Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. Mink of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. George Miller of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. I oppose the process it represents, and I oppose the duplicity by which this rule came about. Nearly 150 amendments were submitted for this major legislative initiative, and only a handful have been made in order. Furthermore, many members of the Committee on Education and the Workforce withheld offering amendments in that committee because of assurances by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman, that they would be given an opportunity to do so on the floor. That did not happen. Cut out of the process were numerous good-faith efforts to build and improve on the underlying bill. My colleagues relied on the good-faith assurances of the Republican leadership, and learned a hard lesson instead. This is not a tone in Washington for which so many of us had hoped. For instance, this egregious rule will block consideration of an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). The gentleman's amendment would have provided $20 billion for needed school renovation, repair, and construction. Our schools are crumbling before our eyes. Mr. Speaker, at the basic level, surely we can all agree that schools should provide a safe and secure environment for learning and instruction with classrooms, libraries, laboratories, and other resources necessary for learning. In the same manner, the rule blocks my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), from offering an amendment to maintain a separate stream of funding for the class size reduction program. Overcrowded classrooms remain the number one obstacles to quality education in many communities. This rule does nothing to alleviate the problem. The process for this education bill began with a lot of promise. In recent days, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce approved, on a true bipartisan basis, a major education reform bill which will hold public schools accountable for improving children's education while offering a substantial increase in Federal funds to help them accomplish that goal. It reflected a significant agreement between Democrats and Republicans to improve education for all children in our country regardless of their economic, social, or racial background; in other words, leaving no child behind. It provided substantial new resources, $4 billion more for elementary and secondary education for next year, compared to what the Federal Government is spending this year, in exchange for higher standards and tough accountability rules. But then the process began to break down. Last week Congress failed to include in the budget conference the new funds for education that were called for in today's underlying bill. The disparity between education funding in the budget and education funding in this reform bill raises real questions about whether Congress is serious about improving schools. Furthermore, this week we have come to learn that the bipartisan bill has been hijacked by extreme elements of the majority's party, elements intent on undermining the bipartisan agreement reached by the Committee on Education and the Workforce. These elements are intent on reinserting vouchers into the underlying bill, a move that would undermine public education. Moreover, efforts to block-grant Federal money, a proposal referred to as Straight A's, are underway and would also undermine the specific targeting of poor school districts that exists in Federal law. I am at a loss to explain to my colleagues how so carefully crafted a bill has come under attack. The underlying bill was one this body could have been proud of, but its success is now in jeopardy. We must not let that happen. I urge the defeat of this rule to take care of these deficiencies. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. Slaughter asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the findings of the amendment of the gentlewoman from California read as following: ``It is the fundamental principle of American medical ethics and practice that health care providers should at all times deal honestly and openly with patients. Any attempt to subvert the private and sensitive physician-patient relationship should be intolerable in the United States and is an unjustified intrusion into the practices of health care providers when attempted in other countries.'' No one will argue with that, and yet the Hyde amendment strikes this from this bill. What happens here then is that women in poor countries die. Six hundred thousand women a year die. Abortion is not stopped. Women are simply not able to plan their families, and women die. Do we want the people to understand that the United States only cares about the doctor-patient relationship and about giving decent health care only in our own borders? Stop letting women in other countries die because we refuse to give them the information that they need. It is not about abortion.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, time is running out for Germany to provide a measure of justice to the survivors of the Holocaust, 10 to 15 percent of whom are dying every year. I urge passage of the Slaughter-Waxman-Schakowsky amendment to H.R. 1646 that would require the Secretary of State to report to Congress twice a year on the status of the German foundation, Remembrance, Responsibility, and the Future. The amendment also expresses the sense of Congress regarding the urgency of payments to Holocaust slave and forced labor camp survivors, and encourages the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims to work with the Secretary of State in gathering the information required for the report. Behind this amendment are real faces, faces of survivors from a variety of concentration and forced labor camps. Thousands suffered torture, mental abuse, loss of family, destruction of their culture during the Holocaust; yet they continue to wait on reparations for the suffering they endured so many years ago. Nearly a year after the agreement signed by the United States and Germany establishing the German foundation as the exclusive forum for the resolution of Holocaust-era restitution claims, not one Deutsche Mark has been paid out to a Holocaust survivor. The German foundation is supposed to be an exclusive remedy. We must make sure it is an effective remedy. This amendment would serve notice to the German foundation that Congress is concerned about Holocaust survivor restitution claims and expects the allocations of funds from the German foundation to go forward without further delay. During the last Congress, I introduced the Justice for Holocaust Survivors Act, HR 271, a bill that would have allowed survivors to pursue reparations from Germany for the unspeakable suffering they endured during the Holocaust. H.R. 271 garnered the support of 96 bipartisan cosponsors. This legislation served as a major catalyst in the talks between the U.S. and Germany to reach a compensation agreement. On July 17, 2000, the United States and Germany signed an agreement to establish the German Foundation, as the exclusive forum for the resolution of all Holocaust-era personal injury, property loss, and damage claims against German banks, insurers, and companies. In return, the U.S. Department of Justice has urged the U.S. courts to reject all existing and future lawsuits against German companies by slave laborers and other victims of the Nazi era. However, nearly a year after the agreement's inception, not one Deutsche mark has been paid by the German Foundation to Holocaust survivors. There needs to be more oversight and enforcement of the agreement that was negotiated by the United States. The German Foundation is supposed to be an exclusive remedy; we must make sure it is an effective remedy. Our amendment would achieve this goal by requiring the Secretary of State to report to Congress on whether the German Foundation is meeting its responsibilities to claimants; insurance companies joining the agreement abide by the same baseline set of standards; and slave and forced labor payments are distributed as soon as possible. Mr. Chairman, this report would also serve notice to the German Foundation that Congress is concerned about Holocaust survivor claims and expects the allocation of funds from the German Foundation to go forward without further delay. We must address the current lack of oversight of the German Foundation. I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for this report to Congress on the status of the German Foundation before it is too late to grant justice to our aging Holocaust survivors.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the definition of ``folly'' is to repeat what has failed and expect it to succeed, and that is what this underlying budget document does. We have been down this road before. Twenty years ago Congress enacted massive tax cuts along with increased military spending. The result was a crippling recession and catastrophic deficits from which it took well over a decade to recover, and many regions of the country never really did. That is why I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I oppose the hasty process the rule embraces. The resolution waives the rule that requires the availability of conference reports for 3 days before their consideration. This House rule allows Members time to read and study the report before they cast their votes. But we will not be able to do that today. Since this conference report that outlines the Nation's budget has been available to most Members for only a few hours, I have grave doubts that most Members have any real knowledge about what it includes. Moreover, the leadership is developing a habit of adding and taking away crucial documents from the report in the wee hours. Asking for regular order to review what new surprises await Members is not an unreasonable request. In its current form, the conference report is, at best, misguided, and, at worst, a sham. The numbers do not add up. The bill will fundamentally threaten our Nation's Medicare and Social Security trust funds. This is not political hyperbole, this is grade school math. Over the next 10 years, the CBO-projected surplus totals $2.7 trillion. The tax cuts and new spending expected to be included in the budget agreement, plus defense increases and additional tax cuts not included in the agreement, will well exceed this total and thus must raid Medicare and Social Security. I do not think anyone believes the much-ballyhooed $1.25 trillion tax cut over a 10-year period will stay anywhere near that amount. The additional $100 billion stimulus for the years 2001 and 2002 bring the 10-year total for the tax cut to $1.3 trillion, and debt service on a tax cut of this size will cost $300 billion, bringing the overall cost over 10 years to $1.6 trillion. Moreover, as the majority is fond of reminding its major donors, this round of tax cuts is simply the first shot, with further tax breaks heading down the pike. The conference report retains the Senate's interest in Medicare prescription drugs, education, agriculture and other priorities; but the conference spending totals, the debt service that goes with them, and the true cost of the tax cut are likely to tap into the available Medicare surplus in at least 1 of the next 10 years. Of particular concern to my colleagues should be the presence of big ticket items not included in the budget resolution. For instance, the President is expected to request at least $300 billion in outlays over 10 years for defense. Moreover, his recent proposal to begin spending billions for a missile defense system should sound budgetary alarms for everyone in this Chamber. They are not included in this budget. I would also remind my colleagues that the American people in poll after poll have remained remarkably sensible about their budget priorities. They want an honest, fiscally responsible budget plan that balances America's priorities, from tax relief for all families to support for our military, from education to a prescription drug benefit for our seniors. They want a fiscally responsible budget that will protect the economy by paying down the national debt, by strengthening Social Security and Medicare, and investing in our future; and this budget threatens all of those priorities. The vote today is the beginning of the raid on Social Security and Medicare and the return of big deficits as far as the eye can see, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for closing.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill). (Mr. HILL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).