careful stewardship of these lands by ranchers has helped to safeguard the seashore and the bay, keeping it one of the most pristine areas in our Nation. The ranchers like it that way because ranching is their livelihood, and they like what they do. And the community likes it that way, because local residents know that agriculture plays an important role in the mix that gives the north bay a strong economy and makes it a wonderful place to live. No one, Mr. Speaker, absolutely no one in the community wants to see the land turned into housing developments or casinos, except possibly developers who are putting pressure on the area to change. So that is what I have set out to do in the Point Reyes National Seashore Farmlands Protection Act, keep everything the way it is now. That means keeping those 38,000 acres in private ownership and productive agriculture, safeguarding the livelihood of the farmers who live there along with protecting the park and the bay that are nearby. The way we would do this is through a public-private partnership, a partnership to purchase conservation easements, instead of outright purchase of the land, an innovative and cost-effective, cost-saving method that can serve as a model for farmland protection around this Nation. My bill establishes a boundary, a boundary that allows Federal matching funds to be available to willing local farmers who volunteer to sell their conservation easements. Participation in the program is 100 percent voluntary. The easements would be managed by a local nonprofit land trust or open space districts. These are groups that already have experienced managing 11,000 of the 38,000 acres in question, meaning that the Federal role will be limited and administrative costs will be kept low. Now, I knew that the local landowners would have some concerns about a proposal that involved the Federal Government. So I sat down with them, not the Federal Government, but with the local farmers. I sat down one on one at their ranches, around the kitchen tables, and we talked the program through. I listened carefully, and the results of those talks is the bill that I am confident will fully protect the private property rights. In fact, the way this bill is crafted, ranchers who do not choose to participate in the program will go on living their lives exactly as they do now, and those who do choose to participate will also see little change, except that their land, once they have negotiated their easements, will be protected as farmland in perpetuity. This idea, Mr. Speaker, is so powerful that it has already attracted some very influential bipartisan supporters, and it has also attracted some serious interest at the committee level. I am proud to announce that the original cosponsors of my bill are the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell], the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit]. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1995 is a way to preserve farmland and protect neighboring park land at the same time, in a private-public partnership with a very limited Federal role. It is a win/win solution for my district, and it is a win/win solution for the Nation. H.R. 1995 makes a difference. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding individual on the occasion of her 70th birthday, Mrs. Sue Beittel. Mrs. Beittel has devoted tremendous time and energy working for the betterment of her community in Marin County, CA. Over the course of more than 30 years of public service, Mrs. Beittel focused here attention on the issues critical to a successful community. She has felt passionate about working for schools, housing, transportation, the environment, and preserving the democratic process. Mrs. Beittel served two terms on the San Rafael Board of Education and was on the statewide task force on vocational education. In recognition of her work for housing, Mrs. Beittel was the recipient of the 1997 Mel Boyce Award from the Ecumenical Association for Housing in San Rafael. Some of the many organizations she has been active with include: the Audubon Society, the Family Service Agency, the League of Women voters, the Marin Education Fund, the Mental Health Association, the North San Rafael Coalition of Residents, the San Rafael Housing Coalition, and the St. Vincent/Silveira Citizens Advisory Committee. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Sue Beittel. She embodies a truly selfless sense of volunteerism. I wish her, her husband Dan, and their family, the best.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am especially pleased to speak on behalf of this amendment because it represents a cause that I have taken up in the past. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Luther] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad] for bringing it back to the floor yet again. Mr. Chairman, the issue here is simple. We no longer need the Trident D-5 missile to defend our country. This missile was designed specifically to counter the threat of the Soviet Union, a threat which no longer exists. Under this amendment, Mr. Chairman, the United States will retain its current inventory of Trident D-5 missiles and submarines. All this amendment will do is stop further production of this costly missile, saving Americans $342 million next year and saving over 10 years $5.7 billion. Mr. Chairman, we should be reducing our nuclear stockpile, not building it up. Stopping production of the Trident will send a clear message that the United States is truly committed to a nuclear nonproliferation policy. Mr. Chairman, let us not fool ourselves. Production of the Trident missile is the equivalent of flushing $5.7 billion down the toilet over the next 10 years when we should actually be funding programs that we truly need, such as education, job training, health care, and environmental protection. The cold war is history, Mr. Chairman. I urge my colleagues to join me in closing this chapter of the history book by supporting the Luther-Ramstad amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank my friend, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] for her leadership on this issue. She is truly a fighter for equal treatment for women in the military. Mr. Chairman, make no mistake about it, that is what this issue is really about. It is about equal treatment for servicewomen stationed overseas. This amendment is not about Federal support for abortion services. It is about giving women who have volunteered to serve their country the same protections that civilian women have here at home. Last Congress, the majority told servicewomen stationed overseas that they could not even spend their own money on abortion services in military hospitals. They sent a message loud and clear to each American servicewoman that their political agenda was more important than her health and her safety. Mr. Chairman, these women fight for our freedom every day. Let us not take their freedoms away.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes No. 204, 205, and 206 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall No. 204, ``yes'' on rollcall No. 205, and ``yes'' on rollcall No. 206.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year our country faced the disaster of floods and tornadoes that ravaged homes and businesses all across our Nation. In my district in California, the Russian River flooded our communities not once but twice this year. The damage was devastating. It devastated homes, businesses, agricultural lands, and the environment. It played havoc on the tourism industry at the Russian River. However, Mr. Speaker, in the Congress today we have a disaster of our own. This time the disaster has been caused by the flood of partisan game-playing and a tornado of political maneuvering by the majority party. It has been over 2 months since the President requested emergency aid for flood victims. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to hold disaster relief funds hostage. They have loaded down this supplemental appropriations bill with pet political projects and extraneous provisions and stopped this bill dead in the water. Mr. Speaker, the consequences of this delay are enormous. Disaster victims across America cannot reconstruct their businesses, their homes, their lives. They cannot clear their fields for new crops. They cannot get on with the job of rebuilding their lives and their environments. Speaking of victims and their lives, and about what this game is doing to them, the mothers and babies who rely on WIC, the women, infants, and children program, cannot wait any longer. They have to know whether they are going to be thrown off of that program. Without the $76 million in supplemental funds in this bill, more moms and children will be denied critical nutritional assistance, and fewer infants and children will get the nutritional food they need to grow into healthy adults. Mr. Speaker, it is truly outrageous that the majority party is playing political football with the lives of flood and tornado victims and pregnant women and their babies. Mr. Speaker, while the rains have stopped and the Sun is shining in California today, the partisan games of the majority continue to cast a dark cloud over our recovery. Let us get on with it. Let us pass a clean supplemental appropriations bill that does what it was intended to do: provide emergency funds, not further some political agenda. Let us not tell these rained-out families that the Sun will come out next week or next month. Let us pass a clean supplemental and let us do it now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, our world's population is growing at an alarming rate. Resources are being consumed faster than they can be renewed. This exploding population is leaving poverty, malnutrition, widespread transmission of disease, and environmental degradation in its wake. That is why, Mr. Chairman, support for reproductive health services is becoming more important every day. Voluntary family planning services give mothers and families new choices and hope. They increase child survival and promote safe childhood and safe motherhood. Without our support for international family planning, women in developing nations will face more unwanted pregnancies, more poverty, more despair. Mr. Chairman, it continues to be extremely 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, programs that reduce the need for abortion in the first place. 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. To this end, Mr. Chairman, the very least we can do is pass the Campbell-Greenwood-Lowey amendment. We should not be playing political football with international family planning funds. Let us allow international family planning programs to do what they were designed to do, maintain sustainable levels of population, giving people in the developing world better health, greater prosperity and more hope for the future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton called on the Congress to pass campaign finance reform by July 4 this year. But today, exactly 1 month before the deadline, the majority leadership still has not acted. Mr. Speaker, on July 4, 1776, the American colonists declared their independence from England's tyranny. It is time now for Congress to declare independence from the tyranny of big money and special interests. Mr. Speaker, we have 30 days left to prepare for this day. Let us hold hearings, let us write meaningful legislation and pass comprehensive campaign finance reform. Let us truly light a firecracker for democracy on this July 4.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we need a tax bill that's fair. That means, quite simply, that the tax bill we pass must be targeted to those who need it the most--middle-income families. A fair tax bill would give a real tax break to the middle class, not the super rich. It would include the President's proposals to make higher education more affordable. It would provide tax relief for family-owned farms and small businesses, a 100-percent health insurance deduction for the self-employed, and relief for home offices. But there's one thing that a fair tax bill would never include: a tax cut for the super rich that explodes after the first 5 years. That tax cut will saddle us all with more debt and put a tough new squeeze on our hard-working families. Let's play fair. Let's protect our families. Let's vote for the motion to instruct.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution makes a good start at educating more Americans, and that is very good. But at the same time we must take this opportunity to help another very important group of Americans become educated. I am talking about women who are on welfare, women who want to complete their education so they can get off welfare and into jobs that pay a livable wage. The welfare bill as passed tells these women education is not important. It is important for others, but not for them, because education is not counted as work in the new welfare law. I have introduced a bill, Mr. Speaker, to change that. My bill says to women on welfare, ``If you study for your high school degree or your college degree or train for a career, we will count that as work.'' Education must be a top priority for all Americans, particularly for single moms who are on welfare. We must count education for welfare mothers as work so that they can get their lives together and they can earn a livable wage.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member on the Committee Budget for, one, letting me speak this afternoon; and, two, for all the work he has done to make this balance and possible for many of us to vote for. Mr. Chairman, I voted for this budget resolution in committee, and I will vote for it here on the House floor, not because it is perfect, but because it takes important strides to invest in our kids, our families, and balances at the same time our budget in 5 years. But voting for a good budget resolution is just the first step. Next we must take steps to implement the promises contained in this budget. In particular, I will be watching to make sure that we enact the President's education initiatives and that we fully fund WIC. The only way we can move this Nation forward is by giving every single American access to quality education and training. That is why Congress must fund the President's education initiatives and make higher education more accessible and more affordable. Americans who are educated can get jobs that pay a livable wage. When we make education more accessible, we prevent families from going on welfare. We reduce crime, and we reduce violence, and we increase respect, respect for our health, respect for our environment and respect for each other and our differences. Scientific research proves what every mother already knows. Babies who are born healthy and babies who are nurtured in the early years have the best chance of growing into productive adults. That is why Congress must fully fund WIC, so that every eligible pregnant woman has access to prenatal care and proper nutrition for herself during her pregnancy and while she is nursing and for her baby following birth. Mr. Chairman, I will be voting for this budget resolution, but I will be watching closely to make sure that the promises made to our kids and families are within this budget act.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for their leadership on this bill. It is a good bill and it is truly a bipartisan effort, and it reflects also the good working relationship of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman, and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay]. I thank them so much for letting us have something this positive to be talking about today. That is why it is such a good bill. I am particularly pleased that my amendments concerning training for nontraditional occupations and studies on self-sufficiency standards were included in the bill. The requirements of the new welfare law make it more important than ever that women have a full range of job choices. This bill will make it easier for women to train for those high-wage jobs that actually pay a livable wage. H.R. 1385 will also help to ensure that job training programs that receive taxpayers' funds do in fact train workers for jobs that pay a livable wage, a job they can afford to live on. The bill does this by allowing the Secretary of Education to conduct research to develop self-sufficiency standards. A self-sufficiency standard measures local basic living costs, such as housing, transportation and child care. These costs determine whether a worker after training will earn enough in salary and benefits to make herself and her family truly self-sufficient, able to live independently off of public assistance. This is important, because it is a waste of taxpayers' funds to train workers for jobs that do not enable them to support themselves and their families and to keep them independent of assistance. I am also pleased that this bill that we are considering today includes the amendments offered in committee by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Bob Schaffer] and myself to ensure that State legislators have a role in implementing job training funds as part of State-wide planning for their education and welfare programs. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It makes needed reforms to our system of job training programs, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding and courageous individual, Edwin Ohki. The death of Mr. Ohki on October 23, 1996, was a sad day for all of Sonoma County, where he was a longtime resident. Born in Livingston, CA, in 1923, Ed and his family were placed in a Japanese internment camp when World War II began. After being forced to live in the camp for over a year, Ed volunteered for the U.S. Army, even though as a Japanese-American he was offered combat duty only. Ed joined the famed 442d Infantry Battalion, the most decorated unit in U.S. Army history. During combat in Italy, he was injured and then returned to the United States to spend over four painful months in the hospital. Ed was awarded the Purple Heart for his actions. Despite his heroism and being honorably discharged from the Army, Ed was sent back to an internment camp. After the war, Ed returned to California and graduated from the University of California, Davis. He moved to Santa Rosa, in 1951, where he later joined his family's landscape business. Ed also served as secretary of the Sonoma County Landscape Gardeners Association. Ed was very active with the First United Methodist Church of Santa Rosa, and the local Buddhist community. In addition, he served as president of the Sonoma County Japanese-American Citizen League. Ed will forever be remembered as a bridge builder--as someone who reached out to people of all racial and religious backgrounds. Mr. Speaker, Ed Ohki served his country and his community well. He consistently extended himself on behalf of many people for a variety of important causes. Our Nation owes a great deal of gratitude to him for his tireless efforts. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Anne, and their family. He will be missed by all.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today we debated new ways to punish juvenile offenders, but last Congress the Republican majority enacted a welfare reform law that punishes children whose only crime is being poor. It is time for us to address the problems in the new welfare law. So today I, along with my colleague, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton from the District of Columbia, introduced two pieces of legislation that would correct some of the flaws in the new welfare legislation. We did this to give parents and kids on welfare a fighting chance. Mr. Speaker, I am a former welfare mother, so I understand what goes on inside a welfare mother's mind. The main thing is anxiety. Will there be enough food for our children? Are my kids safe at home and at school? Am I doing what is best for them? Will I ever be able to get out of this mess? These questions have always been tough to answer, but the new welfare law has made it even tougher. Parts of this law actually penalize moms who are trying to protect their children and improve their prospects for a better future. So today, Delegate Norton and I introduced two essential bills aimed at correcting serious flaws in the law. Our bills give welfare moms a fighting chance. One bill helps ensure that the children of welfare mothers are safe, as we wish all of our children to be; the other gives moms on welfare the educational opportunities that the rest of us take for granted. The first bill is called the home alone bill. It is called that because it is aimed at preventing kids from being left home alone, unsupervised and unsafe. Right now, under this welfare bill that was passed, moms with kids age 6 and above can be forced to leave their children at home while they work, even if there is no suitable child care available. In fact, if they do not go to work, no matter that they have to leave their children home alone, they lose their welfare benefits. Our bill is very simple. It raises the age from 6 years old to 11 years old. It protects kids and it protects their moms. This is really not asking too much. Would any of us put up with being required to leave a 6-year-old home alone? No, we would not. Mr. Speaker, welfare recipients generally live in the poorest neighborhoods, neighborhoods where child care is not always available. That leaves children to the school of the streets, a tough school, a school known for its lessons in drugs, violence and crime. Home alone, if we are to protect a generation of children, should not be. There should be no place like it for our children. The second bill, one that we introduced today also, allows welfare recipients to meet the work requirements of the new welfare law by acquiring the skills needed for permanent employment. It lets education qualify as work under the new welfare law. Americans have long realized that education is the door to success, but our new welfare law has basically told welfare recipients that the only door open to them is the employees' entrance to McDonald's. And, Mr. Speaker, statistics show that, even though low-paying jobs are easily lost during bad economic times. How did I get off welfare? I had determination and I had an education. But only 32 percent of welfare recipients have a high school diploma. Only 10 percent ever attended a college class. Let us not condemn people who are striving to get off welfare to a lifetime of low wages and drudgery. Let us not condemn their children to the rules of the streets. If we want welfare recipients to work, let us make welfare reform work for them. If we want the poor to aspire to a better life, let us make it attainable for them. That is what our bill does, Mr. Speaker. It makes education qualify as work under the new welfare law. It moves us closer to what welfare reform is supposed to be, permanent self- sufficiency. These two bills are just the start. In coming months to Progressive Caucus will introduce other legislation designed to assist welfare recipients to get off welfare permanently, and they will be intended to help people get off welfare through jobs that pay a livable wage, jobs that they can support their families on. These two bills that we introduced today correct some of the flaws in the welfare law, and we plan to fight hard to see that these laws in these bills will be enacted. I personally plan to keep fighting for welfare moms and their families.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable scholar, spiritual leader and individual, Rev. Howard Rice. Reverend Rice is being honored for his outstanding career in the Presbyterian Church. I wish I could join his family, friends, and colleagues in celebrating his accomplishments and now his retirement. Reverend Rice graduated from Caroll College in Waukesha, WI. After leaving Wisconsin, where he was born and raised, he attended the McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago. While there, he realized a passion for inner-city ministry. Following graduation from McCormick, Howard served as a pastor in Minneapolis. He was then asked to return to Chicago where he successfully merged three small and struggling congregations into one interracial and bilingual church. In 1968, he was called to the San Francisco Theological Seminary to serve as professor of ministry. In this position, he was successful in coordinating student internships and vocational counseling program. During his career, he was also a strong advocate of women in the ministry, demonstrated by the number of women graduates contributing to church and social work across the Nation. Howard Rice's career as a minister is both distinguished and admirable. In 1986 he was the recipient of the McCormick Theological Seminary Distinguished Alumnus Award. He also received honorary doctor of divinity degrees from Carroll College and Whitworth College in Spokane, WA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and pride that I pay tribute to Rev. Howard Rice. Throughout the course of his outstanding career, he has had a positive influence on many lives. I extend my congratulations and best wishes on his retirement. And I wish his wife Nancy, and their family, the best.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Gilbert Gray. The death of Mr. Gray on April 9, 1997, was a sad day for all of us who knew him. He will be greatly missed, both as a dedicated civil rights activist and, as a generous and caring individual. Born to a Texas farming family, he moved to California with his wife, Alice, in 1945. When the shipyard where he was employed was closed, he worked as a janitor at night, and attended barber school and played semi-pro baseball during the day. For the next 27 years, he worked as a military barber at Bay Area bases. When the Grays moved to Santa Rosa, CA in 1952 to raise their nine children, it was a segregated town. Mr. Gray devoted tremendous time and energy to making the community, and the country, a better place for all Americans by fighting for equal rights. After attending his first NAACP convention, where he met Martin Luther King, Jr., he cofounded the Sonoma County NAACP chapter. He coordinated numerous events to protest injustices occurring to African-Americans across the Nation. When a local saloon refused to serve African-Americans, he organized a successful sit-in to protest. Gilbert Gray continually extended himself for the good of the community. He was instrumental in establishing the Community Baptist Church in Santa Rosa. He also was a member of the Marin City Council and very active in the northern California Democratic Party. Along with his wife, Alice, he established the Gilbert and Alice Gray Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides funds for students who excel academically or at a vocational skill. Despite the many awards and honors he received, his proudest moments were spent telling stories about his children earning college degrees. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I acknowledge the loss of Gilbert Gray. He was a tremendous asset to his community. The commitment Mr. Gray exhibited toward civil rights was admired by all who knew him. I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife, Alice, and their family. I, personally, will miss this wonderful man.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today as a member of the Congressional Women's Caucus to talk about women's health. As we in Congress look for ways to improve the health of our children and the long-term well-being of our Nation, women's health is the place to start. Last week President Clinton held a conference on early childhood development. We saw new scientific research from that conference that showed us that a child's future brain development depends greatly on his or her first years of life. We know that nurtured and healthy babies become children who are educated and adults who are productive. But, Mr. Speaker, we must take it one step further. If we are going to have healthy children, we must have healthy mothers. A healthy mom is one who has access to proper nutrition and prenatal care. The WIC program, the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children, has provided critical nutritional assistance to needy pregnant women and, later, their children for the last 23 years. And now it is time for us to renew our commitment to this important program. Mr. Speaker, WIC works. Pregnant women on Medicaid who participate in WIC have improved dietary intake and weight gain. They are more likely to receive prenatal care. Mothers on WIC have children with better learning abilities and higher rates of immunization. And WIC reduces both the number of low birth weight babies and the infant mortality rate. Mr. Speaker, WIC works. It works because it is cost-effective. By providing nutritional assistance to pregnant women and their babies, we can prevent more serious and costly health problems associated with premature and low birth weight babies. Studies have found that for each dollar spent on pregnant women in the WIC program, we save up to $3.50 in Medicaid, SSI, and other program expenditures. But like so many other programs that help women and children, WIC is in danger. Congress underfunded WIC last year, so this year hundreds of thousands of poor women and children risk being thrown out of the program. Just last week, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Appropriations denied the administration's request for $78 million in supplemental appropriations. Instead, the committee appropriated only half of this amount, leaving 180,000 poor women and children at risk of losing nutritional assistance. Mr. Speaker, it is simply outrageous that the budget axe is poised above pregnant women, mothers and infants. Next week the House will vote on the supplemental appropriations bill. We must restore this cruel cut. And as we shape next year's budget, let us not forget the success of the WIC Program. It is time to expand WIC to include all eligible women and children; all of those who are not now covered in the program. Above all, Mr. Speaker, we must renew our commitment to the WIC Program and to the women, infants, and children that it serves. If we want a healthy America, we must have healthy mothers and then we will have healthy, productive children. Now is the time to act. Later may be too late. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for having this event tonight.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 900.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated and caring public servant, the Honorable Judge Rex Sater. Judge Sater is to be commended for 21 years of outstanding service as a judge on the Sonoma County supreme court in Santa Rosa, CA. Judge Sater earned great respect and admiration for his handling of family law cases. His rule that disputing parties must talk matters over before involving the judge is now a common practice used throughout California known as meet and confer. His respect for juries and the justice system was clear. In fact, Judge Sater was one of the first to start the practice of having participants and spectators rise each time the jury came in and out of the courtroom. In addition to his exemplary service as a judge, he was involved in the community as an advocate for native American causes and was a founder of the Sonoma County chapter of the ACLU. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to the Honorable Judge Rex Sater. Sonoma County was very fortunate to have had such a dedicated judge. We thank him for the fair and compassionate manner he always conducted his court. I extend my congratulations and best wishes on his semiretirement to he, his wife, Kate, and their family. He will be missed by all.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. Make no mistake about it, this vote with all the emotional rhetoric and the exaggerated testimony is a frontal attack on Roe versus Wade, plain and simple. The majority leadership wants to do away with Roe, the radical right wants to do away with Roe, and this bill is the first step. So let us be honest about this. This bill, which the President vetoed last year, will outlaw medical technique which is rarely used but is sometimes required in extreme and tragic cases. For example, when the life of the mother is in danger or a fetus is so malformed that it has no chance for survival. When a woman is forced to carry a malformed fetus to term, they are in danger of chronic hemorrhaging, permanent infertility or death. Friends, I have a personal story. My life has been touched by these extreme and tragic cases. In the early 1900's, when my grandmother was in the late stages of her first pregnancy, a terrible complication arose. At a critical moment they knew that my grandmother would die unless a late-term abortion was performed. Because of my grandmother's life and health and because her life and health were saved, my mother was born a few years later. A late-term abortion made my life possible. Let me read my colleagues a brief list of organizations that oppose this bill: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the list goes on and on. Doctors and nurses oppose this bill because they see tragic cases like my grandparents all the time. They know that H.R. 1122 will cost women their lives or reproductive health. The majority party in this House has proved time and again its resolve to make Roe versus Wade ring hollow for most American women. We cannot let this happen. Protect a woman's right to choose, protect women's lives and women's health, leave medical decisions up to the patient and the physician, not the Congress. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, supporters of H.R. 1 are pitching it as comp time, a bill to give workers more time with their families. Well, we all need to spend more time with our families. But H.R. 1 does not ensure workers can do that. H.R. 1 is not cover time. H.R. 1 is chump time. It is chump time for the employee, because the boss, not employee, makes all the decisions. The employer decides whether to offer comp time in the first place, who gets it, and when the employee can take it. Comp time does no good if one cannot plan for it. Under H.R. 1, a mom who works overtime in March cannot count on using earned comp time to take her kids to the doctor in April. Her employer can deny scheduled comp time just by claiming that it would be unduly disruptive to the business. That is not comp time; that is chump time. And American workers, Mr. Chairman, are not chumps. Vote against H.R. 1, the chump time bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I was a working mother of four children. I also have 20 years of experience as a human resources professional. I know the challenges facing working moms and dads today. I know that for things to work at home, parents need real flexibility in the workplace. H.R. 1 does not help working parents because it does not let the employee choose when to use the comp time they have earned. The Miller substitute, however, is real comp time. It is real flexibility. It gives employees three ways to use their comp time: automatically, for family emergencies; at the employee's convenience, with 2 weeks notice; and with less than 2 weeks notice when it does not unduly disrupt business. The Miller substitute stands up for working moms and dads, allowing them the choices they need to perform their most important task: parenting. Let us vote for comp time that really means something. Vote for the Miller substitute.