Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have some shocking news this morning. If my colleagues will recall, last Thursday, I think in a moment of spectacular madness, the majority of this House passed a bill that cut the funding for research to the National Institutes of Health until the last 2 days of the fiscal year next year. The troubling news I have this morning is that it has come to our attention that a brazen act by some staffers in Congress has taken place. Majority staffers in the other body have warned the National Institutes of Health researchers and the research advocates that if they complain about the delays proposed for the research, their own funding is going to be jeopardized. This is a scandal of major proportions; taking away the first amendment rights and the rights of people to try to address this body. Now, just yesterday it was announced by researchers at the University of Rochester, New York, in my district, that they have discovered that genetic material from the HIV virus can kill cancer tumors. They tell me that this and other NIH-funded research is what is going to be hampered in Rochester if their funding is delayed. The chairman of the Labor-HHS subcommittee yesterday asked the President to veto the bill because he is stunned too by its irresponsibility.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for allowing me to speak, and I appreciate his support. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) for bringing this to the floor and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for his support. Just take a look at this. Right here, it says up at the top, ``Attention: Time-sensitive material. Contents to be opened by addressee only. Obstruction of U.S. mail punishable by fines up to $2,000 and 5 years imprisonment.'' Now, imagine, one gets this envelope, which looks very much like the one one's Social Security check comes in, and it has everything in the world to make it look like it came from the government. Official communication, it says up there. Extremely urgent. Respond within 5 business days. Then over on the back, again, it says, ``Documents enclosed intended for the sole use of the addressee. Tampering is a Federal offense.'' This chart has been enlarged 4,000 times, and it is still barely readable. The fact that everybody, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) said, is getting one of these almost every day in the mail is really a scandal. We know they are designed to confuse and mislead the recipients. Virginia Tierney from the AARP pointed out in her testimony that these deceptive sweepstakes lead older Americans to send in thousands of dollars from their Social Security checks and lifetime savings because they believe what is often also written on here, ``you have automatically won.'' But I want to focus a specific provision of this bill that addresses a strong concern of mine, and that is what I just pointed out, that this mail looks as though it has been distributed or endorsed by a government agency. The companies are sending these facsimile checks usually in window envelopes that are specifically designed to look like the Social Security envelope. This government look-alike mail motivates the senior to at least open the envelope. I did not hear about this deceptive mailing practice from my constituents because my colleagues may notice that this was addressed to me, this official communication, which I tampered with at my peril. Now, in very small print back here on the back of the envelope going on for 33 lines is the official rules detailing that this is in reality a sweepstakes solicitation. It is not a private government document carrying great threats. How dare they usurp government authority in an attempt to frighten people. I have to be honest, I got dizzy counting the number of lines the small print goes on for. That was because I had tried to read this before it was enlarged. A senior citizen would have to enlarge this envelope to poster size like I did before they could read this small print. This bill would close the loophole and prohibit all mailings that could reasonably look like government documents in any way, shape, or form, period. Sweepstakes companies need to stop misleading the American people, especially our seniors. It is past time that the House of Representatives votes to stop these deceptive mailings, and I am more than delighted that this bill has come to the floor.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my good friend, for yielding me the 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 rise to speak on the rule governing this motion to go to conference on H.R. 2990, what the majority is calling the Quality Care for the Uninsured Act of 1999. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle do not want a Patients' Bill of Rights. They have scrubbed those words from the title of the bill and have assigned it a bill number intended to disguise its heritage. But in, amongst everything else, there is a Patients' Bill of Rights, and this is an extremely important motion. The American people have spoken with a clear and compelling voice. They want reform in managed care, and they want protection from denials and delays which literally threaten their quality of life. This House responded in overwhelming fashion passing the Norwood- Dingell managed care reform bill by a 275 to 151 vote margin. It was a genuine rout, a convergence of political courage and public support resulting in a good bill which will do the right thing by the American people. In fact, it was a little too good for our friends who want to scuttle the HMO reform legislation. They are playing their ace in the hole, a parliamentary procedure which combines this very agreeable HMO bill with H.R. 2990, a very disagreeable bill which barely passed the House. But the trump card will be the will of the American people. They will no longer tolerate being denied access to specialists or to clinical trials. They will not tolerate having medical decisions made by bureaucrats with a clipboard instead of a physician with a stethoscope. They are ready to make a stand. Those of us who voted for the Norwood- Dingell bill are standing with them. Earlier this year, the other body passed a bill which pales in comparison to the House version. The House needs to send a strong, clear message to the conference committee that it should stand by the Patients' Bill of Rights which the House passed, that we should refuse to swallow the poison pills intended to kill this bill. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take just a moment to suggest that the conference take action on the vital issue of preventing genetic discrimination in health insurance. The Senate bill at least mentions the issue. The House bill is silent. But this is an issue that must be heard. Mr. Speaker, I humbly suggest that this is the next frontier of the health care debate. In the next few months, the human genome map will be complete. We are entering an era where we can know whether a person has a gene which might result in conditions from Alzheimer's disease to breast cancer. This gives us tremendous potential to act in a preventive manner, but this is a double edged sword. If insurance companies are able to use this information against people, if they find out that one has the potential for a disease that is expensive to treat, and they thus deny the coverage, then the advances in research will cut the other way in a very cruel fashion. I have authored legislation to prevent discrimination based on genetic information, and I offered with my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), an amendment to include such protection in this bill. But the Committee on Rules declined to allow the House to have that debate. Thus, the House bill is perilously silent on this issue. I encourage and hope that the House negotiators will work to improve the genetic discrimination protections included in the Senate bill and protect every American. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that we are going to insist that the conferees remain true to the bipartisan vote on this floor in favor of a real patients' bill of rights. I have compared this debate to a card game, and here the majority may very well refuse to even deal a hand to the people who support the Norwood/Dingell approach by refusing to give the supporters of the bill a seat at the conference table. That would be an insult to the Members of this House who represent the millions of Americans who want action on managed care reform. It has taken far too long to get to this point in the debate. The other body passed a bill earlier this summer; we passed a bill a month ago. The other body appointed conferees 2 weeks ago; the majority in this House is just getting around to it. Maybe it has taken that long for the majority to try to stack the deck, but I am betting the American people will not let them get away with it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. This rule provides for the consideration of the third version of the D.C. appropriations bill and the Labor-HHS bill which has never been voted on in the House, and just for good measure an across-the-board cut of 1 percent. This bill does not extend Social Security or Medicare solvency for even a single day. My friends on the other side know full well that the President will veto this bill and we will have to come back. And a veto is well deserved. Mr. Speaker, if we pass this rule, we are endorsing a most unusual procedure. The annual Labor, Health and Human Services bill appropriates about one-third of the United States budget. It makes vitally important decisions about funding levels for everything from cancer research to teacher training. One would think that the Members of this House would consider it their responsibility to bring such a bill to the floor and to vigorously debate amendments which might make it better. But my friends in the majority are going to shirk that responsibility and opt instead for a single up-or-down vote on a whole grab bag of issues, some lacking even a passing acquaintance with the Labor-HHS bill. In my district, Rochester, New York, experts at the University of Rochester are conducting internationally recognized research in biotechnology and medical investigation. But in a bill where out of the ordinary is considered routine, this measure will delay any grants from January until September 29, 2000. There will be no research grants for a year. People who are waiting for cures, praying for cures know that this bill will not help them. As a former scientist, I can tell you research cannot be conducted that way. A delay of a year could be a delay for a lifetime. Research delayed is results denied, results which might help save a life or improve the quality of life for our fellow Americans. Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous admiration for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the subcommittee chairman. He has been a champion in so many ways and his intelligence, competence and compassion will be irreplaceable when he retires at the end of next year. I really believe that in another place and time he would have brought a much different bill to the floor. But in this time and place the Labor-HHS bill cannot pass on its own. And so the majority relies on procedural shenanigans to slip it through. The other side will argue it is really just a cut in office supplies and travel budgets and maybe coffee money. Really? Well, how about a $184 million cut in veterans medical care, or $2.7 billion cut in defense, which would mean eliminating jobs for tens of thousands of men and women in uniform? The top military official in the United States has warned that this approach could seriously impair our military readiness, but the majority here will be arguing office supplies and travel budgets. I do not blame the American people for finding this hard to believe. I find it hard to believe. Earlier this year this same majority said it had $892 million for a tax cut using up the Social Security money. Now it says it has to cut back on Head Start and child nutrition. A retroactive cut in bills which have already been signed by the President is a new wrinkle for us, and that has happened for several of the appropriations bills. It is very much like the contractor who builds a house, Mr. Speaker, and then comes back the next morning and breaks the windows. The rule is objectionable because it condones the highly unconventional process under which we consider this underlying bill, and the bill is objectionable for reasons too numerous to fully address in the time allotted for any of us, but I solemnly urge defeat of both.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) whose late father, Morris Udall, chaired the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs with great distinction. (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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 the balance of my time to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood). (Mr. UNDERWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding this time to me. I rise in opposition to the consideration of House Resolution 337, the rule governing consideration of H.R. 2466, the Interior appropriations conference report for Fiscal Year 2000. Mr. Speaker, approving the rule would allow this House to consider a conference report which richly deserves defeat. Voting down the rule would send a message to our friends on the conference committee that they need to go back to the drawing board. This conference has a little bit of something for almost everyone to dislike. Many of its provisions are nothing short of a slap in the face to the majority of this House which voted on specific instructions which the conferees ignored. The conference report is saddled with some truly offensive environmental riders which allow mining companies to continue doing damage to the public lands on which they operate, permits oil companies to operate under sweetheart deals on public lands, relaxes forest management practices and permits more timber to be taken from the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, just to name a few. The conference report is also woefully short of the mark on the administration's lands legacy effort which is designed to save environmentally sensitive and important land across this Nation and for which this Nation wants attention. Mr. Speaker, Members looking for a reason to vote against this bill based on a concern for the environment have an embarrassment of riches from which to choose. As Chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, let me address for a moment another egregious shortcoming in this bill. Last month the other body took the responsible position of increasing funding by $5 million each for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In keeping with that position this House voted to instruct the conferees to accept the higher funding levels. The conference committee, presumably acting under direction of the House leadership, choose to ignore our instructions. Sadly NEA funding has once again been hijacked by a small number of individuals who long ago put on their blinders and now refuse to take them off. In fiscal year l996 the NEA had its budget cut by 40 percent, a cut from which very few agencies could even recover. Since that time NEA opponents have made it their obsession to oppose a complete recovery. They have chosen to obfuscate the facts by falsely characterizing the agency's work and by demeaning the value of art and culture to our society. Had the conferees gone along with the modest funding increase provided by the other body and endorsed in a vote on the floor of this House, it would have been the first increase in arts funding since 1992. It would have allowed the NEA to broaden its reach to all Americans by partially funding its proposed Challenge America initiative which is expressly designed to provide grants in communities which have been underserved by the agency because of its lack of money. Some of our colleagues rail against the NEA, saying it has ignored their districts but now withhold the very funding which would correct the problem. This funding increase would have given the Endowment the resources to undertake the job that we in Congress have asked it to do to make more grants to small and medium-sized communities. In addition, the agency has spent the past few years implementing reforms to make itself more accountable to the American people, and I strongly believe they have earned the opportunity to pursue this plan. The arts are supported by the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties and by such corporations as CBS, Coca- Cola, Mobil, Westinghouse, and Boeing, to name just a few. These organizations support the arts because they provide economic benefit to our communities. With one hundredth of 1 percent of the Federal budget, we help to create a system that supports 1.3 million full-time jobs in States, cities, towns, and villages across the country providing $3.4 billion in income taxes to the Treasury. I do not think we make any investment here with a greater return. Mr. Speaker, while I am pleased that the committee allowed a $5 million increase to the NEH, I cannot support legislation shortchanging the NEA for yet another year. This is not about budget caps. The benefits that we receive for our economy, for our children, and for our communities far outweigh the small financial investment we are making. This is not about public support. As opinion polls show, without a doubt the American people are overwhelmingly in favor of a Federal role in the arts. And this is not about support in this body that was demonstrated on the floor of this House just 17 days ago. This is about a small number of individuals who want to run against the NEA at election time. Mr. Speaker, let us put those campaigns to rest and put to rest the campaign of misinformation which is keeping the NEA from continuing and expanding its valuable work. I urge my colleagues to send this legislation back to the conference committee so that we can give our leaders another opportunity to finish the job that we have asked them to do on numerous occasions. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), for yielding me the time. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 336 provides for the consideration of the underlying bill H.R. 2, the Student Results Act. This is a modified open rule which limits debate on amendments to the bill to 6 hours. This means the clock may run out on amendments which Members have prepared and which deserve to be heard. Madam Speaker, it is not as though the House has considered such a plethora of landmark legislation that we do not have a little extra time to discuss and debate how best we give our children a quality education, but the rule inhibits that debate. Last night in the Committee on Rules a motion was offered for an open rule with no limitation on time, but it was rejected. The rule also depends on a preprinting requirement which further works to limit the exchange of ideas. These are defects in this rule which should not go unnoticed. At the same time, I should point out the rule expressly includes the opportunity for a very important amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and numerous other colleagues who share my very deep concern with the issue of gender equity. Since 1974, the Women's Educational Equity Act has provided teachers, administrators, and parents with the resources, materials, and tools to combat inequitable educational practices. The act trains teachers to treat girls and boys fairly in the classroom, and allows the training of teachers to encourage girls to pursue the careers and higher- education degrees in science, engineering, and technology, careers they very well may want but are actually discouraged from pursuing. The act also funds the Center for Women's Educational Programming, which conducts vital research on effective approaches to closing the gender gap in education, as well as developing curriculum and model programs to ensure that these effective approaches are implemented. From its inception, this act has funded over 700 programs while requests for information and assistance continue to grow. From February to August of this year, the Resource Center received over 750 requests for technical assistance, and that is a lot of requests for a country that presumes it has reached gender equity, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us believe. The question today is not, What needs does it meet? It is obvious that it meets the important gender equity needs of our public education system. And the question before us today is why should we reauthorize the Women's Educational Equity Act? The majority would have us believe that we should not reauthorize it. They argue that gender equity has been accomplished and gender inequity or discrimination in the classroom is a thing of the past or does not exist, but this is not the case. According to a recent report conducted by the American Association of University Women, women are close to 50 percent of America's population. Yet they earn only 7 percent of the engineering degrees and 36 percent of the math degrees. Women are only 3 percent of CEOs at Fortune 500 companies, but in the face of such statistics the majority considers gender equity programs no longer useful. They would rather ignore these statistics and allow girls' educational needs to be neglected. They would rather we eliminate a current long-standing program that ensures fairness and equal opportunities in our classrooms that would ultimately undermine our commitment to title IX, which has been so helpful to young women in this society. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Mink/ Woolsey/Sanchez/Morella amendment to the Student Results Act. This amendment will reauthorize the Women's Equity Act and reaffirm our commitment to gender equity. The importance is as important today as it was in 1974. To this very day, guidance counselors are advising young women away from the careers that they would like to have, careers in science and math, and urging them to go into five fields which have generally over the years been delegated only to women. We cannot afford to waste that brain power in the United States, Madam Speaker; and those of us who are the mothers and grandmothers of young women insist that they be given equal opportunity to achieve everything that they want to achieve. So I want to urge my colleagues, please do not slam the door to gender equity on America's girls, just as they are starting to walk through it. The gender equity provision being left out is a glaring omission in a bill which otherwise has many meritorious provisions. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), an expert in education. (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).