Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do not take my word for it. Listen to one of my constituents, Roy, from San Rafael. He writes: I was one of those who, traumatized by 9/11, trusted our government to lead us down the right path based on indisputable evidence and sound judgment. I supported their decision to go to war. I deserve to know if I was duped. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that many people in this country are faced with a similar and terrible dilemma. Are they to believe whether or not the administration lied to them? Are they to believe that the White House is inept, that they based a decision to send young Americans to die on faulty information? Another constituent of mine, William, from Sebastopol, wrote about what President Bush's untruths meant to him: I love my country but I am not very proud of it right now. This administration must answer for their deception. Business as usual is not acceptable. And Reede from Forest Knolls, California, sums up exactly why the White House must talk about these untruths and their unwillingness to come clean about them: There is nothing more essential to democracy than information. The administration's calculated disinformation campaign about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is a direct attack upon our most cherished democratic values. Such flagrant contempt for the right of the people to control their government is unacceptable. After September 11, Mr. Speaker, we all wanted to trust. We wanted to give our administration the benefit of the doubt. However, it is increasingly obvious that it is either not worthy of that trust, or it is simply not trustworthy. Either way, the administration must be held accountable for the untruths that came out of their mouths. Don and Pam, two of my constituents from Santa Rosa, write, One of the Bush administration's favorite words is accountability. But because of their obsession with secrecy and control, they have successfully avoided making themselves accountable. Reasons for going to war in Iraq and, beyond that, the Bush foreign policy, including preemptive strikes and unilateral action, demands accountability, accountability through thorough investigation. Mr. Speaker, Americans want answers. They want answers from their administration, and they are getting the runaround. My constituent, Patrick from Sebastopol, writes, The administration's repeated use of the phrase, ``attempts to rewrite history'' is unbelievable. They are the ones attempting to rewrite history. The simple fact is that the American people demand answers, and it is now up to Congress to get them. Landis, from my own hometown, Petaluma, says it perfectly: It is very important to be able to trust one's government. We don't always need to agree, but we do need to believe that our government is working in our best interests. Even if the current administration is able to fool many Americans, it is not fooling the world. Until an independent commission investigates possible manipulations of intelligence data, the world and, indeed, many Americans, will not be able to trust that the Bush administration is working in America's best interest. Mr. Speaker, it is time for a meaningful investigation into the administration's statements. The people I work for in Marin and Sonoma Counties and Americans across the country are demanding an investigation, and Congress must carry it out. I am pleased to add my voice to those of my constituents and join the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) in his call for a bipartisan investigation into weapons of mass destruction.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Obey/Miller Amendment, which would protect millions of workers from losing their overtime pay. If the Bush Administration's proposed changes take effect, 79 percent of the workers in this country will lose their guaranteed right to overtime pay, 79% (8 out of every 10 workers). This is not just bad policy, it's piracy. It is a slap in the face to any effort for economic recovery. Mr. Speaker, how many CEO's do you know who would work without their pay? Under the Bush Administration's proposal, workers will be working the same long hours they now work--in fact, probably longer hours, without overtime compensation. That's why the Obey/Miller Amendment ensures that ``no'' public funds can be used to take away the overtime rights of workers. It is tough enough on families that are forced to spend long hours away from their families to earn a living, and commute long distances, now under this bill they won't even be compensated for their extra time. Join me in voting for this amendment to make certain that workers and families are not shortchanged by the Bush policies.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee for a good bill. H.R. 438 is a good bill as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. One thing it does not do is provide loan forgiveness for Head Start teachers, and this is a big mistake. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, which is the committee working on the Head Start reauthorization, our committee has heard witness after witness, and both Republican and Democrat agree on the importance of having teachers with 4-year degrees in the Head Start programs. In fact, one of the provisions in the Head Start reauthorization bill that has strong bipartisan support is a goal to have 50 percent of Head Start teachers with a BA degree by the year 2008. This is another of the Republicans' classic case of not putting their money where their mouth is. We can talk all we want about a good goal and how much this goal will help our kids, but if the teachers cannot get their BA degrees and at the same time afford to teach in Head Start, then what does that goal mean? Salaries for Head Start teachers are much lower than the salaries for other similar teaching positions. Currently, the average salary for teaching in a public school prekindergarten program is close to double the average salary of a Head Start teacher with the exact same education. I think that anyone who becomes a preschool teacher is a pretty selfless, devoted person, but let us get real. Very few people, no matter how devoted they are, can afford to choose a job that pays half of what another job pays for almost the exact same work. If we would offer Head Start teachers help with paying their Federal student loans, that could make up for some of the salary difference. Student loan forgiveness would allow more teachers with 4-year degrees to teach in a Head Start program, and current Head Start teachers at the same time could go on and get their BA degrees while continuing to work at Head Start. I worry that 5 years from now, unless we invest in these teachers, when we are again reviewing Head Start, Members are going to say, see, it does not do any good to try to get teachers with BA degrees into Head Start and use that as a mark against a Head Start program. Democrats offered amendments to include Head Start teachers in H.R. 438 every step along the way when we were considering the Head Start bill; but regretfully, the majority defeated these inclusions on a party line vote over and over again. Including Head Start teachers in H.R. 438 would make it a much better bill. Mr. Speaker, including Head Start teachers in the bill would help millions of low-income children get the head start that they need in life.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Thompson of California and I rise today, to recognize Bill Barrett who is retiring this month after twenty-six and a half years with the United States Postal Service. Mr. Barrett began his career as a letter carrier in Milpitas, California in 1976. In 1978 he worked briefly in his hometown of Yakima, Washington before returning to Milpitas, where he worked until 1985. He spent the last eighteen years of his career in Santa Rosa, California. During this time Mr. Barrett also served his co-workers as a Trustee of the National Association of Letter Carriers Branch 183 from 1987 to 2002, and as Legislative Liaison from 1994 to 1998. He has also been a District Officer with the California State Association of Letter Carriers from 1998 to the present. Prior to his career with the USPS, Mr. Barrett was a Staff Sergeant in the United States Air Force and served a tour of duty in Vietnam from 1968 to 1970. He is also active with his military service group, Blind Bat. Mr. Barrett and his wife, Fran, are very proud of their two daughters, Amy, 26 and Missy, 22. In his retirement, Mr. Barrett plans to continue his work with persons with special needs and to travel on his new motorcycle, with its special license plate that reads: XMAILMN. His other hobbies are reading and researching genealogy on his computer. Mr. Speaker, Bill Barrett has been a dedicated public servant all of his adult life, both in service to his country in the U.S. military and as an employee with the United States Postal Service. It is appropriate that we honor him today for his many contributions.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this debate is a question of priorities, and it's a question of values. Under the Republican plan, after seniors have incurred $2,000 in prescription drug benefits, they will still pay a premium, but they better not expect anything in return. And why is that? It's because just last week, the Republican leadership decided that they would rather eliminate estate taxes for millionaires than help seniors afford prescription drugs. They insisted on spending a total of $820 billion to help 8,000 millionaires. For almost the same cost, we could give millions of seniors a real prescription drug benefit. Millionaires or millions of seniors? The Republicans give new meaning to the phrase ``better off dead.'' If you're rich and dead, Republicans don't want you to lose a dime. But if you're alive and can't afford the high cost of prescription drugs--well, good luck. You might want to be dead. I dare my Republican colleagues to tell their mothers what they're doing to Medicare. My priority is giving every American senior a real prescription drug benefit, like the one in the Democratic alternative. Oppose the Republican bill, support the Democratic alternative.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, this sham Republican bill fails to provide women with the real prescription drug coverage they need and they deserve. Here we are, again, discussing ways to help seniors afford the prescription drugs that they need. And once again, the majority insists on a sham proposal that gives seniors nothing more than a false sense of security. My female colleagues and I would like to remind everyone that as we debate proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, the decisions we make will overwhelmingly impact our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and aunts. Women are living longer than ever, and longer than men--this is good news. However, the poverty that many women experience during their final years is certainly not good news. There are several reasons women's ``golden years'' are not so golden. While most women have worked their entire lives, a good portion of this work was not in the paid workforce. You don't earn a pension for time spent caring for children or elderly parents. When many of our mothers and grandmothers were in the workforce, they were denied equal pay for equal work. Some worked only part time, trying to balance the responsibilities of their jobs and their families. As a result, they've made less over their lifetimes--and now their monthly Social Security benefit is smaller. These women deserve financial stability, and still, the Republican prescription drug proposal denies them the security that comes with knowing that can afford to pay for their medical care. No one needs a drug benefit more than elderly women. But instead of a real prescription drug benefit, all they are getting from the majority are empty promises, a ``donut hole'' coverage gap, and increased premiums for the services they already enjoy. Our mothers and grandmothers deserve better. We can and we must do better. Oppose this sham Republican plan, and support the Democratic alternative.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) said, this is deja vu all over again. Here we are, once again, discussing ways to help seniors afford the prescription drugs that they need and must have and, once again, the majority insists on a sham proposal that gives seniors nothing more than a false sense of security. I am here tonight with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) to remind everyone that as we debate proposals to add a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, the decisions we make will overwhelmingly impact the mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and aunts across this country. Women are living longer than ever, and they are living longer than men. That is good news. However, the poverty that many women experience during their final years is certainly not good news. There are several reasons women's golden years are not so golden. While most women have worked their entire lives, a good portion of this work was not in the paid workforce. You do not earn a pension for the time spent caring for children or elderly parents. When many of our mothers and grandmothers were in the workforce, they were denied equal pay for equal work, therefore earning less. Some worked only part-time, trying to balance the responsibilities of their jobs and their families. As a result, they have made less over their lifetimes, and now their monthly Social Security benefit is considerably smaller than their male counterparts. These women deserve financial stability and still, the Republican prescription drug proposal denies them the security that comes with knowing that they can afford to pay for their medical care. Not only will the majority's plan not help senior women, it will push Medicare beneficiaries into HMOs, creating more instability. I am not speculating; I have watched it happen in my district. Just a few years ago, the Health Plan of the Redwoods, a good, small HMO that served my constituents in Sonoma and Marin Counties, went bankrupt. After first limiting services and physician payments, they had to close their doors. This bankruptcy interrupted care for a number of my constituents, a great number of them senior women. We should not force Medicare beneficiaries to accept the same kind of instability in exchange for a prescription drug benefit. The Republican plan ignores the proverbial 800-pound elephant in the room: the astronomically high prices of prescription drugs. Take a minute and think about the reason our senior women cannot afford prescription drugs. It is because prescription drugs are too expensive. To me, it is good, old-fashioned, common sense that we should take steps that address the root of the problem and find ways to reduce these prices. But the majority apparently does not enjoy the same common sense that my democratic colleagues and I do. Their plan specifically forbids the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating lower prescription drug prices. Can my colleagues imagine that? The Republican plan prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from trying to make the cost of prescription drugs lower. Private insurance companies then must on their own negotiate with far less bargaining power. The Veterans Administration has proven that negotiating can result in lower prices, but the Republicans have once again proven that they care more about the profits of the pharmaceutical companies than the bottom lines or about senior women. Many older women have little or no financial security. But there is one thing even more dangerous than that, and that is a false sense of security. Millions of women will read the newspapers; they will be delighted to learn that there is now a Medicare prescription drug benefit. But imagine their surprise, imagine the surprise of the typical elderly woman when she learns that her so-called benefit will require her to pay $4,000 of the first $5,000 in annual drug expenses. And that is on top of a monthly premium that is yet to be determined. Frankly, I find it shameful that the majority claims that they are delivering a drug benefit to seniors when in reality the plan will cover only a small portion of their expenses. And it will actually outlaw practical steps to reduce these expenses in the first place. I dare my Republican colleagues to tell their mothers what they are doing to Medicare. After a lifetime of hard work, both in and out of the home, our mothers and grandmothers deserve better than this fraudulent plan the republicans are pushing. We can do better and we must.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise to support the Lee amendment. I thank the ranking member for her support. As this House, our Nation and the world debate the quality of the intelligence that the war in Iraq was fought over, it is too easy to forget that our troops were not the first to search the Iraqi desert for weapons of mass destruction. United Nations inspectors spent a decade searching for and destroying illegal Iraqi weapons facilities, but in the days and months leading up to the war, they were scorned for their failure to find weapons of mass destruction. This resolution calls on the GAO to investigate how much cooperation the United States intelligence agencies gave United Nations inspectors. Understanding about that cooperation with the United Nations, or lack thereof, will give us a better picture of the efforts this Nation took to avoid war with Iraq. If America did not fully share its intelligence with U.N. inspectors, Congress needs to find out why. The fact is that the rhetoric leading up to the war in Iraq led many Americans to believe that finding weapons of mass destruction would be absolutely easy, that the U.N. inspectors must have been grossly incompetent. But I do not believe that to be true and I think that our inability to find weapons of mass destruction now requires the United States to reexamine the rhetoric and the events that led up to the war. We need to find out beyond reports from USA Today if our U.S. intelligence agencies were cooperating fully with the U.N. inspectors. And we need to find out if the prewar rhetoric reflected the intelligence we shared with the United Nations. This amendment is about getting answers to questions that we are all asking in this country. I urge my colleagues to support the Lee amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on H. Res. 294, a measure expressing solidarity with the people of Israel and condemning the terrorist attacks inflicted on them since the Aqaba Summit. The timing could not be any more ironic. Today as we consider this one- sided resolution on the Mideast, there are reports of a ceasefire taking hold that underlines the need for America to find a way to condemn violence in a way that does not favor one set of innocent victims over another. Unfortunately, this resolution does not meet this standard. Instead, this resolution, in its present form, will do more to take us away from peace than to bring us closer to an agreement that serves the needs and desires of all people in the Middle East. That is not to say that I disagree with the text of this resolution: I condemn, in the strongest terms, all terrorist attacks against Israelis and remain committed to Israel's security and the well-being of Israeli citizens. Brutal attacks against civilians are always unacceptable and as a sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend itself from these kinds of attacks. But, this resolution, which does not address the losses on both sides, sends the wrong message to Israelis, Palestinians, and the world community. My concern is also that this resolution does not endorse the ``roadmap'' for peace, nor does it recognize the commitments and obligations that Israel must implement for the peace process to move forward. Furthermore,, it does not recognize the terrible pain and suffering that Israeli occupation and crackdown has caused in the disputed territories. We need to condemn Palestinian terrorists, but acknowledge the honorable goals of peace-loving Palestinians that want nothing more than a better life. This Congress should recognize the pain of every mother that has lost an innocent child because of violence in the Mideast, not only Israeli mothers. Mr. Speaker I share the anger and sadness of my colleagues who have brought this resolution regarding the Mideast to the floor. But, I am convinced that this resolution will not advance the prospects for the lasting peace that we all want, which, is why I will vote against it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) for this substitute that we have here today. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Kind plan because it is actually kind to small businesses and it is kind to hard-working employees, and it makes affordable coverage accessible to the employees, the hard workers that need and deserve that coverage. As a small business owner, I know firsthand how difficult it is to provide workers with first-class health coverage, but the reality is these hard-working families need access to quality healthcare, not just bare bones, expensive coverage. I would have appreciated the Kind plan for my employees, I can tell you that. The Republican plan actually provides employers and employees with a false sense of security. It is a false security. They will assume they are paying for standard coverage, like the owner of the business has for his or her family. They will assume they are paying for mammograms, prenatal and postnatal coverage, coverage for illnesses like diabetes, and for prostate cancer, because these are generally State-mandated coverages. And when they find out differently after they have enrolled in one of these plans, it will be too late. I support the Kind substitute, because it gives small businesses the option to enroll in a health plan that is similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, giving workers a choice of plans. Why should the hard-working people of America, those employed by small businesses, have fewer options than Federal workers? Mr. Speaker, the Kind substitute provides an affordable option to small businesses by granting subsidies. It gives them choices guaranteed to cover the most important medical procedures. This substitute provides working families, desperate for quality health coverage, the choices they need and want, and I urge my colleagues to support the Kind substitute.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, few health services are as important to a woman as an annual mammogram. Early detection is necessary as a weapon in our fight against breast cancer. Breast cancer has already touched far too many families. I simply cannot accept the idea of even one woman in any of our districts forgoing her annual mammogram and then later being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer because her association health plan does not cover mammograms. Support this motion to recommit. Help save the lives of our wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters. The women of this country are counting on your vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today as we stand here and discuss the conference report on the Keeping Our Children and Families Safe Act, I find it ironic that this week the Republican leadership can find it in their hearts to provide much-needed funding to prevent child abuse, which is decent and necessary, but last week they could not provide critical funding for low-income children without voting for additional tax breaks for the rich. These are the very children from low-income families who are statistically likely to suffer from child abuse, perhaps because of frustration piled on families struggling to make ends meet. This week, the Republicans care about children; last week, they did not. What kind of message is this? The Republican's child tax credit bill, which the House debated last week, was a squandered opportunity to invest in all of our children and their families. We missed the chance to pass a child tax credit bill which would immediately grant our Nation's hard-working families their fair share of the tax credit. The families I am talking about are those with dedicated workers that work long hours at low pay, who pay taxes and earn less than $26,000 a year. It is unfortunate that Republicans believe these children and families do not contribute enough to deserve a break, a break now, like higher income families will get. Republican actions last week left me no doubt that Republican priorities are dead wrong. Last week the House Republicans should have followed the other body and brought a child tax credit bill before us that would help children now, without burdening them with a tax debt later in life. But, according to the majority leader, ``If we are going to do it, we should get something in exchange. If we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it is welfare.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, these families do pay taxes. They are not seeking welfare. They are seeking the same acknowledgment for their hard work as the rich received in the Republican tax package. They deserve tax relief at the same time as other American families. Instead, this supposed party of ``compassionate conservatism'' has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Instead of bringing up the other body's child tax credit bill costing $3.5 billion with offsets to fully pay for it, they passed a bill costing over $80 billion not paid for. Mr. Speaker, this is at a time when America's Federal deficit will exceed $400 billion, which, by the way, will be paid for by our children, their children, and their children, and on down the line. Mr. Speaker, our priority must be putting money in the hands of working Americans while keeping our fiscal house in order. That way we can create jobs and build a strong economy. We are helping our children today by protecting them from child abuse, but being poor is abuse of another kind. Mr. Speaker, children are 25 percent of the population of this Nation, but they are 100 percent of our Nation's future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to give my Special Order at this time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today's vote on the Republican child tax credit bill was a squandered opportunity, a squandered opportunity to invest in our children and their families. We missed the chance to pass legislation that would immediately grant our Nation's hardworking families an increased child tax credit. The families I am talking about are those with dedicated workers that put in full-time hours at a low wage, pay taxes, and earn less than $26,000 a year. It is unfortunate that Republicans believe these forgotten children and families do not contribute enough to deserve a break. Their actions today left me no doubt that their priorities are dead wrong. Why could the House Republican leadership not follow the other body and bring a clean child tax credit bill before us today? According to a colleague on the other side of the aisle, ``If we're going to do it, we should get something in exchange. If we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it's really welfare.'' Mr. Speaker, these families are not on welfare. They do pay taxes. They are not seeking welfare. They are seeking the same acknowledgment for their hard work as the rich received in the Republican tax package earlier, and they deserve tax relief now. This supposed party of compassionate conservatism has exploited the child tax credit issue to pass even more tax cuts for their wealthy friends. Rather than bringing up a child tax credit bill costing $3.5 billion with full offsets, which means fully paid for, they passed a bill that costs over $80 billion with no offsets, totally unpaid for, at a time when America's Federal deficit will exceed $400 billion. Our priority should be to put money in the hands of working Americans while keeping our fiscal house in order. That way we can create jobs and build a strong economy. If we do not help our children now, I ask you, when will we? How can we ever expect to strengthen our Nation in the future when we ignore our children, 25 percent of our population, 100 percent of our future? Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership failed our children today. They failed working families. The other body handed us a bill that would have increased tax credits for 6.5 million tax-paying families. The President, after hearing from the public and getting the pressure from the majority of the people in this Nation, actually came out in strong support of this cleaner legislation. He supported what the other body passed 94 to 2. But the bill passed today will not address the real needs of this Nation's hardworking, low-wage-earning families in the same way at all. Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore true compassion for our Nation's working families rather than our Nation's millionaires. Our families need to know that we have not forgotten them. They are the core, they are the engine, they are what makes this Nation work, and we cannot forget them.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here and recognize the many contributions that Patsy Takemoto Mink made to the people of this country, particularly to the girls and women of this country. And I am equally proud that she will be honored by a post office in her home State named after Patsy Mink. I was privileged to serve with Patsy on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce from the beginning of my tenure in 1992. She was my mentor and my friend, and I miss her every day. Besides being the first woman of color to serve in the House of Representatives, Patsy Takemoto Mink helped craft landmark legislation for girls and women across the country during her 24 years in Congress. In the early seventies, Patsy played the central congressional role in the enactment of title IX, prohibiting gender discrimination by federally funded institutions. But title IX was not Patsy's only contribution to girls and women of America. Patsy also authored the Women's Educational Equity Act, WEEA. WEEA remains the primary resource for teachers and parents seeking information on proven methods to ensure gender equity in their schools and their communities. In fact, while this Congress is reauthorizing Head Start, I can hear Patsy's passionate and intelligent voice demanding that we not decimate this successful program by block granting any or all of it to the States. Her voice is missed. I hear it in my ears. I hope the people on the other side of the aisle can hear it in their ears so that we will do the right thing.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, hardworking families need a break more than anyone in this country, especially since they are bearing the brunt of this very weak economy. But, for some reason, the Republican leadership feels that the privileged few are more important than the 12 million children who are left out of the Republican tax cut. That is just plain wrong. Voices across the Nation are speaking out, and they are speaking out loudly, and in overwhelming numbers they are in support of increasing the child tax credit and making it permanent, especially for those 12 million children who were left out of the recent tax package. That is why President Bush is finally urging the House to follow suit with the other body so he can sign legislation that will restore tax credits for lower income families and put this bad and actually embarrassing decision behind him. Why is the Republican leadership dragging their feet here in the House when we can help American families now? Well, Mr. Speaker, I know it is important that we swiftly extend the child tax credit to lower-income families. It should not, however, be part of another broad package that extends even more benefits to the wealthy. We must pass a clean bill, a bill that solves the injustice that has been done to these hard-working families. Our priority should be the 12 million forgotten children, not more tax breaks for the rich. Mr. Speaker, how am I supposed to go back to my district and tell a mother from Santa Rosa, California, located in the 6th Congressional district of California that I represent, just north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge, tell her that according to the House Republican leadership that her job at Head Start does not contribute enough into the tax system to deserve an increase through the child tax credit? This mother, whose name is Cori, is the head of one of the 6.5 million families that pays Federal, State, and local taxes; yet she has been left out of the recent increase to the child tax credit. Cori overcame the obstacles of being a single parent. She did it without a support system and she did it with very little money. After turning to the Head Start program for help, she went back to school and became a Head Start teacher to give back to the program that she thought and felt and knew saved her. How do I explain to Cori that her hard work is not worth rewarding, that she does not give enough to the system to deserve a break? I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle where is the compassion for Cori and her children? It is time that we help working families like Cori so they can balance their responsibilities of earning a living and meeting family demands. Our priority today should be expanding the child tax credit for lower-income families. Passing it can be the first step in reversing a very serious wrong. Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore compassion to our Nation's families, rather than our Nation's millionaires. American families need to know we have not forgotten them. The 12 million children that have been ignored by the Republican leadership need to know that they are important. I demand that the Republican leadership in the House act now and extend the child tax credit to those who need it the most: our children. Our children, 25 percent of our Nation, 100 percent of our future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak against the rule, and it is not because I am against the underlying bill. It is because, Mr. Speaker, hardworking families need a break more than anyone else in this country and hardworking families are the ones that are bearing the brunt of this weak economy. But for some reason the Republicans leadership feels that the privileged few are more important than the 12 million children who are left out of the Republican tax cut and that Internet gambling is more important to discuss today than our children. And that is just plain wrong. Voices across the country are speaking out in great numbers. It is overwhelming what we are hearing in our offices. And it must be overwhelming what the administration is hearing about supporting increasing the child tax credit and making it permanent, especially for those 12 million children who were left out of the recent tax package, because President Bush is finally urging the House to follow suit with the other body, saying that he wants to sign legislation that will restore tax credits for lower-income families and put the majority party's bad decision behind him. Why is the Republican leadership in the House dragging its feet when we can help American families now? Let us hold off on debating issues, even though we agree with them, like the underlying bill we are talking about, Internet gambling. Let us hold off on those issues until all working families are provided the benefits of the child tax credit. And at the same time, Mr. Speaker, while it is imperative that we swiftly extend the child tax credit to lower-income families, it absolutely should not be part of a broad package that extends even more benefits to the wealthy. We must pass a clean bill that solves the injustice that has been done to these hardworking families. Our priority must be the 12 million forgotten children, not more tax breaks for the rich, not debate about Internet gambling, not anything except giving the tax breaks to those hardworking families.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule because working families should be our priority today, families like Cori's. Cori came to a local Head Start in my district at a low point in her life. She was a single parent without any support system and very little money and very little self-esteem. She had just completed a recovery program and was seeking to put her life back together. Cori went on to volunteer for Head Start, completed an AA degree in early childhood development, and now Cori is a Head Start employee for the past 3 years and wants to get her bachelor's degree. Mr. Speaker, Cori and her two daughters will be denied the child tax credit, while those making more than $1 million a year receive overall tax cuts totalling $93,500. Our priority today should be, must be, the Rangel-Davis-DeLauro bill, which will expand the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief for lower-income working families. Passing it can be the first step to reversing the wrong done to these hard workers.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule. The proponents of the bill claim that it addresses partial-birth abortion, but I think the American people deserve to know what we are really voting on today. We are voting to limit a woman's access to safe and accepted medical procedures, restrictions that will subject a woman to unnecessary risks when she exercises her reproductive right. We should be promoting a woman's health. We should not be endangering it. We should be debating concrete measures to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and to ensure that all pregnant women have affordable access to the care they need to deliver healthy babies. Instead, here we are spending our time debating legislation that the Supreme Court has already found to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has clearly recognized the need for protecting the health of the mother. Yet the anti-choice lobby has chosen to forge ahead in their attempts to politicize women's health and chip away at our constitutional rights. As terrible as it is to acknowledge, things can go tragically wrong in the final stages of pregnancy, and in these unimaginable circumstances, a woman should not be required to risk her health and future fertility by continuing a dangerous pregnancy. I am not a doctor, so I am not going to stand here and pretend that I have the necessary expertise to make medical decisions for my constituents. Instead, I want every woman in my district and every woman in the Nation to have access to whatever procedure she and her physician feel is safest and the most appropriate way for her to settle and handle the situation. Let us be honest. The debate today is not about aborting viable, healthy children. Few late-term abortions occur in the first place. Those that do are tragically necessary to save the life or health of the mother. So this debate is actually about limiting a woman's right to choose by restricting access to constitutionally protected medical procedures. The American people deserve to know what we are really doing here today. We are really desperately trying to take away reproductive choice of every woman in America. I urge my colleagues, do not let this happen. Oppose the rule, and oppose H.R. 760.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, our working families need a break. They need a break more than anyone in this country, especially since they bear the brunt of this weak economy. But, for some reason, the Bush administration continues to cast them aside in favor of the privileged few. Working men and women are the backbone of this Nation. They are the ones who struggle day in and day out to provide the bare necessities for stable, happy homes. They know how hard it is to balance work and family, and they need our support. The Bush administration, however, and the Republican leadership, in their faux ``compassionate conservatism,'' continue to slap working families in the face. They said that the recent tax cut bill would provide relief for all Americans. But here is the truth: increases to the child tax credits were given to the families who need it the least, while low-income families were left with nothing. Worse hit were working families earning between $10,500 and $26,600 a year. Working families in this tax bracket were completely ignored. The Republican leadership denied them their fair share. Mr. Speaker, I want Members to hear about a mother from my district, the Sixth District of California north of San Francisco across the Golden Gate Bridge. Cori and her family were cast aside by the Republicans. Let me tell the Members about Cori. Cori came to a local Head Start program at a low point in her life. She was a single parent without a support system and with very little money and very little self-esteem. She had just completed a recovery program and was seeking to put her life back together. It was the first time in years that she felt needed, comfortable, and good about herself and her life. Cori went on to volunteer for Head Start. She then completed an AA degree in early childhood development because she wanted to give back to the program that got her on her feet. Now Cori has been a Head Start employee for the past 3 years, with the goal of getting a Bachelor of Arts degree. Mr. Speaker, why should Cori be denied the child tax credit, while those making more than $1 million a year received overall tax cuts totalling $93,500 each? What definition of compassionate are we using here? This attack on our working families must end. But sadly, the attack on working families does not stop with denying the child tax credit to Cori. Sometime soon we will debate a Republican bill to deny workers the benefits of overtime pay, the heart of the very Fair Labor Standards Act. If the poorly named ``Family Time Flexibility Act'' passes, the Republican leadership will take a step to undermine protection of the 40-hour work week, so employers can avoid paying their workers like Cori overtime. This is not only poor economics for struggling families who count on overtime, it is just plain bad public policy. It is time that we restore the balance for families so they can earn a living and meet family demands at the same time. We must pass H.R. 2286, which will expand the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief for lower-income families like Cori and her two children. Passing the legislation can be the first step in reversing the wrong done to these hard workers. In the coming year, I plan to introduce legislation called the Balancing Act, which will improve the lives of working families and their children. That would mean providing paid family leave after the birth of a child, increasing the funding for child care, granting school breakfasts for all students, and helping with the care of aging parents. I urge my colleagues to join me in that effort. Mr. Speaker, it is time to restore compassion for our Nation's working families, rather than our Nation's millionaires. Our families need to know that we have not forgotten them.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman for working with me and my colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts), to include our amendment in the en bloc amendment. Our partisan Sense of the Congress amendment calls on the Department of Defense to have an institution devoted to studying peacekeeping operations and preparing our troops for future peacekeeping missions. We have constantly bore witness to the dramatic challenges facing our troops right now in Afghanistan and in Iraq as they work to secure the peace, from acting as traffic cops to feeding hungry crowds. Our amendment aims to ensure that these troops are prepared for peace as much as they are ready for war.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Well, it is about time the Republican leadership does something about the unemployed and something for the unemployed; but what they offer is too little, too late, and it does not cover those who have used up their benefits but are still not working. I would like to remind the gentlewoman from Washington State that unemployed workers cannot find jobs when there are not any. I would like to respond to the gentleman from Oregon, referring to ``our policies,'' meaning the Democrats. Our policies, indeed. When Bill Clinton was our President, our economy was strong. Not like today, when just 3 weeks ago the Labor Department reported that new applications for unemployment insurance hit 455,000 for the week ending April 19, and that number does not even count families who have exhausted their benefits and are not working. Just listen to one of my constituents. He says, ``I have a master's degree and I have not been able to find work. I also deal with a chronic illness. I find myself applying for food stamps and soon will be unable to pay any bills. I am not sure I will have a roof over my head very soon. A lot of people are having a very difficult time. Please, Congresswoman, try to make unemployment extensions a top priority.'' That is why I support the Rangel bill, H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act, which would provide 26 weeks of extended benefits through November 2003. This bill will provide real benefits to all of those workers who are in between jobs, not only those who are newly unemployed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I urge the Republican leadership to take up H.R. 1652 so that we can have real unemployment relief.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the remarks we have heard on the floor today. I said before when the subject of Ritalin come up, I raised four children, and I am absolutely certain that Ritalin or some other psychotropic drug would have been suggested for each and every one of them sometime during their school career. In fact, when I was a kid, my grandfather used to offer to pay me 5 cents for every minute that I could sit still. Well, I never earned a nickel. So my kids came with this hyperactive behavior through the genes, and we all learned through behavior modification and through growing up that, indeed, moving around all the time was not going to get us anywhere. So they learned to be calm, before I did, actually. But that is why I have concerns about blurring the line between the behavior of an active, high-spirited child and a child with a disability. This is not to suggest, however, that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, ADHD, is not a very real disability for many children. ADHD robs so many children and their parents of the pleasures of childhood and family. The children are labeled as ``bad'' for things that they actually cannot control. The parents find themselves frustrated and often angry at their child. However, the growing increase in the manufacture and prescription of psychotropic drugs, like Ritalin, is a cause for concern. The decision to treat a child with any drug, but certainly a stimulant, should be made very, very carefully and only after comprehensive evaluation and diagnosis. It is crucial that parents be very well informed about these drugs, both the possible successes of the drug and the possible side effects of a drug, if it is being considered for their child. It goes without saying, parents must have the final word in deciding whether or not their child takes any psychotropic drug. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have been part of these negotiations with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and with the other side of the aisle in our committee so we could come up with a bill that we totally support and feel will be good for the child, for the parent, and for the education system for that child. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Sanchez amendment. Over the last few months, we have voiced our support for the troops many, many times. Tax relief, loan forgiveness, and resolutions of support are well and good. But I know of no better way to demonstrate our real support for our troops than by finally giving women in our Armed Forces and the wives and daughters of the men in our military the ability to exercise their constitutional right to reproductive choice and reproductive health while being stationed abroad. We routinely ask servicewomen to put their lives on the line in defense of our country and our country's ideals. That is why we must not require them to put their lives on the line when seeking constitutionally protected reproductive services. Please join me in supporting our troops by supporting the Sanchez amendment.