Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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, here we are again, considering the rule for the same unconstitutional bill. I must voice my grave concern with H.R. 760, the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Today The New York Times says in an editorial, ``Partial Birth Mendacity,'' which means lie, that although promoted as narrowly focused on a single late-term abortion procedure, the measure's wording adds up to a sweeping prohibition that would, in effect, overturn Roe v. Wade by criminalizing the most common procedures used after the first trimester, but well before fetal viability. My constituents are facing unemployment. They are losing out on child tax credit. They need more funding for our first responders, they need the promised health care for our veterans; but here we are debating a rule on legislation that violates fundamental constitutional rights and threatens women's health. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago the United States Supreme Court struck down similar legislation that banned safe and effective abortion procedures. They confirmed again a woman's reproductive rights as recognized in Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed 2 decades later in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. H.R. 760 suffers from the same constitutional flaws as the Nebraska statute thrown out by the Court. The ban on medical procedures is vague and overbroad, and it does not contain an exception from the procedure ban when a woman's health is threatened. And it goes so far as to give the father of the fetus the right to sue the woman or the doctor for money even if he has beaten his wife or rapes her or had threatened her life or has deserted her. How crazy is that? Obstetricians and gynecologists say that the term ``partial-birth abortion'' is not a medical term, and they are right. It is purely a political creation. The definition of the procedure that H.R. 760 seeks to ban is written in nonmedical language that could cover at least two different procedures, one of which is the most commonly used abortion procedure. This vague and overbroad definition, which is probably not by accident, would create so much confusion in the medical community that doctors would not know which medical procedures might land them in jail with a huge fine. We should not make our doctors into criminals. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the doctors who perform these procedures, say that the procedure the bill seeks to proscribe may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or to preserve the health of the woman and only the physician in consultation with the patient and based on her circumstances can make this decision. The Congress of the United States has never, ever outlawed a medical procedure. What are we doing here, and what in the name of God is next? Medical professionals and every Federal court in the country that has heard this issue, except for one, have agreed that these are safe procedures and may be the safest procedures in some circumstances; but we are going to take that away. And who will suffer for that? The American women. Physicians and not politicians and pundits should provide women and their families with medical advice. I want a doctor to treat my daughters and granddaughters. Women and their families, not the government, should make these difficult, private, medical decisions; and if that is not the case, then every time a procedure is done, there should be a Member of Congress standing at the door okaying it. The bill would deprive doctors of the ability to care for their patients by outlawing safe and effective medical procedures, something we have never done. We assume that once they have gone through medical school, done their internship and their residencies, they ought to know what they are doing. Congress would subject women to even more dangerous medical procedures and put their health and lives in jeopardy. Everybody deserves the best medical care based on the circumstances of their particular situation. Instead of making abortion more difficult and dangerous for women, we should pass legislation that helps reduce the need for abortion by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies. That is the most important thing that we could do; and by increasing funding for title X, to require the insurance coverage of contraception, which we will not do, making emergency contraception more available, which we are afraid of, and increasing research for other contraceptive methods. Indeed, I am not at all sure that after this bill is passed and signed by the President that the sale of contraceptives will not be in danger. H.R. 760 brazenly seeks to sidestep the Constitution. The Supreme Court has plainly determined that the Constitution requires an exception when the woman's health is endangered. Pages and pages of congressional findings do not change or fulfill constitutional demands or protect women's health. The authors of this bill hope that the Federal courts, most especially the United States Supreme Court, will defer to these congressional findings and waive this constitutional requirement, but the Court has unequivocally said that the power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the judiciary, and the Court has said that simply because Congress makes a conclusion does not, in the Court's opinion, make it true. Just because the findings in the bill assert that there is no medical reason for a health exception does not make that true and it does not change the demand of the Constitution. As Ruth Marcus, writing in the Washington Post, noted today, ``Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a different context that if Congress could make a statute unconstitutional simply by finding that black is white or freedom is slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce.'' Think about that for a moment. That if Congress could make a statute constitutional simply by finding that black is white and we were to determine that, or that freedom and slavery are not different, then why would we have judicial review? So why are we today considering a rule for this unconstitutional bill? Richard Posner, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, who was appointed by President Reagan, gave us the answer. He wrote that proponents of similar legislation ``are concerned with making a statement in an ongoing war for public opinion, though an incidental effect of that opinion may be to discourage late-term abortions. The statement is that fetal life is more valuable than women's health.'' Judge Posner went on to say that if a statute burdens constitutional rights and all that can be said on its behalf is that it is the vehicle that legislators have chosen for expressing their hostility to those rights, then the burden is undue. Those are very important words, Mr. Speaker. Those are words from jurists and people who know whereof they speak. Again Ruth Marcus' article points out that the political agenda is clear. Ken Connor, who is the president of the conservative Family Research Council, spelled it out in an e-mail after the Senate voted on a measure similar to this last March. ``With this bill,'' he wrote, ``we are beginning to dismantle, brick by brick, the deadly edifice created by Roe v. Wade. As the mother of three daughters, a grandmother and a longtime advocate for women's health, I strongly believe that this bill is a threat to women's health and an attempt to whittle away at a woman's constitutional right to choose. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose H.R. 760. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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 myself 15 seconds just to say to the previous speaker that we know what the agenda is. It was pointed out today. Kent Connor, the president of the Conservative Family Research Council spelled it out. He said, ``With this bill we will dismantle, brick by brick, Roe v. Wade.'' I hope that all of my colleagues are listening in the House, because this may be the last vote we will have on choice. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I am always dismayed by the fact that these fetuses are described as ``viable.'' That is one of the saddest things in the world. I have talked to parents who had this procedure, babies who were in utero with their brains on the outside, with no lungs, no possibility of living. Always the notion is given if they were just allowed not to go through that procedure, they would get down and almost run around the room. It is not true. It is not true. The parents who have to go through this are heartbroken over it, but it is the way they can have further children. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who perform these procedures say it may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance. What if your wife or your daughter is in a particular circumstance, and you had voted to outlaw the procedure that would be the best for her future and her life and maybe even save her life? We have no right to do that, Mr. Speaker, no right at all. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to today's vote by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, to relax limitations on media ownership. Apparently, the FCC has overlooked the fact that the airwaves are owned by the American public, just as the Commission has forgotten that its legislated mission is to protect those same airwaves for the public's use. Relaxing rules that have worked for decades in order to allow huge conglomerates to gobble up even more media outlets will certainly diminish the quality of our news and stifle minority views and opinions. I find it particularly interesting that while the FCC regulators and their staff were reviewing the changes, they took some 2,500 junkets-- worth almost $3 million--which were paid for by the media industry. During all that time, the Commission managed to hold just one public hearing. Does anyone have any doubt to whom the FCC was listening during its deliberation process--the media moguls or the public? I understand how the FCC decisions will benefit those media conglomerates. What I do not understand is how they benefit private citizens or our democracy, which can only survive on the free flow of information and diverse opinions. Now that the decision has been made, it will be up to Congress to review these rules. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make sure that public interest will be heard--and that our airwaves will not fall victim to powerful special interests. I would like to share with my colleagues an op-ed I authored on this issue which appeared today in Rochester, New York's Democrat & Chronicle. Too Little Discussion Has Preceded FCC Decision on Media Ownership (By Representative Louise M. Slaughter) What if one person controlled all the information in the newspaper you are reading, on your favorite radio station and on the TV channel you watch nightly? It could begin to happen today, when a five-member panel at the Federal Communications Commission votes on relaxing regulations governing media ownership in this nation. Sixty years ago, when television was just a fledgling invention, the FCC was created to ensure that our airwaves-- which the American public owns--would not be dominated by a few large corporations that could control information and news. Our government rightly recognized that the free flow of ideas, opinions and information is central to the ongoing national dialogue that drives this great democracy. Protecting local and minority ownership of media outlets is also crucial to guaranteeing coverage of local issues and diverse viewpoints. As time passed, a few large corporations began to acquire more newspapers, radio and TV stations across our nation. Thirty years ago, there were 1,500 locally or regionally owned newspapers. Now, there are only 281 such independent papers. Six large companies control most of the media in this nation, while three corporations control all the cable news. After 1996, when the FCC relaxed ownership limits for radio stations, 90 percent of radio stations were bought or sold within five years. Hundreds of stations have been consolidated since then: Clear Channel now owns more than 1,200 radio stations. Before, they could own only 40. In Rochester alone, six of our radio stations are owned by Clear Channel. Four more are owned by Infinity Broadcasting. Thus the information and music aired on 10 stations in Rochester are controlled by two conglomerates that are based nowhere near here and have little concern for our local issues. The FCC is now considering relaxing its regulations even further, which will certainly lead to a dangerous concentration of media ownership. The proposed changes would allow networks to own stations reaching as much as 90 percent of the country, allow companies to own three television stations in some markets and would do away with a 28-year ban on companies owning both a newspaper and a TV station in the same market. What is perhaps more egregious is the secretive process through which these changes have been considered. The FCC tried to keep the plan's details secret and refused to have more than one, barely publicized hearing on the issue. FCC Chairman Michael Powell has rejected requests from two of his own commission members to delay the vote for more public comment. Fortunately, even though this issue got relatively little media coverage, the American public has taken action. Progressive and conservative interest groups, artists and 200 communications academics have protested the new rules. Of the 9,000 e-mails the FCC has received on the issue, only 11 supported relaxing the rules. I, along with 100 of my colleagues in Congress, recently wrote to Chairman Powell expressing our opposition to the proposed rules. Unfortunately, the FCC is not listening. Owners of media outlets are obliged to serve the public interest--not just their own financial interests. Our Founding Fathers created this democracy to give us the right to debate ideas openly and make informed choices. If these changes go into effect, a few huge, powerful corporations could gobble up even more media outlets to control most of the news we get. Be grateful that today you had the opportunity to read about these proposed changes, supported by the powerful media conglomerates. If they have their way, the next time the FCC decides to change the rules, you may not be informed at all.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

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 myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me apologize for my misunderstanding of the time. Mr. Speaker, our workforce is what made the United States the great Nation it is, but here we are debating yet another bill that erodes protections for our workers. Here we go again sending another message to our workforce that we just do not care that short-term gain for a few is more important to us than the economic well-being of the Nation. Life for the American worker continues to be arduous and uncertain, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment has risen 6 percent. In my home State of New York, the unemployment rate is even higher at 6.3. Unemployment insurance benefits expire at the end of this month even though almost 9 million Americans are without work. Nothing on the legislative horizon confronts the needs of the millions of the jobless. Mr. Speaker, this body and this administration have failed the American worker and continue to do so with this bill. Recently, this esteemed body had several opportunities to tackle the plight of the laidoff factory workers, the unemployed bookkeepers, and this Chamber squandered those chances. Today, the House has another opportunity to assist American workers by continuing the necessary reforms so painfully highlighted by the collapse of major corporations like Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing. The employees of WorldCom lost $25 million. Enron employees lost $800 million. And the American workforce nervously looks to us to protect their pensions and their life savings. And unfortunately, H.R. 1000 does not go far enough to protect pensions. In fact, this legislation actually harms American workers with what it does and what it fails to do. We must show the people, whose faith and trust sent us here, that we did learn the painful lessons of the Enron, the WorldCom, and the Global Crossing crises. H.R. 1000 would permit companies to convert traditional defined benefit pension plans into cash balance pension plans. This saves the corporations millions of dollars, but it cuts by half the pension benefits of retired workers, and employees have no control over the conversion. Now, why is the control of your pension plan given to a company with the self-interest of saving millions of dollars? Even more egregious is that, as companies have been slashing benefits for their workers, they have been increasing compensation packages for their CEOs. Further, this bill handcuffs employees for 3 years after the contribution of company-matched stocks. Under current law, workers are protected from financial advisors with conflicts of interest. This bill strikes this protection from ERISA and allows financial advisors to recommend products from their own firms and even earn fees for pushing certain products. In fact, the Attorney General of the State of New York just settled with 10 of the most respected investment firms for $1.4 billion because these firms offered self-interested investment advice. H.R. 1000 further fails the American workers in its omission of requirements that companies inform employees when someone dumps large amounts of the company stock. You recall that was a serious issue for the Enron employees. When former Enron CEO Ken Lay sold his Enron stock, he unloaded 1.8 million shares for $101.3 million, did not tell his employees, left them in the dark, and they lost their life savings. Indeed, throughout that period, the employees were urged to buy more and more Enron stock. Last night the Committee on Rules passed a rule that does not allow this body through debate to delve into the complex issues of ERISA and securing retirement funds. H. Res. 230 allows only 80 minutes of debate on the bill. This rule is just another example of the erosion of this institution as a deliberative body. Mr. Speaker, the American workforce deserves our profound respect; and, Mr. Speaker, they have no one else to turn to but us. Over and over we have failed them. They deserve the pensions they were promised during their years of service. How heartbreaking it is for someone who has spent 30 years of their life with a single company, always being partially responsible for the profit of that company, to then lose a major part of that pension. And the almost-9 million unemployed deserve an extension on unemployment insurance to keep them afloat in a sea of economic uncertainty. I just had a letter in my office from a man who has been out of work now for 19 months with absolutely no outlook that he will find anything soon and asking me what in the world can he do. We try to answer that question often, Mr. Speaker; and it does this House no good that the answer we have is that we have refused to extend unemployment benefits. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and oppose the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes the Pension Security Act it will take up H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act. This bill will extend Federal unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and would also give a 13-week extension to those whose benefits have been exhausted. Mr. Speaker, with unemployment rates increasing daily, this is the third month in a row, now that we are in May, that this economy has lost jobs. Of the 8.8 million unemployed, 2 million out of work for 27 weeks or more, the average length of unemployment is nearly 20 weeks, the highest since 1984. These Americans need relief, and they need it immediately. Current Federal unemployment benefits expire at the end of this month, just 2\1/2\ weeks away. On two separate occasions last week, the Republicans in this House voted to block an opportunity to extend these benefits. Let us not let unemployed Americans down a third time. Let us bring this greatly needed responsible legislation to the floor for a vote. Now, let me make very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the pension security act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on H.R. 1000 and on H.R. 1652, the Unemployment Benefits Extension Act as well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from passing the desperately needed extension of Federal employment benefits to our unemployed workers one more time. Make no mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to vote on extending Federal unemployment benefits. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and remind my colleagues that these unemployed workers have no one to turn to but us, and they sent us here to do our best for our communities. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mrs. Carol A. Greiner. Carol has been the Honorary President of the University of Buffalo Women's Club, and she has been tirelessly committed to the University and to the Buffalo region for years. Carol has a long history of service to her community that is to be commended. Aside from her involvement in the University of Buffalo Women's Club, she has volunteered her time in many capacities that include organizing a campaign to raise funds for the establishment of the first kidney dialysis center in Seattle and serving as a dedicated participant in the Parent Teacher Association for over 17 years. Carol is an example for how to balance the demands of family, career, and community service. She has strongly supported her husband, now President of the University of Buffalo, and helped him with his rise to success. She is a model parent, having raised four children--Kevin, Terrence, Daniel, and Susan. I am sharing Carol's story with this chamber today because she so strongly exemplifies model citizenship. Carol and her husband selflessly give of themselves to their community. They were surrogate parents for a disturbed teenager, who recovered completely from her problems after living with the Greiners in their home. Other testaments to her civic commitment include membership in Working for Downtown, Bethel Head Start Program (where she served on the Board of Directors), the League of Women Voters, and Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra (where she served on the Women's Committee). I am privileged to know Mrs. Carol Greiner, and honored to consider her a friend. She is an asset to our community in Buffalo, and she stands as a shining example of a life lived in service to others.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Coach Nan Harvey. Nan Harvey is the Associate Athletics Director at the University of Buffalo. She has been a softball umpire for 28 years, and has devoted her life to women's athletics. Nan's accomplishments on the field are beyond impressive. As head coach of women's softball at the University of Buffalo, she led her team to 38 wins in next three years, earning State University of New York Athletic Conference Coach of the Year honors in 1985. In 1991, Nan was inducted into the Western New York Softball Hall of Fame. In 1996, she was named the Amateur Softball Association Metro Buffalo Umpire of the Year. Later that year, Nan was given one of the highest honors for an ASA umpire when she was inducted into the National Indicator Fraternity of the Amateur Softball Hall of Fame. She's been an umpire for several national slow-pitch tournaments and the NCAA Division III National Championship for three years. When I first began work on Title IX earlier this year, my office contacted Nan to find out more about the effects of Title IX at the University of Buffalo. She was enormously helpful and supportive in helping us lead the fight to save this fundamental civil rights law that ensures gender equality in athletic opportunities. I was devastated to hear that Nan is currently battling ovarian cancer. She learned of her disease almost three years ago, and has been undergoing chemotherapy for 34 straight months. Her prognosis is still very uncertain, yet she fights this disease daily with grace and determination. Let me tell you about the kind of person Nan Harvey is. Despite suffering chemotherapy treatments, she is still dedicated to University of Buffalo Athletics. She has dedicated a large portion of her life to her family at the University of Buffalo. I am deeply moved by Nan's decision regarding her estate. With her health in an uncertain state, Nan decided to bequeath to the University of Buffalo athletic department a minimum of $200,000 from her retirement funds. The money will be used with an emphasis on women's sports. Her commitment to the University of Buffalo, and to female athletes, has inspired her colleagues, her students, and her community. In honor of everything that she has given to the school and to women's athletics, the University of Buffalo will be renaming its softball facility Nan Harvey Field. I cannot express how deeply proud I am of Nan Harvey, of the life that she has led and the example she has set.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to the Pitts/Hyde amendment to H.R. 1298, the Global AIDS bill. The President's commitment to supporting Global AIDS outreach is commendable, and this bill, without amendments, has the approval of the Bush Administration. It is widely supported by Republicans and Democrats. However, some of my colleagues want to ``improve'' this bill with a controversial amendment that further wages war against family planning and reproductive health. At the heart of my concern with the ``abstinence-only'' curricula is its insistence that a ``mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity.'' This program emphasizes that sex outside of marriage is physically and psychologically harmful and should be avoided for these reasons. Abstinence-only education is simply not effective. Many of the women who are infected with HIV/AIDS are in monogamous marital relationships. Abstinence education that elevates the marital relationship as the only place where sex is appropriate would still leave these women vulnerable to infection. Abstinence education would also ignore the needs of women involved in the sex trade. Prostitution is a reality in all parts of the world, and it is one of the most vicious vehicles for spreading diseases. The Pitts amendment would do nothing for these women and for the children they will bear. Abstinence-only education has been proven to be ineffective time and time again, while only truly comprehensive sex education really prevents unwanted pregnancies and deadly diseases. There is no scientific evidence that abstinence-only education is effective. Congress should not tie the hands of health care professionals as they attempt to stop the spread of AIDS. This discussion is about more than promoting ``proper'' sexual behavior. This is a matter of life and death. We should not be willing to gamble with the lives of millions of men, women, and children across the globe. It is pure common sense that if you are trying to prevent a disease, you apply the remedy that has been shown to work, rather than fueling millions of dollars into an idea that has been proven not to work. If what we care about is AIDS prevention, then we should put our money into programs, like the Ugandan ABC program, where it might actually be effective.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 155, 156, 157, and 158 due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 158 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 155, 156, and 157.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, and 154 due to medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 150 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 149, 151, 152, 153, and 154.