Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 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 oppose this closed rule. The majority claims to favor full and free debate on important issues; however, on this controversial bill, the majority has chosen to prohibit any amendments from being offered. I must also voice my strong concerns with the bill made in order by this rule, H.R. 3660, the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Once again we have anti-choice legislation on the House floor. Like most of us, my schedule as a Member of Congress is erratic, but each year I have discovered that one of the legislative constants is that the House leadership finds plenty of time to force consideration of anti-choice legislation. As the Washington Post noted this morning, and I quote, ``The measure is probably unconstitutional and certainly bad policy, but the House is to take it up today for the third time in 5 years.'' This legislation has been fast tracked through Congress, denied input from other Members of Congress or the benefit of the subcommittee and full committee markup. But what is most offensive about the timing of the legislation is not simply the lack of debate time, it is the fact that the legislation is breathing down the neck of an upcoming Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of Nebraska's abortion law and is a blatant attempt to try to influence the court. The fundamental principles of Roe v. Wade already protect a viable fetus. Roe recognizes that the State has a compelling interest in the welfare of a fetus that can survive outside the womb. And none of us, none of us, approve late-term abortions, except in circumstances to save the life and health of the mother. But under this ban, the fundamental principles of the Roe v. Wade decision are gutted. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a woman's life and health must be protected throughout pregnancy. And no advances in medicine yet have guaranteed a perfect pregnancy. Due to the lack of health exceptions in abortion bans, President Clinton has vetoed similar legislation time and time again, and this bill is no different. It makes no exception for protecting a mother's health. Moreover, the language of the bill is so intentionally vague that both doctors and the courts have scoffed at it, asserting that this terminology could ban all procedures regardless of the viability thresholds guaranteed by Roe. In fact, it would make it a criminal offense for a physician to perform not just one particular procedure, but the safest and most common procedure in reproductive health care. Even the American Medical Association, which originally supported this legislation, no longer does. And can we blame them? What is a doctor to do, faced with losing his or her livelihood and potential jail time? I can assure my colleagues that the primary concern of most physicians will not be protecting the health of the woman if their own livelihood is at stake. Why would they risk 2 years in prison and loss of their license when they could simply make a decision? The proponents of this legislation would have us believe that this ban will prohibit one procedure used to perform only post-viability abortions; that is the point after which the fetus can live on its own. However, the bill is written so that it could ban safe abortion procedures used prior to fetal viability. Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances of late abortions, in most all cases, these are fetuses who are either badly malformed or in a condition that really threatens the health of the mother. In most cases these babies are desperately wanted, and there is no other choice to be made. It is heartbreaking for parents to have to make this choice, but it is even more heartbreaking for them not to be allowed to because a legislative body has said no. By introducing this ban in tandem with the critical Supreme Court case, and at the start of an election year, the proponents of the bill are not just chipping away at the right to choose, they are taking a jackhammer to it. The American people have told us time and time again that when faced with life and death decisions they want to confide in their doctor, their family, and whomever else they choose to consult, but they never say they would like to consult their local Congressperson. Throughout the managed care debate, Congress has said to the people ``we promise to put medical decisions back into the hands of the patients and the doctors,'' and yet with this vote today that promise is turned on its head. Congress, like HMOs, will dictate life and health decisions for women, not their doctors, their families or spiritual advisers. It is unconscionable for this Congress to place its political agenda ahead of a woman's ability to have access to safe and appropriate health care. Like any other patient, a woman deserves to receive the best care based on the circumstances of their particular situation. Mr. Speaker, we will hear arguments from staunchly anti-choice members who may resort to inflammatory charts and graphic images to pledge their support of the ban. But we will also hear from Members who are deeply concerned about the legislation and the precedent it would set. So far as I know, this Congress, nor any previous Congress, has ever outlawed a medical procedure. But at the end of the day, after all the political fights subside, we must ask ourselves one fundamental question: Do American women matter? As a Member of Congress, the mother of three daughters, and a long-time advocate of women's health, I strongly believe the health of women matters in America. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and no on the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the centennial anniversary of the Kodak Brownie box camera. It was 100 years ago in my district in Rochester, New York, that George Eastman's visionary leadership first introduced consumers to photography. The price tag was one dollar, and film sold for 15 cents per roll. For the first time, taking pictures was within the reach of almost every American family. Cameras in the 1870s were as big as breadboxes. The tools of the professional photographer's trade, including a bulky, unreliable camera, a tripod, and various liquid chemicals, were more than a single man could carry--``a pack-horse load'' as Eastman described it. He resolved to downsize, simplify, and reduce the cost of the ``burden'' of taking pictures. Look how far we have come in 100 short years. Today, photography and Kodak have moved into the Digital Age; cameras so small you can attach them to hand-held computers grab images and send them over the Internet for all to see; digital feature films bring new meaning to the movie experience; health care innovation promises to improve patient care through enhanced quality of care, especially for those in rural areas or homebound; Kodak technology made possible the spectacular images from the Mars Rover and dazzling images from space. From the 1896 development of the first Kodak product to capture x-ray images, to laser imaging and telehealth services that link patients and doctors regardless of time or distance, Kodak has led the way in innovation. For over one hundred years, Kodak has been a leader in the Rochester community helping to make it the vibrant and nurturing community it is today. Kodak brings its products, culture and values to communities and workers in other countries. The Kodak name is synonymous with top quality products. As it expands its markets around the world, everyone snapping photos at family reunions, weddings, birthdays, vacations, and anywhere else should pause to thank George Eastman, the man who made all of their ``Kodak moments'' possible 100 years ago with his great invention, the Brownie.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered By Mr. Goss

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was so struck by what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said just a moment ago, that this budget fails to take into account the repeal of the earnings test, and I want to yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) the rest of my time, save 1 minute, to sum up.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be calling a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow an up-or-down vote on Governor Bush's proposed tax cut. There has been a good bit of discussion about where the House stands on those tax cuts. I think the House should have the opportunity to go on record and end the speculation. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment I would offer be printed immediately before the vote on the previous question. The vote on the previous question may be the only opportunity the House has to vote on Governor Bush's proposal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I include the amendment that I previously referred to, as follows: amendment to house resolution 446 On page 3, line 5, after ``Rules'' strike the period and add the following: ``or the amendment printed in section 3 of this resolution which shall be treated as if it were the last amendment printed in part B of said report.'' and At the end of the resolution, add the following: Section 3. Amendment to be offered by Representative Markey of Massachusetts. Amend section 4 to read as follows:

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. This resolution has never seen the light of day. This is not the resolution that the Committee on the Budget worked over for a few months. It is certainly not the resolution that the Committee on Rules held hearings on for several hours yesterday. In fact, I have talked to Members who have been here much longer than I, and they can recall no time in which a bill has come to the floor under those circumstances. It arrived at 2 in the morning, hours after the final vote when the majority of the Members of this House had left the Hill. The ink will barely be dry when the leadership makes Members vote on this document. How many Members will see this new substitute before they have to vote? I would note that these are not technical changes. The majority has added $3 billion for science, still below what the President requested. The new resolution calls for $5 billion in unspecified cuts all to be announced later, and this is a travesty. The measure changes reconciliation numbers and includes two new points of order. It even changes the public debt limit though the rules of the House prohibit changing that number from what is reported by the Committee on the Budget. Mr. Speaker, we have been down this road with this budget process time and time again. The leadership in this body reminds me of the bridal contestants in the television show ``Who wants to marry a millionaire.'' They know it is a charade, but they are going through the motions anyway. This budget is as unrealistic as the failed budgets from 1998 and 1999. This proposed budget by the majority maintains a single- minded obsession with large tax cuts. It does nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare for a single day and cuts funding for critical education, housing, and environmental protection programs. In 1998, the majority party in the House and Senate failed to pass a budget resolution for the first time since the creation of the congressional budget process. In 1999, the budget adopted by the majority called for draconian cuts in appropriations to finance a huge $792 billion tax cut for the wealthy. This budget was disregarded by the majority almost as soon as they began the appropriations process. When the final appropriations bill passed Congress in November, 2 months into the fiscal year, appropriated spending overran the budget resolution by $43.8 billion. In both 1998 and 1999, the American people rejected these same unrealistic cuts in essential Federal spending and excessive tax cuts for the very rich. Why on earth does the majority party believe the American people will suddenly change their minds and reject essential government services like Social Security and Medicare in favor of benefits for the wealthiest among us? The definition of folly is to repeat what has failed and expect it to succeed, and that is just what this resolution does. It assumes that Congress will cut nondefense spending by $7 billion below this year's level and by $20 billion below the level needed to make up for inflation. Congress must then keep its foot on the brake for 4 more years, eventually taking nondefense spending $114 billion below the level of current purchasing power. Compounding the problem of calling for implausible program cuts is the fact that the resolution already spends some of the Social Security surplus. The resolution's $200 billion tax cuts overwhelm the $114 billion reduction in the purchasing power of domestic appropriations. As a result under the resolution, the non-Social Security surplus is virtually gone by the year 2003. By 2004, the Government begins spending the Social Security surplus. And by 2010, the measure spends $68 billion of the Social Security money. We have a choice. We can substitute this budget for one that extends the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, repays the national debt by the year 2013, provides targeted tax cuts to working families, invests in domestic priorities such as school modernization and improved access to health insurance for families. I would like my colleagues to reflect for a moment. The surpluses on our horizon offer an extraordinary opportunity to pay down our large public debt which would be the ultimate tax cut. They allow us to make Social Security and Medicare sound and solvent for future generations. They mean that we can close the gaping hole in Medicare coverage and they make it possible for us to do more for education at all levels. Unfortunately, this proposed budget resolution squanders this opportunity and jeopardizes the progress that we have made in eliminating the annual deficits and paying down the public debt. This measure also passes up the opportunity to put Social Security, Medicare, and the Nation as a whole on sound fiscal footing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.