Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule that will allow the Members of the House to work their will. But the underlying bill fails to honor Congress' obligation as steward of America's lands and history for future generations. The measure contains several anti-environmental riders that continue the attack on our natural resources. The first major rider would stop the management and protection of lands designated as national monuments by the President, the right of every president since Theodore Roosevelt. The second blocks the management and protection of lands along the Columbia River, which contains a threatened species of salmon. The third rider would prohibit the establishment of the North Delta National Wildlife Refuge near Sacramento, California. Still other riders in the bill would limit funding for protection of endangered species, allow grazing on public lands without an environmental review, and delay national forest planning. In addition to the numerous policy riders, H.R. 4578 contains deep cuts that will harm our national parks, our forests, and the protection and enforcement of environmental laws. The funding in H.R. 4578 is $300 million below last year's level and $1.7 billion below the President's request. Such deep cuts will have a devastating impact on Indian health, on national park maintenance, which has consistently been underfunded, and on energy research and conservation. Even though the House overwhelmingly passed the land and water conservation bill in May by a vote of 315 to 102, this bill is $736 million below the amount authorized in that bill. At a time of record surpluses, this bill cuts funding for key national priorities in order to fulfill the majority's commitment to fund huge tax breaks for the wealthy. The bill's funding level is simply not realistic. Moreover, the majority had a failed yet again to restore some of the unwise cuts made 5 years ago in funding for those 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 $98 million, a level 48 percent below the 1995 funding level; the National Endowment for the Humanities at $115 million, 33 percent below the level in 1995. These funding levels fundamentally ignore the successfully efforts by both NEA and NEH to broaden the reach of their programs and to eliminate controversial programs, the two reforms that were requested by the majority when they reduced the funding in 1995. It is time to recognize the success of these reforms and give these agencies the resources they need to meet their critical needs. Unfortunately, the amendment offered by a Democrat committee to raise funding for both agencies was defeated. Because of the inadequate funding levels, the President's senior advisors are recommending that he veto this bill, making this exercise on the floor a redundant act in our continuing theater of the absurd when it comes to spending bills. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member on the Committee on Rules.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I 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 yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democrat leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary half hour. Mr. Speaker, this annual appropriations dance is growing staler than the Macarena. Year after year, this leadership attempts to gut programs critical to working families, and year after year they are publicly shamed into finally passing adequate spending levels. Fiscal year 2001 is gearing up to be no different. The rule for this underlying bill is a sham and deserves to be defeated. In the dead of night, the Committee on Rules has rewritten the underlying bill in the hopes it might survive a floor vote. No one in this body has had an opportunity to adequately review this new version, but I can share with my colleagues at least one little gem. According to the new rule, any programs that are forward-funded in the bill will trigger an automatic rescission. And did the majority pick on someone their own size in choosing the program to target for this rescission? Not in the least. The automatic rescission will cut funds from the Child Care Development Block Grant, which funds child care for the poorest children in our Nation. Passing annual appropriations bills remains the most basic and critical function that we perform in this body. This particular spending bill funds some of our most essential programs, those that keep Americans healthy, educate our children, and protect our workers. But once again, the current leadership has skirted this responsibility and is pushing a bill that it knows will be vetoed in its current form. The original bill was narrowly adopted in the Committee on Appropriations on a party-line vote 29-22, with every Democrat opposed. Moreover, the committee version of the bill would delay any new worker safety provisions, particularly those designed to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries. My colleagues and I have often marveled at the short-sighted vision the current leadership holds for the Nation, and this year's Labor HHS appears to be no exception. The bill cuts education funding at a time when school enrollment is exploding and education is at the top of our Nation's list of priorities. Education is cut $3.5 billion below the President's request, including the repeal of last year's bipartisan commitment to hire 100,000 new teachers, to reduce class size and turning that initiative into a block grant; denial of $1.3 billion to renovate 5,000 schools for urgently needed safety repairs; $1 billion cut from teacher quality initiatives for recruitment and training; $400 million cut from after-school care serving 1.6 million children; $416 million cut from title I assistance, affecting up to 650,000 low-income children; $600 million cut from Head Start, denying early education to 53,000 children, elimination of funding for elementary school counselors. The leadership's bill cuts funding to train and protect America's workforce and contains a controversial rider which once again blocks OSHA's regulation on ergonomics for the sixth consecutive year. The bill cuts millions from worker protection initiatives, including efforts to make the workplace safer, to promote equal pay, to protect pensions, and to crack down on sweatshops. The ergonomics rider prohibits the issuance of a new OSHA rule that would prevent 300,000 debilitating ergonomics injuries per year. In addition, the bill cuts over $1 billion for the training of adult and dislocated workers and summer jobs for 72,000 at-risk youth. Moreover, the underlying bill cuts funding to protect elderly Americans. The bill eliminates family care support for 250,000 Americans with long-term care needs; cuts funds to enforce quality nursing and family care for 1.6 million elderly and disabled people; cuts mental health for seniors; cuts funds to eliminate Medicare waste, fraud, and abuse. In addition, the bill cuts funding for the battered women's shelters, for family planning, and for health coverage for uninsured workers. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the Committee on Rules had an opportunity to correct these cuts by allowing full consideration of amendments offered by my colleagues. We offered amendments to increase funding for education and research. We offered amendments to protect senior citizens and attack weak labor standards. All of these efforts were defeated on a party-line vote. Thusly, Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of this ill-conceived rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns). (Mr. TOWNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I speak in honor of Small Business Week. As we salute the entrepreneurial engine of our country, it is my distinct privilege to inform you that I represent the district where modern franchising was first conceived in Rochester, NY. In 1888, Martha Matilda Harper, an impoverished Canadian immigrant who came to the United States to change her destiny, developed a new business model to share the economic opportunity of business ownership with former servant women, her working-class sisters. She demonstrated how to use business for social change. Ultimately, Harper had over 500 healthy hair and skin care salons throughout the world, delighting world leaders, including our presidents, first ladies, suffragists, and socialites. President Woodrow Wilson went for nightly scalp massages in the Harper Paris salon to relax his tired nerves, while he was negotiating the Treaty of Versailles. As we go forth in the new millennium, I hope we remember to credit the early innovators in our country, especially when they were poor women such as Martha Matilda Harper who changed the face of our business models. It is particularly fitting that May 26th in Rochester, NY, is being declared Martha Matilda Harper Day as a new museum exhibit and book reveal the extraordinary feats and principles of this remarkable woman. May her wisdom and leadership guide us as we compete in our global economy.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a moment this morning on a measure that affects all Americans and about which I am afraid this Congress is doing nothing, and that is the mapping of the human genome. It is expected to be finished within the next month. We will know more about our human body than we have ever known before, and it will be a wonderful way to present health care. We expect that, once we understand the human makeup, we will be able to do much more for prevention of diseases, and diseases that have plagued us over the centuries will be no more. Unfortunately, there is a downside to this wonderful scientific venture, and that is the issue of health insurance. Discrimination is already taking place against people who are afraid to find out what their genetic makeup is for fear that it would cause them to lose their health insurance or that the rates and conditions would change to such an extent that they could no longer afford it. We have a bill, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 306, which has good bipartisan support in the House by 220 sponsors at this time, more than enough to pass. I would like very much to see this come to the floor on the suspension calendar, on which I am sure it would pass, simply to give the peace of mind to every American that the genetic makeup with which they were born would not cause them to lose their health insurance. It is important for us to make sure that people understand we are not talking about a different population, we are talking about us. Each one of us is believed to be born with between five and 30 faulty genes. And it is the rankest form of discrimination to deny health insurance on genetic grounds, because simply having a faulty gene does not ensure that they will get the condition and, if they did, it might be 40 years down the road. That discrimination is already taking place, Mr. Speaker. I want to urge this House to take up as expeditiously as possible H.R. 306 so that we can assure Americans that their health insurance will be kept intact.