Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, shortly I will ask Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Obey amendment to restore funding for the conservation programs that have been shortchanged in the bill. This amendment would add $569 million to the bill's conservation programs in order to bring them up to their authorized spending levels. The Obey amendment offsets this spending increase with a 3.21 percent reduction in the tax breaks received by taxpayers earning more than $1 million a year. This amendment was submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the majority. The cost of this amendment is fully paid for. The money would come by slightly reducing the 2004 tax cut for those with incomes in excess of $1 million. It seems to me these millionaires could easily spare a small part of their very large tax breaks to help protect our precious national resources. So I will urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the previous question. A no vote will not stop the House from taking up the Interior appropriations bill. However, a yes vote will prevent the House from considering the Obey amendment. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that by all rights should provoke no argument from the body. Last year a strong bipartisan majority voted for a modest increase for two Federal agencies that provide critical support for the arts organizations and its activities across the country. To keep the arts vibrant and flourishing, 234 Members of Congress agreed that the National Endowment for the Arts should receive a $10 million increase and that the National Endowment for the Humanities should receive an increase of $5 million. It is indeed regrettable that in the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill, the will of the House was ignored and these increases for both NEA and NEH were rejected. Now the time has come to rectify that mistake. This amendment simply restores the funding that the House agreed to last year. Meanwhile, I want to remind my colleagues that these agencies remain well below the funding level of a decade ago. As the chart clearly shows, in 1992 both NEA and NEH received $176 million in funding. That is $60 million more than NEA receives today and some $50 million more than NEH receives. Yet a majority of this body also recognizes that the nonprofit, and I emphasize nonprofit, arts industry has become an economic engine that drives $134 billion into our national economy every year. This chart, which shows a recent economic impact study conducted by the Americans for the Arts, illustrates some very important figures. The nonprofit arts industry is responsible for almost 5 million full- time jobs, $89.4 billion in household income, $7.3 billion in State government tax revenues, and $56.6 billion in local government tax revenues. Here is the most impressive figure of all: The arts community contributes $10.5 billion in Federal income tax revenues. So for the very small amount of money that we put in, $10.5 billion comes back to the Federal Treasury. The arts mean business. They mean big business for every district in this country. It is critical to remember that this funding will help build local economies across America. NEA nurtures artistic excellence in every corner of the country, as its grants flow to each of the 50 States and to each of the 435 congressional districts. Because NEA requires State and local arts agencies as well as private organizations to provide matching funds, the process ensures that dollars will continue to flow to the arts even during difficult economic times. Now, a word about these difficult times, and we know that they are. With our economic recovery stalled and the largest job loss in 20 years, one would think that people responsible for rebuilding State and local economies would put fuel into this enormously successful arts engine. But, unfortunately, that is not so. But the lesson for us is obvious. In the era of declining State funds when corporate and charitable giving is dangerously low, the money we provide will not only safeguard the organizations but help them to spark our local economies back into black ink. In fact, what the House should really do is triple our funding for the arts, considering all of the money that we get back and what it does for local governments. As it is, we are only asking to restore the funding that the fiscal year 2003 conference took away. Give back the $10 million we voted for last year for NEA. It will be used to expand the Challenge America grants to make the arts more widely available in communities throughout the country. The program has a special emphasis on extending the arts to the underserved populations, those whose opportunities to experience the arts are limited by geography, ethnicity, economics, or disability. Give back the $5 million we voted last year for NEH. Along with the $10 million increase provided by the Interior Committee on Appropriations, it will be used to support the We the People initiative which will advance the understanding of America's history, culture, and civics, a thing we sorely need. The President has requested a total of $100 million for We the People over the coming years, and this will be just a small down payment on his request. Please restore the funds we provided last year, and the rewards will be boundless. I do not mean just economic rewards, although they are incredible. I will not have enough time to talk about how the arts contribute to the lives of every American citizen, how they enrich our lives, spark our imagination, inspire our dreams, and calm our fears. There is not time to discuss how much better our children learn to read and write and add and subtract when the arts are part of the core curriculum. Let me just remind my colleagues that SAT scores go up some 57 parts, just think of that, when art is part of a student's high school experience. That is a cheap price. If we really want to leave no child behind, we will send them all ahead with the arts leading their way. Voting for this amendment is the right thing to do, and it is also the smart thing to do. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment cosponsored by my good friends, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), and also by the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who fights very hard every single year. Please, please, vote yes on this amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, control of one's reproductive autonomy is a fundamental human right. But the basic right is meaningless without the knowledge and means to exercise reproductive autonomy. The United Nations Population Fund, known as UNFPA, works with governments and nongovernmental organizations in over 140 countries, supporting programs that help men, women and young people to plan their families, undergo pregnancy and childbirth safely, avoid sexually transmitted disease, including HIV/AIDS, and to combat violence against women. Each of these principled goals is embraced by the United States and many countries around the world. In fact, as we have heard throughout the Presidential trip to Africa, the President has committed $15 billion to fight the pandemic of HIV/AIDS on the African continent. The Committee on International Relations recently adopted an amendments by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) which would facilitate U.S. contributions to the United Nations Family Planning Fund. The Crowley provision clarifies current law which bars U.S. funds from any international organization the President determines ``supports or participates in the management'' of forced abortion or sterilization. Crowley's proposal provides strict safeguards against the use of any kind of coercion in U.S.-funded family planning programs; second, clarifies the current law to enable U.S. funding to be used to help to end coercion in China; and provides badly needed maternal health and other services in poor countries. This language is necessary because Congress authorized U.S. funds for UNFPA, but the President refused to release them. Just last year, the President blocked $34 million for UNFPA activities around the world. The opposition to this funding is premised on the false notion that UNFPA supports coercive abortions in places like China. UNFPA does not provide abortion services anywhere in the world. Not one penny of UNFPA funding is used to promote abortion. Unfortunately, this fallacy diverts attention from the real issues and blurs underlying opposition to comprehensive family planning. All UNFPA activities are based solely on voluntary participation. UNFPA rejects coercion in any form in its activities and works to end the coercive practices of others. The Chinese Government's so-called one-child policy unofficially involves some coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization practices. The United States and United Nations do not tolerate these practices. We stand on the side of human rights and work to put an end to these abuses. The U.N. population fund program in China was developed with the express purpose of moving China away from coercion and toward delivery of voluntary reproductive health services to its people, just as it did in India in the early 1990s. UNFPA has operated in 32 Chinese counties and the government of China has agreed in each one of these counties it would lift all birth quotas and recruitment targets; improve the delivery of voluntary family planning information and services; eliminate the use of coercive measures; allow independent confirmation that targets and quotas have been lifted; allow independent investigation of any reports of coercion and suspension of the UNFPA program in any county where violations have occurred; and allow regular independent monitoring to ensure compliance with the principles of informed choice and voluntary participation. This is a remarkable achievement. No Main Street human rights organization has ever accused UNFPA of being complicit in China's human rights violations. In fact, in May 2002 President Bush sent a three- member State Department team to China to investigate claims against the work there. The team found ``no evidence that UNFPA has knowingly supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion in the People's Republic of China.'' The team recommended that the $34 million which has already been appropriated be released to UNFPA. Cutting off funding harms millions of women and children in the poorest nations on Earth and does nothing to help women in China. The officials of UNFPA estimate that the loss of the $34 million would prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, nearly 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths, nearly 60,000 cases of maternal illness or disability, and 77,000 infant and child deaths. Just this morning, The New York Times published an editorial strongly supporting the Crowley language and strongly opposing efforts to remove that language. Mr. Speaker, I submit the editorial for the Record. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the efforts of UNFPA to provide the meaningful exercise of fundamental human rights. And I vehemently oppose any efforts to defund UNFPA which would result in harm to the health of women, men and children around the world. Please vote against the Smith amendment which would strip the Crowley language. [From the New York Times, July 15, 2003] Population--Control Politics The House of Representatives faces a crucial vote today affecting the health of women in 140 poor countries. Through the authorization of the State Department budget, the House can restore tens of millions of dollars in vital American aid for the United Nations Population Fund or, for a second year in a row, cut it off in the mistaken belief that the fund colludes with coerced abortions in China. The Population Fund is the largest agency in the world focused on women's reproductive health. There was a brief, unremarked ceremony yesterday in the Afghan capital, Kabul, that illustrates what the fund does. With help from the fund, the Khair Khana Hospital, once filthy and overcrowded, was reopened with a large staff, modern equipment and the possibility of helping Afghan women with complicated pregnancies deliver their babies safely. The Population Fund helps women give birth safely. It fights such debilitations as obstetric fistula, a hideous and difficult complication in pregnancy. Indeed, it is just the kind of organization and work the United States should be supporting. Instead, conservative Republicans stripped the fund of American support last year because of false accusations that the U.N. Population Fund has either stood by or helped with coerced abortions in China. Today's vote on the State Department budget includes a restoration of the organization's funds, thanks to an amendment by Representative Joseph Crowley, a New York Democrat from Queens. Opponents, who mistakenly believe--or cynically advertise--that they are protecting Chinese women and unborn babies, want to kill the amendment. The opponents, led by Christopher Smith, a New Jersey Republican, unfairly describe the Population Fund as an organization with a ``long history of complicity in human rights violations'' engaged in an ``attack on women overseas.'' These are irresponsible, unsubstantiated accusations. They have helped persuade numerous members of Congress that it is wiser to deny the organization American support. The fact is that Population Fund performs no abortions and is working to end coerced abortion in China. An American investigating team sent by the administration last year found ``no evidence'' that the fund ``has supported or participated in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization in China.'' In previous years, Congress has supported the fund with the stipulation that no American money be spent in China. That is unnecessary, but if that is what it takes to get the fund the $50 million it deserves from Congress this year, it is a compromise that should be explored.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by my colleagues, Mr. Obey and Mr. Miller, which will block the Department of Labor from pursuing its plan to overhaul our overtime pay laws--at the expense of 8 million workers. Under these draft regulations, millions of workers who receive time and a half for their overtime work today will be required to work longer hours for less money. The implications of this measure on working families that have long depended upon overtime work to make ends meet would be devastating. In fact, according to 2000 Census figures, workers who receive overtime pay report that it accounts for a quarter of their total take-home pay. Try telling these workers that enactment of these regulations wouldn't result in a pay cut! Under these regulations, mid-level office workers, lower-level supervisors, licensed practical nurses, EMTs, cooks, secretaries, dental hygienists, air traffic controllers, social workers, administrative support, engineering technicians, planners, and paralegals could all find themselves categorized as ``white collar'' employees. Now, does that sound right? With unemployment at its highest level in almost a decade and far too many of my constituents telling me that they live in fear that their jobs may be next, why, on earth, is the Department of Labor launching this new attack on America's workers? First proposed in March, the proposed regulations would reclassify millions of workers as ``managers,'' rendering them ineligible for overtime pay. During the comment period on the proposed rule change, one hundred Members of this body wrote to the Labor Department, urging that these proposed changes be dropped. In as much as the Labor Department intends to move forward with these rules, despite the public outcry and the strong congressional objections, it looks like this body is going to have to use its ``power of the purse'' and put an end to this ill-conceived effort. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Labor seems intent on picking up where the House Leadership left off. These rules are--quite simply--an insult to the working people of America. Mr. Chairman, after the de facto defeat of the so-called ``Family Flexibility Act'' last month, it appears that the Department of Labor now plans to strip our overtime rules, on its own, without congressional involvement. We have the opportunity today to tell the Department of Labor that this body will not stand for backdoor attempts at fundamentally undermining key labor laws. The economic security of far too many American families hangs in the balance. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me and vote in favor of the Obey-Miller amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for a response.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and to insert tabular material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have a rather strange procedure going on here. We are going to be called in to vote on the previous question on one rule and on the rule for legislative branch. I do not know in what order, but I want to give a little talk about this. First, I want to urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question on the HHS bill. If that previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the Obey substitute to restore funding for the numerous programs which have been shortchanged in this bill. It will also make in order the Obey amendment to restore cuts to States for their child health care programs under Medicaid and SCHIP. Both of these amendments were submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the majority. H.R. 2660 provides funding for some of our most vital services, services that touch the lives of every American family, from education to preschoolers, from low-income families to college tuition assistance, to Meals on Wheels for the elderly and medical research; and as critical as they are, we have drastically underfunded them in this bill. The Obey substitute will help restore some of the desperately needed funds. The second Obey amendment will help financially strapped States provide child health care to the uninsured children. The cost of both of the amendments will be offset by reducing the 2004 tax cuts for those with incomes in excess of $1 million, cutting their tax break from $88,000 to $44,000. We believe the millionaires can spare a few dollars to help restore the funding. Whether or not Members are Republicans or Democrats, they should be concerned about the lack of an adequate funding for the critical programs and services in this bill. Virtually every American is affected by this bill, whether it is health care, education, medical research for the elderly, LIHEAP, so on. The Obey amendments would help fix the terrible funding deficiencies in the bill and help States provide health care to children who are not covered by health insurance. Again, they would do so with no additional cost to the deficit. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill, but a ``yes'' vote will prevent the House from considering the important amendments. Please vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I need to explain that we have another vote coming up on another appropriations bill. That is the rule for the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which we hope will come first. We are not certain. We are urging a ``yes'' vote on that rule so that Members can go on record of voting to self-execute out the language that was put into the bill by unknown persons or persons unknown which would expand dental and vision coverage for Members and employees of the House. Again, we urge a ``yes'' vote on that to go on record to self-execute that, and a ``no'' vote on the previous question, which we believe will be called first. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendments be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I am afraid my good friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, did not pay very much attention to what I was saying. I do not recall at any point saying that we would like to add more money. What we were talking about were the extraordinary cuts that have been taken to programs that people have learned to really rely on. It has always been the basic tenet of this government that we want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to rise equally, have an opportunity to have good education, have the opportunity to enjoy good health. What we have done in this measure, and I continue to say that the reason the resources are not there are because of the tax cuts, is that we are taking away the rights of many children to go to Head Start, to get a good education that we want them to have; we are taking away their SCHIP program, which provides health insurance for them, and what is very disturbing, too, is that the elderly have already taken hits.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.