Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay special tribute to the legacy of the Pittsford Volunteer Fire Department in Pittsford, NY. The fire department will celebrate its 100th year of service on November 29, 1998. The Pittsford Volunteer Fire Department was organized in 1898, after a series of tragic fires. The Village responded by installing a water works and passing a resolution authorizing the formation of a volunteer fire brigade to respond to fires and other emergencies. The fire department, which was established with approximately 50 men, started as two independent hose companies, known as the ``Pittsford Village Active Hose Co. No. 1'' and ``Iroquois Hose Co. No. 2.'' Until the first fire hall was built in 1907 on a lot purchased by the Village, the volunteers stored their equipment in a number of village locations including the Methodist Church. Prior to the fire hall, all Department business was conducted in the Cole Building, on the southwest corner of Main Street and Monroe Avenue at the four corners in the Village. With a proud tradition 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, utilize new methods in fire prevention and control, and most recently establish a new fire hall in 1987. 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 Pittsford's high caliber protects families and businesses in my home district. I send my sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Pittsford Volunteer Fire Department for all its contributions throughout the past century. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues pause to join with me and many others in congratulating the Pittsford Volunteer Fire Department of Pittsford, NY on 100 years of service to humanity.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I oppose the hasty process the rule embraces. I oppose the damage to America's children that the rule does not allow us to challenge. I oppose the fact that the minority party was shut out of the process. Last year, more than a million American families went through bankruptcy, leaving millions of creditors without full payment for their goods and services. Is the record number of bankruptcies a serious problem? Absolutely. Is this conference report a real answer to that problem? Absolutely not. This rule waives clause 2(d)(6) of rule XXVIII that requires the availability of conference reports 3 days before their consideration. The House rule allows Members time to read and study the report before they cast their votes. Since this conference report has been available to most Members for less than 24 hours, I have grave doubts that most Members have any real knowledge of what it includes. The rule also waives House rules that will ensure that the conferees stayed within the framework of the bills passed by each chamber, an obviously important rule. But under this rule, the conferees had carte blanche and rewrote a new bill. Unfortunately, they used the freedom to craft a creditor-slanted bill and gut consumer protections against predatory practices. Despite a more than 200-year-old tradition of carefully weighing creditors' rights against a new start for the debtor, this rewrite of the bankruptcy code has been rushed and partisan. The Committee on the Judiciary's markup was so rushed that germane amendments offered by committee members were not even considered. In June, the House considered the bill under the rule that allowed fewer than one-third of the amendments that Members wanted to offer. Now we learn that the conference committee, the minority, and some Members of the majority were left out of the process. In the one public meeting of the conference, no substantive discussion or proposals were even allowed. So today, after this closed process, what do we know about the provisions of the conference report, legislation that will affect the lives of millions of families filing for bankruptcy and millions of creditors, many of them small businesses needing relief? We know that this legislation does nothing to address a major cause of bankruptcy, the profligate lending of irresponsible creditors. Madam Speaker, I submit that every American gets three or four applications for credit cards a week regardless of their credit standing. But we did not address that. We know that the conference report ignores the votes of a majority of both the House and the Senate that credit card companies should not be able to charge extra fees to those customers who use their credit cards responsibly. Indeed, if we pay all of our credit card bill, they will drop us as a customer. We know the conference report does virtually nothing to address the problems of the enormous variations in State laws regarding the treatments of personal residences. We know that the conference report has not remedied a major fault to the House-passed bill; the devastating impact on the legislation will have on 125,000 children owed child support from a parent who declared bankruptcy. Just 4 years ago, I introduced the Spousal Equity in Bankruptcy Amendments. So, Madam Speaker, that provision was my own. I feel pretty seriously about that. But it gave priority to child and spousal support payments and bankruptcy proceedings. That legislation became law as part of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994. Thanks to those amendments and other enforcement reforms, child support collections have increased by 68 percent since 1992. This conference report will reverse that progress. By making large amounts of unsecured consumer dealt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, this legislation would place money owed on credit card at the same level as alimony and child support obligations. Under this bill, after a debtor goes through bankruptcy proceedings, he or she will still have credit card and other types of consumer debt left to pay. Those debts will compete with child support and alimony for the limited resources of the post bankruptcy debtor. While proponents of this legislation claim that they have repaired the damage the bill does to child support and alimony, those repairs are only cosmetic. They ignore the reality that when aggressive credit card collection agencies are calling, it will be easier for the debtor to pay them rather than the former spouse or the powerless child. For these and other reasons, the legislation continues to be opposed by consumer groups. One of the original Senate sponsors has promised a filibuster in the Senate and the administration will veto the bill if it is sent to the President in its current form. While I support efforts to truly reform our bankruptcy laws, this conference report is severely lacking, and we can and should do better. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this unfair bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this rule is unprecedented. The House has already passed an open rule for the consideration of the Labor-HHS and Education bills. The second rule we are being asked to approve tonight is a rule that will block any real consideration of that bill. Instead, this rule's extraordinary procedure is designed to give a single special interest group a vote that it wishes to use in a voter scorecard before the election. Once we take that vote, the appropriations bill will be pulled from the floor. Subverting the House's legislative process for this cynical political ploy typifies the majority's actions this entire session. The do- nothing majority continues to put its own special interest politics before the public good. We have seen bill after bill manipulated for partisan purposes, forcing Members to take votes for purely partisan political reasons. We knew these bills would never be enacted into law, but each provided a sound bite for some special agenda. In the meantime, this majority has failed in its most basic responsibility. For the first time since the Congressional Budget Act was passed 24 years ago, Congress has not passed a budget resolution. The law requires action on a concurrent budget resolution by April 15. That is many months ago. Six months later, the majority has still failed to pass a resolution. Today, 8 days into the new fiscal year, only one of the thirteen appropriations bills has been signed into law, and only three other appropriations bills have even been sent to the President. On October 8, with nine appropriations bills still in the legislative process, and with only 2 remaining scheduled legislative days, the House is being asked to again ignore its statutory responsibilities. Today, we are not taking up the Labor-HHS-Education bill in order to move the process to a conclusion. A rump ``conference committee'' has been working on this bill for several days and this version is no longer the basis for further action. This new rule is designed solely to force a House vote on two contentious legislative amendments that amend a portion of the bill containing legislative language that does not even belong in the bill. The rule would enable the House to proceed directly to a vote on a controversial provision in the second title of the bill, directly leaping over the Labor Department provisions and ignoring a number of important issues and amendments that deserve a full and fair debate in this chamber. Instead, the House would debate immediately an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and a substitute to be offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) regarding parental consent for title X contraceptives distributed to minors. Now, why is it so vital the House single out those two particular controversial amendments? There is only one reason. The majority has promised its far-right allies this vote to provide campaign fodder for the November election. This is hardly a new issue. The House has voted on parental consent issues many times, most recently on last year's Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. Our positions are all clear on this matter. Yet the majority is kowtowing once again to another element, handing them a politically attractive vote a mere 25 days before the election. Mr. Speaker, I have been proud to support Labor-HHS appropriations bills in the past, and I have enormous respect for its chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is one of the finest persons I have served with in the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, this rule will not provide for real consideration of this most important bill. This rule represents the most egregious example yet of the majority using its powers for partisan gain. I urge my colleagues to reject this ruse. This institution should be better than this procedural farce. With the Nation's business to do, we should not be pandering to a single interest group. Please vote against this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for yielding me the customary half-hour, 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 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object that all Members of the House were not given enough time to speak.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to a young man from my district who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Bernard McAdams was proudly serving his country at Suwon Air Base as a member of the First 43rd Air Defense Artillery Battalion, south of Seoul, South Korea. In less than two years in the military, McAdams won commendations for sharpshooting, bravery, and leadership. Yet, his ultimate act of leadership ultimately cost him his life. Last month, Private McAdams was assisting civilians amidst torrential rains on the Korean peninsula when he and two other soldiers were killed in a mudslide. However, while these great forces of nature were able to sweep him away from his family and friends, no power exists that can ever rob us of the sprint that he left behind. A graduate of Penfield High School near Rochester, New York, Bernard McAdams was known for his kindness, his intelligence, and his generosity. He grew up participating in activities such as the Boy Scouts, and Jack and Jill of America, a volunteer service club. He was a lover of Shakespeare, history, sports and art. In particular, many will remember him for his skill and interest in cartooning. Private McAdams was also a man of faith who was known for often reading and re-reading the Bible. Mr. Speaker, the people who knew Private First Class Bernard McAdams III will forever be touched by the short time that he had in this world. This young man died as he lived, as a hero and as a role model. I send my condolences to his family and on behalf of my colleagues, offer my thanks and admiration for representing this nation with honor and dignity.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, for yielding me the customary half-hour. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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