Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman continue to yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I would like to point out, in responding to the statement that we are doing this already, that I have a quote on page 255 of the National Academy of Sciences Report of 2002, and I quote ``Formal research support in the United States for the study of environmental impacts on transgenic plants has been sparse.'' In other words, we are not doing enough. And in responding to the statement of my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), that we do not identify how we spend NSF funds, we just give them a big pot of money, we do have other programs that are identified. We spend money on advanced technological education, on Noyce scholarships, math and science scholarship programs, minority-serving institutions and undergraduate programs, and the Presidential Science Teacher awards, for example. That is just a list of the few things that we do.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. (Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would create a research program within the National Science Foundation to address a significant gap of knowledge on biosafety, a gap of knowledge that must be filled. The amendment establishes the Biosafety Research Program, so we can understand in scientific terms the effects of altering biological systems. It funds the basic science needed to understand the effects of introducing new plant and animal varieties through both traditional breeding techniques and through new methods of biotechnology in our agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture systems. For thousands of years we have experimented with plants, animals, microbes, and ecological systems in an effort to survive and prosper through the development of food and fiber sources, medicines and other materials essential to our well-being. Essentially, we have been moving our biological system around, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not intentionally. Here I use the term ``biological systems'' in the broadest sense. A biological system could be a set of genes, a whole organism, an ecosystem, or a group of ecosystems that co-exist in the landscape. It is no secret, Mr. Chairman, that a contentious debate has surrounded the introduction of biotechnology products. The debate has been characterized more by statements of hope by the advocates and fear from opponents than by science-based information. It is time we replace the rhetoric, the rhetoric on both sides, with a firm understanding of how these varieties are likely to operate in the real world. With the adoption of my amendment, the Biosafety Research Program will provide an identifiable pool of research funds for scientists to ask the basic research questions that could prevent unintended scenarios. I want my colleagues to know that this program will not fund risk assessment. It will not fund monitoring or the development or evaluation of risk-management strategies. Those activities in the area of applied research are not within the NSF mission. They are and should be supported by programs at USDA, EPA, and FDA, the entities charged with reviewing and regulating products being introduced into the market. The program my amendment creates in NSF is not a substitute for increased funding in these other agencies; however, I do believe that the applied research programs of these agencies need to be increased also to address the questions the public is asking about these new products. Before I close, Mr. Chairman, I want to call attention to several recent reports from the National Academy of Sciences on invasive species and agriculture biotechnology that have called for more research in this areas, including one released earlier this year. My amendment closely follows the recommendations contained in these academy reports. I also have a series of excerpts from these recent reports that I will insert into the Record at this time. Quotations From NAS Reports ``The committee realizes that there remain some uncertainties regarding the use of pest-protected plants, including transgenic pest-protected plants. These uncertainties can lead to ambiguities in regulation and often force agencies to base their decisions on minimal data sets. Additional research should continue to refine and improve risk assessment methods and procedures and continue to develop additional data on both conventional and transgenic pest-protected plant products.'' (p. 139, NAS 2000) ``Research to increase our understanding of the population biology, genetics, and community ecology of the target pests should be conducted, so that more ecologically and evolutionary sustainable approaches to pest management with pest-protected plants can be developed. Knowledge of pests' roles in the larger biological community (for example, their role as food sources for non-target organisms or their roles as predators of other agriculturally relevant pests) will allow us to anticipate better the indirect effects of declines in the pests due to both conventional and transgenic pest-protected plants. Knowledge of the pest population biology will enable prediction of the types of pest- protection mechanisms that would most efficiently reduce a target organism's pest status and would help us to design more accurate resistance management plans. Research to assess gene flow and its potential consequences should be conducted . . . more ecological and agricultural research is needed on the following: weed distribution and abundance (past and present), key factors that regulate weed population dynamics in managed and unmanaged areas, the likely impact of specific, novel resistance traits on weed abundance in managed and unmanaged areas, and rates at which resistance genes from the crop would be likely to spread among weed populations.'' (p. 140-141 NAS 2000) Recommendations ``In cases when crucial scientific data are lacking about the potential impacts of gene flow on wild or weedy relatives, the committee recommends delaying approval of deregulation pending sufficient data, establishing a scientifically rigorous monitoring program in key areas to check for undesirable effects of resistance transgenes after the transgenic pest-protected plant is commercialized, or restricting the initial areas where the plants can be grown.'' (p. 141-142 NAS 2000) ``APHIS jurisdiction has been restricted to the U.S. borders. However, in an era of globalization, environmental effects of transgenic crops on the ecosystems of developing countries will be an important component of risk analysis. As exemplified by the effects of the Green Revolution varieties of wheat and rice, novel crop genes often have indirect effects on the environment. These indirect effects can occur because the new crop traits enable changes in other agricultural practices and technologies that impact the environment. They also can indirectly affect vertical integration of agriculture and equality of access to food. Society cannot ignore the fact that people who lack food security often cause major effects on both agricultural and nonagricultural environments, so in a broad context the positive or negative effects of transgenes on human well-being can be seen as an environmental effect. Environmental concerns raised by some of the first transgenic crops (e.g. gene flow, disruption of the genome, non-target effects) could be ameliorated by expanding our knowledge base in specific areas of molecular biology, ecology, and socioeconomic. Furthermore, such an expanded knowledge base could lead to the production of transgenic plants that would improve the environment. To increase knowledge in relevant areas the committee recommends substantial increases in public-sector investment in the following research areas: (1) improvement in precommercialization testing methods; (2) improvement in transgenic methods that will minimize risks; (3) research to identify transgenic plants traits that would provide environmental benefits; (4) research to develop transgenic plants with such traits; (5) research to improve the environmental risk characterization processes; and (6) research on the social, economic, and value-based issues affecting environmental impacts of transgenic crops.'' (p. 16

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we all know that today prescription drugs are a fact of life and a fact of death. The average American senior uses 18 prescription drugs each year, and the cost of those lifesaving drugs keeps going up. That is why it is our responsibility as Members of Congress to enact a comprehensive prescription drug benefit plan, but it must be a plan that benefits all seniors and that it is not the kind of plan that our GOP leadership has proposed. Under their plan, only some seniors in limited scenarios will actually benefit. Seniors should be spending time with their grandchildren, not trying to figure out how to pay for the medicines they need to live. Let us not make Americans' golden years, when they are seniors, into their darkest years, forcing them to choose between paying for food and paying for their medication. Seniors deserve better than that. My Republican colleagues need to stop stalling. They need to come up with a meaningful proposal. They need to start helping seniors by providing a real prescription drug benefit.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, if the GOP leadership is so sure that their supplementary appropriations bill promotes fiscal responsibility, why are they resorting to sneaky tactics such as the ones what we've seen in this bill? How many times does the majority have to be called on their false promises to protect Social Security? What kind of fools do they take the people of this country to be? When are they going to level with the American public? We're here arguing about raising the debt ceiling because at this time last year, the Republican leadership and the administration passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut. The irresponsible nature of that tax cut is made evident by the very fact that we have to raise the debt limit. And once again, the Republican leadership is pushing for measures that jeopardize the future of the Social Security trust fund. We've already borrowed from the Social Security trust fund to give the ``Bill Gates of the world'' a couple extra tax cuts and now we're going to borrow from the trust fund again to finance other programs. Escalating public debt mortgages away our Social Security trust fund so why wouldn't we question the leadership's less than honest attempts to raise the debt ceiling. Preserving the Social Security trust fund is not a new idea. At one time we had Republicans and Democrats alike pledging to keep the trust fund off limits. But when it comes down to it, the GOP leadership is not serious about ensuring basic retirement security for American workers. The Republican's raid on Social Security has particular impact on the future of women. Women truly are the face of Social Security. Today, sixty percent of all Social Security recipients are women. Of recipients over age 85, nearly three-quarters are women. Most of these women rely on Social Security for nearly 90% of their income. While they tend to live longer than men, women have fewer alternatives, fewer assets. Without Social Security's guaranteed, lifetime, inflation-protected benefits, over half of all elderly women would be poor. After a lifetime of work, women often find themselves in dire economic straits during what is supposed to be their golden years. The year is 2002, but women are still earning less than their male counterparts and are the ones expected to leave the workforce so that their children, and elder family members, are taken care of. This being the case, their Social Security benefits are extremely valuable to the quality of their retirement. Fortunately, the current progressive system does not penalize women for these patterns of work wages and family obligations. Social Security is structured to help those women with lower lifetime earnings and/or those who have taken time off to care for children. In order for our daughters and our granddaughters to count on the Social Security benefits as we have come to know them to be, we must back up our pledges to save Social Security with legislative action that does not spend the trust fund. With the large ``Baby Boom generation'' getting closer to retirement and their children right behind, it's imperative that we reverse this downward spiral of deficit spending and exercise smart fiscal policy today. It's time to have an honest debate about where our economy stands and how best to shore up the future of important domestic programs like Social Security. Mr. Chairman, how this Congress spends our Federal funds says a lot about who we are as a nation--who we are as a people. Make no mistake, we support the funding necessary to protect our country, but it take more than a strong military to keep this country secure--our people must be strong too. That means we must invest in our children's future; preserve retirement benefits for our seniors and help working families. Yet, the Republican leadership is asking us to support a supplemental appropriations bill that threatens all of these vital needs--now and far into the future. Talk about Teddy--the Republican plan will raise our Nation's debt ceiling and increase our children's debt. It means the Social Security trust fund will be raided, and domestic spending will be cut to make up the difference. That's just plain wrong! It's time that my colleagues across the aisle look at the whole picture. National security isn't only about fighting the war on terrorism. It's also about fighting for our children's future. And, leaving them more debt is no way to make them strong. Yet, with one narrow phrase in the supplemental bill, Republicans are laying the groundwork to endanger our children's future by raising the debt ceiling. Even worse, we don't know by how much the GOP leadership plans to raise the ceiling. The debt ceiling now stands at $5.95 trillion. With a U.S. population of 281 million, the debt works out to an average of $21,200 for every man, woman and child. The question is: After they're finished, how much will that amount increase? Reports indicate Secretary O'Neill wants to increase it by $750 billion, making the debt ceiling more than $6.7 billion. This increases each person's portion to $24,000. But as far as we know, the House Republicans may be scheming for a debt ceiling that would make it $30,000, $40,000, who knows! All so that they can cover the cost of enacting last spring's fiscally irresponsible tax cut for the Nation's top 2%. Isn't increasing the debt limit raising taxes but this time on our children and our grandchildren? It's time for Congress to stop dancing around this issue, and bring the decision to increase the debt limit--for a defined amount into the light--to an open vote. Then we'd know who wants to take care of our children.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I also rise in strong support of the Lantos amendment. The Lantos amendment encourages the President of our country to improve security in Afghanistan and to support that effort. With women's security being most at risk, this amendment is especially critical for their quality of life and for their future. A secure and stable Afghanistan is important for all the international community and for all Americans who value human rights and value democracy. Taliban rule in Afghanistan has illustrated how systematic violations against women, sanctioned by the governing authorities, can lead to danger and instability in those areas. Clearly, a country is not stable and/or democratic if half of its population remains oppressed. Recent events have opened the door to a restoration of the rights of Afghan women, and today a fledgling government is forming; yet unacceptable violations against women continue. Afghanistan may soon enjoy its new democratic legislature; yet Afghan women are daily threatened with sexual violence and public intimidation. The Lantos amendment seeks to improve the lives of Afghan women, and that is why I urge all of my colleagues to support it. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for providing this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 6 years ago I voted against the welfare reform bill because I had been a welfare mother 35 years ago. I knew what we needed to do to bring families out of poverty. I was right. Unfortunately, we have not brought families out of poverty. Yes, indeed, we have gotten many, many families to go to work. That is the good side of what has gone on. But we had a very good economy. When the economy is dropping, families are losing their jobs. But the worst thing about taking women and their families from welfare to work that we have experienced is they have gone from welfare to poverty, and we are keeping those families in poverty. The reason I got off welfare is because I was educated. I had a good education, I had good job skills, and I could take advantage of that. We have to provide just that for our families on welfare. Then we will have a successful welfare reform program. I voted against the bill in 1996 because I feared that moving from welfare to work would leave mothers stuck in poverty--especially during an economic downturn. Well, 6 years we succeeded in doing just that!! Women are working and women and their families are living in poverty. We have to learn from what didn't work. Now, we have a new bill . . . one that actually goes backwards on education . . . which, of course, is the way to prepare for a good job, one that pays a ``living wage.'' And, then the Republicans demand mothers with small children, under 6, go to work without the child care they need . . . especially child care for infants and parents working evenings and weekends. H.R. 4737 improves nothing . . . it will do one thing and one thing only--keep mothers and their children in poverty.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the last speaker that the unfunded mandate in this bill would cost the State of Texas about $688 million and Texas has 37,000 children on their child care waiting list. This Republican bill does not reform welfare. It deforms welfare. H.R. 4737 pushes more low income parents into low paying workfare jobs while making it impossible for them to get the education they need to actually prepare themselves for jobs that pay a liveable wage, jobs that they can support their families on. H.R. 4737 doubles the number of hours that mothers and children under the age of 6 will have to work each week and, even worse, this bill does not adequately fund child care for the children of all the new working parents that are going to have to go into the working world. Mr. Speaker, I was a welfare mother 35 years ago. My children were 1, 3 and 5 years old. It was bad enough that their father abandoned us, but the worst thing about the whole situation was trying to get adequate child care. We had 13 different child care situations the first 12 months that I went to work. That was the hell year of our lives, and I am going to tell you, it is a miracle that my children are so wonderful. But it was not until our child care situation settled down, and my mother came to our town to take care of them that my job grew. Within a year of having stable child care, I became an executive at the company that I was working for. I am telling you, child care is the essential ingredient, along with education, for getting moms off welfare and out of poverty.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for his leadership and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for his partnership in putting together this substitute. Our substitute offers Members a clear alternative to H.R. 4737. The Democratic substitute builds on what we have learned in welfare reform over the past 6 years. The most important thing that we learned is that it is not hard to get people off the welfare rolls, particularly in a good economy. But it is especially easy if we do not care where they end up. But if we want people to go from welfare to self-sufficiency, then we have to work a little harder. The guiding principle of the 1996 welfare reform was that welfare was the enemy. Welfare mothers were demonized. But the enemy is not welfare, Mr. Speaker. The enemy was then, and is now, poverty. This substitute will enable States to give welfare recipients the supports and services they need to get real jobs and lift themselves and their families out of poverty. First of all, our substitute will allow education and training to count as work for up to 24 months, up to and including an AA employment-related degree. The most recent census report shows that the median income of women who have an associate's degree is just under $24,000 a year. This is more than twice what a woman who works full- time at a minimum wage job earns. We know that education pays, and that is why the Democratic substitute makes education count. The vast majority of welfare recipients are single mothers. They cannot go to school or work if their children do not have child care. That is why the Democratic substitute adds an additional $11 billion in mandatory funding for child care over 5 years. As many of my colleagues know, 25 years ago, when my children's father left me and my three young children, ages 1, 3 and 5, I had to turn to welfare, even though I was working, in order to pay for child care and other basic necessities. The first year it was bad enough that I went to work. I had never intended to leave my children and go to work. It was bad enough that their father abandoned us. But the very worst part of the whole thing was trying to find child care. That first year I had 13 different child care arrangements. Can you imagine what that is like? Finding new child care, watching your children make that adjustment, losing that care and starting over again. Thirteen times in 12 months. It is an absolute miracle that my children are the wonderful young adults they are today. It was only after I was confident that my children were well cared for that I was able to concentrate on my work, and within a year I was promoted to a management position. Mr. Speaker, this substitute does that for all the other women who need it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Lincoln School on the occasion of its 130th anniversary. Established in 1872, the Lincoln School has provided unique opportunities and brought stability and continuity in the quality of education for students in the West Marin ranching community. Throughout its history, the Lincoln School Board of Trustees has worked tirelessly to maintain the integrity of the one room school in the one school district. Surviving earthquakes, fires and storms, the Lincoln School has met the changing needs of its students, fulfilling its role as a truly integral and indispensable part of the rural community. While expecting as well as providing excellence in its programs, the school's faculty and staff have demonstrated compassion and concern for all students. For one hundred and thirty years, the Lincoln School has served a diverse community of learners, educating several generations of students and entire Marin families. This excellence would not have been possible without the dedicated efforts, spirit and generosity of the Lincoln School parent and teacher community. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the Lincoln School for making a significant difference in the lives of its students, families and friends in the West Marin community for one hundred and thirty years.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday during rollcall No. 131 my voting card did not register my ``yea'' vote. Instead, I was recorded as ``not voting.'' I ask that this statement be placed in the Congressional Record at the appropriate place.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution to allow nuclear waste to be deposited at Yucca Mountain. And, I commend my colleague, Rep. Shelley Berkley, for her leadership on this issue. The nuclear power industry and its White House allies are licking their chops at the prospect that Yucca Mountain will be approved as a dump site. They will try to sell this development as proof that the issue of nuclear waste has been solved, While the industry may claim that nuclear power and its waste are safe, the fact remains that Americans don't agree. They understand that nuclear waste management will continue to be a cause for concern even if the Yucca Mountain site is approved. Burying radioactive nuclear waste is a bad idea . . . whether in Nevada or somewhere else. Aside from exposing Nevadans to the unknown effects of having radioactive waste in their backyard, the current plan will put our entire country at risk as waste travels through communities to reach the dump site. Accidents happen in every industry, but nowhere else are the consequences so severe, and so far-reaching as in the nuclear industry. The undeniable truth is that transporting waste over road or rail in order to bury it involves great, unjustifiable risks to human health and the environment. Even worse, the risks have only increased since September 11 as no one can deny that a traveling caravan of nuclear waste would be a prime terrorist target. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.J. Res. 87.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Waldo Giacomini, a prominent West Marin citizen and rancher, who has just died at the age of 88. His life has left a strong imprint on the community. Mr. Giacomini bought 1,100 acres of mudflats in 1944 which he developed into a thriving dairy. In January 2000, he sold the bulk of this property to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area for a nature preserve to be named the Waldo Giacomini Wetlands. In 1959 Mr. Giacomini co-founded the West Marin based organization, the Resource Conservation District, to promote good land stewardship in local agricultural areas by focusing on the prevention of erosion and water pollution. He was also known for his participation in local organizations such as the West Marin Lion's Club, Sacred Heart Church, and Sonoma County Trailblazers and was supportive of cultural and service groups such as the Dance Palace Community Center and Papermill Creek Children's Comer, his neighbors in Point Reyes Station. He was frequently seen walking around the town, greeting his many friends. A dedicated family man, Mr. Giacomini is survived by his four children as well as siblings, grandchildren, and great grandchildren, several of whom continue in the ranching business. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Giacomini leaves us a legacy of caring for the community he called home. In remembering his frequent rendition of the tune, ``You are my Sunshine,'' I echo the words of that song in bidding him farewell: ``(He) made us happy when skies were gray.'' Waldo Giacomini will be missed!

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The College of Marin (COM) on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. Established in 1926, the College has a long history of providing vocational, career, enrichment, and community education programs to Marin County. From its beginning as a small campus in Kentfield, the school has added a second campus at Indian Valley in Novato and serves more than 27,000 students annually. COM offers an Associate Degree and prepares students for transfer to the most prestigious universities. With more than 70 undergraduate majors in humanities/liberal arts, science, and technical and vocational fields, the College services a student body ranging in age from 9 to 80 years old and from 80 different countries. With other activities like a Breakdance Club and the Student Nurse Association, students can participate at many levels. Throughout its history the community college has demonstrated its responsiveness to the changing needs of Marin, fulfilling its role as a true college of the community. The faculty and staff are committed to providing a quality educational experience for all. And today, under the leadership of President James Middleton and a dedicated Board of Trustees, College of Marin is a thriving institution at the heart of the County. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize College of Marin for its many achievements during its 75 years.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey amendment to halt development, testing or use of so-called mini nukes. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his continuing leadership on nonproliferation issues. Let us make no mistake about it. Developing these mini nukes would make their use more likely, which would make a nuclear war more likely. The fact is if we sanction their development, we only provide legitimacy for other nations to do exactly the same. My constituents in Marin and Sonoma Counties in California, like most Americans, have made it very clear that they support a reduction in America's nuclear arsenal. They are rightly demanding that we take a reasoned approach toward nuclear weapons policy, not a renewed buildup of nuclear arms. Without the Markey amendment, United States nuclear policy will take a U-turn that would prompt more nuclear competition, threaten our national security, and undermine nonproliferation efforts. Reject this vision. Support the Markey amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Tierney amendment. Considering the poor results that recent N.M.D. tests have had, it's mind-boggling that funding for a national missile defense system is still being debated. Since 1940, the U.S. has spent $5.8 trillion dollars on nuclear weapons programs . . . more than on any other single program, except Social Security! The U.S. has already spent more than $100 billion on missile defenses with little to show--so why do we keep throwing good money after bad? Mr. Chairman, where are our priorities? Instead of investing in missile defense programs--we should be spending our scarce financial resources on our real domestic needs . . . like our children's education; our seniors, and their health care; our families and their financial security. If this Congress wants to really increase U.S. security, we must invest in people, not weapons. I urge my colleagues to support the Tierney amendment. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with sincere concerns about H. Res. 392. We should not be bringing this type of one-sided resolution to the floor now. Instead, we should be working on a resolution that encourages peace. The United States does not need a political resolution to show that it is a friend of Israel. America has proven it is a friend of Israel, and I personally count myself as a long and loyal friend of Israel. But I am not pleased with the behavior of either side--Israel or the Palestinian Authority--right now. When friends allow a fight to continue that neither side can win, inaction only prolongs the violence and killing. We must not allow our aversion to inaction spur us to unhelpful resolutions that do not help our friends. I will vote ``Present'' on H. Res. 392 because this unbalanced resolution does not benefit our friends. Instead, it fans the flames of hatred. That is one of the reasons I am a cosponsor of Congressman DeFazio's resolution, H. Res. 394. That resolution is a balanced attempt to bridge the gap between the two sides in this conflict. The United States' approach must be evenhanded if we are to move the peace process forward. Languishing in a cycle of blame over the mistakes of both sides is counterproductive. We must recognize that all parties have made mistakes, and instead of re-hashing what they have done wrong, start thinking about what they can do better in the quest for peace. As in the DeFazio resolution, we must recognize that the first step toward peace is stopping the violence being perpetrated by all parties. Israel's recent incursions into Palestinian-controlled territories have caused extraordinary hardship for innocent Palestinians and exacerbated the crisis. Likewise, the Palestinian suicide bombing attacks against Israel cannot be justified and the Palestinian leadership must do more to prevent these murderous attacks. We absolutely must support Israel's right to exist and defend itself as a sovereign state, but do so while also recognizing the Palestinian right to self-determination. In order for the U.S. to be an honest broker, it is extraordinarily important that we retain the trust of both sides. Only then will we be able to advance the cause of peace. Peace will be achieved only when Israeli citizens are secure in their homes and shops, when the Arab nations recognize Israel's right to exist, and when the Palestinian people have a state of their own. Acknowledging that the conflict may not be resolved soon, no option should be eliminated, including the possibility that international observers help maintain peace in the region. With emotions running high on both sides, acting as an honest broker requires courage, leadership and risking the temporary anger of both sides. But we must, because America is the world's best hope for peace.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, 35 years ago, I was a single mom with three small children, and even though I was working, I needed Aid for Dependent Children to make ends meet. When Congress passed welfare reform in 1996, I warned that getting women off the welfare rolls and into dead-end jobs would not be enough, and that the goal of welfare must be to break the cycle of poverty, not just get women jobs that pay slightly above minimum wage. With TANF reauthorization, we have an opportunity to fix what went wrong by allowing education and training to count as work, and by expanding child care to include weekend and evening work. Welfare moms can only succeed if they have skills needed for a job that pays a livable wage, and if their kids have access to quality child care. Welfare must break the cycle of poverty and strengthen our families. Let us use this TANF reauthorization to make welfare a success. Learn from the last 5 years.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor those who died in the Armenian Genocide. In the first part of the 20th century, a tremendous evil was done to the Armenian people. April 24, 1915 is a day that will forever live in infamy. A Turkish campaign to eliminate Armenians from the face of the earth began that day. In the end, that campaign killed 1.5 million people. More than 200 religious, political and intellectual leaders were assassinated. 500,000 people were exiled from their homes. As a result of this violence, one of earth's oldest civilizations virtually ceased to exist. Unfortunately this terrible chapter of history is not well known. Many Americans don't know much about the Armenian genocide, but it should stand as a constant reminder to all of us that we must be vigilant and stand firm against bigotry and hatred at every turn. We must take the horrors of the past and transform them into compassion and hope. We must learn from the Armenian genocide--learn about perseverance and hope. We can't change the past, but we can prepare for the future. While we remember with sorrow, we must also be heartened that eighty- five years later, Armenians remain a proud, dignified people. Their spirit lives in the independent republic of Armenia and in many communities around the United States, particularly in my home state of California. Every one of these people is the product of generations of courage, perseverance and hope. Understanding what it is to struggle as a people motivates many Armenians to educate others about the atrocities committed in the past. The bonds between Armenia and the United States are growing stronger all the time. Economic cooperation is growing. Democracy is blossoming. These are testaments of strength to the Armenian people. While we did not do enough for the victims eighty-five years ago, we can honor their memory now, and ensure that nothing so horrendous happens again.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule because it shuts out an opportunity to offer another side of the issue. The other side would address what is best for young women. In an ideal world, teens talk to their parents if they find themselves in trouble. In fact, in an ideal world, our teens would not be having sex at all. But let us face it, that is not the world we live in. Many teenagers live in a world that is quite the opposite and they would do anything not to tell their parents about an unintended pregnancy, even if it means putting themselves and their life in jeopardy. Make no mistake, I strongly support measures that help to foster healthy relationships between parents and their children. I would like to think that I had that kind of relationship with my own four children. But just because I consider myself an approachable parent does not give me the right, or anyone else the right, to assume that all teens find their parents approachable and understanding. Those out there who believe this is a good family-friendly bill are out of touch with reality. This bill is not going to encourage teens to talk to their parents and it is not going to curb abortion. Rather, this bill will encourage young girls who cannot or will not talk to their parents to seek unsafe, illegal abortions. For that reason alone, I cannot support this bill. I urge my colleagues, vote responsibly. Oppose the Child Custody Protection Act.