Louise Slaughter

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 5 minutes 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 yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some serious concerns about a section of the bill that has gone largely unnoticed, that dealing with human papillomavirus virus, or HVP. First and foremost, I would like to express my strong support for the underlying bill. I am proud to be an original cosponsor on which this legislation is based. Our consideration of this measure is long overdue, and I commend my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), for her hard work and perseverance in advancing it. My colleagues should be aware, however, of a troublesome provision that was added to H.R. 4386 in committee dealing with HPV issues. HPV is a group of viruses composed of over a 100 strains, of which approximately 30 are sexually transmitted. Recent research has shown that a few select strains appears to have precursors to cervical cancer. Promising research is being done on preventing and treating HPV as a method of reducing cervical cancer rates. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, this bill could damage our efforts to reduce HPV transmission and, by extension, cases of cervical cancer. During a markup, the language was added to the bill that directs the Department of Health and Human Services to outline further steps toward making HPV a reportable disease.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) for yielding me this time. As he mentioned, on June 1994, I first introduced legislation addressing the growing problem of Burmese women and children who were being sold to work in a thriving sex industry in Thailand. It is an awful tragedy. These were sometimes young girls as young as 5 years. This legislation responded to credible reports that indicated that thousands of Burmese women and girls were being trafficked into Thailand with false promises of good-paying jobs in restaurants or factories, and then being forced into brothels under slavery-like conditions. Unfortunately, as I learned more and more about the issue, it became abundantly clear that the issue was not limited to one region of the world. In fact, in the wake of the discovery of a prostitution ring of trafficked women in Florida and the Carolinas, as well as a group of Thai garment workers held captive in California, I soon realized this was an issue that must also be dealt with in our own backyard. Six years later, I am pleased to be standing here today to support this important legislation. H.R. 3244 sets forth policies not only to monitor but to eliminate trafficking here in the United States and abroad. More importantly, it does so in a way that punishes the true perpetrators, the traffickers themselves, while at the same time taking the necessary steps to protect the victims of this awful crime. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it uses our Nation's considerable influence throughout the world to put pressure on other nations to adopt policies that will hopefully lead to an end to this abhorrent practice. I am especially pleased to see that this bill recognizes the fact that trafficking is not exclusively a crime of sexual exploitation. Taken independently, this action is an egregious practice in and of itself. But it is also important to be aware that people are being illegally smuggled across borders to work in sweatshops, domestic servitude, or other slavery-like conditions. Mr. Speaker, developing this initiative has been a long and arduous process. At the beginning of this endeavor, many of the groups involved had different approaches to defining and dealing with the issue. And in addition, we also had to deal with a State Department that was often less than cooperative when dealing with the Congress. Nevertheless, we are here today because this is an issue important enough to cross party lines and personality divides. I offer my personal thanks to the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), ranking member, for moving the legislation and look forward to its passage.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule that allows Members to offer all germane amendments to the underlying bill, the Florida Keys Water Improvements Act, H.R. 673. The underlying bill is completely noncontroversial and goes a long way toward protecting the Florida Keys. As many in this body already know, the Florida Keys are a spectacular chain of 800 independent islands located southeast of Florida. The Keys are a unique and nationally significant marine environment and include North America's only living coral barrier reef ecosystem. But with rapid population growth, the Keys have begun to experience significant water quality problems. In 1990, Congress passed the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act designating the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. That Act directed EPA and the State of Florida to develop a comprehensive water quality protection program for the Sanctuary. Since that time, the EPA and other Federal and State and local agencies have identified wastewater infrastructure improvements as the single most important investment to improve the water quality around the Florida Keys. Improvement of storm water management in the area of the Florida Keys is also needed to reduce pollutant loadings from largely uncontrolled storm water runoff from existing development. This Act provides the Federal share of funds for projects to replace these inadequate wastewater treatment systems that are damaging the Keys. These funds will supplement commitment by the State of Florida and Monroe County, Florida, for planning and construction of wastewater and storm water projects. H.R. 673 would authorize appropriations of $213 million over the 2001-2005 period for this new grant program. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because I oppose the hasty process that this rule embraces. This resolution waives the rule that requires the availability of conference reports for 3 days before their consideration. This House rule, an important rule, allows Members time to read and study the report before they cast their votes. Since this conference report has been available to most Members for less than 12 hours, I have grave doubts that most Members have any real knowledge of about what it includes. From what I can tell, the conference report once again repeats the follies of the leadership's continued obsession with large tax cuts. It does little to extend the solvency of Social Security or Medicare and cuts funding for critical education and housing programs. I wish my colleagues would drop the charade and reflect for a moment. These surpluses on our horizon, if they materialize, offer an extraordinary opportunity. They allow us to pay down the large public debt, thereby providing the ultimate tax cut for our constituents in the form of lower interest rates. The surpluses allow us to make Social Security and Medicare sound and solvent for future generations. They mean that we can close the gaping hole in the Medicare coverage and provide a true prescription drug benefit. They make it possible for us to do more for education at all levels. But this document squanders that opportunity and instead we continue to pass billion dollar tax breaks for wealthy special interests. The conference agreement suffers from the same fundamental flaws as the House-passed resolution. The $170 billion tax cut is so large that it pushes aside Social Security and Medicare solvency, debt reduction, education, and all other national priorities. The conference agreement is a political gesture, rather than a credible budget plan that would provide a meaningful guide for subsequent budget legislation. The spending cuts are so deep and unrealistic and the tax cuts so large that the resolution puts us on a track for another appropriations train wreck in September. Like the House-passed resolution, the conference agreement puts the budget on course to spend the Social Security surplus. Even taking at face value this budget's implausible cuts in non-defense programs, it skates along the edge of on-budget deficits for the first 5 years and invades the Social Security surplus after 2008, if not sooner. Moreover, the conference report puts funds for education and training on hold. In 2001, the conference agreement provides $4.8 billion less than the Democratic alternative budget, and $4.7 billion less than the President's budget for appropriations for education, training, and social services. This low funding level will require the majority to cut current education programs or to eliminate the President's proposals to renovate the crumbling schools, to hire and train more teachers, to add $1 billion to Head Start and to double the amount for after-school programs. Outlays for 2001 actually are $400 million below a freeze at last year's level. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to focus for a moment on how the measure came up short on Medicare prescription drugs. The conference agreement allows a prescription drug benefit of up to $40 billion over 5 years, but only if accompanied by unspecified Medicare reforms. By contrast, the Democratic alternative budget required that a full $40 billion be devoted to a prescription drug benefit, with or without other changes in Medicare. In both 1998 and 1999, the American people rejected these same unrealistic cuts in essential Federal spending and excessive tax cuts. Why on Earth would anyone believe that the American people will suddenly change their minds and reject essential government services like Social Security and Medicare in favor of tax cuts? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I 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 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the open rule. I would note that the underlying bill is noncontroversial and reauthorizes the Clean Lakes Program established under the Clean Water Act. This measure provides financial and technical assistance to States to restore publicly owned lakes. This is the primary Federal program that focuses national attention on lakes, their monitoring, protection, and management. I was pleased that the committee selected two lakes in upstate New York, Otsego Lake and Lake Oneida, to receive priority consideration for demonstration projects in this bill. Otsego Lake in New York is at the headwaters of the Susquehanna River, the largest single fresh water source for the Chesapeake bay. Otsego Lake is biologically unique in that deep water oxygen concentrations provide habitat for cold water fisheries, such as lake trout, Atlantic salmon, brown trout, whitefish, and cisco, which are now in jeopardy because of the sustained loss of bottom oxygen in the late summer and fall. Oneida Lake in New York is the largest inland lake in the State and home to 74 species of fish. The lake watershed covers five counties and more than 800,000 acres. This lake is experiencing water quality problems and its use has been impaired. There are significant concerns regarding sediment and nutrient runoff to the lake from tributaries and agriculture and urban land use trends. In addition, algae, rooted vegetation, and invasive species are problems for this lake. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a completely noncontroversial measure; and I do not oppose this open rule. 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 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I could just say, in defense of my former Governor Mario Cuomo, I say to the gentleman that it is possible to personally object to something but not require that everybody else agree with you. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make clear that the AMA no longer supports this bill and that the gynecologists never did. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).