Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this HHS bill is worse than I ever thought possible. This bill will go down in history because it marks the beginning of the end of the Federal Government's role in education and training. It is sweeping and radical legislation which guts our education system, weakens workplace safety and makes a mockery of our efforts to get families off welfare. It makes college education almost impossible for not only the very poor, but also for the working poor and for middle-income families. This bill ignores the Government's responsibility to educate our kids. It makes it impossible for mothers to get off welfare and into jobs. It forces education and training to take a back seat to tax breaks for fat cats and special interests. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, the new majority has declared war on our children and war on our workers. It must be defeated. I have heard from workers across the country about the new majority's effort to weaken workplace health and safety rules. Over and over again, spouses, parents, and children tell me that they are willing to see some of their taxes go toward enforcing health and safety rules so that they can be assured that their loved ones will come home from their jobs in the mines and other dangerous jobs, so they come home at night safe and sound. The majority, however, do not see it that way. The Labor-HHS appropriation bill makes it clear that the new majority would rather invest in a tax break for the wealthy few than in education, training, health, and safety for American workers. In fact, if this HHS bill passes, they will be showing a triple feature down at our local theaters in the near future. It will be called ``Dumb and Dumber'' with ``Sick and Sicker'' and ``Poor and Poorer.'' And let me say to my colleagues, it is not going to be a bargain matinee. No doubt about it. This sweeping and radical legislation is going to harm American workers and cost this Nation dearly in the long run. Mr. Speaker, like I said earlier, the faults of this bill are much too numerous to mention. I urge all Americans who care about the health and safety and the education and training of workers and for all of their loved ones to tell their representatives to oppose this dangerous bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert-Stokes amendment and in opposition to this bill which is an environmental disaster. Mr. Chairman, this bill is an environmental disaster. In one broad sweep, it strips the EPA of its authority to enforce environmental laws--important laws that ensure our right to clean water and clean air. Americans have fought long and hard for these sensible and much needed laws. The Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act are vital to protecting public health. But they mean nothing if they cannot be enforced. Mr. Chairman, we cannot, in a single day, turn our backs on decades of fighting for the public good. We must stand together today and give meaning to environmental protection. We must let all Americans know that this fight is worthwhile. We cannot go backward when we need so desperately to continue forward. Vote ``yes'' on the Stokes-Boehlert amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the heroic work of my constituent, Dr. Michael Franzblau. Dr. Franzblau is on a crusade to expose a Nazi war criminal, Dr. Hans Sewering, pronounced ``severing,'' who sent over 900 children to their death 50 years ago. After the war, Dr. Sewering was not punished. He was not even remembered. In fact, he thought that the world had forgotten the children he sent to death. Thanks to Dr. Franzblau, the world does not forget. Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, Dr. Franzblau took out a full-page ad in the New York Times which asks why the German state of Bavaria is harboring an accused war criminal? Today, I, along with Dr. Franzblau, demand justice for those 900 children. Dr. Hans Sewering must be exposed for what he is, a Nazi war criminal.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of increasing funds for our national marine sanctuaries. The cuts in this bill will be especially harmful to the people in northern California. There are three national marine sanctuaries off the spectacular northern California coast--Cordell Banks; Gulf of the Farallones; and Monterey Bay. These stunning and unique sanctuaries need protection, Mr. Speaker. We should make every effort to preserve our precious marine areas. It is time to honor the commitment made when the U.S. Congress established the sanctuary program. If California's coast is to be utilized by future generations as it is today, it must have strong protection now. Adequately funding the National Marine Sanctuary Program will help provide that protection. The National Marine Sanctuary Program, a program which has been historically underfunded, is authorized in fiscal year 1996 for $20 million. This bill provides $9 million--less than half the authorized level, and $3 million less than last year. It is time to take a stand for the preservation of our marine areas. It is time to take seriously our commitment to the National Marine Sanctuary Program. It is time to fight for the future well-being of our coastal waters, our coastal economies, and the Nation as a whole. Vote ``yes'' on the Farr amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise also today in strong support of this compromise amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am privileged to represent 140 miles of coast in Marin and Sonoma Counties, CA, the two counties north of San Francisco, across the Golden Gate Bridge. Each year visitors come to see one of our Nation's most picturesque scences, our coast. It is hard for these visitors to imagine that there are troubled waters off our coast, Mr. Chairman, but there are. Extensive recreation and commercial use takes a serious toll on our coast. This toll threatens the health of our marine resources and our coastal economies. If California's coast is to be utilized by future generations as it is today, it must have strong protection now. Funding for the coastal zone program will help provide that protection. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to take our commitment to the national marine sanctuary and the coastal zone management programs seriously. Please join with me in fighting for the future well-being of our coastal waters; our coastal economies; and the Nation as a whole. Vote ``yes'' on this compromise amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this foolish attempt to sell out America's resources and put our marine life, our fisheries, and our air at serious risk. Mr. Chairman, I represent 140 miles of Marin and Sonoma County coastline in California--beautiful coastline with valuable marine resources, which would be permanently destroyed, if those who want to sell out our Nation's natural resources to the special interest have their way. Lifting the ban on Alaskan oil exports poses significant environmental risks without offering any benefits. Not only would this bill put pristine Alaskan wilderness and valuable fisheries at risk, it would also increase the risk of devastating oil spills off the California coastline. Mr. Chairman, this is simply not tolerable. The people of my district will not stand for such short-sighted and dangerous policy as proposed by this bill. We cannot permit our coastal waters to be fouled by the damaging effects of oil drilling and transportation. We cannot put our marine life, our fisheries, and our air at serious risk. I urge my colleagues to join in the effort to stop the sell out of our precious resources--our livelihood and our environment--by voting against this bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, although I respect the gentleman from Massachusetts, I do not support his amendment because this amendment directly and unfairly targets my constituents in Sonoma and Martin counties. These are the people who produce the best wines in the world. If this amendment passes, their world-famous wine would no longer be able to compete in the world market. The amendment would devastate the small wine producers in my district, who rely upon Federal export assistance to enter the global marketplace. Unlike Europe and South America, United States wine producers receive no production subsidies what-so-ever! Furthermore, our competitors out- spend the U.S. in export subsidies by more than 6 to 1! Mr. Chairman, small California wineries cannot compete in such a lop- sided marketplace without some assistance. 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. We should help export California wine, not California's jobs!

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Market Production Program is very important to the people of my district in Marin and Sonoma County, CA. The wine and wine grapes from my district, many of them that were listed by the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Hoke] are famous worldwide. But these vintners have to fight to enter and compete in the world market. The Market Promotion Protection Program, on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, helps these small wine producers. It helps them in my district compete with heavily subsidized foreign producers, producers who dominate the global marketplace. The U.S. wine industry is at a disadvantage from the start because it receives no production subsidies from the Government. I repeat, no production subsidies from the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me today in an effort to level the playing field of the global market by opposing the Schumer- Zimmer amendment. Let us help export California products, not California jobs.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the China Policy Act. I support the China Policy Act, because I believe that the time has come to quit coddling the tyrants in Beijing. It is time to say to the Chinese Government that ``Human rights abuses; forced abortions; and acts, such as imprisonment of an American citizen, Harry Wu, is not tolerable.'' Mr. Speaker, we are Americans. We stand for freedom. We fight for democracy, and we have not forgotten Tiananmen Square. To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I want to remind you, this is not a partisan issue. This is an opportunity to do what is right. If you support democracy and human rights, vote for the China Policy Act.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Richard Stein, M.D., who is retiring after more than 32 years of service as an outstanding physician with Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael and Santa Rosa, CA, which are located within the congressional district I am privileged to represent. Dr. Stein was Physician-in-Charge at the Kaiser Permanente Clinic when it came to Santa Rosa in 1980, and since 1989, he has served as Physician-in-Chief. Dr. Stein has been a cornerstone in Kaiser's outstanding record of service here in northern California and, in particular, he has been instrumental in overseeing the provision of quality medical care services for many residents of Sonoma County. Because Dr. Stein has worked with Kaiser since 1962, he has played an integral role in the development of the innovative health maintenance organization which Kaiser pioneered in our country. I am proud of the leadership that Kaiser has taken in creating a healthcare system that is accessible, affordable, and high quality, and recognize that it takes the vision, courage, and hard work of people like Dr. Stein to make these ideals a reality. After graduating from the New York University Medical School in 1956, Dr. Stein started his medical career by serving his country as the Chief of Pediatrics for the United States Air Force, 3970th USAF Hospital. In addition to his many years of leadership with Kaiser, Dr. Stein has served on a variety of community and medical association boards and is currently a member of the Sonoma County Medical Association Board. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Stein is a superb example of the excellence and dedication of our healthcare professionals who have provided our Nation with the best healthcare services in the world. As we celebrate Dr. Stein's 32 years of service to this community, I wish to recognize his commitment to the people of Sonoma County, and to thank him for his long record of service to all of us.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hoyer amendment to H.R. 2020. Mr. Chairman, today the Republican leadership is making yet another attempt to chip away at a woman's right to choose--the right to choose an abortion. A few weeks ago, military women who are stationed overseas lost their right to use their own money for a safe and legal abortion in a military hospital. Now, this appropriations bill will deny women who are Federal employees from receiving safe and legal abortions through their own insurance plans. Who's next? I'll tell you who is next--poor women; rape victims; incest victims; women whose lives depend on access to safe and legal abortions. Mark my words, they are next. Mr. Chairman, under the Republican majority, the right of American women to make their own decisions about their reproductive health is threatened every day. We cannot stand by and watch the rights of American women be violated. I strongly, strongly urge my colleagues to stand up now, before it is too late, before the right to choose rings hollow for most American women. Stand up for the women who devote their lives to service in the Federal Government. Stand up for those women who look to us, Members of Congress, to protect their right to choose. Vote ``yes'' on the Hoyer amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment which would devastate the arts in this country. You know, the average taxpayer invests about 68 cents a year in the NEA; 68 cents. For that 68 cents, they get a lot back in return. For 68 cents, their local arts groups are supported. For 68 cents, their schools and communities are enriched. For 68 cents, jobs are created in their towns and cities. That is why, for the life of me, I can not understand why some Members want to bring the curtain down on our threatres and symphonies, especially when these same Members refuse to even look at cutting Pentagon pork. Mr. Chairman, investing in the arts reaps longterm benefits for our communities and our Nation. [[Page H 7133]] I urge my colleagues to vote against this shortsighted amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Sunny Hills Children's Services as they celebrate their 100th anniversary. Sunny Hills has a main campus in San Anselmo, CA, as well as two group homes in Novato, CA, and a school and therapy program in San Rafael, CA, all of which are located in the congressional district that I am privileged to represent. Started in 1895, Sunny Hills Children's Services is an extraordinary nonprofit organization that assists troubled teenagers, and helps them overcome their lives of abuse, neglect, abandonment, and hopelessness. Sunny Hills' programs are so successful that they have become famous throughout the North Bay Area serving as a national model. There is no doubt that Sunny Hills helps hundreds of youth every year to lead independent and productive lives by providing them with the tools they need to deal with their troubles and problems. The founders of Sunny Hills, which was then called the San Francisco Presbyterian Orphanage and Farm, clearly possessed the vision, compassion, and determination to make this endeavor the success it is. One hundred years later, the many people affiliated with Sunny Hills can be extremely proud of their numerous successes and accomplishments. On July 15, I am proud to be able to join them as they celebrate their achievements and recognize the many outstanding Sunny Hills volunteers, such as Helen Caletti, who has volunteered for the agency for almost 50 years. We will also be joined by current and former members of the Sunny Hills Board of Directors who are to be commended for contributing their time and energy, as well as for their commitment, to such a worthwhile cause. Sunny Hills continues to be a major resource for young people in the San Francisco Bay area. The need for its services persists. In fact, in 1995, it is expected that half a million California children will be reported abused or neglected. Suicides are twice the national average in the Bay Area where one is seven teenagers contemplates suicide. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pay tribute to everyone who has contributed to making Sunny Hills the success that it is today. It is appropriate that we offer sincere thanks for their dedicated and selfless commitment to helping our Nation's youth--and building our Nation's future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, for some reason that's beyond me, the U.S. Coast Guard is considering closing its only west coast training facility--the training base at Two Rock, CA. No doubt about it, the Coast Guard needs to get rid of some dead weight. It will be missing the boat, however, if it shuts down this important base. Any old coastie can tell you Mr. Speaker, that it makes sense to consolidate one of the four east coast training centers at the Two Rock Base. It makes sense because of Two Rock's expansion capacity, good climate, available housing, and, above all, the fact that taxpayers recently invested $22 million to make the base's computer and radar training facilities state-of-the-art. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to heed this SOS, and join the entire California delegation in ensuring that the Coast Guard can fulfill its mission by having training facilities on both of our coasts by keeping Two Rock open.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, once again with this conference report the House is being asked to vote yes or no on the following question: Should we take child nutrition away from our kids, college aid away from our students and their families, and health care away from seniors so that the wealthy special interests can get a tax giveaway? And once again, I expect that Members of the Republican majority will answer with a resounding yes. Despite public opposition, they probably have the votes to pass this conference report and continue their assault on America's children, seniors, and middle income families. But let me promise the authors of this reckless budget, on behalf of the millions of Americans who will be hurt by it, we will be back. This vote is just one step in the budget process, Mr. Speaker. We have a long summer ahead of us. The final details will not be settled until the fall. But every day families are learning that this budget takes food away from their children. Every day college students are organizing, and they will keep fighting until the Republican majority realizes the insanity involved in shutting the classroom door on college kids in order to open up tax loopholes for large profitable corporations. We all know that America's seniors will not sit quietly this summer while Republicans take away their health security. We have a long way to go before this reckless budget becomes a reality, Mr. Speaker. I promise you that we will be back. I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report, a report that takes away from children, seniors, and middle income families to give tax breaks to the wealthiest.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Smith amendment to H.R. 1868 and to support the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers] to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important that my colleagues truly understand that the goal of the Smith amendment is not to prohibit U.S. funds from being spent on abortion activities. Current law already prohibits U.S. funds from being spent on abortion activities, and this has been the case for over 20 years. The true aim, Mr. Chairman, of the Smith amendment is to totally eliminate family planning aid overseas. Mr. Chairman, this is an extreme amendment. It is extreme because it would take U.S. funds away from organizations that perform legal abortions or participate in any other abortion-related activities, using their own funds, not using Federal funds, using their own funds. The implication of this staggering U.S. aid amendments, Mr. Chairman, would be doing away with U.S. aid to organizations for pre- and postnatal care, as well as for programs to reduce unwanted pregnancy, combat childhood diseases, prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. All of this would be cut off completely if the organizations provide legal abortion-related services, paid for with their own funds, not paid for with Federal funds. How can proponents of this amendment claim that they are interested in the welfare of children and women when this amendment will harm critical programs that prevent unwanted pregnancy and improve the health of needy children around the world? If anything, this amendment will result in more unwanted pregnancies and sick children, not less. Mr. Chairman, the American people do not want the U.S. Congress to support extreme amendments which endanger the health of the world's children increase unwanted pregnancies, and force women to resort to unsafe abortions. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this extreme and dangerous amendment, an amendment that would eliminate family planning aid overseas, and vote in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, last week my best friend's son died. He was 33 years old, HIV positive, and died from cancer--considered an opportunistic disease related to HIV. Also last week, this House voted to invest $9 billion more than the President and the Secretary of Defense wanted, for bombers, missiles, and star wars. I wonder how my best friend's son would have felt about that if he were still alive today. I wonder how he would have felt had he known that the new Republican majority were going to take money away from AIDS research and put it into wasteful military pork. Mr. Speaker, what are the values of this body? Where are our priorities? The cold war is over, but we are spending billions of dollars on additional B-2 bombers and Trident D-5 missiles. The war rages on for AIDS patients and their families, but we are taking their weapons away. Congress has placed an arms embargo on the most vulnerable people in this Nation, all because the Republican leadership cares more about military contractors than those who have contracted the AIDS virus.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Erwin Howard Braff, who passed away on May 21, 1995. He was 71 years of age. Dr. Braff was director of communicable diseases in San Francisco when the AIDS epidemic reached the Nation's consciousness. In fact, Dr. Braff supervised the individual who first alerted the gay community to the public health threat of AIDS. Erwin Braff served the department of health for 29 years until his retirement in 1984, as director of communicable diseases. Later, Dr. Braff played a leading role in passage of an anti-HIV/AIDS discrimination ordinance in Tiburon. Erwin Braff served in the Army Air Corps during World War II, attended the University of California, Los Angeles, and began medical school at the University of California, San Francisco. After finishing medical school, he received a master's degree in public health from Johns Hopkins University and worked for the department of health in Tacoma, WA. Erwin Braff was an active volunteer on the American Civil Liberties Union's San Francisco Hotline; a member of the California Democratic Central Committee; a member of the Health Council of Marin; Marin AIDS Advisory Commission; American Jewish Committee; and Marin Interfaith Council; board member of the Jewish Community Relations Council and treasurer of the Marin AIDS Political Action Committee. He was twice nominated for the Human Rights Commission's Martin Luther King Award. Mr. Speaker, Marin County, and this Nation owes a great deal of gratitude for the tireless efforts of Dr. Erwin Howard Braff over the years. He was a friend and will be missed by all of us who knew him. I extend my condolences to his wife, Janet and his two sons Mitch and David.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the DeLauro amendment to H.R. 1530. H.R. 1530 tramples the rights of military women overseas by denying them their legal right to use their own funds to pay for abortion services. Mr. Chairman, this body must not condone efforts to take away the legal rights of our female military personnel. The DeLauro amendment only corrects H.R. 1530's glaring violation of the rights of military women by simply preserving DOD's current policy on abortion. I urge my colleagues to support the rights of our servicewomen and to support the DeLauro amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Republicans continue to talk about the tough choices they have had to make in crafting their budget. I agree. Choosing to take health care away from our seniors in order to pay for special interest tax breaks is certainly a tough choice, and I cannot understand why they made it. Why did they choose lower payments to hospitals in order to give tax breaks to large corporations? Why did they choose higher premiums and higher copayments for seniors of all income levels, in order to lower taxes for the most affluent? Why are they giving seniors fewer choices of doctors so that gas and oil companies get away with paying no taxes? Mr. Speaker, only in Republican Washington is this reckless attack on our seniors called a reduction in the rate of increase.

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the code of conduct amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia, and I would like to commend her for her tireless work on this important issue. As written, our current arms transfer policy is reckless and dangerous. Over the past decade, we have sent weapons to countries who have turned around and used them against our sons and daughters in the Armed Forces. We have provided ammunition for governments who oppress their people and commit acts of aggression against the international community. U.S. arms transfer policy must be more responsible. In the debate over military spending and foreign policy, we continue to hear that ``the cold war is over, but the world is still a dangerous place.'' Mr. Chairman, our current arms transfer policy is making the world an even more dangerous place. I thought we fought the cold war in order to make the world safe for democracy and human rights, not dangerous for U.S. soldiers and innocent citizens worldwide. Opponents of this measure argue that the United States should not restrict itself to selling arms only to countries who promote democracy and protect human rights. They suggest that we should be allowed to sell weapons to countries which may not fit these categories, but who are friendly to the United States. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, Manuel Noriega used to be friendly. Iraq used to be friendly. Why do we refuse to learn that even the Devil can be friendly if he wants to make a deal? Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the McKinney amendment and reject the current reckless arms transfer policy.