Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and strongly support the bill, H.R. 1402. This bipartisan bill is brought to the House floor by the Committee on Agriculture chairman, the honorable gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), and the ranking minority member on the Committee on Agriculture, the honorable gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I am pleased that Midwestern Members will be able to articulate their opposition to this bill and offer amendments highlighting their difference of opinion under this rule. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1402 would require the Secretary of Agriculture to implement the Class 1 milk price structure known as Option 1A as part of the final rule to consolidate Federal milk marketing orders. H.R. 1402 would essentially maintain minimum farm milk prices close to the current levels. The bill would also extend the Federal dairy price support program by 1 year. This legislation is necessary to prevent the USDA from moving forward with proposed changes that would be devastating for dairy farmers, not only in New York but across the country. Nationwide, dairy farmers would lose $200 million under the USDA proposal scheduled to go into effect October 1. In the Northeast, dairy farm income would be reduced by $84 million annually. In my State of New York alone, dairy farmers would lose $30 million a year. Just as milk does the body good, H.R. 1402 does the dairy farmer and the economy good. The critics of the legislation argue that farmers overwhelmingly voted to approve the USDA charges, milking this argument for all it is worth. What they do not point out is that farmers would have risked the loss of all Federal price supports in their region. Essentially, farmers had a choice between a flood or a drought when what they really wanted was a long soaking rain. So the opponents of H.R. 1402 in the upper Midwest claim that the Administration's final rule helps to balance out a system that they claim results in lower prices to farmers in their region. But a Hoard's Dairyman study shows that in 1998, the mailbox prices, the actual dollar amount that a farmer receives in the upper Midwest, were among the highest in the country. Despite this fact, the modified Option 1B that the Secretary of Agriculture has proposed actually further raises the prices in the upper Midwest while lowering prices paid to producers in most of the rest of the country. Opponents also argue that the 1996 farm bill required USDA to develop a new, more market-oriented Federal Order system. However, Option 1A, also developed by USDA, is a more market-oriented system, yet will not result in concentrating milk production into one small region of the country. If this concentration occurred, not only will thousands of dairy farmers be forced out of business, but consumers will also suffer increased prices as a reflection of forced transportation costs. Some critics of H.R. 1402 have argued that this bill would mandate higher milk prices, milking the consumers' fears for all they are worth. The USDA even says that consumers would not pay more than 1 percent per gallon more for milk. An independent analysis conducted for the House Committee on Agriculture by the University of Missouri's Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, one I am sure the chairman knows well, also supports this finding. This means, in the worst case scenario, an average American will pay no more than 24 cents a year. That is less than one cup of coffee. Opponents also argue that this bill will affect the cost of other milk products, such as cheese. But the provisions of H.R. 1402 that affect milk used to produce cheese, Class III, will not increase prices paid for this milk, and therefore will not affect the price of cheese to consumers. In addition, a 1-year extension of the dairy price support program will actually reduce the cost of the dairy program by over $100 million. That is according to the Congressional Budget Office. Very simply, taxpayers will not see increased costs because of the bill, farmers did not have a choice when the referendum was held, and consumers will not see savings if the bill is defeated. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bipartisan H.R. 1402 and this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 419, I was unavoidably detained on official business. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, almost every year since I have been in the House we have struggled to try to pass meaningful campaign finance reform, and this year is no different. Ten poison pill amendments and substitutes have been introduced that are designed to weaken the Shays-Meehan bill. This bill is necessary to cut off the flow of unlimited and often undisclosed money into the Federal election system. Specifically, the bill closes two primary loopholes through which this money flows into Federal campaigns, soft money and sham issue ads. All of us have received letters and phone calls from constituents who care about this issue and want this system cleaned up. One of my constituents stated that as long as the fox has full access to the henhouse, he has no plans to repair the hole. So it goes with politicians, he said. He believes the only way campaign finance reform would happen would be to take it out of our hands. Let us prove him wrong. Congress needs to close these loopholes now to stop the corruption of elections into the 21st century and to restore Americans' faith in their government. Vote yes on Shays-Meehan and no on the poison pill amendments.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 370, I was unavoidable detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am continually amazed by the misinformation spread about the Patients' Bill of Rights. I know the businesses in my district believe this Patients' Bill of Rights would allow enrollees to sue their employers for denied benefits, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Patients' Bill of Rights contains explicit provisions stating that employers cannot be sued for decisions made by health insurers. I hope that the American people this time will see through the smokescreen being thrown up by too many groups who have too much interest in killing this legislation. The more time goes by, we risk losing this opportunity altogether. The powerful forces lined up against this legislation will accept another delay to give them the chance to marshall their forces. We have plenty of time to pass an irresponsible tax cut, time to prevent the Department of Labor from protecting people against workplace injuries, time to name buildings and courthouses, but evidently we do not have the time to protect the very lives and limbs of our constituents. After this Friday, this Chamber is out of session for 36 days. How many of those days will we fritter away on sound bites and legislation designed for special groups?

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on July 23, 1999 Col. Eileen Marie Collins, U.S.A.F. took one giant step for all womankind by serving as the first woman in history to command a space shuttle flight. I was privileged to fly to Cape Canaveral, Florida with the First Lady and the U.S. Women's Soccer Team on July 20, 1999 to watch the shuttle's first attempt. Although we were disappointed that the flight was delayed, we all marveled that just a few years ago events such as this one could not have occurred. Col. Collins was born in upstate New York, not far from my district, at a time when women were excluded from our nation's space exploration program. Col. Collins rarely ever missed an episode of Star Trek or Lost in Space according to her family. Along with her father, Col. Collins would watch the gliders soaring over Elmira hoping one day she too could fly. Eileen Collins dared to dream and her dreams became our dreams. Her efforts are inspiring young women and girls to tackle and excel at math and the sciences today. Col. Collins is blazing a trail that will undoubtedly be followed by future women astronauts. She has rendered outstanding service to her country and is a true role model to young and old alike. I would like to take this opportunity to commend and congratulate her on a tremendous accomplishment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1074 is a bill which sorely needs improvement. Amendments to protect taxpayers from runaway spending and to analyze the cost/benefit ratio of corporate welfare were not included in the bill during its consideration in the Committee on Government Reform. My friends on the other side are more than willing to belabor the value of and insist on a bottom line for rules which protect the life, the health, and the safety of the American people. But when the question is restated to ask how much corporate America benefits from Federal programs, the majority is far less interested in the answer. I expect we will see that issue revisited when we take up the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment. H.R. 1074, the Regulatory Right-To-Know Act, has a ``feel good'' title to disguise the potential harm buried in its details. As envisioned by my friends on the other side, every time the Federal Government proposes to take even the most routine action, it would be viewed through 1,000 different green eye shades. There is little if any leeway given for action which is clearly necessary, decisions which are ``no-brainers.'' It is like the pedestrian whose reflex is to leap from the crosswalk to avoid a car running a red light, but first he asks how many calories will be burned and how much shoe leather will be used and how the impact of the car would impact their productivity at the office. Now, if our pedestrian is faced with a different set of circumstances, such as deciding whether to buy a car so that they do not have to walk to work, then that requires a different approach, and rightly so. Because, by Executive Order, we already analyze the cost and benefits of the 60 or more major rules which are proposed each year. That is sensible and reasonable. My concern is that my friends on the other side who so often talk about government which is small and smart are now proposing to make government big and dull. A cost benefit analysis is useful when applied in the appropriate circumstances. But with the approach advanced by this legislation, they are killing the dog to stop the fleas. 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 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 yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, I want to add to what the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel) said about the corporate welfare costing us $125 billion a year. That is handed out despite the fact that the economy has been strong and that corporate profits have totaled more than $4.5 trillion this decade. Proponents of corporate welfare say that it encourages economic development and job growth. A good example is a tax break for a company that relocates to the inner city. But the biggest recipients are Fortune 500 companies that have cut, Mr. Speaker, more jobs than they created this decade. As stated by Time, ``The rationale to curtail traditional welfare programs was compelling because the old system did not work. It was unfair and destroyed incentive and perpetuated dependence and distorted the economy.'' ``The same indictment, almost to the word, applies to corporate welfare. In some ways, it represents pork-barrel legislation of the worst order. The difference, of course, is that instead of rewarding the poor, it rewards the powerful.'' I agree with the gentleman from Pennsylvania that corporate welfare deserves all the attention we can give it to bring it into the light. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the looks on the faces of the little girls gazing up with hero worship to the U.S. Women's Soccer Team made an awful lot of struggles that we have gone through worthwhile. When Title IX was first written and passed in the Congress, there was a great furor about it. The idea of opening athletics to women was almost anathema. We have seen now what a wonderful opportunity we have given; that girls in school know that they too can achieve in sports and that they too can be part of that wonderful experience of being a member of a winning team. Title IX has helped us to reduce the inequality and the differences in Americans and says to everybody, ``You too can be a winner.'' I commend to my colleagues the following article from my local paper, the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. [From the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, July 11, 1999] Girls Expand Sports Horizons (By Bob Chavez) Chelsea Kilburn was having too much fun. She not only shed her blocker to reach the quarterback, but her tackle included an ``emphasis'' that would draw a flag in any organized football game. Good thing for her this was just a clinic. It's also a good thing that the quarterback was just a stuffed pad. ``I love tackling and that swimming thing,'' the 13-year- old from Rochester said, referring to the moves taught to her by former Buffalo Bills longsnapper Adam Lingner at yesterday's Girls Sports Festival at Frontier Field. More than 400 girls attended the festival, in its second year. Robin Guon, who works for Monroe County Sports Development, said the event undoubtedly was a success. ``We got such positive feedback from last year that we decided to do it again,'' explained Guon, who said attendance was up by about 100 girls this year. ``We would like this to be an annual event.'' Girls ages 8 to 14 participate in up to six of the 17 sports offered. Some girls selected sports they liked. Others, like Irondequoit's Kristin Deiure, picked lacrosse. ``I just wanted to see what it was like,'' said Deiure, 11. ``It's pretty hard, but I like it.'' Emma Hardy, 9, of Penfield tried lacrosse because her friends play on a team. She'd like to do the same some day, but throwing the ball presents quite a challenge. ``Probably because I'm so bad at it,'' she said. ``My dad tells me to watch the ball but it can be so frustrating. But he tells me how to do things correctly and sometimes I just have to concentrate harder.'' The best part of the day for Hardy was the chance to try her hand at games she had never played. ``I like all sports and this day is great,'' she said. ``Some of (the games) were new to me. But I tried them and I actually liked them.'' Emily Thomas, 10, of Chili had a tough time deciding her favorite, but ultimate frisbee was right near the top of the six sports she tried. ``It was fun to throw the frisbee to other people and I like to learn new things,'' she said, adding that lacrosse was a close second to frisbee. Alissa Coates of Honeoye Falls preferred the more physical games. Her list included stops for taekwondo, karate and boxing. ``I learned different kicks and punches,'' she said. ``I also learned different finger locks. It was all new and it was nothing like the taekwondo I learned in school.'' Devon Monin, 11, of Rochester was at the baseball clinic, but could not stop talking about all she learned about football. ``You get to tackle and pass the ball a lot,'' she said. ``I also learned that there are a lot of positions. I didn't know there were so many.'' Given the choice, she'd play defensive line. ``It's not exactly in the middle and it's not exactly outside,'' she said of why she liked the position. ``You get to play a lot of both.'' As much fun as Kilburn had learning to read blocks to sack the quarterback, she was just as glad to have the opportunity to learn. ``It was really good,'' she said. ``I knew nothing about any other sports, but I learned a lot. Now when I watch football with my brother, I'll actually know what I'm talking about.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Let me close, Mr. Chairman, with just saying that the Founding Fathers, whatever they felt about art, we are certainly blessed they gave us a work of art to work in. Again, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Slaughter amendment and a ``no'' vote on the Stearns amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) said. This has been an enormously wonderful debate this afternoon, but it would not be complete without the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and I having our little do over the NEA. Despite that, I consider him a friend. I point out with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) he has NEA in three projects in his district. I would like to tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who spoke previously, that he got no NEA money, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) would pay attention a moment, that he got money at St. Marys, Russellton, Franklin, Lewisburg, Lock Haven and Philipsburg, again, and State College. The State College band was in the national finalist competition with NEA money. This NEA money, Mr. Chairman, is exclusive of what their State gets. So many Members simply do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether or not they get the NEA money or not. One of the things that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) had said was that this money goes out of here like little minnows skittering around. That is what I like best about it. If we get the $10 million, if we are lucky enough to add that to both of these agencies this afternoon, more money will be going skittering into places that have not had that advantage before. The best part about it is it leverages local money and makes it possible for people to see and do and be exposed to things that they might never have seen before. Once again, we have used these two agencies as whipping boys for the past 5 years, taking out some kind of anger on them that was totally unjustified for the kind of work that they do. I hope that all of my colleagues in their offices now will recognize that the National Endowment for the Arts is important to us. There has to be a reason why the Conference of Mayors, why the National League of Cities, why the Governors Association, why the State legislatures, all 50 of them, why all of them say that, at every level of government, Federal, State, and local, we must increase the money that we are putting in the arts. We get nothing bad from good. In addition to the good that we get back, $3.5 billion to the Treasury is not bad. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?