Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

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

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Crane amendment which would increase the cuts in funding for the corporation for public broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents, in the sixth Congressional District of California, opposing the republican leadership's attacks on the CPB. These attacks will hurt our local PBS stations, KRCB and KQED, which are an important source of educational and cultural programming for adults and children in my district. KCRB and KQED have helped thousands of adults get their high school degree and pass college level courses. Workers on farms in isolated areas; welfare mothers striving to become self-sufficient; and individuals seeking to improve their job skills have benefitted from the educational programming offered by KRCB and KQED. Mr. Chairman, no commercial stations are offering these much-needed educational services! In addition, KRCB, KQED and other PBS stations are home to valuable programming for our children. As a mother of four, I remember how difficult it was to find entertaining and educational programs for my children. I often relied on my local PBS station as do many parents who do not want their children watching the increasingly violent adult programs which are prevalent on commercial television stations. For the price of one dollar per person, the corporation for public broadcasting ensures that every american household, rich or poor, urban or rural, has access to a wide range of educational and cultural programming. Mr. Chairman, this is a small price to pay for the valuable services provided by PBS stations throughout the Nation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Crane amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my ranking member for yielding me this time. As the only Member of Congress who has actually been a single, working mother on welfare, my ideas about welfare do not come from theory or books. I know it, I lived it. Make no mistake, I know the welfare system is broken. It does not work for recipients or for taxpayers, and it needs fundamental change. But I also know that H.R. 4 will gut the welfare system and shred the safety net that enabled my family to get back on our feet 27 years ago. I will never forget what it was like to lie awake at night worried that one of my children would get sick, or trying to decide what was more important: new shoes for my children or next week's groceries. Even though I was working the entire time I was on AFDC, I needed welfare in order to provide my family with health care, child care and the food we needed in order to survive. So my colleagues see I know about the importance of a safety net, and I also know about the importance of work. That is why, as cochair of the House Democratic Task Force on Welfare Reform, I can tell my colleagues that the Democrats are committed to getting families off welfare and into work. We do this by helping them with education, with training, by providing the child care they need so that they can go to work. Mr. Chairman, the choice comes down to this. We could punish poor families by voting for H.R. 4, or we can invest in our children and their families so they can lead strong, productive lives. I beg my colleagues to vote against H.R. 4 that would put people on the streets and vote for putting people to work.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1022, the Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Act. H.R. 1022 is not a regulatory reform bill as the new Republican leadership claims. It is an attempt by supporters of the Contract On America to destroy environmental protections which the American people fought for long and hard. Landmark environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the endangered Species Act will be superseded by H.R. 1022, leaving our air, water, and wildlife unprotected. Under H.R. 1022, 12 Federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department, and the Interior Department will be required to follow a single set of new, government-wide principles for risk assessment activities in order to carry out their regulatory responsibilities. This one-size-fits-all approach to risk assessments will prevent Federal officials from developing sound public policy. Instead, H.R. 1022 will lead to long delays of important environmental protection programs, and more red tape. Mr. Chairman, this bill will impact not only our nation's environment, but our nation's taxpayers as well. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that risk assessment proposals similar to H.R. 1022 would cost affected federal agencies $250 million annually. H.R. 1022 does not contain provisions to offset the bill's potential costs. Therefore, it will result in increasing the deficit or cutting desperately needed funds for education and other social programs. Mr. Chairman, it seems that lawyers are the only ones who benefit from H.R. 1022. The bill opens up numerous new pathways for litigation, and it gives lawyers interested in holding up valuable environmental regulations a powerful new tool to prolong agency actions. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Republican leadership's efforts to hamper the government's ability to protect the environment. Vote no on H.R. 1022. Thank you.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of David Ross Young, who died of AIDS earlier this month. I am proud to say that David lived in my district, in Sonoma County, CA. David did more to touch the lives of others in his 32 years than most people do in a lifetime. After being diagnosed with the AIDS virus, David dedicated his life to preventing the spread of AIDS among young people, speaking to students at Sonoma and Marin County schools about the disease. In addition, he trained hundreds of speakers who will carry on his message in his wake. Mr. Speaker, it is a truly great human being who, when faced with a limit on the amount of time he has left in this world, chooses to spend it helping others. My heart and my thoughts are with you, David. Your legacy lives within the hearts and minds of the youngsters whose lives you have touched and whose lives you have saved.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of my district's most valuable resources, the Point Reyes Bird Observatory [PRBO], which is dedicated to protecting our marine environment by increasing our knowledge of birds and their habitats. PRBO was established in 1965 in order to provide research and education programs concerning songbirds and has expanded their mission to include international biological research on the loss of wetlands and the destruction of rain forests. As the oldest bird observatory in North America, PRBO has become the authority of the Farallon Islands and provided important long-term studies. They have done extensive research on the Pacific flyway, Antarctica, and other areas, contributing greatly to the scientific pool of information. PRBO sponsors a census of migratory birds and runs a model volunteer program with members of the public and students as field biologists. PRBO is public treasure worthy of national significance. As we celebrate PRBO's 30th anniversary, I wish to recognize the staff and the many individual volunteers that contribute the time and energy at the observatory, and to thank them for their commitment to improving our understanding our natural environment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton] for organizing tonight's special orders. She is so appreciated. Mr. Speaker, I know personally the fear of not having enough money to buy food for my children. Twenty-seven years ago I was a single working mother with three small children forced to rely on Aid For Dependent Children and food stamps in order to give my children the health care, child care and food they needed. That experience never leaves me, Mr. Speaker. It is the basis for my commitment to make sure that every child enters the classroom safe, healthy and ready to learn, and without nutrition programs this will not be possible. That is why I am shocked that at the same time Republicans are talking about taking school lunches away from almost 7,000 children in my congressional district, Mr. Speaker, they are refusing to cut pork barrel military projects like the F-22 fighter plane. Health care providers, parents and teachers all know that the school lunch program is crucial to our children's education and to their health. In fact, the school lunch program is the source of more than one-third of the recommended daily allowance for the children it serves. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, eliminating Federal school meal programs, cutting funds and giving what is left over to the States is no way to take care of our children. Rather we should be talking about full funding our school lunch programs and full stomachs for our kids. In fact, I have only one thing to say to this pea-brain plan. States do not get hungry, children do, and the public is not going to allow the Republicans to starve children just so they can pay for their Contract on America.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 27 years ago I was a single, working mother with 3 small children forced to rely on AFDC and food stamps, in order to give my children the health care, child care, and food they needed. Twenty-seven years later, I am shocked that the Republicans are talking about taking school lunches away from almost 7,000 children in my congressional district alone while they are refusing to take money away from pork barrel military projects like the F-22 fighter plane. Clearly, House Republicans are willing to punish children just so they can pay for their Contract on America. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have only one thing to say about the Republican plan: States don't get hungry, children do. And starving children is not the solution to balancing our budget. Mr. Speaker, children cannot learn when they are hungry. It is time to talk about full funding for school lunches and full stomachs for our children.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly oppose this bill to punish the American people for the management errors of Congress and the Pentagon. Of course we need to fund military readiness, and of course we have to pay for our peacekeeping operations. But it is not acceptable to do this by stealing money from environmental cleanup, defense conversion, job training, and school funding for our kids. We are punishing the children and punishing our communities because Congress can't find enough money in the $260 billion defense budget to pay for readiness. I oppose cutting these programs because they are not the reason we might be short on readiness funding. Let me tell you what has really been damaging readiness: The Trident D-5 nuclear missile, a $5 billion cold war relic, designed to hit targets which no longer exist in the former Soviet Union. The Star Wars Program--a Reagan dream which hasn't given us a single concrete result after $36 billion worth of wasteful spending since 1984--more than the entire annual budget for the Department of Education. And, Mr. Chairman, if you truly want to be intelligent about paying for readiness and peacekeeping, you should do it by cutting the inflated intelligence budget. We wouldn't have a readiness problem if Congress and the Pentagon could just stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on these cold war relics. These are the programs we should be targeting to offset this supplemental appropriations bill. Instead, H.R. 889 attacks programs that are essential to the future of our children and the health of our economy. I am truly ashamed that despite the end of the cold war, and despite the fiscal crisis facing our public school system, we are now considering a bill which takes money away from the $30 billion Department of Education budget and puts it into the $260 billion military budget. We're finally beginning to see the fine print in the contract on America. Not only does this bill propose to cut important domestic programs to make up for military waste, it cuts important programs within the defense budget as well--programs that are vital to the economic future of California and the rest of the Nation. I am not the only Californian who feels this way. Allow me to read a quote about H.R. 889's cuts in environmental cleanup funding from California's Republican Governor: The continued erosion of cleanup funding inevitably will threaten the health of armed services personnel and civilians who work at military bases where contamination is present. It will also exacerbate economic suffering in communities that are struggling to redevelop closing bases. The cleanup of military bases is not a partisan issue, Mr. Chairman. It should be recognized as an essential ingredient in the economic recovery of California and the rest of the Nation, and it should not be cut. Another essential ingredient is the technology reinvestment program, the cornerstone of President Clinton's landmark defense conversion initiative. In two short years, this program has moved California's economy forward by helping defense firms produce goods and services that can be used in the civilian sector. Despite the TRP's importance for California's economy, and indeed America's economy, H.R. 889 slashes funding for this as well. This bill, along with the National Security Revitalization Act which was passed last week, is sending the military budget back to the Dark Ages by preserving cold war relics and cutting the programs that are vital to our economic future. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 889, and to fund readiness and peacekeeping by cutting the truly wasteful military programs.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McDermott substitute to allow both the self-employed and employees, employees who are not covered, not insured by their employers, to deduct a portion of the cost of their health insurance. The McDermott substitute is both sensible and fair. Allowing uninsured employees who purchase their own coverage to take the same deduction that we are giving their employer may reduce the number of Americans who are not insured. The McDermott substitute will encourage individuals who are currently uninsured to buy health insurance. And the McDermott substitute does this at no cost to employers. What could make better sense? Mr. Chairman, we have a long way to go to reform health care in America and to achieve universal coverage for all Americans. But the McDermott substitute is a step in the right direction. I urge my colleagues to vote for the McDermott substitute.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the President in the strongest possible terms for his proposal to increase the minimum wage and provide much-needed relief for the working families of this country. In 1991, before I came to Congress, I was a human resources consultant. Back then, the minimum wage was at the same level that it is today: $4.25 an hour. In Sonoma County, where I worked, it was a joke to expect someone to support a family with a minimum wage job, because the minimum wage was not a livable wage. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is even less livable now, because inflation has cut its value by 50 cents over the past 4 years. This is a crisis for America's working families that Congress must address immediately. To those who oppose President Clinton on this issue, and especially to those who want to eliminate the minimum wage altogether, I want to remind you that 75 percent of the American people agree with our President. I urge my colleagues to unite on behalf of America's working families--to provide them with the wage they deserve.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the vote on the Spratt-Moran amendment to expend the President's line-item veto authority to include tax loopholes. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``Aye.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Neal], with whom I cochair the Democratic welfare task force.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my time by 3 minutes.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler]. child support enforcement

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Harold Ford, who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means. extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Jim Clyburn].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my special order this evening.