Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. STARK). (Mr. STARK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan very much.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, the serial rapists' crimes are vicious. The sentence is short. The average rape sentence is just 10.5 years; and the average time served in jail is only half of that, 5 years. The Department of Justice statistics show that 60 percent of convicted sex offenders are on parole or probation. Moreover, preliminary data shows that the recidivism rates of sex offenders are astonishingly high. Released rapists are 10 times more likely to repeat their crime than any other criminal. We all share a conviction that no man, woman, or child should have to live in fear of serial rapists or habitual child molesters. Honest citizens should be able to walk safely into their garages at night. I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it has been a joy working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and with his staff on this critical issue. I have spent about 4 years here in Congress working on what to do about child protection against sexual predators, and I am so pleased that the provisions that are already in this bill will answer this. I think it is a very important step that we have taken here today to address what is really a national epidemic of serial rape. I specifically want to call attention to the section of the bill which calls for imprisonment of rapists with two prior rape convictions in either State or Federal court. These provisions regarding serial rapists are based on similar provisions in the bill that we had passed in last Congress by a vote in the House of 411 to 4. Unfortunately, it languished in the Senate. I thank the chairman again for allowing the full House to consider this important issue. When this bill passes and becomes law, I hope that we will see the last time that we are naming laws in this country after dead children. This amendment today is not controversial and also stems from the previous bill that we had. It authorizes the National Institute of Justice to conduct a study of persistent sexual predators and to report to Congress on the results. The report will include a synthesis of current research regarding persistent sexual offenders, including the common characteristics of such offenders, the recidivism rate for such offenses, the treatment techniques and their effectiveness, responses of offenders to treatment and deterrence, the possibility of early intervention, which is most important to prevent people from becoming sexual predators and thereby preventing people from becoming their victims, and also an agenda for future research in this area. I would note that the measure has 63 bipartisan cosponsors and endorsements by more than a dozen organizations, including the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Jacob Watterling Foundation, the Vanished Children's Alliance, the National Federation of Republican Women, LOCK, the National Coalition Against Sexual Assault, the Klaas Foundation for Children, the International Union of Police Associations, and the Jimmy Ryce Center for Victims of Predatory Abduction. Sadly, Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that simply will not go away. A survey of criminal activity throughout our country during the past few weeks reveals a familiar pattern: Police arrest a rape suspect only to find out that he has a laundry list of prior convictions. In Oakland, a convicted felon was arrested for raping a 74-year-old woman in a pre- dawn attack. He is also accused of raping a 50-year-old woman twice, once on February 7 and again on March 26. With prior convictions for everything from burglary to false imprisonment, this man was a walking time bomb. A few years back, in my own district of Rochester, New York, a chronic felon named Edward Laraby attacked a 16-year-old girl walking along Monroe Avenue, one of our main streets. My community was horrified to learn that Mr. Laraby's previous convictions were numerous and included raping a 15-year-old at knife point while wearing a ski mask in 1973, raping a 17-year-old at knife point in 1980, attacking a woman and her child along the Erie Canal walking path in 1983. During the past several years, I worked closely with law enforcement officials, prison psychologists, and victims rights groups to determine what can be done to protect our communities from these sexual predators. There is strong agreement that serial rapists are a unique brand of criminal. In fact, many experts conclude that the sociopathic behavior can never be cured. But we need to know more. Too many walking time bombs are on our streets. Constituents deserve to be protected from society's worst offender, the repeat sexual predator. This is what we know about them: A small number of hardened felons make up this group. Their crimes are vicious, and their sentence is short.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I oppose the hasty process this rule embraces, I oppose the breach of faith that this rule embodies, and I oppose the damage to America's children this rule refuses to address. Last year, more than 1 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? Yes. Is this bill a real answer to the problem? No one knows. Some claim that it will result in fewer bankruptcies, but others believe it is a giveaway to the very creditors whose profligate lending may be the chief cause of increased bankruptcies. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution requires the Congress ``to establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.'' Beginning in 1792, the Congress has taken this responsibility seriously, carefully weighing creditors' rights against a new start for the debtor. The precedent is that the House crafts bankruptcy legislation carefully, and on a bipartisan basis. At yesterday's Committee on Rules hearing, we learned that in 1978, the last time that fundamental changes to the bankruptcy code were proposed, a National Bankruptcy Commission proposed the outline of the changes, the House held 38 days of hearings, and the Senate held 24 days of hearings. Compare that careful deliberation with this bill's consideration. Again we had recommendations from a National Bankruptcy Commission, but this bill ignores them, and in major instances includes ideas expressly rejected by the Commission. The House held only 4 days of hearings, and the Committee on the Judiciary's markup was so rushed that germane amendments offered by committee members were not even considered. In fact, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the committee chairman, received unanimous consent to report this bill only after he promised to recommend that the bill would be considered on the floor under an open rule, so that additional amendments could then be debated. Unhappily, today's rule is proof that this House's leadership did not follow the recommendation of the gentleman from Illinois. The chairman of the Committee on Rules explained to us that the gentleman from Illinois did not have enough experience as the chairman to realize that he could not make a commitment about floor debate. From my personal observation, I would say that in his 23 years in the House and 8 years in the Illinois House of Representatives, the gentleman from Illinois has proved himself a master of procedure. In reality, the gentleman from Illinois' failing is his belief that the Committee on Rules, and this House's leadership, would respect him enough to honor his recommendation as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. So instead of the open rule, we have this rule that makes in order only 12 of the 40 amendments that were submitted to the committee. Why this curtailed consideration? Apparently after months of doing nothing on the floor of the House, the House leadership decided that only 6 hours could be spent considering landmark legislation affecting the lives of millions of families filing for bankruptcy, and millions of creditors, many of them small businesses. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule because it will not allow us to consider amendments which might have cured this bill's flaws, and allowed a bipartisan House to support it. I am particularly concerned about the 125,000 children who are owed child support from a parent who declared bankruptcy. In its current form, this bill will have a devastating impact on the parents and children who are owed child support and alimony. It will take us back to the days when the bankruptcy code gave child support and alimony no greater priority than a television set or jewelry purchased with a credit card. Just 4 years ago, I introduced the Spousal Equity in Bankruptcy Amendments to give priority to child and spousal support payments in bankruptcy proceedings. That legislation became law as part of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994. Thanks to those and other child support enforcement reforms, child support collections have increased by 68 percent since 1992. Nevertheless, we have far to go, as America's children are still owed $34 billion a year in child support. This bill could reverse the progress we have made in recent years. By making large amounts of consumer debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy, this bill would place money owed on a 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, and those debts will compete with child support and alimony for the limited resources of the post-bankruptcy debtor. Proponents of the bill claim that they have repaired the damage that the bill does to child support. However well intentioned, those repairs are only cosmetic. They ignore the reality that, after bankruptcy proceedings are over, the bankrupt debtor will be left with additional credit card and consumer debt. When aggressive credit card collection agencies are calling, it will be easier to pay them than the former spouse or the powerless child. The Committee on Rules was schizophrenic on the child support issue. Some in the majority claimed the problem never existed or had been fixed by amendments, and yet had heard testimony from a Member of the majority that likened the post-bankruptcy situation to a shark joining the sardines. That Member argued that without a procedure for enforcing the post-bankruptcy priority that the bill claims to establish, credit card companies will greatly overpower the competing claims of children needing support. Clearly this issue is not resolved. The rule does make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) on this subject. But early analysis from bankruptcy experts shows the Shaw amendment is unworkable for both creditors and those claiming child support. It will inevitably cause children who are owed child support to lose the payments that they are owed. Several of my colleagues and I tried to offer an effective amendment to solve the problems that this bill creates for women and children. The amendment we sought to offer would have clarified the status of child support and alimony. It would have ensured that child support and alimony would be paid before unsecured debt. It would have protected against abusive reaffirmation agreements that have an adverse effect on a debtor's family. It would have prevented new kinds of credit card and consumer debt from being made nondischargeable, and thereby competing for the debtor's limited post-bankruptcy funds against child support, alimony and other priority payments. It would have provided an enforcement mechanism for the bill's protections for child support. However, we were not allowed to have our amendment on the floor. Mr. Speaker, the bill in its current form is opposed by children's rights advocates and women's groups, who are concerned about the damage it will do to a family in crisis. It is opposed by victim's rights groups, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who are concerned about the way the bill will endanger settlements owed to victims of crime; it is opposed by consumer groups, such as the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union; and it is opposed by judges and scholars such as the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges, who are concerned about the integrity of the bankruptcy process. I support efforts to reform our bankruptcy laws to make debtors responsible for the debt they incur and indeed agree that something must be done. A full floor debate such as that contemplated by the chairman and the Committee on the Judiciary would perhaps have addressed many of the problems. But the Committee on Rules chose to disregard the Committee on the Judiciary's wishes and forbid the offering of the primary amendment to cure its most obvious flaw. We should not and cannot allow the bill to turn back the clock on the progress we have made in the past few years to ensure that women and children in crisis receive the support they are owed. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. America's children are too precious for this Congress to put their future at risk. We should not allow an artificially imposed time limit to preclude a full discussion of the child support question and the other important issues raised in the bill. By defeating the rule, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to reconsider the bill and its unintended consequences, to complete its deliberation on all relevant amendments, and then bring the bill back to the full House in a perfected form. I also notify my colleagues that I will call for a vote to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the Jackson-Lee, Slaughter, Nadler, Blumenauer Family Support Protection amendment to be considered by the full House. Our Nation's children deserve at least an hour of time on the House floor to discuss whether this bill adequately protects their interests. If we could be sure of that protection, many of us could support this bill. Mr. Speaker, a vote for the previous question and this flawed rule means that the House is unwilling to spare an hour to make sure our children do not suffer for lack of food, clothing and shelter that child support provides. Defeat the previous question and defeat the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 30 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman of Texas (Mr. Bentsen) to explain the allegation he would rather play golf at night than work.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado 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.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge Members to vote no on the previous question, Mr. Speaker. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order an amendment that will improve the bill's provisions that weaken child support, alimony, and victims' protections under bankruptcy. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record information on the vote on the previous question and other material.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I never thought that an occasion would occur when I would have to rise and ask my colleagues to refrain from gutting the First Amendment to the Constitution. One would expect that after 200 years the Bill of Rights would have garnered a little respect in Congress, but gutting the First Amendment is exactly what this bill would do today. This religious freedom amendment is dangerous in that it breaches the constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and State, thereby reducing religious liberty and equality. Moreover, it would allow official school prayer and government funding of religious institutions. The most tragic results of this amendment, though, is that it sows the seeds of strife and divisiveness that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect us from. Listen to the level of debate that has occurred lately. A few weeks ago one of my colleagues rose on the floor and said that those of us who oppose this amendment would be heading likely to hell. I quote from the Record: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that there is a special place in hell for a number of Federal court judges, as I am sure there will be for Members of Congress. This level of debate denigrates both the Bill of Rights and this institution, and it also threatens the notion of religious tolerance that has made our country unique. That is why religious groups such as the American Baptist Churches USA, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Reform Jewish Movement, and virtually the entire Jewish community are opposed to this measure. Proponents of this measure would have us believe that we are attacking religious expression, and that is nonsense. Students currently enjoy the right to religious expression in our Nation's public schools. They have the right to pray individually or in groups, to say grace before meals, to discuss religion with other interested students, to read religious books in their spare time, and to pray before, during, and after tests. When James Madison and the other early American leaders drafted the First Amendment, they knew full well the capacity of the majority to subjugate the minority when it came to matters of religion. We see it today. I have just returned from 7 days in the former Yugoslavia, where tens of thousands of people are dead because three governments with different religions decided to impose their will on people who did not believe as they did. That is the path that our Founding Fathers sought very carefully to avoid. Amending the Constitution is not a matter to be taken lightly. The separation of church and state, and the protections enshrined in the First Amendment so that we are free to practice our religion as we wish, having to answer to no man or no government, has helped to make the United States one of the most religiously diverse nations in this world. Thomas Jefferson wrote: ``Religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God that he owes account to none other for his faith or worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion or,'' most importantly, ``prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to reflect on its words and defeat this rule.