Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this past week we observed the Holocaust Days of Remembrance and our nation's annual commemoration in the Capitol Rotunda of the victims of the Holocaust. This year marks the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the genocide of the European Jews. This year's theme, ``Remembering the Past for the Sake of the Future,'' is part of a vow that we have taken never to forget the Holocaust, lest history repeat itself. This message must resonate through the years. Our children and our children's children must learn of the Holocaust to ensure that it will never happen again. We must also not forget that Holocaust survivors continue to wait for the reparations they deserve for the physical pain and mental suffering they endured so many years ago. Time is running out for Germany to provide a measure of justice to the survivors of the Holocaust, most of whom are now in their 70's or 80's. I have stood with Holocaust survivors in the Capitol Rotunda filled with the saddest and most tragic of memories from their lives, lives like that of my constituent, Mr. Alec Mutz. Two years ago, I was privileged to light a memorial candle with Mr. Mutz, who survived three ghettos and five concentration camps. Mr. Mutz is just one of an estimated 50,000 Jewish survivors in North America who were Nazi-era slave laborers. During the last Congress, I introduced H.R. 271, the Justice for Holocaust Survivors Act, a bill to allow survivors like Mr. Mutz to pursue just reparations from Germany for the unspeakable suffering they endured during the Holocaust. H.R. 271, which garnered the support of 96 bipartisan co-sponsors, would have enabled Holocaust survivors who have been denied reparations by the German government to sue the German government in United States federal courts to claim restitution. On March 30, 2000, I was informed by the Administration that the German government had agreed to double its compensation package to the victims of slave labor camps from 5 billion to 10 billion Deutsche marks (DM), or the equivalent of 5 billion U.S. dollars. I was also informed that H.R. 271 served as a catalyst in the talks between the U.S. and Germany to reach a compensation agreement. On July 17, 2000, the United States and Germany signed an agreement to establish a German Foundation, ``Remembrance, Responsibility, and the Future,'' to be the exclusive forum for the resolution of all Holocaust-era personal injury, property loss, and damage claims against German banks, insurers, and companies. In return, the U.S. government promised that the Department of Justice would urge the courts to reject all existing and future lawsuits against German companies However, nine months after the agreement, not one Deutsche mark has been paid to the victims and last month, a federal judge in New York refused to dismiss a batch of lawsuits, questioning whether the money would be there to pay the claims. That is why in the coming weeks I plan to introduce legislation to increase oversight of the Foundation, interpret the U.S.-German Agreement more clearly, and expand communication between the Administration and Congress about the status of the Foundation. Mr. Speaker, as we act to remember the Holocaust with the commemoration of the Days of Remembrance, let us also act to give these courageous survivors a beacon of hope for the Just resolution of the wrongs that they have suffered. I urge my colleagues to take notice of the current failure of the U.S.-German Agreement and join me in calling for a resolution to the problems with the claims process before it is too late to grant justice to our aging Holocaust survivors. Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC, April 24, 2001. Statement of Administration Policy H.R. 503--Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2001 The Administration supports protection for unborn children and therefore supports House passage of H.R. 503. The legislation would make it a separate Federal offense to cause death or bodily injury to a child, who is in utero, in the course of committing any one of 68 Federal offenses. The bill also would make substantially identical amendments to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Administration would strongly oppose any amendment to H.R. 503, such as a so- called ``One-Victim'' Substitute, which would define the bill's crimes as having only one victim--the pregnant woman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce the Eliminate Colorectal Cancer Act, a bill that can save the lives of thousands of people who might otherwise succumb to a type of cancer that could be prevented. This legislation seeks to address the lack of coverage for colorectal cancer screening by all health insurers. I am proud to introduce this bill along with my distinguished colleagues, Senator Edward Kennedy and Representative Connie Morella, as well as colorectal cancer survivors and groups dedicated to the effort of preventing this disease. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. for men and women combined. An estimated 56,700 people will die from colorectal cancer this year and I in 17 people will be diagnosed with colorectal cancer in their lifetime. This is an unspeakable tragedy because colorectal cancer is preventable, treatable, and curable when detected at an early stage. When colorectal cancer is detected before it has spread, the five year survival rate is over 91 percent. Further, colorectal cancer is just about the only cancer we know how to prevent. If polyps are discovered in the colon, they can be removed before they become cancerous and the cancer will never develop. And yet tens of thousands of Americans continue to die from this disease, mostly because their cancer is detected at a later, less treatable stage. No one should die of colorectal cancer. This cancer is preventable and detectable. It is slowgrowing and easy to stop in its tracks. The fact that over 56,000 Americans die of this disease is nothing more than a massive failure of our preventive health system. We need to do more to educate Americans about the ways they can avoid this deadly disease. Too many misconceptions persist about colorectal cancer. For example, many women consider colorectal cancer a man's disease, but it is an equal opportunity killer. In fact, the American Cancer Society estimates that more women than men will die of colorectal cancer this year. Federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, the National Cancer Institute and Department of Health and Human Services have worked together to develop a nationwide colon cancer awareness and education program. Grassroots efforts by individuals like as Kevin Richardson of the Backstreet Boys are also critical to improving public health and awareness. Today we continue our efforts to combat colorectal cancer. Too many people are failing to have regular colorectal cancer tests because their insurers will not pay for a screening exam in the absence of symptoms. What makes colorectal cancer so insidious is that there are often no symptoms until the cancer is widespread. Our legislation will require insurers to cover a regular colorectal cancer screening exam. Doctors and patients will be able to decide together the appropriate screening method and frequency of testing. For many Americans, denial of insurance coverage equals denial of care. They simply cannot afford to pay for these tests out-of-pocket when they are already paying thousands of dollars per year for insurance. A colonoscopy costs around $1000 per test. Our bill makes sense for both consumers and insurance companies. Colorectal cancer screening is cost-effective, considering that treatment for a patient with an advanced form of cancer can easily be $40,000 or more. In fact, many insurers do cover colorectal cancer screening. But in order to make a meaningful impact and save lives, all insurers should give their enrollees access to this vital form of screening. Here in the House of Representatives we have already have the support of 48 original cosponsors. The bill would require all insurance plans to cover colorectal cancer screening in accordance with recognized guidelines, such as those issued by the American Cancer Society. I am proud to be a part of this effort to ensure that all Americans can get tested for colorectal cancer. I look forward to working with everyone here to pass our legislation as soon as possible.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on a growing problem, the credit card debt among our college students. Along with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), I have introduced a bipartisan College Student Credit Card Protection Act. This legislation requires credit card companies to determine whether a student applicant can afford to pay off a credit card balance before approving the application. It looks into the amount of money the student will be making and limits the credit to a percentage of that amount. In the event that parents are obliged to pay off the credit card debt, no increase on the amount of credit card debt can be approved without the parents' consent. Now, what does it take for a college student to get a credit card? Well, it turns out the credit card companies are just itching to give them away by the lure of free T-shirts and mugs with little scrutiny of the student's ability to pay their debts. As a result, a lot of college students end up taking a crash course in debt management. Credit card issuers are raining down solicitations on college students and households. Mr. Speaker, in just 1 month, just 1 month, the six members of my staff were sent this many credit card solicitations that will fill this laundry basket. Let me repeat, this is just 1 month for six staff members of the House of Representatives. Now, sadly, one of my constituents wrote to me that her stepson had to file for bankruptcy at the age of 21 because he was $30,000 in debt; and she spoke to the bank officer, and the bank officer told my constituent that her own college-age daughter was in the same situation, but her parents were trying to help her out of the mess to avoid hurting her credit rating and thus her future financial opportunities. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) told us about the 3-year- old in my district who got a platinum credit card for $5,000. We also even had a cat named Bud who also lives in Rochester where they really seem to be easy to get, and that cat got a preapproved card. Now, what about the students whose parents cannot bail them out? Unfortunately, that is not uncommon. The number of bankruptcies among individuals under the age of 25 had nearly quadrupled in the past 5 years. John Simpson, an Indiana University administrator, said, ``Credit cards are a terrible thing. We lose more students to credit card debt than to academic failure.'' ``60 Minutes,'' too, recently reported that, in 1999, a record 100,000 persons under the age of 25 filed for bankruptcy. Nellie Mae, the Nation's largest student loan agency recently found that student credit card debt rose to a national average of more than $2,700, up from an average of under $1,900 in 1998, a nearly $1,000 increase. In addition, nearly one in every 10 undergraduates has credit card debt greater than $7,000. This is an even bigger problem if one calculates the amount of time it will take the young borrower to pay off this debt. A student using a card with an 18 percent annual percentage rate who makes a minimum monthly payment of $75 will be paying off that credit card balance of $2,700 over 15 years, paying as much interest on the balance as he or she originally borrowed. The Daily Texan, a newspaper of the University of Texas, recently reported that the university's legal services office sees students who are struggling with debt at the rate of one every 2 weeks. The university counselor said ``the highest voluntary credit debt I have seen was $45,000. Most students who come in with major problems are the ones whose debts range from $8,000 to $15,000.'' That is the common range of debt for a college student in Texas. In addition, the nonprofit Consumer Education Center in Austin, Texas, helps about a half dozen students every week to try to deal with credit problems. But let me be clear, the problem is certainly not specific to Texas. As I pointed out, in Indiana, more students leave college because of debt than because of academics. This is the story on every college campus. Leslie Starkey, the niece of one of my staffers, was a young successful advertising executive in New York City, but she had been burdened by thousands of dollars of credit card debt since college. It was not very long after Leslie had pulled herself out of this crushing debt with the help of a credit card counselor that she was killed in a tragic fall. She was 28 years old and had lived only a short time with the joy of being debt free. We owe it to Leslie and other young people who have committed suicide because they could not meet their credit card debt obligations to enact this legislation so that they will not be spending what is the best time of their lives under the burden of enormous credit card debt. Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that the bankruptcy laws that recently passed this House will do nothing to help these young people.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Should Members expect to be here voting on Friday?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have asked for this time to inquire about next week's schedule, and I wish to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if I may inquire of the gentleman, the tax bill is expected to be on the floor on Tuesday?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. On Thursday?

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do not intend to object, I would like to ask a question. It is my understanding that the first hour of the 3 hours of general debate will begin at 5 p.m. on Tuesday. The remaining 2 hours will be resumed after the vote or votes that begin at 6 p.m. on Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to confirm that this is the intent of the majority.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and the underlying bill. It is noncontroversial. Concerns that were raised during consideration of the measure regarding civil penalties during the last Congress have been addressed. The business community has often voiced concern about the burden of government regulations and the resulting paperwork. In response to this concern, Congress has passed paperwork reduction legislation such as the Paperwork Reduction Act, PRA, and the Small Business Reporting Enforcement Fairness Act. Moreover, the last administration streamlined regulations by reinventing government and implementing many of the recommendations made by the White House Conference on Small Businesses. The measure before us today, H.R. 327, continues this effort to reduce unnecessary paperwork for small businesses. There are a number of provisions in H.R. 327 to address streamlining paperwork that bear mentioning. They require agencies to publish annually paperwork requirements on small businesses, to establish a small business liaison, to make efforts to reduce further the paperwork burden on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees, and to establish a task force to study the feasibility of streamlining paperwork requirements. Again, I know of no opposition to this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the state of public health in America. Although we know more about health hazards and the importance of a healthy life-style today than we did 25 years ago, our health is actually getting worse in many respects. Chronic diseases account for three out of four deaths in the United States annually; and 100 million Americans, more than a third of the population, suffer from some sort of chronic disease. Chronic conditions are on the rise. The rate of learning disabilities rose 50 percent in this last decade. Endocrine and metabolic diseases such as diabetes and neurologic diseases such as migraine headaches and multiple sclerosis increased 20 percent between 1986 and 1995. The rising incidence of disease can be attributed partly to the environment. This means not only air pollution and the rising CO2 levels, which affect the quality of the air we breath, but factors such as industrial chemicals and plasticizers, increased exposure to low-dose radiation from sources that range from toasters to aircrafts, certain medications which affect the hormone production, and especially a person's life-style, including the diet, tobacco and alcohol use. Mr. Speaker, I was proud recently to introduce the Women's Health Environmental Research Centers Act, a bill that enhances scientific research in women's health. There has been a lack of initiatives to especially look at women's health in connection with the environment. Women may be at a greater risk for disease associated to environmental exposures due to several factors, including body fat and size, a slower metabolism of toxic substances, hormone levels, and, for many, more exposure for household cleaning reagents. Over the past decade, evidence has accumulated linking effects of the environment on women and reproductive health, cancer, injury, asthma, autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis, birth defects, Parkinson's, mental retardation and lead poisoning. Lead and other heavy metals found in the environment have been implicated in increased bone loss and osteoporosis in post- menopausal women. In one interesting study in New York, researchers found that women carrying a mutant form of a breast cancer gene are at higher risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer if they were born after 1940, as compared to women with the same mutant genes before 1940. This suggests that environmental factors are affecting the rates of incidence. The interaction between environmental factors and one's genes also affect the susceptibility to disease. This will be a major area of research now that the Human Genome Project has been completed and new disease-related genes are being found at a rapid pace. The evidence is clear and accumulating daily that the by-products of our technology are linked to illness and disease and that women are especially susceptible to these environmental health-related problems. We need health research programs that are specifically targeted towards women's health. The passage of the Women's Health Environmental Research Centers Act will be a crucial step toward establishing the valuable and needed basic research on the interactions between women's health and environment. The second initiative needed is to increase awareness and access for Americans to preventive screening tests for diseases such as cancer. Screening will save thousands of lives if it is detected at its earliest and most treatable stage. I will soon introduce, along with the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act. Often colorectal cancer does not present any symptoms at all until late in the disease's progression. When discovered through screening tests, benign polyps can be removed, preventing colorectal cancer from ever occurring. But, unfortunately, fewer than 40 percent of colorectal cancer patients have ever their cancer diagnosed early. Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States for men and women combined. An estimated 56,700 people will die from colorectal cancer this year; and 135,400 new cases will be diagnosed. These newly diagnosed cases that will be divided nearly evenly among men and women are particularly tragic because they could be prevented. Medicare began covering colorectal cancer screening in 1998, and many insurers now cover them also. However, all insurers must give enrollees access to this life-saving benefit, similar to what has been done for mammography screening. Finally, I would like to mention that Congress has asked the Centers for Disease Control to develop a nationwide tracking network so we can begin to draw the critical link between disease and environmental toxins, genetic susceptibility and life-style. The Women's Caucus followed up with a letter to the CDC director, Jeffrey Koplan, to reiterate our interest in this important initiative. Although we do not have cures for the most devastating disease that affects women, we can minimize our chances of developing them or at least prolong the years that we are healthy by the understanding of the risk factors, both environmental and genetic, as well as taking control of our health by having preventive screening tests before it is too late. As a public servant and a scientist, I believe that one of the most important concerns of Congress should be to help to promote America's public health. Congress should commit itself to provide all Americans access to medical technologies that save lives, and Congress must provide continued funding for scientific research across all disciplines.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 26 and 27. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both votes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offered with my colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Conyers), an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have specified that creditors would not be able to collect the money owed them by a debtor, if that action would prevent the debtor from making family payments, like alimony and child support. Our amendment was not made in order. However, that does not mean I will remain silent on this issue. In 1994, I introduced the Spousal Equity in Bankruptcy Amendments to give priority to child and spousal support payments in bankruptcy proceedings, so that debtors' obligations to their children could not be discharged. That legislation became law as part of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994. Due to these and other child support enforcement reforms, child support collections have increased by 123 percent since 1992. But we have further to go, as American children in fiscal year 1999 were still owed $76.9 billion in child support. The supporters of this bill argue that since the bill creates a new priority in bankruptcy proceedings for child support and alimony payments, it provides far greater protections from bankruptcy for such payments than current law. They are wrong. Do not just take my word for it. Twenty women's and children's organizations and more than 100 professors of bankruptcy and commercial law have expressed their grave concerns about some of the provisions of the bankruptcy reform bill, particularly the effects of the bill on women and children. This bill forces women and children as creditors to compete with powerful creditors, such as credit card issuers, to collect their claims after bankruptcy. In other words, the bill divides the pie into more pieces, leaving less for women and children who are owed child support and alimony. I urge all my colleagues to oppose H.R. 333 for this reason.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, although nearly 95 percent of Alaska's North Slope is available for drilling, international petroleum companies are still pushing Congress to open the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas exploration and development. I am pleased to join my colleagues Representative Markey and Representative Nancy Johnson as we continue efforts to permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. My constituents in Rochester, New York are hurting due to the high energy prices. But opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development is not the answer. Forget for the moment that this area is the heart of a refuge which serves as critical breeding or migratory habitat for over 200 species of animals and more than 180 bird species and that exploration could cause significant environmental damage. I would like to remind my colleagues that studies by the U.S. Geological Survey and the General Accounting Office have concluded there is probably far less oil in the Arctic Refuge than previously believed. And if we allowed drilling for oil in the Alaskan wildlife refuge, it would not produce any oil for an estimated 10 years. Even then, it would not significantly reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil. During full operating capacity, ANVRR would supply only about 2 percent of America's oil demand in a given year. Finally, none of the North Slope oil reaches the East Coast because it is too far to transport. Therefore, development in ANWR would not have any measurable impact on home heating oil shortages or prices in the Northeast. The Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado claims that 100% of U.S. electricity needs could be met by installing just 17 square miles of rooftop solar panels in each state. The possibilities are endless if we devote the necessary resources and expertise to meeting our domestic energy demand.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a merger tsunami. Airline mergers are sweeping over us, and airline competition will be lost in the tide. Ten major airlines are preparing to consolidate into three mega airlines controlling eighty- five percent of the U.S. commercial air transportation services. A GAO report that I, along with my colleague James Oberstar (MN), requested made clear in December that the proposed US Airways/United merger would trigger further consolidation of the industry, thereby reducing the industry to as few as three major carriers. That prediction has come true faster than any of us imagined. It appears that the mere possibility of a United/US Airways merger has prompted American Airlines to buy Trans World Airlines. Now press reports indicate that Delta Airlines, Continental Airlines and Northwest Airlines are also exploring a strategic alliance. No one believes that these mergers are going to benefit consumers. We need a moratorium to determine how detrimental the impact of these mergers will on the flying public. Twenty-two years into deregulation, we have been left with fewer airlines, eroding passenger service, and gridlock. President Bush would have the opportunity during a moratorium to order a comprehensive review of how these mergers will adversely impact the public. Newly appointed U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft would have the necessary time to fully understand the problems, opportunities and constraints faced by new carriers. A moratorium would provide the Bush administration with sufficient time to establish a new merger policy. These are enormously complex mergers where the public interest must be a factor in determining whether to allow them to go forward. A moratorium would provide Congress an opportunity to request its own independent analysis of consolidation-related issues from the Transportation Research Board (TRB)--as Congress did in 1999 with respect to the DOT Competition Guidelines. Congress could seek a TRB analysis of the many merger-related questions that remain open including the following: What are the anticipated long-term impacts on air transportation system workers should these mergers be approved? Is US Airways really a failing airline? If so, why in United paying a huge market premium to acquire it? What is the best use of publicly owned takeoff and landing time slots at Reagan National Airport? What would be the national economic impacts from a labor strike among airline employees should these mergers consolidate the airline industry into three major carriers? Generations of American taxpayers have poured their hard-earned tax dollars into building our nation's aviation infrastructure. These same taxpayers now find themselves at the mercy of the marketing departments of mega-carriers who can decide with impunity which regions of the country will live or die based on their access to air service. We owe it to our constituents to take a hard look at how these mergers will further impact our communities.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule. The underlying bill is noncontroversial and was passed under suspension of the rules last Congress by a voice vote. The measure is intended to deal with the tragedy of rail accidents involving substantial on-board casualties. The key features of H.R. 554 include procedures to assure timely and sensitive handling of information needed by accident victims and their families. This information is coordinated among the National Transportation Safety Board, the rail passenger carrier, and a designated nonprofit charitable organization. The designated organization is in charge of providing necessary counseling services, ensuring a private venue for families to grieve, and assisting families in a variety of matters, including a possible memorial service. The legislation also protects the victims and their families against unsolicited and intrusive contacts by attorneys in the immediate post- accident environment, when the families may be in shock and not emotionally capable of making sound decisions about possible legal redress. Moreover, the bill also ensures orderly preparedness by rail carriers for accidents by requiring comprehensive plans to be in place governing each carrier's procedures for handling post-accident information and family assistance. Madam Speaker, again, I know of no controversy surrounding this measure. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise to announce the reintroduction of the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act. Yesterday, scientific and scholarly articles were published that explored the implications of the mapping of the human genome. Their conclusions were nothing short of awe-inspiring. The human genome map is going to allow us to explore and better understand not only human health and disease, but the very development of our species. It has tremendous promise to allow us to conquer some of the most feared diseases known to humanity and perhaps to manipulate our very destiny. It is a story of our present, past, and future. The Romans had a famous saying: Scientia est potentia. Knowledge is power. From scientia we derive the English word science. Like any kind of power, however, the scientific knowledge we are gaining about our genetic composition can be used for both positive and negative ends. If used wisely, it could be a tool for health and healing that shapes the very future of our race. If used foolishly, however, it could become a weapon to undermine individuals' futures, create further divisions among groups of people, and tear at the very fabric of our nation. Over five years ago, I introduced the first legislation in Congress to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance. Since that time, science has rocketed ahead at a speed no one predicted, even within the genetics community. Social policy, however, has not kept pace. Congress addressed the use of genetic information in passing through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, but this law covered only some cases of health insurance discrimination. A comprehensive law is needed to protect Americans against the misuse of their genetic information. For that reason, I am introducing the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act of 2001. l am pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague, Representative Constance Morella, who represents the National Institutes of Health and has a long record of achievement and advocacy in the health care arena, and 150 bipartisan cosponsors. In the Senate, identical legislation is being introduced by Minority Leader Tom Daschle and Senators Edward Kennedy, Christopher Dodd, and Tom Harkin, as well as a long list of other distinguished Senators. The events of the past few days have illustrated the urgent need for this legislation all too well. In addition to the events concerning the mapping of the human genome, we have learned that Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway performed genetic tests on employees without their knowledge or consent. The tests were conducted with the goal of identifying a predisposition for carpal tunnel syndrome and thereby undermining those employees' claims of job-related injuries. Unfortunately, this was not the first case of such genetic testing and potential discrimination. From the 1960s until 1993, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory secretly tested black employees for sickle cell anemia, until workers filed a lawsuit that resulted in a 1998 decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that this practice was unconstitutional. During the late 1990s, a study conducted by Northwestern National Life Insurance found that, by the year 2000, 15 percent of employers planned to check the genetic status of prospective employees and dependents before making employment offers. Last year, the American Management Association's survey of medical testing in the workplace found that 3% of responding employers admitted they tested employees for breast and/or colon cancer, 1% tested for sickle cell anemia, and a handful tested for Huntington's Disease. Moreover, 18% collected family medical histories, and about 5% stated that they use this information in making decisions about hiring, firing, and reassignment. This legislation would prevent employers from using predictive genetic information to make employment decisions. It would further prevent employers from requesting or requiring that workers disclose genetic information or take a genetic test. Finally, employers are barred from disclosing genetic information without prior written informed consent. The Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act would also address discrimination in health coverage based on genetic information. Too many Americans are deciding not to take a genetic test because they are afraid the information could be used by their insurer to deny them coverage or raise their rates to unaffordable levels. Vital medical decisions like these should be made based on solid science and personal reflection, not the fear of insurance discrimination. This legislation would prohibit insurers from requesting or requiring that an individual disclose genetic information. It would prevent health insurance companies from using this information to deny, cancel, refuse to renew, or change the terms or conditions of coverage. Finally, it would protect the privacy of genetic information by forbidding insurers from disclosing it to outside parties without prior written informed consent. Simply having a given gene almost never means that a person will definitely develop a condition. Furthermore, every human being has between 5 and 50 genetic mutations that predispose him or her to disease. No one should lose their insurance coverage or their job based on the fact that she might develop cancer or some other disorder in 10, 20, or 30 years. Genetic science has the potential to transform human health and open entirely new frontiers. We must safeguard the future of this research by ensuring that genetic information cannot be abused. Americans will not continue to support genetic science if they believe the knowledge gained will be used against them. We can protect the future of genetic research and secure the rights of all Americans by passing the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Congress passes this responsible, comprehensive genetic nondiscrimination and privacy law.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in coalition with my colleagues to express my deep concern and opposition to President Bush's recent declaration to discontinue the aid in family planning and to reinstate the global gag rule. In essence, this global gag rule restricts foreign, nongovernmental organizations that accept international family planning funds from using their own non-U.S. money to provide legal abortion services or to lobby their own governments for changes in the abortion laws. While this gag rule is simply bad policy, its consequences are extremely severe, affecting the health of women and families in some of the poorest and neediest countries under some of the direst of circumstances. These consequences have not been fully or accurately disclosed to the American people. At its best, this global gag rule will serve to undermine a key priority of United States foreign policy, to promote Democratic values worldwide. At its worst, it will block access to contraceptives, increase the incidents of illegal abortion and lead to higher maternal mortality rates. Instead of presenting these facts to the American people, President Bush provided the press with an attractive sound bite explaining his recent decision: Quote, I am opposed to American taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions overseas, end quote. The statement is grossly inaccurate. As we know, the global gag rule is totally unrelated to the issue of taxpayers' funds being used for abortions. In fact, since 1973, under the Helms amendment, the United States has prohibited the use of taxpayer funds from being used for the performance of abortions by foreign recipients of international family planning aid. That is nearly 30 years. Before he was elected, George W. Bush said he wanted to change the way America thinks about abortion and he claimed to be a uniter and did a wonderful adroit dance around this issue every time he was asked. Nothing in his campaign suggested that he intended to take this step which, frankly, according to his words, he seems not to understand what he has done. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to not only express my strong opposition to President Bush's efforts to reinstate the global gag rule, but I urge the Bush administration to correct their misstatements about international planning aid. The American people deserve to know the truth.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join with my distinguished colleague, Representative Connie Morella, in introducing the Violence Against Women Office Act. This bill would make permanent the Violence Against Women Office within the Department of Justice. Mr. Speaker, domestic violence is shockingly pervasive in our society today. The National Violence Against Women Survey, released by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in July 2000, found that: Domestic abuse rates remain disturbingly high. Nearly 25 percent of women and 7.6 percent of men surveyed reported they had been raped or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some point in their lifetime. Stalking by intimates is more common than previously thought. Almost 5 percent of surveyed women and 0.6 percent of surveyed men reported being stalked by an intimate at some point in their lifetime; 0.5 percent of surveyed women and 0.2 percent of surveyed men reported being stalked by such a partner in the previous 12 months. Domestic violence has major implications for public health and our health care system. Of the estimated 4.9 million intimate partner rapes and physical assaults perpetrated against women annually, approximately 2 million will result in an injury to the victim, and 570,457 will result in some type of medical treatment to the victim. Of the estimated 2.9 million intimate partner physical assaults perpetrated against men annually, 581,391 will result in an injury to the victim, and 124,999 will result in some type of medical treatment to the victim. According to these statistics, approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner each year in the United States. 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. We have made important progress over the past decade. One of my proudest accomplishments in Congress was my work as a lead author of the Violence Against Women Act. This bill, passed by Congress in 1994 and signed into law by President Clinton, has effected a sea change in the way our nation views and addresses domestic violence. VAWA made possible today's programs to educate judges and law enforcement officers, support shelters for battered women and children, and collect vital information on statistics on violence. Nevertheless, studies show that we still have a long way to go. The legislation I am introducing today with Representative Morella would establish a permanent Office of Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice. At present, this office only exists by administrative fiat. It could be abolished or subsumed into another part of the Department at any time. In our view, the existence of the Office of Violence Against Women should not be subject to changing political winds. This legislation has the support of numerous domestic violence organizations all over our nation. In the 106th Congress, it garnered the support of almost 150 bipartisan cosponsors in short time. Representative Morella and I are hopeful that the 107th Congress will acknowledge the importance of this bill by passing it into law as soon as possible. Tragically, there is no indication that domestic violence will disappear any time soon. Congress should signal its commitment to the fight against domestic abuse by establishing a permanent Office of Violence Against Women.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today my colleague Representative John Duncan and I are proud to re-introduce the College Student Credit Card Protection Act. I drafted this legislation in 1999 in response to a growing number of horror stories about young people and credit card debt. For example, I heard from a constituent whose stepson filed for bankruptcy at the age of 21. He was $30,000 in credit card debt. According to a University of Indiana administrator, we lose more students to credit card debt than to academic failure. Credit card companies are aggressively marketing their cards to college students. We all receive credit card solicitations at home. In just one year, one of my employees received a shopping bag full of credit card solicitations. Now, magnify that number exponentially for college students. I remember when an unemployed student was not able to get a credit card limit without a parent as a co-signer. Now, students are not only targeted through the mail and by phone, but also in person through booths set up on campus that promise a free t-shirt or mug for every completed application. As fundraisers, student groups can earn $5 for every application they get their friends to fill out. Most of the time, all they require for approval is a student identification card. The easy access to credit allows students to make costly purchases that would not have been possible under a typical student budget. Students then no longer make the connection between earnings and consumption--needs and wants. Students can go from getting the card just in case of an emergency to charging entertainment expenses such as nights out with their friends and then to extravagances like a spring break trip to Cancun. While many college students are adults who are responsible for the debt they charge, the credit card industry's policy of extending high lines of credit to unemployed students needs to be reviewed. The College Student Credit Card Protection Act would require the banks to determine if a student can even afford to pay off a balance before the companies approve a card. My bill would limit credit lines to 20 percent of a student's annual income without a cosigner. Students could also receive a starter credit card with a lower credit limit, allowing increases over time for prompt payments. Another provision would eliminate the fine print in credit card agreements and solicitations, where fees and penalties are hidden. If a parent cosigns for their child's credit card, my bill would require the credit card company to notify the parent in writing of any credit line increase. So before the credit card statements with Christmas purchases arrive, the message to credit card companies should be simple: determine if the student can afford to pay off a balance before approving a card.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to re-introduce today a bill that could provide a significant new tool in the battle against Medicare waste, fraud and abuse: the Medicare Universal Product Number Act. In 1996, the first-ever comprehensive audit of Medicare's books revealed that Medicare was losing more than $23 billion every year to waste, fraud, and abuse--almost 14 percent of the program's budget. Since that time, the Department of Health and Human Services has taken important steps to crack down on abusive practices. By fiscal year 1999, net payment errors totaled an estimated $13.5 billion, or about 8 percent of total Medicare fee-for-service benefit payments. While significant progress has been made, we must do more to ensure that all Medicare funds are used for the benefit of patients. In particular, room for improvement exists in Medicare's reimbursement for durable medical equipment (DME). Durable medical equipment includes supplies like catheters, wheelchairs, walkers, and ostomy supplies needed by patients. Many Americans would undoubtedly be shocked to learn that the Medicare program frequently pays for DME without knowing exactly what product was supplied to the beneficiary. Under the current system, items are grouped under broad codes. Medicare pays the average price for all the items included in that category, no matter whether the least or most expensive one was provided. Moreover, the coding system does not allow government officials to determine exactly which product under the code was supplied. The Medicare Universal Product Number Act will empower Medicare to know precisely what items are being supplied. This bill would require all medical equipment paid for by Medicare to have a Universal Product Number (UPN) very similar to the bar codes on groceries. When suppliers submit claims for reimbursement, they will identify items by UPN. Medicare will know exactly what equipment has been provided and reimburse accordingly. The UPN can be an invaluable aid in tracking down improper payments, identifying willful upcoding and fraud, and reducing program waste. UPNs are already used extensively by the Department of Defense, Veterans Administration, and many private hospitals and health care purchasing cooperatives. HCFA should recognize the utility of UPNs for Medicare and support the passage of the Medicare Universal Product Number Act. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my distinguished colleague from Corning, Representative Amo Houghton, who has a long record of activism on health and Medicare. I would also like to note that this legislation has the support of the American Orthotics & Prosthetics Association, the Healthcare Electronic Data Interchange Coalition (HEDIC), the Health Industry Distributors Association, the Health Industry Group Purchasing Association, Invacare, the National Association for Medical Equipment Services (NAMES), the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, Premier, Inc., the Uniform Code Council, and VHA, Inc. Medicare program integrity is improving, but we still have a long way to go. The current system is wasteful and vulnerable to abuse. UPNs are a common-sense solution to make Medicare a smart health consumer for the sake of older Americans, taxpayers, and medical equipment suppliers alike.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Representative Sherwood Boehlert and I are proud to reintroduce the Small Communities Assistance Act. For years, small towns and villages have labored to satisfy environmental regulations tailored to the needs and resources of major cities. This bipartisan legislation would direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide more help for small communities in meeting their environmental obligations. Larger urban areas can have an entire environmental services department that employs dozens of people to interpret the EPA's complex and sometimes costly regulations. At the same time, small communities often do not have even one full-time employee assigned to this task. This bill will assist small communities and give them a larger voice in drafting regulations with a fair and balanced approach considering they do not have the staff and financial capabilities of larger communities. People who live in small towns are proud of their community and their environment. They want to comply with health and environmental standards in order to leave a healthy legacy for their children. However, small communities need flexibility in order to comply with environmental regulations as they seek to protect their families' health and the local environment. One size does not fit all. The Small Communities Assistance Act would require each EPA regional office to establish a Small Town Ombudsman Office to advocate for small communities. The EPA would also develop a plan to increase the involvement of small communities in the regulatory review process so that EPA regulations would be flexible enough to account for small town priorities. The agency would be required to survey small communities and establish a small community advisory committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to reintroduce the Women's Right to Know Act in the 107th Congress. This bill ensures that so- called ``gag rules'' upon women's access to information about reproductive health care are not imposed by the states or the federal government in the future. First imposed during the Reagan and Bush Administrations by executive order, the gag rule denied federal funds for any health care clinic whose employees counseled, referred, or discussed terminating a pregnancy in any way. If they did so, the clinic's funding could be rescinded. Congressional efforts to overturn these executive orders were vetoed. Thankfully, President Clinton revoked the gag rule as his first order of business in 1993. While this marked major progress towards better health care for women on a federal level, it did not prevent individual states from imposing statewide gag rules. Currently two states, Missouri and Colorado, have gag rules--with Pennsylvania's state senate having considered and narrowly defeated a similar law in May 2000. With statewide ``gag rules'' on the rise, the threat of a federal ``gag rule'' being reimplemented looms on the horizon. Contrary to the predictions of many gag rule supporters, abortion rates have not been linked to a reversal of this federal policy. In fact, abortion facts actually declined to a twenty year low in 1997 with record drops in teen pregnancy. Leaving the gag rule to the power of executive order is playing Russian roulette with women's reproductive health. We must intensify our efforts to safeguard a women's access to full reproductive options and prevent the gag rule from ever being imposed again. For the government to withhold information about reproductive health care in a violation of our democratic principles and an unconscionable act against the people it intends to serve. The Women's Right to Know Act ensures that gag rules will not be imposed by the states or the federal government in the future. This legislation states that no state or federal government entity may limit the right of any health care provider to supply, or any person to receive, factual information about reproductive health services, including family planning, prenatal care, adoption, or abortion. The government has no right to interfere with private health care decisions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation and allow Americans to have access to complete, factual information so that can make informed decisions about their health care.