Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule. The majority claims to favor full and free debate on important issues but, however, on this controversial bill the majority has chosen to prohibit any amendments from being offered. Although no amendments will be allowed, the rule allows two hours of debate instead of the usual one. This proposed rule for floor consideration might lead a cynic to believe that the majority does not want to actually perfect legislation on a health and privacy issue. But, no, this process and this rule do not foster deliberation, but are more conducive to a 2-hour campaign sound bite designed to label opponents of this bill as antiparent and antifamily. I must also voice my strong concerns with the bill made in order by this rule. The so-called Child Custody Protection Act has the potential to increase the number of unsafe, back-alley abortions in this country and to place the lives and health of young women at risk. This bill would criminalize the act of bringing a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion without parental consent. Make no mistake, I have very serious concerns about unwanted pregnancies and abortions among young women, but my colleagues who support this bill fail to understand that those young women who have healthy family relationships will seek parental involvement and consent. But we know that far too many young people do not live in either intact or supportive families. Indeed, a family member may have been responsible for the pregnancy. Congress cannot legislate healthy, open family relationships. This bill will force some young women to seek unsafe abortions placing their health and even their lives at risk. We would all hope that a pregnant minor would have the support and the proper medical care that she needs. However, if the medical well- being of the minor is our concern, Members should vote against the bill. Does anyone believe that a minor driven by this bill to seek an abortion alone by herself, because the bill does allow her to go alone, will fare better than a minor who has a relative or friend to go with her to make sure that she is all right? This bill could result in the death or permanent disability of young women forced to seek abortions without the support of the adults that she may trust because they will be afraid of imprisonment if they help her, even if they talk with her. Now, some claim that this bill is about States rights to enforce States laws, but if that is the rationale of this bill, this bill is far too narrow. Why not put a prohibition on selling any guns to out- of-State buyers who are evading their own State's guns regulation? My State of New York would be far safer if that prohibition were law. Perhaps we should consider passing a law to prevent people from shopping in other States where the sales taxes are lower than in their State. Maybe Americans should be prevented from going to casinos if they are from a State where gambling is illegal. Of course, such laws would be both ridiculous and unconstitutional. Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe has stated that H.R. 3682 violates the Constitution in the three following ways: One, it breaches the constitutional principles of federalism; two, it imposes an undue burden upon the constitutional right to choose an abortion; three, it lacks the constitutionally required emergency exception for circumstances where the health of the pregnant minor would require travel across State lines for an abortion. When a distinguished scholar raises constitutional objections about a bill, it is folly to prohibit Members from amending the bill to meet those objections. But, unfortunately, the supporters of this law have decided once again to flout the Constitution and the principles of health care and confidentiality in their unending quest to make abortion inaccessible, if not illegal. They do not expect this bill to become law. In fact, they know that it will not. They do expect, however, to score political points with particular special interest groups. President Clinton's advisors have recommended he veto the bill in its current form. If the bill's proponents are serious about enacting this bill into law, they will join me in voting to defeat the previous question. And if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order all of the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules. That would allow the House to perfect the bill so that it might really have a chance of enactment into law. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule because it circumvents thoughtful consideration of an important public health issue. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, defeat the closed rule, and, most importantly, defeat the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I have the division of the time, please.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if I could respond to my friend from Washington State, anyone who impregnates a 12-year-old girl has committed statutory rape and should be imprisoned for a very long time, and I hope he was. But the issue is then, the 12-year-old girl; should she be forced to carry a child to term? That is probably where we have a division of opinion. I think requiring girls as young as 9 years old to bear children is a question that society needs to talk about. I think it is barbaric. We certainly live in a strange time. This body has for years attempted to take away a woman's control over her reproductive system at the same time that it rejoices over the introduction of Viagra! Congress believes it is wise enough to outlaw medical procedures it doesn't like--perhaps vasectomy should require parental consent so at least that would ease the double standard. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL 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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time the gentleman from Colorado has remaining?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I believe I have 11 minutes remaining.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I reluctantly oppose this rule, because I would like to support it very much. It is an open rule, and it gives all Members of the House an opportunity to offer amendments that are germane and otherwise in compliance with House rules. I also think that the underlying bill, for the most part, is fair and worthy of support. It provides $13.2 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is a slight increase from last year's bill. It funds most programs at the levels requested, levels that will adequately support the programs and services covered by the bill. But one major exception, however, is the Federal Election Commission, which is funded significantly below the level necessary for the FEC to do its job properly and effectively. Furthermore, authorizing language imposing term limits for the Commission's staff director and general counsel will also hamstring the FEC's ability to do its work in a fair and impartial manner. The rule protects from a point of order critical legislative language to implement a new, fair, and reasonable pay system to adequately compensate Federal firefighters for overtime. Such a provision is necessary because of the unique and unusual pay system for these brave men and women. Currently, there is a pay inequity between the Federal firefighters and their municipal and civil service counterparts. I strongly support this language and its protection in the rule. The measure has 153 bipartisan cosponsors, and is supported by the administration. We are currently experiencing devastating fires in Florida, and must ensure that those who risk their lives fighting fires are compensated fairly for their brave efforts. I am disappointed that the rule did not protect from a point of order another provision in the bill to address a pay problem for Federal employees. We passed a bill to create a fairer pay system by a margin of 383 to 30, and President Bush signed it into law in 1990. Unfortunately, the bill lacked a definition of what constitutes an economic crisis, and without that definition, the new system will not be implemented. Language in this bill would fix the problem, but unfortunately, the rule does not protect the language from a point of order. It is regrettable that efforts to reform Federal employees' pay continues to be ignored. The bill contains and the rule protects a provision requiring all Federal health plans to provide prescription contraceptive coverage to Federal workers. Certainly anyone interested in reducing unintended pregnancies should support that language. Having said all that, Madam Speaker, I would like to take a minute to address my concern with the rule and why I must oppose it. The bill reported out of the Committee on Appropriations contained $2.25 billion to deal with an enormous computer problem that threatens to bring the country's computers to a halt when the campagne corks pop for the year 2000. It is called Y2K, in the popular language, which is a small name for what is going to be a huge problem. If left unchecked, this could result in major chaos and confusion throughout the country, ranging from serious threats to our national security, a crash in the stock market, failure of our Air Traffic Control system, and the inability to process Social Security checks, or any others, on time. And if it is not fixed on time, the two places I am told not to be are on an airplane or a patient in a hospital at midnight, December 31, 1999. Experts on the so-called ``millennium bug'' have been warning us for years about this impending doom, and they have worked hard to warn the public, but they are frustrated by the lack of a timely response. It is up to us in Congress to step up to the plate and make certain that this matter gets the attention and financial support that it desperately needs. That is why we are elected, to take responsibility for the well- being of our people and our Nation. The Committee on Appropriations, to their credit, did just this by putting emergency funding in this bill and the defense bill for the Y2K situation. But my Republican colleagues have decided that this can wait. They have decided to remove the emergency funds from both these bills. This has the potential to be a crisis of major proportions, and it will not go away. We are wasting precious time with our finger-pointing and partisan squabbling. We need to get money in the pipeline immediately to begin addressing this extraordinarily complex and dangerous situation. They said, we will do it later in another bill, but we do not see another bill on the schedule to address this major problem. After the House finishes its business today, we will adjourn for a 2-week recess. Madam Speaker, I do not know do not know a lot about computers, but I do get the feeling that we do not have a lot of time to fix this problem. Every day we lose attempting to address the situation counts dearly. We are playing with fire by not dealing with the Y2K matter immediately. I hope for all of our sakes that our colleagues are genuine in their promise to make this a top priority. This should not be a political issue, because we are failing in our duty to our constituents and our Nation if we do not act responsibly and take action immediately. It is far too important, not just in our country but worldwide as well. We must act now. Because of this self-executing provision to remove this critical funding, I must oppose this rule, and I urge Members to join me in voting no on the rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 491 waives all points of order against the consideration of the resolution providing for the adjournment of the House and Senate for the Independence Day district work period. Madam Speaker, why do we need to waive points of order on this adjournment resolution? Because the Congressional Budget Act, section 309, states, ``It shall not be in order in the House of Representatives to consider any resolution providing for an adjournment period of more than 3 calendar days during the month of July until the House of Representatives has approved annual appropriations bills providing new budget authority under the jurisdiction of all subcommittees on the Committee on Appropriations for the fiscal year beginning on October 1 of such year.'' Unhappily, the House has not met this legal requirement. Even after today's actions, we will have passed fewer than half of the 13 appropriations bills. This failure to meet our legal budget appropriations timetable is one more in a series of missed deadlines. Congress is required by the Budget Act to complete action on the budget resolution by April 15, but the House did not pass its version of the budget resolution until June 5. And the leadership has refused to appoint conferees on the resolution; so who knows when or if a final budget resolution will be adopted? The Budget Act also requires the Committee on Appropriations to report all annual appropriations bills by June 10. No appropriations bills were reported by June 10 and, to date, only 6 have been reported. By June 15, Congress is required by law to complete action on reconciliation legislation. However, since we have no budget resolution, we do not even know whether we will have a reconciliation bill this year or not. So, Madam Speaker, the House has not met its basic responsibility to consider the appropriations bills that fund the Federal Government. Is this because we have been diligently considering other urgent business? No. Unfortunately, this session the House has passed very little legislation that has a chance of being signed into law. Instead we are voting on bumper sticker bills and the constitutional amendment of the week. The American public is asking us to address issues that affect their lives. But the leadership refuses to move any legislation that might benefit the public if it has the slightest chance of upsetting its friends. We should be working on bills to protect patients' rights, like H.R. 306, which would ban genetic discrimination in health insurance. We know Americans are profoundly concerned about the future of their medical care. Last week a Pew Research Center study showed that 69 percent of Americans believe the debate over HMO regulation is very important to the Nation, and 60 percent said it is very important to them personally. But instead of acting on pending health care bills, several supported by more than 200 bipartisan cosponsors, Congress continues to blatantly ignore this mandate from the American people. Similarly we should be addressing child care and after-school care legislation, like the America After School Act. This program would expand after-school programs so that young people would have a safe place to go, with stimulating activities and tutoring when the school day ends. This after-school care would decrease juvenile crime while increasing student achievement, self-esteem and positive behavior. Another pressing matter is genuine campaign finance reform. Instead of a structured debate that allows Members to make rational choices, leadership has imposed a procedure designed to debate reform to death. Their unfair rules call for the consideration of one constitutional amendment, 11 substitute bills, 258 non-germane amendments, and an unlimited number of germane amendments. But so far we have only considered one constitutional amendment, one substitute bill, and three amendments. That leaves us with 10 bills, hundreds of nongermane amendments, and an unknown number of germane amendments to deal with and we are going on recess for nearly 3 weeks. Federal campaigns are becoming little more than a money chase to pay for increasingly expensive elections. In the most recent election cycle, spending on Federal elections shattered all records, reaching an estimated $1.6 billion. An all-time high of $500 million was spent on just one type of advertising, broadcast television, and yet voter turnout is at an all-time low. Fewer than half of all eligible Americans exercise their right to vote. The American people are discouraged by a system in which money seems more important than issues and the interests of large contributors seem more important than the concerns of working families. If Congress were serious about fixing our broken political system, we would pass campaign finance reform before going out of session for nearly 3 weeks. Madam Speaker, I could go on about the unfinished agenda of the House, but the bottom line is we have failed to meet our legal responsibilities under the Budget Act, and we have failed to address the issues our constituents have told us are important. Madam Speaker, in light of the importance of our unfinished work, I must oppose this rule providing for a nearly 3-week hiatus in the legislative work of this Congress. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 259 through 265 yesterday and today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 259, 263 and 264, and would have voted ``no'' on rollcall votes 260, 261 and 265. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following each vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to discuss very briefly the controversy that has arisen about the Independent Counsel's office and the recent magazine article which asserts that he has leaked consistently to the press. Mr. Speaker, the people in my district, the 28th District of New York, tell me on a consistent basis that they have simply had enough. And if there are requests now for money to investigate Mr. Starr, who is investigating everybody else, I say that on behalf of the people of the 28th Congressional District that we have had enough and this would be good money after bad, coming to absolutely nothing. The 5-year investigation by this independent counsel's office which started with Whitewater and ends with heaven knows what has gotten us nothing but the concern of the people in the United States that we do not have anything more important to do in Washington, and a concern, I think, throughout the world that we also are not doing anything very important here. But, Mr. Speaker, there is much to do. I have a bill, H.R. 306, which would protect every person in the United States from discrimination in their health insurance because of their genetic makeup. We have 200 bipartisan sponsors and over 125 outside groups that probably collectively include almost half the population of the United States. But we have been totally unable to get a hearing on this bill. It is absolutely critical that we do protect the genetic privacy and information of Americans because we are on the cusp, at the beginning of this new century, of having an entirely new way of providing health care and learning more about ourselves than we were ever able to know before. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in this House to demand that we have a hearing on this bill. We have filed a discharge petition that we are hoping that all Members, on a bipartisan basis, will sign so that before the end of this session we will have an opportunity to discuss and to pass this bill to protect all of us because, believe me, all of us have genes, to protect all of us against the loss or the change in rates in terms of our health insurance.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 471 waives all points of order against the conference report on H.R. 2646 and against its consideration. While I will not actively oppose the rule, I rise in strong opposition to the underlying bill. We all know that we need to improve our public schools to give our children the education they need to reach their full potential. Educators agree that we need to target our assistance to schools and students who do not have the resources needed to have an equal opportunity to succeed. Our limited Federal education programs should target those most in need and support efforts that we know have a proven record in improving educational achievement. For example, research has shown that smaller class size in grades K through 3 has a positive effect on students for their entire lives. The improved classroom discipline and reading and math skills provide a solid base for the child's continued education achievement. Research has also shown the benefits of after-school programs that promote safe and nurturing activities for young people during nonschool hours. These programs provide positive alternatives for kids who would otherwise be on the streets or alone with only the television set for company. After-school tutoring offers young people the extra help they may require to succeed in their classes. Organized sports allow the young people to expend their energy in a positive setting, building physical skills and endurance. Our schools also need help to improve teacher training, to modernize the school buildings which are in crying bad shape, to promote safe schools, and to challenge students to meet higher standards. But, unfortunately, this bill does not do any of that. Mr. Speaker, instead, H.R. 2646, at a cost of $2.2 billion over 5 years, will provide a taxpayer subsidy to the Nation's most privileged; 70 percent of its benefits will go to families with incomes in the top 20 percent. Under H.R. 2646, families will get a significant benefit only if they have enough disposable income to contribute $2,000 per child per year to an education savings account. Families struggling just to put food on the table and buy school shoes for their kids will receive nothing from this bill. The Joint Committee on Taxation, with a majority of Republican members, estimates that the benefit for an average family would be only $37 a year if they have children in private schools and even less, $7 a year, for families with children in public schools. The $2.2 billion would be more usefully spent to improve our public schools. This bill is a favorite of some because it provides a foot in the door for public subsidy for nonpublic schools. In fact, more than 50 percent of its benefits would go to the 7 percent of families who send their children to private and religious schools. That is only 7 percent of America's families. Public funds should be used to improve public schools which serve all students. We should not ask families struggling from paycheck to paycheck, those in the lower- and middle-income brackets, to subsidize families in the upper 20 percent income bracket. Taxpayer subsidies for private school education will lead to fewer available resources for the public schools which serve the 93 percent of our families. Mr. Speaker, in my district both the Monroe County School Board Association and the Rochester City Schools oppose this plan to shift public funding to private schools and parochial education. The National PTA, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the Council of Chief State School Officers all oppose H.R. 2646 because it will create taxpayer-financed subsidies for private and religious schools, while doing virtually nothing to improve America's public schools. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit the conference report with instructions to substitute H.R. 3320, the Public School Modernization Act. H.R. 3320 would pay the interest on $22 billion in local school bonds so that we could make sure our public schools are safe, have up-to-date equipment and facilities, and have enough classrooms for all their students. Mr. Speaker, America's public schools have been a model for the whole world, and we should work to strengthen them, not abandon them. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the Rangel motion to recommit, and if that fails, to oppose the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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