Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay special tribute to the legacy of Our Lady of Victory Church in Rochester, New York. The parish will celebrate its 150th year of ministry during a special Jubilee Celebration on Sunday, September 27, 1998. Our Lady of Victory Church in Rochester was organized in 1848, after Bishop John Timon saw the need for his small congregation of French parishioners to have a church of their own. The church, which was established with approximately 300 parishioners, was known from that time until 1868 as St. Mary's French Catholic Church. Their building was located at the corner of Ely Street and Minerva Place in Rochester, New York. Under the capable leadership of its pastors, the parish thrived and grew. New worship sites were erected over the years. Throngs of people attended daily Mass, Novenas, adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, and confession in the 1950's 1960's and 1970's. Today, 150 years after its establishment, the parish at 210 Pleasant Street, Rochester, New York, enjoys its designation as a National Historic Landmark. There are 400 congregants and over 100 people attend their noon Mass each day. The parish, which is centrally located in the downtown area, also serves as a haven for many who have no home. I am very proud of this long established and influential parish in my home district. Today, I ask that my colleagues pause with me to honor the legacy of one of America's thriving parishes: Our Lady of Victory Church in Rochester, New York. I am greatly honored to join many others in congratulating Our Lady of Victory for their service to humanity.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay special tribute to the legacy of St. Casimir's Polish National Catholic Church in Rochester, New York. The parish will celebrate its 90th year of ministry during a special Con-celebrated Pontifical High Mass of Thanksgiving on September 26, 1998. St. Casimir's Polish National Church in Rochester was organized on March 4, 1908, after a visit to Rochester by His Grace, The Most Rev. Prime Bishop Hodur, the first Bishop of the Polish National Catholic Church. The parish was established with approximately 150 families, under the leadership of the first Pastor, Father Valentine Gawrychowski. Their building was located on Hudson Avenue in Rochester, New York. The parish increased in membership and erected a church building and rectory within two years. They were fortunate to burn the mortgage on this property in 1944. In 1950, a recreational building, including bowling lanes, was erected, and between 1956 and 1961 the church building was renovated internally and externally. In more recent years, the congregation voted to relocate to the Town of Irondequoit, New York. Their new building was completed in March, 1977 and was consecrated by The Most Rev. Thaddeus Zielinski, Prime Bishop of the Polish National Catholic Church. The mortgage burning ceremony for this building was celebrated in December, 1993, in conjunction with the 85th Anniversary Parish Festivities. I take great pride in knowing many parishioners of this long established and influential parish in my home District. I am grateful for the many contributions the church has made in and around the Rochester, New York area. Today, I ask that my colleagues pause with me to honor the legacy of one of America's greatest parishes: The St. Casimir's Polish National Catholic Church of Rochester, New York. I am greatly honored to join many others in congratulating St. Casimir's for 90 years of service to humanity.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and the underlying bill because the bill makes unprecedented changes in many Federal educational initiatives. Despite that fact, the Committee on Rules chose to block any amendment that might otherwise be offered during floor debate, except two amendments prefiled with the Committee on Rules. What is the majority afraid of? Some might say that in the press of business at the end of the fiscal year, we cannot afford open debate and amendment. But this bill was reported from the committee on June 24. Why was that report not filed until September 11, forcing consideration at this busy time? Mr. Speaker, I fear the process has been manipulated to shut down debate on how this bill will affect millions of children across our Nation. Closed rules are the refuge of those who fear democracy. Mr. Speaker, our country's public schools are in critical need of our support, our resources, and our guidance. Supporting public education needs to be placed at the forefront of the House's agenda. This bill does just the opposite. Under the guise of reform, H.R. 3248 consolidates many important education programs into a single block grant, with no accountability and no guarantee that the money will be spent on the specific needs for which they were originally intended. The 31 programs eliminated by this misguided legislation were created for this very reason, to fill existing needs. For example, I remember quite well back in 1987, when I was first in Congress, and Congress passed the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program under the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act. I remember it quite well because we wrote it. Reports issued in the mid-1980s showed that more than 50 percent of the homeless children and youth were not attending school. Homeless children suffer disproportionately from health problems, nutritional deficiencies and developmental disabilities. Uprooted day after day, more than half of them were school dropouts. The Congress found it unacceptable for these children to be denied an education, the major source of stability in their lives, and the only hope for these children to build a better life for themselves. The Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program was created because State and local schools were not meeting the responsibility to these children. The program set standards for the placement of homeless children in appropriate schools and provided funding to help supply the tools they would need to be successful in school. It is hard to do well in school when one does not have the clothes to wear, the books to read, the basic school supplies, a required place to do homework, or transportation to school. Through grants to schools, the program encourages supplemental tutoring and assistance to help these children make up for school time they may have lost when their families became homeless. Despite periodic attacks levied against it, this program has resulted in documented improvement in school access and enrollment. Thousands of children have been given a chance to succeed in life that they would not otherwise have had. Our Nation's future is better because we help these children to succeed in education and in life, rather than giving up on them and likely supporting them for much of their lives. Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that local school districts do not know what to do for the majority of their students, but like governmental officials everywhere, they spend their scarce resources on programs that benefit the majority. They, like all of us, pay attention to their constituents who contact them, who vote and who organize support groups. Unfortunately, homeless families, struggling to survive, do not have the time or the resources to effectively lobby the local school board. Yet a small investment, and it has been a small investment, by the Federal Government can help school districts recognize the homeless children's special needs and meet them, with an enormous return on the investment to both the children and to the community. Mr. Speaker, as the author of the major reauthorizations of this program, I know its successes. And while I am not as familiar with the other 30 programs that this bill would block grant, I believe it is likely that they, too, are designed to fill an important need that was not being addressed by financially pressed local school districts. Now, some may consider programs such as the Women's Educational Equity, Gifted and Talented Education, Arts in Education, and the Eisenhower Mathematics and Science Education Program, frills. But these small, targeted programs assure that all our children can receive the education that will allow them to become the best that they can be. If these programs are abolished, all accountability to ensure that schools meet the national priorities stated in these programs will also be eliminated. In fact, this legislation goes as far as to prohibit accountability by barring the Secretary of Education from imposing any meaningful performance or accountability standards regarding the expenditure of funding under this bill. And who do these programs target? The legislation includes a distribution formula which lessens the Federal Government's focus on the children who need our help the most: the poor. The Federal Government must continue taking an active role in addressing the needs of low-income families. A recent GAO study makes the point that Federal education programs do a better job of targeting resources to those most in need than State and local efforts do. I find it utterly shameful that this House would endorse legislation that shirks our responsibility to the neediest of our children. Mr. Speaker, this bill overturns decades of Federal education policy. It ought to receive substantial debate so that Members understand what it will really do. And if that debate sparks Members to think of ways to make the bill better, those Members should have the right to offer germane amendments. This rule provides neither enough time for adequate consideration nor the right for most Members to offer amendments. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule so that this abrupt reversal of Federal education policy can receive the full consideration it deserves. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) if he has any more requests for time?

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Ms. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding citizen of my district and the state of New York, as well as an outstanding American: Ms. Violet Thompson. Ms. Thompson will be honored on October 20, 1998, in St. Louis, Missouri by the National Industries for the Blind as the 1998 Peter J. Salmon National Manufacturing Employee of the Year. Ms. Thompson overcame a difficult childhood punctuated by repeated stints in foster care to raise a family and pursue a career. Ms. Thompson's birth-related blindness was not detected until she was in the sixth grade. By then, Violet had fallen far behind the other students both in her academic work and her sense of self-esteem. Through her own perseverance and hard work, the help of an attentive teacher, the encouragement of her stepfather, and large print books, Violet learned to read and write and graduated from high school at the age of 20. Ms. Thompson married soon after and settled down to raise a family of four daughters and seven grandchildren. Seven years ago, Ms. Thompson decided to take on a new challenge and return to work. She learned about the Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired-Goodwill Industries in Rochester, New York and joined the workforce on the production line. Ms. Thompson's dedication and skill allowed her to move rapidly through the various manufacturing stations and in time she reached her present position of Production Supervisor. In her position, Ms. Thompson benefits from a number of assistive technologies, including a Visual-Tek closed circuit television as well as hand held magnifiers. Violet Thompson is a hard working American who has seized the opportunity offered by the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (JWOD) to expand her horizons through meaningful employment. For six decades, JWOD has acted as an effective and cost-efficient catalyst to open jobs to people who are blind, like Violet Thompson. Today, not only is Ms. Thompson helping to support herself and her family, she is working in an environment that has helped to nurture her sense of self-worth and productivity. ``I feel equal at ABVI-Goodwill . . . I've worked [at] other places and wasn't treated the same way,'' says Ms. Thompson. ``I really, really love my job.'' Mr. Speaker, please join me in acknowledging and congratulating a fine American whose hard work and perseverance are honored by this award.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT 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 thank my friend from Florida for yielding the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the House is scheduled to adjourn in less than a month and in that time we have important business to conduct, business that will require the cooperation of both parties. At the very least, we must finish appropriations bills, bills which are themselves complicated and contentious. Yet, today, the majority has chosen to bring before the House divisive legislation that will do nothing to advance the agenda that the Congress must address before we adjourn next month. What this legislation does advance, however, is a misguided political agenda. This is an agenda that attempts to get rid of the Department of Education. The so-called English Language Fluency Act tramples on the rights of school children and their rights to an education that will allow them to become productive citizens of this country. I should point out to my colleagues that the Republican governor of Texas, George W. Bush, recently addressed the National Convention of the League of United Latin American Citizens in advocating reviewing and repairing the bilingual education programs, rather than ending them, as this bill would do. Mr. Speaker, this bill guts bilingual programs that have been designed to meet the needs and the rights of students. Let me read from the minority views in the report to accompany H.R. 3892. Those views state, and I quote: ``The language in H.R. 3892 which voids all the voluntary Compliance Agreements entered into by the Department of Education, the Office of Civil Rights and local school districts . . . is an unprecedented and shameful effort to gut enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as it applies to the education of language to minority students.'' Those compliance agreements do not dictate how school districts design their bilingual education. Rather, Mr. Speaker, they are voluntary agreements reached with the Office of Civil Rights that ensure that school districts implement bilingual education instruction which results in the academic success of students with limited English. Compliance agreements and the programs implemented under them seek to ensure that children can learn not just English, but that they can learn in English. That is an important distinction that I fear many of my colleagues might have missed. By missing that distinction in the writing of this legislation, the effect of H.R. 3892 is to deny access to the best education that we can offer school children who are not yet English-language proficient. To do so is to deny over 3 million children access to the kind of education that they need in order to achieve social and economic success in America. Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has established that it is a civil right for language-minority children to receive meaningful instruction that will allow them to fully participate in school. Much of that assurance has come since the decision in Lau v. Nichols, in the voluntary, yes, voluntary, Mr. Speaker, agreements that the school districts have reached with the Office of Civil Rights. Summarily dismantling those agreements may serve a political interest, but it is not in the interest of a single child. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill and rise in opposition to this rule simply because it provides for the consideration of this ill-considered and discriminatory legislation. In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are many groups who oppose this bill. Among them are the American Association of University Women, the Council of Chief State School Officers, the National Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Parent-Teachers Association, the National School Boards Association, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, the National Council of La Raza, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; and I might add, Mr. Speaker, countless thousands of parents who want only the best, perhaps a part of the American dream, for their children. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior).

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 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Torres).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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 thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and urge my colleagues to support it so that all potential improvements to this legislation may be considered. The underlying bill establishes a presidential commission to make recommendations to resolve land claims in New Mexico by descendants of people who were Mexican citizens when the treaty ending the Mexican- American War was signed in 1848. The bill also authorizes the establishment of a research center to assist the commission and authorizes $1 million annually in fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2007 for the purpose of carrying out the activities of the commission and the center. Opponents of the bill argue that it contains numerous flaws and fails to deal with the substantive questions raised by the land claims and opens the door to numerous future land claims. The bill fails to specify exactly which lands in New Mexico are eligible for consideration, since portions of New Mexico were acquired in the Louisiana Purchase, the annexation of Texas, as well as the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Furthermore, the treaty covered all or parts of several other Western States. Thus, the bill also opens the door to numerous potential land claims down the road in all of these other States. The bill contains no legal standards or rules of evidence by which the commission is to judge any claim that is brought forth. As a quasi- judicial body, there are potential conflicts of interest in having eligible descendants serving as members of the commission, and with the commission being able to accept gifts, especially from those who may benefit from the commission's decisions. Finally, the bill neglects existing legal precedent. Since the ratification of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo in 1848, more than 200 Federal, State, and district court decisions have interpreted the treaty, with the Supreme Court deciding almost half the major cases. Several laws also were enacted in the 19th century to address such claims. In addition, there have been subsequent agreements with Mexico that have addressed treaty claims. This bill ignores this body of law and legal decisions and reopens land grants to commission review. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, I will support this open rule to allow the full debate of the legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Chairman, I certainly commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) as a freshman member of this House for the wonderful work he has done in advancing the cause of cleaning up the campaign finance system. I want to call particular attention to his provisions that provide free television time for candidates. This is a cause that I have long championed. The gentleman from Massachusetts' provisions and my own bill start from a fundamental and well- established premise that the Nation's airwaves belong to the American people. The measure would require broadcast stations as a condition of licensing to provide free television time in modest amounts for political candidates. The reasoning behind the free television time is simple. In the past election season, spending levels for Federal elections shattered all previous records, and broadcast advertising is the single most expensive factor in Federal elections. House candidates spend more than a quarter of their total campaign funds on broadcast advertising. The figure last year was closer to two-thirds. In 1972, political candidates spent $25 million on television commercials. In 1996, they spent $400 million, an astonishing increase. These dramatic increases in the price of advertising time are the major cause of the spiraling cost of running for office in our country and the ensuing money chase. Given the vast sums of money required to run for office, wealthy individuals have a significant advantage over the ordinary citizen candidate. That is hardly representative government. The cost of running for political office in America has simply become too high. The time for this legislation has come, Mr. Chairman. Last year broadcasters received a windfall in the form of a whole new spectrum of digital TV channels. In light of this gift and the huge new revenue sources it will open up, these stations can certainly afford to give a little back in the name of the public interest and in the public good. All we are really asking them to do is very little. I urge my colleagues' support for this measure.