Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was present and voted no on rollcall vote No. 337, final passage of H.R. 961, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments. Unfortunately, due to a technical difficulty, my vote was not recorded. I ask that the Record be clear that I voted on opposition to final passage of H.R. 961.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republicans who wrote this plan continue to talk about the tough choices they have had to make when 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. But the choices that the authors of these Medicare cuts have made are nothing compared to the choices that Lucy Forest will be forced to make if Republicans are successful in their assault. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members of this House to meet 75-year- old Lucy Forest from Santa Rosa, CA. Lucy has an income of $800 per month. She has to pay rent. She has to pay the heating bills. She needs to eat. Lucy also wants to visit her daughter in Tucson, AZ, this year, but Lucy says she may have to cancel this trip if Republican proposals are passed. Lucy understands a lot of things about people and politics, and she understands Medicare. She knows that if these cuts are made, there will be lower payments to doctors and hospitals, higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher copayments, and fewer choices of doctors. She also understands that the families of Members of this House can afford health care while coverage for 7 million kids will be eliminated. But, Lucy Forest does not understand how the Republican budget proposals can eliminate $300 billion of health care benefits for our Nation's seniors, without telling us how the savings will be achieved. She also does not understand why pork barrel military spending on cold war weapons continues to go up, while Medicare for seniors is going down. She wants to know why the military budget is ``off the table'' in the Republican budget. Finally, and most importantly, Lucy questions why the Republicans are proposing to slash Medicare in order to pay for tax loopholes for the wealthy special interests. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, neither do I. Only in Washington would people call taking Medicare away from Lucy Forest ``A reduction in the rate of increase.'' I urge the House reject these efforts to slash health care for seniors.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I visited school lunch programs in my district, and learned something which the authors of this budget obviously have not thought about. Because child after child said to me, ``Congresswoman Woolsey, I can't concentrate when I'm hungry.'' ``I can't learn when I'm hungry.'' Obviously, first-and-second graders know better than the authors of this budget that, if you enter the classroom hungry, you will not be ready to learn. During one of my visits, a teacher in Marin County--one of the most affluent counties in America--told me that, recently, she had a class lesson asking her 1st grade students what their top three wishes were, and why, the top wish of two-thirds of her students was for more food for their family, because they were hungry. Well, get ready to have trouble concentrating and learning, and get ready to be hungry, because this budget cuts $19 billion form nutrition programs in order to pay for a tax break for wealthy special interests. Members on the other side argue that taking $19 billion away form child nutrition programs is not a big deal, in fact, they claim they are not even cutting child nutrition programs, but simply reducing the rate of increase. We hear Republicans say over and over again that ``only in Washington do people call a reduction in the rate of increase a cut.'' Well, the children in Marin County, who wish for food for their families, would see it differently. They would say that only in Washington do people call ``taking school lunches away from children a ``reduction in the rate of increase.'' I urge my colleagues to vote against this budget resolution.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, contrary to the claims of the majority, this is not a budget to protect our children's future. This budget is an assault on our children's future, and an assault on their grandparents as well. It opens up tax loopholes for wealthy special interests, and slams the door on school cafeterias; college classrooms; and hospitals all over this Nation. If this budget represents the future of our children, then the future looks grim. It is no wonder Mr. Kasich says he is nervous. Mr. Chairman, education is our future. Education, not reckless spending cuts, must be our Nation's No. 1 priority. The most glaring mistake in this budget is that it makes deep cuts in education to pay for a tax break for wealthy special interests. Our children should be the most important special interest for this Congress, not the privileged few with influence over the Republican budget process. It is too bad kids don't have powerful lobbyists here in Washington, because many of the education programs which are important to our children's future are being assaulted in this budget: Goals 2000 is eliminated; Head Start is cut dramatically; bilingual education is terminated; President Clinton's national service program will disappear school lunch and school breakfast is cut the entire Department of Education would be eliminated, clearly demonstrating to the American people the majority's lack of commitment to the future of our children. This budget is not limited to attack on our young children, it also attacks low- and middle-income college students, and their families. On May 8, 1995, the New York Times called the Republican budget resolution ``the strongest assault in recent years on student-aid programs.'' Mr. Chairman, this assault makes a mockery of our Nation's core values--the opportunity to get a good education, and the opportunity to get ahead. Taking away the college loan interest subsidy, which the Government provides to students while they are in college, amounts to taking away the American dream from all but the privileged few. Nationwide, college costs will increase by an average of $5,000. Low- and middle-income students and their families just won't be able to foot this bill. In addition, these cuts in student aid threaten our future economic health and our global competitiveness. In a time when our country needs people who are more educated, not less, in order to compete in the global marketplace, this assault on our low- and middle- income families is also an assault on American's economic future. Also, if we want to get people off welfare and into the work force, these cuts in education send us in the wrong direction. As a former welfare mother--able to work myself off welfare because I had a good education--I can tell you for sure that these cuts are just plain wrong. Make no mistake about it, when Members of Congress cast their vote on this budget, they are providing their constituents with a clear ``yes or no'' answer to the following question: Should we take education and nutrition away from children; college aid away from students; and health care away from seniors in order to put money into the hands of wealthy special interests? I beg my colleagues to answer with a resounding ``no'' by rejecting this budget.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert amendment. The Boehlert amendment will protect our Nation's wetlands by replacing H.R. 961's faulty wetlands provisions with reasonable reforms. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Santa Rosa Plain, in Sonoma County, CA, which is covered by more than 5,000 acres of seasonable wetlands. These wetlands are a valuable part of the area's ecosystem and provide habitat for endangered plant and animal species. Unfortunately, the wetlands of the Santa Rosa Plain were being destroyed, often due to inappropriate development. Therefore, in Santa Rosa, local, State, and Federal agencies under the guidance of the Corp of Engineers began working with the Sonoma County environmental and business communities to help craft a preservation plan for the Santa Rosa Plain. This plan is close to completion. When it is complete, it will determine what parts of the plain can be developed and what parts must be preserved. Once the plan is completed, wetlands on the plain will no longer be destroyed, and developers will know which areas are safe to develop, thereby eliminating costly delays. Mr. Chairman, the Santa Rosa preservation plan is an example of how Federal agencies, in cooperation with local entities, can implement the Clean Water Act to successfully protect precious wetlands while permitting appropriate development. Mr. Chairman, I believe Congress should continue to support cooperation like this. The bill we are considering today, however, H.R. 961, will do just the opposite. H.R. 961 guts wetlands protections. It ensures that the Santa Rosa Plain preservation plan will be useless, and thousands of acres of precious wetlands in my district and around the Nation will be lost forever. Mr. Chairman, the Boehlert amendment is a sensible alternative which streamlines regulations without destroying our Nation's wetlands. I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert amendment and preserve the wetlands of the Santa Rose Plain and the wetlands of the Nation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 20th anniversary of Panamax of San Rafael. Panamax, the country's foremost designer and manufacturer of power protection equipment, is deserving of special congressional recognition. What started out as a one-room, single-employee operation has become a multimillion-dollar enterprise that provides employment opportunities to over 100 individuals. Panamax has been a strong supporter of small business and has a record of hiring employees from the Sixth Congressional District. Panamax has earned a reputation for innovation and service to producers and users of a wide variety of high-technology equipment. The company has developed an important niche in the area of devices that provide protection from power surges and spikes. It also provides a complete guaranty on every unit produced. Panamax has strongly supported international trade and has substantially expanded its trade with Canada, Mexico, and other Latin America countries. The company is currently preparing to expand further to the Pacific Rim countries. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute and congratulate Panamax as they mark two decades of service. I am very proud to be representing such a fine company in Congress. I extend my best wishes to Henry Moody, and the Panamax family, for continued success in the years to come.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor two brave and very dedicated women, Nancy Hudson and Nancy Knoble, who are deserving of special congressional recognition for their efforts to call international attention to the battle against breast cancer. They are very same situation. The two Nancy's recently participated in a successful climbing expedition of the 23,085-foot Mount Aconcagua in Argentina in which 16 breast cancer survivors took part. They should be commended for their participation in this novel effort, organized by Breast Cancer Fund of San Francisco, to raise money for research and treatment of breast cancer. The two were recently recognized by the White House for their efforts during the Clinton administration's Medicare Mammography Awareness Campaign. I know that their enthusiastic response to fighting this disease in such an active manner helps to motivate others to redouble their efforts against this deadly disease, as well as the example they set and hope they give to other cancer survivors. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Nancy and Nancy for their extraordinary efforts. I am very proud to be representing these two remarkable women in Congress. I extend my heartfelt congratulations and deep appreciation to Nancy Hudson and Nancy Knoble for their tremendous achievements.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker I rise to join my colleagues today in honoring the memory of the 1.5 million Armenians who perished during the genocide of 1915. This horrible period still haunts us today, and the memory of the men, women, and children who perished remains. This was the first true genocide of the 20th century. Despite the atrocities which occurred at the hands of the Turkish Empire, despite the documentation, the eyewitness reports, and countless publications which describe these atrocities, some people continue to deny that this crime against humanity actually took place. Fortunately, there are many Members of Congress who have been willing to rise up and take a stand against this denial. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Members who joined me in initiating a letter to President Clinton, urging him to officially recognize the Armenian genocide: Frank Pallone, John Porter, and Marge Roukema. Congress can only make its voice heard on this issue if people like us, Democrats and Republicans, east coast and west coast, join forces to push for the recognition of this terrible human tragedy. I would also like to thank the Armenian National Committee, especially Elizabeth Chouldjian, for her ongoing vigilance and dedication in providing me with useful and timely information on Armenian issues. Without your help, Elizabeth, I would be unable to do this work on behalf of Armenian-Americans in my district and around the country. Mr. Speaker, if the international community is serious about preventing crimes against humanity, it is essential for us to recognize the atrocities that occurred against the Armenian people at the beginning of this century, by honoring the memory of 1.5 million men, women, and children who perished. I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 80th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kate Byrnes, the 1995 California Teacher of the Year. Kate Byrnes works for the Marin County Office of Education as a teacher for the visually impaired and as an orientation and mobility specialist. She has served the a reputation for being one of the most exemplary teachers in her field. Kate Byrnes has devoted countless hours to her students and demonstrates an uncommon commitment to her educational mission. Time and time again she has intervened on behalf of her students and their families. In addition, she has coordinated overnight ski trips for the blind and visually impaired in order to increase their recreational opportunities. Kate Byrnes has been active in organizations, including the Low Incidence Regional Network for Northern California and the shared decision-making Leadership Team of teachers and administrators for the Marin County Office of Education's special education division. She has been an instructor and guest lecturer at San Francisco State University, helping to motivate others to become exceptional teachers for the visually impaired. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Kate Byrnes for being selected as the 1995 California Teacher of the Year. Marin County owes a great deal of gratitude for the tireless efforts of Kate Byrnes over the years. I extend my hearty congratulations and best wishes to Kate.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my district's most dedicated public servants, Marin County Superior Court Judge Beverly Savitt. In 1983, Judge Savitt became the first woman to serve on the Superior Court bench in Marin County. She has served the people of Marin County well in this capacity and earned the reputation for streamlining and humanizing the county justice system. Judge Savitt earned her law degree at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. She and two other attorneys formed the first all female law firm in the country. She has contributed her time and energy to the education of lawyers and judges, particularly in the area of family law. As we celebrate Beverly Savitt's years of service to this community, I wish to recognize Judge Savitt for her commitment to the people of Marin County, and to thank her for her long record of public service. She has been a role model for women and a founding member of many organizations devoted to empowering women. She helped start the California Women Lawyers, the Marin Chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus, and the Center for Families in Transition. She has been very active in the Marin County Chapter of the League of Women Voters. Beverly Savitt has also served as Vice Chair of the Juvenile Justice Commission. She helped restructure the grand jury selection process and developed a questionnaire that is still in use today. Beverly Savitt has been instrumental in planning and implementing changes that improve the quality of justice in Marin County. She initiated a new method of handling family law matters and promoting alternative dispute resolution. I continue to be impressed by her dedication and vision. Her latest achievement was being elected into the Marin Women's Hall of Fame this year. Beverly and her husband, Jack, have been married for 48 years and have a son and daughter, both married. They live in Belvedere. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to pay tribute to Superior Court Judge Beverly Savitt upon her retirement. Marin County owes a great deal of gratitude for the tireless efforts of Judge Savitt over the years. Time and time again she has extended herself on behalf of so many people and for so many causes. I extend my hearty congratulations and best wishes to Beverly and to Jack for continued success in the years to come.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, we are hearing a lot of inside-the-beltway talk in this debate, and it must be confusing to the American people. In beltway language, this is a bill to eliminate the alternative minimum tax by reducing discretionary spending caps in violation of the Budget Enforcement Act. But let me tell you what this bill is really all about. It means that Newt's Republicans are creating tax loopholes for special interests, and paying for it by taking food out of the mouths of children, taking money out of the pockets of middle-income college students, and taking homes away from low-income seniors. In Budget Committee, when these painful cuts were being thrust upon us, I offered an amendment to protect child nutrition. But, marching in lock step, the Republicans said ``no.'' Newt's Republicans sent a clear message to America's children: We are willing to take away your school lunch so we can give lobbyists and special interests a free lunch. But, Mr. Chairman, young children are not the only ones who will pay for these tax loopholes. We will also be taking money out of the pockets of middle-class college students and their families. At two schools in my district alone, almost one-thousand students will lose their campus-based aid so that special interests can stuff their wallets. Unfortunately, there is another victim in this plot to prop up the special interests--our seniors. While kids are being kicked out of schools, seniors are in danger of losing their housing. More than 200 seniors in Santa Rosa and Marin are already in danger of being thrown out in the street. Like school lunches and student loans, affordable housing will become an impossibility for many of America's seniors. Mr. Chairman, Newt's Republicans are going too far, and they are going too fast. The people of this country don't want this partisanship, they want real solutions--solutions that will improve their lives, not take away their opportunities. I beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in the interest of our children, our seniors, and middle-class America, let us slow down and think about who we are hurting before we pass this tragic legislation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as the only Member of Congress who has been a single, working mother on welfare, I am very disappointed by the welfare plan that House Republicans approved last week. I am disappointed because we had a real opportunity to fix our broken welfare system, and instead, House Republicans approved a plan that guts the system and shreds the safety net for 15 million children. The same safety net that enabled my family to get back on our feet 27 years ago. As someone who came to Congress to improve the lives of our children and families, defending them from attacks by House Republicans is not the way I intended to spend my time. Poor women and their children did not sign on the dotted line of the contract on America, but they are certainly in line to suffer its disastrous consequences. The bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to prepare welfare recipients for jobs that pay a livable wage. There is no job training. There is no education. And while the Republicans have put some money toward child care, following intense pressure from the Democrats, there is still not nearly enough. And, their bill literally takes food out of the mouths of our kids. In my district alone, Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, almost 7,000 school children will be denied a school meal. I have only one thing to say about their plan to wreck child nutrition programs: ``States don't get hungry, children do.'' And, starving our children is not the solution to the welfare mess. I am also disappointed that Chairman Henry Hyde and I were not given the opportunity to offer our amendment to federalize child support collection. We believe that federalization is the best way to collect outstanding child support, and we will continue our bipartisan effort to make sure children receive the support they are owed. Mr. Speaker, the choice comes down to this: We either punish families because they are poor, or, as was the case with my family, we invest in them so they can get off welfare permanently. As this bill moves to the Senate, it is essential that harsh and punitive measures in the House welfare bill be removed. We can get families off welfare without punishing women and children. We can produce a welfare bill that is worthy of widespread bipartisan support.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. You see, Mr. Chairman, I was on welfare, I know that the Mink amendment is the right way to go. Mr. Chairman, as the only Member of this body who has actually been a single, working mother on welfare, I rise to give my strong support to the Mink substitute. My ideas about welfare reform do not come from books or theories, Mr. Chairman. They come from experience and I know the Mink substitute is what we need. I know the welfare system is broken. It doesn't work for recipients and it doesn't work for taxpayers. It needs fundamental change. First, we must have jobs that pay a livable wage. If, in the end, a recipient is better off on welfare than in the work force, we have wasted the taxpayers' money. Second, we must help recipients make the transition from welfare to work by increasing funding for education, job training, child care, and health care. Third, we must be flexible about transition from welfare to work. It took me 3 years to get off welfare and I was educated, healthy, and working. Fourth, if we collected all the child support owed by deadbeat parents, we could move 300,000 mothers, and over half a million children, off the welfare rolls immediately--tomorrow. The Mink substitute meets each of these criteria, and I commend the gentlewoman from Hawaii on this excellent bill. It is a fair and just plan that moves recipients into work by supporting poor women and children, not by punishing them. Mr. Chairman, the choice comes down to this: We either punish poor children, as the Republican bill does, or, as in my case, we invest in families so they can get off welfare permanently. Let's do what is right for our children. Support the Mink substitute.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues tonight to talk about the Republican's mean- system and shred the safety net for over 15 million children. I know firsthand about welfare and the importance of a safety net because 27 years ago, I was a single, working mother receiving no child support. I was forced to go on welfare, even though I was employed, in order to give my three small children, ages 1, 3, and 5, the health care, child care, and food they needed. My colleagues, that experience never leaves me. My ideas about welfare do not come from books or theories. I know it * * * I lived it. And I am continually amazed that any of you presume that you know what it is like. Make no mistake, I also know the welfare system is broken. It doesn't work for recipients or for taxpayers, and it needs fundamental change. Unfortunately, the Republican ideas for change are weak on work and tough on children. The Republican plan does nothing, absolutely nothing, to prepare welfare recipients for jobs that pay a livable wage, or to help recipients make the transition from welfare to work. There's no job training; there's no education; there's not nearly enough child care. All the Republicans care about is reducing the welfare rolls, and if that means putting families on the streets, then so be it!! The Chair of the House Budget Committee, John Kasich, told us last week that these cuts will be applied to the Republican plan to cut taxes * * * the great majority of which apply to the very wealthy. And their bill literally takes food out of the mouths of our kids. In my district alone, Marin and Sonoma counties in California, almost 7,000 school children will be denied a school meal under the Republican's mean-spirited plan. If the Republicans think their plan doesn't punish children, they should talk to some of the wonderful children I ate lunch with when I was back in California earlier this week. When I asked these kids why they liked their lunches so much, they told me that they can not learn or pay attention in class when they are hungry. One of their teachers told me that when she asked her students to make a list of wishes for their families, over 50 percent of the kids wished for food. I remind you, these are children who live in one of the most affluent counties, in one of the richest Nations in the world. After meeting these kids, I have only one thing to say about Newt's pea-brained plan to wreck child nutrition programs: ``States don't get hungry, Newt, children do.'' and, starving our children is not the solution to the welfare mess. Democrats, on the other hand, know that we can fix the welfare system without punishing poor women and children. Democrats offer welfare recipients a fair deal!! Democrats invest in education; job training; and child care in order to get families off welfare and into jobs that pay a livable wage. Mr. Speaker, the choice comes down to this: we either punish poor children, as the Republican bill would do, or, as in my case, we invest in families so they can get off welfare permanently. Let us do what is right for our children. Let us defeat the mean- spirited Republican welfare bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as the only former mother in this Congress that was ever on welfare with children, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support Deal substitute that we will be voting on today. I support Deal substitute because it offers welfare recipients a fair deal. As long as there are jobs and recipients are willing to work and play by the rules, the Deal bill will invest up front in education, job training, and child care to ensure that recipients get into jobs and off welfare permanently. Unlike the Republican bill that does not invest in work and punishes children, the Deal welfare substitute protects children. It also guarantees help if the State experiences a recession or a national disaster, times when the needs are greatest. punish poor people who play by the rules, as the Republican bill would do, or we invest in them so that they can get off welfare permanently.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Woolsey/Ramstad amendment is a technical amendment that corrects an inadvertent error made during the drafting of H.R. 1214. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that it is in our bipartisan best interest to protect programs for missing and exploited children. I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] for his support. Mr. Chairman, in October of 1993, 13-year-old Polly Klaas was abducted by a stranger from her home in Petaluma, which is in my district. I know that many of my colleagues are aware of this tragic story. But what many of my colleagues may not be aware of is that an important role was played by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the search for Polly. The Center alerted 17,000 police departments nationwide. They broadcast public service announcements on all the major television networks. they distributed sketches of Polly and her abductor through the network of nearly 400 private sector partners. The Center has provided these same crucial services in searches for almost 40,000 children nationwide. This amendment preserves the effectiveness of the Center's programs by keeping these programs in the Department of Justice where they now reside. This is necessary because H.R. 4 repeals the Missing Children's Act which among other things establishes the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. In order to ensure that the Center continues to operate, H.R. 4 also authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish and operate the Clearinghouse and Hot Line for Missing and Runaway Children. However, under the current congressional mandate in the Missing Children's Act, it is the Department of Justice which works in partnership with the Center to operate the clearinghouse and hot line. The Woolsey-Ramstad amendment moves the authority back to the Attorney General, in the Department of Justice, and gives her continued authority to contract with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to operate the clearinghouse and the hot line. This amendment is strongly supported by both the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, it is crucial that the Center and the Department of Justice continue their 10-year partnership to protect our most precious national resource, our children. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Arthur ``Art'' Hollingsworth. Mr. Hollingsworth is retiring after more than 21 years of public service in Rohnert Park, CA, which is located within the district I am privileged to represent. His dedication and commitment to improve the lives of the people of Rohnert Park is appreciated by those who have worked with him over the years, and by many who have benefited from his efforts. Art spent more than 13 years on the Rohnert Park City Council, including three terms as mayor. He was a member of the city's planning commission for 8 years, and served for 2 years as its chairman. Having served on a city council myself, I know that these years were filled with lots of hard work, countless meetings, and long work days. Despite this, however, Art's commitment to the community did not end with his official city duties. He also involved himself in a variety of local nonprofit activities and youth programs. Art was an advocate for our youth and worked to raise money for local high school athletic activities. In addition, he was a leader in many professional community groups, including the Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce where he served as president for two terms. Mr. Speaker, Art Hollingsworth has made many contributions to his community through his hard work and dedication. I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting his efforts today, and in wishing him, and his family, all the best in the future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes, but that is not the same amendment. That is an entirely different thing.

Ms. WOOLSEY. No, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] that I am talking about the Hyde-Woolsey amendment to collect and federalize child support.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will yield, let me say that you did not put our amendment in order.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. As a mother who was forced to go on welfare 27 years ago because my family never received, not once, the child support we were owed, I am outraged by this rule. I am outraged because it prohibits debate on what Henry Hyde, Steve Largent, myself, and over 80 other Democrats and Republicans know is the most effective way to collect over $5 billion of the child support that goes uncollected each year, federalization of our pathetic State-by-State child support system. The Federal Government spends $1 billion a year on a State-based child support system that has shameful collection rates, with some States having rates as low as 9 percent. Even more alarming is the fact that $9 of every $10 owed in interstate child support is not collected. By putting the IRS in charge of collecting support, the Hyde-Woolsey amendment would move 300,000 mothers and over half a million children off the welfare rolls immediately. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.

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