Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, my amendment would simply expand our commitment to bringing the arts and humanities to the streets, the theaters, the schools and the front porches of all Americans. It does so by reducing the $20 million fund for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a program I also support, but I feel that it is vitally necessary that we do more for these agencies because they do so much for us. Mr. Chairman, it is finally time in the House of Representatives to close the door on the tactics which have made the arts and humanities a political hostage for far too many years. The benefits that we receive for our economy, for our children, for our communities far outweigh the small financial investment that we are making. This amendment would simply provide a modest increase for two programs that have been ignored and antagonized for nearly 5 years. It is time now to correct this injustice. I believe this is a reasonable amendment, a fair amendment, and a responsible amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support it and add simply one thing and that is we have been assured that every cent of money, if this amendment passes, will be used for new grants.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for yielding to me. It is very difficult for a southern- born woman to speak fast enough to get everything into 5 minutes, and so that I can finish the rest of my speech, if any of my colleagues would be generous enough to throw me 30 seconds or a minute, I would be grateful. I need to talk about the National Endowment for the Humanities because it plays an important role in our society. For the past 35 years, that agency has been at the forefront of efforts to improve and promote education at the humanities level in school. At a time when our State and local governments are struggling to hire new teachers, this small amount of money goes a very long way towards making sure that teachers are well-trained in history, government, literature, civics and social studies. Through its summer seminars and institutes for teachers, the NEH is working to enhance and expand the knowledge of our educators on such topics as the Lewis and Clark expedition and Homer's Iliad. Prior to the 36 percent cut in 1996, the NEH was able to offer close to a hundred of these seminars. This year, that number will be closer, unfortunately, to 29. In addition, the NEH is using its Teaching With Technology Initiative to bring the humanities to life in the Information Age. Through the use of computers, educational software, and the World Wide Web, the NEH is ensuring that none of our students are left behind. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I completely understand the budgetary constraints that our chairman and ranking member are under and to that extent I applaud them for the wonderful work they have done. I particularly applaud their efforts to increase the budgets for the Smithsonian Institution, the Woodrow Wilson Center, the National Gallery of Art and the Kennedy Center. However, not all of our citizens have the ability to work or to travel to the Nation's Capital.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will give badly needed relief to both the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. In particular, it would provide $10 million in additional funding for each agency. For the past 4 years this body has missed a golden opportunity to benefit millions of Americans by choosing to level fund these two most important agencies. In fiscal year 1996 both received 40 percent reductions to their budgets, cuts from which very few agencies could possibly recover. As a Member who has seen firsthand the positive and lasting effects of both the arts and humanities on Americans across the country, this is simply unacceptable. My amendment would take a small but important step towards reinvigorating the NEA and the NEH. As we head into a new millenium, these modest increases will allow the agencies to spread the wonderful work that they do for people in every city, town, village, and Hamlet in America. The NEA and NEH have the power to change lives, and I firmly believe that now is the time to help them to do it. With the intent of broadening its reach to more Americans, the National Endowment for the Arts recently proposed a $50 million Challenge America initiative. If fully funded, this program would allow the agency to make a thousand small- to medium-sized grants to communities that have previously been underserved by the agency. Some of our colleagues have raised concerns that the NEA ignores numbers of our districts. While the arguments they made were extremely flawed, they did succeed in highlighting the need for this important program. From the fields of rural America to the streets of our inner cities, the National Endowment for the Arts plans to spread the power of art. In addition, the agency has spent the past few years implementing reforms to make itself more accountable to the American people. I strongly believe that they have earned the opportunity to pursue this plan. The arts are supported by such entities as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, by the National Conference of State Legislatures, by the National Governors Association, the National League of Cities, and all State legislatures. It is time for the House of Representatives, Mr. Chairman, to get with the program. Let me quote from the last paragraph of the chart here. It says, by these undersigned, the people I have just mentioned, ``We commit ourselves and encourage all elected and appointed officials at the Federal, State, and local level, mayors, county commissioners, city and county managers, Governors, legislators at the Federal, State, and local levels, and the President of the United States to strengthen leadership and increase support for a sustainable cultural economy which unselfishly provides a measure of public service, defining our ultimate legacy as a Nation.'' It seems that everyone in the United States is supporting this program. In addition, this agency, as I point out, has reorganized itself. These reorganizations that I spoke of earlier support the arts because they provide the economic benefits to our communities. Last year, and this is very important, last year the $98 million allocated to the NEA provided the leadership and backbone for a $37 billion industry. For the price of 100th 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 back to the Treasury the $98 million, back into the Treasury. We got $3.4 billion in income taxes. We also know the academic benefit and the academic impact that the arts have on children. As we learn more and more about the development of the human brain, it is becoming clear that instruction in the arts leads to improved scholastic achievement. In fact, a study conducted by the College Entrance Examination Board showed that students with 4 or more years of art classes raised their SAT scores by 53 points on the verbal and 35 points on the math portions of the exam. In addition, we are now starting to learn about the positive effects of the arts on troubled youth. I am extremely impressed by a recent initiative known as the Youth Arts Development Project. This program is a collaboration between local arts agencies in Portland, San Antonio, and Atlanta, along with the Americans for the Arts, the United States Department of Justice, and the NEA. The three cities involved evaluated current youth arts programs to determine their effectiveness in working with youth at risk, and the results were remarkable. Children in these programs gained valuable anger management skills and learned how to communicate their feelings without having to resort to violence. They developed self-esteem, and showed improvements in their attitudes toward their schools. They learned how to discipline themselves, Mr. Chairman, so they could successfully finish what they had started. As a result, evidence showed the children involved in these programs experienced fewer court referrals and less crime than children who were not in the program. As impressive as they are, these results are not surprising when we understand the simple reason behind them: The arts provide children with the opportunity to express their fears, angers, and hopes, in a constructive manner that does not involve guns, drugs, or violence. I urge my colleagues please to support these amendments. I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). I know they worked very hard on the bill, and I appreciate everything they have done. However, we find that this is so important that we are going to ask this one time that we try to give these agencies some more so they can help every hamlet, everybody from the front porch to the auditorium in every city in the country.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If the gentleman from Pennsylvania will yield further, Mr. Chairman, I would say, this is NEA money.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Bushnell, in Florida, I believe in the gentleman's district, I would say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), is a participating school. Ocala, Florida, does the gentleman represent Ocala? Orange Park, the Orange Park High School. Those three had NEA grants last year.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule providing for consideration of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. This bill helps the people of this Nation and the world to enjoy some of the most spectacular natural beauty that Mother Nature has to offer. It also helps us to be wise stewards of those natural resources. The bill also provides important assistance for Native Americans in health care and education. And the bill funds two of the most valuable and unusual Federal agencies that produce revenue for the United States instead of just taking it and have been proven to enhance and improve education and the SAT scores for students. We know now that any child who studies art for 4 years in high school, that their SAT scores go up around 59 points. That is cheap at the price, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking of the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts. As the chairwoman of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I have spent a great deal of time and effort encouraging my colleagues to adequately fund these important agencies which give us back so much. The arts and humanities tell us who we were and who we are and who we hope to be. They help us to understand an increasingly complex world and help our children and youth express their hopes and dreams through creative expression. Most importantly, they get our youth ready for what we want, the smartest and brightest students in the next century. Exposure to modern dance increases their math scores, and the way to best learn about computers is to learn to play piano. These are not wild notions but are well-proven facts. I expect to offer an amendment to help these important agencies continue their vital mission, bringing artistic expression and an understanding of the human condition to the villages and cities and nooks and crannies of this Nation from sea to shining sea, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

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 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the looks on the faces of the little girls looking up with hero worship to the women's soccer players 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 making athletics open 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. It helps us to reduce the inequality and the differences in Americans and says to everybody, ``You too can be a winner.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentlemen very much.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I am offering this noncontroversial amendment to express the sense of Congress that financial advisors should treat women fairly in drafting wills and trusts. Specifically, financial planners should be urged to modify their training materials to eliminate examples that portray women as incapable and foolish and should develop fairer and more balanced presentations to clients that eliminate outmoded and stereotypical examples. These stereotypical examples lead clients to place more financial restrictions on female heirs. In the past year, I have learned that estate planners and financial advisors still encourage the unjust practice of leaving assets in trust for senile parents, minors, mentally incompetent children and all wives and daughters. Women were ostensibly included to protect them from the perceived inability to manage money. However, in researching this issue, I found the real reason to include wives and daughters in this list has little to do with protection. The financial advisors are simply selling a product. By adding women to this list, financial advisors have substantially increased their sales base, which, of course, increases their own income and bottom line. Financial planners sell a trust on several arguments. First, they try to sell a trust based on protection; in other words, the inexperience of the woman. Or they try to sell a trust based on tax advantages which do not seem to be as important for sons. A sure sales pitch is suggesting to a husband that in the event of his wife's remarriage a trust would prevent some other man from enjoying his hard-earned assets. These things which have worked so well in the past are alive and healthy today and always to the detriment of women. As I found out, this is not just a relic from the 1950s. An article in a monthly publication from August, 1998, includes an example of how clients should protect their financially irresponsible daughter and her equally financially irresponsible spouse without disinheriting them. The article's author, a financial planner, advises the clients to devise a trust for the daughter to prevent creditors from accessing the principal. The financial planners sell the trust by saying it will serve as a deterrent to keep the daughter's inheritance out of the spendthrift son-in-law's hands. No such restrictions are proposed for any son who might have a spendthrift wife. A specific example from the financial planner further illustrates my point on the selling tactics currently used. The financial planners publication said, ``Mr. Smith loves his wife, but he does not love the way she handles money. He knows she is a big spender, and he realizes that he never had the time or patience to teach her how to deal with financial matters . . . Mr. Smith wants a wall built around the assets he leaves behind. The wall is designed to protect Mrs. Smith from herself. It is a wall that will keep con men and well-intended amateur financial advisers out, and if Mrs. Smith remarries, her new husband cannot touch the money in the trust, nor will he get any should he outlive her, unless she puts instructions to that effect in her will.'' These unfair practices were brought to my attention by a woman from Florida who was herself negatively affected by these practices. Her mother's will directed that her estate be directed into five equal parts for her children, then set up an individual trust for each of her daughters, and directed that her sons be given their money outright. At the time the will was drawn up, she was 28 years old and her sisters were in their twenties. Her brothers, who were deemed apparently capable of handling their inheritance outright, were 21 and 14. The trust set out for Kappie Spencer and her sisters for their ``protection'' provided for them to receive the annual interest on the assets. Her mother's will contained provisions for withdrawing the principal only for the health, support, and proper care of her daughters and their children, and they could only touch the principal for these very limited reasons if they had exhausted every other source of income available to them. Surely we would all agree that these restrictions are deeply unfair and condescending to all women. This amendment is an important step forward to ensure a woman's financial well-being. Because women live longer than men, they need to support themselves longer, but they also earn less than men, wait longer to start saving for retirement, put aside less money, and take fewer of the risks that produce greater returns. Husbands, however well-intentioned, then aggravate the situation by trying to shield their wives from any decisions regarding money by setting up a trust arrangement, giving a banker, a lawyer, or an accountant control of the purse strings. This may be good business for the financial planner, but it is offensive to keep the spouse in the dark about finances. With more women handling the checkbook and finances in their families, these outdated selling tactics by financial planners have to be exposed for the patronizing practices which they clearly are. While we cannot mandate society's attitudes, we should encourage a rethinking of these financial practices. I ask my friends on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman for accepting this amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the chairman very much.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to announce the introduction of the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Employment Act, a bill that will protect all Americans against the misuse of their genetic information. Genetic information is among the most powerful, personal, and private information we can have about ourselves. Increasingly, genetics can give us insights into the fundamental characteristics that make us individuals--into what makes our eyes blue, our skin freckled, our bones more prone to breaking, our family members unusually long-lived. Yet while genetic information can offer insights, it rarely extends guarantees. Few genes carry an absolute assurance of developing a given condition or disease. Rather, the vast majority of genes increase or decrease our health risks, interacting with a complex web of environmental and other factors to produce an actual health outcome. Our understanding of genetics and the interplay between genes and outside influences is still in its infancy, but it is growing every day. The Human Genome Project, coordinated by the National Human Genome Research Institute, now predicts that we will have a ``working draft'' of the entire human genome by early in the year 2000. A complete, highly accurate transcript will be completed only perhaps two to three years later. In the meantime, science will continue racing ahead to identify genes associated with specific traits and diseases. Before long, new gene-based therapies will likely be available to treat genetic diseases, ushering in a new era in human medicine. The promise of genetic research and technology seems almost limitless. Unfortunately, the potential for abuse of genetic information is also considerable. Many health insurers and employers have already expressed a keen interest in the potential to use genetic information. In some cases, this genetic information would not be used to pursue the best interests of the individuals involved. Health insurers may wish to use genetic data to determine which consumers are likely to be the most or least healthy, setting insurance premiums accordingly or denying coverage altogether. Employers could use genetic information in hiring or promotion decisions, or as a tool to keep their company's insurance premiums low. In either situation, such actions would effectively punish individuals for being born with certain genes. Americans are deeply concerned about the possibility of genetic discrimination. In a recent poll of Better Homes & Gardens readers, fully 90 percent of respondents said they were extremely, very, or somewhat concerned when asked, ``How concerned are you that [genetic] tests will be used to deny health insurance or even jobs?'' Even more worrisome, evidence is emerging that many people are deciding not to participate in clinical trials or genetic research because they fear their genetic information might not remain private. Clearly, we must protect the privacy of genetic information and prevent abuse of this data if we are to avoid damaging the propsects of genetic research for curing human ills. The Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act would provide all Americans with the necessary guarantees that their genetic information will not be used against them. This bill would prevent insurers from raising insurance premiums or denying coverage based on predictive genetic information. It would also prohibit insurance companies from requiring disclosure of this sensitive information or revealing it to third parties without consent. These provisions are backed up with meaningful penalties and remedies. In addition, this bill contains crucial provisions banning genetic discrimination in employment. Under this legislation, employers would be barred from failing to hire, firing, or discriminating against workers with respect to the compensation, terms or privileges of employment based on genetic information. Employers would be prohibited from collecting genetic information except in connection with a program to monitor biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace. Finally, the privacy of genetic information would be protected by preventing employers from disclosing this information to outside parties. I am pleased to note that companion legislation is being introduced today by Senators Tom Daschle, Edward Kennedy, Tom Harkin, and Christopher Dodd. Our bill is supported by a broad range of organizations active on health care issues. I look forward to building a bipartisan coalition in support of this bill, which responds effectively to the concerns of the American people with regard to genetics. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House leadership to schedule hearings immediately on the Genetic Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance and Employment Act. With completion of the human genome mapping imminent, we cannot afford to waste any more time in addressing these critical issues. Congress must act quickly to protect all Americans against genetic discrimination and secure the future of genetic research.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule for H.R. 1218 offered by my friends in the majority. Efforts on our side of the aisle to obtain an open rule to provide consideration of several thoughtful and important amendments were rebuffed. The objectionable nature of this process is compounded by the substance of the underlying bill, the so-called Child Custody Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, this legislation creates more danger than it would ever prevent and is an affront to the notion not only of individual liberty but to the issue of States' rights which so many of my friends who support this bill will champion on every other occasion. The decision made by a young woman whether to terminate a pregnancy is one we all hope would be made in close consultation with family members who love her and care for her, but this is not a perfect world. We cannot ignore the fact that there are homes which lack stability, where decisions of such gravity are not made by a loving and caring environment and, in fact, are often tainted by dread and fear. Often, a young woman who is forced to make this most difficult decision has no parent with whom to consult and has no viable option other than to depend on a trusted figure who is not her mother or father. Indeed, we are jeopardizing grandmothers, grandfathers, sisters, brothers, spiritual advisors, and anyone from giving this young woman comfort. For this Congress to attempt to criminalize the actions of the one and perhaps the only individual in that young person's life on whom she can depend is more than unfortunate and should be soundly rejected. Mr. Speaker, there is no stronger advocate than I for measures to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to give women every assistance that she and the child which she decides to bring into the world will need to be nurtured and cared for. Nor, Mr. Speaker, will one find any stronger advocate for the protection of the health care, safety and confidentiality, nor for the fundamental right of choice which the courts have recognized and upheld. Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress not to criminalize the acts of other family members in an attempt to help someone that they dearly love and who needs them desperately. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 thank my friend from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 25, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' or ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 256.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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