Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, the strength of our United States economy is built on the honesty, integrity and transparency of our financial institutions. But right now the confidence of the American public and international investors is truly shaken. We must restore confidence in our economy before it is rocked any further so we can continue to attract capital investment for the future health and prosperity of our economic system. The spate of deregulation over recent years has left us with a system that benefits the powerful and the wealthy above all others. We cannot allow this to continue. Weakened Federal regulation of accounting practices has allowed corporate greed to run rampant and has led to failure of some of our very largest corporations and businesses. Enron, Global Crossing, Owens Corning, ImClone, Merrill Lynch, Arthur Andersen, Tyco, WorldCom, the list grows every single day. When these big businesses fail, thousands of employees lose their jobs and pensions while, undeservedly, many of the corporate executives become rich. They become not only millionaires, they become billionaires. These captains of industry do not stay with the sinking ship. They jump off first and with all the treasures. This is not a simple problem about a few bad apples. The problems are systemic, and the accounting practices of America must be changed so we will be able to restore our economic health. We must support legislation like that in Senator Sarbanes' bill, legislation that will provide real corporate responsibility. His bill calls for a strong, independent board to oversee the auditing of public companies, assures the independence of auditors, and provides for reform that will protect investors. And in the House we must support the gentleman from New York's (Mr. LaFalce) bill, H.R. 4083, the Corporate Responsibility Act of the Year 2002. His bill deals directly with the conduct of company officers and restores corporate credibility. Business executives must aspire to a higher business ethic because investors and employees are entrusting them with, oftentimes, their entire life savings; and business executives who break the rules must be punished. The first step in restoring our Nation's confidence would be for the President, the President himself, to release records of the SEC's 1992 investigation of his trading in Harken Energy shares. In fact, we can talk about markets, economies, capital, and financial systems until we are blue in the face, but what is important to remember is that when a corporation fails, workers lose their jobs, families hit hard times, and children suffer. The American economy is built on confidence and an expectation of fairness. If one works hard and plays by the rules, they deserve to share in a secure future. Unregulated business practices have allowed private-sector titans to act irresponsibly, and personal gain has tarnished the reputation of the American market as well as the confidence in our economy. There must be zero tolerance for corporate corruption.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I missed rollcall votes Nos. 283 and 284. Had I been present, I would have voted: rollcall No. 283-- ``yes'', rollcall No. 284--``yes''.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 393, which denounces the rise in anti-Semitism in Europe. This Congress must condemn these and any violent acts that are hurting families and communities, both here and abroad. According to an annual study by a Tel Aviv university, anti-Semitic acts rose sharply around the world after the September 11 attacks. The study reveals some of the worst anti-Semitic days since the end of World War II. Another recent survey revealed that 30 percent of Europeans harbored traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. Congress must condemn these acts by passing H. Res. 393. But, Mr. Speaker, we must also make it a top priority to stop hate in our own country. Anti-Semitism is not limited to Europe. The Anti- Defamation League reported that this year, here in the United States, anti-Jewish incidents have increased 11 percent. Congress must make it clear that there is no room for personal attacks and bigotry in America. That is why we need to pass H. Res. 393 and the bill of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), H.R. 1343, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to help prosecute and prevent crimes motivated by hate across our own Nation. The people of the United States must set an example for the world by expressing our differences without resorting to violence against our neighbors. In the United States, freedom of speech is a fundamental right, a right to be used for causes that citizens are passionate over, but not for causes that damage another's right to a different opinion, a different religion, a different lifestyle. This Congress has the responsibility to combat unnecessary hatred and to lead the charge. Together we can make a statement by passing H. Res. 393, condemning anti-Semitism.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I express my opposition to this sham bill that is harmful to senior women. Mr. Speaker, studies show that older women live an average of six years longer than men. Often widowed and living alone, the average woman age 65 and older struggles to survive on an annual income of $15,615. During her lifetime she probably spent 17 years out of the workforce caring for children, and perhaps 18 years caring for elderly parents. Her retirement income is also smaller because she probably did not receive a pension, and was paid less than most men. As a result, she receives lower Social Security benefits. She spends a larger percentage of her income on housing costs--leaving less money for necessary expenses like utilities, food, and health care. This is a particularly difficult problem because the average older woman spends 20 percent of her income each year on out-of-pocket health care costs. Even though Medicare is not typically thought of as a woman's program, it's central to a woman's well-being. Because women live longer than their male counterparts, they also rely on Medicare and its benefits longer. While Medicare provides women with critical access to health care, gaps in the program leave women vulnerable to unaffordable out-of- pocket-costs. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, women account for nearly 7 in 10 Medicare beneficiaries with incomes below the poverty level. Similarly, access to affordable prescription drugs is a woman's issue. Why? Because women make up a large portion of consumers purchasing prescription drugs. Women have a greater rate of health problems since they live longer. They have lower incomes, which make access to affordable prescription drugs more difficult. In addition, because of age, women report more chronic conditions that require ongoing treatment, accompanied by a regimen of costly drugs. As the costs of prescription drugs continue to rise these out-of- pocket expenses will continue to take a higher percentage of older women's limited monthly income. Where do we draw the line? When will we enact a drug benefit that will allow all seniors to live out their lives without being forced to choose between food or medicine? It's time we start considering women's needs when we debate prescription drug proposals. Sadly, the GOP's Medicare modernization plan will only perpetuate persistent health care disparities among women because it creates new gaps in coverage. If the GOP plan prevails, seniors won't feel any more certain about their benefits--in fact, the GOP proposal allows plans to vary their benefits and premiums from one region to another; from one plan to another and, the GOP plan provides no guarantees. Their plan would privatize prescription drug plans like an HMO . . . not put the plan under Medicare. Our seniors need more stability and certainty than that--especially older women who are counting on Congress to provide a real solution to the high cost of prescription drugs. Women are major stakeholders in the debate over Medicare's future and a prescription drug benefit. Policies that expand access to outpatient prescription drugs and long-term care would help fill coverage gaps that drive up out-of-pocket spending for women. Conversely, policies that erode coverage or that shift costs to beneficiaries could affect women, especially those with low incomes. Older women are one of the nation's most at-risk gropus, and a prescription drug benefit must meet their needs. Understanding the full implications of proposed reforms for aging women must be an essential component of efforts to preserve and protect medicare for generations to come. Under the GOP plan, there will be no real winners--only struggling survivors, seniors who manage to make ends meet. For my constituents and the older women in this country, merely getting by is not good enough, so instead, let's make everyone a winner by enacting a prescription drug benefit that guarantees seniors and women real assistance. After a lifetime of taking care of their families, older women deserve better than what the Republican leadership is proposing. That's why I strongly urge my colleagues to stop further debate on this sham of a proposal and get serious about providing genuine relief to Medicare recipients.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, now that Republicans are back from their party with the pharmaceutical industry, we may be able to legislate prescription drug coverage that will be good for our seniors. Unfortunately, the plan being developed by the GOP is one more payback for their buddies in the drug industry and another ploy to privatize Medicare. The reason Medicare was created was because the free market could not take care of seniors, their health care and health care of some disabled. To think that the private sector will step up and help them now is unrealistic. In the Republicans' sham proposal, the party will be over if anyone is counting on Congress to pass a real prescription drug benefit, because we need a benefit that can be relied upon. We do not need a benefit that serves only the drug industry and only the free market.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues who will come and go to talk about title IX today, but I am particularly honored to join with the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), the author of title IX, on the 30th anniversary of this great program that would not have happened without her. I thank my friend from Hawaii also for organizing this trip tonight. When most people think of title IX, they think of women's sports; and the impact of title IX on women's sports can clearly be seen all over the Nation. Title IX has increased numbers of girls and women who participate in sports in high school and in college. Title IX has contributed to the impressive achievements of American female athletes at the Olympic Games, and we can see the impact of title IX when we watch professional women's basketball and soccer teams on television and on the field. Title IX is an important player on every woman's sports team, but title IX has another important role to play and that is in the classroom, particularly in vocational and technical education classes. Last week The Washington Post and other newspapers reported on a survey that the National Women's Law Center did on vocational and technical education programs in America. The results of the survey reveal that pervasive sex segregation in vocational and technical education programs all around the country still exist. That is bad news. The survey found that girls are still clustered in classes which lead to traditionally female jobs such as cosmetology, child care, health or fashion technology. On the other hand, classes in carpentry, electronics, and automotive programs were 85 percent male. There is a reason why the results of this survey made the newspaper. It is newsworthy because women make up close to half of the American workforce and many of these working women are supporting families and many of these working women are single moms supporting families. Sixty- six percent of mothers with children under age 6 are working outside the home. Seventy-seven percent of mothers of school-age children have jobs. Most families today, whether they have two parents or a single parent, rely on a woman's income; but that income will be considerably less if the woman is earning a median hourly wage of $8.49 an hour as opposed to working as a plumber who can earn an hourly wage of $30.06. While the survey reported in the newspapers collected its data from high schools, the problem does not stop in high school. A report from the National Center for Education Statistics in the Department of Education entitled ``Vocational Education in the United States Toward the Year 2000'' shows that in associate degree programs at the postsecondary level, women are almost four times as likely as men to major in health fields and office fields. In contrast, the male students in postsecondary vocational education programs are five times more likely than women to major in technical education and 14 times more likely, 14 times more likely to major in trade and industry programs. Thank goodness we have title IX to address the inequities like this. The National Women's Law Center has filed legal petitions in all 12 regions of the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, requesting investigations into whether vocational and technical high schools and classes violate title IX. They are also asking that action be taken to remedy all conduct that does not comply with title IX law. As we move into the 21st century with employers demanding more high- skilled and better-educated workers and more families relying on a woman's income, it is a moral crime to ignore the evidence of stark and ongoing sex segregation in vocational and technical education programs. Title IX makes it a legal crime, and gives us the tools we need to right this wrong. Happy anniversary, title IX. Much has been accomplished in 30 years, and much is left undone. I look forward to working with my colleague, the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) in making some of these things right.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the city of Sebastopol, in the heart of western Sonoma County, CA, on the occasion of its 100th anniversary. The earliest residents of the Sebastopol area were members of the Miwok and Pomo tribes who traversed the old trail between Petaluma and Santa Rosa, making seasonal camps on the banks of the Laguna de Santa Rosa. The present community began as the town of Pine Grove, a trading post established in the early 1950s. The name Sebastopol originated in a protracted fist fight between two residents, Stevens and Hibbs. Hibbs sought sanctuary in Dougherty's store while Stevens waited for him outside. Citizens likened the fight to the ``siege of Sevastopol,'' a reference to the Crimean War then raging abroad. The town grew as an agricultural center, producing apples, hops, and berries and was chosen by Luther Burbank as the site of his famous Experiment Farm. In the 1890s, Sebastopol became an important railroad crossroads, with a market center and meeting place for Western Sonoma County. This increased prosperity and population led to the incorporation of the city of Sebastopol on June 13, 1902. The city has continued to thrive, surviving the 1906 earthquake, the Great Depression, the waning of the railroad era, and the many other challenges of the 20th century. It has maintained its rural character, surrounded by natural beauty and blessed with a mild climate and fertile soil. In recent years, its policies in becoming a nuclear free zone, creating a people-friendly downtown, and exploring the viability of renewable energy sources have set a standard for other progressive cities to emulate. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the city of Sebastopol on its centennial and know that it will continue to maintain its unique character as a special place in Sonoma County, CA.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond that I think I am sitting on the wrong side of the aisle when it is this side of the aisle who would limit a budget, and it is the gentleman's side of the aisle challenging that. So this is the beginning of something that the public wants us to do, and I think we are making a great mistake if we do not vote for this because it is the right thing to do, and it is the environmentally friendly thing to do, and it would help our public know what is safe and what is not safe by having scientific studies, not emotional rhetoric, about what is going on with these programs.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding to me. I have two responses to the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Smith) objections to my amendment. First, in talking about the changes that differed from what my amendment was in committee and to what we have brought to the floor, my changes were based on the committee's objections. So I came here prepared to improve upon what we had talked about earlier. In the amendment in committee, we had the funding come from a small account in the plant genome program, and now my amendment would allow the NSF director to decide where within an $11 billion research account my $35 million program could be funded. That is not a lot of money within a large account, and so I wanted to make sure my colleague knew why that had changed. It is $15 million in the first year of the bill, $20 million in the second year of the bill, and nothing specified in the third year because we have required a report from the NSF with their recommended levels for future years. So we are not assuming beyond the first 2 years. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has said that his bill already covers this, his bill that I voted for, H.R. 2051, to establish plant genome research centers which also authorizes research on basic research and dissemination of information on the ecological and other consequences of genetically engineered plants. His does that. My amendment expands upon the gentleman's bill, and my program covers plants and animals that would not be restricted to research on genetically engineered plants and animals. So it expands his good ideas but makes it larger.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I would like to respond to the gentleman from California when he talks about biotechnology research and global climate reports that our President and his administration put forth a report this weekend to the U.N. acknowledging global climate change, and telling the world to adapt, just get used to it. Mr. Chairman, what are we going to tell the monarch butterflies when they are having to adapt to genetically modified corn? They cannot adapt. They are dying. We have to look into what we can do about that, and that is what this amendment is about. It is about good science, not about emotions.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly my intention.

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

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, two things. First, this would have been part of the debate in the committee had I not been asked not to bring it up in committee but to bring it as an amendment to the floor, and I was asked by the majority party to do that. So please be clear, this is not something I did not want to bring to the committee. Second of all, when my colleague talks about the funding being arbitrary, our decision on this funding came from the same place that our whole committee's decision to double the funding for NSF came from. We do not know how much money we need. We know we need more, and I know with my amendment we need something. So I want to get started and the public wants to get started so that we can scientifically decide what is good and what is not good.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the NSF reauthorization. H.R. 4664 is a good bill, it is a bipartisan bill; and I want to compliment Chairman Boehlert, Chairman Smith, and the ranking members for closely working together so that both sides are well represented in this legislation. Even during these tight budget times, investing in basic research like that at NSF is a wise and fiscally-prudent decision. I strongly believe we must make significant long-term investments in this Nation's sciences. This bill does just that. The need for increased funding at NSF is clear. Recent data published by the National Academy of Sciences on Federal funding for basic research shows us that we are not meeting today's challenges. Sadly, there is strong evidence of declining basic research funding in many of the physical science areas. However, since NSF is the source of 36 percent of the Federal funding for basic research that is performed at universities and colleges in the physical sciences, we now have a chance to reverse course. In my home State of California, NSF partners with the University of California on numerous research proposals in the physical sciences. I know that this bill will continue to support those needed partnerships for our long-term science and research needs. It is clear that in this instance, the returns to the Federal Government far exceed our public investment. That is why I urge my colleagues to support this bill to increase the NSF budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge). (Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Research. (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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 would respond that they are still in NSF, and that is what we are saying. The gentleman is saying we do not identify programs that we invest money in other than just general funds. We do decide what is important under NSF when we choose to.