Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 2215, the Department of Justice Authorization Conference Report. I am pleased that the conferees included my bill H.R. 28, the Violence Against Women's Office Act, which was approved by the House last year and would make the Violence Against Women Office a permanent and independent force in the Department of Justice. Created in 1995, this office has been absolutely critical in heightening awareness within the Federal Government and the entire Nation about domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The office formulates policy and administers more than $270 million annually in grants to State governments, as well as to local community organizations, police, prosecutors and courts to address violence against women. In addition, it assists these organizations with education and training to ensure the highest quality services to victims and the full administration of justice. The importance of this office cannot be overestimated. In fact, in a survey conducted by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, reports of domestic violence have dropped 21 percent since the inception of this office. Much remains to be done, however, as nearly 25 percent of women also reported they had been physically and/or sexually assaulted by a current or former intimate partner at home some time in their lifetime. These statistics illustrate the importance of the Violence Against Women Office to the health, safety, and the very survival of women all over America. The conference report creates an independent Violence Against Women's Office within the Department of Justice, rather than making the office simply a subsidiary part of the Office of Justice programs. The policy independence of the Violence Against Women Office is critical in carrying out its unique mission with regard to both its policy and grant administration efforts to prevent violence against women. The office's work with grantees on very sensitive issues is vital and will be best addressed through a separate and independent office. This valuable resource has been specifically authorized by statute, and will be a permanent part of the government's anti-violence efforts. Ending violence against women is an ongoing struggle, and one of the best tools is the Violence Against Women Office. I want to give my thanks to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member, and to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for bringing this good bill to the floor today. I give it my support.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Anybody who votes for this rule because they think that they are preserving religious exemptions is exactly wrong. Religious exemptions are already in law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the previous speaker who brought up the Alaska decision, because the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the Alaska State Constitution requires that quasi-public hospitals provide abortion services. Anti-choice forces use this decision to claim that private religious hospitals will be forced to perform abortions against their will. In fact, Valley Hospital is a non-religious institution with deep ties to the State and local government. It was built on land donated by the city using $10.7 million in State funds. Perhaps most importantly, the hospital had been granted a monopoly by the State to operate in the Ma-Su Valley, effectively insulating it from competition in a wide geographic area. Based on the significant ties to the State, the Alaska courts ruled the hospital was effectively public and that the Alaska State Constitution therefore prohibited the hospital from banning abortions. This bill, if passed, would violate those basic principles of Federalism by abrogating this State court ruling.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut for her very thoughtful remarks. One point she made that I think is terribly important is that we are turning religious exemption, moral thoughts and moral attitudes into an economic issue by saying we simply will not do this. But, moreover, let me make the point that we made earlier when we talked, that any hospital that flies in the face of this legislation will be restricted of all Federal aid, all of it. And if the Members' hospitals are like mine, and I see no reason why they would not be, this would be devastating to them and hospitals would have to close all over the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. The Speaker is perfectly right, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize. I simply want to make the case that if 85 percent of the hospitals refuse to give reproductive services in the United States, women will die. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to say, there is already conscience exemptions and everybody knows that. That is not why we are here today. We are really here today to turn back the clock. Without any doubt, a woman who has the opportunity even to understand what her rights are and what her options are, this is an appalling thing that we are doing. This is not an ordinary law we are talking about here. This is life and death. A woman who has come into a hospital raped, scared to death, does not know what to do, needs somebody to talk to, may have the unlucky option of coming across a doctor who says his conscience forbids him from discussing it with her, comforting her or giving her any idea that she has options. But since this House is all politics all the time in this Chamber, I want to give you some statistics that I think might be interesting on a political issue. The vast majority of Americans oppose allowing institutional health care providers to deny service on the basis of moral or religious objections. Seventy-six percent of the public opposes giving hospitals an exemption allowing them to refuse to provide medical services to which they object on religious grounds. Eighty-nine percent of the public opposes allowing insurance companies to refuse to pay for medical services to which the insurance company objects on religious grounds. Seventy-nine percent of the public finds convincing the statement that religiously affiliated hospitals should not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on other people. And frankly, I expect that nigh 100 percent of the people in the United States do not believe that Congress should impose its religious beliefs on them. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: American Civil Liberties Union, Washington National Office, Washington, DC, September 24, 2002. Dear Representative: The ACLU urges you to vote against H.R. 4961, the so-called ``Abortion Non-Discrimination Act'' when it is considered on the House floor tomorrow. Drafted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and sponsored by Representatives Dick Armey (R-TX), Joseph Pitts (R-PA), and Michael Bilirakis (R-FL), H.R. 4691 would allow a broad range of health care entities to refuse to comply with a wide array of federal, state, and local requirements to provide abortion services or information about those services. Refusal clauses such as H.R. 4691 permit a person or entity to refuse to provide reproductive health services. The ACLU believes that such clauses should be tested against two factors: (1) the extent to which the clause protects religious refusals that place burdens on people who do not share the beliefs that motivate the refusal (by ``burdens,'' we mean obstacles to health care and other critical personal interests, but not the mere exposure of third parties to religious practices or the tax or other financial burdens that may result from permitting certain exemptions); and (2) the extent to which the clause protects institutions engaged primarily in religious worship or instruction, or instead exempts institutions engaged in a secular pursuit in the public sphere. Although this test is not compelled by an legal ruling, the ACLU believes that it strikes the appropriate balance between reproductive rights and religious freedom. H.R. 4691 fails this test because its burdens would fall primarily on those who do not share the beliefs that motivate the refusal and because it protects institutions engaged in the public and secular provision of health care. Because H.R. 4691 amounts to a broad noncompliance permit for religious entities that employ and serve people of all faiths, that perform a variety of public functions, and that accept public financial support, the ACLU strongly opposes this bill. H.R. 4691 radically alters existing law by providing broad license for all manner of health care entities--from hospitals to insurance companies to HOMs--to avoid basic legal requirements imposed by all levels of government. The bill prohibits a governmental entity from ``discriminating''--that is, treating a health care entity differently--on the basis of the entity's refusal to perform, refer, train, cover, or pay for abortions. But merely enforcing federal, state, and local laws designed to ensure access to abortion services, or to information about those services, could constitute ``discrimination'' against entities that object to those laws. This bill could thus deny women access to critical information about their health care options, interfere with the delivery of abortion services to poor women in medical emergencies, and impede states' ability to enforce their own laws on abortion.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, sponsors of the bill do claim that this is just a simple clarification of existing law, but that is absolutely not the case. This is an enormous change in Federal law and would represent an unprecedented intrusion by Congress onto State and local rights. We need to think about that. Mr. Speaker, all of us believe in life. Some of us simply believe that women should have the right to choose to live as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to say to the gentleman who just spoke that hospitals have been protected since the 1970s, and there is no question about that, and that we are very keen on our side on life and health. I want to remind everybody of a little bit of history. I am sure all of my colleagues remember the great bill on community health centers which we have not been able to reauthorize for a year. At the end of last year it came up for reauthorization on the suspension calendar and, at the last minute, they attempted to add this piece of legislation to it, but there was such an outcry that they were forced to pull it off. So this year we are going back the other way around. This bill has to be dealt with before all of the community health centers in the United States can get their due from the Congress. That, sir, is a tragedy.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the previous speaker. It does indeed change women's rights. It puts a gag rule on women, and the religious exemption that she talks about clarifying is already in legislation. What this does is drive women back to back alleys. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. In one of those 85 percent of the hospitals that perform no abortions, if a woman should walk in bleeding, dying from a botched abortion, what would they do?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself another minute, and then the gentleman may respond if he would like to. Before Roe v. Wade was passed, women had no option in the world except to go to a back alley, turning themselves over to unspeakable people with filthy hands and dirty equipment, and oftentimes they had to go to doctors and hospitals to try to be saved. Does the gentleman from New Jersey know that many of those hospitals were afraid to take them? Is the gentleman aware that women died? Is the gentleman not aware that if this bill were to pass, that hospitals might again be afraid in a circumstance like that to save a woman, lest they violate this legislation?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it has been a mere 6 weeks since the leadership lobbed on to the House floor a bill targeting women and their reproductive health care. Be assured that the election season is upon us, and in the face of a crumbling stock market and exploding deficits and uncertain war on terrorism at home and calls for new war in Iraq, of this we can be sure: Congress will use the floor of the House of Representatives to push propaganda restricting a woman's ability to make her own decisions rather than deal with the overriding issues at hand. Mr. Speaker, Congress does not have the right or the expertise to make these decisions for the American people. The last time Members were facing a life-or-death decision, or their constituents were facing a life-or-death situation, who would they want with them in the emergency room? Did they want their physician, their spiritual adviser, family members, or would that patient say wait until a Member of Congress gets here because Congress will have the last word on this issue? I am sure that the American public would give us a resounding no. We are basically practicing medicine without a license. Direct mail pieces distorting the issue are already being printed and will hit the streets as soon as the vote is completed. This vote is pure politics. This measure is cynical and unconstitutional. Moreover, everyone in the Senate knows that the Senate will not touch it. In the meantime, the real work of the Congress as mandated by the Constitution goes undone. Our most fundamental duty of funding the Nation's priority has ground to a halt. With the fiscal year ending in less than a week, the President has yet to sign a single appropriations bill. The press reports indicate that the majority leadership has under consideration a plan to simply quit work and go home and come back and try again next year, using a long-term continuing resolution to disguise that fact that the people's House has ceased to perform anything but election-year gimmicks at taxpayers' expense. It is almost superfluous to note that this is a closed rule. For those following the deliberations of this body on controversial matters, it should come as no surprise. The majority has chosen to shut out meaningful debate. Under this closed rule, no amendment will be allowed. For a bill that impacts so fundamentally on the life of so many, this is unconscionable. For those school children who may be visiting this Chamber today, I wanted to offer a quick history lesson. Silence was not always the case here. Free-flowing debate used to be the norm. The Chamber used to team with ideas and with voices of passion from all regions of the country. Today these voices are shut out. My colleagues, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), attempted to have an amendment made in order in the Committee on Rules to prevent the most egregious effects of the underlying bill taking effect. Their efforts were struck down almost immediately along a party-line vote. It is my hope that someday true debate will return to this Chamber and the voices of our constituents will not be silenced. But today, Mr. Speaker, instead of debate, we will have an up-and- down vote on a bill that will radically expand existing law. This legislation would essentially allow any health care entity, including hospitals, health insurance companies, or HMOs, to exempt themselves from current Federal, State and local laws that assure women have access to reproductive services. I want to make the point here that that says that the Hyde amendment, which was passed by Congress which allows a person who has been a victim of rape or incest to have an abortion, will be overridden by this bill. It says that any law or regulation by a State or the Federal Government can be overridden. Now, any law or regulation that covers any kind of coverage will be considered discriminatory against a health care entity that does not want to comply, for any reason at all, not merely religious, and could not be enforced. Remember, the religious exemption has been in legislation for years. That is not what we are doing today. The penalty for any State or local government which discriminates is the loss of all, all Federal financial assistance. At a time when hospitals and local governments are hanging on by a thread, such a loss of Federal funds would be devastating. H.R. 4691 has been brought to the floor without any committee consideration and over the strong objections of the moderate Members of the majority party. Moreover, for a party that prides itself on attention to States' rights, it is ironic that this legislation will override the progress of States that have worked to ensure that women not only have access to reproductive services, but also the right to basic information. This bill reinstates the gag rule. Many in this body may not realize it, but the Federal Government does not pay for abortion services. As I mentioned before, the Hyde amendment to the Medicaid program stipulates that Medicaid patients must have access to these procedures only in cases of rape, incest or when the pregnancy endangers a woman's life. That would be gone. This bill before us overrides even that most narrow of exceptions. Moreover, States like mine, who use their own Medicaid funds to cover abortion services beyond those narrow circumstances if they wish, and in fact, 21 States do so, this bill would preclude these States from enforcing their own laws and constitutional decisions in the area of reproductive services for low-income women. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not limited to reproductive services themselves. Under the bill, States would be prohibited from requiring health care entities participating in the Medicaid programs to provide referrals for reproductive services. It would prohibit States from ensuring that patients have all of the information they need to make an informed choice about themselves, the gag rule again. Moreover, this bill is a direct assault on the doctor-patient relationship. Under this legislation, the administrative hospitals or HMOs could gag the doctors who work under them from discussing basic information about abortion services with their patients. We restrict no other professionals from giving the best of their advice to people who seek it. This law provides no guidelines for why these administrators may be gagging physicians from providing or even discussing reproductive services. It will say simply to save the HMO more money. The legislation is a gross expansion of the powers of the managed-care entities to severely limit the options available to the patients that they supposedly serve. The legislation would also undermine a State's ability to set health care licensing and certification standards. Imagine that, we would be setting certification standards and licensing for them from here as well. In deciding whether to approve a hospital merger, for example, a State could not consider whether a newly merged hospital system would diminish a community's access to full reproductive health services. This would tie the hands of States like New Jersey that are trying to ensure that entire communities are not completely without any qualified abortion providers. In fact, supporters of the bill have stated that this is their intent. The measure is opposed by numerous groups, including the National Council of Jewish Women, Catholics for Free Choice, the American Association of University Women, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, National Organization of Women, the National Partnership for Women and Families, People for the American Way, and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and certainly me. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1784, the Women's Health Office Act. As an original cosponsor and vocal advocate of this legislation, I am delighted that it is finally being considered by the House. Congress has delayed far too long in addressing the second-class status of the various offices of women's health throughout the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As other speakers have attested, only two of the HHS offices of women's health are currently established in statute: the Office of Research on Women's Health at the National Institutes of Health, and the women's health associate administrator at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. While offices of women's health exist at a number of other agencies, they can be moved, altered, or eliminated at the discretion of the agency director. This lack of permanence is extremely detrimental to long-term planning and multi- year efforts. It also sends a message to our nation's women that we are not firmly committed to improving their health. Women's health is not a passing fancy or a fad that will go out of fashion. It is a serious discipline that will require the attention of doctors, scientists, and health care providers far into the future. The offices of women's health should not be an afterthought. H.R. 1784 is a vital step in permanently integrating women's health into the structure of our health care system. I look forward to voting for this important initiative, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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. I would like to make two points. One is that we do trust American families on this side of the aisle. We trust them enough that we do not want to perpetrate a hoax on them this morning, which we think is exactly what is happening here, and to point out that had the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) substitute been allowed and passed, that our State of New York would receive $2.5 billion in much needed construction money. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).