Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William Straus, rancher, environmentalist, and father of the family whose Straus Family Creamery has set a new standard for organic dairy products. Mr. Straus, who lived in Marshall, CA, died on July 6, 2003, at the age of 88. Born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1914, Bill, whose father was the first German Jew to earn a doctorate in agriculture, also studied agriculture before fleeing to British-controlled Palestine in 1936. Although he planned to settle there, relatives lured him to California where they were expecting to find oil near San Luis Obispo. No oil was found, but Bill fell in love with the land. He earned a degree in agriculture from UC Berkeley and purchased a ranch in Marshall. In 1949, fearing he would not find a Jewish girl to marry in West Marin, he traveled to New York twice to meet Amsterdam-born Ellen Prins. The couple married soon after, and Ellen moved to the ranch where she too fell in love with the rolling hills and beautiful landscape. The Strauses soon became leaders in efforts to protect the land and to develop environmentally sound farming practices. The couple understood that ranchers and conservationists needed to work together to preserve open spaces. Bill was the first rancher to join the Marin Conservation League, and in 1980 Ellen co-founded Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT). In 1994, son Albert Straus established the first organic dairy west of the Mississippi. Bill and Ellen created a warm, hospitable household based on their Jewish roots and were welcoming to friends, family, and a parade of visitors. Ellen Straus died last November. Bill is survived by four children and four grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Bill Straus left a legacy based on stewardship of the land, close personal relationships, commitment to agriculture and love of the landscape. His spirit lives on in the beautiful hills of West Marin.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Chairman, the people in this country will not believe what they are hearing tonight, that this amendment will allow thousands of dedicated Head Start teachers to be fired for no other reason than religious prejudice. Our amendment will reinstate the fundamental American protections against religious discrimination in employment. It will protect the jobs of thousands of Head Start teachers and the stability of children and families in Head Start programs. Voting for this amendment means that my colleagues are voting against religious discrimination. Why would anyone do otherwise?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair advise me how much time I have remaining?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It strikes the provision in the bill which would allow faith-based providers of Head Start services to discriminate based on religion against employees who are paid with public funds. Faith-based providers are already participating in Head Start, Mr. Chairman, and they abide by current law which says they cannot discriminate based on religion when they use taxpayers' dollars to hire employees. H.R. 2210 changes that. If H.R. 2210 becomes law with this employment discrimination exception in it, it will be the first time, the first time Congress has ever repealed a law that prohibits religious discrimination. And contrary to what my colleagues on the other side have been saying, H.R. 2210 is not consistent with title VII of the civil rights law. Title VII allows faith-based organizations to discriminate using their own money. H.R. 2210 will allow public taxpayers' money to be used for religious discrimination. Faith-based organizations do not want this, Mr. Chairman. That is why the Coalition Against Religious Discrimination sent a letter signed by 30 faith-based organizations asking Members to vote for the Woolsey- Edwards-Frank-Scott-Van Hollen amendment.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for introducing this necessary substitute. This Head Start bill is an outrage! H.R. 2210 it turns a program that is a proven success at improving the lives and futures of low-income children into some kind of Federal experiment. And, for the first time in this Nation's history, it repeals a law which protects employees against religious discrimination, and Mr. Miller's substitute fixes both of these issues. We know that children who complete Head Start are less likely to become delinquents and are more likely to graduate from high school than their peers from similar economic backgrounds. We know this and we know that voting for these amendments will ensure that low-income children can continue to get the Head Start they need to succeed in school and in life.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair advise me, please, who has the right to close.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. This Head Start bill is outrageous. It turns a program that is a proven success at improving the lives and futures of low-income children into a Federal experiment. And for the first time in this Nation's history, it repeals the law that protects employees against religious discrimination. Head Start does a better job than any other program to narrow the school readiness gap between low-income children and their more advantaged peers. These are our Nation's most disadvantaged children, Mr. Chairman, children who face multiple barriers to learning. One year in Head Start can erase all of these barriers. We have absolute proof that children who have been in Head Start enter kindergarten ahead of their peers from similar backgrounds but without Head Start. These children make substantial gains in specific academics during kindergarten. They end up close to all national academic norms by the end of the kindergarten year. We know that children who complete Head Start are less likely to become delinquent and more likely to graduate from high school. Yet not only does this bill hand Head Start over to the States to do what they would do with it as a block grant, it would also lead to tens of thousands of Head Start children losing their beloved teachers for no other reason than religious prejudice. The base bill allows faith-based Head Start providers to fire thousands of dedicated Head Start teachers because of their religious beliefs or practices. Today, Members will have the opportunity to vote for the Miller amendment, which will stop the dismantling of Head Start, and for my amendment against religious discrimination. Voting for these amendments will ensure that low-income children can continue to get the head start they need to succeed in school and to succeed in life. Without these amendments, this bill must be defeated.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2210 will dismantle Head Start and rob single moms of the very best childhood education for their children. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I hosted a townhall forum with my constituents to discuss the Republicans' prescription drug plan and how it will harm America's seniors. As a result, I missed rollcall votes 398-400. Had I been present, I would have voted: No. 398--``yea'' No. 399--``yea'' and No. 400-- ``yea.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to protect the voices of the American people, to make sure that their voices, their opinions, and their concerns are represented on the Nation's airwaves by supporting the Hinchey-Price amendment, and add this amendment to the good amendment that the committee passed earlier. How ironic that the United States went to war against a foreign regime whose oppression was based largely on control of information. And now, the FCC majority establishes a Saddam-style information system here in the United States. Have we learned nothing? On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission approved a new set of media ownership rules that allow large conglomerates to devour more independent media outlets and impose the laws of the jungle on the marketplace of ideas. I support the Hinchey-Price amendment because it would essentially suspend the FCC's decision to weaken media ownership rules dealing with the cross-ownership and local TV ownership. The Hinchey-Price amendment would preserve localism. It would preserve diversity and competition over our airwaves. Information is not just any commodity like steel and textiles, Mr. Chairman. A vibrant democracy depends on rich intellectual exchange on the free flow of ideas from a variety of sources. This is a principle. It is a principle embedded in the first amendment on free press and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. But media consolidation stifles dissent and drowns out alternative voices, giving Americans a stale, uniform product that barely accounts for individual community values. The recent FCC rules will enrich moguls, discourage entrepreneurship, and diminish quality. Niche content like children's programming will suffer. Minority populations will go underserved. Music and entertainment would become homogenized, with large media interests also acting as the idealogical sensors. If you do not believe me, ask the Dixie Chicks. The rules will further sever the critical bond between media outlets and their local consumers, as more journalists would answer to corporate bosses making news judgments from thousands of miles away. If the day comes, and it had better not, that one corporation owns several radio and TV stations, the cable network, and the single newspaper in one town, we may not only have lost the freedom to speak, but the opportunity to be heard. The airwaves belong not to the Rupert Murdochs of the world, but to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to protect the voices of the American people by supporting the Hinchey-Price amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I believe we should respect the State authority in regards to medical marijuana, and I remind my colleagues that we are not talking about illegal drugs, we are talking about medicinal marijuana, legally supported by 10 States. As my colleagues know, in my home State of California, voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 215, allowing the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Like my constituents, I believe that doctors should be permitted to prescribe marijuana for patients suffering from cancer, or AIDS, or glaucoma, spastic disorders, and other debilitating diseases. The people that I represent from Marin and Sonoma Counties, Mr. Chairman, just over the Golden Gate Bridge, and my colleagues will not be surprised, it is a very progressive area in our country, but they want their doctors to be permitted to prescribe marijuana for their patients suffering from debilitating diseases; and they believe that the Federal Government should get out of the way. They should not butt in. And that is why I support this amendment, because it would stop the Justice Department from punishing those who are abiding by their State's laws. Please join me in supporting this important amendment so that those who suffer from debilitating diseases can get relief without the fear of Federal interference. Mr. Chairman, I call on all Members of this Congress, particularly those who believe in States' rights, to let States represent their voters. It is not okay to pick and choose where States can butt in and where they have the ultimate responsibility based on ideologies.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know that my district is one of the most affluent districts in this Nation? In fact, they are the people who benefit the most from the Republican tax cuts. But do my colleagues know what they are asking me, Mr. Speaker? They are saying, why in the world are the 12 million children that belong to the hardest-working families and the most struggling families in this Nation not benefiting from the child tax credit? They do not understand how these low-income families, those who work hard to make ends meet, why they cannot get a little bit so they can buy something extra for their children, so they can possibly take a vacation, so that they can have enough money to buy shoes when the school year begins. Mr. Speaker, I was a single mom on welfare 35 years ago, and I had three very small children, 1, 3, and 5 years old. I was working. When my kids would outgrow their shoes, two boys and a girl, and those boys grew like weeds, I am telling you, my heart would stop, because I was scared to death I might not have the money to buy them decent shoes. The people I work for who elected me, women who had been on welfare and who have walked my walk, they know, they know the difference between having it all and having enough and making sure that other people have what they need to survive also. My constituents support the child tax credit. They want to hear just why the Republicans refuse to bring it to the floor, and they want it debated; and so do I, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor, once again tonight, to discuss the groundswell of support for an independent commission to discuss the administration's plans regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. After hearing the administration's case for war, many Americans felt they were led to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to use against America and were on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, we may yet find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but it is now clear to many Americans that the administration overstated and misrepresented the threat that Iraq posed to the United States. Those Americans can say it better than I can. Fred, from Ventura, California writes, ``I recently read an article that summarized the comments made by the President and members of his administration. I am deeply troubled by how incongruent these statements are with the realities after President Bush declared an end to hostilities.'' Susan from Solana Beach, California, compares the administration's untruths with recent corporate scandals, ``Enough is enough. Whatever deceptions corporate America perpetrated in the last few years, no one died and we continue to investigate. Washington must be held to a far higher standard because American lives were risked and lost on the word of the Bush administration. Without an investigation to answer these important questions about potential distortion of intelligence reports, all the tax cuts in the world will not buy my vote in future elections.'' Steve from Bakersfield was more understanding: ``If we launch a preemptive war by mistake, God help America.'' This is not God's responsibility, Mr. Speaker. It is the Congress's responsibility. Beatrice from Redondo Beach is upset with those of us here in Congress: ``I am angry at the lack of action by our representatives against this Bush administration on their manipulation of facts in order to take our country to war.'' J. Lawrence of California seconds that and I will quote him: ``Of all things that a government does, the decision to go to war must be made openly and without manipulations. I urge you to support an independent commission to investigate the circumstances surrounding what we, the public, were told about the justification for our recent incursion into Iraq. We spent millions on a sexual dalliance but appear to have been ignoring what may have been a mass deception and manipulation of truth that in the end put U.S. citizens and soldiers in harm's way.'' Stan and Sue from Sierra Madre support an investigation also. They say: ``Never should we harm another country nor put our own sons and daughters in harm's way under false pretenses. An inquiry is one of the tools to make sure this does not happen in the future.'' Mr. Speaker, other Americans want to remind us, in the Congress, that they do not care about partisanship. They only care about getting to the truth. Steve from Moorpark writes: ``In the interest of preserving the freedoms and liberties inherent to our Constitution, I ask you to support an independent investigation of the Bush administration's distortion of evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. No matter which political party affiliation any American favors, it is detrimental to our country, our Constitution, and our democracy to have our leaders mislead all Americans for reasons yet unknown.'' It is time to get the facts. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 2625, the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) bill to create an independent commission to uncover all of the facts about the administration's claims and Iraq's weapons. It is time for Congress to stop beating around the bush and take action. Support fact finding. Support an independent commission.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from New York's (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) NEA amendment. Once again, the House of Representatives is considering an interior appropriations bill that does not include such funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts was cut drastically in 1995 by more than 40 percent, and it has never returned to adequate levels. This year the NEA and the NEH need our support more than ever before. Private funding for the arts and the humanities has diminished with the economic downturn, leaving valuable programs in jeopardy. We know that the funding we invest in the NEA and the NEH provide a huge economic return on our Federal investment both in dollars and in jobs. The nonprofit arts industry generates $134 billion in economic activity every year. It creates more than 4 million jobs and $10.5 billion in Federal tax revenue. Let me say that again: $10.5 billion in Federal tax revenues. However, monetary reasons are not the only argument for increasing NEA and NEH funding. In a recent study by the Arts Education Partnership, a direct correlation was found between art education, cognitive capacity, and the motivation to learn. Participation in the arts and humanities can also be a source of pride and positive self-esteem. I have been a witness to this during my district's congressional art competition. Students of all ages were present and proudly displayed the objects of their hard work. These young people gained more than praise. They gained self-respect, a feeling they will carry in all of their endeavors. In addition, NEA programs such as Challenge America are using art as a means to bring communities together. Along with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and the National Guild of Community Schools, Challenge America has started a program that offers arts instruction to children living in public housing. When we deprive the NEA and NEH of the funds it needs, we deprive this entire Nation of an active cultural community. We live in the richest nation in the world, Mr. Chairman. We must not be the most culturally impoverished. The arts teach us to think. They encourage us to feel, to see in a new way and to speak. They help us to grow. The Slaughter-Shays amendment to increase funds for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities is a very small investment. It is an investment with a return as vast as the imagination. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Marin and Sonoma counties in California are as deeply concerned as the gentlewoman from Illinois' (Ms. Schakowsky) constituents are about their sons and their daughters dying in Iraq and the rationale the Republican administration has used to put them there. Americans are willing to sacrifice, Mr. Speaker, but only when those sacrifices are clearly justified. The lack of confidence my constituents show in our current White House results in the American people being unsure that their sacrifice in Iraq is justified. One of my constituents, Nina, from Sausalito writes, ``I believe the majority of Americans are good-hearted people who would not have supported the war on Iraq had they understood the true motivations for it. I believe that the administration knew this, and actively distorted information it gave the people in order to gain public support. We are supposed to live in a democracy, but how can we truly be a nation run by the people and for the people if our government is not open and honest in its communications with us?'' Some people think that Nina's suspicions, Mr. Speaker, are ridiculous. They cannot imagine how anyone could mistrust their leadership. I understand that. After 9-11 we all wanted to trust our Nation's leaders completely, but now our complacency is being shaken. A Walter Pincus article in today's Washington Post reads: ``Between October 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and January 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors.'' The issue, Mr. Speaker, is that people like Nina believe that when you are talking about war, it is not morally acceptable to send soldiers to early graves unless the evidence is absolutely overwhelming. People who supported war in Iraq argue that the evidence was overwhelming, but that begs the question. If the evidence was so overwhelming, why was the indisputable evidence kept secret while citing disputed evidence over and over again? My constituents do not think that adds up. Paul from Mill Valley says it very simply: ``We, the people, deserve to know if the principal justification that was used to commit this country to war in Iraq was true or a fabrication to manipulate public opinion.'' And James from Greenbrae writes that the disgust is bipartisan: ``As a registered Republican, I too have had it.'' That is a very serious statement, and that is why we need a thorough bipartisan investigation into Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Stephanie from Sonoma had some instructions for me also: ``Support an independent commission to investigate the Bush administration's distortion of evidence. The facts that have begun to come out are so alarming it would be a travesty to let this go without investigation.'' Graham from Santa Rosa also had some advice about an investigation: ``If there was no wrong doing, then the Bush administration should have nothing to worry about.'' Mr. Speaker, it is time to get the facts. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Waxman bill, H.R. 2625, for an independent bipartisan commission to investigate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. We should not be afraid of the truth.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of order.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight to talk about something that is truly scary, the President's credibility gap. The fact that Members of Congress, the American people, and our international allies can no longer trust the evidence President Bush uses to justify war is a terrible threat to his credibility and, therefore, to America's security. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore