Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to titles I and II of H.R. 4078. My amendment would exempt a proposed worker safety rule from the ``regulatory freeze'' and the prohibition on so-called ``midnight rules.'' This OSHA rule would update 40-year-old protections for those working around high-voltage transmission and distribution lines and equipment, which would bring them into the 21st century. If this amendment is not adopted, Madam Chair, many workers will be needlessly electrocuted or burned from electrical hazards--at least until unemployment drops to 6 percent. Are we really going to make workers wait until the jobless rate is 6 percent before getting protections for workers against burns from high- voltage electric arcs that run as hot as 35,000 degrees? If we are, they will be waiting a long time, because this Republican majority shows absolutely no interest in passing a jobs bill. Is it fair, Madam Chair, to make these workers wait for 6 percent unemployment before their employers have to assess and provide safe minimum distances from high-voltage lines? Is it morally defensible to make workers wait for a full economic recovery before they get simple protections like rubber-insulated sleeves so that their arms aren't blown apart from having contact with high-voltage wires? Certainly not. Unless the bill sponsor is aware of some new scientific discovery, 35,000 degrees feels just as hot no matter how many Americans are out of work. Shock at 14,000 volts of electricity does the same damage whether unemployment is 8 percent or 6 percent. Yet this bill seems to assume lethal hazards are somehow less lethal during tougher economic times. Even worse, this bill implies that preventable electrocutions are somehow acceptable whenever unemployment is high. This is irresponsible, if not unethical. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, each year, 74 electrical workers covered under this rule are killed on the job. Another 444 are severely injured. OSHA is authorized to regulate a hazard when the risk of fatality is more than 1 in a 1,000. The fatality rate for workers covered under this OSHA rule is 14 times that level. Full compliance would eliminate 79 percent of these fatalities and injuries. Madam Chair, the one-size-fits-all approach of this bill will block a commonsense, cost-effective rule that produces an estimated $4 in benefits for every dollar in cost. OSHA's proposed update would provide an estimated $100 million in savings every single year. While the authors of this bill argue that the President can seek a waiver from Congress to allow the rule, I'm not buying it. As we saw with the so-called ``comma bill'' proposed by Mr. Sensenbrenner a number of years ago, it took three sessions of Congress just to fix a harmless typo. We all know that when a special interest wants to stop something around here, there are countless ways to win. If this bill is not amended, Madam Chair, Congress will be sentencing scores of workers every year to preventible electrocutions and to burns. I ask for adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, the gentleman from the other side of the aisle is not correct on this. If the President signed the bill, the regulation would be stopped. In closing, Madam Chair, the adoption of my amendment will save the lives of Americans who work in some of the most dangerous conditions imaginable. It is ridiculous and it's downright cruel to tell these men and women who risk electrocution everyday that OSHA will only step in to help them when the jobless rate reaches some arbitrary level. Whether unemployment is 6 or 8 or 10 percent, whether the economy is strong or weak, we need to protect our workers. I ask for Members to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with pride today to honor Mei T. Nakano of Sebastopol, CA. Ms. Nakano has spoken out about her life in a World War II internment camp and has become a powerful advocate for human rights, justice, and world peace. Born in Colorado in 1924 to Japanese immigrants who farmed there, Ms. Nakano was later interned in a camp in Amache, Colorado, for three years during World War II. She met and married her husband Shiro there and then saw him drafted into the U.S. Military Intelligence Service. After the war, she raised three children, and, inspired by women's liberation and civil rights movements, went back to school and earned a Master's Degree in Language and Literature at age 51. According to Mei, ``The Japanese American community finally began to claim its history during the 1970s in the foment of the liberation movements. Simultaneously, we began to feel the full rights of citizenship and entitlements due us.'' After working for several years as an English instructor at Laney College and Diablo Valley College, Ms. Nakano became a partner and editor at Mina Press Publishing. She turned increasingly to free-lance writing and human rights activism, becoming well known for her depictions of the Japanese American experience and the importance of social just and multiculturalism. One of her seminal books, Japanese American Women: Three Generations, first published by Minna Press in 1991 and now in its fifth printing, was hailed as the first of its kind historical survey of Japanese American women from the initial immigrant generation trying to adapt their cultural values to America through later generations who balanced these values with those of the society they were born into. For Mei's generation, the second, the experience of the World War II concentration camps defined everything that followed. Mei Nakano organized the first Asian American Women's conference in Oakland, in 1992 and continues to speak out movingly and cogently about her beliefs and experiences at high schools, colleges, other institutions, and public events. ``The salient point to be made,'' she says, ``is how pernicious and destructive racism is, how anti-human. It can cause people to defer their aspirations, lose hope, and, at times, strike out in anti-social behavior. Others may go down that sinkhole of safety of `having done well enough . . .'' The issue of injustice because of `otherness' is not done. It takes vigilance to recognize it, a commitment to be moved to do something about it.'' Ms. Nakano has always been very active in her local community. Since 1979, she has been a member of the Executive Board of the Sonoma County Japanese American Citizens League, and she was an organizer of the successful effort to establish the Sonoma County Commission on Human Rights. She served as the Commission's first chair (1992). In speaking out on the injustices she sees, Mei Nakano also gives us a message of hope: ``Finally, I need to say that I rejoice in the fact that we've come a long way here in America regarding the issue of `otherness,' not the least of which is the extraordinary fact of electing an African American president. For me, the `foreign-ness' which I felt so starkly in childhood and in my growing years, has gradually dissipated as I find myself tossed in the salad bowl of American society, proud to be in the skin I'm in.'' Mr. Speaker, Mei T. Nakano has used the experiences of her life to inspire others and is now enjoying time with her husband of 69 years and her three children as well as her grandchildren and great grandchildren. She is also gardening, reading, responding to requests for writing articles, working on book of short stories, and, of course, speaking out when the need arises. Please join me in honoring this special activist who reminds us of the causes worth fighting for.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Last September, the Department of Labor published a proposed rule on children employed in agriculture. I saw it as an important regulation that would protect young people working in one of the top three most hazardous industries in the Nation--agriculture. But in May, the Department withdrew the rule. I want to say this again: in May of this year, the Department withdrew the rule. That wasn't enough, apparently, for the Republican majority. Today, they've decided to waste precious legislative time on a bill that tells the Department of Labor not to issue this regulation--again, a regulation the Department already withdrew. Today's debate gives new meaning to the idea of government waste. Not only did the Department of Labor withdraw this rule; the administration has said it will not reissue the rule. I was disappointed that the Department chose not to pursue the rule in the first place because the rule sought to implement specific recommendations made by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, OSHA, and increase parity between the agriculture and non- agriculture child labor provisions. Agriculture is dangerous, Mr. Speaker. Children working on farms, like their adult counterparts, work with or around toxic pesticides. They carry very heavy materials, and they use dangerous equipment. The fatality rate for child farmworkers is four times higher than for children in other industries. There are an estimated 400,000 children working on farms that are not owned by family members, and those children deserve health and safety protections. That is all this rule would have required. Children under 16 should not be permitted or required to work with hazardous pesticides or dangerous equipment-- period. But let's be clear. Nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' farms in the first place. I've been a steadfast supporter of family farms throughout my 20 years in Congress. We have many family farms in California's Sixth Congressional District. They are the important economic engine and a part of the fabric of our beautiful and diverse community. Mr. Speaker, my intent here is simply to protect children who are in danger of being exploited and injured. The withdrawal of this rule was disappointing. Today's debate, however, is a disgrace. There are nearly 24 million Americans unemployed or underemployed. Instead of addressing the real issues that affect them, we are debating legislation that does nothing that hasn't already been done. It prevents a rule that has been already prevented by powerful special interests--and talk about a waste of taxpayer money. With the Republican majority taking floor time with meaningless legislation like this, it's no wonder Congress has an approval rating in the low teens. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to repeat what I said in my opening remarks. Nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' family farm. The proposed rule maintains the parental exemption. But again, to remind everybody, the Department of Labor withdrew their proposal. We are wasting time today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I continue to reserve.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Again, Mr. Speaker, nothing in the proposed rule would have applied to children working on their parents' family farm, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that we're ready to close, so I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, Mr. Speaker, once again, at a time when there are so many Americans looking for work and so many middle class families struggling to make ends meet, Congress has better things to do than take up a redundant bill. It's wasteful, it's unnecessary, and it prevents us from doing the real work that our constituents have sent us here to do. Let's answer the important challenges facing the country. Let's start creating jobs for the American people. Let's start now, and let's stop wasting time on something that has already been satisfied. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment offered by my friend from California. As she clearly stated, this amendment would cut $19.2 billion of Pentagon spending and bring the overall spending down to $500 billion while at the same time protecting our troops and their medical needs. Even with this cut, the $500 billion that remains amounts to a generous appropriation for the Defense Department. With this cut, the Pentagon budget would still be greater than the next 10 countries' defense budgets combined. That's right: military spending from China, Japan, Germany, the U.K., Russia, India, France, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil combined would still trail our United States' military Pentagon budget by hundreds of billions of dollars. I just don't understand how someone can stand here and say half a trillion dollars isn't enough. How many more outdated Cold War weapons systems do we need? How many helicopters with unreliable mechanical systems do we need? How many fighter jets causing pilot blackouts do we need? How many more private defense contractors do we have to pay and overpay? At some point we have to say enough is enough. It's time, Mr. Chairman, for a reality check. It's time to accept that we spend too much on our bloated defense budget. I mean, ask any other Department or agency if they would make due with half a trillion dollars. I think we all know what that answer is--they would be delighted. I urge you all, vote ``yes,'' bring some sanity back to our budget. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, this week, the House is debating the Defense appropriations bill, which provides an excellent opportunity to point out something quite ironic about my colleagues in the majority because, Madam Speaker, for all of their talk about getting spending under control, that same rhetoric is surprisingly absent when we are talking about the Pentagon budget, which we are talking about this week. You see, they're eager to slash and burn when it comes to programs that invest and support middle class working families, but somehow, when it is time for sacrifice to be shared, the military industrial complex is nowhere to be found. While we have to fight for every penny of domestic spending, the Pentagon simply fills in its amount on a blank check, it appears. So I think we ought to have a dollar-for- dollar match in spending cuts. I will be offering a series of amendments to the DOD appropriations bill that call for defense cuts in the exact amounts by which other important programs are being reduced. For example, the proposed Labor-HHS-Education spending bill eliminates the title X program. Title X, the family planning program that historically has been passed with bipartisan support, has provided contraceptive and preventive health services to low-income women for more than 40 years. The Republicans want the title X $294 million investment gone. So let's cut the defense budget by an identical $294 million; The Ag appropriations bill provides $119 million less than the President requested for WIC--the Women, Infants, and Children's program--which provides badly needed nutrition assistance for poor pregnant women, new mothers, and children up to the age of 5. So, if we are going to shortchange a pillar of our safety net by $119 million, then I believe the Department of Defense can do without that same $119 million. Here's the big ticket item: the Republican budget. The budget that passed this body in March zeroed out all funding for the Social Services Block Grant, including $1.7 billion in cuts for next year. If my Republican friends believe that we can't afford $1.7 billion next year to provide daycare, housing, home health care, home meal delivery, and other social services, then I say we can also eliminate a corresponding $1.7 billion in defense spending. The fact is, Madam Speaker, defense cuts are not only fiscally responsible and morally defensible; they're widely popular. USA Today reported yesterday on a new survey that shows that two-thirds of those living in Republican congressional districts believe that the defense budget is too large. It is no secret that military spending is widely out of control. Let's remember that none of this takes into account the war in Afghanistan, which isn't funded through the appropriations process. On top of the bloated defense budget, American taxpayers are shelling out another $10 billion a month--not a year--for a decade-long war that is failing to advance our national security objective. It's time to reverse this course. It's time to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. It's time for the Pentagon to assume its share of the shared sacrifice. It's time to do the right and the sensible thing: stop spending on weapons and warfare and start investing in the American people.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Next week, more than 20,000 delegates from around the world will convene in Washington for the International AIDS Conference. I find it ironic and a little bit sad that, as so many mobilize to fight this deadly epidemic, the majority in this body want to cut $150 million from USAID's global health initiative, which funds AIDS prevention efforts. When will we learn? Fighting diseases in the developing world is more than a matter of humanitarian decency. It's also critical to our national security. This week, as we debate how much money to appropriate to the Defense Department, I hope we will remember that defending America and our values isn't just about how many weapons we build, but how many lives we save around the world. This is the core truth behind my SMART Security proposal, that fighting terrorism and keeping our country safe depends less on American military force and more on American compassion.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we'll be spending the next several days debating the Department of Defense budget, a whopping $519.2 billion. By anyone's accounting, that's a lot of money. What we won't be debating is the future of our presence in Afghanistan. You'd think a Congress obsessed with the deficit and cutbacks would take a look at the costliest item on our books: the war in Afghanistan. Nope. No debate on that. Instead, a few of us are coming here to the well to take a handful of 5-minute slots. This is for a war that has cost our Nation in blood and treasure, in ways we may never be able to add up. And what are those costs? What are those costs? As of today, we've spent $548 billion on the war. That's $10 billion a month. Actually, it's more than this year's DOD budget. This year, we face the 2,000th death in Operation Enduring Freedom. More than 15,000 of our brave men and women in uniform have returned home wounded. Every day we lose one more servicemember to suicide. And the Afghan people, how many of them have died and been wounded? So the other side of the aisle wants to talk about cost. Well, let's do that. What has this misguided war cost us in international standing? Is the U.S. more popular in the Middle East and Central Asia? No. Are we any safer? Probably not. As a new generation of Afghan children grow up in an occupied country, aren't they learning to hate the West? Yes. What's the cost here at home? How many cops could we have put on the beat? How many homes could have been saved from foreclosure? How many farmers could get drought relief? How many small business jobs could have been created? How many more patients could we have cared for at our veterans hospitals? We'll never know. Because instead of having an honest and open debate about our spending priorities, we have to grab 5 minutes here and 5 minutes there. That's not what the American people want. They want transparency. They want more debate. Further than that, they want this war to be over. They want our troops to come home. So, yes, by all means, let's talk about cost; but let's not squeeze it in among $500 billion worth of weapons, planes, and the rest of the military industrial complex. I urge the House leadership to have a real debate on the war in Afghanistan, and let's shine some light on how much it costs. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, our Nation's transportation infrastructure is in terrible, terrible disrepair. More than ever, we need to be pumping resources into transportation projects and into initiatives for that end. We need to upgrade and modernize our roads and highways, but we also need to build up mass transit systems, buses, rail lines, et cetera. Doing so improves lives in our communities, allowing people to move around more freely and easily, and it also creates jobs. And by reducing our dependency on automobile travel, this transportation is clean, energy-efficient, and environmentally sensitive, as well. Luckily, we have a Federal agency, the Federal Transit Administration, or FTA, that exists to make exactly these investments. I'm proud to say that my home district has benefited from FTA grants to the tune of $11 million over the last year. A new commuter train, the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, or SMART train, that connects the major cities in my district is just one of the local projects that is putting FTA money to good use. So, at a moment when our transportation needs are so great across the country, wouldn't it make sense to increase the FTA budget? Except that the House, expressing the priorities of its Republican majority, recently passed a fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill that cut $181 million from current FTA spending levels. And at the same time, they're now presenting us with a Department of Defense spending bill that calls for $1.1 billion more in military spending over current levels. Why are we all being asked to tighten our belts while the military industrial complex gets to loosen theirs by a few notches year after year after year? If the Federal budget crisis is so dire, Mr. Chairman, so dire that we can pinch pennies on badly needed transit infrastructure, surely we can do the same with a bloated Pentagon budget that has been growing out of control for more than a decade now. And that's the simple concept behind my amendment. In the interest of fairness and shared sacrifice, I'm proposing a $181 million cut to the Defense appropriations bill identical to the reduction in FTA spending passed by the House a few weeks ago. I trust that all my Republican colleagues, each one more fiscally responsible than the next, will jump at this chance to further cut Federal spending. I yield back the balance of my time.