Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2281, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which would raise the international standards of copyright protection so that we can help combat the devastating losses to American companies that are being caused by the international piracy of copyrighted works. As Chair of the Congressional Member Organization for the Arts, I am greatly concerned about the grave effects of copyright violations on America's artists, writers, and software engineers. The dramatic growth of the Internet is providing us with tremendous new opportunities for electronic commerce and communication. But these same technological developments also carry significant risks, especially in the area of international copyright piracy. Today, American companies are losing $18-20 billion annual because copyrighted works can be stolen and distributed around the world by anyone capable of using a computer. This legislation protects our nation's movie producers, record makers, and software designers from being forced to absorb more of these losses. At the same time, it protects lawful use of materials by classrooms and libraries, and allows individuals who perform encryption research to continue with their work. However, it does prohibit the sale, manufacture and use of devices and component parts that are specifically designed to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted works. It also addresses the issue of online service provider liability, incorporating language based on a compromise that has been reached among groups on all sides of the debate. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on passage of H.R. 2281 so that we can protect the work of our nation's talented individuals from copyright violations while encouraging the growth of electronic commerce.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce the introduction of the Women's Progress Commemoration Act, an important bill to help our nation preserve the rich heritage of the women's movement. Last month, this country marked the 150th anniversary of the first Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York. Thousands of Americans traveled to Seneca Falls to participate in this celebration. We were honored to have First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton help us inaugurate this anniversary, as well as having high-ranking women in government like Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala participate in other aspects of the celebration. It is now our duty to ensure that the legacy of this event is not simply a week of activities, but a lifetime of education, preservation, and restoration. Mr. Speaker, for too long, sites central to the history of the women's rights movement in our nation have been neglected. Important sites like the Susan B. Anthony House in Rochester, the Elizabeth Cady Stanton House in Seneca Falls, or the M'Clintock House in nearby Waterloo were neglected for years and are in need of restoration. Our nation is in danger of losing an irreplaceable chapter in our history if these sites are not identified and preserved. I am therefore pleased to introduce the Women's Progress Commemoration Act. This legislation will establish a 15-person commission to review sites of historical significance to the women's movement. The commission is directed to identify sites important to the women's rights movement and make recommendations for their preservation. Within one year of its formation, the commission will provide the Secretary of Interior with a list of sites deserving recognition and in need of preservation. It will also recommend actions to rehabilitate the sites to protect for future generations the historical legacy of the movement. I am proud to have Representatives Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) as original cosponsors of this legislation. Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Ted Stevens (R-AK) have introduced a companion bill with 18 bipartisan cosponsors. As Susan B. Anthony herself noted, ``Men have been faithful in noting every heroic act of their half of the race, and now it should be the duty, as well as the pleasure, of women to make for future generations a record of the heroic deeds of the other half.'' I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to preserve the history of the women's rights movement.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a group from my district that has recently achieved a tremendous honor for the United States. Last week, the Empire Statesmen Drum and Bugle Corps of Rochester, New York traveled to London, England to participate in the World Marching Show Band Competition. There, it emerged from a grouped of 23 bands from 14 countries to become World Champions. Its winning score of 95.5 was also the highest score in competition history. While in London, the Empire Statesmen were also invited to perform at the Royal Tournament of Drums at Earl's Court in London. This prestigious event, which has been in existence since 1820, allows groups to showcase their talents in front of some of Britain's most honored guests, including members of the Royal Family. Under most circumstances, groups are only allowed enough time to perform a sample of their work. However, in this case, the organizers of the event specifically requested that the Statesmen perform their entire 12 minute routine. The Empire Statesmen, unbeaten in worldwide competition, represent the highest possible standard of excellence, determination and commitment. As well as being World Champions, they are also the defending American Legion National Champions. Led by Mr. Vincent Bruni, who has sacrificed much to dedicate years to the group, the Empire Statesmen represented the City of Rochester, the State of New York, and the people of the United States with great pride. None of their success could have been attained without hard work and determination, and I commend all members for everything they have accomplished. The Empire Statesmen Drum and Bugle Corps have proven themselves to be the best at what they do. I congratulate them and wish them the best of luck in the future.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and also wish her a happy birthday. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 511 waives all points of order against the conference report on H.R. 629 and against its consideration. This conference agreement would grant congressional consent to an interstate compact among the States of Texas, Maine and Vermont providing for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Mr. Speaker, conference reports are normally privileged and do not require rules for their consideration on the House floor. Why does this report require a rule? The answer is that the conferees chose to delete from the conference report certain provisions included in both the Senate and House bills. This is a violation of clause 3 of rule XXVIII that requires conference reports to be within the scope of the disagreements submitted to the conference committee. In other words, despite the fact that both bills contain similar provisions, the conference report did not include those provisions. Under clause 6(f) of rule X, conferees shall ``include the principal proponents of the major provisions of the bill as it passed the House.'' This provision is designed to ensure that the House conferees fight for the provisions of the House bill. However, in this case, a conferee testified at the Committee on Rules that he checked with the Governor of Texas and followed his wishes, rather than the expressed will of the House. Apparently neither the House nor the Senate conferees fought for the provisions in each of their bills that the conference report deleted. As we all know, conference committees have enormous power to shape legislation. The only checks on that power are the handful of points of order that individual Members can raise against the consideration of the conference report. Under the rules of this House, a single Member can make a point of order against this conference report because it eliminated the provisions contained in the House and Senate versions. But the rule we are now considering prohibits that point of order from being raised. The proposed rule prohibits Members from exercising the protections expressly included in the House rules for the situation. I am not taking a position on the deleted material nor on the conference report itself. However, I have to ask Members, particularly the vast majority of us who do not serve on conference committees, to not lightly waive their rights to challenge conference reports. Today's provision that the conference committee discarded may not be important to some Members, but waiving this point of order makes it easier to waive it the next time, and further erodes protections afforded every Member by House rules. Next time a Member might be the champion of a provision included in both the House and Senate bills through his or her strenuous efforts, but then would see it discarded by the conference committee. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues defeat the rule in order to uphold their own rights as guaranteed in the House rules. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is one of the most painful debates that this House has to face, but it does not compare with the decision facing parents, a medical decision that few have had to confront. For some families, the only hope of retaining a woman's ability to have children is at stake in this Congress. It has been a tenet of privacy and citizenship in the United States that the doctor-patient relationship is sacrosanct. And yet for the first time in the history of this Republic, over 200 years, this Congress is trying to outlaw a medical procedure and to determine whether it should be used or not. What is next? Last week the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) in what I thought was a very poignant moment, when some were trying to outlaw contraceptives said, ``Is there no limit to where this Congress will go to insert itself into the most private decisions that human beings have to make?'' Perhaps we can go further. Perhaps the next procedure we will outlaw here will be hysterectomy during childbearing years. I submit that some of the people in this House think that should be outlawed. But most importantly, I want to ask my colleagues and the American public to consider this issue: When confronted with a medical decision that could break a woman's heart and destroy her future chances to be a mother, who would she prefer to consult? Would she in that circumstance want to talk to her doctor, her family, or her spiritual advisor or, as Congress has determined, would she be just as satisfied to talk to her Member of Congress? Madam Speaker, I submit that we are no way qualified to make this decision and that on behalf of the parents who are confronted with this awful determination to be made, I pray we will not override this veto.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, Americans are frustrated with their managed care plans. It is no wonder; HMO horror stories abound. Every day we hear stories of people being denied care, doctors being forbidden from discussing treatment options, and patients unable to get justice when things go wrong. Americans want a few simple things from their HMOs. In an emergency, they want care without having to worry about whether all necessary treatments will be covered. They want the right to visit the specialist who can address their health problems and the right to get prescription drugs they need. They want accountability from HMOs and insurance companies when they are injured by abusive practices. They want absolute privacy in their medical records and protection from discrimination on the basis of their genetic information. Unfortunately, we have not been given the opportunity to have any hearings or a markup on these issues, and, therefore, I encourage my colleagues to carefully consider the great need for legislation that will guarantee patient protection and put the emphasis on managing care rather than managing costs. I urge us to settle for nothing less. We have a historic opportunity to end these horror stories. Let us not waste this opportunity on half-baked attempts at reform. Let us take this chance to guarantee the protections that Americans want and need in their health care plans.