Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, had the Kaptur amendment been made in order, I would have supported it. The Kaptur amendment would have required that no less than $125 million of the bill's funds be provided to Ukraine. The bill caps funding to Ukraine at $125 million, 90 percent of which goes to humanitarian aid and non-governmental assistance programs. This represents a $44 million reduction in funding from last year. While I support measures to ensure funding for Ukraine, I also have serious concerns about recent events in Ukraine that have impeded steps toward a fully democratic society. I have been a strong supporter of Ukraine throughout my tenure in Congress. In past years, I have taken a leading role in supporting increased funding for Ukraine. These efforts, along with those of my colleagues, have made Ukraine the third-largest recipient of U.S. aid. But, evidence of political corruption, suppression of the media and instability in the Ukrainian government have called this aid into question. In April, the Communist-dominated Ukrainian parliament voted to dismiss Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko and his government. The ouster of Prime Minister Yushchenko and his cabinet, widely viewed as the most successful govenmnent since Ukraine gained independence in 1991, is likely to slow down reforms at this most crucial time. This vote comes in the midst of the ongoing political crisis sparked by revelations on secretly recorded tapes implicating the involvement of President Leonid Kuchma and high government officials in the case of murdered journalist Heorhiy Gongadze. Most recently, another journalist, Ihor Oleksandrov, who sought to expose corruption and organized crime was brutally murdered by four men with clubs. The State Department Annual Human Rights Country Report on Ukraine cites a mixed human rights record and notes the failure to curb institutional corruption and abuse in the Ukrainian government. One starling example of government corruption that has come to my attention is the case of U.S. investment fund, New Century Holdings. This investment company has been repeatedly thwarted in its efforts to develop a hotel it owns along with the City of Kiev. Despite owning a controlling interest in the hotel, New Century Holdings has been prevented access to the hotel, as local police have taken over the building for themselves. New Century Holdings has appealed to the Mayor and other local officials to no avail, and the Ukrainian government has been unable or unwilling to help. Meanwhile, the hotel remains undeveloped and the company's investment in Ukraine remains unrealized. I value the strong relationship between the United States and Ukraine. However, Ukraine will never be a full partner of the United States, unless it fully embraces democracy and human rights. Ukraine has made significant progress in the ten years since it became independent, but pervasive corruption, lack of media freedoms, and the conduct of the investigation of the Gongadze case call into question Ukraine's commitment to being a fully democratic nation and hold Ukraine back from reaching its immense potential. It is my hope that the debate on this amendment will send a positive message to the government of Ukraine, that the U.S. Congress will not simply rubber stamp funding requests for the Ukraine, without also considering the serious issues involved in Ukraine's democratic development. I am prepared to continue to work with Ukraine to determine how Congress can best assist them in staying on the road toward democracy and a free-market economy. With this in mind, this fall the Congress-Rada Parliamentary Exchange Group will convene for the first time here in Washington. I urge all Members concerned about the evident setbacks in Ukraine, to take advantage of this opportunity to meet with our Ukrainian counterparts to share views on how both our countries can work to continue Ukraine on its path toward a fully democratic society.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 2215, the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, which includes a provisions to statutorily create a permanent Violence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice. Curently, the Violence Against Women Office is responsible for coordinating the training of judges, law enforcement and prosecutors in responding to victims of domestic violence, stalking and assault. Among other responsibilities, it works with states and localities to provide a coordinated community response to domestic violence and establishes public education initiatives to heighten national awareness of domestic violence as a crime. Unfortunately, the office only exists by administrative order and could be abolished at any time. As we begin a new century, violence against women remains a national problem. At present, approximately 4.9 million domestic physical assaults take place against women annually in the United States. There are also 1.1 million protective or restraining orders obtained by victims of intimate partner rape, physical assault, and stalking annually. And finally, $22.3 billion in criminal and legal costs are incurred by domestic violence victims each year. In response to these statistics, I introduced H.R. 28, the Violence Against Women Office Act, which would establish the Office permanently in statute. I am proud to report that the bill currently has 148 cosponsors. With overwhelming bipartisan support, this language was included as an amendment to H.R. 2215 by the members of the House Judiciary Committee. Establishing the Violence Against Women Office permanently within the Department of Justice responds to the growing problem of domestic violence and ensures the continued coordination of support, education, and assistance initiatives from the national to the community level. As the members of House Judiciary Committee have recognized by including the language of H.R. 28 as an amendment to this bill, the need for a permanent Violence against Women Office is strong. Moreover, without the security of a statute, the continuation of the Office's important work is threatened. Today, we have the opportunity to change that. Domestic violence is nothing less than an epidemic and must be attacked with all the resources we would bring to bear against a deadly disease. I therefore urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2215, which includes a provision to establish the Violence Against Women Office permanently in statute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my colleague's amendment, prohibiting the use of government funds to oppose civil actions brought by U.S. veterans who were victims of Japanese forced or slave labor during World War II. It is our responsibility to ensure that these veterans who served in the Pacific Theater and then were victimized as prisoners of war in Japan can pursue justice. Many of these soldiers survived the Bataan Death March which required them to march over 60 miles with little or no food or water. Hundreds of U.S. soldiers died of dehydration, starvation, and worse on this march. When they arrived in Japan, the American prisoners of war were turned over to private Japanese companies to serve as slave laborers. Thousands of soldiers perished laboring for these private companies. These American prisoners of war have been seeking an apology and adequate compensation from the Japanese companies for the hard labor and atrocities they were forced to endure during their time in the slave labor camps. I was appalled to learn that the U.S. Government has opposed the veterans' efforts to recover compensation from the Japanese companies, instead of helping them resolve their claims. This is especially tragic given the U.S.-German agreement signed on July 17, 2000, that established the German Foundation, ``Remembrance, Responsibility and the Future,'' which is charged with resolving similar claims by civilian slave laborers against German companies. Last month, these long-awaited compensation payments went out to some 10,000 Holocaust survivors who performed slave and forced labor. Our veterans should not be denied their day in court. It would be unconscionable for our veterans, who fought for their country and performed slave labor under the most brutal of conditions, to be further denied their right to pursue the apology and compensation they have long deserved. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment calling attention to this egregious situation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained due to emergency dental work during rollcall vote No. 207. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 207.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Brown- Slaughter amendment. This amendment would set aside $5 million in the FDA's budget for the purpose of implementing FDA's portion of the public health action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. As a former microbiologist with a master's degree in public health, I am profoundly concerned over the rising number of infections that do not respond to the majority of antibiotics in our medical arsenal. In my judgment, the resistance of bacterial infections to antibiotics represents a major public health crisis in the Nation today. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in some parts of the country more than 40 percent of streptococcus pneumonae infections are highly resistant to penicillin. Moreover, approximately 70 percent of the bacterial infections acquired in a hospital setting are resistant to at least one antimicrobial drug. As long ago as 1997, at least one strain of staphylococcus developed resistance against the last and strongest antibiotic available: vancomycin. These facts have a real impact on patients. According to the WHO, 1 American dies every 38 minutes because of a drug-resistant infection. When first-line drugs against these infections are not effective, patients are sicker for longer periods of time. In the case of patients with suppressed immune systems, or those recovering from surgery or injury, a delay in effective treatment of infection can be fatal. Children are particularly susceptible. In 1999, the CDC reported that four otherwise healthy children had died of drug-resistant staphylococcus aureus infections. If we fail to slow the rise of resistance to these infections, we could find ourselves returning to a day when common infections like tuberculosis and salmonella could become untreatable, and potentially fatal. A wide range of factors are contributing to the rise of resistance of antimicrobial agents. They include the overprescription of antibiotics, viral infections which do not respond to antibiotics; the misuse of antibiotics, such as the use of a newer, broad-range antibiotic when a less recent version would be equally effective; and the decline in simple sanitation measures, like effective hand-washing. The various agencies responsible for the many aspects of the antimicrobial resistance issue have come together and issued a comprehensive plan of attack against this problem. ``A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance'' was developed in partnership by the FDA, the CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, with input and assistance from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, the Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Health Care Financing Administration, and the Health Resources and Services Administration. This was an exhaustive and overarching effort to show the advance of antimicrobial resistance. As one of the lead agencies in developing this plan, the FDA has a crucial role to play in its implementation. The Brown-Slaughter amendment would set aside $5 million for the FDA to begin to stem the rising tide of antimicrobial resistance. This modest investment has the potential to save untold numbers of lives. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to support the Brown-Slaughter amendment. Antimicrobial resistance is a quiet crisis growing in the United States, and we ignore it at our own risk.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for taking time this evening and for yielding to me. In my judgment, one of the most important aspects of the patient's bill of rights gets the least attention, and it is the potential impact on public health. Now, although most people think of this initiative as one involving individual patients and their access to care, there are major public health implications as well. In our Nation, public health has become something of a forgotten stepchild of the health care system. In other industrialized nations, public health goes hand-in-hand with individual health care: Communicable diseases are reported in a standardized fashion, all children receive vaccinations during their regular checkups, and public health professionals can track the incidence of disorders like cancer based on geography. None of that is true in the United States. In this country, we have created an artificial division between individual health care and public health. Children are supposed to receive immunizations on a certain schedule, but many fail to receive some or all of their shots because they move, switch insurance plans, or lose coverage. Different States track and report different disorders in different ways, and the health of the individual is examined in total isolation from the health of the community. The patient's bill of rights has the potential to address some of these problems. For example, the Ganske-Dingell bill contains a solid proposal giving women direct access to an OB-GYN. This provision can help us attack rates of sexually transmitted diseases by allowing women to go directly to the right doctor without having to waste the time, the effort, and the money of passing through a gatekeeper physician. If we can help women get treatment for sexually transmitted diseases quickly and effectively, we can reduce the rates of transmission. Similarly, the Ganske-Dingell bill has provisions regarding direct access to pediatricians for children. Parents need to be able to get their children to the right doctors as quickly as possible, especially in the cases of communicable diseases, which often can be mistaken for other sicknesses in their early stages and spread like wildfire in settings like day care and schools. If we can prevent the transmission of diseases like these and many others when the patients can get timely care under their insurance plan, we benefit the whole community. Sick people create sick communities. When we delay care, we place numerous other individuals at the risk of illness. A patient's bill of rights would help patients directly to get the care they need. I would like to note that State, local, and Federal governments have a major financial stake in the patient's bill of rights as well. When patients cannot receive timely care under their insurance plan, they often seek care in other places, such as clinics and emergency rooms. And in many cases the cost of their care must be absorbed by the facility, the State assistance plans, and Medicaid. The Federal Government spends tens of millions of dollars each year to fund the so- called disproportionate share hospitals, which treat high numbers of patients lacking coverage. If we could reduce the amount of unreimbursed care in this Nation by even a small fraction, it would make a tremendous difference to many struggling hospitals and facilities, and that in turn would allow those facilities to dedicate more resources to public health goals, like indigent care and outreach. Finally, as a public health professional, I find it deeply troubling that Congress would consider allowing insurance companies to continue practicing medicine without a license. Insurance company bureaucrats have no business inserting themselves into the doctor-patient relationship. Middle managers should not second-guess M.D.'s. If insurers want to practice medicine, then they must be responsible for the consequences when things go wrong, and that means being held liable for medical decisions. I am pleased that our colleagues in the other body are debating a strong, responsible patient's bill of rights. The House majority leadership bill, H.R. 2315, does not pass muster, and I hope that all of my colleagues will pass up this anemic version in favor of a real patient's bill of rights, H.R. 522, the Ganske-Dingell Patients' Bill of Rights.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Interior.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). (Mr. BALLENGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) Ms. McCarthy of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) to increase by $15 million dollars funding for our national arts agencies: the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Institute for Museums and Library Services. These additional funds will enable children, youth, and adults to create, produce, learn from, and enjoy our Nation's arts and humanities. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1, the Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act which we approved in the House by a bipartisan vote authorized numerous structural changes to assure our children would be well read, well educated, and well adjusted. As a former educator, I value all that we did in H.R. 1. But we must do more for our children than structural changes alone. We must also provide opportunities for their creativity to flourish and for them to gain a sense of our Nation's rich culture so that they may be the best leaders for the future. Even more significant, we know that exposure to and participation in the arts reduces youth violence. H.R. 1 also authorized increased funding for arts education. This amendment, using NEA and NEH funds, provides such opportunities for our children. For example, the NET is helping to fund a new project in my district, the Lewis and Clark Centennial Celebration. This project will be inclusive of Native American populations living in the region during this historic period of exploration, and will employ experts from Science City at Kansas City's Union Station to discuss the scientific methods employed by Lewis and Clark to map our frontier. This project will make history come alive through experiential learning and historic representations. NEA also grants help to The Writer's Place to produce the Poets at Large event where critically acclaimed poets from across the United States inspire children and adults to embrace the written word as an art form. NEA funding enables children around the country to explore and appreciate our individual and collective identities as both Americans and global citizens, helping children to nurture their own love of reading, writing poetry, creating song lyrics, and drama. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment to increase support for this funding. This support sends a message that art and music in the classroom and the community expand and enrich our lives and make our Nation a better place.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the previous speaker that we are talking about three-tenths of 1 percent, it does not touch salaries, and it is not very much. It comes out of a cushion inserted in the bill. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to my colleagues who just simply love art but do not want to fund any of it, see how important it would be, I would like to challenge them to go back into their districts and talk to the art programs that are there, see how many of them are seed money from the National Endowment for the Arts and see when those troops come through and buy tickets in their areas, how much that adds to the local economy. Mr. Chairman, if they want to make these programs available to more people in the country then pass this small amount of money, the truck drivers on the long hauls who enjoy the good music at night, then, will be grateful as will the country. The vast majority of Americans approve of this and want it, and I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, these amendments would provide a funding increase to three agencies that most certainly deserve it: the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services. In fiscal year 1996, the arts and humanities sustained massive funding cuts. The budgets of NEA and NEH were slashed by 40 percent. The Congressional Arts Caucus waged a successful battle to save both of them from annihilation, but neither one has fully recovered from the cuts. Last year, we won the first budget increase for the agencies in nearly a decade. The fiscal year 2001 budget contained an additional $7 million for the NEA's Challenge America initiative, as well as increases of $5 million and $2 million for NEH and IMLS respectively. It is time to reaffirm our Nation's commitment to the arts by providing another modest funding increase for NEA, NEH, and IMLS. Supporting the arts is not merely a matter of being high-minded. The arts produce very real benefits for individuals, for communities and for the Nation as a whole, with the greatest positive impact on our children. For example, data from the college entrance exam board shows that students who took 4 years or more of art and music classes outscored their peers on the SAT by more than 80 points in 1995, 1996 and 1997. The arts are an economic boon to communities. More tickets are sold for art performances than all sports events put together and no community is ever required for an art project to build and sustain and subsidize an expensive stadium. Some of our Members in this House have expressed concern that the arts and humanities programs are not funded in their districts. In fact, even though the budget has been depleted, I should state again that NEA regularly reaches between 290 and 300 congressional districts and is providing a wider range of grants thanks to programs like ArtsREACH. Last year, Congress targeted $7 million to the NEA's Challenge America initiative which strengthens NEA activity in the 20 States with the fewest NEA grants. That is very important that we continue. I would like to pay a tribute here to the present chairman of the NEA, Mr. Bill Ivey, who has instituted these and many other programs and is staying on at the NEA to make sure that his successor can have an increase in budget so that he can increase these important program. I also want to recognize the President of the United States, George Bush, who said recently at Ford's Theater that the arts are extremely important to the United States and deserve government support. I thank him for that. Similarly, the National Endowment for the Humanities is playing a crucial role in collecting, preserving, and sharing the Nation's history. Just last year, NEH grants went to projects like restoration of Federal War Department records which had been partially destroyed by fire covering 1784 to 1800; the collection of papers of suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony; an analysis of artifacts from Chickasaw archaeological sites; and many, many more. An increase in their funding would permit this agency to expand its already tremendous impact on the Nation's K to 12 humanities curriculum by offering more seminars for teachers and exploring greater possibilities to use technology in the classroom sorely needed. The Institute of Museum and Library Services oversees America's 8,000 museums and connects schools, libraries, and other institutions with the many wonderful resources within those museums. In its April round of conservation project support grants, they funded proposals ranging from the preservation of sculptures by African American folk artist Felix ``Fox'' Harris in Beaumont, Texas, to a survey of objects important to the local history of Valdez, Alaska. With additional funding, they could expand that reach to many worthy grant applications. The amendments, as I said, would add $10 million to the NEA, $3 million to the NEH, and $2 million to IMLS. It does so by making a minor corresponding reduction in the administrative budgets of the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service. My colleagues may not be aware that the underlying bill includes more than $4 billion for salaries and many billions more for other administrative costs such as travel, contracting and so on. The offset would reduce that budget by less than three-tenths of 1 percent. It is expected that this reduction will be absorbed through savings in travel, in printing, and normal vacancy rates in staffing levels. We have worked extremely hard to find an offset that would be reasonable and responsible. It is my firm belief that this offset should be acceptable to every Member of Congress. When we think about the great civilizations of the past, what comes to mind? The pyramids of Egypt, a spectacular architectural achievement; the sculptures of ancient Rome; the epic poetry of ancient Greece; the cliff art and cave paintings of Native Americans. As opera singer Beverly Sills noted, ``Art is the signature of civilizations.'' Let us reaffirm Congress' commitment to our Nation's artistic and cultural legacy by passing these amendments.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule that I will not oppose. The underlying bill has the support of many from both sides of the aisle and, moreover, the minority was consulted throughout the process of developing this legislation, something all too rare in much of the legislation moving through this body. I strongly commend the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member, for their success in funding of the new Conservation Trust Fund created last year. By including the $1.3 billion authorized for conservation, Congress has kept a promise to expand funding for land acquisition, wildlife protection, and other preservation and conservation programs. My constituents in upstate New York will also be pleased by the committee's inclusion of a $120 million increase for weatherization and State energy programs to insulate homes, schools, and hospitals, money that is sorely needed. But yesterday, the Committee on Rules, in what is becoming an annual act of hubris, failed to allow for restoration of some of the unwise cuts made 6 years ago in funding for the agencies responsible for the country's small but critically important arts and humanities education and preservation efforts. The bill funds the National Endowment for the Arts at $105 million, a level still 40 percent below the 1995 funding level. The National Endowment for the Humanities, NEH, is funded at $120 million, 30 percent below the level of 1995, and these levels fundamentally ignore the successful efforts by both NEA and NEH to broaden the reach of their programs and eliminate controversial programs, the two ``reforms'' that were requested by the majority when they reduced funding in 1995. It is time to recognize the success of these reforms and give these agencies the resources they need to meet this critical need. This is penny-wise and pound-foolish. The National Endowment for the Arts is essential as part of the important link between education and the arts. The economic benefits we receive are enormous compared to our small investment in the NEA. Moreover, the public supports continued funding for the NEA because NEA grants affect every congressional district. The NEA's budget represents less than one-hundredth of one percent of the Federal budget, and returns $3.4 billion annually to the Federal treasury. The arts support at least 1.3 million jobs, and the nonprofit arts industry alone generates $36.8 billion annually in economic activity, a large return for our small investment, not what we usually get. In addition, the arts produce $790 million in local government revenue, and $1.2 billion in State revenue. Members may recall our efforts last year on the floor to increase funding for the arts and humanities. Members voted to increase the funding for the arts, but a few minutes later the vote was essentially overturned when the savings were diverted to another account which came up earlier in the reading of the bill. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules could easily have prevented similar gamesmanship by allowing me to move forward with these amendments under an en bloc procedure. This would have provided Members with an up-or- down vote on arts funding. Instead, I will be compelled to offer offsets and amendments that run the risk of procedural attacks by opponents of the arts and humanities. The minority members of the Committee on Rules, as well as my colleagues and the majority of the American people who support funding for the arts and humanities, deserve far better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.