Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restricts local schools' methods of identifying students as having learning disabilities by redefining the language ``specific learning disability'' as a disorder ``due to a medically detectable and diagnosable physiological condition relying on physical and scientific evidence.'' Learning disabilities are not simply a medical condition that can only be determined by a doctor. Current definition includes disorders with psychological processes which have severe impact on learning and behavior. The Tancredo amendment creates a new and very narrow medical condition definition that would actually keep children from getting the special education services that they need, and they need those services so they can learn and be successful in school. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to repeat that this amendment creates a very narrow medical condition definition, and it would keep children from getting the special education services they need to learn and to be successful in school. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hinojosa) who is also an important member of the committee.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a really important member of the committee.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, Americans realize we should not risk 1.5 million acres of pristine wilderness for a meager, 6-month supply of oil that wouldn't even be available for 10 years. My constituents in Marin and Sonoma counties are miles from the Arctic Refuge. But there are two easy reasons why we care about land in Alaska. First, the people I represent believe strongly in respecting and preserving all the world's environment not just for today, but for generations to come. Second, they know that once we start to let oil interests pilfer the environment in Alaska, the Bush administration and their oil buddies might see the California coast as next. Mr. Chairman, if we open this door today, even a crack, it will be impossible to close. Oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert- Markey amendment. If the U.S. auto industry believes it would suffer under increased fuel economy standards, what will be the effect on the U.S. auto industry when Americans import fuel efficient autos from foreign companies? Because--with the rising cost of gas, the detrimental effect on our environment, and the strong desire of American consumers to be independent of foreign oil--we will be purchasing fuel efficient autos. Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't fool ourselves. Americans will purchase fuel efficient cars . . . and we should set policy today so those cars will be American-made.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time allocated to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, in Iraq our Nation is creating 300,000 new war veterans. As these future veterans are fulfilling their duty to America in time of war, we must commit to fulfill our responsibilities to them in times of peace. But instead, the Bush administration recently saved $388 million by eliminating 174,000 veterans from eligibility in the VA health care systems. Some might say that that is fiscally responsible; but I say it is absolutely dishonorable. While we are warring in Iraq, this House is engaged in a debate on whether to give Americans who earn more than $1 million a year a tax cut of almost $90,000 each, while just two months ago President Bush decided that veterans earning more than $29,000 a year do not need America's help getting health care. Where are our priorities? Giving money to the richest of the rich while taking services from the bravest and sometimes the poorest is unacceptable. Giving the wealthiest Americans extra spending money should not be the first priority of this House. But making sure we give every veteran health coverage must be. It seems like the priorities of this Congress are all wrong. We have forgotten about responsibility, morality, and justice. We have forgotten our commitment to our men and women in uniform. We have forgotten about human dignity. Finding money for veterans programs is not impossible. It is a matter of priorities. We can pay for concurrent receipt, but not if we pass a huge tax cut for the wealthiest of the wealthy. Families are the glue that make America strong. We cannot forget the sacrifices of those family members who have supported veterans from the homefront. America owes them a debt of gratitude as well. That is why it is so important to fix the survivor benefit plan which ensures that veterans' families have the resources needed to deal with the death of a loved one. I am proud to co-sponsor H.R. 548, which would fix the problems with our current system and ensure that survivors get the assistance that they deserve. But, Madam Speaker, the Republican budget resolution is also a slap to America's veterans. It cuts over $14.5 billion from mandatory veterans benefits and another $14 billion in discretionary programs; $14.6 billion that veterans could spend on health care, on housing, and feeding their families. Every American owes veterans a debt of gratitude. We must do more than give speeches on Memorial Day. The rhetoric of patriotism is absolutely not enough. We must ensure that veterans get the services and the resources they have earned and the resources and the services that they deserve. Let us also make sure that disabled veterans receive the retirement pay along with disability compensation. It is an issue of fairness and our veterans deserve better than what we are giving them. This is money that should serve those that have served America. This is money that would go to our soldiers fighting today in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is money that veterans have been promised and that veterans deserve. Unfortunately, this money is being denied to veterans so that the wealthiest Americans can get an obscenely large tax cut. If we cut money for veterans, we should be ashamed, all of America should be ashamed. Veterans deserve to be one of this Nation's number one priorities. I urge my Republican colleagues in this House to remember that. Veterans are fighting for us. We must fight for them.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, citizens in my district have a special desire to see clean AMBER Alert legislation passed because of a beautiful teenaged girl named Polly Klaas. Polly resided in my hometown of Petaluma, California. She was kidnapped from her home and murdered in 1993. It was because of failed communication in the early part of the search that ruined our chances, or any chances, of an early and potentially successful resolution to her kidnapping. Since then, organizations in my district, namely, the Polly Klaas Foundation and BeyondMissing, have worked to ensure that more is done for missing children. These organizations both advocate a national AMBER Alert system that will define how seriously Americans support child safety and saving lives. But they want a clean AMBER Alert system. That is why it is crucial that we pass a clean bill today, not one that will be filled with extra add-ons, unrelated provisions, provisions not acceptable to the other body, hindering the ultimate goal of creating a system where we can find the children who are lost in this country. So I ask, please vote for a clean AMBER Alert system, one that will be able to do the job, do it immediately, and not get bogged down in the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to H.R. 1104. While I am happy to have this time to speak on the floor, I am very disappointed that the Committee on Education and the Workforce did not debate this issue before it came to the floor. Members on the Committee on Education and the Workforce wanted to review the provisions in the bill that are under our committee's jurisdiction. It is clear that the AMBER Alert system is highly effective and should be made available nationwide. However, I believe we need a clean AMBER Alert bill; and, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have failed to bring forth a clean bill. Instead, they have opted to load it up with extra provisions that they know will not be accepted by the other body. This important legislation could have been passed 6 months ago, but instead today we are considering legislation that is broad and controversial. The controversial provisions include the expansion of the death penalty, mandatory minimum sentencing, criminalization of traveling with a criminal intent, the two-strikes-and-you-are-out provision, the expansion of wiretap authority, the eliminations of the statute of limitations on sexual abuse cases, and eliminating pretrial release. Mr. Chairman, are all these provisions really necessary to help find and protect missing children? That is why I have supported and will continue to support the bipartisan Frost-Dunn AMBER Alert Act which will strengthen the AMBER Alert program immediately. The Frost-Dunn bill provides $25 million in grants and works to build a seamless network of local AMBER plans. What our local communities really need is more resources to increase highway signs, to educate and train law enforcement, and to gain additional equipment. This bill is the clean legislation that we should be considering today. Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1104, and I demand that we look at a clean AMBER Alert bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues today in support of title IX, and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for organizing this afternoon's effort. As we stand here today, title IX is being threatened by recommendations from the commission on title IX, a commission appointed by President Bush and his administration to study title IX, hoping to alter the law. Before title IX, fewer than 30,000 girls participated in intercollegiate athletics. Today, more than 100,000 women compete. In high school, fewer than 7 percent of girls played various sports prior to title IX, and today, the number of participants has increased to 40 percent, over 40 percent, as a matter of fact. Do these gains mean that the work of title IX is finished, and that it is time for the supporters of title IX to take their balance and go home? Absolutely not. Contrary to the scare tactics being used by opponents of title IX to say that women's sports are using up athletic funds needed for men's sports, the facts show that women, even with title IX, continue to receive far less funding for their sports than men. It is a fact: title IX does not deprive men of athletic resources. In fact, the real problem is that the resources that the male athletics receive are distributed inequitably among men's sports. In addition, schools choose to eliminate teams for many reasons, and all of those reasons are not related to title IX. In fact, I had a very interesting experience as a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce when we had a hearing on title IX quite a few years ago, I think it was about 5 years ago, as a matter of fact. I sat there and I listened to the witnesses at this hearing tell us that men's wrestling, men's football, and every sport that the guys are interested in were being threatened because of women's sports and because of an investment in title IX. Somehow or another, they made a big mistake. They brought forward an individual representing San Francisco State University who sat before us and told us that the men's football program at San Francisco State was eliminated because of title IX. Well, I had my ability at that point to contradict, because, Mr. Speaker, one of my sons, I have three sons and a daughter, all athletes, including my daughter. One of my sons was an all-American football player from San Francisco State University. He was a tackle. He was the captain of the defensive team, and I went to every single game. Mr. Speaker, I loved cheering for that kid and that team. Well, there were no programs at the games, there was no band, there were no food vendors, and the reason was, nobody at that school was particularly interested in football. And I knew that, we knew that, and a few years after my son graduated from college, the program was discontinued. But it had nothing to do with title IX; it had to do with the fact that at that time in San Francisco at that particular university, it was a State University, there was just no interest in the program. Title IX, therefore, must continue to be defended. We cannot have it used as the reason for men's sports not getting their due when they get more than their due. In my own State of California where women make up over 56 percent of the full-time students at our 108 State and community colleges, women's sports receive 35 percent of the athletic budget. And let me remind my colleagues, they make up 56 percent of full-time student bodies. In Georgia, more than 86 percent of the legislative branch for stadiums, for lighting and equipment at public schools went to boys' sports projects; 86 percent. So while title IX is transforming the playing field for men's and women's sports in general, it is not level yet. Mr. Speaker, we need to keep title IX strong. We need to fight any attempts by this administration or Congress that will weaken its effectiveness. It is not just because we want girls to get to play; it is because when one plays on a team or when one is in an individual sport and that sport is valued at all, one learns. One learns competitiveness; one learns how to compete with one's self and do better the next time; one learns how to win and one learns how to lose, and one learns how to play on a team. All of that plays out later when one is involved in the business world, when one is involved in raising children, when one is involved in knowing how important one's own self- esteem is and how important it will be to raising one's children. So we must strengthen title IX. We must never weaken its effectiveness.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have declared this week Children's Week. Their actions, however, speak louder than their words. Last week they pushed for a budget that fails children and fails families. The Republican budget that barely passed fell $6.15 billion short for funding title I, the largest source of Federal education aid to disadvantaged youth and the centerpiece of the Bush education reform program. It cut $81 million from programs to improve State and local teacher quality, which was a stated goal of the President's education reform plan. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the biggest challenge facing American families is how to bridge their responsibilities between work and caring for their children, and the budget that passed last week did nothing to help working parents. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues want to support children, they will not shy away from promises for our children in favor of big-money special interests. They will invest in children. Children are 25 percent of our population. They are 100 percent of our future.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, the GOP budget sends the message loud and clear: Weapons and tax cuts are more important than people. That is bad public policy. I know it, my constituents in Marin and Sonoma Counties in California know it, and most of the people in the United States agree. It is time to look at the entire picture and put together a budget that provides support to all American families, including the men and women in our military. That is why I rise today in support of the Progressive/Black Caucus budget. Our budget includes support that American families need and support that American families deserve. Our budget includes affordable health care, because by providing universal access for a high standard of health care, no parent will have to worry about taking their child to a doctor when that child is ill. Our budget recognizes that real support includes educational opportunities for every kid. It is not enough to pay lip service to the importance of education. Instead, this budget makes a firm commitment to provide $20 billion more for school construction, for teachers, for student loans and vocational education programs. No family, military or otherwise, will ever feel supported if their children are not receiving a top- notch education. Speaking of the military, our budget recognizes that real support includes comprehensive care for members of our military when they return home as veterans. This budget recognizes that it is not enough to provide servicemen and women with bombs and missiles while they serve and then ignore the sacrifices they have made to protect our country when they return home. That is why the Progressive/Black Caucus budget provides over $3 billion more for funding of veterans programs than President Bush. We do not just support our troops with bombs and missiles, we support them along with all American families with access to quality health care and quality schools. I urge my colleagues to join us in providing true support for our families by voting for the Owens-Cummings-Kucinich-Lee substitute.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to highlight how the administration's budget leaves children and families behind. As we begin debate on the FY2004 Federal budget, we must remember that the biggest challenge facing American families is how to bridge their responsibilities between work and caring for their families. Our children and our families need our help now, more than ever, as this country is involved in a pre-emptive war with Iraq; this is especially true today for the families of our troops, national guard and reservists. Whether already deployed, or waiting for their orders, these brave men and women and their families are wondering how they'll make ends meet as they fulfill their military duty. How will they juggle their work and family responsibilities as well as their Nation's call? What we need is a budget that invests adequately in the programs and safety net that help all families balance work and family responsibilities. That's why it's bad policy that the Republican budget cuts many crucial programs that help parents and children. For instance, under the President's FY2004 plan after-school programs are cut by nearly $400 million and cuts necessary funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Under the President's budget, CHIP will be jeopardized by a plan to merge it with Medicaid programs through a new block grant. States will have unprecedented latitude to scale back coverage of necessary care for children, impose substantial cost-sharing requirements on low-income families, and put many children in a position to have no coverage for their health care. Child care services--which provide care so parents can work knowing their kids are safe--are also being cut. Only 1 in 7 children eligible for Federal child care assistance currently receive the funding they need. Under the President's plan a funding freeze will mean approximately 30,000 low-income children lose child care help in 2004. Programs such as Head Start will also suffer. Head Start, the premiere early childhood program for disadvantaged preschoolers would be dismantled and sent to the States, without the performance standards that are the core of the program's success. Mr. Chairman, this budget fails to provide the support that many of our working families depend on to give their children the best possible care. Families need this financial and emotional support to keep it all together. In fact, it seems that whatever we do in this fast-paced competitive society requires a balancing act. All families can use a little help, yet, families are told that this is their own ``personal problem''--although most everyone experiences it--and ``don't look to Washington for help, the Federal Government has other priorities'' such as a $400 billion defense budget to champion or a $675 billion tax break for the wealthiest few. What I propose is that we need a common vision of how to assist the struggling families of our country. A balancing act would recognize that there is no more important job than parenting. A balancing act would give parents the opportunity to stay at home for at least the first three months after a birth, or an adoption, without the loss of income or employment. A balancing act would see that when parents go back to work they would have access to quality child care. A balancing act would provide voluntary universal pre-school for every three- and four-year old. A balancing act would ensure that all children are cared for . . . not just during the school day, but after school as well. Instead of kids hanging out in the street with lesson in drugs, alcohol and early pregnancy, let's have safe places and enriching experiences available for our kids . . . places where they want to be . . . where they are safe and where they now they are cared about. A balancing act would address the sad fact that in too many families, breakfast is a casualty of the new economy and our fast paced life. When kids go to school on an empty stomach, they can't learn. And finally, a balancing act would extend benefits to part time workers. Whether an employee works 40 hours or less, their contribution to the company is just as great. All parents, and their families deserve to be protected against illness and loss of employment. Mr. Chairman, our first priority in this budget must be helping working families find a balance between their work and home responsibilities. I encourage my colleagues to remember children and families as we debate the FY2004 Budget.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with this war, but I will always support our brave men and women in uniform and their families. They must be treated with dignity and respect, both while the battles are being fought and when they come home. This means that our soldiers have the best military equipment and protective gear and that their families are cared for while they are away. The children and spouses of our military must not be on welfare rolls, and they must not have to survive off of food stamps or live in substandard homes. The families of reservists and the National Guard should not suffer economically while their loved ones are called up for Active Duty. The families of enlisted soldiers must have salaries adequate to lift them out of poverty, and the United States must fulfill its promises by providing all necessary care and promised benefits to our enlisted and Reserve military personnel as active members and as veterans.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight how the administration's budget leaves children and families behind. As we begin debating this budget, we must remember that the biggest challenge facing American families is how to bridge work and caring for their children and families at the same time. And, Mr. Speaker, as we stand on the brink of preemptive war, this is especially true for the families of our troops, our National Guard and our Reservists. Whether already deployed or waiting for their orders, these brave men and women and their families are wondering how they will make ends meet as their loved ones fulfill their military duty, how will they juggle their work and family responsibilities while fulfilling their Nation's call. I urge my colleagues to consider the struggles of military families and ask if this fiscal year 2004 budget proposal invests adequately in the programs that help all families balance their work and family responsibilities.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 2003, my boyfriend, Boyd Stewart, of Olema, California, in Marin County will celebrate his 100th birthday. Born on a dairy ranch in the rural town of Nicasio on March 16, 1903, Mr. Stewart has been active in ranching and community issues his entire life. After graduating from the Nicasio Elementary School with a student body of 17, Boyd attended Tamalpais High School where he rode a horse to San Geronimo and then boarded the steam train to Mill Valley, where there were cows grazing in the town center. Later, he attended Stanford University, earning money as a relief milker at the Palo Alto dairies and doing far better than his peers who were mowing lawns for cash. He left Stanford to run the family dairy when his father was killed by a horse. In 1923, Boyd married Joseffa Conrad, a music teacher whom he met on the steps of Tamalpais High School when returning to see a favorite teacher. Joseffa died in 1980 at the age of 78. Today, daughter Jo Ann Stewart, granddaughter Amanda Wisby, and great grandson Stewart Campbell reside at the family ranch where, by the way, the two women run the business. Over the years, Boyd has been an advocate for progressive ranching practices which many of his peers greeted with skepticism. Early on, he realized that overgrazing could destroy the land they relied on and that sound environmental practices would enhance their work. Boyd worked closely with farm advisors from UC Cooperative Extension and continues to be a strong supporter of measures to preserve the beautiful open spaces of Marin County so that we can preserve agriculture and the community's quality of life. In 1932, Boyd moved to the present Stewart ranch where he lives in a farmhouse that was built in 1864. In 1935, he began producing grade A milk which meets the purest standards for drinking. His daughter, Jo Ann, took over operations in 1950; and in 1972, the ranch switched from dairy cattle to beef. Horses have also been a part of the Stewart ranch's operations. In 1976, Boyd won the Morgan Man of the Year Award for establishing a now defunct Morgan horse breeding farm at Point Reyes National Seashore. As an early supporter of Point Reyes National Seashore, Boyd was an advocate for fair practices for ranchers whose property was purchased by the government and then leased back for continued agricultural use. A small section of his property was purchased for the seashore in 1968, and the remainder became part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in 1974. He continues to be an active supporter of agriculture within the national seashore. Understanding the value of connecting to nonfarmed communities, Boyd has been involved in Greater Marin County and beyond. As a prominent local citizen, he has occasionally had the opportunity to host visiting dignitaries to give them a taste of the West. Recently, for example, a soccer team from the People's Republic of China enjoyed a barbeque at the Stewart ranch at the invitation of China expert and former rancher Orville Schell. These young people got to know what it was like in beautiful Point Reyes. Team members still treasure their photos. They were decked in cowboy hats, and they were riding the Stewart horses. Boyd has been an active member of numerous organizations such as the West Marin Chamber of Commerce, where he focuses on all aspects of civic life in West Marin. He was a board member of the Marin Humane Society, which named him Humanitarian of the Year in 1993. He left the group, by the way, when they stopped serving meat. He was also involved in the Marin Conservation League, American Jersey Breeders Association, American Morgan Horse Association, California Co-op Creamery of Petaluma, Borden's Company, and others including the Tamalpais Trail Riders where his granddaughter Amanda became the youngest member at the age of 10 days. The ranch's most recent award, California Excellence in Range Management, from the California Cattleman's Association, demonstrates the family's continued focus on land stewardship. Mr. Speaker, Boyd Stewart's heartfelt commitment to the land, its natural resources, its agriculture, and the people who enjoy it has inspired several generations.