Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 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 thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, this is a measure that many of us have been worried might not ever see the light of day. As the measure moved through the House, the thoughtful and carefully crafted compromise almost collapsed as extreme measures such as vouchers and block grants became attached. I am pleased to report cooler heads have prevailed in conference. What has emerged is one of the most critical pieces of one of the most important pieces of domestic policy to emerge from the Congress this year. This education bill has the potential to truly make a difference in the lives of our children. Congress, for the first time, has tackled the inexcusable achievement gap between rich and poor students and minority and nonminority students that has plagued our educational system for decades. In addition, for the first time in history we set as Federal law that teachers must be qualified in their subject area within four years. That is a very important step. Moreover, this measure provides funding adequate enough to match our rhetoric. Over $27 billion has been authorized in fiscal year 2002 for Federal elementary and secondary education programs. This is $3.5 billion more than the amount authorized by the House and is well needed. For the first time, Congress is giving teachers the resources for training, support and mentoring that they need to reach the goals. Many of us were concerned that the administration failed to request any significant increase in funding to back up the broad outline of the President's for reform. It is now my understanding that labor HHS appropriations bill which will be considered shortly will provide nearly $4 billion more in funding for all elementary and secondary education programs funded by the Federal Government, nearly a 20 percent increase in appropriations. This is a historic bill because it targets Federal dollars better than ever before to those students who need it most. Moreover, this bill finally fulfills the promise made in 1965 with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The promise to ensure that all children have an opportunity to learn regardless of income, background or ethnic identity. Mr. Speaker, it is really a shame that it has taken us from 1965 to call for a quality and equity in education. Finally, Congress will back up our commitment with a set of unambiguous expectations, time lines and resources and accountability will be a part of it. I am really pleased to support this rule and this bill. 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 today in strong support of the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act. Three months ago, our Nation was the victim of a vicious and unprincipled terrorist attack. Thousands of innocent Americans perished in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. We owe it to the victims, survivors, and their families to ensure that this terrible tragedy cannot be repeated. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act is an important step toward guaranteeing the safety and security of all our citizens. This bill will make major strides in protecting our food supply and our water supply. It will allow the government to track the movement of deadly biological agents and toxins, such an anthrax. And perhaps most importantly, it will significantly upgrade our public health infrastructure to allow for coordination, information sharing, and dissemination of crucial data. I would like to extend my personal gratitude to Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin and Ranking Member John Dingell for including in this package numerous provisions from by bill, H.R. 3106, the Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism Act. I was proud to sponsor this bill along with my colleague from New York, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Significant portions of this legislation were also included in the Senate's bioterrorism package, S. 1756. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act includes portions of H.R. 3106 addressing: The establishment of an advisory committee on children and terrorism; Training for health care personnel to meet the needs of children in the event of a public health emergency; Increased research on issues such as the proper dosages of vaccines and antidotes for children; and The inclusion of pediatric supplies and equipment in the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile Program. These provisions are crucial to ensure that our nation is prepared to care for children in the event of any type of public health emergency. The events of September 11 revealed to us the gaps in our systems for dealing with such an emergency; it is our duty to address those needs before we are called upon to respond again. Mr. Speaker, I fully support the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution condemning the over 500 anthrax hoaxes perpetrated against women's health care providers and abortion clinics since October 14th. This resolution also urges the Administration, local law enforcement, and related government agencies to continue to make their best efforts to bring all those who commit acts of domestic terrorism to justice. Throughout the nearly three decades since the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion in 1973, reproductive health centers and abortion clinics across the United States have been under attack by anti-choice extremists. These are individuals who firmly believe that it is better to murder, harass, and threaten doctors who provide reproductive health services, than to live and act within the confines of the law. One of the most horrific acts of anti-choice violence occurred 3 years ago in Amherst, New York--a town just outside my district. Dr. Barnett Slepian was tragically shot and killed in his home by an anti- choice extremist lying in wait in his back yard. As a result of this cowardly act, our region lost a courageous and talented doctor; his family lost a loving husband and father. Dr. Slepian's death marked the seventh murder at the hands of an anti-choice extremist since 1993. Unfortunately, this type of vicious domestic terrorism remains at large. According to the National Abortion Federation, since 1977, there have been 7 murders, 17 attempted murders, 41 bombings, 165 arsons, 122 assaults, 343 death threats, 100 butyric acid attacks, and now, as of October 14, more than 500 anthrax threats perpetrated against abortion providers in North America. Considering this laundry list of violent acts, it is hard to imagine how some abortion providers can walk into work in the morning. With the help of law enforcement officials and others, I firmly believe we can put an end to the violent acts that threaten some members of our medical community. I am pleased to report that yesterday, December 5, the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested Clayton Lee Waagner, the suspected author of anthrax hoax letters sent to abortion clinics nationwide, in a copy store outside Cincinnati, Ohio. I would like to commend the law enforcement officials who captured Waagner and urge them to launch a similar campaign to apprehend others who have perpetrated similar incidents of violence. In addition to the work of law enforcement officials, however, we must also raise awareness about this type of domestic terrorism. In an effort to accomplish that goal, I am proud to introduce this resolution today. It is the strongest measure to date that condemns the terrorism against health clinics and abortion providers and strongly urges the law enforcement community to take these threats seriously and to pursue these criminals vigorously. This resolution sends an important signal to criminals that the United States Congress will not tolerate this type of domestic terrorism any longer. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Reps. Morella, DeGette, Greenwood and myself, I am proud to introduce this resolution and urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker remaining. How much time do I have?

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. George Miller of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a member of the committee. (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am going to call a vote on the previous question and ask for its defeat; and if it is defeated, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will make in order an amendment by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee which would provide health and unemployment compensation relief to workers who have lost their jobs. Mr. Speaker, nearly 3 months have passed since the tragic events of September 11, and since that time thousands and thousands of workers have lost their jobs, and they need relief. Their unemployment benefits will run out, and they have no health care. We passed an airline bailout the week after the terrorist attacks, and promises were made at that time by the Republican leadership that a worker relief package would follow the following the week. Today, weeks later, we are passing legislation that would provide relief to the insurance industry, still leaving no help for the workers. They desperately need our help, they need it now, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text 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 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 am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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 thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I oppose the hubris it embodies and the process it represents. In what is becoming standard procedure, the House is preparing to move forward with an important bill that is not ready for prime time. No one doubts the critical nature of this bill. The withdrawal of terrorism coverage by reinsurers may force primary insurers to radically increase premiums for policyholders or to withdraw coverage entirely. The consequences could reverberate throughout the entire economy. Virtually nothing could happen in the American economy without insurance, and the vast majority in this body agrees that Congress has a duty to intervene in the reinsurance marketplace to safeguard against a cascading economic crisis. Unfortunately, the leadership in the body has seized upon the crisis in an attempt to circumvent regular order and move forward with tort reform, a wholly extraneous matter. Tort reform does not belong in this bill, nor was it requested by the reinsurance industry representatives during the many discussions leading up to the legislation. Even by the standards that are in place here, this is a heavy-handed attempt to curtail victims' rights. The tort reform provision threatens to derail the principal objective of the legislation, which is to revitalize and reestablish a rational and functional reinsurance market. Yesterday's Committee on Rules hearing on the bill revealed utter confusion among the chairmen and ranking members of the two committees as to what the bill actually contained. The chairmen had not seen the measure, but had a hunch of what might be in it. The ranking members were wholly in the dark. Committee on Rules members were given copies of the comprehensive substitute provisions seconds before the hearing commenced. Something else became apparent at the hearing as well. All the principals involved in the legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley), the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) were firmly convinced of the importance of the legislation and the need to move it forward, and, indeed, all four showed a great willingness to work together with each other to reach a consensus and a good bill which the country sorely needs. They believed that within an additional 24 hours they could have reached that agreement and moved a bill that virtually all of us would have supported. Now, this is the way a deliberate body should operate, and, indeed, was operating as this bill moved expeditiously through the legislative process. But after the Committee on Financial Services carefully crafted a bipartisan measure, the House leadership seized their work product in order to move a controversial measure they know would not survive the scrutiny of the entire Congress. Mr. Speaker, this is not leadership; this is petulance. The American people expect more from their leaders in a time of crisis. We are also being asked to support a rule that blocks any attempt to remedy these extraneous provisions. Indeed, some measures in the committee itself that had passed by a majority vote to improve the bill were not even included as the bill was written. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) both offered amendments for the rule that simply strike the sections of the bill that related to tort reform, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) offered a compromise amendment on tort reform to prohibit the use of Federal assistance to cover punitive damage awards. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) offered an amendment which would have expanded the legislation to cover not only commercial policyholders, but personal policyholders, like our Nation's homeowners who have been grievously hurt in New York City and other parts of the country. Without this extension, homeowners are going to see their premiums rise dramatically. But none of these amendments were made in order. What is the leadership's aversion to regular order? Why the single- minded obsession with sabotaging critical legislation unanimously agreed upon at the committee level? And why the unwillingness to show their handiwork to the scrutiny of their colleagues before a Committee on Rules hearing and floor consideration? Moreover, Mr. Speaker, there are other critical priorities that Congress is ignoring. As we take the time to rush through a measure designed to protect the insurance industry, surely we could utilize that same energy to address the needs of those who have lost their jobs and their health insurance in the wake of September 11. With this in mind, I will be urging defeat of the previous question so that we can adopt a rule to order an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). This amendment would provide relief for unemployed workers in the form of unemployment compensation and the extension of COBRA benefits and Medicaid. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join Representative McGovern in supporting the Access and Openness to Small Business Lending Act. This legislation would permit the collection of demographic information on small business loans. Specifically, it would amend the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to require lending institutions to ask the gender and race of small business loan applicants. The applicant's response would be voluntary. I support the Access and Openness to Small Business Lending Act, since it would provide a powerful vehicle to monitor the lending market for discriminatory practices. Today, there are more than 9 million women-owned businesses, up from 400,000 in 1972. Unfortunately, the main impediment to women entrepreneurs achieving success is obtaining the necessary financing to get their businesses off the ground. According to Business and Professional Women/TJSA, companies owned by women account for 38 percent of businesses in the United States and are also the fastest growing segment of the business sector. However, women-owned businesses receive less than four percent of the $36 billion in venture capital invested each year. A survey by the National Foundation of Women Business Owners and Wells Fargo & Co. indicates that most female entrepreneurs rely on loans and their personal savings to finance their firm's growth. One reason women are not securing funding from venture capital firms, like many others, is that women traditionally start retail stores. The retail industry is the one business sector in which venture capitalists rarely invest. To ensure a transparent loan process and confirm that banks are being even-handed when making loan decisions for women and minorities, we need a bill like the Access and Openness to Small Business Lending Act. I urge my colleagues to also support this legislation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, today, my colleagues from New York and I are on this floor fighting to guarantee that this Congress and the administration fulfill the promise made to us in law. We find ourselves working against an inexplicably stealth campaign by the White House to delay, perhaps indefinitely, the needed aid to our city. In public, the administration officials make statements like, ``An agreement is an agreement is an agreement.'' But in private they have made it known to the House leadership that the President would veto any spending bill with New York's funds in it, forcing the Committee on Appropriations to abandon ongoing bipartisan discussions to craft such an amendment. In public, the President vows that New York will receive everything it was promised; but in private, Vice President Cheney lobbied members of the majority to vote against the efforts to allocate this aid. I am at a complete loss as to why the administration would wage this underground campaign to deny New York the needed funding in its hour of need. If there is a legitimate and reasonable explanation, we would like to hear it. To date, however, we can only guess as to the motivation. Mr. Chairman, New York holds a special place in our Nation's history and culture. It was the first capital of the newly formed United States, the historic gateway for the immigrants who built our country, and home to the Statute of Liberty. It is a cultural mecca, an international financial center, and a beacon of opportunity. New York personifies the spirit of our whole Nation. It is big, bold, modern and ambitious. And that, Mr. Chairman, is why New York City was attacked. As many others have said, New York took the blow, but America was the target. It should be a matter of our national pride not only to help New York recover but to go above and beyond the call of duty to restore this city to health. I find it incomprehensible that some seem to be trying, instead, to do the least amount possible for this devastated and wounded city. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Sweeney-Lowey amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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 thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I rise in opposition to the closed rule. I oppose the process it represents and the indifference it signals for our colleagues on both sides of the aisle with legitimate concern over this bill. No one in this body disputes the importance of U.S. efforts to counter drug production in South America, but the measure before us is simply not ready for floor consideration. In a hastily thrown together Rules hearing this morning, it became apparent that serious, substantive questions remained regarding the impact of this measure on many regions of this country. Our colleagues from California, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa expressed concern over how this measure would impact the domestic processing and fishing industry. They have profound concerns over this measure accelerating job losses in an already unstable economy. My friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), expressed heartfelt reservations over the impact these trade measures have on the region of the country where the textile industry is struggling. I have no doubt that other Members would have similar concerns if they had only been afforded the opportunity to review the underlying bill. Moreover, why is the leadership prioritizing this measure when other, pressing needs affecting our constituents at a time of war are never allowed to see the light of day? I do not mean to disparage our friends to the south, but ensuring the duty-free treatment of 6,000 products from the Andean countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru surely should not take precedence over legislation impacting our homeland security and measures to help those who have lost jobs and loved ones in the wake of September 11. Finally, the leadership missed a golden opportunity with this measure to rebuild the bipartisanship that previously existed on trade matters. Had the chairman worked on a bipartisan basis with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means, I have no doubt that the measure would enjoy broader support both in the Committee on Ways and Means and on the floor. That bipartisanship enabled measures like the African free trade bill to move forward last year and would have been welcomed by proponents of fair trade on both sides of the aisle. This process does not bode well for fast track advocates who are hoping to craft an agreement to move forward in the days ahead. Mr. Speaker, Members are fully aware that the Andean nations are struggling to combat the problems of illegal drugs, and while their economy is falling into recession and their governments confront civil unrest, the concerns of our colleagues certainly would have been better taken into account so this measure could move forward with less controversy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.