Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2679, the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999. The rule provides the opportunity for the House to consider the underlying bill which would establish the National Motor Carrier Administration within the Department of Transportation. Mr. Speaker, the interstates, highways and even rural blacktop roads of this Nation are shared by drivers responsible for everything from 18-wheelers to an old four-door sedan. The goal of this new agency would be to bring even more new scientific focus and energy to our efforts at making sure those vehicles and their drivers are operating as safely as possible. The Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1999 is the product of considerable discussion and input from highway safety advocates, organized labor, people in the truck and bus industries, and the government agencies responsible for oversight. As stated in the report, the principal goal of the bill is to reduce the number and severity of large truck-involved fatal crashes. Tragically, the number of fatalities involving large truck travel has been growing since early in this decade, and that rise in fatalities is projected to continue unless action is taken. After considering a variety of options, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure determined that creating this separate agency, with safety as its top priority, would be the most effective approach. Mr. Speaker, a number of high-profile accidents in Illinois, New Jersey, and Louisiana have raised troubling questions about loopholes in the system which licenses commercial drivers. These crashes have included multiple fatalities and injuries and are a call to action for this Congress and this Nation to set tougher standards and to close those loopholes. This bill is a response to that call. Mr. Speaker, the rule does allow for several thoughtful amendments to be considered; and, therefore, I urge favorable consideration of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am very sad this morning, because I am persuaded by this rule that this House will never touch insurance reform. This bill, the underlying bipartisan bill, has been doomed to fail after years of work by large numbers of Members on both sides. Nothing should be clearer to each of us than the fact that our constituents want medical decisions made by medical practitioners and not by their insurance carriers. But the right of action against an insurance company dooms this bill. State after State has enacted legislation that allows the right of action this bill intends, and it has created no massive rush to the courts. Texas has had four cases in several years under this legislation. Now, if an individual lives in one of those States, then that is good for them, but they are not going to get the protection in the United States if they do not. Now, why should insurance companies who are culpable to damages be immune from redress? Doctors are not, hospitals are not, ancillary care is not. But insurance companies have to have the immunity. Never mind about those questions, the clever construction of this rule will once again thwart the people's will. We have waited a long time for this day, only to see it lost in this dance of legislation. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule so that we may try to have a second chance to give Americans what they want and what they deserve for the first time this year.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), 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, the rule for H.R. 764 is an open rule, and I am pleased to support its consideration. Mr. Speaker, every year, millions of children are the victims of child abuse or are witnesses to terrible violence. The repercussions of this violence is often felt for the rest of that child's life. Study after study suggests that children who are victims of child abuse or neglect are far more likely to run afoul of the law either as adolescents or adults. Statistics show that most people who are abusers were abused as children themselves. Even as the crime in some areas is going down, experts tell us the number of crimes against children is going up. This bill is an important effort aimed at child abuse treatment and prevention. It was passed just a few days ago by a voice vote in the Committee on the Judiciary and is now here on the floor for consideration by the full House. Several important amendments have been identified, and I look forward to the thoughtful debate concerning this most important issue. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I represent Rochester, New York; and we have always known that people in New York City do strange things, but we have always tolerated them with some bemusement. The mayor of New York now has embarked on his 18th First Amendment case, having lost all of them; and Congress today is going to try to join him in that exercise, which is going to be found blatantly unconstitutional. I find more than a sense of irony that today we had H. Res. 57, where the House of Representatives expressed its great concern over interference with freedom of the press, but not in the United States, in Peru. So now we are all going to work this afternoon to see what we can do to interfere in Brooklyn. Beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder. If the mayor does not want to go, he should not go. As a matter of fact, other people and the reviews of this show tell us that people are lining up around the building, standing in the rain to get in to see what has aggravated Giuliani so much this time. Nobody as far as I know has fainted, been nauseated, or had to be removed to the hospital, which were some of the things that we were told might happen with this show. My colleagues, I think a majority of Americans that we represent, God bless their judgment, think that it is time to really close the door on the tactics that make the arts and humanities political hostages every time we find something that we can pounce on. The benefits that we receive for our economy and for our children and for our communities by arts and humanities are indisputable and far outweigh the small financial investment that we are making; however, we make no investment in this show in Brooklyn. Now, the sooner we get around to accepting that fact, maybe we can get around to passing a budget and do something to stop having to shut down the Federal Government. I think it is unthinkable that we can work at this ploy just to aim solely at influencing the New York State senatorial election. I want to say something for this museum. For more than a century, the Brooklyn Museum of Art has provided so many benefits, not only to the people of New York but to Americans all across the country. It strikes me as dreadful that the mayor not only wants to stop this show, he wants to evict this show, he wants to tear down the building and salt the ground. This Brooklyn Museum and what it has done for the Brooklyn's Children Museum through the Brooklyn Public Library is incalculable. For Heaven's sake, let us not mess with this thing and please get back to the business of the United States.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for their extraordinary work and how wonderful it is to work with both of them. The first thing I want to say today is we have just had the resolution on the Brooklyn Museum of Art. I want to put everybody's minds at rest, there is no NEA money in that exhibition. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees on the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill. As most of my colleagues will attest, I have long stood at the well of this Chamber to advocate for the strongest level of support possible for the arts and humanities. For the past 4 years, this body has passed up the opportunity to benefit millions of Americans by choosing to level-fund the National Endowment for the Arts and for the Humanities. Year after year, I have joined with other members in a bipartisan way, members of the Congressional Arts Caucus, to show our support for our Nation's cultural institutions, and to fight back against the political rhetoric and campaigns of misinformation that have long been used against these vital agencies. So today I say with great enthusiasm that we are finally beginning to reap the benefits of these efforts. This motion to instruct provides badly needed relief to the NEA and the NEH by directing the conferees to accept the $5 million funding increases that were responsibly added to this bill by the other body. These small increases will permit the NEA to broaden its reach to all Americans through its Challenge America initiative. It will give the Endowment the resources to undertake the job that we in Congress have asked of it, to make more grants to small and medium-sized communities that have not been the beneficiaries of Federal arts funding in the past. From the fields of rural America to the streets of our inner cities, the NEA has a plan to expose all Americans to the arts and this money would help them to do exactly that. In addition, the NEH plays an equally important role in our society. It is at the forefront of efforts to improve and promote education in the humanities. NEH funding is well spent to ensure that teachers, restricted by scarce funding, are well-trained in history, civics, literature and social studies. Through the use of computers, educational software and the Internet, the NEH is also using its Teaching with Technology initiative to bring the humanities to life in the information age. Mr. Speaker, a majority of Americans and a majority of this House support the arts and humanities. In addition, these institutions are supported by such entities as 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 benefits to our communities. Last year, the $98 million allocated to the NEA provided the leadership and backbone for a $37 billion industry. For the price of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the Federal budget, we helped create a system that supports 1.3 million full-time jobs in States, cities, towns and villages across the country, providing $3.4 billion back to the Federal Treasury in income taxes. I think that is a good investment. As we head into a new millennium, these modest increases will allow the NEA and the NEH to spread the wonderful work that they do to every city, town and village in America. Federal support for the arts and humanities is an incredibly worthwhile investment and these increases would take a small but important step toward revitalizing two agencies that we have neglected for too many years. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to instruct.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the rule, the transportation appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2000, but the conference report itself should be the subject of vigorous debate today as members of the authorizing committee and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure express their serious concerns about provisions added to the conference report by the other body. There are also issues which will be discussed on the floor today relating to unfunded mandates and numerous legislative provisions which appear in the conference report. Mr. Speaker, there is no question but that the transportation system of this Nation helps us to maintain our competitive edge worldwide. There is no question but that the very same system must be maintained, repaired, and upgraded constantly for that competitive edge to remain. This is a goal shared by both the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations. This debate might be described as a difference not of where we are going, but how we get there. I wish to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Appropriations, for sharing strong support of and commitment to our transportation system for the people of America, unmatched anywhere in the world. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) 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 support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 2910, the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 1999. This is an open rule, providing for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. We thank the members of the committee who bring this bill before us this morning for their very important work. The bill authorizes the National Transportation Safety Board at slightly increased levels for the next three fiscal years, increases which are necessary for the NTSB to continue its important work. This is a Nation on the move. Whether in the skies, on the ground, or across our waterways, the lifeblood of our economy pulses through our transportation system. That same system helps people bridge the miles which separate friends and family. But, tragically, accidents which claim lives and threaten public safety are a part of that equation. The NTSB has, since 1974, worked diligently to analyze and investigate the causes of such tragedies, and that knowledge which has been gained and applied has helped us to make travel for business and for pleasure more safe. When the question is public safety, there is no room for complacency, which is why this bill is so important. This bill was forwarded to the House by a voice vote, and no opposition to its consideration has been noticed on either side of the aisle. Therefore, I am pleased to support the rule and the bill. 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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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 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 thank my distinguished colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I strongly oppose the modified closed rule on H.R. 2436. On an issue as important as this, we should hear the voice of every Member of the House without the limitations imposed by the majority on the committee. During consideration of the rule yesterday, a motion was made for an open rule, but it was defeated. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill, the so-called Unborn Victims of Violence Act. This dangerous legislation would establish penalties for those who harm or terminate a pregnancy at any stage of development, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a Federal crime. This bill would create the first Federal law that recognizes a fertilized egg an independent victim of a crime and gives it the same legal right as people who are born. The bill marks a major departure from existing Federal law and threatens to erode the foundations of the right to choose as recognized in the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, should the Senate take up this bill, which is most unlikely, it will be vetoed. Under H.R. 2436, the fetus has the same or more legal status as the pregnant woman. Recognizing the fetus as having the same legal rights independent of the pregnant woman makes it possible to use those rights against her. This bill would put the woman and the fetus in conflict and could place the health, worth, and dignity of women on a lower level. The supporters suggest that they are advancing this bill in an effort to combat domestic violence. If that is true, it is at best an awkward and at worst a dangerous effort. If the supporters of this legislation are so interested in stopping violence against women, I stand ready to join them in a vigorous effort to bring to the floor the Violence Against Women Act and Violence Against Women Act II. Yesterday, at the Committee on Rules, I made such a motion, but it was defeated. The supporters of the bill insist that H.R. 2436 has nothing to do with the abortion debate and was crafted to protect women against violence. Why then, one is left to wonder, was this bill referred not to the Subcommittee on Crime but, instead, to the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary? It is the Constitution which provides the foundation for a woman's protection of her right to choose. And despite what we hear to the contrary, this bill is the hammer striking a chisel against that foundation. Are we sickened and outraged by attacks on pregnant women that cause harm or miscarriage? To the depths of our souls. Situations such as the one in Arkansas, where a husband hired three youths to beat his wife so she would miscarry, deserve the contempt of our society and the full measure of justice our legal system can muster. But this can be done by prosecuting a defendant for an assault on the woman, provisions that might be addressed in the Violence Against Women Act. Members of the Committee on the Judiciary are working courageously to thwart this attack. My friends and colleagues, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will offer a substitute which makes it a Federal crime to assault a pregnant woman. If it is violence against women, including pregnant women, which we are trying to stop, then the Lofgren substitute is the only reasonable alternative before us today. Otherwise, the underlying bill is nothing more than another scheme to advance the Christian Coalition and National Right to Life's agenda to destroy Roe versus Wade and, in fact, they boast as much on their net as to how they drafted the bill. This measure aims to chip away at a woman's reproductive freedom under the guise of fighting crime. I will continue to fight the leadership's efforts to turn back the clock on women's rights and reproductive health. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, the Department of Justice opposes this bill, and it will be vetoed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Florida for yielding me the 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, this is an ``almost open'' rule, for the majority has again relied on a preprinting requirement for amendments which may affect some Members of the House. But I rise in support of the rule and in support of H.R. 2506, the Health Research and Quality Act of 1999. The bill is being brought to the floor by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for the majority and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for the minority. This bipartisan legislation reauthorizes the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and renames the agency as the Agency for Health Research and Quality, AHRQ, pronounced ``arc.'' This agency promotes health care quality through research, synthesizing and consolidating medical information, and disseminating scientific evidence. Building on its current initiatives, the agency will play a key role in partnering with the private sector to improve the quality of health care in the United States. As a longtime supporter of health care research, I believe this piece of legislation will benefit patients, care-givers and insurance providers with vital information and statistics on how to improve the Nation's health care system. The agency's research and information consolidation will play a key role in extending quality care and improving health service delivery throughout the country. This agency provides vital information and resources that foster improvement in health care systems from America's smallest rural townships to its most populous inner cities. The agency's mission includes fostering the extension of quality health care systems to those Americans left behind as our Nation continues its economic growth. The agency's work is especially important as health care delivery in our country evolves. When the AHCPR was established a little over 10 years ago, the health care system was vastly different from what we know today. More people now receive their care through managed plans and HMOs. The growing complexity of health plans bewilderers many patients and contributes to the growing tensions between patients and insurers. This legislation directs AHRQ to address the public's growing concern for the quality of patient care and the number of medical errors that continue to grow each day. Their research helps hospitals and clinics around the country to reduce the injuries arising from mismanagement of cases. A recent study examined the records of more than 30,000 hospital patients in my home State of New York. The study found that nearly 4 percent of patients suffered serious injuries that were related to the management of their illnesses rather than the illnesses themselves. This is a vital area of research for the agency and another reason why the reauthorization of funding for this agency and the redirection of its mission is important. The legislation does more than merely change the name of the agency. It directs the agency to develop new public-private partnerships in the health care arena. This will bring new perspectives to improving the dissemination of health information and the development of health care systems that better serve our neighborhoods, towns and cities. These partnerships will also leverage greater private investment and commitment to creating improved health care service systems throughout the Nation. In the process, AHRQ will also support increased efficiency and quality of Federal program management. According to testimony provided to the committee during a recent hearing, nine out of 10 people surveyed supported health research as well as the amount of Federal money spent on our Nation's health care. Mr. Speaker, this agency costs just one one-hundredth of one percent of the total funds spent by the government on health care and is a sound investment in our Nation's future health. I support this initiative even though it is only a modest step toward guaranteeing that all our citizens have access to the finest medical care in the world. Citizens across the United States are crying out for more. We need comprehensive health care reform that includes a provision to ban genetic discrimination in insurance. We need a true Patients' Bill of Rights. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to read the names of children killed by gunfire since the April 20 Columbine massacre: Anthony Joseph Stroud, age 12, killed by gunfire in July 1999, Houston, Texas; Reginald McClaine, age 16, killed by gunfire on August 4, 1999, Bronx, New York; Aaron Thomas, age 16, killed by gunfire on August 5, 1999, St. Louis, Missouri; Erik Kraemer, age 17, killed by gunfire on August 7, 1999, Turtle Lake, Wisconsin; Halley Finch, age 5, killed by gunfire on August 7, 1999, Gary, Indiana; Jeremy Lee Gearon, age 16, killed by gunfire on August 7, 1999, Gary, Indiana; DeJuan Williams, age 17, killed by gunfire on August 9, 1999, St. Louis, Missouri; Alexande Durrive, age 14, killed by gunfire on August 10, 1999, Miami, Dade County, Florida.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I believe we have heard from everybody from Wisconsin on our side, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I have no other requests for time on this rule, but I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to speak out of order.