Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 2. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 2.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 3. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 3.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to a former colleague and dear friend, the Honorable Frank Horton of New York. Representative Horton embodied all the best traditions of this institution. He was known--indeed, was legendary--for outstanding constituent service, for his votes cast in a spirit of bipartisanship and integrity, and for a commitment to the best interests of his district and the nation as a whole. For those of us who had the privilege of serving with him, he was a role model and a special friend. On the recent occasion of Representative Horton's 80th birthday, his colleague at the law firm of Venable, Baetjer, Howard & Civiletti, Andrew Fois, composed a moving tribute to this great man. I would like to share it with my colleagues today. I hope you will all take the opportunity to read it; we could all learn a great deal from the example of Frank Horton. (By Andrew Fois) Within days of the dawn of the new millennium, a great man of the 20th century marked his 80th birthday. Frank Horton, born on December 12, 1919 in Cuero, Texas, represented parts of Rochester and its surrounding areas for thirty years in the United States House of Representatives. During the course of his remarkable life, Frank Horton saw combat in World War II, engaged successfully in the private practice of law, served as President of the Rochester Redwings minor league baseball franchise, raised a family, published a children's song and as one of the most well-respected congressmen of his generation. Frank Horton's accomplishments are enough for several lifetimes. What made Frank so remarkable as a congressman, however, is something that is becoming increasingly scarce in the Congress. Although Frank was and always will be a Republican, and represented a majority Republican district, he always put the interests of his district, state and country before those of his party. He was a true bipartisan, able to work effectively with Democrats as well as Republicans. As a testament to the value of that attribute Frank was selected by his New York colleagues to serve as Dean of the New York State delegation--despite the Democrats holding a substantial majority of the seats. Frank's independence was not universally admired, however. The kind of man Frank Horton is, and the kind of congressman he was going to be, was apparent from his very first vote in Congress in 1963. The issue was the composition of the powerful Rules Committee and the proportion of Democrats, then in the majority, to Republican members. Frank supported the Democrats' position in a vote the outcome of which was certain from the start. While the vote was still pending he was questioned by then Minority Leader Charlie Halleck. ``Son,'' said the older man, ``I think you made a mistake.'' ``No, sir, Mr. Halleck,'' responded the freshman lawmaker, ``I believe that the majority should have the ability to control the committee.'' Halleck just walked away. Before that fateful vote, Frank was in line for a coveted position on the Judiciary Committee. Halleck, however, saw to it that Frank's independence was ``punished'' by ``relegation'' to the Committee on Government Operations, which oversees the federal bureaucracy, and the District of Columbia Committee. This incident at the start of Frank's Washington career proves two points. First, that brass-knuckle partisanship is not a recent political innovation. Second, sometimes standing up for what you believe pays off in the end because Frank is convinced that Halleck did him a big favor. He went on to serve with great success on the Government Operations Committee for thirty years--most of them as the senior Republican on the panel where he enjoyed a great relationship with its feisty Chairman and fellow Texan, Jack Brooks. Ironically, he also rose to serve on the Committee on Committees, where he helped decide committee assignments for other Republicans. Despite being a member of the minority, Frank left his mark on important legislation and other issues of substance. He was a tireless watchdog of the executive branch rooting out waste, fraud and abuse and was a leader in the effort to establish inspectors general in federal agencies. He championed legislation to reduce government paperwork and reform federal procurement procedures. He fought for creation of the Department of Education--the only Republican on Government Operations to support it. He was an early proponent of home rule for the District of Columbia and he sponsored legislation honoring Asian-Pacific Americans. He was a founder of the Northeast-Midwest Coalition, helping to focus attention on the distribution of federal funds in the industrial corridor. But his ability to reach across the aisle and work with his colleagues of the opposite party is Frank's greatest legacy. Unfortunately, few members of either party seem able, or interested in, doing the same today. It is a shame that Frank Horton never saw a single day in the majority despite his thirty years in Congress. If he had been serving the last few years you can be sure that many highly charged matters would have been handled in a much more bipartisan and productive fashion. Among the professional mementos on display in his office is a personal note coincidentally dated December 12, 1968, from President Lyndon Johnson that stands as summary of, and testament, to Frank's career. In it, the outgoing President writes of the memories he will take with him when he leaves the White House and observes that, ``High among them will always be the knowledge that we stood together, men of different parties, to work for a better America.'' Happy birthday, Frank. And thank you.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. There is so much to say and so little time, but I would like to focus on two specific items of importance to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I consider the health-related provisions of this bill to be a mixed bag. I am extremely pleased to see that Congress is continuing its commitment to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health over 5 years. This is the lifesaving research which families fighting cancer and other dread diseases are depending on. The bill increases the NIH budget by another 15 percent, raising it from $15.6 billion last year to $17.9 billion in fiscal year 2000. But, unfortunately, the shell game continues in order to pay for this spending. The bill delays the release of $4 billion of the NIH appropriations until September 29, 2000. Twenty of our colleagues wrote to the conferees urging them not to take this action, because medical research is not a faucet that can be turned off and on. No disease will wait for a clinical trial to get to the next round of funding. A colony of bacteria is not going to hibernate until the researcher receives the promised grant. Frankly, I am not too sure the researcher will stick around either. I am deeply concerned about the impact of this delayed appropriations on vital medical research. In addition, I am appalled that Congress and the administration have conspired to imperil the health and welfare of women across the world by attaching onerous conditions to international family planning spending. Under this bill, United States funds are not only barred from going to groups that perform abortions directly or indirectly, but also to any group that lobbies in any way regarding governmental policies on abortion. An organization could even be barred from informing a government how many women were being harmed by unsafe or botched abortions, not just lobbying for abortion rights. If the President uses his authority to waive this provision, international family planning funds are cut by 3 percent. At that point, thousands of women will not receive birth control, leading to unintended pregnancies and abortions. It is simply beyond my grasp how abortion opponents believe that policies like this one help their cause. This provision will not prevent a single abortion. It will only cause more and more dangerous abortions to occur. A woman in the Third World dies every 3 minutes. Surely that is the harshest kind of birth control, and we will be prevented from telling them how to prevent unintended pregnancy. I am pleased that the bill makes progress in restoring the unexpectedly deep cuts made in Medicare reimbursement to hospitals, home care and other facilities under the Balanced Budget Act. Although the relief provided itself is modest, it will make a major difference in my district of Rochester, New York, in enabling our health care community to continue to provide world class care.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have heard it said that human beings exhibit their most creative potential when they are kindergarten age. Well, whoever said that probably needs to spend a little time around here at the end of a session. There is some very creative work being done. Vexing problems which have been around for months and may be even years are suddenly solved when the sand starts running out of the Congressional hour glass, or they are suddenly turned into bargaining chips. Witness what is happening with reproductive rights and the payment of our UN debts. Major issues which have languished unattended are addressed and then tossed abroad whenever the legislative vehicle is leaving the station. Meanwhile, many others, such as the bill of rights protecting people from their HMOs or efforts to fight gun violence never get their tickets punched. But rest assured, Mr. Speaker, the American people want a Patients' Bill of Rights, they want us to do better on gun violence, and they will be watching when we return in the year 2000. As for the rule which is currently before us, H. Res. 387, it provides for the consideration of several disparate issues which have been corralled under a single bill title. Part A of the bill is the Work Incentives Improvement Act, a bill to modernize our woefully outdated national disability policies. When policies on Medicaid and other programs for the disabled were first developed decades ago, having a disability often meant that an individual is confined to home or an institution. Today, however, with advances in technology, training, and rehabilitation, many individuals with disabilities are allowed to hold good jobs and live very full lives in the mainstream of society. The Work Incentives Improvement Act will allow persons with disabilities to continue receiving certain benefits, particularly health coverage, while returning to work. The proposal also provides for more State flexibility and serving individuals with disabilities through health programs, associated services like transportation assistance, and training. This legislation does not benefit only persons with disabilities, it also has major benefits for the Federal Government and the taxpayer. If an additional one-half of 1 percent of the current Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income recipients were to cease receiving benefits as a result of employment, the savings and cash assistance would total $3.5 billion over the worklife of the individuals. This worthy legislation was passed by the House overwhelmingly earlier this year, and I expect it will enjoy similar support today. Part B of the underlying bill is a collection of tax extenders. I am pleased that this agreement includes a 5-year extension for research and development tax credit. Science and technology are critical for our future development, our knowledge about the world around us, and our understanding of ourselves. I have long been a strong supporter of incentives to encourage businesses to invest in the development of new technologies and products. Through its existence, the R&D tax credit has served as a fundamental component of our Nation's competitiveness strategy by increasing the amount of research undertaken by the private sector. One key provision which I would have strongly supported had it been allowed to remain in the bill would have entitled workers to better pension benefits through what is known as section 415 of the tax code. But, regrettably, this provision was left at the station. In addition, the bill includes a delay in the implementation of rules proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services to restructure organ allocation in our Nation. While this delay is not likely to please people on either side of this emotional issue, it should at least allow the Congress to debate this matter more fully when we return in January. Mr. Speaker, my main regret on the legislation is that we are dealing with what should have been several bills and are, instead, forced to consider them as a single package. This approach limits debate and prohibits many Members from exercising their right to discuss the legislation. It is unfair and it is unnecessary. There is no reason why these bills should not have been brought up earlier under open rules with full debate. This is to say nothing of the many, many worthwhile bills that are being pushed aside altogether in the majority's rush to adjourn. But we are coming back with renewed energy and commitment to passing the Patients' Bill of Rights, increasing the minimum wage for working families, and halting the violence and gunfire which threatens our homes and our communities. Mr. Speaker, by all accounts, this will be the final rule to be considered this century. This is also the final rule of this millennium. Those of us who serve on this important committee are keenly aware of its historical and institutional role in this Congress on behalf of the American people. Grounded by that tradition and honored by the opportunity, we are thankful to the Members who have gone before us, and we look forward to the new millennium and meeting the challenges facing the American people in the 21st Century. I am grateful for my colleagues on the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on October 25, John Duncan of Tennessee and I introduced H.R. 3142, the College Student Credit Card Protection Act. Madison Avenue and the credit card companies have convinced our college students that getting a credit card is necessary for a fun college experience. But upon graduation, many of these young people find themselves buried in debt. Just recently, the House recognized the need to educate young people on this issue by passing a bill to encourage high schools to teach financial literacy, including credit education. College by college, state by state, this issue is being recognized as a serious problem that needs to be addressed. A recent report found that one-fifth of the Nation's college students are carrying credit debts of more than $10,000. Seventy percent of undergraduates at 4-year colleges possess at least one credit card. One 19-year-old sophomore student in the Rochester, NY area who had no income recently attempted to declare bankruptcy; he had accumulated a stack of credit cards and owed the credit card companies $23,000! In Knoxville, TN, one college student ran up $30,000 in credit card debt in just 2 years. Students are snowballing into debt through the extension of unaffordable credit lines, peer pressure to spend, and financial naivete. Low minimum monthly payments and routine credit limits hikes add to the seductiveness of plastic. Even though many students with credit cards have no income to pay the bills, credit card companies are aggressively marketing their cards to college students. Credit card companies set up tables during orientation week and outside college lunchrooms, advertising free gifts such as t-shirts and mugs, to sign up as many students as possible. Most of the time, all that is required is a student identification card. For many students, they experience problems when they cannot afford to make payments on their credit cards, which ruins their credit ratings before they have even entered the workforce. While many college students are adults, responsible for the debt they charge, the credit card industry's policy of extending high lines of credit to unemployed or underemployed students needs to be examined. This bipartisan legislation would compel credit card companies to determine before approving a card whether any prospective customer who is a traditionally aged full-time student, can afford to pay off the balance. This 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 if prompt payments have been made. Another provision would eliminate the fine print in credit card agreements and solicitations, where fees and penalties are hidden. This print would have to be enlarged. Finally, parents would have to agree in writing to increases in the credit limit of cards which they have cosigned.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to pay special tribute to a school in my district that has taken the initiative to speak out on an issue that is of the utmost importance to all Americans, and that is school violence. Last week the Irondequoit High School in Rochester, New York, presented me with a petition signed by 468 members of the student body asking Congress to resist the temptation of influential lobbyists and, in turn, pass legislation that ensures the peace and tranquility for our Nation's next generation of students. I am sure I do not need to remind my colleagues that the House is currently poised and ready to adjourn for the year without any possibility of passing responsible gun safety measures that will help curb this epidemic of violence that is permeating our schools. When we return to the session next year, I urge the majority of this body to display the same courage and common sense that was demonstrated by the 468 constituents in my district. For the sake of our Nation's students, I implore the leadership to remove the legislative roadblocks that it has placed in the way and allow for a vote on responsible gun safety once and for all.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a long time friend and Rochester Telephone employee, Robert J. Flavin, who passed away on Friday in Rochester, New York. Bob served as the President of Local 1170 of the Communications Workers of America for 36 years. I was honored to attend his memorial service yesterday as this great labor leader and champion of the working people was remembered. As a sign of the high regard the Rochester community had for Bob, on Sunday he was given the Rochester Labor Council, AFL-CIO and United Way Community Service Award posthumously in recognition of his life's work. To further honor Bob, the organizations also announced that the award would be renamed in his memory. Bob Flavin spent his career fighting for the rights of communications employees, helped Rochester Telephone evolve into the national telecommunications firm known as Frontier Corporation, and was instrumental in negotiating a recent labor agreement between Rochester Telephone and Local 1170. His long legacy includes ending the labor dispute between CWA and the former Rochester Telephone Corp. in 1996 and 1997 over the withdrawal of the pension plan. Recently, Bob Flavin had been particularly active in building support from the rank and file within his CWA labor organization for the now-completed merger of Frontier with the international telecommunications firm, Global Crossing Ltd. Bob was proud of his association with and admiration of Frontier's CEO, Joseph Clayton. Mr. Clayton rode with his employees yearly in the Labor Day Parade and he and his family attended the union's events. His concern and affection for Bob during his final illness should be a model for management/labor to follow. Our pain at losing Bob is eased by knowing Bob's final years as a labor leader were his best years because of Joe Clayton. Beyond his many professional contributions to the Rochester community, I remember in particular Bob's love of his family and his great faith. Anyone who knew Bob, knew of his love for his wife of 50 years, Carolyn, and their three sons: Michael, Pat and Timothy, who all still live in Rochester. Among the over 1,000 people who attended his funeral, both his CWA members and Global Crossing management expressed sadness at Bob's passing, and so did many community leaders with whom Bob worked. He will be deeply missed by all of us in the Rochester community.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the rule governing the debate of H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act, makes in order a number of amendments which greatly improve the underlying bill. This rule should have been an open rule. The legislation should be fully debated without unnecessary restrictions. We were unable to achieve that, but a number of important amendments are made in order. Mr. Speaker, let us all agree that fathers count. Fathers have a major impact on every child's life either through their presence or by their absence. We can go through the voluminous research or rely on our common sense to understand the important role that fathers play in the lives of the children whom they helped to bring into the world. But fathers must also stand up and be counted. Sadly, in our Nation, the majority of single-parent families with minor children are maintained by the mothers of those children. Too often, single mothers must struggle to balance the demands of a household, raising children, and holding a job. If they are not receiving child support payments from the fathers of their children, this task can be all but impossible. In my own home district of Monroe County, New York, alone, only $35 million of the $46 million due to local children was collected, meaning that one quarter of the child support went unpaid. Mr. Speaker, it has taken heroic efforts just to get where we are today regarding the public perception of child support payments. We have made great strides in educating people that they are not casual obligations. In seeking to promote marriage, I am concerned about whether or not this bill may have an unintended effect of trying to keep together some unions which should, in fact, be separated, specifically, those with an abusive, physically violent spouse. When as many as one-fourth of the women on public assistance are living with violence in their lives, let the us not try to force them to remain in a violent marriage. Promoting and encouraging fatherhood is a laudable goal. We need to focus on men and their roles as fathers. But that cannot happen independent of the women who are their partners and who quite clearly have a very important part in creating children and the family which results. There will be an amendment offered which will help clarify this point and which emphasizes the notion that parents count. This amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink), also puts proper emphasis on providing resources to organizations dealing with domestic violence prevention and intervention. Finally, the rule does allow for an amendment by our colleague who is perhaps the most consistent and thoughtful voice on the separation of church and State, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). The separation of church and State is a brilliant and practical gift of our Founding Fathers. It is expressly intended to help preserve our religious freedoms, not to threaten them. And this notion serves as a firewall from government regulations of religious practice. Thus, even when it might be more convenient or expeditious to bridge this separation, it must be vigilantly maintained. I strongly encourage Members to consider the Edwards amendment. It will help us to maintain the tradition which has served this country well by clarifying the eligibility of faith-based organizations to participate in the programs provided under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill was cleared by the Committee on Ways and Means on a voice vote and sped down a fast track to consideration here on the House Floor, but a hasty process sometimes needs to be slowed down so that we can more fully consider how to best make fathers count and how to make fathers accountable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), my dear friend and colleague, for yielding me this time; 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 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 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 3\1/2\ 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. This is a sad morning for me, because all the years that I have been in Congress, Reverend Dr. Ford has been here. Every morning he sort of gently nudges us to remind us of what we are here for and to whom we will eventually report. I hope that his prayers before this House will be published, because they were extraordinary pieces of work. Again it showed his intellect and his deep caring. I have a personal story I need to relate about Dr. Ford. We all know how he was there for us whenever we needed him. But I asked him for something extraordinarily special, and he was there when I needed him. My youngest daughter graduated from American University. When she was getting married to our great surprise she decided she wanted to be married here in Washington, which caused us no end of grief because we could not find anybody who was willing to do the service. So we got the loan of a church and Dr. Ford very graciously said, ``Of course I will do that.'' The way he said it to me is something I will never forget. He said, ``Getting married is a wonderful thing. No one should be troubled by who is going to perform the ceremony.'' He did it with such wonderful charm and grace again that every word that he said that day at that ceremony is clear in my mind. So my family is grateful to Dr. Ford. All of us in this House are losing a true friend and champion. Wherever he goes, I hope that he will still gently remind us in some way of why we are here and to whom we report. Thank you for your constancy and for your friendship and for your wonderful guidance which we will miss dreadfully. Thank you, Dr. Ford.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me time. Madam Speaker, I have some strong concerns about the conference report, but I do want to thank the conferees for including Section 733 entitled Fair Treatment for Women by Financial Advisors. This short but important section, based on an amendment I brought to the floor, reads, it is the sense of Congress that individuals offering financial advice and products should offer such services and products in a nondiscriminatory, nongender specific manner. The language is in response to estate documents that keep women from controlling their inherited financial assets. Some estate planning publications and sales literature for trusts use three themes. One is that women should be relieved of the burden of managing money because they cannot learn. Second, if they have money on their hands they will be vulnerable to shysters and, third, they might remarry and hand the man's hard-earned money over to somebody else. Now, this is not an old problem. In a 1998 estate planning guidebook it instructs its benefactor to consider the question if, quote, a man should subject his wife to the bewildering details which administration of property often involves if she has had no experience with it. It goes on to state that if she has had no previous experience she may not be prepared to handle large sums of money. If this is true, she herself would not want to be burdened with administration of property. How kind of them to look out for protecting the wife. It is past time that these outdated themes are addressed and discriminatory financial practices are brought out in the open as we move forward to modernize the rest of the financial services industry, and it is my personal hope that this bill includes no bail-out provisions should some of this go wrong in the future.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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