Lynn Woolsey

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. And if the gentlewoman were from the Middle East, she would be proud of it; and it does not mean that she is an evil-doer or was going to do something wrong because she came from some part of the world.

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentlewoman would yield, on this chart are Virginia and Maryland, the difference between the increase since September 8 was hardly even experienced because those two communities have been working with their Muslim American and their Arab American communities, and understood the sensitivities and what needed to be done. So when September 11 happened, their communities were already sensitive and caring about each other. So it works if we put the energy into it. Mr. Speaker, now is the time because we are putting energy into these areas. We voted for an airline bailout bill for $15 billion. We can put energy into that. We can put energy into a stimulus package that gives huge tax breaks to the large corporations in the country. So certainly we have time to bring the legislation of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to the House floor and it could pass on a suspension in a minute. We have started the drum beat, and we are not going to stop. Another reason we are not going to stop is another reality that hate groups are using, they are using the events of September 11 to gain new recruits, and they are specifically targeting the youth. It was reported in last Saturday's Washington Post that white supremacy groups have recently used images of the burning World Trade Center towers on fliers as a way to argue that the United States needs to close its borders to new residents. Some are using the images on their magazine covers and Web sites to increase support and numbers at their rallies. In the last year, 33 percent of white nationalist groups engaged in efforts to recruit and organize young people. This is a 10 percent increase over the year before. For example, the National Alliance members in Columbus, Ohio, blanketed the University of Ohio with fliers warning against interracial relationships. Fliers featuring a skull and crossbones with the slogan ``Race mixers beware'' were slipped under the doors of African American professors at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Unfortunately, such incidents are not confined to one university. Such efforts to simultaneously terrorize and recruit are becoming disturbingly commonplace on campuses, and we must pass legislation that makes a statement to our youth and to Americans in general that we do not tolerate hate crimes in the United States of America.

Ms. WOOLSEY. There is a lot of anger and we need to find ways for people to deal with anger and their differences, and the entire situation in the Mideast tells us that we have to do that. We can start at home. It is very important that we start at home. I thank the gentlewoman so much for joining me.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time to thank my colleagues for participating in this special order. This Congress can no longer ignore the need for hate crimes legislation. As I stated earlier, my colleagues' participation this evening sets an example of the commitment we as a Congress share in protecting our children and families from hate. Hate crimes legislation must be a priority. The Conyers bill, H.R. 1343, must be brought to the floor and passed and passed immediately. I have tried to do my part by sending out letters to my colleagues with information about hate crimes, the record of what is happening across the country, what is happening against Arab and Muslim Americans. Mr. Speaker, organizing these speeches today is not the end of what we are going to do. We are going to work with all of our colleagues to ensure that this issue is addressed by the Republican leadership and it is one of my top priorities. We heard from our leader, Leader Gephardt, it is very important to him. We are going to continue this drumbeat until the Republican leadership allows this Congress to debate hate crimes and to vote on hate crimes and protect our children now and in the future from hate.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Sonoma County YWCA on the occasion of its twenty-fifth anniversary. Since November, 1976, the YWCA has led the battle against domestic violence in our community. Begun by a group of women who met at the Santa Rosa library 25 years ago, the organization initially thought it would offer shelter for all homeless women but soon realized there was an urgent need to protect women fleeing for their lives. The first safe house was opened a year later with seed money from the county Mental Health Department. The Sonoma County YWCA now has an annual budget of $2,000,000 and offers child care, a legal clinic, counseling, and professional training as well as a safe house that is always full. Last year the domestic violence hotline received 2,501 phone calls and took in 193 women and children as well as counseling men who were victims of domestic violence. The YWCA partners with local law enforcement in this effort and has satellite offices inside local police departments. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting to honor the founders of the Sonoma County YWCA, especially Barbara Tomin and Pat Kuda, who were the visionaries, the planners, and the energy behind this project, as well as all those who have contributed to these vital services for the last 25 years.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Robert Roumiguiere, a Marin County political leader who served on the Board of Supervisors for 22 years. Mr. Roumiguiere died on November 5, 2001, of a heart attack. Mr. Roumiguiere will be remembered especially for his role in creating parks in Central Marin and preserving open space on the County's ridgelines. He was also instrumental in securing acquisition of the Northwestern Pacific railroad right of way in hopes of creating commuter rail service and fought for improvements to the Highway 101 Freeway and use of Hamilton Field as a business hub. As a fiscal watchdog, Mr. Roumiguiere sought to curb county spending. His tenacious negotiating style focused on bringing stakeholders together to find common ground. He was able to work with both Marin business community and environmentalists to achieve consensus. After his 22 years as Supervisor, Mr. Roumiguiere served on the county employees' retirement board. He had a background in the real estate business in Marin County and often shared the products of Roumiguiere Vineyards (Big Red), which he purchased in Lake County in 1980. His involvement with civic groups includes the Man'n Council of Boy Scouts of America, Marin Board of Realtors, Marin Shakespeare Festival, San Rafael High School PTA, and the Louise A. Boyd Marin Museum. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Robert Roumiguiere for his many contributions to our community. His vision for Marin County will continue to inspire all of us--and he will be sorely missed.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the savage attacks of September 11 resulted in the deaths of more than 5,000 innocent victims. To add to this horror, the horror of terrorist strikes, acts of violence against Muslims and Arab-Americans increased dramatically throughout the United States since September 11. The Council of American Islamic relations has received more than 300 reports of harassment and abuse committed against innocent Sikhs, Arabs, Indians, and people of Muslim faith. Communities across the Nation are horrified by these brutal crimes: a threat to a turban-wearing Sikh in Connecticut, an attack of a woman on a Maryland college campus, rocks thrown through an open bedroom window in Roanoke, Virginia. Hate crimes are not new to our country, but these are different. The victims of these hate crimes were children. The victim in Connecticut was a second grader. The woman was a teenager attacked by fellow young adults. And the child who barely missed being hit by a rock was only two years old. Throughout the country, Muslim and other Arab-American children are fearful of attacks on the street, in their homes, and at their schools in reprisal for the terrorist strikes of September 11. Muslim private schools have canceled classes. Parents are being asked to help patrol school yards, and according to the American-Arab Anti- Discrimination Committee, many parents have kept their children home from both public and private schools. Although hate crimes have been on the decline recently, 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 still being vandalized. In the past week, two Malaysian students at Indiana University were assaulted and an Afghan student in New York was attacked by fellow students. Only last month a threatening note found by a Palmdale, California, high school forced five Muslim-American students to stay home for their own safety. No one in America should live in fear because of his or her ethnic background or religious affiliation. This is especially true for children. That is why it is clearer than ever before just how important it is to pass meaningful hate crimes legislation. Children and their families are suffering as a result of the ignorance, fear and hate of others. We need to strengthen our existing laws to protect them against all hate crimes. We must send a message, especially to our children, that hateful behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated. Children must be given guidance to resolve conflicts peacefully, to build bridges across issues of difference. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, I worked to pass the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, reauthorization, which includes funding for education and training programs, curricula and instructional materials to prevent crimes. We need to build on this education step because State governments and local police need vigorous tools to fight and prosecute hate crimes. Sadly, existing Federal law is inadequate. That is why I am a strong supporter of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of the year 2001, sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). That act will empower existing hate crime legislation by making it easier for Federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute crimes motivated by race, by color, by religion and national origin, as well as gender, sexual orientation, and disability. Cosponsored by 199 bipartisan Members of the House of Representatives, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act has, unfortunately, been cast aside by the Republican leadership. That is absolutely unacceptable. There could not be a better or more needed time to bring this legislation to the floor and to pass it. It will give Federal authorities the jurisdictional muscle they need to effectively prosecute hate crimes. Parents and young adults need to be examples to our children. We need to show them how to deal with conflict, how to avoid hate crimes, and how much we disapprove of hate crimes. Teaching our children how to resolve issues of difference and broadening the scope of punishable hate crimes will ensure America's future by protecting our children. After the attacks of September 11, innocent children must not be added to the long list of victims in our Nation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, since the tragedy of September 11, young children are being spit on, called names, harassed, and hurt because they are Muslim or they look like they might be Muslim. State governments and local police need the tools to fight and prosecute these hate crimes. We must elevate the status of hate crimes within Federal law to ensure that the punishment fits the seriousness of the crime. We must set an example for young people that we do not tolerate hate; that they are protected; and that they can feel safe and they will be secure. Now is the time to pass hate crime legislation.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to suggest that if the GOP version does not sway towards the other body's, the Senate's version, it will be because they really do not want this to pass at all, because it is not going to pass. We will not get out of conference with the House version of that bill. So nothing will go to the President and we will not have an aviation security bill.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, this is not about being inconvenienced; it is about being inefficient and senseless. We were talking about should we be protected here at the Capitol in a different fashion than our constituent in the traveling public is protected, and the answer, of course, is no. We have to remember that it is the pilots that fly those planes and the flight attendants that work so hard to make us comfortable that are telling us and told us last week, federalize the system. That is what we would feel safe with. They will; the public will. We know it is better. So we have one more chance this week in the conference discussion, the public does not care what a conference is or is not, but it is one more chance that we can get together and do the right thing. I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) that it is time for the different Members of Congress here to hear from their constituency about this. But we have to remind them, they cannot send letters, because we do not get any mail. Phone calls, e-mail, call the district offices, but be heard.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and putting together this Special Order tonight. I believe we have been forced to view aviation security in a brand new way. These past events emphasize that aviation security is vital to our national security, but also to our national economy. We have to get people back on airplanes. We cannot run the business of this Nation if people will not fly from one place to another. We are in very unfamiliar territory now, and we have to carefully assess what constitutes appropriate responses in this very new world that we are living in because whatever our response, we will leave a permanent mark on the lives of the American people. If Congress passes the aviation security measure that the House passed last week, I believe that the American people will know, they will not be surprised, and we cannot fool them that we have passed a status quo proposal. We will not have passed the best proposal. The public will know that we passed a measure to keep those same private companies in charge that the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Ohio just referred to. Those are the same companies in charge on September 11, and they are still in charge of security. The public will know that as Members of Congress we did not rise to the occasion and we will not pass the remedies that were desperately needed.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, first of all I read that same USA Today article on the airplane flying here from California this morning. I was hoping that everybody else on the airline was missing it because it was kind of frightening. I do not know if the gentleman heard the pilot that spoke at our press conference last week before we voted on the aviation security bill. He said one of the reasons the opposition to federalization is speaking so loudly is that they fear that federalization will equal labor unions. He said, I want to remind the public, I want to remind everybody here today and the press, that all of the heroes in this country since September 11, the pilots, the airline attendants, the firefighters and the police officers, every single one of them belong to a labor union. So what is the fear? The gentleman is right, we do have another chance. Our chance this week would be to agree to the other body's language to federalization, follow their lead and agree to some really meaningful provisions that will put our citizens first, not the airlines, not the private companies that contribute great amounts of money to these individuals that are insisting that we stay private. Since the other body did vote 100 to nothing, we know that is a bipartisan idea. We also know that the public is going to watch what we are doing, and they want us to take care of them.

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every time the gentleman brings up campaign finance reform, I see the shelf, and if the leaders of this House will not move towards the other body's federalizing of aviation security, we are going to take aviation security and shelve it. So there will be campaign finance reform on the shelf, there will be aviation security on the shelf, there will be HMO reform on the shelf. It is all because of campaign finance reform. The gentleman is so absolutely right. We have to remind everybody that last week the aviation security bill only passed out of the House with four additional votes on the passing side. That is not a mandate from anybody. So it needs to go back to ground zero and be rethought.

Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman will yield, I think it would be good if we laid out right here in our conversation how we think it would be different if it was federalized, how the standards would be set, and they would be national standards, and there would be a Federal corps of workers that would be hired, trained, monitored and supervised and actually earn a livable wage; and we would have a work force not too dissimilar from the work force we have here protecting us at the Capitol. We have the Capitol Police. They are Federal workers. They are not contracted. We do not contract the Marines.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently did not vote on Roll Call #414 during its vote series yesterday. Had I voted, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask that this statement be inserted in the Congressional Record at the appropriate place.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Democratic proposal that supports the neediest not the greediest. Mr. Speaker, the events of September 11 have left a mark on all our lives, and, many, are left unemployed and struggling to make ends meet. While officially 400,000 job layoffs have been announced since September 11, its's most likely only a short while before others find themselves unemployed. How we respond to these workers during a time of crisis is a true reflection of our Nation's values. As a member of the progressive caucus, I'm proud that the Democrat plan builds on the progressive's proposal to put the neediest ahead of the greediest. Unlike the Republicans' bill, the Democratic economic stimulus plan provides us an opportunity to right by America's workers. But, that won't be the case if we enact the permanent tax cuts that are in the GOP plan. It won't take long for the American people realize that the GOP proposal is just another excuse to give tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy. The American people know a real economic stimulus package means immediate, short-term assistance, in the form of extended and expanded unemployment insurance. Instead, the GOP bill provides generous breaks for corporations while ignoring real assistance for low-income workers and their families. That's just plain wrong! What's right is that the Democratic plan is paid for . . . no surprise, the GOP bill isn't. The Democratic plan is fiscally responsible because it protects Social Security and Medicare. It's smart public policy that a real economic stimulus plans looks out for the future of Federal programs that our constituents rely on. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan proves we can strengthen our economy while also safeguarding our workers and their families. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Millender-McDonald) for sponsoring tonight's hour; and Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues on the House floor this evening to recognize National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. My name is Lynn and I am the daughter of Ginger, who died of breast cancer at the age of 62. Ginger is the daughter of Myrtle, who died of breast cancer at the age of 63. I have outlived them both, luckily. We are in a new time, a new life. I live a healthier existence than they did. I am much more careful, and certainly I have mammograms. Life is different now but families just like mine in succession continue to die of breast cancer. In 1995 the Northern California Cancer Center announced that women living in Marin County, one of the two counties that I am very privileged to represent, have a one in five lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. That is the highest in the Nation. This is one of the most affluent areas in the country. So we cannot assume breast cancer is in poor areas. Breast cancer is in every area. This alarming statistic prompted the formation of the Marin Breast Cancer Watch. This group has been an incredible resource for women and their families in my district as they cope with the realities of our high breast cancer rate. Sadly, though, last spring, the founder of Marin Breast Cancer Watch, Francine Levien, lost her battle to breast cancer. Francine's activism, dedication and friendship brightened the lives of many, many women. While Francine has left us, her spirit and determination have not. It is because of all the Francines across this country that today we share their message and we recognize the hard work that must happen if we are to actually find a cure for this awful disease. As in Marin County, an alarming number of women are dying from breast cancer across the Nation every year. Equally alarming is that we do not know exactly why. As the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer quickly rises, it is imperative that we learn what causes this disease and we take decisive action so that we can prevent it. Only by understanding where, how and why breast cancer occurs can we develop effective strategies to eradicate it. We all know that this will take funding beyond what we have already committed, but we cannot rest until the one in seven national statistic is a thing of the past. A growing body of evidence suggests that exposure to toxic chemicals may accelerate the spread of breast cancer. Some suggest this may contribute to the disproportionately high occurrence of breast cancer among women in regions like the San Francisco Bay area. Marin Breast Cancer Watch has led education campaigns within our community in an effort to increase awareness of the relationship between breast cancer and the exposure to outside factors, like toxic chemicals. Because information is power, I have worked hard with appropriators to secure funding over the past several years to help study and document this link. Mr. Speaker, only by exploring every single angle, especially environmental risk factors, will we be able to conquer breast cancer. As we search for the cause and the cure, we must also strengthen our commitment to treatment options and increase access to cancer care, prevention, and awareness programs. The media often reports conflicting stories about what are appropriate and safe treatment options. However, breast cancer patients have a right to make up their own minds on the type of treatment that they want. We must give them the tools they need to make informed choices about their health care options. Women are looking for hope, for progress, for answers. Breast cancer is beyond scary. Let us not make it more frightening by keeping women in the dark about each and every treatment option that is available to them. That is why I urge this Congress to truly support women's health coverage by calling for a vote on important legislation like the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act and the Mammogram Availability Act. Mr. Speaker, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, coworkers, friends, our nieces are looking to this Congress to lead the fight against the greatest battle they may ever face.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Sonoma County, which I represent, as well as Stanislaus County in California, currently face a potential crisis in their mental health communities. In order for these County staffed inpatient psychiatric units to keep their Medicare provider status, under last year's HCFA rule, the hospitals would have to take over employment of County health care workers who currently provide the psychiatric care. Today I am introducing legislation that will enable the hospitals to keep their Medicare provider status while allowing the health care workers to remain County employees. This is an avenue the counties and hospitals currently don't have under the HCFA rules. Under my bill, everyone wins: County employees keep their job status, the hospitals retain their Medicare provider status, and Medicare patients will continue to receive the high quality treatment that they deserve. This predicament began when the agency formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) issued the Provider-Based Rules (PBR) as part of the ``Outpatient Prospective Payment System'' final rule last year. The regulations were issued in an attempt to curb abuses and manipulation in the Medicare reimbursement system. However, it created an unintended consequence for my constituents. The concept behind the PBR was to regulate hospital acquisitions of off-site physicians' offices to ensure these outpatient sites were sufficiently integrated with a hospital in order to receive the higher cost-based reimbursement available only to hospitals. HCFA's rule also stated that this applied to inpatient services. In effect, the PBR prohibits management companies from employing the health care workers who provide the care at its inpatient hospital units. While this may seem reasonable on the surface, this employment requirement presents a serious problem that HCFA did not intend when it issued the PBR. In the case of Sonoma and Stanislaus counties, the counties employ both the management staff and the health care workers at local Sutter hospitals' inpatient psychiatric units. In my district, Sonoma County currently manages and employs the staff at the former Oakerest psychiatric unit (now the ``Norton Center'') through a contract with Sutter Medical Center of Santa Rosa. Preserving this management contract arrangement between Sutter and the County is critical because current County health care workers have the necessary expertise to deliver this specialized type of care to patients. My bill will allow this type of public- private management contract arrangement to continue without threatening a hospital's Medicare provider status. In accordance with the PBR, the Norton Center can meet the seven requirements that demonstrate it is an integrated part of the Hospital. However, it cannot meet HCFA's additional requirements for entities operating through management contracts. Unless it can comply with all the regulations, the Norton Center will not receive any reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. If the Norton Center has to forfeit its role as a Medicare and Medicaid provider, it may have to stop providing services altogether since it serves a high percentage of Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. HCFA's recommendation is that entities in violation of the management contract requirements just employ the County health care workers directly. This is not a realistic remedy for Sonoma County because it would result in the termination of approximately 60 County employees. That's why I am pleased to offer the ``Mental Health Community Partnership Act,'' because I agree that the regulations were never intended to eliminate this form of public- private management contract arrangements or threaten access to essential health care services. Specifically, this bill allows a hospital to contract with a public entity to provide inpatient psychiatric services, if the health facility is operated or managed by a state or local government. It's a win-win for everyone because it preserves the rule's original goal to curb Medicare abuse, the Norton Center will keep its Medicare provider status, County workers will keep their job status, and Medicare and Medicaid patients will continue to enjoy access to inpatient psychiatric services. Congress should take this opportunity to protect quality jobs and provide access to comprehensive health care for our most needy.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Julian Dixon was a legislative pioneer and a trusted colleague. It is only fitting that this post office in Los Angeles be named as a testament to his legendary career. During Julian's 22 years in Congress, he worked tirelessly as an advocate for the people of the 32nd district of California, as well as for all of the people of California and of the people of this Nation. One of Julian's most notable, but perhaps lesser-known, accomplishments came in 1994, when he spearheaded the passage of a bill that provided $8.6 billion in relief for the Los Angeles earthquake victims, and specifically forbade using the funds for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This was the first time language banning sexual discrimination was included in Federal law. Julian was a great hero. He was a great hero for human rights. We in this body must follow his example. We must build on the essence of his inclusive vision. Mr. Speaker, we miss Julian.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, to the martial law, and to the underlying bill. We are just learning how far this recently-crafted legislation called the PATRIOT Act goes beyond the powers necessary to fight terrorism. The people I represent in Marin and Sonoma Counties in California recognize that law enforcement may need some extra tools to combat terrorism and to ensure our safety, but my constituents and the majority of Americans in general know the difference between inconvenience and loss of civil liberties. They have made it overwhelmingly clear that they do not embrace proposals that encroach on our civil liberties, proposals that ultimately make us less free. For example, Mr. Speaker, this bill, as I understand it, lifts limits on CARNIVORE, the tool to read private e-mail correspondence, allowing the FBI to read and use information at their own discretion. My constituents are right to worry about how gathered information under this legislation could and would be used. Mr. Speaker, we must not allow the Bill of Rights to become the next victim of the September 11 attack. I urge my colleagues, withdraw this rule, withdraw this bill. Instead, why are we not voting on airport safety, something that everyone in this country is waiting for and is worried about, and something that passed out of the other body last night 100 to zip?

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Istook amendment. This abstinence-only amendment is a narrow and unrealistic approach to addressing adolescent sexuality. We're not saying that our young people should not be encouraged to abstain from sexual activity. We're just saying they also need to be informed about how to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other STDs. The truth is, comprehensive sexuality education programs expose young adults to important information that they will not learn from an abstinence-only program. To date, there is no real evidence that can defend the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs. Without such evidence, we cannot justify spending additional dollars on a program that's already well funded. However, family planning and comprehensive sexuality education programs have clearly shown their effectiveness and ability to help curb teen pregnancy. Let's protect our Nation's future by providing teens with the educational tools they need to be responsible. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Istook amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kind-Boehlert- Gilchrest-Dingell amendment, and I thank them for their leadership on this issue of conservation policy for our Nation's farmland. I, for one, believe the farm bill has room for this amendment, and in fact, I believe the bill is improved with it. Mr. Chairman, my district, Marin and Sonoma Counties, just across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, is very fortunate to have productive working farmland like dairies and vineyards. In fact, we provide 50 percent of the Bay area's milk products, and, of course, Members all know about Sonoma County wines. It is because of the diversity of agriculture that the Sixth District of California has one of the lowest unemployment rates and one of the highest income levels in this Nation, and it is because of the agriculture that I represent one of the most beautiful areas in the world. The dairies in particular in my district are mainly small, family- owned operations that have been in business for four or five generations, and because many of these dairies are within 30 miles of downtown San Francisco, preserving these productive lands is a top priority of my constituents, and it should be for the Congress. But my farmers are often frustrated by the lack of funds and technical assistance available to them to protect water supplies, reduce pesticide applications, provide adequate habitat for wildlife, enhance food safety, or, in general, protect their farms and our open space from encroaching development. Less than 10 percent of Federal farm spending is directed towards conservation. Without the Kind-Boehlert amendment, farm policy will continue to fail to keep up with the growing demand over the next 5 years. That is why the House must pass the Kind-Boehlert amendment and reward farmers and ranchers like my constituents, who want to participate in voluntary incentive-based conservation efforts. If my colleague's amendment succeeds, commodity crop farmers would still receive twice as much funding as they received under the 1996 farm bill, an 11 percent increase over current funding levels. In addition to helping commodity crop farmers by passing the Kind-Boehlert amendment, we would be wisely investing in farm policy that also recognizes the value of small family farmers. That, Mr. Chairman, is fair and smart public policy. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. WOOLSEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, we have all been affected by the tragedies of September 11 in one way or the other. As a Nation, we see things in a new way. We are looking through a veil of shock, of anger, and of grief. Congress has already moved with breathtaking swiftness to approve $15 billion for an airline bailout, a bill, by the way, that allows the top executives in the airline industry to keep their current salaries while their companies receive huge Federal payments, and while their workers are losing their jobs. But so far, when it comes to the airline workers, Congress just cannot seem to find time to help. But one thing has not changed: This Congress is still overlooking the needs of American workers. Mr. Speaker, more than 100,000 airline employees have already been laid off as a result of the terrorist attacks. It is clear that in the coming weeks, the number of layoffs will increase. Yet, no action has been taken to help workers in the airline industry. Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful that we have done nothing to help the pilots, the flight attendants, baggage handlers, and the other employees who have lost their jobs as a result of September 11. It is certain that many of these workers will depend on unemployment benefits for longer than usual. Some will not be able to return to their jobs in the airline industry and will need training to qualify for new jobs. Displaced workers and their families will also need health care coverage while they are getting their lives back to normal. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2955, the Displaced Workers' Assistance Act. This legislation provides meaningful assistance to those workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11. The Displaced Workers Assistance Act makes displaced workers eligible for an additional 52 weeks of unemployment insurance, and displaced workers who normally would not be eligible for unemployment insurance would receive 26 weeks of federally-financed payments. Those workers who cannot reasonably expect to return to their jobs within the airline industry would be eligible for retraining. Finally, H.R. 2955 would ensure that displaced workers and their families have health insurance by reimbursing the cost of their COBRA payments, or for workers who do not qualify for COBRA, it would cover them under Medicaid. Just as the airlines need our help because of the tragic events of September 11, so do the airline workers, those who find themselves without jobs, without the skills they need to obtain new jobs, and without health insurance for themselves and their families. These are the very people that made the airline industry successful in the first place. We have used their skills, we have used their dedication, and now we need to make sure that they are safe, as well as the airlines. As we help the industry overcome its losses as a result of the September 11 attacks, let us not forget the airline workers.

Ms. WOOLSEY

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. Like my constituents in Marin and Sonoma counties, I feel a combination of outrage and sorrow over Tuesday's tragic events. I share my constituent's wide-ranging conflicting emotions about what should come next. No doubt the events of September 11 have changed us forever; but as I stated Tuesday, our Nation's response to these attacks will also leave an indelible mark on the American people. Yes, we are united in our disgust for the violence that was perpetrated in New York City and Washington, D.C., against our democracy and against our freedoms. We know that we must bring those responsible for the attacks to justice, but my constituents also ask, do we know what means are appropriate to accomplish that? They are pleading with me and with you that we temper our absolute resolve with wisdom. Our conscience and our memory reminds us that a hasty response to Tuesday's attacks, just for the sake of retribution, could mean killing even more innocent people. That is why my constituents beg me and I beg this body, please, do not respond to evil with evil.