Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Republican leadership to bring the bill of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), H.R. 1343, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to the House floor before we leave next week. Communities across the Nation, including Marin and Sonoma Counties, where I work and that I am privileged to represent, are horrified by the brutal crimes committed against innocent Sikhs, Arabs, Indians, and people of Muslim faith. Our children are watching in horror as their moms, their dads, brothers, sisters and close friends are being harassed, spit on, beaten, and, even worse, killed. These hate crimes are happening in their neighborhoods, their schools, and their places of worship. Does this Congress want to stand by and let our children be subjected to this kind of hate, or will the 107th Congress recognize the problem at hand and take the action necessary to reverse this trend by bringing H.R. 1343 forward? Mr. Speaker, we must past this bipartisan bill now.

Mr. WOOLSEY

Mr. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the terrorist attacks on September 11 struck fear in the heart of every American. Today, we continue to fight a war against terrorism on two fronts--in the mountains of Afghanistan and on the main streets of the United States. The first is a more traditional war against soldiers and war machinery; the second, a war against domestic terrorism. Within days of the attacks, Congress passed a Homeland Security Bill that included the so-called ``Patriot Act.'' The Patriot Act allows the government to increase its use of wiretaps and surveillance, and enhances its ability to trace e-mail and Internet usage. I voted against the Patriot Act because it intrudes unnecessarily on our civil liberties. We had adequate police and intelligence systems available to prevent 9/11, but they were not used effectively. The inadequate use of these resources is no reason to trample our freedoms. The Bill of Rights, civil rights and civil liberties must not be the ``other victim'' of terrorism. As the domestic war against terrorism continues, my concern is that ``increased police power'' will encroach on our liberties. In the past month, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued rules to allow the FBI to eavesdrop on communications between attorneys and their clients who are suspected terrorists, ordered prosecutors to interview over 5,000 young, mostly Middle Eastern men in the United States, and supported a system of secret military tribunals that could be used to try alleged accomplices in the September 11 attacks. Members of Congress and eight former high-ranking FBI officials have questioned the effectiveness of Attorney General Ashcroft's plan to fight terrorism. The tactics that he is proposing are not new. By interviewing over 5,000 mostly Middle Eastern men to gather information about terrorists, he is merely recycling the same ``preventive'' intelligence-gathering techniques that were rejected in the late 1970s because they did not prevent terrorism and in fact, led to abuses of civil liberties. In the 1950's and 1960's, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover used ``Red Squads'' to collect massive amounts of ``preventive'' intelligence to deter terrorist attacks. The ``Squads'' were criticized for abusing civil liberties and they were seldom effective. Because the majority of preventive intelligence investigations did not lead to criminal cases, most terrorist activities went unsolved and most of the terrorists were not apprehended. There is no reason to return to a system that didn't work and has a track record of failure and abuse. Attorney General Ashcroft wants terrorist suspects to be tried by secret military tribunals. Conducting the tribunals in secret with the possibility of imposing capital punishment by a mere two-thirds vote, is an infringement of our civil liberties. It also undermines our system of checks and balances. Our Democracy retains its integrity in large part because no single branch of government overwhelms another. The military tribunals circumvent the role of oversight control granted to Congress in the Constitution, and allow too much power to the Executive branch. The strength of the United States does not rest entirely on our overwhelming military superiority. Our country's strength lies in its moral authority, its reliance on the rule of law, and its belief in democracy. The ideals stated in our Constitution and Bill of Rights resonate throughout the world. It is our strength as a just, fair and transparent society that has made us a superpower, and these are the ideals that will ensure our world preeminence in the future. Just as we cannot win the battle against terrorism in Afghanistan with purely military options, we cannot improve homeland security by infringing on our freedoms. The Bill of Rights cannot be the next victim of terrorism. We will eventually win the military intervention against terrorism, but we cannot lose our national character in the meantime. Fear should not guide our decisions or cloud our judgment. Fear must not muffle the voice of freedom.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3005, the Trade Promotion Authority Act. I certainly recognize the value of trade, but contrary to the claims of the GOP leadership and Administration, passing fast track is not just about trade and the economy. It's about health, human rights, consumer and environmental standards. Unfortunately, the Thomas ``fast track'' bill is a roadmap to undermining these standards globally. As members of Congress, we have an important role in shaping future trade agreements. As the influence of trade extends to other areas including health, education, and the environment, we must ensure that trade agreements reflect the values and standards that we have worked so hard to uphold. If we pass H.R. 3005, we give up our authority to influence the content of future trade agreements, and we erode the government's ability to guard against direct attacks on the progress we have made. Even more important, we eliminate a crucial piece of the constitutional process by limiting democratic debate and stifling the voice of the people. That's undemocratic and it's not smart public policy. The GOP leadership argues that passing H.R. 3005 is the patriotic thing to do. Make no mistake, ``fast track'' does not rebuild, it does not restore, it does not heal and it will not bring America together. Instead, by pushing this divisive issue forward, we are driving America and its government apart when what America needs is unity. H.R. 3005 will not advance fair trade policies, but policies that are harmful to our nation and the world. We CAN foster trade while ensuring that American jobs, civil rights, and our natural resources are protected. We just can't accomplish this goal through the enactment of H.R. 3005. With its lack of enforcement measures, H.R. 3005 jeopardizes international environmental agreements, compromises job security for American workers and curbs economic growth. That's why I will continue to urge my colleagues to support free trade, but only when it's fair trade.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage the Republican leadership to bring the bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), H.R. 1343, The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, to the House floor. It is time to take action against crimes that are motivated by hate. I appreciate all of my colleagues that are coming here this evening that are going to take their time and to speak in support of H.R. 1343. In the past 3 months, crimes against Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, Southeast Asians and anyone resembling these nationalities have increased significantly. The Council on Arab and Islamic Relations has compiled more than 1,400 reports of hate crimes since September 11. This represents a 51 percent increase in reported crimes against those of Middle Eastern descent since the attacks. Our children are watching in horror as they and their moms and their dads, their brothers, their sisters and close friends, are being harassed, spit on, beaten and, even worse, killed. These hate crimes are happening in their neighborhoods, at their schools, and their places of worship. This Congress does not want to stand by and let our children be subjected to this kind of hate. We cannot. We should not. The 107th Congress must recognize the problem at hand and must take effective measures to reverse this trend, and we can do that by bringing H.R. 1343 forward. The stories of these hate crime victims are disheartening. In Poughkeepsie, New York, a high school student was harassed and attacked while another student yelled ``I hate you, dirty Afghani,'' as he pelted him with rocks and plants. In Dumfries, Virginia, a mother and her son attacked two Afghani American brothers, age 16 and 17. During school the son and a group of his friends approached the two Afghani teenagers and began taunting and hitting them. The mother entered the fight and hit the 17-year-old youth in the head. Luckily, both boys escaped into a neighbor's home and luckily neither was seriously injured. In San Mateo, California, a gasoline bomb was thrown through the window of a Sikh family's home hitting a 3-year-old. Fortunately, the bomb failed to explode. These stories are both unbelievable and intolerable. But, sadly, these acts of hate are rampant, and people of Middle Eastern descent are not the only victims affected by ignorance and hate. Just a week ago, a hate crime occurred in my district. Three sophomores at a high school in my district assaulted a 17-year-old student because he was openly gay. The apparent leader of the assault paid two other boys $10 each to beat up the victim. Our children cannot be subjected to such violence and such hate. No one in America should live in fear because of his or her ethnic background, because of religious affiliation, because of gender, disability or sexual preference. This is especially true of our children. That is why it is important to pass meaningful hate crime legislation, and to pass it now. We need to strengthen our existing laws, and we must protect people against all hate crimes. We must send a message, especially to our children, that hateful behavior is wrong and it will not be tolerated. Our law enforcement officials need vigorous tools to fight and prosecute hate crimes. Yet existing Federal law is inadequate. That is why I am a strong supporter of the bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. For the first time under Federal law, this measure would add sexual orientation, gender and disability. In addition, it would expand Federal civil rights law to allow prosecution of hate crimes even if no federally protected activities were involved, such as voting or attending school. Also the bill would expand the circumstances under which the Federal Government could offer assistance to State and local governments to help prosecute these crimes. Even though the bill is cosponsored by over 200 bipartisan Members, it has been cast aside. We must bring it to the floor, and we must pass it now.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring the bipartisan bill, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to the floor to be voted on. The terrorists who committed the atrocities on September 11 want nothing less than to destroy our American way of life. Terrorists want our children to grow up divided because of weaknesses, not unified by America's strengths. The Conyers' bill, supported by 199 bipartisan cosponsors, defends every American from the kind of hate and bigotry that has followed September 11, particularly our children. Kids, because of the way they appear, have been beaten by their peers, harassed at their schools, and spit on in supermarkets. We must give local law enforcement the tools that they need to punish and prevent these crimes. The Conyers Hate Crime Prevention Act will do just that.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to honor a man in the City of Petaluma, where I proudly reside, who embodies the spirit and best qualities of that town. He is a man who attracts people through his gift of music and humor, and has used his special voice to make Petaluma a better place to live. Petalumans would know that I'm talking about Ron Walters. Ron Walters' was born in Ute, Iowa on Thanksgiving Day in 1932 and from the beginning people have been thankful for his giving nature. Growing up in the depression, Ron migrated to California in 1936 with his parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles in car hauling a homemade house trailer filled with all their worldly possessions. After graduating from high school in Healdsburg he attended several colleges where he excelled in sports, music and drama. Ron graduated from Gonzaga University in Washington state where he starred in varsity basketball and also set records as the sole representative of the University's unofficial track team. After graduation, Ron returned to California where he held several jobs and met and married Judy Paige and soon was the father of three lovely daughters, Leigh, Juli and Erin. Then in October 1963 Ron, who was looking for a way to apply his love of music, walked into the KTOB radio station in Petaluma and asked for a job, which he thought he didn't get. But the next day, the station owner called to ask, ``How come you're not a work?'' Ron started work the same day. At KTOB, Ron quickly became the ``Voice of Petaluma,'' with a regular morning program. He quickly put his humor and homespun sensibilities to use. He used his microphone to raise money for efforts including Pop Warner Football, the Petaluma Boys Club (which was in dire financial straits), medical costs for an injured high school football player and many, many other worthy causes. He was a staunch supporter of Petaluma beautification projects and played an important role in Petaluma's historic preservation efforts which has preserved much of the city's Victorian architectural heritage, including his own home. Ron not only played music on the radio, he also taught music at Sonoma State University and was a performer. He starred in local productions of Broadway musicals including acting and singing the role of the Professor Harold Hill in the ``Music Man'' three times, a very appropriate role for an Iowa boy who lived in a town nicknamed ``River City.'' Ron also performed vocal jazz with the Harmoneers and Harmonettes and sang with various local bands including those of Ernie Walker, Peter Welker, Walt Oster and Bill Sax. Ron was a featured performer at Carnegie Hall last year with the jazz group, Take Note, and will sing there again next year. Ron Walters' voice hasn't disappeared into the airwaves. The lessons he taught about civic involvement, philanthropy, and support for youth and the arts strongly reverberates in Petaluma and will do so for a long time to come. Ron Walters always signed off his radio programs saying, ``This is Ron Walters saying thanks a heap and don't forget what I told you yesterday.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to Ron on behalf of all the people his life has touched, ``Thanks a heap, and no, we won't forget.''

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, we must restore funding for all unemployed workers across our Nation. We have to provide income assistance and health premiums. It absolutely dumbfounds me that we would take away this aid for all unemployed workers to make up for a failed promise by our President to New York. We are all sympathetic. This is not about taking away something from New York. This is about making the promise to New York for $20 billion, but not robbing Peter to pay Paul. Instead of New York's $20 million commitment being failed, we should pay for that and fulfill President Bush's original promise to provide for community block grants so we can expand unemployment benefits, pay for health insurance premiums, or otherwise help families displaced by recession-related impacts across this Nation, impacts created across the Nation due too September 11 and before that. Without the Miller amendment, my State of California will lose about $220 million that is needed to extend unemployment insurance. Yet California's economy is also suffering from the economic effects of the 11th of September. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, stand up for all unemployed Americans and their families. All of them deserve your help. All of them deserve unemployment assistance and health care benefits and we can do that by voting for the Miller amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, H.R. 2269 is a prime example of how a good idea can become a bad bill. Is it a good idea to make investment advice available to employees at the work site? Of course it is. But it is a bad idea to allow self-interested advisors, those who could benefit from the advice given, into the workplace. That is exactly what H.R. 2269 does. Currently ERISA prohibits investment advisors from coming to a workplace to provide employees with investment advice if there is any reason to think that the advisor might benefit from recommending one investment over another. We must remember that ERISA was enacted to protect workers from abuses related to their benefits. With H.R. 2269, we will allow investment sales folks onto the work premises under the guise of the employers' endorsement without protecting the workers significantly, or at least enough to make sure that they are in good hands when they have heard the advice. Fortunately, we have an alternative to H.R. 2269, and that is the Andrews substitute. We do not need to wait for employees to be bilked by some scam artist to make H.R. 2269. We can pass the Andrews amendment and then we have a good bill. The Andrews substitute starts with the same good idea of bringing investment advisors to the workplace, but the Andrews substitute includes strict standards to protect employees from receiving tainted advice. The Andrews substitute requires meaningful disclosure of the advisors' affiliations in a way that is easily understandable to all employees, and it allows employees to meet with an independent advisor if there is a conflict of interest. The Andrews substitute keeps the good idea of making investment advice available to employees at the workplace, but it builds on the protections in current laws that employees need and must depend on. The Andrews substitute is a win-win for employees, and I urge my colleagues to support it as the correct and safe way to provide investment advice at the workplace.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2269 is a prime example of how a good idea can be turned into a bad bill. It is a good idea to make investment advice available to employees at their workplace. Of course it is a good idea. But allowing self-interested advisors, those who could benefit from the advice they give, in the workplace is not a good idea; it is an extremely bad idea. But that is exactly what H.R. 2269 does. Please remember why ERISA was enacted in the first place. It was enacted to protect workers from abuses related to their benefits. So ERISA now prohibits investment advisors from coming to a workplace and providing employees with investment advice if there is any reason to think that the advisor might benefit from recommending one investment or another. ERISA was enacted to protect workers from abuses related to their benefits, and this protection has worked for over 25 years. But with H.R. 2269, we are saying that it is okay to have investment sales folks at the workplace under the guise of the employer's endorsement providing investment advice to their employees. Think about this: We have employees with 401(k) plans, many of whom have little or no knowledge of high finance. The employer brings an investment advisor to the workplace. That has to appear as if the employer endorses whatever this advisor is selling. Members cannot tell me that most employees will not be strongly inclined to accept the investment advice given them under those circumstances. If the advice is poor or, heaven forbid, the advice is downright wrong, or if it is some kind of scam in the short run, there is no protection for that employee. There is hope, however. Fortunately, we have a substitute to H.R. 2269. That is the Andrews substitute. The Andrews substitute keeps the good idea of making investment advice available to employees in the workplace, but it builds on the protections in current law that employees need and must have and must be able to depend on. The Andrews substitute is a win-win for employees, and I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2269 unless the substitute is included.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman will yield a minute, I want to ask him a question about this.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for coming and for being such an outspoken colleague for human rights and civil liberties and humanity in general. I think what the gentlewoman has done, and I compliment her on taking ahold of the issue immediately after September 11, she has prevented some hate crimes, I am certain of that. And one of the ways we can know that, if my colleagues will look at Virginia and Maryland on this chart, both those States were addressing the issues before September 11. Hence, they do not have an increase in hate crimes in their communities. They were already dealing with something they knew was sensitive and must be addressed and they needed their communities working together. So the gentlewoman made that difference, too, and I thank her. I am now honored to introduce my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). I thank her for joining us.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. She has confirmed that the time is now. It is time to vote for expanding the intelligence community's privileges and giving law enforcement more tools as far as going after terrorists. I think the time is now to show our young people that we do not tolerate hate crimes, that we do not paint everybody with the same brush. If one person has shown that they are evil, that does not mean everybody that looks like that person is evil, and that there is no excuse for the United States Congress not to pass a hate crimes bill before we recess for the year.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it has 199 cosponsors. It is bipartisan. Let us make it happen. I thank the gentlewoman. Now I am delighted to be joined by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of introducing the Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), and I thank him very much for joining us.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman for joining us and being willing to work with us, because it is time. It is time to pass hate crimes legislation, Mr. Leader.

Ms. WOOLSEY. So the turban was something the young resident wore daily?

Ms. WOOLSEY. The beard, yes. The language. Had he, in the past, been speaking Punjabi?

Ms. WOOLSEY. I thank the gentleman very much for sharing that story. That is just an example of what we are up against, and that was pretty far-reaching as far as dealing with something like that.

Ms. WOOLSEY. That was before September 11?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Right.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise with my colleagues today to address hate crimes, an important issue that is being ignored by this Congress. First, I would like to thank my Democratic colleagues for joining me today to talk about the importance of tolerance and why we must disavow hateful acts, acts that are being committed across this Nation in the wake of September 11. Their participation shows the commitment we as a Congress must make to protect our children and our families and all Americans from hate. Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that hate crimes are not new. The problem today is they are not just isolated incidents. Instead, they represent an alarming nationwide trend. This trend is shown on the chart to my right. As the chart clearly shows compared to the number of incidents reported in the first 8 months of 2001, hate crimes against Muslim and Arab Americans have increased dramatically since September 11. Nationwide reports indicate a 162 percent increase in the number of new hate crimes. As of August, 2001, there were 366 incidents reported across our country. But in the wake of September 11, this number has risen to 959 reported accounts of assault, intimidation, racial profiling, deaths, and public harassment. This dramatic increase is found in several States in particular, including New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Massachusetts. Sadly, in the case of my home State of California, hate crimes have risen by 225 percent. This underlines the seriousness of a new wave of hate crimes, especially when California is the most diverse State in our Union and certainly a State that thrives because of our diverse population. Many of my colleagues know the popular saying, ``As goes California, goes the Nation.'' Well, we want that to be true in most cases; but in the case of hate crimes, we must face the fact and realize that California's 225 percent increase could become common place across the Nation if we do not act now to stem the tide. Mr. Speaker, that is why the communities that I represent and the communities across the Nation, including Marin and Sonoma Counties, just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, the counties that I work for, are actually horrified by these acts of hate, these acts of fear, ignorance, and bigotry. In particular, our constituents are outraged that countless stories of harassment and shootings and bias are being directed at our children. We have read about the hate crimes being committed, the threat to a turban-wearing Sikh in Connecticut, the attack of a woman on a Maryland college campus, rocks thrown through the open bedroom window in Roanoke, Virginia. But then we learn that the victim in Connecticut was a second grader, the woman was a teenager attacked by fellow young adults, and the child who was barely missed from being hit by a rock was only 2 years old. The tragedy, the unacceptable nature of hate crimes becomes all the more clear when we learn of these stories. It is unacceptable that throughout our country Muslim or Muslim- appearing children are fearful of attacks on their own streets, in their homes, and at their schools in the wake of September 11. As a result, some Muslim private schools have canceled classes; parents are being asked to help patrol school yards; and according to the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, parents are keeping their children home from both public and private schools. In fact, law enforcement officials and leaders in Arab American and Muslim communities are preparing for more trouble because children are still being attacked by fellow classmates and schools are being vandalized. Last week, two Malaysian students at Indiana University were assaulted, and an Afghan student in New York was attacked by a fellow student; and only last month a threatening note found at a Palmdale, California, high school forced five Muslim American students home for their own safety. I ask my colleagues, is this what we want to teach our children? I know the answer is a resounding no; but the fact remains that children and their families are suffering as a result of ignorance, fear, and hate. Mr. Speaker, it is unacceptable; and it is exactly why this Congress must send a very strong message that hate crimes will not be tolerated. That is why we must strengthen our existing laws to protect families and children against all hate crimes. Fortunately, we have a bipartisan bill. It is legislation in this House that has 199 cosponsors, and this legislation will help combat these hateful crimes. The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Conyers) bill, H.R. 1343, Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, will add teeth to the existing laws by making it easier for Federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes motivated by race, color, religion and national origin, as well as adding gender, sexual orientation and disability. Yet even with an overwhelming number of bipartisan cosponsors, I told my colleagues this bill has 199 bipartisan cosponsors, this legislation has been cast aside by the Republican leadership, and that is just plain wrong. If there is ever a time that we needed to be passing hate crime legislation, that time is now. That is why I am here today, Mr. Speaker, to encourage the Republican leadership to address this important issue, to urge them to bring the Conyers bill to the floor; and I have with me my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer), who is going to talk to us about an incident in Ohio. I thank him for joining me.

Ms. WOOLSEY. That was a rock or a bullet in a different form against that young man. I thank the gentleman. Now I would like to introduce another colleague, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), and I thank her for joining us this afternoon.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Would the gentleman yield just a minute?

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I think we can assume that it was a hate crime.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.