Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I wish I could tell my colleagues that this measure stemmed from a need for flexibility rather than a need to cover up ineptitude, but I would not be telling the truth. Quite simply, this is the most stunning display of incompetence I have witnessed under this leadership. In fumble after fumble, the leadership kept attempting to move a flawed bill, failing miserably, then going behind closed doors to try it one more time. The House of Representatives has ground to a halt, and the call for regular order sounds like the punch line to a cynical joke. This is a disgrace, and I am at a loss to explain why we are once again preparing to circumvent the rules of the body and cram a controversial measure down the throats of our colleagues. What aversion does this leadership have to the House rules? This is an extremely heavy-handed process, even for this leadership. Under the rules of the House, a two-thirds vote is required to consider a rule on the same day as the Committee on Rules reports it. But the martial law procedure before us allows a rule to be considered on the same day as it is reported with a majority rather than a two-thirds vote. This rule would waive the one day layover requirement, and I urge a ``no'' vote. Mr. Speaker, we went into the Committee on Rules yesterday in full good faith at 4 p.m., left there around 8 p.m. until midnight to hear the final disposition of this bill. Later today, we went in again about 4 p.m. this afternoon to find the bill on which we had held a hearing had been changed. My side was given 30 minutes to look at it. And I simply want to say again that that is a dreadful way to run this House, and I find it terribly inept. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that on behalf of the Democrat members of the Committee on Rules, we would be most grateful when bills of any magnitude come before the Committee on Rules and are given a hearing, that that bill be ready to go to the floor and that we will not see any more of this sitting around all night and waiting all the next day. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is one that impacts millions of Americans. Many of them are our most vulnerable constituents, but the process before us today shuts out any meaningful debate, and blocks consideration of important amendments affecting the elderly, mothers and children. This is not a welfare reform bill; this is spite. Moreover, the entire legislative body is put on hold. The Committee on Rules, as I said earlier, was shut down at midnight and forced to postpone our vote on the rule until 8 this morning, but then we repeated the process a little while ago with yet another version of the bill. As has been pointed out, in 24 hours this bill has become three. Today's drafting and redrafting makes a mockery of regular order, and Mr. Speaker, this has got to stop. It is duplicitous for the Committee on Rules to take testimony from our colleagues while they know full well that the bill before us will not be considered in its final form. I oppose this heavy-handed process and the cynicism it embraces, and urge my colleagues to defeat this ill-conceived rule. In the light of day, we can see that the underlying bill is one that can desperately use some improvement, and is clearly not ready for prime time. In fact, the Committee on Rules went out of its way to ensure that these much-needed changes will not be considered. Several critical amendments were struck down repeatedly on a party line vote in the Committee on Rules. In a slap to legal immigrants, the committee voted down efforts by the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) to protect legal immigrants from being singled out in the measure. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), attempted to provide adequate funding for child care; but he, too, was rebuffed. And the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) found her years of work on the farm bill to protect food stamp recipients under attack only days after significant improvements to the program were signed into law by President Bush. The Committee on Rules saw fit to shut her out as well. Most of my colleagues' efforts suffered a similar fate. Moreover, it is becoming clear that the underlying bill fails to address the most fundamental goal of welfare reform, moving recipients into real jobs and out of poverty. While caseloads since 1996 have fallen over 50 percent nationally, the poverty rate has decreased only 13 percent over the same period. This means that even during a time of historical economic expansion, many who have left welfare remain dependent on food stamps, WIC and other public assistance. Recipients are raising children without the education, training or child care that is necessary to move to real independence. We have heard from governors, mayors, State legislators, welfare directors and poverty experts who all say the same thing: The bill is a step in the wrong direction. We have heard from a bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senators Breaux and Hatch, that we should expand access to vocational education, give States credit for placing people in real jobs, maintain State flexibility, increase child care funding, and remove restrictions on serving legal immigrants. But, unfortunately, none of these proposals are contained in this bill. In fact, the legislation eliminates vocational education from the list of activities that count as work-related activity. The message is clear: Education is the key to every American's future except for poor single mothers with children. Child care also takes a hit. The new legislation stiffens the work requirements, but fails to increase the child care money beyond the additional $400 million a year that the House majority proposes. Instead, parents get care vouchers, and it is up to them to find the care. And how many welfare parents have been able to find accessible, high-quality child care near their homes, or care available on nights and weekends? How many vulnerable kids in our communities are now in what is known in the welfare reform business as self-care, which is to say, they go home after school, lock the door and stay inside. No one has any idea. The Congressional Budget Office has informed us that implementing the new work requirements in the bill would cost States between $8-11 billion over the next 5 years. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office has indicated that maintaining the current purchasing power of the child care block grants will cost States another $7 billion over 5 years. This unfunded mandate could force States to cut child care funding for the working poor in order to finance the additional day care costs in the workfare programs. Moreover, new requirements in this bill will focus States on placing recipients in make-work activities, rather than in real jobs. In fact, 41 of the 47 States surveyed by the National Governors' Association indicated that the proposal would require them to make fundamental changes to their welfare programs. A recent study by the University of Washington found that States' workfare program had much less impact on the wages of former welfare recipients than preemployment training did. This research is one of the reasons that very few States have implemented large workfare programs over the last 6 years. Some jurisdictions that did create work experience programs are now beginning to scale them back. For example, New York City enrolled less than 10 percent of its adult caseload in work experience programs at the end of last year compared to 15 percent 2 years ago. Mr. Speaker, there is a better way, one that maintains State flexibility, one that focuses on real work, and one that seeks to help families escape poverty. My colleagues and I support strong work requirements that seek to move people into real jobs. We believe States should have the flexibility to determine the best mix of services and activities to move welfare recipients towards self-sufficiency. We want to end discrimination against legal immigrants and provide welfare recipients with access to vocational training so they can find good jobs. And we support providing the necessary resources, especially for quality child care, to help families leave welfare for work. I am afraid this measure fails to do just that. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to prohibit the Department of Defense from requiring female service members to wear the `abaya', a long black robe covering the body from head to toe, worn with a head scarf and often a veil. Currently, the DOD requires U.S. servicewomen to wear the abaya when they leave base in Saudi Arabia. DOD policy also mandates that servicewomen cannot sit in the front seat of a vehicle when traveling off-base. I am outraged that DOD would not only tolerate, but perpetrate, this type of discriminatory treatment against American servicewomen. Our women in uniform are performing their duty to protect the interests of both the United States and of the host country. It is unfortunate that the Saudi government has so little appreciation for the contributions of U.S. servicewomen as to allow harassment of them to take place at the hands of the Saudi religious police. But it is unconscionable that our own government should uphold this institutionalized disrespect of women by requiring that Americans conform to these standards. U.S. servicewomen are valued, respected, capable members of our armed forces. It is the duty of the U.S. government, including its military, to demonstrate to other nations the high regard in which we hold them. It is important to note that official Saudi policy does not require non-Muslim women to wear the abaya. Similarly, the U.S. State Department allows its female employees to use their own best judgment when deciding how to dress when they go outside the embassy. The Department of Defense should show the same degree of trust in its employees, and end this backward order regarding the abaya. This legislation would do just that, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution along with my colleague, Representative Connie Morella, voicing this body's commitment to improving the health of mothers and children around the world. This resolution illustrates that an increased commitment to improving the health of the world's mothers and children will have a long-term impact on the political, economic, and social progress of developing countries. The stability of our own nation depends significantly on the economic and political situation of developing nations. Their economic and political progression cannot be realized unless the health of their people is improved. The global community acknowledges this need. On May 8-10, representatives from over 179 countries met at the United Nations Special Session on Children. During this meeting, they reviewed the progress made since the 1990 World Summit for Children and renewed their pledge to improve the lives of the world's children over the next decade. Our Administration also acknowledges that investing in better health increases a country's ability to prosper. President Bush made a wise decision when he proposed increased funding for global HIV/AIDS programs at USAID. But it is disconcerting that his budget also recommends a $25 million decrease in support for maternal and child health programs. Difficult choices must be made, understandably, but funds should not be shifted from one essential health program to another. At this precarious time in our world, we cannot lose sight of the health of women, the primary caregivers who instill values and provide hope for their children, the future of every society. Every year, over 500,000 women die during pregnancy and childbirth. The vast majority of these lives could be saved by low-tech, low-cost interventions. The health of a child and her mother are closely intertwined, and good maternal health is essential for the survival of both mother and child. In developing countries, a mother's death in childbirth due to malnutrition, or inadequate prenatal and delivery care, means almost certain death for her newborn child. We must also invest substantially more in programs that improve the health of young children. Every year, nearly 11 million die needlessly before their fifth birthday--almost all from diseases easily prevented or readily treated. For example, pennies worth of antibiotics could save three million children who will die this year of pneumonia. Mr. Speaker, the resolution calls for increased funding for basic child survival and maternal health programs of at least $500 million dollars. This figure is just a small investment when the dividends would be political stability, international security, and a renewed hope for the future of mothers and children around the world. Representative Morella and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this important resolution.

Mr. SLAUGHTER

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Hormone Disruption Research Act of 2002. Arctic polar bears show high concentrations of certain synthetic compounds in their tissues. Whales in the world's oceans carry PCBs and other contaminants at concentrations which cause developmental defects in humans. U.S. streams and groundwater show widespread contamination with chemicals, dioxins, and antibiotics. Alligators in Florida's lakes suffer from reproductive problems that appear to be associated with chronic chemical contamination. New studies have made a persuasive case that contaminants were in part or wholly responsible for the loss of the lake trout and herring in the Great Lakes many decades ago. Rates of infertility, the incidence of testicular cancer in young men, Parkinson's disease, endometriosis, childhood diabetes, and asthma have risen dramatically since 1970. What does this all mean? Are there connections between rising levels of chemicals in the environment and increasing rates of certain disorders in humans? In many cases, we simply don't know. We do not have the scientific information that would allow us to draw solid conclusions. But a growing body of research suggests that there is indeed a connection between certain chemicals and human health. In recent decades, scientists have begun to recognize and define the hazard posed by some chemicals to the human hormone (or endocrine) system. By definition, hormone disrupting chemicals interfere with the normal activity of hormones within the body. Some chemicals mimic natural hormones and send false messages. Other synthetic compounds block hormonal signals and prevent the proper action from taking place. Still others cause disruption by preventing the synthesis of the body's own hormones, or by accelerating their breakdown and excretion. Whatever the mechanism, the bottom line is the same: Any chemical that interferes directly or indirectly with hormones can scramble vital messages, derail development, and undermine health. We are only now learning that the effects of hormone disruptors may affect more than one generation. Though adults may not show symptoms of exposure themselves, they may pass the ``Imprint,'' or hormonal effects of exposure, on to their children. In those cases, it is the children whose development suffers. Since 1970, childhood cancers, learning disabilities, hyperactivity, autism, juvenile diabetes, early puberty, early testicular cancer, and infertility have increased significantly both in the United States and around the world. There is growing evidence to suggest that hormone disruptors play an important role in all of these disorders. Today I am proud to introduce the Hormone Disruption Research Act of 2002. This legislation directs the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct a major research program on hormone disruption. In addition, it requires NIEHS to report to the public every two years on the extent to which hormone disruption by chemicals poses a threat to human health and the environment. The bill authorizes $100 million per year for five years for this critically important program. To date, federal research on hormone disruption has been scattershot and underfunded, even as evidence about hormone disruption has grown. The research program authorized through the legislation will enable NIEHS to gather solid data about the dangers posed by some chemicals and the mechanisms through which they act. With this information in hand, we can make sensible, informed decisions and policies about our own and our children's health and well-being. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Hormone Disruption Research Act. We owe it to future generations to pursue this scientific research, which has implications for every one of us.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to my colleagues that the American dream is alive and well in Rochester, New York. It can be found embodied in a Rochester businessman and booster who, though only 25 years old, has already achieved what others spend a lifetime trying to accomplish. His name is Aaron Zack Phillips, and he is president of Kink BMX, a manufacturer and distributor of BMX bicycle parts and related soft goods. He is also this year's national winner of the SBA's 2002 Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Zack's middle name is self-reliance--a character trait always present in American dreamers. From the age of 12, he juggled school and part- time jobs like throwing papers or flipping hamburgers at fast food restaurants. By 18, he was the assistant manager for a local home improvement store, in charge of payroll, scheduling and inventory. But at the same time that Zack was working for others, he was beginning his own business--out of pure frustration. Because the bicycle parts he bought kept breaking down, he decided that he could make them better and stronger--and did. Then, with the help of a media kit from a trade magazine and an advertising budget, he began selling them to other cyclists at competitions and skate parks. The rest is history, hard work and an entrepreneurial drive that just won't stop--always necessary components in any successful American dream. At the age of 25, Zack now runs a million dollar business employing 6 people, which both manufactures the Kink line and distributes its products throughout the Midwest and California, as well as in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan. He didn't do all this totally alone. Along the way, the U.S. Small Business Administration stepped in to guarantee the loans this young man could not get without its help, reminding us once again what a beneficial service this small Federal agency makes in the lives of Americans with lofty goals and high-flying dreams. I am so proud of this young man--proud that he dreamed his dream, then made it a reality. But what really endears me to him is the way he ties his own economic well-being to that of his home-town. On every mailing, logo, brochure and marketing tool, he prints the words ``Rochester Made Means Quality Made,'' along with archival prints of our city and High Falls. That slogan might just as well describe Aaron Zack Phillips, the SBA Young Entrepreneur of the Year.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a delightfully artistic five-year-old of Rochester, New York. Lata' Brione Foster has been selected, out of 83,000 entries, to win the Grand Award in the 58th Annual Traffic Safety Poster Contest sponsored by AAA. The poster contest encourages students from Kindergarten through High School to create a poster concept that encourages correct behavior in pedestrian, bicycle, and driving techniques. The program promotes creativity and teaches students the importance of traffic safety. Miss Foster's poster will be used in the association's national safety campaign for the next year. The first kindergartner from Western New York to win a Grand Award, Lata' will receive a $500 savings bond from AAA. Lata' is also being honored in Washington, DC on May 3rd through 7th for Traffic Safety Week. She had the pleasure of being the Grand Marshall in the annual Safety Patrol Parade down Constitution Avenue on May 4th. On behalf of the 28th district of New York, I congratulate Lata' Brione Foster for her hard work on such an innovative piece of art. Lata' has received a wonderful accolade and we all truly wish her many more in the future. I am sure that this is not the last time we will hear of young Lata' doing magnificent things.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize an outstanding constituent: Paula Barton, Goodwill Industries International's 2002 Graduate of the Year. Ms. Barton is a team leader at ADT Security Service's Rochester Dispatch Center, where she supervises fifteen people and schedules installations and service for technicians. But Ms. Barton is not simply a capable and competent worker and supervisor. She does this outstanding job in the face of daunting challenges. Ms. Barton, who is now 27, was born with cerebral palsy, diabetes, and a learning disability, as well as a disorder that causes progressive vision impairment. Diabetes caused her to have to undergo a kidney and pancreas transplant. She persevered through these obstacles to finish her schooling and enter the workplace. Then, five years ago, she was a passenger in an auto accident with a drunk driver. The accident left her paralyzed, without the ability to walk and with only limited use of her hands. Many people would have considered these hurdles to be insurmountable--but not Ms. Barton. She was determined to remain a successful professional. She took each issue in stride, adjusting her lifestyle and habits. She now rises around 5:00 am to be ready for work on time. Her employer, ADT, has provided modest accommodations at work, including a special desk to fit her wheelchair and a large computer screen. Her service dog, Sheba, assists her with various tasks. And she continues to win accolades for her work at ADT. Based on her extraordinary accomplishments, Ms. Barton was selected from among thousands of individuals nationwide to be Goodwill Industries International's 2002 Graduate of the Year. She met President Bush on Monday and took the opportunity to impress upon him the importance of helping persons with disabilities be active, contributing members of the workforce. I am deeply proud to represent Paula Barton: a successful employee, a delightful individual, and a true inspiration to us all. She serves as a shining example of everything that can be accomplished with an indomitable will to succeed.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my humblest condolences to our Canadian neighbors on the deaths of four Canadian soldiers who died on April 17, 2002. The people of Canada and their Government have offered their stalwart support to our country in the international war against terrorism. We are indebted to the Canadian people and wish to express our deepest gratitude for their efforts. On April 17, four Canadian soldiers from the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group were killed and eight others were wounded in a ``friendly-fire'' incident in southern Afghanistan when they were mistakenly fired upon by American troops. These Canadian soldiers made the supreme sacrifice in defense of liberty and democracy. Americans are deeply grateful for Canada's staunch support and firm commitment to the war against terrorism. The friendship of the Canadian people has helped America through her own dark hours. I hope that our friendship and support will help the people of Canada through this dreadful event. We should do all we can to improve the safety of coalition troops in Afghanistan. I strongly favor the conduct of a thorough and timely investigation to determine how this terrible accident occurred in Afghanistan. Casualties due to friendly fire have been called the ``unfortunate part of war.'' We should do whatever it takes to prevent these tragedies and to eliminate this most unfortunate part of war. Even though war is always unpredictable, Canadians and Americans want to know what the exact circumstances were that led to the deaths of these capable and brave soldiers, so other incidents like this one can be averted in the future. I extend my condolences to the victims' families in Canada, and I express my support to Canadians in this difficult time. I offer my sorrow and sympathy to the Government and people of Canada for this shocking tragedy and truly regret the events that led to the deaths of these fine men.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this motion is in very good hands, and the gentlewoman has done such a good job describing it that I am going to be brief. The DeGette motion instructs conferees to accept the Senate provision to create the independent Violence Against Women Office in the Department of Justice, and to accept the House provisions defining the duties and authority of the Violence Against Women's Office, and I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for accepting this motion. We appreciate that very much. This office has been really important. Since 1995, it has heightened awareness throughout the United States about what happens with domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. This office formulates policy, and administers more than $270 million annually in grants to State governments as well as to local community organizations, trains police and prosecutors and courts to address violence against women. In addition, it assists these organizations with the ability to give the highest quality of services to the victims and full administration of justice. The importance of the Violence Against Women Office cannot be overestimated. In fact, and I think this is very important, a survey conducted by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence reports that domestic violence has dropped 21 percent since the inception of this office, showing that the grants that they have given out have borne fruit. But much more remains to be done. Nearly 25 percent of the women in the United States, that is one-quarter of the women who are the majority in the country, reported that they have been physically or sexually assaulted by a current or former intimate partner at some point in their lifetime. We think that makes it worth $10- to $15 million. The statistics illustrate the importance of that office to the health, safety and the very survival of women in many parts of this country. As has been pointed out, this wonderful resource is not authorized by statute, and as such, is not a permanent part of the anti-violence efforts. We want to pass the bill H.R. 28, the Violence Against Women Office Act, which would make it permanent. I was pleased that the bill was included in the Department of Justice authorization approved by the House last year. It is for this reason we stand today to ask the conferees to agree to the House and Senate-passed language and ensure the Violence Against Women Office is given the permanent status that it desperately needs to address the crisis of violence against women in the coming years. The office's work with grantees on very sensitive issues is vital, and can be best addressed through a separate and independent office and not the more broadly focused Office of Justice Programs. In addition, we want the conferees to adopt the detailed description of the duties of the director of the Violence Against Women's Office, contained in the House-passed Department of Justice authorization bill. It defines several important duties for the director, including serving as a special counsel to the attorney general on the subject of violence against women, and serving as a liaison with the judicial branches of the Federal and State governments on matters relating to violence against women. Ending violence against women and girls is an ongoing struggle, and one of our best tools is the office. It is imperative that it be made permanent, and I urge my colleagues to support the office.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)