Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce a very important bill that will enhance scientific research analyzing the relationship between women's health and the environment: the Women's Health Environmental Research Centers Act. This legislation seeks to address the current lack of initiatives specifically examining women's health in connection with the environment. Scientists have recently uncovered startling linkages between environment exposures and disorders like Parkinson's Disease. These new findings have particular significance for women. Women may be at 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 to household cleaning reagents. The Pew Environmental Health Commission just released the results of an 18 month study in which they found that the nation suffers from a troubling shortage of strong leadership in environmental health. The Pew report stressed that an understanding of environmental factors offers the best disease prevention and cost saving opportunities. Among the recommendations of the Pew report is the development of a nationwide tracking network for environment toxins and disease. The Commission is strongly urging the incoming Administration to strengthen our public health infrastructure. During the current fiscal year, Congress has already asked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to develop a nationwide tracking network so we can begin to associate disease with certain environmental toxins, genetic susceptibility and lifestyle. I was proud to lead a group of my colleagues in writing to CDC Director Koplan to urge that this project be undertaken quickly and given priority by the agency. 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 Disease, 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. Chronic diseases like those listed above account for 3 out of 4 deaths in the U.S. annually. One hundred million Americans, more than a third of the population, suffer from some form of chronic disease. And chronic conditions are on the rise. Rates of learning disabilities have risen 50 percent in the last decade. Endocrine and metabolic diseases such as diabetes and neurological diseases such as migraine headaches and multiple sclerosis increased 20 percent between 1986 and 1995. The New York Breast Cancer Study 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 The interaction between environmental factors and one's genes also affect 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. While the scientific community has become increasingly aware of the unique susceptibilities of women to environmental and chemical exposures, our understanding of how these exposures contribute to the diseases of women, and how they interact with genetic factors, is quite negligible. It has been difficult to determine which genes are susceptible to certain environmental toxins because of the lack of large scale studies and centralized data collection. It is time we looked at these possible exposures and their effects from a variety of disciplines--oncology, microbiology, endocrinology and epidemiology. Current scientific findings indicate that environmental factors affect women's health. For example: More than 8 million Americans have autoimmune diseases. Most are several times more common in women than in men. More than 90% of patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) are women. Studies have shown that occupational exposure to silica is related to SLE and other diseases. These occupations include mining, pottery and glass making, farming and construction. Exposure to nitrous oxide (laughing gas) by women dental assistants has been correlated to a severe decrease in fertility according to one study. Over 9 million working women also have serious back pain. Women are twice as likely to endure job related injuries and illnesses than men. Dioxin exposure is a key factor in cancers and other reproductive health factors such as endometriosis, fertility and birth defects. Dioxins, which include 219 different chemicals and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), have been found to disrupt human endocrine systems. More than 70,000 synthetic chemicals are in commercial use today, with an estimated 1000 new chemicals being introduced each year. Most Americans would be shocked to learn that only a handful of these chemicals have ever been adequately tested to determine their effect on humans (full data exists for only about 7% of these chemicals). The evidence is clear and accumulating daily that the byproducts of our technology are linked to illness and disease and that women are especially susceptible to these environmental health related problems. We need research programs that are specifically targeted towards women's health. The passage of the Women's Health Environmental Research Centers Act is a crucial step toward establishing the valuable and needed basic research on the interactions between women's health and the environment. This legislation has the strong support of a range of organizations, including the Society for Women's Health Research, the National Women's Health Network, the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric, and Neonatal Nurses, and Physicians for Social Responsibility. I am proud to have as original cosponsors two distinguished colleagues: Rep. Sue Kelly of New York, a long-time activist on women's health issues, and Rep. David Price, who represents the Research Triangle area of North Carolina, where the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences is located. The Women's Health Environmental Research Centers Act is a simple, common-sense step Congress can take toward filling the current gaps in women's health research. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and support its speedy passage.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to this chamber's attention a remarkable odyssey that will come to its successful conclusion on December 15: World Flight 2000. In 1996, high school students Daniel Dominquez and Christopher Wall dreamt of becoming the youngest individuals ever to circumnavigate the globe. Just four years later, that dream is on the verge of reality. Supported by a spectacular team of coordinators, these two young pilots are about to finish a two-month flight around the world in their plane, the Dreamcatcher. There is a great deal more than just the youth of the pilots, however, that makes this accomplishment extraordinary. The World Flight 2000 team has gone to great lengths to make their trip a learning experience for children all over the world. Their website, www.worldflight2000.com, includes daily logs from the crew, dozens of photographs from their trip, and an-up-to-the-minute live tracking screen to follow the plane. At every stop, World Flight 2000 meets with as many schoolchildren as possible to talk about their dream, their trip, and the exotic places they have seen. Students were encouraged to e-mail the pilots with questions throughout the trip, which they answered en route. Dreamcatcher and her crew took off from Rochester, New York on September 12 and stopped in Maine and Canada before striking out across the Atlantic Ocean. Since then, stops have included Spain, Greece, Egypt, Oman, Thailand, Australia, Vanuatu, and American Samoa. For each place Dreamcatcher visits, the World Flight 2000 website lists a host of information, ranging from customs to environment to government to recipes. The trip has been filled with challenges. Beyond the expected issues of weather and maintenance, the crew has had to deal with troublesome control towers, flight plan glitches, and illness. Yet they have come through all of these problems with, as they say, flying colors. I am proud to claim virtually the entire World Flight 2000 team as my constituents. Pilot Dan Dominquez is a senior at the University of Rochester, where he studies economics. Pilot Chris Wall is a 21-year- old junior at Rice University, majoring in electrical engineering. Flight photographer Jesse Weisz graduated from the University of Rochester with an Honors Major in Film. International Director/ Coordinator Jenni Powers is a 21-year of recent graduate of the Univerisity of Rochester, where she obtained her International Relations degree. Local publicist John Galbraith has donated hundreds of hours to coordinate press, marketing, and corporate sponsorship. Dozens of local volunteers have been inspired to get involved, helping with everything from public relations to rehabilitation of the aircraft. Mr. Speaker, these young people are out there achieving something that most adults would never undertake simply because the prospect is so daunting. Yet they have managed to conquer not only the practical, financial, logistical, and other hurdles, but the entire globe as well. I invite my colleagues to join me in saluting World Flight 2000 for proving to us all that, ``Anything is possible if you just dream!'' Welcome home, Dreamcatcher!

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes Nos. 593 and 594. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both rollcall votes Nos. 593 and 594.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for bringing this to our attention. Mr. Speaker, I know that the original intent of their instruction was to talk about LIHEAP. We have gone far afield and I am going to join the field. But I must say that it was a bipartisan coalition of us who pushed very hard to get the President of the United States to open up SPR and give up some of the reserve because those of us who live in the Northeast had gone through a very bad winter last year and this year looked bad. We had seen people have to go into shelters because they could not afford to heat their houses and pay for food. We do not want to see that happening again. There was almost a panic starting to set in. Whatever one may think about the release, it worked, obviously he did not release enough to see us through the winter. We did not want him to. It did have the effect of making the OPEC countries reduce the price of oil. It has been beneficial, and I again thank him for doing that. Now, with talking about the alternative fuels and lack of energy policy, I agree we surely do not have one. I remember the golden age of exploration, under Jimmy Carter's administration, when we talked about hydropower, geothermal power, wave power, wind power, photo power, photovoltaic cells, and the grand daddy of them all, fusion. We were really intent in the United States to making sure that we would not forever be dependent on foreign oil. But that came to a screeching halt in 1980 with Reagan, and we went back to the old way of allowing oil companies to do what they would with us and, as a previous speakers said, let market forces have their will with us. I appreciate the bipartisan support that we have from the Northeast. I understand that in Florida they have some problems with weather. But they do not know what it is like when people are freezing. My city of Rochester last year had more snow than any city in the Northeast of comparable size. If we want to have an energy policy in this country, we have got to get back to putting a little money in for some research and development, or we will have this debate forever. But there is no doubt and history shows that the Reagan administration killed renewable energy resources and money for research.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes No. 551 and No. 552. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 551 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 552.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary half-hour, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule. This rule provides for the consideration of a bill allowing the Forest Service to sell environmentally sensitive land at below market value to an affluent school district in a Republican Member's congressional district. Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize that our schools are overcrowded; but they are overcrowded everywhere, from Boston to Burbank, from Bismarck to Biloxi. With this bill, Republicans are doing a special favor for one school while my Republican colleagues are ignoring overcrowded schools everywhere else. Mr. Speaker, American children deserve better. The Democrats' number one priority is the education of our children. They deserve much more than the crowded schools that are crumbling down around them. The average age of schools in the United States is 42 years. Rather than helping out one affluent school district, my Republican colleagues should be funding the Democrat initiative to help all school districts; but this bill will not do that, Mr. Speaker. Furthermore, this bill sells the taxpayers short. It transfers land at far less than its value. The land is worth between $2 million and $4 million and this bill will sell it for $500,000. Rather than allowing the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, to offer his amendment selling the land for its actual value, my colleagues are proposing this closed rule that prohibits amendments. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, schools everywhere else are scrambling for the funds to go expand and modernize their buildings and getting nothing from my colleagues on the other side. The Republican budget neither provides nor guarantees funding for urgent school repairs and no money for school modernization bonds. Mr. Speaker, it should. American children do deserve better. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will not actively oppose the rule. The underlying suspension bills that the rule make in order are important for many of our constituents. But it is astonishing that the Committee on Rules must generate resolutions such as these to create the illusion that Congress is diligently performing its obligation. This body is floating in a Never-Never Land 2 weeks into the fiscal year, considering suspension bills at a time when only 7 of the 13 spending bills are on their way to the President. I wish I could justify unqualified support for this measure with the excuse that Congress was hard at work and needed this flexibility to complete its commitments, but my constituents know better. Instead of working to ensure affordable prescription drugs for seniors or working to secure funds for school construction, this body routinely adjourns in the early afternoon to ponder what post office we will name on the following legislative day. The long stretches of idleness in this body surely can be replaced with meaningful deliberation on important measures. Instead, my colleagues and I are left at the mercy of the leadership's scheduling whims. If the majority is going to abuse the power of suspensions, I implore them to put them to good use and make a real difference in the lives of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the ranking member of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think we have made that very clear. I do not know anything I could say to make it clearer. We want all the information we can get. We do not believe there is any such thing as too much. But we want to save this bill because women are waiting.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If the gentleman will yield, if I could give him that assurance, I would. Unfortunately, I do not determine what goes on what bills. However, I made it as clear as I could in my statement that we recognize that what he is doing is important, that we want to see it this year. However, there is no mistaking the fact that if his amendment is on this bill, the Senate will not take it up this year. That means that another year, maybe two, would pass before the poor women in the United States would have access to treatment. We would be more than happy, and I will give the gentleman my commitment that we would vote for that, be happy to do it; but certainly I am not the person he wants to talk to about putting that on another bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding me the customary half hour. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I want to express my very strong support for the underlying bill. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 1070, on which the legislation is based. Our consideration of this measure is long overdue. I want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Danner) as well as all the members of the Women's Caucus for persevering and advancing the issue and bringing it before the House today. Now, according to our colleagues in the other body, the other body will not, I repeat, will not consider the measure in the final days of Congress if we allow the Coburn amendment to go forward. And with this in mind, my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has secured a mechanism to remove the additional language to provide for consideration of a clean bill. She has my strong support in this effort. I urge the support of my colleagues, as well. I would like to say a word about the serious nature of the human papilloma virus to both men and women as one of the leading causes of both cervical and prostate cancer, and I would also like to have some more work done on the importance of surveillance and research on that virus. I think it is an important step, and I look forward to seeing the provision that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) has in his amendment included on a bill this year, but just not this one. We cannot afford to let this year about to go by while women wait. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act is much too important to be caught up in the procedural confusion. This bill provides an opportunity to extend care and treatment to low-income women diagnosed with cancer under the CDC breast and cervical cancer screening program. For many of these women, such a bill will ensure that they have access to affordable care. Low-income women screened and diagnosed with breast cancer through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of Breast and Cervical Cancer Control Program should not have to hold bake sales to obtain treatment for breast cancer. The underlying bill will give States the option of providing Medicaid coverage for the treatment of these women. Mr. Speaker, the bill has the strong support of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, a 500 member organization representing hundreds of thousands of individual members. And we also have letters of support from numerous health care organizations urging that the Senate version of the bill be considered so that we can pass this and send it to the President this year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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