Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order an amendment offered in the Committee on Rules by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). This amendment will provide funding to schools to help hire new teachers and reduce classroom size for grades one through three. Virtually all experts in the field of education agree that one of the single most important things that we can do to improve the education of our children is to reduce classroom size. This amendment will help schools do just that. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can consider this worthy legislative initiative. Mr. Speaker, I include the text of the amendment and extraneous materials for the Record. Previous Questions for Rules on H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 At the end of the resolution add the following new section: ``Sec. . Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider the following amendment by Representative Clay of Missouri or Representative Wu of Oregon. The amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the amendments.''

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

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, the snow blanketing the ground outside is enough to make us think fondly of baseball spring training which is being conducted in summer climes over the South and West. The spring training analogy seems appropriate for this rule which is governing the consideration of H.R. 800, the Education Flexibility Partnership Act. We have been in session for about 2 months, and we have seen a procession of open rules on legislation which, frankly, would have been well received by the Suspension Calendar. Today the House ends its legislative spring training and begins its regular season with a significant initiative on education. The first pitch from my friends on the other side of the aisle is a fast ball under the chin, an unnecessarily restrictive rule severely limiting amendments and debate. By clinging to its insistence on preprinting amendments in the Congressional Record, the majority on the committee is trying to pitch a shutout against Members who have had, previously, precious little time to consider a bill which was reported by the committee of jurisdiction only 2 days ago, and Members have had to contend with that snowstorm that hardly let them into town. As a result of a party line vote on the Committee on Rules, the rule House Resolution 100 swings and misses by capping debate time at 5 hours, and including under that cap the time it takes to vote on amendments. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about educating our children and preparing them for the game of life. We should spend not 5 hours but 5 days, if necessary, to ensure that we are doing right by them. Last year, Congress took a significant step toward achieving the goal of hiring 100,000 new teachers over the next 7 years to help local districts reduce class size in the early grades. Thanks to the party line vote by the majority, House Resolution 100 commits a crucial error by refusing to make in order the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) that would authorize the remainder of our commitment to hire 100,000 new teachers, to reduce class size, and improve the learning environment. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Federal elementary and secondary education programs are set to expire, and the reauthorization of these policies is one of the most important tasks any Congress will face. Some Members might argue the need to weigh statutory and regulatory provisions before we even begin to define what those provisions should be. Our side of the aisle will seek to advance amendments which address our concerns that the underlying bill is weak on accountability and strong on rhetoric. It is imperative that any law that weighs the Federal Government's long-standing commitment to our Nation's most disadvantaged students contain a viable plan for how student achievement will be assessed. Of particular concern are the students who benefit from the Title I funding. This provision has been successful at ensuring that the Title I funds are not spread too thin but go to the districts that really need them. By waiving this requirement, schools with small percentages of poor children will be able to implement a schoolwide program, thereby neglecting the special needs of the economically disadvantaged students in that school. Mr. Speaker, this is legislation which could be improved, and I urge Members to vote against this rule so that we might do just that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 661, Conditionally Prohibiting the Operation of Supersonic Aircraft. This bipartisan bill is brought to the House by the Democratic leader on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure chairman. They are joined by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan). Since this has been described as the ``year of aviation'' in Congress, this may then be the first in a series of appearances by these thoughtful and capable leaders on aviation issues. I thank them for their efforts on this legislation and look forward to their good work as the session proceeds. The rule will allow our highly skilled aviation leaders on both sides of the aisle to make the case for the bill, which I will address just briefly in discussing the rule. In short, the bill would respond to action being considered by the European Union which would severely restrict the use of some 1,600 U.S.-registered aircraft used by cargo, package services and passenger airlines. The straw man in this case is airline noise, as the EU proposes to take action against these U.S.-registered aircraft which have been engineered to meet or exceed all applicable noise standards. And I repeat, the United States aircraft are in compliance. If taken, this action will make it more difficult to sell the United States-owned aircraft because they would be barred from operating internationally. H.R. 661 says that if the EU persists in taking such action, our Secretary of Transportation must respond by prohibiting the arrival of the supersonic transport, the Concorde, an aircraft which by comparison to our ever-more-quiet United States aircraft is a regular roof- rattler. H.R. 661 sends a simple message to our friends ``across the pond'' in the European Union that we will respond in kind should they choose to take action that prohibits the use of U.S. aircraft which are completely in compliance with international standards. That being said, I commend my friends from the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and urge support of the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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, today will be the last day of service of my aide on the Committee on Rules Thomas Bantle who came with me from our hometown in 1986, and during those years Tom has served with great distinction in my office and for the people of the 28th congressional district. But also during the time that I was the Chair of the Organization, Study and Review Committee, he had a great impact on the rules of the House, and I want to thank him for the great service that he is given me with integrity and faithfulness and wish him the very best in his new post. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I rise in support of this open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 514, the Wireless Privacy Enhancement Act. Similar legislation passed the House in the 105th Congress by a vote of 414 to 1. While the Senate took no action on the bill, the need for this kind of privacy protection requires us to move ahead this year in the hopes that the legislation can soon become law. Mr. Speaker, current legislation provides protection for some older technology wireless communications, but this bill extends that protection to newer technology including digital wireless communication. In addition, the bill requires the Federal Communications Commission to step up its enforcement actions against the violations of the newly-expanded privacy laws. H.R. 514 also prohibits the manufacture or modification of off-the-shelf radio scanners that could intercept digital cellular telephone communications, and this updates federal law to deal with the changes in technology since the 1986 Electronic Communications Protection Act became law. Mr. Speaker, passage of this legislation might stop some of the predatory practices that threaten the privacy of millions of cellular conversations placed each and every day. I urge support of this open rule, and I support the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule that allows Members to offer all germane amendments to the underlying bill, the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act. Our legislative process works best when bills are first considered and perfected through our committee system. While this bill has not had the full benefit of the committee process, I know of no opposition to the bill. I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the chairman, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology, for working together to craft the bill and possible manager's amendments. H.R. 409 seeks to streamline the process of delivering Federal assistance to individuals and localities. It is designed to simplify the grant application and reporting process by eliminating duplicative or conflicting administrative requirements. Like all my colleagues, I support efforts to reduce unnecessary paperwork requirements and endorse both legislative and executive efforts to streamline regulations. Mr. Speaker, I support this open rule that will allow full and fair debate on H.R. 409. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to discuss the health and safety issue.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my next door neighbor, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, I do not oppose this rule because it allows Members to offer all germane amendments. Like all Members of Congress, I support efforts to reduce unnecessary paperwork requirements on small businesses. I have endorsed both legislative and executive efforts to streamline regulations. We in Congress have enacted the Paperwork Reduction Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Just yesterday, the House passed the Paperwork Elimination Act by a bipartisan vote. The administration, under Vice President Gore, has attacked excessive regulation through its initiative to reinvent government and the implementation of the White House Conference on Small Business recommendations. In addition, I support many aspects of the underlying bill. H.R. 391 would require Federal agencies to publish paperwork requirements for small businesses so that they can know exactly what is required of them. It would require each Federal agency to establish a liaison for small business paperwork requirements and to help small businesses comply with their legal obligations, and it would establish a task force to consider ways to streamline paperwork requirements even further. However, it is unfortunate that the Committee on Government Reform has again in this Congress included provisions in this bill that could be dangerous to the health and safety of the American people. H.R. 391 would prohibit the assessment of civil penalties for most first-time violations of information collection or dissemination requirements if those violations are corrected within six months. The civil penalty provisions in this bill effectively remove agency discretion from regulatory enforcement decisions against the first-time violators. Only if actual serious harm has already occurred or the violation presents ``an imminent and substantial danger to the public health and safety'' would the agency have any discretion to impose a penalty. This extreme standard will not adequately protect the American public. Each of us has the responsibility to abide by protections enacted for the safety of the community. Paperwork requirements, such as drivers' licenses, are our way of minimally ensuring that everyone who undertakes a potentially hazardous activity, such as driving, is informed about the potential dangers and knows how to prevent them. If H.R. 391's ban on penalties were applied to drivers' license, there could be no sanction for driving without a license until your driving had already caused actual serious injury or was so dangerous as to pose an imminent substantial danger to others. Such a provision would be outrageous. To protect society, we need the discretion to step in, in a meaningful way, to protect ourselves before the actual harm occurs. This bill would hamper legitimate agency efforts to protect the American people. For example, its one-size-fits-all prohibition on penalties could endanger both our traveling public and our emergency service personnel by weakening the enforcement of reporting requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials. New methods to ensure the safety of our meats, shellfish, and poultry depend upon providers keeping adequate records and accurate records of their efforts to prevent contamination. This paperwork is not a frivolous add-on, but it is central to ensuring a wholesome product. Noncompliant companies should not have the option of saving money by skipping the paperwork at the cost of endangering the public. In life and death situations such as food safety, providers should not be given a free pass on the first violation. Such a policy could cause the needless deaths of hundreds of our constituents and the serious illness of many thousands more. Similarly, paperwork requirements are designed to help nursing homes monitor the patients' health and assure appropriate care. For example, records of fluid intakes and output are key tools in diagnosing conditions such as dehydration and infection that, left untreated, can be life-threatening. We should not take discretion away from regulators trying to protect our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. This bill could also make our workplaces less safe. Tracking the information disclosure and training requirements for working with dangerous chemicals and machinery is not useless paperwork. It assures that our workers have the knowledge needed to protect themselves from on-the-job hazards. An industrial disaster should not be required before agencies can effectively enforce these lifesaving requirements. H.R. 391's ban on regulatory discretion sends businesses a very bad message. It says that Congress does not consider violation of these health and safety requirements a serious matter. Curiously, H.R. 391 also preempts State and local discretion in the performance enforcement of health safety and environmental standards. Normally the majority believes that localities should have the autonomy to set priorities for local implementation of Federal standards. But in this bill, they paternalistically prohibit local governments from making their own enforcement decisions. In reality, this nonenforcement mandate provides no relief to honest businesses, those doing the best they can to obey the law. It gives an unfair advantage to the small minority of businesses that try to undercut their competition by willfully violating or ignoring the law. If this bill were enacted in its current form, those businesses disinclined to follow the law would have no incentive to obey until they had actually been cited for a violation. For these reasons, this bill is opposed in its current form by the administration and a wide variety of consumer, labor and health advocacy groups, including the Safe Food Coalition, Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, Consumer's Union, the National Citizens Coalition for Nursing Home Reform, the American Public Health Association, the Consumer Federation of America, United Auto Workers, the American Lung Association, OMB Watch, USPIRG, and the National Council of Senior Citizens. Thankfully, the rule we are debating will allow the House to solve many of the problems with this bill. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) will offer an amendment that provides for agency discretion in the imposition of civil penalties against first-time violations. The amendment also requires agencies to establish policies to waive or reduce civil penalties for first-time inadvertent violations. The Kucinich amendment is a common-sense compromise that achieves the goal of not over-penalizing inadvertent, good-faith violations, without risking the health and lives of the public. Madam Speaker, I support this open rule, and I would urge my colleagues to support the passage of the Kucinich amendment allowed by the 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. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of the resolution. Last April I was honored to participate in the National Civic Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance in the Rotunda. If my colleagues have not experienced this moving ceremony, I strongly encourage them to attend. During last year's commemoration, I stood with Holocaust survivors in a Capitol Rotunda that was filled with the saddest of memories from inspirational lives, lives like that of my constituent, Mr. Alec Mutz. I was privileged to light a memorial candle with Mr. Mutz, who survived three ghettos and five concentration camps. During this commemoration, the prayers of remembrance and the voices of children reading diaries from those dark days hung in the air of the Rotunda. And as the United States Army carried the flags of the regiments, the spirit of the Allied forces that had liberated those concentration camps, my heart was so heavy and my spirit so haunted I could hardly breath. It is an experience that will never leave me. I urge my colleagues to overwhelmingly support this resolution. It is a part of the vow that we have taken to never forget the Holocaust, lest history repeat itself. Mr. Speaker, this message must resonate throughout the ages. Our children and our children's children must learn of the Holocaust to ensure that it will never happen again. In that vein, I would also like to commend to my colleagues the Justice for Holocaust Survivors Act that I reintroduced earlier this year. H.R. 271 would allow an estimated 60,000 Holocaust survivors to sue the German Government in United States Federal courts for equitable compensation. I know that many House Members have been frustrated in their efforts to help Holocaust survivors persuade the German Government to provide some measure of reparation. But, unfortunately, too often they have met our efforts with bureaucratic semantics and stonewalling. H.R. 271 would give Holocaust survivors a last chance for justice. Since I introduced the bill in the last Congress, I have heard from hundreds of survivors, all denied a chance to have Germany simply acknowledge the truth about the savage and inhuman treatment to which they were subjected. Their loss, pain and suffering was and is real. They deserve compensation for the horrors that they have suffered: physical torture, mental abuse, loss of family, destruction of culture. Mr. Speaker, as we act to remember the Holocaust with the Commemoration of the Days of Remembrance, let us also act to give these courageous survivors the last beacon of hope for just resolution of the wrongs that they have suffered. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to cosponsor H.R. 271, the Justice for Holocaust Survivors Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce today H.R. 306, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1999. Over the past few years, genetic discoveries have proceeded at a pace undreamt of less than a decade ago. Genes have been identified that are linked to common disorders like colon cancer, heart disease, and breast cancer. Doctors and researchers are moving rapidly to develop gene therapies and specialized drugs that attack only cells carrying damaged DNA. A tiny sample of blood, tissue, or hair can now reveal the most intimate secrets of an individual's present and future health. While this information holds tremendous promise for curing disease and alleviating human suffering, it also carries an equal potential for abuse. As a result, I am reintroducing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act. This vital legislation would prevent health insurers from denying, canceling, refusing to renew, or changing the terms, premiums, or conditions of coverage on the basis of genetic information. It would prohibit insurance companies from requesting or requiring that a person reveal genetic information. Finally, it would protect the privacy of genetic information by requiring that an insurer obtain prior, written consent from an individual before revealing his or her genetic information to a third party. Since it was first introduced in 1995, support for my legislation has grown steadily. At the end of the 105th Congress, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act had 210 bipartisan cosponsors in the House and 25 in the Senate. It had also gained the endorsement of over 125 health-related organizations, ranging from advocacy groups like the National Breast Cancer Coalition and the March of Dimes to health professional organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Nurses Association. Religious organizations, health information managers, and consumer protection groups joined the fight. In May 1998, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee under Chairman Jim Jeffords held a groundbreaking hearing on genetic discrimination in health insurance. Unfortunately, efforts to move this legislation to the Senate floor became bogged down in the debate over managed care reform. Nevertheless, genetic nondiscrimination language was included in some versions of managed care reform legislation--an important step toward recognizing the urgent need to ban genetic discrimination in health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I am very hopeful that 1999 will be the year when Congress finally fulfills its duty to ensure that our nation's social policy keeps pace with scientific advances. Today, too many Americans are denying themselves access to information vital to their health-- their genetic information--simply because they are afraid their insurers will learn this information and use it against them. We must put an end to this unconscionable Hobson's choice. Congress should ban genetic discrimination in health insurance. I look forward to working with Members from both parties to protect all of our constituents against this practice. The American people deserve no less.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, most of us feel a surreal atmosphere here in America's capital. I envision the dome of this magnificent building swathed in black, because this is truly a day of mourning, and history will not judge us well. The process that brought us to this point was so fatally flawed that no one can reasonably feel that justice has been done. The Independent Counsel's investigation has gone on for five years, although we find he did not personally participate in much of it. The investigation itself will be debated for years to come. The role of the perfidious friend, Linda Tripp, who worked in collusion with both the Independent Counsel and the civil case lawyers, shows how amateurish and unfair Kenneth Starr's stewardship was to the Office of Independent Counsel. The harm it has done to due process, the lawyer-client relationship. And the secrecy of the grand jury. Will be lasting and destructive. The Committee on the Judiciary did not fulfill its responsibility to independently hear from material witnesses to assess their credibility and to allow the President the opportunity to cross-examine them. Instead, it has brought to the floor this highly-charged partisan resolution. Impeachment has always been reserved as a last resort as the check of an executive's abuse of power. It was not intended to be invoked lightly. In the Federalist Papers No. 65, Alexander Hamilton warned that the prosecution of impeachments ``will connect itself with the pre-existing factions and will list all their animosities, partialities, influence and interest on one side or the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' History tells us that Hamilton's fear was realized in the 1868 impeachment of Andrew Johnson, impeached because Republicans did not like his personal habits and his sympathy for the defeated Southern states. History records his real crime was disagreeing with the majority party. I fear that history will view this 1998 impeachment inquiry similarly. A total control majority urges impeachment, not for treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors, but because they disdain this President for his moral flaws, ranging from military service evasion to flagrant infidelity. Scholars disagree on whether the Constitution requires an indictable crime. But most agree that at minimum, an impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one, in its nature or consequences, that is subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government. The allegations against President Clinton, even if proven, are not subversive of our government. The President is not accused of abusing the power of his office or attacking a fundamental freedom of any American. He is accused of lying about, and attempting to prevent the revelation of, his consensual activities with a White House intern. Were they wrong? Undeniably. Can they be punished through the legal system? Absolutely. Should he be impeached? No.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. I am particularly proud to vote for it today. I an thankful for the good work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for bringing this to us this afternoon. This bill contains a vital section extending Federal research and education on the drug diethylstilbestrol, or DES. It was prescribed to pregnant American women from 1938 to 1971 in the mistaken belief that it would prevent miscarriage. Not only did DES fail to impact miscarriage rates, but it caused deformities and other health problems in the reproductive systems of many of the children exposed in utero. Touted as a ``wonder drug,'' DES was taken by women who believed they were getting the best medical care in the world. But DES is now known to cause a fivefold increased risk for ectopic pregnancy as well as a threefold increase for a risk of miscarriage and preterm labor. One in every 1,000 girls and women exposed to DES in utero will develop clear cell of the vagina or cervix and will have to undergo treatment that ends their fertility. Men exposed in utero have a higher incidence of undescended testicles and fertility problems. Recent studies have hinted, and this is one of the reasons that research is so important, that DES may cause similar reproductive tract problems in a third generation of grandsons and granddaughters. In 1992, I was proud to sponsor the legislation that established the first Federal research and education programs on DES. And last year, we introduced H.R. 1788, the DES Education Research Amendments, to authorize and expand the education efforts nationally. Congress has a rare opportunity to act today to ensure that all men and women exposed to DES are made aware of their special health risks and needs. Further, we must continue research into the effects of DES, research which is yielding such important insights into the effects of environmental estrogens on the human body. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support S. 1722, and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay special tribute to the East Rochester Volunteer Fire Department in East Rochester, New York. The fire department celebrated its 100th year of service on May 23, 1998. The East Rochester Volunteer Fire Department was organized in 1898, after a serious barn fire in the village of Despatch brought attention to the need for a fire brigade. A meeting was held at Despatch Hall and the Despatch Fire District was formed, consisting mostly of local businessmen. Shortly after a second fire, the village of Despatch voted to allocate funds to cover the purchase of land, equipment, and the construction of a public hall, that was later turned over to the fire department. Later the village of Despatch was renamed the village of East Rochester. With a proud history of voluntarism, the Fire Department has thrived and grown over the years. Using donations and moneys received from the village, the fire department has been able to update its equipment, and utilize new methods in fire prevention and control. However, the cornerstone of the department's success has been the dependability and generosity of its volunteers. I take great pride in knowing that a volunteer fire department of East Rochester's high caliber protects families and businesses in my district. I send my sincere and heartfelt thanks to the East Rochester Volunteer Fire Department for all its contributions throughout the past century. Today, I ask that my colleagues pause with me to honor the legacy of one of America's greatest volunteer organizations: the East Rochester Volunteer Fire Department of East Rochester, New York.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in solemn tribute to a moment in history that none of us should ever soon forget, the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33. As a co-chair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, I am pleased that the House leadership has chosen to bring this resolution to the floor. I would also like to thank my friends at the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America for working so hard on this issue. Mr. Speaker, on this, the 65th Anniversary of the Ukrainian famine, we pay respect to the victims of this tragedy so that we may educate a new generation of Americans about this tragic, and ultimately preventable event. This event differed from what we often think of as a typical natural disaster in the sense that it was man-made. The famine was created by a repressive government, with its sole purpose to break the collective will of a proud people for whom the principles of private ownership and individual rights were, and continue to be, deeply embedded in their backgrounds and traditions. In the late 1920's, the Soviet government of Josef Stalin began to take steps to collectivize agriculture by whatever means necessary, including the use of harsh and coercive tactics. What nobody could have ever imagined was that these methods would include a forced famine that would lead to the deaths of more than 7,000,000 people in towns and villages throughout Ukraine. While horrified Ukrainians watched as their neighbors either lay dying or desperately searched for food, the Soviet government exported over 1,700,000 tons of grain to the West and denied farmers access to vital materials to feed their families. Mr. Speaker, today Ukraine stands out as a fledgling, young democracy. Its people and its government working to build a system of fair competition and free markets. And as it struggles to put aside years of Communist rule, government corruption, and weak property laws, we stand here humbled by the lessons of its past and pledge to keep these memories alive so that they may move ahead, and in the process, ensure that tragedies such as this never happen again.