Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. First of all, I would like to be clear that we did not say that you did not care. We talked about what was being proposed. Second, I would like to say, if you want that debate, why did we have 1 day of hearings in the Committee on Ways and Means?

Ms. WOOLSEY. When we can have a bipartisan debate on what needs to happen in order to fix what is wrong.

Ms. WOOLSEY. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], point of personal privilege, the gentleman referred to me. May I respond?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, point of personal privilege.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. We have a plan. Our plan is 30 years old, Mr. Weldon. It is called Medicare.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to say I am going to repeat what----

Ms. WOOLSEY. No, I do not support the President's plan.

Ms. WOOLSEY. It is not acceptable to bring the issue of something so important to every senior and every family in this country to the House floor for debate. We have not had hearings. I was a member of a city council. On that city council we talked about sidewalk repairs to a much greater extent.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Our plan is Medicare.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. My final remark would have to do with health care reform in general. I believe until we are willing to first take the tax cuts off the table, second, do something about defense expenditures beyond what was asked by the Department of Defense, and, third, we must look at the entirety of health care reform, not just balance the budget on the backs of seniors and the most vulnerable and not just take one piece of health care. We must look at the entire health care program.

Ms. WOOLSEY. What I would say would be pretty repetitive. But just in [[Page H 9880]] general, we did hear that training colleges and training hospitals, health departments, small community hospitals and county hospitals and clinics were subject to closing their doors, if we go with what we are anticipating with the Republican Medicare/Medicaid cuts.

Ms. WOOLSEY. The gentleman said if the State has money, maybe they will have high standards. What about if the consumer or the patient does not have money? I bet you people who have will be in nursing homes that have high standards. Those who are the most vulnerable, who are on Medicaid, who have the least, are probably going to be the ones faced with the nursing homes without standards. And I think that is what we are talking about today. We are talking about not having a system, that just the few that have plenty get to have, reap the rights. We are talking about having a country where everybody knows that they can have, can live in dignity when they are old and when they are at the end of their lives, that everybody has options for an education. That middle income families do not feel, are not going to feel pulled in the middle, apart, because they do not know whether they should help their parent in a nursing home or their child in a school and they are feeling badly because they are not putting any money away. We cannot have a country that only marches to the beat of the top 6 percent of the wealthiest in this country, because that is not what this United States is built on.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, when I was a youngster, I was in the Girl Scouts. And every Christmas we would sing to nursing homes and go in and out of these nursing homes. This was in the early 1950's. I mean, I am old. I would leave those nursing homes sobbing because here were these old people sitting on newpapers. I had never seen such dismal situations. Well, it is improved now. There is a reason there are national Federal standards for nursing homes. You go in a nursing home and you can pretty much, at least where I live, feel that somebody is being taken care of with quality and dignity. Well, I just blink and we could go right back to seniors on newspapers.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we are missing another point here. That is that this does not just affect seniors. The sandwich generation comes to me in my meetings, 40-, 50-, 60-, and 70-year-olds say to me, I have a parent in a nursing home. The 70-year-olds could be in a nursing home themselves. But they have got parents they are worried about in nursing homes. They know they will have to start taking on more and more of the responsibility for that parent. Now, many, many of the sandwich generation also have children that need to go to college, and college education is going up. Loans are going to be far more expensive. These same people are going to want to help their children go to college. They are going to make a choice: Do I send my kid to school, help my child go to college; do I help my parent in a nursing home? And for heaven sakes, where will they ever have any discretionary money to put away so that their children do not have to help them when they are seniors? I mean, we are just squeezing the middle income sandwich generation down to having nothing. They are frustrated and, boy, I do not blame them.

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentlewoman would yield, in my hearings and forums [[Page H 9878]] I have been having in my district, I will have 100 or 200 people possibly in a room, and of course somebody in the room is going to disagree with me, and when that person stands up, the rest of the wonderful senior people as well as this person that stands up and gives his opinion sometimes boo or speak out, and I stop that person, those people immediately and say, no, no, this gentleman has every bit a right to give me his opinion as you do. This is the American process, which is about hearing each other and what we care about. That has been the disappointment in this debate here in the House of Representatives. We have not allowed those who do not agree with what the new majority is recommending to have their say. One of the other things they tell me in my meetings is besides taking the tax breaks off the table, why are we increasing the defense budget beyond what the Department of Defense wanted in the first place. They would like those increases off the table, also. They are very clear about that. So those are the kinds of inputs I am getting, and I believe that those around the country, besides ourselves, are getting the same kind of input from their constituents.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, first I want to say I do not believe they are hearing what they are saying they are hearing from their constituents, because their constituents cannot be that different than ours. I know a Republican Representative just north of me. Our newspapers are telling us that his constituents are saying to him what they are saying to me, and that is keep your hands off our Medicare and our Medicaid. Because Medicaid is going to get hit next if we even tweak with Medicare. We will pass it down to the poorest of the poor; our elderly, frail seniors, and also the other third of the people who are on Medicare, which are the disabled and handicapped, and then children who are on welfare, which make up 70 percent of welfare recipients who need Medicaid. So he is hearing what I am hearing. I know that. They are hearing what we are hearing. They are just trying to tell them that they think something else. It will not work. I do not know about other Members, but I have a lot of faith in the American people, and when they know what is happening to them, they will not put up with this. Now, when we talk about process and we talk about the difference between local government and State government and county government, we have the Brown Act in California. I cannot imagine taking the AMA into a back room and negotiating what we are going to do with their fees and leaving all of the people, the consumers, the seniors, out of that debate process. No way. It is such an insult to the people of this country. That is exactly why American voters are getting disenchanted. They think they do not have a say. The Republicans, in doing what they did with the AMA, gave the American voters a lot to believe in when they told them you, the American voters, do not mean anything to us. We are taking a special interest group into a back room and we are going to make great decisions that affect you.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. First of all, I want to thank you, my fellow Bay Area colleague, for having the forums that we had while we were in the district last week and for putting this special order together tonight, because when I was listening to what they were saying on the other side of the aisle earlier, it totally floored me. We must, in the Bay Area, live in a totally different part of this world or something than they represent, because the entire Bay Area, from Sam Farr's district down to Santa Cruz and north and through San Francisco and into Sonoma County and across the Bay to Oakland, Alameda, and Oakland, we do not hear these things. I do not know why I did not bring them. I have stacks and stacks of petitions from the people in my district, one of the most affluent districts, by the way, in the United States of America, of seniors saying they do not like these cuts, if not for themselves, for other people they know. They are willing to pay their fair share, but they want fraud and abuse taken care of; they want the tax cuts off the table. Well, I always do tell people that I am fortunate to represent Marin and Sonoma Counties, because being the two counties directly north of the gentlewoman's district, across the Golden Gate Bridge, I know that all of my fellow members of the Bay Area delegation, including myself and those that I work with in the sixth District, I know that we live in an oasis of sanity. That makes it easier for us, because we work with people who time and time again, our constituents, the true leaders of this country when it comes to caring, when it comes to understanding, and when it comes to working for the rights of other people in this Nation, including their own rights. But they care about other people. So last week when Nancy and Tom Lantos and I had the hearing in San Francisco and we met with many of the people who wanted to tell us what they thought about these radical cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, which Speaker Gingrich and the new majority are pushing through our Congress, I was comfortable being with all of you, because I knew that we represented districts much the same. But I felt appalled that we had to have these meetings in our districts, which we have been having all over the place anyway. I have had meetings with hospital administrators, with doctors, and with senior citizens throughout my entire district. Nobody is coming to me saying they like what is happening. But we had to have more meetings than the one in San Francisco, because we are making up for 1 day of hearings here in the House of Representatives in the committee. We tried to make up for that with a week of hearings out on the front lawn, where we could have people come and actually express themselves. But it was important that we take these hearings also to the Bay Area within our own districts. So when we had our hearings last week, we were able to hear what people really though about the impact of Medicare. The wonderful people spoke out, people like Dr. Tom Peters, who is the head of the Marin County Department of Public Health in my district, and to Anthony Wagner, the executive director of Laguna-Hondo hospital in San Francisco, and Paul Dimoto, who is with the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. They came to us, and they gave us one message to bring back here to Washington. That one message is this: The Gingrich Medicare and Medicaid cuts will devastate the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. Today, I think we all know that the Committee on Ways and Means passed their assault on Medicare and Medicaid. Today, the new majority demonstrated their willingness to ram their plan through Congress with only 1 day of public hearings. What an outrage. As a former Member of the Petaluma City Council, I can tell you that we talked longer and harder about sidewalk repairs then Speaker Gingrich and his allies have for an issue which affects the health of millions of Americans. So we are here tonight, the three of us, speaking out to the people that have been shut out, shut out of the democratic process by the new majority. We are here tonight to tell you that people in the Bay Area, seniors, patients in nursing homes and middle-income families, are scared to death, scared by the new majority's assault on Medicare and Medicaid. They know that this plan will inflict real pain on real people. They know and we know that the Gingrich Medicare and Medicaid plan is not fair. The people of Sonoma and Marin Counties know that the Gingrich Medicare and Medicaid plan is not fair as well as our knowing it. Maybe even the majority knows that this plan is not fair. Maybe they do not really care. But the American people care, and so do the people who testified before Nancy Pelosi, Tom Lantos, and myself last week in San Francisco. So do the doctors, the hospital administrators, the senior citizens, who have come to forums and hearings that I have had in Marin and Sonoma Counties. I urge my colleagues, everyone in this House of Representatives, to heed the words of the people that we have been talking to, to reject these attacks on seniors, children, and middle-class families, and to show that we really care, really care about the people in this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1289.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose H.R. 927, the Helms-Burton Cuba Embargo Act. The Helms-Burton bill will tighten an economic noose around the island of Cuba in an attempt to remove Fidel Castro from power. Unfortunately, instead of prompting real democratic reform, this act will simply lead to more misery for innocent Cuban people. Right now, the Cuban people are struggling under the weight of a United States-imposed embargo which has been in existence for over 30 years. This embargo has contributed to the widespread human misery in Cuba. Many of the problems facing Cuba today, including malnutrition and lack of modern medical equipment have been made worse by our embargo. This embargo has also helped to stunt the Cuban economy while alienating the United States from other allies in this hemisphere. Our friends in Latin America want to promote trade with Cuba and bring that nation into the Organization of American States. H.R. 927 flies in the face of all efforts toward inter-American cooperation. In light of these real concerns, Secretary of State Warren Christopher has warned against passage of this bill. He knows that the Helms-Burton Cuba Embargo Act will have dangerous repercussions for United States foreign policy in Latin America and worldwide. Secretary Christopher has appropriately indicated that he will recommend that President Clinton veto this ill-conceived legislation. Today I stand with the Cuban people, with Secretary Warren Christopher, and with members of the Marin Interfaith Task Force on Latin America in opposing this bill. I urge all of my colleagues, don't be persuaded by cold war rhetoric. Don't punish innocent Cuban people. Vote against H.R. 927.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have said before that the new majority is going too far, too fast, and now I add the words, ``too low.'' Yes, the way they are trying to ram their Medicare plan through the Congress represents a new low in backroom attacks on our seniors. Let us make it clear; The new majority is allowing only 1 day of hearings on their Medicare plan. I repeat 1 day of hearings. As a former city council member, I can tell you that we had more debate on sidewalk improvements than Speaker Gingrich will allow on Medicare which affects millions of seniors and their families. But, you know, if I was in the new majority, I'd be hiding their Medicare plan, too, because it increases premiums on seniors and takes away their choice of doctor for one reason, and for one reason only: to pay for one of the most outrageous and unfair tax giveaways in American history. Mr. Speaker, let us see the full details of your Medicare plan. Let us have public hearings. Let us get it out in the open, because as far as I am concerned, a plan that cannot withstand the bright light of day simply is not good enough for the seniors and families of this country.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink amendment to H.R. 1617. Mr. Chairman, this Congress will soon complete consideration of a so- called welfare reform measure that does nothing--absolutely nothing--to get welfare recipients into work and off welfare permanently. This tragically will leave the most needy among us--women and children-- without the Federal safety net which helped me, and my children, survive 27 years ago. Now, on top of that, the new majority is attempting to scrap the existing job training programs which get women off of welfare and into jobs that pay a family wage. The Mink amendment is absolutely essential if we want to successfully reform welfare. The amendment will preserve job training programs which help displaced homemakers and single moms become self-sufficient. Sex equity programs help needy women escape the trap of pink-collar; low paying; dead-end jobs. These are smart programs. They end up saving the Government money in the long run by giving women a chance to support themselves and their children. Let us not kid ourselves. If we do not stand up for sex equity job training programs today, they will be lost forever. Pass the Mink amendment, and give women and children a real chance to succeed.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, it seems like we are on a roll here between the Republicans and the Democrats, so I thought I should take this opportunity for a very simple amendment. Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the amount of money that this bill authorizes for education, for job training, and literacy. It increases it to a level where the programs can actually be successful. As my colleagues know, it is hard to believe that it was just last year when I convinced this body to approve a landmark resolution to increase our investment in education by 1 percent a year until the education budget accounts for 10 percent of our national budget, and that should be by the year 2002. Well, guess what, folks? Times have changed. This bill does contain some important bipartisan initiatives that deserve to pass. But when it comes to funding, this bill sends us in the wrong direction. Unfortunately, the careers act actually cuts funds for job training programs for youths, for adults, and for adult literacy and education. Careers consolidates 30 existing education and job training programs for youth into one block grant, and then cuts the funds for these programs by 20 percent. It combines all of the existing Federal employment and job training programs for adults, and reduces these funds by 20 percent. The adult education and literacy funds are cut by 10 percent. Mr. Chairman, I find it truly ironic that on the same day our colleagues in the other body are voting on a bill to reform welfare, we are debating a bill that cuts funds for programs to get people off of welfare. It also makes it harder to prevent people from going on welfare in the first place, because it cuts programs that it train youth and workers for jobs that pay a liveable wage. I have heard plenty of talk about ``changing the welfare system as we know it.'' Well, my amendment gives this house the opportunity to ``put its money where its mouth is.'' My amendment increases funds for education and training support for in-school and out-of-school youth by less than a billion dollars. It also adds close to $1 billion to the adult employment and training grant. The adult literacy and education grant is increased by less than $300 million. Mr. Chairman, these modest increases will ensure that more people get the skills they need to get off welfare--and, for heavens sake, it will help prevent people from having to go on welfare in the first place. Mr. Chairman, there has always been a bipartisan commitment to education in this House. Let us continue that commitment to education and training by voting for my amendment to raise the authorization levels in the CAREERS Act. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.