Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we do realize that $40,000 is the limit on that. What we are saying is that is not an income that one would be paying taxes on and would allow them to get this refund. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, anyone who plays popular sheet music knows that at the beginning of a piece there is always a place called ``vamp until ready'' where the pianist literally kills time until we are ready for the main act when the singer comes on. I think this bill comes into the category of vamp until ready. Obviously, we all understand, those of us who serve in Congress and all of the wonderful staff here, that we need the appropriations bills on the floor of the House to be passed by October 1 to keep the government running. I am beginning to think we are not going to do that this year and expect we will probably come up with a giant continuing resolution. But this is certainly a vamp until ready bill, and I certainly rise in opposition to it, because, in addition to everything else, it has a closed rule. The underlying bill is part of a continuing wave of election year gimmicks that the majority knows will never be signed into law. At a time when the body is woefully behind in the most basic task of passing bills funding the Nation's priorities, we should be using our time more constructively; but, instead, we are considering a resolution that shuts out consideration of a meaningful bipartisan substitute that would improve school facilities across the country. It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Surely expanding educational opportunities for our children would be an issue where this Congress could set aside its differences and work together. Education remains at the top of everyone's priority list, for rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, and any other category of persons. Instead, we have before us today a purely partisan bill, a bill that the minority leadership on the Committee on Ways and Means dubbed an embarrassment, and not a single member of the majority of the Committee on Ways and Means defended the substance of this bill when the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and others raised concerns about its uncertain and likely overly broad definition of eligible expenses. This measure will not improve the education of a single child, because it is designed to make a political point and not to become law. The problems with the bill are numerous. First, the legislation is the first step towards shifting funds away from public schools and into private and religious schools. This comes at a time when States are reeling from lost revenue and being forced to cut everything from teachers' salaries to laying off firefighters and policemen. We do not need to utilize the limited time of this body before adjournment debating another scheme to get the Federal Government to pay for private school tuition. Ninety percent of our children are in public schools, and those schools need our help drastically, now more than ever. I would also note that the $20,000 limit for singles and $40,000 limit for couples will not be enough to take advantage of the tax deduction, which is not refundable. Therefore, we are giving them absolutely nothing. Several months ago you recall we passed the No Child Left Behind Act that reauthorized the elementary and secondary education programs, and the congressional leadership and the President pointed with pride to the enhanced levels of education spending that were authorized in the legislation, and it was a fine bipartisan bill. But now the administration and leadership have allocated funds for that program for the next fiscal year, and they are $7 billion short. In other words, Mr. Speaker, many children will be left behind. And while they are supporting this bill, which is estimated to cost $5 billion, it seems to me that it would have been much better to have put this money into leaving no child behind. The substitute that the Democrats were attempting to offer would go a long way toward addressing the reversal. Mr. Speaker, we cannot expect our children to learn and our teachers to teach unless they are provided with safe and modern school buildings. Forcing students to go to school in trailers or dilapidated school buildings is a clear message to them that they do not matter, and surely we can do better. Currently our public school system has extraordinary unmet needs for funds to construct and modernize our schools. The new estimates based on data collected by the State departments of education indicate that more than $300 billion will be needed to repair or replace existing public school facilities. That $300 billion cannot be met without significant commitment of funds from all levels of government, including the Federal Government. The substitute we had hoped to have made in order would provide a meaningful down payment for school construction and modernization. In my home State of New York, it would have meant an infusion of close to $2.5 billion, incredibly needed money for school construction and rehabilitation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in remembering the terrorist attacks of a year ago and paying tribute to the victims, the survivors, and the American spirit. One year ago today, almost three thousand Americans lost their lives in a series of despicable attacks. These acts were carried out by a group of people who hated everything our Nation stands for, and who sought to destroy the symbols of our freedom and prosperity. Despite the destruction they were able to inflict, these terrorists actually achieved the opposite of their intended goal. Instead of dividing us, they united us as never before. The evil of a few was met by the courage of thousands, and the generosity of millions. The day of the attacks witnessed countless instances of unflinching, selfless courage at the sites in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon. Workers in the towers and at the Pentagon helped each other through the evacuation. Firefighters, law enforcement officers, and emergency personnel rushed to the scene, heedless of the danger to themselves. Teachers shepherded children to safety; not a single child at the World Trade Center or Pentagon day care centers was harmed. And no one will ever forget the heroism of the passengers who crashed Flight 93 rather than allow it to continue to its intended target. The world watched in humbled awe as ordinary Americans performed extraordinary acts. The following days and weeks saw another quintessential American trait expressed: our generosity. Millions of Americans contributed goods, services, and funds for the rescue effort. Equipment, food, and supplies poured into the City of New York. Over a few short weeks, millions of dollars were donated to the families of the victims of the attacks. Children held penny drives and car washes; businesses had fundraisers; corporations opened their coffers. No sooner was any need made known than it was met, often to overflowing. The trials of September 11 proved that our Nation's motto still holds true--E pluribus unum. From many, one. From many individuals, many cultures, and many ideals we stand together as a single nation, united in purpose and resolve. Like steel tempered in fire, the challenges of this ordeal have made us stronger. Today, we pay tribute to all those who were lost a year ago, and to those they left behind. My district of Monroe County, New York, bears its share of the collective grief. Pittsford businessman Thomas Duffy was at an early morning meeting in the towers and perished. The Vincent family lost their 24-year-old daughter, Melissa, who had just begun a career with Alliance Consulting. Several other constituents lost children, brothers, and sisters. Many lost friends and loved ones. None of these families will ever be the same again. The best homage we can pay is to ensure that these people did not die in vain. We have already taken significant steps by removing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, pursuing terrorists across the globe, and improving homeland security. But we can and must do much more. Many vital security needs still must be addressed. We must pursue a long-term strategy for rooting out terrorism and eliminating the conditions that allow it to thrive. Our public health infrastructure must be rebuilt and strengthened. Perhaps most of all, however, we must rededicate ourselves to principles of freedom and democracy. Our precious liberty can never be taken for granted. We must find the delicate balance between protecting our security and preserving our freedom. Finally, we must pay special attention to the needs of our children in these difficult times. Too many of our children across the Nation were traumatized by the terrorist attacks, and many remain anxious and fearful. These events must not be allowed to poison an entire generation. We must ensure that our children receive the aid they need to face the future happy, healthy, and secure. Terror is indiscriminate, and the young are especially vulnerable. I join my colleagues in paying tribute to all the heroes of September 11. Our honored dead will not be forgotten. Their families shall not be alone. We, the survivors, will carry their memories in our hearts and live their legacy through our actions.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 12th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Twelve years ago, people from across the country gathered to celebrate the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, one of the Nation's landmark civil rights laws since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ADA opened up the true promise of America to people with disabilities who, for decades have been held back--not by a wheelchair and a flight of insurmountable stairs--but by simple public ignorance. Because of the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disabilities are gaining equal access to public sector services. The public sector has rallied to the ADA's goals and states and local govenunents have developed some of the most innovative and meaningful responses to the ADA. As a result of this important civil rights law, employers now provide a range of adjustment measures to ensure that employees with disabilities can keep their place in the job market, resulting in unprecedented economic opportunities for our disabled population. ADA has torn down barriers that prevented people with disabilities from getting access to education, the job market, and simply living their daily lives. As I reflect on our accomplishments here in Congress since I started to serve my constituents as a member in 1986, this is one of the pieces of legislation, I am most proud of. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a historic example of Congress being true to our centuries-old heritage of freedom and equal opportunity. This landmark legislation took more than 2 years to pass because even in the halls of Congress, there were hurdles of ignorance to overcome. The ADA itself was born of one man's determination to break down the barriers which had diverted his career plans and caused him to reevaluate his dreams throughout his life. My former colleague in the House of Representatives and original author of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Tony Coelho, didn't grow up wanting to be a Member of Congress. But he did grow up with epilepsy. As a youth Tony wanted to be a clergyman, but he was kept back because of public ignorance about his disability. They say that God works in strange and mysterious ways. Tony Coelho's first dreams were shattered by discrimination, but this was, in fact, a blessing for the entire nation. Tony would go on to write the most comprehensive anti-discrimination bill for persons with disabilities in United States history. What more proof do we need that someone with a disability can be one of the most able people our nation has ever seen? When Congress passed and the President signed the Americans with Disabilities Act, we implemented what is, in effect, a 20th century Emancipation Proclamation for the estimated 43 million Americans who have some type of physical or mental disability. For the first time in history, these individuals were guaranteed their rights to explore the full range of their talents, ability, and creativity. By outlawing discrimination against disabled persons in employment, transportation, public accommodations and telecommunications, the ADA guarantees to persons with disabilities the same rights which most of us in this chamber take for granted--the right to go to their neighborhood grocery store, attend a movie, eat in the local diner, hold a job, ride a city bus, or simply talk on the telephone. Pre-existing laws and federal regulations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 have been effective, but only so far as the policies of the government, its contractors, and recipients of federal funds have been concerned. These laws left all other areas of American life untouched. Many young Americans who have benefitted from the equal educational opportunity guaranteed under the 1973 law and the Education of the Handicapped Act, have found themselves on graduation day facing a closed door to the mainstream of American life. For years, generations of disabled Americans have been turned away at movie theatres, refused tables at restaurants, left stranded in wheelchairs at bus stops and denied meaningful employment opportunities. As a cosponsor of the landmark ADA bill and as a legislator who has worked closely with the disabled since the mid-1970s, I am proud of the fact that the ADA broke down barriers and helped to correct these demeaning disadvantages. I am also proud of my community's early acceptance of individuals with disabilities, especially the deaf. Rochester is home to the National Technical Institute for the Deaf and the first city in the city to broadcast News for the Deaf each weekday. The Declaration of Independence gave voice to the fundamental principles upon which this nation would grow to greatness--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Twelve years ago the Americans with Disabilities Act reaffirmed these sacred principles for millions and millions of United States citizens who have had to suffer unjustified segregation and exclusion.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a dear colleague and friend, the Honorable Tony Hall of Ohio. We are nearing the time to say good-bye to Tony who has honorably served his constituents of Montgomery County, Ohio for 23 years. We have spent many late nights serving on the Rules Committee together. Tony has been offered the opportunity to represent the United States as a leading advocate to promote global food security and reduce hunger throughout the world. He will serve as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Agencies for Food and Agriculture based in Rome. His efforts on behalf of the hungry will be greatly missed in the House of Representatives--his work remains a beacon for other members to follow. Alleviating hunger and improving conditions for the neediest people, both here at home and abroad, has been his personal passion throughout all the years I have worked with him. His new position will enable him to focus on this mission with the full support and authority of the entire United States government. Representative Hall embodied all the best traditions of this institution. He is known for a commitment to the best interests of his district and the nation as a whole. With his work and passion he has shown during his years in Congress, he has made this world a better place, and I am very confident he will continue to do so in this new position. Among his many legislative accomplishments, Tony wrote the bill enacted in 1992 that created the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park. He recently wrote legislation to stop importing ``conflict diamonds'' that are mined in war-torn Africa and which fund Al-Queda's international terrorism, and he also spearheaded international efforts to draw consumers' attention to the importance to this ``blood trade.'' In his new position, Tony Hall will assist international hunger relief. He will help to draw attention to international food, hunger, and agriculture issues before they reach the crisis stage and to promote innovative hunger-related practices by private groups and governments. This position will give him the opportunity to continue to be a leading advocate for ending hunger and promoting food security around the world. Best Wishes, Tony. And thank you.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment that, once again, an unconstitutional measure which we recently did, too, that was passed by this House was to prohibit young women from crossing State lines in the United States. I have no idea who is going to police that or whether we are going to put borders up at every State to make sure people do not cross it ``illegally,'' according to the Congress. Obviously that is not going to ever become law. There is no way we can keep American citizens from going from one State to another. Once again we try this, which is not a serious attempt to do much except make points. I urge a no vote on this rule.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 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, we are about to begin our annual debate on a procedure that is not really recognized by the medical profession, which is totally unconstitutional, and would not go anywhere. The Supreme Court just recently said again that all the laws that they have had brought before them, and particularly the one on Nebraska, were unconstitutional. Given that, it is very tempting for us on our side to talk about the things that American people are concerned about. Their pensions, their jobs, corporate responsibility, accounting measures, the regulation that we can try to do to make things better for us, creation of jobs, education, health care, prescription drugs. But, no, we are going to spend 3 hours on this issue right here which will not be taken up by the Senate and which is unconstitutional and, frankly, we should not be messing with it. It really is a hoax on the public and I am sorry to be a part of it. But, Mr. Speaker, I certainly oppose the closed rule. They have shut out all meaningful debate on this. Anybody who had a right to talk about this on the other side was totally ignored, given no opportunity. No amendment will be allowed. You heard me correctly; no amendment to protect the lives of women will be allowed. For a bill that impacts so fundamentally the life of women, this is unconscionable and wholly unsurprising, given the contempt shown in this House for measures that impact our sisters and our daughters. We have been given 2 hours of general debate on this issue, and I would not be at all surprised if that is more time, given the nature of the rule, than we give to the national security issue this afternoon on homeland security. Mr. Speaker, election season is upon us. In the face of a crumbling stock market, an exploding deficit, and uncertain war on terrorism at home and around the globe, of this we can be sure: Congress will use the floor of the House of Representatives to push propaganda restricting a woman's right to choose. Direct mail pieces distorting this issue will hit the streets as soon as the vote is completed, just in time for the August recess. This vote before us is pure politics. The measure is cynical, it is unconstitutional, and it demeans this institution and those who serve in it. On its face, H.R. 4965 suffers from the same two flaws that led the Supreme Court to declare a similar Nebraska law unconstitutional: It fails to include an exception to protect maternal health, and it places an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion prior to viability by banning the most common second trimester abortion procedure. Fifteen pages of congressional findings do nothing to remedy this unconstitutionally flawed bill. In fact, the case law is clear. The Supreme Court articulated the three principles that govern abortion laws: One, a woman has the right to choose to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability. That is the law of the land. Two, the State cannot impose an undue burden on the woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. And, third, after viability, a State may regulate abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. How strange it is that we do not really care about the life or the health of the mother. The measure before us today does not include an exception to protect the health of the woman, and certainly poses an undue burden on her. Moreover, and very importantly, this bill will turn doctors into criminals and put them in jail for performing a safe medical procedure which, in their best judgment, is the best way to protect a woman's right to having further children. The civil sanctions and criminal remedies, along with previous references by legislative proponents to medical professionals as assassins, exterminators, and murderers are part of a design to intimidate medical professionals from performing abortions generally. In the context of abortion clinic demonstrations and bombings, it is clear that many in the movement have an agenda of banning all abortions. The measure before us today is clearly a part of this ongoing effort. Criminal sanctions for doctors would chill any medical professional from performing many of the most common procedures. Given the vague and the overbroad language of the bill, doctors can reasonably fear prosecution for using the safest and most common abortion methods, and they probably will not perform them. Who could blame them? I assure my colleagues that the primary concern of most physicians will not be protecting the health of the woman, but protecting their own professional life. For this reason, the American Medical Association does not support this bill. Indeed, they are not the only ones. The American Public Health Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Medical Women's Association, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American Medical School Student Association, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, Association of Schools of Public Health, Associations of Women Psychiatrists, National Asian Women's Health Organization, National Association of Nurse Practitioners and Reproductive Health, The National Black Women's Health Project, and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health. But the bill does not stop here. Not content to cause the woman great harm or put the doctor in jail, in one of its most egregious provisions, it allows the woman to be sued by her husband or parents if she receives this procedure. In essence, proponents of this measure want to give a husband the veto power over a woman's decision. The Supreme Court has expressly held this to be unconstitutional. Think about it for a moment. Are we really prepared to allow an abusive husband, or a husband who has abandoned his wife, to threaten his wife with a lawsuit if she obtained a procedure to protect her health and future fertility? Who do we think we are? The last time you were facing a life-or-death decision, do you want Congress with you in the emergency rooms? If, God forbid, you should find yourself in this terrible position, are you not going to allow the doctors to make a decision until your Member of Congress arrives because he or she will be the last word? Sitting down with your family, do you need Congress there to do it? Congress does not have the right or the expertise to make these decisions for the American people; and, indeed, in the history of the Congress of the United States, no medical procedure has ever been outlawed. We are literally practicing medicine without a license. It is unconscionable for this Congress to continually place its political agenda ahead of a woman's ability to have access to safe and appropriate medical care. Just like any other patient, a woman deserves to receive the best care based on the circumstances of her particular situation. As a Member of Congress, a mother of three daughters, and a long-time advocate of women's health, I strongly believe that the health of American women matters, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule and no on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I think Congress should also stand up for the rights of women and their right to live. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, the Hoyer amendment was not eligible for a motion to recommit because it is out of scope and would require a waiver. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 338, Hefley amendment #16. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Sanders

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary half hour. (Ms. SLAUGHTER 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 Texas (Mr. Doggett).