Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, we all agree that welfare does not work, the welfare system does not work for the taxpayers, and it does not work for the families who are on welfare, and we all agree that the welfare system must be overhauled. It must be overhauled so that it helps recipients get jobs and stay off welfare permanently. But that is the easy part. The challenge and responsibility we face as legislators, however, is finding the answers to, what if's. What if a mother on welfare cannot find a job? What if she is not earning enough to take care of her family? What if her benefits are cut off and she is unable to provide her children with food, with clothes, and with health care? Madam Chairman, this bill does not even attempt to answer these, what if's. In fact, the majority has gone out of its way to prevent States from meeting the basic needs of children, children whose parents are unable to get a job. This bill says to poor children, do not get hungry, do not get sick, and, for Pete's sake, do not get cold, because your time is up, and we do not think you are important enough to provide you with the basics that you need to survive. Madam Chairman, no other Member of this body knows better than I do that this is the wrong way to fix welfare. As a single mother with three small children, working, many years ago, I could not have stayed in the work force if I did not have the safety net of health care, child care, and food that the welfare system provided for my family. So I urge my colleagues, do not take this vote lightly. Your vote today will have consequences, consequences for children long after election day, and it will be too late to answer the, what if's tomorrow.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Child Care Consolidation and Investment Act of 1996. I am pleased that my colleague, Senator Dodd, has introduced the companion to this bill in the Senate. The Child Care Consolidation and Investment Act of 1996 consolidates all the major child care programs, including the Child Care and Development Block Grant, into a seamless system of child care for working parents. It invests in child care by increasing funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. Funds are increased to $2.8 for fiscal year 1997, and each year thereafter. By fiscal year 2001, my bill provides $4.7 billion for child care. My bill creates a seamless web of support for families, all the way from welfare to work. Everyone is talking about welfare reform these days, and they should be. The current welfare system is broken. It's not working for the taxpayers and it's not working for the recipients. As cochair of the Democratic Congressional Task Force on Welfare Reform, I helped produce a proposal that reforms our ineffective welfare system by investing in education, training, and support services, including child care, to get families off welfare permanently. Now, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that purports to move people off of welfare. However, it fails to remove one of the biggest barriers that keep even trained individuals from work: lack of available, safe, affordable child care. The bill that I am introducing today removes that barrier by ensuring that children have a safe place to go while their parents get job training and move into jobs. This bill ensures that single, custodial parents of young children will not be required to undertake education, job training, job search or employment unless appropriate child care is made available. The Child Care Consolidation and Investment Act of 1996 doesn't stop there. It also directs States to reserve funds to carry out child care activities to support low-income working families, and before and after school care. There is no question that working families need more child care. But, it is not enough to fund more facilities. Children must have a safe, clean environment that is both stimulating and nurturing if they are going to grow into adults that this country can rely on. The Child Care Consolidation and Investment Act of 1996 expands access to affordable child care while improving the quality of child care. It does this by providing States with set-aside funds for quality improvements to child care. It also establishes a quality improvement incentive initiative that will make additional funds available to States that show progress in implementing innovative teacher training programs and improved child care quality standards, licensing, and monitoring procedures. Mr. Speaker, child care has traditionally been a bipartisan issue in the House of Representatives, so I hope that my colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join with me to ensure that no children in this country will be left alone, at home, in a car, or on the streets because their parents are doing their best to support their family. Let's move forward with welfare reform, but let's not leave our kids behind.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I predict that historians will write books on this Congress. They will do that by writing about the majority's assault on reproductive choice. Twenty-one votes to compromise a woman's right to choose in just 1 year, that is why passage of this amendment is so important. Women in the Federal Government work very hard every day for our constituents. Indeed, they are our constituents. But they have had their reproductive health care options taken away from them for political posturing. That is wrong, that is unfair, and it undermines the fundamental protections of Roe versus Wade.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to investing in our children's education, the new majority must need a refresher course in basis math because their numbers just do not add up. While school enrollment is expected to grow by 7 percent by 2002, the new majority is proposing a cut in education by 7 percent below 1995 levels. This means that our schools, as they get more crowded, our teachers will be taking on more and our students will be receiving less; less help in fighting drugs and violence, less help in raising learning standards; and less help in basic reading and math. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way to take care of our children. It is time for the new majority to get its math right. It is time for a budget that gives our children the tools they need to succeed in the next century.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3396 outlaws something that does not even exist. It tramples over the Constitution. It flies in the face of States rights, and it plays into the hands of the radical right, those who are trying to divide our country by scapegoating gays and lesbians. But let us move beyond the bill's numerous flaws and look at how it will affect American families. Let us look at what it will mean to my family. Last month my youngest son married a wonderful young woman. As friends and family gathered to celebrate their commitment to each other, the State of California also granted them the legal benefits of marriage. This bill, however, would ensure that another of my sons will never have the same options nor the protections that come with marriage. In fact, even the most basic rights of marriage that my youngest son already takes for granted, such as the ability to visit his spouse in a hospital, could be denied to his brother, denied because of his sexual orientation. Mr. Chairman, let us not reduce ourselves to being pawns for the radical right. Let us not turn the House of Representatives into a political convention for extremists. For once let us reject fear, embrace tolerance and move this Nation forward without leaving anyone behind. I urge my colleagues to defeat this really mean-spirited bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook amendment to the 1997 Labor-HHS Appropriations Act. Ladies and gentlemen, the proposal which we are discussing right now is one of the most cruel and irresponsible measures taken up by this Congress. That is saying a lot, since this Congress should get the Olympic gold medal for cruel and irresponsible measures. The Istook amendment will require teenagers to obtain parental consent for any title 10 services, including treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy testing, or basic gynecological health care. At first glance, that may seem benign. I'm a parent, most of our fellow colleagues are parents. Of course we want to be involved in our adolescent children's lives. Let's just say we're all for family unity, and get that argument over with now. But the Istook amendment isn't benign, it is not about family unity. Indeed, the Istook amendment is a killer. If passed, this proposal would prevent many young adults from receiving reproductive health care--care that could save their lives, care that could prevent abortions, care that could stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. If passed, the Istook amendment would result in an enormous amount of misery for young women and young men. Young people who are just starting out and who may not have a sympathetic adult to turn to. To me, that is unconscionable. But, I'm pleased to let you know that I'm not alone in my sentiment. I'm in good company. Listen to what the American Medical Association has to say about this proposal: The A.M.A. opposes regulations that require parental notification . . . since it would create a breach of confidentiality in the physician-patient relationship. And this is what the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have to say about the Istook amendment: Parental consent or notification provisions would be counter productive to the ongoing efforts of physicians and the Congress to prevent [unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases] among the Nation's young people. These are the experts, folks. These are doctors, and they know what they are talking about. I would also like to say, if one of your goals is to reduce the number of abortions, and if one of your goals is to cut the welfare rolls, you must vote against the Istook amendment. Please remember, you will be asked to vote for a welfare bill in a few weeks which would drastically cut benefits to welfare recipients and their children. Title 10 family planning programs prevent women from dropping out of the work force due to unwanted pregnancies. Title 10 family planning programs prevent welfare dependency. I urge everyone in this Chamber to defeat the amendment. Prevent unwanted pregnancies which cause welfare dependency. Do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on the Istook amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in a few hours, we will be asked to vote on a bill which increases funding for the National Institutes of Health by 6.9 percent. That funding increase is certainly a step in the right direction. But at the same time that this Congress is increasing funding of medical research, we are trying the hands of medical researchers. Early stage human embryo research, Mr. Chairman, is one of the most promising methods of medical research currently at our disposal. It is ridiculous that Members of Congress, most of whom are not scientists, I might add, want to tie the hands of researchers at the National Institutes of Health. Who knows how best to do this job? They do. This is like telling the people at NASA, Mr. Chairman, to build the space station but forget about using computer technology in doing so. The Lowey amendment simply will reverse the ban on human embryo research.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York, and in great support of women and girls in our education system. I support this amendment because often the barriers to girls' participation in the classroom or on the playing field are unintentional. Often these barriers are subtle and go unnoticed. But the fact remains that girls in our country, and the consequences are profound. Mr. Chairman, as we move toward the 21st century, there is no question that girls and boys need top-notch math and science skills. Women earn more than half of all bachelor's degrees, yet, their degrees are clustered in traditional fields for women, which often means lower paying jobs. Unless we combat this problem, women will have fewer economic opportunities, women will continue to a lower quality of life than men, and these inequalities will persist into the next century. We must make sure this does not happen. As a member of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, I am working hard to improve education for girls and boys, for women and men. Programs funded through the Women's Educational Equity Act is a way to achieve this goal. When you vote on this amendment, I urge you to think of your sister; your wife; your granddaughter. Vote for the Lowey amendment, and vote for equality in education.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to investing in our children's education, the new majority needs to take a refresher course in basic arithmetic because their numbers just don't add up. Just take a look at this bill: At the same time school enrollment is expected to increase by 7 percent by 2002, the new majority is proposing to cut funds for education by 7 percent. This means our schools will have larger classes, fewer teachers, and fewer learning resources, like textbooks and computers. While enrollment increases. I would recommend that my friends on the other side of the aisle study the history of the Goals 2000 Program, which they are proposing to eliminate. They would learn that it was a Republican President, President Bush, who first championed the need for education reform. It was the Bush administration which crafted the Goals 2000 Program to meet that need and enlisted the help of Democratic Governors, such as then-Governor Clinton, to get goals 2000 passed by Congress. Eliminating funds for Goals 2000 means ending support to almost every State in this country, as they work to establish high national learning standards and to ensure that all their students can meet those standards. My State of California will lose approximately $42 million. I wonder how many of the Members who support this bill have taken a field trip recently to a local school, and talked to the students and their families? Are they telling these kids and their parents that they want to cut the funds that help kids learn basic reading and math, cut the funds for special education and cut funds for safe and drug-free schools? In addition, this bill completely ignores the President's technology initiative, which joins public and private resources to get computers in all our classrooms and to give teachers the training they need so that every American student will know how to use modern technology in school and on the job. And what about the teachers? Do they know that this bill eliminates the valued Eisenhower Professional Development Program? We need, and expect, so much from our teachers these days. They need to be a combination of Mother Theresa, Mr. Chips, and Bill Gates--yet, the new majority wants to end funding for professional development? Maybe the supporters of this bill should audit a college course, and get to know some of the more than 200,000 college students who will be affected by the bill's provision to eliminate new funding for the Perkins Loan Program. They would learn, firsthand, what those of us who support this amendment to increase funding for education already know-- the cost of college is increasing too rapidly for many students to afford, and they need our help to continue their education and get the skills they'll need for the high-tech, high-wage jobs of tomorrow. Americans want a good education for their kids, and they expect responsible national leadership to help them get it. I hope my colleagues will ``get it'' too, and support the Obey amendment and support American students and schools.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, welcome to the campaign headquarters for the radical right. You see, knowing that the American people overwhelmingly rejected their deep cuts in Medicare and education, their antifamily agenda and their assault on our environment, the radical right went mucking around in search of an election-year ploy to divide our country. Not only does the Defense of Marriage Act trample over the Constitution, it flies in the face of everything the new majority supposedly supports when it comes to States rights and to determining marriage law. Let us not be pawns. Let us not be pawns of the radical right. Let us not turn the floor of the House of Representatives into a political convention for extremists. Let us not take part in this assault on lesbian and gay Americans and their families. Instead, let us defeat the rule on this mean-spirited bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last weekend I met with parents, children, and community leaders from my district, those who attended the Stand for Children march in Washington this month. Their overwhelming message was that it is time to reorder our Nation's priorities and it is time to put our children and families first. That is the same message, Mr. Speaker, that Americans across the country are sending, and I am proud that the Democrats have responded with a realistic and commonsense agenda that puts families first, ahead of special interests. That is right, our agenda is not about crown jewels, tax giveaways, or corporate and military pork. Rather, it is about practical changes we can make to improve the lives of families, changes like fully implementing the safe and drug-free schools program, providing $10,000 tax deductions for education and job training, and making college a reality for more Americans. Mr. Speaker, we blocked the Gingrich-Dole cuts to education, Medicare, and the environment. It became clear what Democrats are against.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong support of the amendment offered by Representatives Shays and Lowey. Mr. Chairman, I represent Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, an area which has one of the highest rates of HIV for a rural/suburban area in the Nation. To respond to this number, Mr. Chairman, both Marin and Sonoma Counties have mounted an aggressive and compassionate response to the AIDS epidemic--a response that is truly a model for the Nation. By building a network among friends; schools; community organizations; and health care providers, the people and local government of Sonoma and Marin are doing their best to provide quality care to people with HIV and AIDS and for their families. But the community can't do it alone. They need Federal resources to help them meet the growing demands due to this terrible disease, they especially, need help for one of the most basic of necessities-- shelter. At any given time, because of discrimination; lost wages or medical expenses, up to 60 percent of persons with HIV and AIDS are either homeless or in imminent danger of losing their homes. That's where the Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS program, or HOPWA, steps in. By providing housing, HOPWA improves the quality of life for people with AIDS and reduces unnecessary hospitalizations and expensive emergency health care services. In my district, 94 households including 9 with children, have benefited from this program, but there are many more who need help. That's why it is crucial that this body approve this modest increase of $15 million for HOPWA. While not nearly enough to meet the growing demand for housing, this amendment will at least provide housing and services to an additional 4,000 individuals and their families. Last year, when my district received a HOPWA grant, the local director of the HOPWA program said that he would be really happy if someone came up with a cure for AIDS and they got rid of his job tomorrow. How we all share those same feelings. How we all wish we could find a vaccine or cure for this terrible disease. Unfortunately, we are not there yet--the number of AIDS cases has increased by almost one-third since 1995, and the cities and States qualifying for HOPWA funds have increased by 23 percent. Clearly, the need for housing assistance for people with AIDS is growing. The need is crucial. Just ask a man (with HIV) in my district; a man who is counting on HOPWA funds so he can concentrate on his health instead of worrying about his rent; ask the family of five in Marin County who used HOPWA funds to move from their tiny one bedroom apartment to a larger one; sadly you can't ask my best friend's son who died from AIDS last year at the age of 33. But, his family and friends will tell you that he lived a longer and fuller life because of the high quality of care and housing he had. In memory of him and for the thousands of Americans who are living with this disease let's show this Nation that we at least have enough compassion to provide one of the most vulnerable groups in our Nation-- people with HIV and AIDS--with the most basic of necessities--a home! I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for the Shays-Lowey amendment, and to support this modest increase in funding for housing for persons with HIV and AIDS.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Capt. Eric Staut, commanding officer of the Coast Guard Training Center in Petaluma, CA, who retires this month after 30 years of impeccable service to our country, our Coast Guard, and the Petaluma community. Captain Staut's extensive accomplishments and experience in the Coast Guard include serving as district chief of operations, law enforcement staff chief, commanding officer of two air stations, and chief of enlisted personnel responsible for the management of the Coast Guard's 30,000 member enlisted force. I had the pleasure of working with Captain Staut when he was the commanding officer of the Coast Guard Training Center, Petaluma. Through his creative, proactive, and skillful leadership, the training center has become one of the most efficient facilities in the Coast Guard. Under Captain Staut's command, the Petaluma Training Center went from being on the chopping block to receiving the Unit Commendation Award, which is the highest unit award in the Coast Guard. According to the Coast Guard's Commandant who awarded this prestigious commendation, the staff demonstrated dynamic leadership and innovation in the quality of training and support services. It was Captain Staut's natural leadership that helped shape and enrich the minds and hearts of the students and staff who take pride in the work they do and in the place they serve. His leadership, hard work, and dedication have tremendously affected countless lives. On June 25, 1996, Captain Staut will be relieving his command of the Petaluma Training Center, but he will forever remain a vital link to the history of the Petaluma area, and the west coast, for the honors and successes he brought to the center and for helping keep the only Coast Guard Training Center on the west coast. I urge my colleagues to please join me in saluting Captain Staut, and wishing him and his wife, Carolyn, much success with their future plans.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington, Representative Dicks, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Stark. My friends, we must correct the terrible provision included in this bill, a poison pill that will destroy the magnificent headwaters forest of northern California. By stripping the endangered species critical habitat designation from 37,000 acres of forest, the Riggs provision will allow logging to begin at will, logging in a pristine old growth forest which is home to many precious species, including a rare sea bird and the dwindling coho salmon. The Riggs provision would lead to the extinction of the marbled murrelet, which, in California, has seen a population decline from over 60,000 birds to fewer than 5,000 today. These birds nest in the headwaters forest and rely on critical habitat designation for their survival. The Riggs provision also threatens the endangered coho salmon. Mr. Chairman, the headwaters is home to some of the last coho salmon runs in California. If we do not pass the Dicks amendment, the murrelet and the coho could be gone forever. Preserving these species is crucial not only to our ecosystem but to the commercial fishing industry in my district and in the district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] as well. Under the Riggs provision, fishermen will see their salmon catch continue to decline and, eventually, die. We must ask why. Why are we asked to swallow this poison pill, a poison pill which may send rare species into extinction? The unbelievable answer, Mr. Chairman, is for a special interest giveaway to Pacific Lumber. This is simply outrageous and it is not acceptable. Mr. Chairman, the people of northern California and the Pacific Northwest know that we can successfully balance our environmental protection and economic growth. They are ready to work together on a common solution to our region's problems. The Riggs provision, however, leaves them out of the process, and in so doing, would set a disturbing precedent for our future and for our environment. We do not want the headwaters forest to be destroyed. We do not want the Endangered Species Act and the Pacific Northwest forest plan to be undermined, and we are amazed that this is proposed in the first place, proposed for the sake of corporate special interests. Mr. Chairman, this is not what the doctor ordered. We must refuse to swallow this poison pill and vote for the Dicks-Stark amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, just when we thought star wars was relegated to the video rental store, it comes back as national policy. Mr. Chairman, It is unbelievable that in the same week that the Gingrich Congress passed a budget that hurts seniors, hurts children, and hurts the environment, we are considering spending $245 billion on the military. This bill that we are talking about now will accelerate the space-based star wars program and wind up costing $30 billion to $40 billion by the time the project is completed. That is not science fiction, folks; it is double-feature horror show: yesterday's conference report and today's defense bill. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio amendment because the Nation cannot waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a space-based star wars system. When our seniors are losing the guarantee of high-quality health care, this Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a space-based star wars system when our young people cannot afford to go to college. This Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a space-based star wars system when poor children are losing the guarantee of basic health care. Mr. Chairman, let us ground ourselves in reality for a moment. The United States spends as much on the military as all of our allies combined. We spend 100 times more money on the military than Iraq. Iraq, which is the biggest spender among the rogue nations. This Nation cannot afford to waste $30 billion to $40 billion on a space-based star wars system when the threat of a missile attack has been reduced by the end of the cold war. Inventing a threat in order to justify this star wars gravy train for defense contractors is simply irresponsible.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Schroeder-Minge-DeFazio amendment. This is a sound amendment that should appeal to Members on both sides of the aisle. This amendment cuts the bloated military budget by just under $7 billion and brings it in line with the conservative blue dog budget and closer to the President's budget and the Pentagon's own request. Cutting $6,572,000,000 is not a radical proposal, not at all. It is one small step for fiscal sanity at a time when we really should be taking a giant leap. Right now we are considering a defense bill which is loaded up with expensive cold war hardware like seven Trident D-5 missiles which will cost $267 billion in 1997, and continuation of the Seawolf submarine program at the outrageous price of $699 million in 1997. For the price of continuing the Seawolf submarine program, Mr. Chairman, we could send over 200,000 children to Head Start for a full year. Think about it. We waste money on weapons we do not need which in turn prevents us from spending money on our children, our families, our seniors, and our environment. Those are investments we do need. Just last night the majority passed a budget agreement which cuts college loans for students, raises taxes on poor working families and eliminates the guarantee of health care for low-income seniors. Just last night, the Gingrich majority told children: If you are poor, do not get sick, do not get hungry, do not get cold, because we really do not think you are important. In fact, we will no longer guarantee health care for you if you are poor. But, on the other hand, if you are a defense contractor, you are really important. This budget provides $246 billion for defense programs, $11.1 billion more than the President's request and $3.7 billion more than last year's budget. Let us get our priorities straight. Let us add back some sanity to the defense budget by subtracting $6.5 billion in wasteful spending. And for heaven's sakes, let us invest in our children and their education, our seniors and their health care, and our families and their security while we invest wisely in our military. Vote for the Schroeder-Minge-DeFazio amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, although I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Massachusetts, unfortunately, I must rise in strong opposition to this amendment. I must do so because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, CA, who produce some of the world's finest wine. If this amendment passes, however, their world- famous wine would no longer be able to compete in the world market. This amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter and compete in the global marketplace. Unlike Europe and South America, U.S. wine producers receive no production subsidies whatsoever. Furthermore, our competitors outspend the United States in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1! Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a lopsided marketplace without some assistance. And let there be no mistake, this amendment targets small, family-owned businesses--89 out of 101 wineries that participate in the Market Access Program are small wineries. The Kennedy amendment takes this critical assistance away from small wine producers and, in doing so, It takes away jobs; it takes away trade; and, it takes away fairness. Mr. Chairman, we should be working today to help export California wine, Not California's jobs. Vote ``no'' on the Kennedy amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, give the new majority credit for finding creative things to do with cold leftovers. Mr. Speaker, the budget they are serving the American people today is nothing but a warmed-over version of the same misplaced priorities that were rejected and sent back to the kitchen last year. That is right; take away the sugar coating and you have caps on the direct student loan program, caps that will increase costs and add red tape, and over 7 million college students in the year 2002 will be left behind. Minus the garnish, we end up with the same welfare plan, still weak on work, still tough on children. When we remove the trimmings on this turkey of a budget, we have another Medicare plan that will make seniors pay more for less while their hospitals close. And make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, those Medicare cuts are being made in order to put the cherry on top of the Contract With America, or the crown jewel, as Speaker Gingrich calls it: huge tax breaks for special interests. Mr. Speaker, this is not a blueprint for balancing the budget, it is a recipe for disaster. I say to the new majority, they can keep their cold leftovers, their mashed Medicare, chopped children's programs, and rotten welfare reform. The American people want a new menu.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Remember when your mother said ``You can tell a lot about someone by the company he or she keeps?'' Well, this rule is keeping company with a pretty shady budget resolution. Mr. Speaker, the new majority just can't keep its hands off Medicare. For the second year in a row, they are trying to pay for special interest tax breaks by forcing drastic cuts in Medicare. After shutting the Government down twice and, after the near collapse of their legislative agenda you would think they would learn. Well, my friends, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle remain clueless. They remain clueless that seniors are not willing to pay more to receive less. They remain clueless that their plan will force hospitals to close all over our country. So get a clue, ladies and gentlemen. Remember what our mother would say: Vote down this rule and reject it's pal, ``the budget resolution'' a resolution that harms our seniors to help special interests. Vote against this rule!

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, give the new majority credit for finding creative things to do with cold leftovers. You see, the budget they're serving today is nothing but a warmed- over version of the same misplaced priorities that the American people rejected last year. Take away the sugarcoating, and you've got crucial education programs targeted for deep cuts or elimination. Minus the garnish, you've got a Medicare plan that will make seniors pay more for less, while their hospitals close. And, when you remove the trimmings on their budget, you end up with huge tax breaks for the wealthy special interests we simply can't afford. Mr. Speaker, this is not a blueprint for balancing the budget--it's a recipe for disaster. So, I say to the new majority: Keep your cold leftovers. It's time to give the American people what they want--a balanced budget that moves our Nation forward without leaving behind those who depend on us most--our children, seniors, families, and our environment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Police Chief Salvatore Rosano of Santa Rosa, CA, who retires this month after 22 years of impeccable public service, and as a hero to our community. I would like to share with my colleagues Chief Rosano's enumerable accomplishments over his 38 years of public service which have made him one of California's most highly praised guardians of safety. Chief Rosano started his career in public safety at the age of 19. He was appointed police chief to the city of South San Francisco in 1970-- the youngest police chief in the State of California, and served as president of the San Mateo County Law Enforcement Chiefs' Association. In 1974 he was selected as chief for the city of Santa Rosa where he proudly served 22 years. Throughout his career, Chief Rosano's natural leadership skills made him a major player in California law enforcement, and he served on many State law enforcement boards, commissions, and public safety organizations. Chief Rosano's statewide and countywide service is renowned and endless. Chief among his local accomplishments are his implementation of a neighborhood oriented policing program to better address our community policing needs. His leadership also helped set in motion a gang enforcement program, developed a unique environmental crimes unit, and organized one of the few bomb and explosive devise units in northern California. With any good leader comes a road of hard knocks from those opposed to change. It's no surprise that Chief Rosano is no stranger to criticism for his outspoken support of gun controls and for initiating the city of Santa Rosa's gun exchange program. With almost 700 weapons exchanged, this event was the most successful gun exchange program in California. Recently, the Sonoma County Peace and Justice Center announced their plans to host the city's second gun exchange program in honor of the retiring chief. This program is a model for public-private partnerships between local businesses, the community, and law enforcement. Chief Rosano's longstanding career of achievement earned him the California Peace Officers Association's Law Enforcement Professional of the Year, the most prestigious award in the law enforcement profession. Chief Rosano is also the longest-serving chief in the State of California, and the city of Santa Rosa is extremely grateful for the top service and protection he has provided the community. I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating Chief Rosano for his exemplary service over the past 38 years. As a nation, we are in debt to the efforts and dedication of individuals, who, like Chief Rosano, place the safety and well-being of others above their own safety. I salute Chief Rosano, and wish he and his family much success with their future plans.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. That is the case. That is not fair to the children of Wisconsin. Let us vote against this bill. Let us take time to shed light on the Wisconsin plan. Let us be sure that the children of Wisconsin have a chance to grow into healthy, responsible adults. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the Obey substitute.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No; we have not.

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