Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order out of turn.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a consummate patriot Mary McGrory, who passed away 2 weeks ago, and we may never see her like again. Mary was a loyal friend, a generous humanitarian, and most of all, a brilliant writer. Her lyrical commentary illustrated a command of the English language that was unparalleled. She used her talents to craft tough commentary, softened only by her steadfast compassion. Her allegiance to the defeat of injustice and the exposure of political phonies made her a champion to the underprivileged, a thorn in the side of policy makers, an icon to many, and a hero to me. I met Mary McGrory shortly after coming to Washington when I was first elected in 1986. And as part of my campaign, I had run against the Contras. I thought everybody was. But Mary singled me out as being somewhat unusual, and she interviewed me for an article shortly after I got here that she was writing about the Iran Contra hearings, and we became very fast friends. I certainly never expected that wonderful national icon Mary McGrory to seek me out, but I had always loved her articles and I was awestruck by the fact that we were friends. The passion with which she approached her life was remarkable. Nothing she did was done half-heartedly or without absolute conviction. As a result, her achievements as a journalist were preordained. Mary's story serves as an inspiration to women working to achieve their dreams. When she entered the field of journalism, men dominated it. Journalism was not an easy profession for a woman to break into. Her first assignment in Washington was ``gender appropriate'' for the time, writing the book reviews for the Washington Star. But then she covered the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954. Mary McGrory was the first person in the country to announce and denounce Joe McCarthy as a bully. She then earned a national reputation as a serious and credible journalist of the first magnitude. She grabbed the heart of the Nation with her coverage of President Kennedy's assassination. Her poetic tribute to his life and gentile commentary of his funeral comforted a grieving Nation. The national spotlight shined on Mary again in 1974 when she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for commentary for her coverage of the Watergate scandal. She was most proud that her coverage landed her a spot on President Nixon's notorious ``enemies list.'' That recognition served not as a warning to tame her merciless analysis but as a validation for her relentless work ethic. When the Washington Star closed its doors in 1981, Mary was devastated. I am convinced, I believe, that she had lost her own true love. Although she would continue to write for the Washington Post, whom she also loved, her first allegiance was to the Star. My colleague has already talked about the wonderful work that she did with the orphans and the children needing help in this city for more than 5 decades, but I can never forget Mary McGrory the entertainer. I was a proud member of the Lower Macomb Street Choral Society for which we had to audition. Whether one was a diplomat, a media member, or anybody, they had to audition for that group in the comfort of her living room. Her infamous lasagnas fed our stomachs and her favorite Irish songs fed our hearts. It was a coveted invitation to go to McComb Street, and then for the last 10 years, Mary and I have had dinner together here in the Capitol just before the State of the Union address, and the next one for me will be extremely lonely. I last spoke with her on the day that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) rescued the portrait of Mary Theresa Norton from one of the Capitol closets. She had been the Chair of the Committee on Labor and was responsible for child labor laws and the fair labor standards, and we knew nothing about her. We were happy that day to find an article that Mary had written about Congresswoman Norton where she quoted the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) father as saying that Mary Theresa Norton could do anything that any man could do and do it better and do it faster, and it was a great honor to pay to her. I would like to end with one of Mary's favorite songs that we sang together with Phil Gailey sometimes at 2 and 3 in the morning, and they sang this at her funeral, and I know the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who is here in the audience, will know this. I'll meet you in the morning With a how do you do And will sit down the river And with rapture old acquaintance renew. You'll know me in the morning By the smile that I wear When I meet you in the morning In the city Four Square. I will meet you there, Mary.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the world recognizes Earth Day, to express my strong concern with a recent proposal by the administration to weaken standards on mercury emissions from power plants. This administration seems to have forgotten that Earth Day is our special day to look at the planet and see what needs changing. We should be moving forward with environmental policy, as we have done for nearly 35 years. Unfortunately, I fear that this administration is set on reversing these decades of progress. My constituents and other Americans are being shortchanged by attempts to weaken clean water and clean air standards, particularly the mercury proposal. As co-chair of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I am very concerned that women and children, the groups who are at most risk from mercury exposure, are hurt by this proposal. A recent analysis by the EPA indicates that 1 in 6 women of childbearing age have levels of mercury in their blood at unsafe levels; 1 in 12 women of childbearing age has enough mercury in her system to pose a potential threat to fetal health. This contamination results in more than 600,000 newborns at risk of neurological problems due to mercury exposure. We need to take immediate action to reduce women and children's exposure to mercury. Under the Clean Air Act, toxic substances like mercury must be controlled at each and every power plant by using the maximum achievable control technologies. Two years ago, EPA estimated that under this standard, existing technologies could reduce 90 percent of mercury pollution from power plants, bringing mercury emissions down to roughly 5 tons per year by 2008. Unfortunately, EPA's proposed mercury standards are not protective of public health. The emission limits proposed are 10-20 times higher than what some plants achieve today. In the end, EPA's proposal allows power plants to emit six to seven times more mercury into our airways for a decade longer compared what EPA has said is achievable. I call on the administration to significantly strengthen this approach so that as much mercury as possible is removed from the emissions of each and every power plant. It is sad that this administration has absolutely no environmental accomplishments on its record. The administration has repeatedly ignored the dangers that environmental toxins like mercury pose to women and children, and instead bends over backwards to cater to their friends in polluting industries. We cannot continue to play politics with human health, the environment and our children's futures.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Village of Youngstown, New York. The Village of Youngstown is a small village that has evolved with the times, but whose residents have never lost touch with their roots. Its history resembles that of many of the small towns on which our Nation was built. The area began to grow after the American forces took over Historic Old Fort Niagara. Many tradesmen and shopkeepers came to the area during the War of 1812 to provide needed supplies and services to the Fort, which sits at the edge of the village. The village was the site of many major battles during the War of 1812 and was also a major shipping port in the 1800's. The village was named for John Young who originally came from across the river in Canada. One hundred fifty years ago, the Village of Youngstown was officially incorporated in Niagara County, on the shores of the mighty Niagara River and Lake Ontario. The village sits on beautiful, fertile Western New York land which is renowned for its sailing regattas and year round sportfishery. The surrounding area is home to many of New York's famous apple orchards. Youngstown is an internationally designated important Bird Area. With a population of nearly 2,000 people, Youngstown is a close-knit community where everyone is a neighbor. Most people know each other, and even if you are not well acquainted, faces smile with recognition and greetings are exchanged with warmth. Friendly inquiries are made when there has been an experience with pain--or joy. Anytime a neighbor is suffering from ill health or some loss, the community is there to help, to lighten the burden, and to express its loving concern. Beyond the village's long and distinguished history, Youngstown is simply a place residents are proud to raise a family. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the Village of Youngstown's 150th birthday, I unite with its residents to celebrate their accomplishments and contributions to Niagara County, our state, and our Nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to re-introduce the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act, a bill that can save the lives of thousands of people who might otherwise fall victim to the only completely preventable form of cancer. Few people realize that colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. for men and women combined. It kills more Americans every year than either breast cancer or prostate cancer. An estimated 146,940 people will be diagnosed with this cancer in 2004, and 56,730 will die from it. This is an unspeakable tragedy because colorectal cancer is preventable, treatable, and curable when detected at an early stage. When colorectal cancer is detected before it has spread, the five year survival rate is over 91 percent. Further, colorectal cancer is the only cancer we know how to prevent. If polyps are discovered in the colon, they can be removed before they become cancerous and the cancer will never develop. And yet tens of thousands of Americans continue to die from this disease, mostly because their cancer is detected at a later, less treatable stage. No one should die of colorectal cancer. This cancer is preventable and detectable. It is slowgrowing and easy to stop in its tracks. The fact that over 56,000 Americans die of this disease is nothing more than a massive failure of our preventive health system. For most Americans, two barriers effectively block their access to colorectal cancer screening: ignorance, and lack of insurance coverage. Many people simply don't realize they are at risk. When they are educated by their doctors and other sources, however, the vast majority are ready to undergo screening. This brings them to the second major obstacle--insurance coverage. Not all insurers cover colorectal cancer screening, even for those groups at higher risk. All men and women over the age of 50 should be screened regularly, as well as those under 50 at high risk. Screening tests are crucial because colorectal cancer often causes no symptoms until it is widespread. A recent Lewin Group study of the insurance plans offered under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) is illustrative. Lewin researchers reviewed the plan materials offered to subscribers to determine which covered the full range of colorectal cancer screening methods. In 2002, only 3 percent of FEHBP plans covered screening colonoscopy. In 2003, that number jumped dramatically to 28 percent. Clearly, insurers are realizing that these screening exams make sense. Colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective, considering that treatment for a patient with an advanced form of cancer can easily be $40,000 or more. Preventive screening is good policy, good health care, and good economics. I am therefore proud to introduce today the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act, a bill to require insurers to cover a regular colorectal cancer screening exam. Doctors and patients will be able to decide together the appropriate screening method and frequency of testing. My friend and colleague, Rep. Peter King, has joined me as original cosponsor of this vital initiative. In the Senate, a companion bill is being introduced today by Senators Edward Kennedy and Pat Roberts. I am pleased to report that a wide range of respected organizations have already lent their support to this initiative, including the American Cancer Society. These organizations will be working diligently to educate Members of Congress about the need for this legislation and to urge their support for it. The wall at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial lists the names of 58,235 Americans who lost their lives over the course of that conflict. Every year, we lose almost that many men and women to colorectal cancer. But we have the power to eliminate colorectal cancer. I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act and put us on the path to realizing this worthy goal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks against the Republican budget because it cuts funding for Violence Against Women programs and in 10 years has cut Family Violence programs 10 percent.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our men and women in uniform. I cannot however, in full confidence, rise in support of statements that the world is a safer place for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The human and financial costs of war are colossal. This action has been no exception. With the details of the tragic bombing of a hotel in Baghdad still developing as we debate this resolution, we are once again reminded of the horrors of war--and the long road ahead. Based on today's events, and the recent bombing in Spain, how can the authors of this resolution say that we are safer? No one has borne the costs of this military action more than our soldiers and their families. No one understands these sacrifices greater than the spouses and children of soldiers who spend month after month, deployment after deployment, in far away lands. No one understands sacrifices greater than the soldiers themselves who volunteer their time, but must sometimes pay with their health, their jobs, or even their lives. All of us in this Congress want to honor these men and women in uniform. I am sure that we all want to minimize their hardships and that of their families. A bipartisan piece of legislation that I recently introduced, H.R. 3779, the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act, would seek to bring us one step closer to this goal. At a time when Reservists and members of the National Guard are being used at unprecedented levels, many of them are experiencing new problems when they leave home. According to the Department of Defense, there are currently 1.2 million children with military parents in the United States. This number is only slightly less than the total number of adults currently serving in the Armed Forces. I learned firsthand how deployments can cause significant upheaval in a child's life when the brother of a deployed soldier recently contacted my office. He explained that his niece had moved to live with her mother while her father was away fighting in Iraq. As a result, she was prevented from attending her normal high school because she no longer resided within the school district. The Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act would ensure some measure of continuity for children who change residence as a result of their parent's military service by allowing them to continue to receive an education at their schools, even if they are temporarily residing outside the school district. While I will vote yes on today's resolution, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake that it is a vote of support for our troops and their families; troops such as Sgt. Christopher Kreiger from the 105th Military Police Company, who was informed this week that his unit's tour of duty has been extended indefinitely. It is my hope that he will come home quickly and safely to see his one-year-old daughter for the first time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I will reserve my remarks for the Record and yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my colleague and cousin.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern.) (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in support of H.J. Res. 87, a timely resolution that expresses Congress's admiration and respect for the 20th century's greatest American leader. Franklin Delano Roosevelt started his political career in New York State by working vigorously for reform movements that would redefine the role of government, and he never stopped. The programs that epitomized the New Deal, had their genesis in Albany. As governor, Roosevelt implemented many of the innovative, progressive policies he would later introduce to the Nation as President. He expanded state assistance to social services and state agencies and eased the hardships on New York's agricultural industry by encouraging tax cuts for small farmers. Upon the onset of the Great Depression, he authorized the New York State Unemployment Relief Act and the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration. In 1928, Roosevelt won the Democratic nomination for Governor at the Naval Armory in my home city of Rochester, New York. While serving as Governor, his successes elevated him to national prominence, and in 1932, he was elected President of the United States for the first of an unprecedented--and never to be repeated--four terms in office. In 1932, the Nation was plunged into the Great Depression that affected every American. Businesses failed; soup kitchens were set up to feed the longer and longer lines of the unemployed. Banks failed, mortgages were foreclosed and the Nation was filled with fear and despair. Roosevelt began the most comprehensive and innovative programs to put Americans back to work in our history. The Public Works Administration alone funded over 34,000 projects that put people to work building airports, highways, hospitals, schools, and universities. His Works Progress Administration (WPA) hired artists to enhance the projects and many of our most beautiful public buildings today were the work of the WPA. These publicly funded arts initiatives put famous artists such as Jackson Pollack, Milton Avery, and Stuart Davis to work. As an interesting side note, the red, white, and blue WPA logo remained on theater playbills and its initials were said to mean ``Work Pays America.'' We cannot forget the Civilian Conservation Corps which built national forests and did remedial work to restore and protect the land. Banking legislation protected deposits, and Social Security ensured that the elderly would not be destitute. The Tennessee Valley Authority brought electricity to parts of the country for the first time. Veterans returning home were given free education under the GI bill and bought homes with the VA low-rate mortgages. The middle class that emerged as a result of the policies of the Roosevelt administration has been the key to American economic stability, success, and innovation. He understood the desire of able bodied and able minded Americans to work and created jobs. He led America out of an economic depression not merely by giving government handouts, but by creating jobs. President Roosevelt showed his natural and inspiring leadership throughout World War II. When the nations of Europe began falling to the Nazis, one by one, the United States was hardly a military superpower. If anything, we were poorly prepared and equipped. In 1939, the U.S. Army had barely entered the new century; we still had cavalry troops. In record time, the innovative partnership Franklin Roosevelt established between government and private enterprise enabled American industry to provide the U.S. military with a fleet of 300,000 planes, 100,000 tanks, and 87,000 warships to contribute in record time to the Allied cause. When the war effort outgrew all available space in Washington, Roosevelt's Department of Defense built the Pentagon in a scant 16 months. Roosevelt's creative, visionary leadership enabled the Allies to marshal the resources, troops and equipment to defeat the Nazis and free most of Europe from their domination. Franklin Roosevelt embraced the unique capabilities of very individual and worked tirelessly to ensure that all Americans would be able to earn a living and build this great Nation. As a result of initiatives like the PWA, the WPA, and the CCC, the unemployed got jobs, people were able to support their families, and this Nation was able to grow and prosper. I hope that, as public servants, my colleagues will join me in following in his example by supporting honest policies that work to better the lives of American people. Franklin Roosevelt had great regard for public service, and served with a sense of responsibility and honor. His respect for the American people and the value he placed on their well-being and security drove everything he did. President Roosevelt came to embody strength, hope and resolve during some of the most difficult days in our Nation's history. From the economic distress of the Great Depression to the horrifying attack on Pearl Harbor that caused the Nation to enter World War II, Roosevelt's steadfast leadership ignited an economic engine and calmed a frightened nation. The legacy of his policies will certainly outlast my lifetime and will continue to benefit my children and grandchildren for years to come. We owe home an unpayable debt of gratitude. Only those closest to him realized that he couldn't walk unaided. As former Governor of New York, Mario Cuomo said ``Franklin Roosevelt lifted himself from his wheelchair to lift this nation from its knees.'' Franklin Delano Roosevelt left us with some of the most memorable quotations of the century. He told us that, ``We have nothing to fear but fear itself.'' He offered ``a new deal'' to the Nation, and so perfectly encapsulated the American spirit by saying we would rather ``die on our feet than live on our knees.'' Of all his many wise and eloquent pronouncements, however, I would leave you with this one: The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. I am honored to rise today to celebrate the extraordinary life and contributions of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to join my colleague in the consideration of H.R. 3733, legislation naming a postal facility in Altamont, Kansas after Myron George. This measure was introduced by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) on January 27, 2004 and unanimously reported by the Committee on Government Reform on February 26, 2004. Myron Virgil George was born in Kansas in 1900 and attended grade school and high school in Altamont, Kansas. He served in the United States Army for 2 years before he learned the printing trade at the Altamont Journal. After serving as an officer with the Kansas State Highway Commission for 11 years, Myron George ran for Congress in 1950 in a special election. He served in the United States Congress until 1959. He returned to his home State and engaged in public relations in the transportation and construction fields until his death in 1972. Madam Speaker, I urge the swift adoption of H.R. 3733. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the term ``renaissance man'' is tossed around far too casually because people do not truly understand what it means. The artist and scholars in the Italian Renaissance venerated people who were accomplished in many different fields. Present diversification rather than specialization, was the ideal of the time. As a term of admiration, ``renaissance man'' has few peers. It is a term that was often used to refer to Luis A. Ferre, the former Governor of Puerto Rico, who passed away in October of 2003. Mr. Ferre, in addition to being the Governor, was a successful businessman and a philanthropist and engineer, a classically trained musician, a political pioneer, and a patron of the arts: a renaissance man indeed. Luis A. Ferre was born in Ponce, Puerto Rico on February 17, 1904, the son of an engineer of French descent. After spending his early childhood in Ponce, he attended high school in Morristown, New Jersey, before enrolling at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received degrees in mechanical engineering and electrical engineering. In addition, he studied at the New England Conservatory of Music where he became an accomplished classical pianist. Mr. Ferre is perhaps best remembered as an advocate for Puerto Rico statehood. After running for Governor twice on the ticket of the Republican Statehood Party, he formed his own party, the New Progressive Party, on whose ticket he was elected Governor of Puerto Rico in 1968. He served for one term, from 1969 to 1973, during which time he established his legacy of positive progress for Puerto Rico. He granted property titles to those living on public lands, built housing for low-income families, and made a positive step forward for gender equality in Puerto Rico by appointing the Commonwealth's first female Cabinet Secretary. After leaving office, Mr. Ferre continued his advocacy of Puerto Rican statehood. He was passionately dedicated to the principle that not only should Puerto Rico be made more fully a part of the United States, but the United States should be aware of how important Puerto Rico was to it. During one of his many appearances before Congress, Mr. Ferre reminded the Members of how much Puerto Rico is engrained in the American experience. ``Not only are Puerto Ricans citizens by birth,'' Mr. Ferre said, ``but one would be hard-pressed to find a Puerto Rican without a sister in New York, a son in Chicago, a cousin in Orlando, or a daughter in Honolulu or Oklahoma City.'' A statement such as this from a man born just 6 years after Puerto Rico was taken from Spain as a prize of war shows just how far Puerto Rico came in his lifetime. Mr. Ferre's dedication to the arts defined him almost as much as his political accomplishments. Realizing that culture was as important to the future of Puerto Rico as prosperity, he founded and endowed the Ponce Museum of Art and the city library in Ponce. He saved the local newspaper from folding, and El Nuevo Dia, now based in San Juan, is the island's biggest newspaper. Luis A. Ferre, one of the finest and most prominent Puerto Ricans of the past century, liked to describe himself as a revolutionary in his ideas, liberal in his objectives, and conservative in his methods. He was a friend to Presidents and a titan to Puerto Rican politics. He was an honorable protector of Puerto Rico's past and its future. And, with the condolences of the House, he is deserving and worthy of this resolution in his honor. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). (Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce important legislation that seeks to undo--in some small measure--an injustice done to thousands of American workers in the years following the Manhattan Project. Beginning in the 1940s, throughout the United States, the government secretly contracted with hundreds of private-sector factories and laboratories to develop, test, and produce atomic weapons. For well over a decade, many of these facilities processed enormous amounts of radioactive materials such as thorium, uranium and radium. Yet, when the government contracts expired in the 1950s, few of these facilities were properly decontaminated. In 2000, Congress saw fit to establish a reparations program for workers who developed diseases because of their work on our nation's atomic weapons program. Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA), workers could receive a one-time payment of $150,000 and medical coverage for expenses associated with the treatment of diseases contracted due to this exposure. One major shortcoming of the program is its failure to compensate individuals made sick from their work in former atomic weapons plants--where the walls and floors were permeated with radioactive residue--for decades following the end of Cold War era production. In fact, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health released a report in the fall that found ``significant'' residual radioactive contamination existed in many of the former contractor sites well into the 1970s, 80s and beyond. Today, we see the legacy of this failure to properly decontaminate. Employees who, unbeknownst to them, worked in facilities with significant residual contamination, have contracted or succumbed to radiation-related cancers or disease. The enactment of the EEOICPA was recognition that the federal government bore a responsibility to workers who were made sick and even died because of the work they did on the nation's atomic program. It is long since past the time for our government to take responsibility for its role in allowing these Cold War era facilities to remain dangerously contaminated and place workers needlessly at risk. Mr. Speaker, the bill I am introducing today with my colleague, Mr. Quinn, the Residual Radioactive Contamination Compensation Act (RRCCA), would extend eligibility for the EEOICP to workers who were employed at facilities where NIOSH has found potential for significant radioactive contamination. For instance, of the fourteen facilities in and around my congressional district, NIOSH found that five of the sites had potential for significant contamination well into the 1990s and beyond. At the same time, NIOSH reported that it could not make a determination at three of the sites without additional information. For this reason, the bill I am introducing would require NIOSH to update its report on an annual basis to include new information when it becomes available. Mr. Speaker, the RRCCA seeks to open the door of eligibility for valid claims. At the same time, passage of this bill will mean very little if the chronic problems that have plagued this program are not addressed. As you may know, the implementation of this important program has been plagued by bureaucratic red tape. For far too many claimants, it's a waiting game. I know of dozens of constituents whose work and health history leave no doubt about eligibility but are still waiting to have their records reviewed. In those rare instances where the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has managed to evaluate claims, the approval rate has been abysmal. Moreover, the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to issue one of the key regulations required by the law nearly 3\1/2\ years since the law was signed. The ``Special Exposure Cohort'' regulation is needed to address situations where the records needed to estimate radiation dose are not available, where the workers were not monitored, or the monitoring data is unreliable or altered. We note, for example, that NIOSH was unable to produce individual monitoring records for workers at Bethlehem Steel plant in Lackawanna, New York, where uranium billets were rolled into rods used as fuel in the government's plutonium reactors during the years 1949-1952. Just this week, a group of 25 Bethlehem Steel workers boarded a bus for Cleveland, to stage a protest outside of the Northeast Regional Headquarters of the program. These workers and others have been denied the right to petition for eligibility in the Special Exposure Cohort because the Department of Health and Human Services has failed to issue its regulations in a timely manner. Further delay is simply inexcusable. As I have said, over and over again, this is an aging and ill population. Time is of the essence. Congress must act to ensure that the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program is properly administered. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass the Residual Radioactive Contamination Compensation Act to help our constituents.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, violence against women and children and all of humanity should never be tolerated. Bold, effective steps should be taken to reduce violence against women, children, and men, and particularly pregnant women. But H.R. 1997 is not about women, and it is not about children. It is about politics. It is an attempt to drive a wedge between women and their constitutional rights. For decades, the constitutional right to privacy, which protects women and their reproductive rights, has endured attack after attack. This bill is another deliberate strike at reproductive freedom and choice and is part of a nationwide strategy to overturn Roe v. Wade or to so undermine a woman's right to choose that it becomes meaningless in practice. The issue of violence against pregnant women is used to cloak the intent and the impact of this bill. Pregnant women are being used as pawns in an elaborate chess game to deny women self- determination and their constitutional rights. The agenda is unmistakable. It has been clearly articulated by opponents of reproductive rights. A leader of an anti-choice legal group has said: ``In as many areas as we can, we want to put on the books that the embryo is a person. The blastocele is a person. That sets the stage for a jurist to acknowledge that human beings at any stage of development deserve protection. That would even trump a woman's interest in terminating a pregnancy.'' H.R. 1997 would set such a stage, pitting rights against one another, and the woman's rights are not paramount. In an opinion that was issued earlier this year, Christine Durham, Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, warned that ``declaring a fetus to be a person entitled to equal protection would require not only overturning Roe v. Wade but also making abortion a matter of constitutional law, illegal in all circumstances, even to save the life of the mother.'' During the Committee on the Judiciary's markup of this bill, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) offered an amendment that stated: ``Nothing in this section shall be construed as undermining a woman's right to choose an abortion, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution, or limiting in any way the rights and freedoms of pregnant women.'' The amendment failed. If H.R. 1997 should not affect or interfere with a woman's right to choose, why then would the committee reject this simple statement reaffirming the rights as articulated in Roe and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey? In fact, debate on the constitutional right to choose is unnecessary in legislation that seeks to safeguard pregnant women. If protecting women from violence is the goal, the straightforward and noncontroversial solution is clear: pass the Motherhood Protection Act. It accomplishes the same ends, providing additional punishments for anyone who injures a pregnant woman and injures a fetus or causes a miscarriage. The Motherhood Protection Act does so without necessarily raising controversial constitutional issues. The bill could be sent to the President for his signature quickly and easily. Rita Smith, the executive director of the Denver-based National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said her group tried to work with lawmakers writing this legislation to make it more about protecting women. She said that they would not go down that road. This seems to be more about trying to undo abortion. Disappointingly, the bill does little to protect women. In our Federal system, criminal law is generally reserved to the States. This bill does nothing to address the many State crimes perpetrated against pregnant women. This bill would only create a separate criminal count on Federal offenses like terror attacks, interstate stalking, and acts on military bases or Federal land. If my colleagues are serious about reducing violence against women, then fully fund the Violence Against Women Act, which expanded protections for all women against acts of violence. In fiscal year 2003, the Violence Against Women's Act was appropriated at $100 million less than the fully authorized level. Programs for transitional housing and for Federal victims counselors and training for judges were not funded at all, which gives a lie to the fact this issue here is to protect women against violence. And rape prevention and education was funded at half its authorized level. To protect women from violence without undermining reproductive freedom, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment in the nature of a substitute. The underlying legislation is a challenge to women's constitutional rights. Women's safety and welfare safety should not be pawns in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. Indeed, women are not being protected here. Women are being used. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the designation of the post office located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, NY, as the ``Barber Conable Post Office Building,'' I want to commemorate the life and achievements of former Congressman Barber Conable. At the time of his retirement in 1984, he was ranking member of the House Committee on Ways and Means, bringing to it intellect and an unparalleled love and knowledge of the law. Barber passed away last year and I must say, Western New York has lost a true statesman. He took time out of his law school courses and Cornell University to serve in the Pacific during World War II. Later, after completing his law degree, he served his country again in Korea. Shortly after returning from Korea, he started his career in public service by running for and winning a seat in the New York State Senate. Two years later, he was elected to serve in the House of Representatives in a district representing parts of the City of Rochester, the western half of Monroe County, and Genesee, Wyoming, Orleans and Livingston Counties. From 1966 to 1986, Barber Conable's integrity, hard work, and determination created an environment in which Members worked with each other across party lines for the good of all Americans. As a result, he earned the respect of his colleagues, both Democrat and Republican. It was an honor for me to be elected to serve a portion of the area he represented when I was first ran for Congress in 1988, and I take pride in continuing to serve the part of Western New York I know he loved so much. I remember when I first came to Congress, Barber came to visit me in my new office. We were both delighted to realize that I was occupying the very same office that he had occupied as a freshman. Barber was always so kind with his counsel and his advice. He was the greatest kind of friend. Barber Conable will be remembered for a countless number of contributions he made during his years of public service. The spirit Barber Conable brought to the House of Representatives is inspirational and it is my hope that we will continue to remember and honor his memory.