Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). (Ms. LOFGREN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, does it trouble him that with all of the difficulty he is having trying to explain what this is about, that our colleagues are going to be coming down here pretty soon and voting on it, and it will affect everybody in the United States.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is frightening.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. We are not talking about reproductive cloning.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just comment, it was said a while ago that all the amendments that were brought up on this piece of legislation were allowed. Three were rejected by the Committee on Rules. One was by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), which made sure that this did not have anything to do with in vitro fertilization that was not allowed. Two were by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), which would have also protected the rights of human beings. I want to say to all my colleagues, because all of us have said it over and over again, that we are all opposed to the cloning of human beings. I believe this House is already on record having said that. But a lot of us believe that science is important, that taking care of the human beings who live here, to provide better health, a chance to live, a hope that paraplegics will walk, that diabetes will be done away with, that cancer can be found a cure for, all the promises that stem cells hold. I want to say the same thing that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) said. I recall the first debate when the first organ transplants took place, that that perhaps is not God's will. Maybe God expects us to help ourselves and to take advantage of the things he has given us here on Earth, to learn to do better and to do better for our fellow human beings. Underlying all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that this House is in no way ready to debate this measure. There simply is not enough knowledge on either side. People are not clear on what is happening here. I am absolutely certain, as are many Members in this House, that this does away with stem cell research despite the fact that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) believes it does not. There are far too many of us that believe that it does. There are far too many questions left unanswered. The underlying case is, is the United States going to turn its back on science, and let other countries do it and then prohibit, with this legislation, the ability for us to even take advantage of breakthroughs, if they occur in another country, because we cannot import the cure? What a terrible thought that must be for people out there who are waiting on a daily basis for something wonderful to happen to save the life of someone who means the world to them, for people who sit by a child's bedside and for people who pray every day for some deliverance from some awful scourge. I think they expect from us to know what we are doing here today. I urge with all my heart a no vote on this rule to give us time in this House to really understand what we are doing because of the far- reaching implications of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes Nos. 286, 287, 288, and 289, amendments to H.R. 2620, a bill making appropriations for the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies for Fiscal Year 2002. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes Nos. 286, 287, 288 and 289.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this martial-law rule. I oppose the process that it represents where the Committee on Rules meets in the midnight hour rather than opening its deliberations in the daytime. The hearing for this measure was held yesterday afternoon at 3 p.m. We have had more than adequate time to prepare the rule. I am at a loss to explain why we are once again preparing to circumvent the rules of the body and ram this controversial measure, martial law, down the throats of our colleagues. What aversion does this leadership have to regular order? The ``martial-law measure'' we are considering is an extremely heavy- handed process and, under the Rules of the House, a two-thirds vote is required to consider a rule on the same day that the Committee on Rules reports it. But martial-law procedures allow us to bring a rule to be considered on the same day it is reported with a majority, rather than two-thirds vote. Frankly, this process is baffling to many of us. For the first time in years, we are using this heavy-handed procedure on an appropriations bill, making its initial pass through the House. If anyone could explain the real reason why we find ourselves in this position, I look forward to hearing it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on martial law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have strong concerns about the rule and the process it represents. As I stated earlier, the Committee on Rules and the current leadership are developing a compulsive aversion to regular order. In what has become standard operating procedure, the Committee on Rules emerged only moments ago to consider what should be a noncontroversial open rule on an appropriations bill making its initial pass through this Chamber. The underlying bill is too important for this country to be treated so cavalierly. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) deserve rich praise for their work, particularly in adding funds to the President's anemic budget for science. The President's budget requested a meager 1.2 percent increase for the National Science Foundation, barely half the amount necessary to cover inflation. The Committee wisely added $368 million to the President's request, an amount which will allow on-going research in basic physics, chemistry, mathematics and engineering. I was particularly pleased and gratified to see the inclusion of $8 million for a proposed Infotonics Center of Excellence in my district of Rochester, New York. This project will utilize my region's established expertise in optics, the science of light, that is critical to the future economic success of New York State. This will be a cooperative research and development facility where academic researchers, industry leaders such as Kodak, Xerox and Corning, and small companies can pool their resources and expertise. With this funding, we can begin to bridge the gap between basic research and product manufacturing focusing in optics, fiberoptics and the emerging field of photonics, transmitting data by light. I also want to thank the chairman for the increase in funding for HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control funding. I was pleased that 50 of my colleagues signed my letter requesting this increase, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Committee as this funding works its way through the appropriations process. Many older houses and apartments still contain lead-based paint. Research shows that children with elevated blood lead levels are seven times more likely to drop out of school and twice as likely to fall behind their peers in language acquisition. In my district of Rochester, New York, 37 percent of the children tested have more lead in their blood than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say is safe. This increased funding will be a critical step in addressing this problem. Many Members on this side of the aisle have expressed concern over veterans medical care and public housing programs that serve the country's most vulnerable citizens and families. Unfortunately, an inadequate overall allocation has forced the majority to rely on budgetary gimmicks to stay within the subcommittee's budget ceiling. These gimmicks include almost $1 billion of delayed obligations and ``pretend'' budget allocations such as the recommendation to eliminate funding for the Corporation for National and Community Service, a recommendation which the chairman announced prior to reporting the bill that he intends to reverse in conference. These problems will cause the VA-HUD bill to be the first of the seven appropriations bills reported by the Committee that may not share broad bipartisan support. Mr. Speaker, this country has the resources to care for its veterans and to provide adequate housing for the poor, the elderly and the disabled. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding me the customary half hour and 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). (Mr. McDermott asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith- Morella-Slaughter-Lantos-Pitts amendment, to dedicate a total of $30 million of the bill's funds to protect and assist victims of trafficking in persons and help countries meet minimum standards for the elimination of human trafficking. I was proud to be a lead cosponsor of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, Rep. Smith's bill to monitor and eliminate human trafficking here in the U.S. and abroad. After an arduous six year struggle to address the problem of sex trafficking with my own legislation, last October I was pleased to see this bill pass with strong bipartisan support. In June 1994, I first introduced legislation addressing the growing problem of Burmese women and children being sold to work in the thriving sex industry in Thailand. This legislation responded to credible reports indicating that thousands of Burmese women and girls were being trafficked into Thailand with false promises of good payinng jobs in restaurants or factories, and then forced to work in brothels under slavery-like conditions. As I learned more and more about this issue it became abundantly clear that this issue was not limited to one particular region of the world. In addition, I found that human trafficking was not exclusively a crime of sexual exploitation. Taken independently, sex trafficking is an egregious practice in and of itself. It is also important, however, to be aware that people are being illegally smuggled across borders to work in sweatshops, domestic servitude, or other slaverylike conditions. I was pleased to see that the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act recognized the full magnitude of human trafficking and included provisions that effectively seek to address human trafficking. The Act set forth policies not only to monitor, but to eliminate trafficking here in the U.S. and abroad. More importantly, it does so in a way that punishes the true perpetrators, the traffickers themselves, while at the same time taking the necessary steps to protect the victims of these heinous crimes. It uses our nation's considerable influence throughout the world to put pressure on other nations to adopt policies that will hopefully lead to an end to this abhorrent practice. In the wake of the passage of the Act, however, there is still a great deal of work to be done. According to the recently issued 2001 Trafficking in Persons Report by the State Department, 23 countries are listed in ``Tier 3''--signifying that they do not satisfy the law's minimum standards to combat trafficking and are not making significant efforts to bring themselves into compliance. It is my hope that this report will serve as a catalyst for reinvigorated international efforts to end human trafficking. We must continue to work expeditiously to implement the provisions of the Act, that provide tough new penalties for persons convicted of trafficking in the United States. Beginning in 2003, those countries that are listed in ``Tier 3'' may be denied non-humanitarian assistance from the United States, barring a Presidential waiver. As a result, the U.S. is now in a position to put pressure on other nations to adopt policies that will eradicate human trafficking practices inside and between their borders. We are also in a position to prosecute and punish the traffickers themselves and thereby put an end to coordinated kidnaping and exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to ensure funding for efforts to assist victims of human trafficking, and aid countries in eliminating this egregious criminal activity.