Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 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, H.Res. 450 is a modified closed rule. The rule allows one amendment, if offered by Ways and Means Ranking Member the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and if the amendment is previously printed in the Congressional Record. In general, open rules best protect all Members' rights to fully represent their constituents. However, I recognize the potential problems of allowing an unfettered amendment process on bills, such as this one, that amend the Social Security and Medicare Acts. The Rules Committee has followed the useful tradition of allowing only limited floor amendment during consideration of bills that revise these basic safety net programs. Mr. Speaker, the current disability system has not kept pace with the development of new technologies and therapies that allow individuals with disabilities to live and work in the mainstream of our society. Too often, our disability system punishes those who wish to work toward living independently by reducing benefits and ending the Medicare benefits on which they depend for their health care. I am proud to have supported legislation that would aid individuals with disabilities in education, housing, transportation, and many other areas. I was a cosponsor of the Americans with Disabilities Act and have sponsored legislation to prevent genetic discrimination. I am now equally pleased to support H.R. 3433, the Ticket to Work and Self- Sufficiency Act. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage today. H.R. 3433 will help to bring our Nation's disability system into line with the reality experienced by persons living with a disability. Individuals with disabilities do want to work, but they need rehabilitation and support services to better enable them to become self-sufficient over time. In particular, Medicare must be maintained for individuals who rely on these services to remain healthy and to be able to work. H.R. 3433 gives individuals with disabilities the ability to choose the provider of employment or vocational rehabilitation services that meets their particular needs. The chosen employment network will work with the beneficiary to develop an individual plan, including the specific services needed to achieve that individual's employment goal. Perhaps most importantly, during this transition period, Medicare coverage is guaranteed for an additional 2 years. This will allow beneficiaries to concentrate on building their employment skills and careers without the fear that they will lose their health care if they earn above a minimum threshold. To encourage the best and most comprehensive assistance for beneficiaries, this Act has provider payment plans keyed to the successful attainment of milestones toward permanent employment. For example, under the outcome payment system, the provider could receive 40 percent of the average monthly benefit for each month the beneficiary did not receive benefits because he was working. Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides a responsible and humane alternative to our current disability system, by empowering individuals with disabilities to take charge of their own lives. It will enable many people to break free of a system that, too often, forces persons with disabilities to remain impoverished to continue to receive benefits. Instead it rewards those who want to work. I look forward to casting my vote today in strong support of this bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may move this important legislation forward toward enactment into law. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I feel, as I am sure everyone else in the House felt, that I had a very special relationship with Meg. When I first came here 12 years ago, I learned that one of the things that freshmen do is have the great honor of presiding over Special Orders. I took to that, it was a wonderful thing for me to be doing, and made so much easier because of Meg. I always relished being able to do it early in the week, because Meg Goetz and Paul Hayes and I share a special passion that we have never discussed with anybody on the floor of the House. That is that we are totally devoted to the Sunday New York Times crossword puzzle. So even though the issue of the special order was sometimes grim, sometimes not, we always had a fall-back position where we could say, ``Did you get 22 across?" Meg has been, as everyone said before me, a pillar of strength in this House, and the millions of people in this country who understand how this democracy works and the way she has always conducted herself, with extraordinary decorum and with extraordinarily good judgment, know that a lot of good things about this House are because of the dedication and work that Meg Goetz brought to it. I envy the people that Meg is going to leave us to work for. They are getting a woman of great character and professionalism and ability, and I look forward to working with her in her new capacity. But I do want her to know that coming here as a freshman, as everyone else can say, I am sure, as equally well as I, to have the friendship of Meg Goetz to help us over the intricacies and the tough problems, never, never losing patience, always explaining over and over again, if need be, but always there to help us to do the right thing, she was bringing, obviously, to her job the professionalism that she felt, working for the House of Representatives, the United States Congress deserved. Meg, we shall miss you, and thank you for all of your friendship to me, and thank you on behalf of all of the others here, because I know how much you have meant to each and every one of us. God bless.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Waxman amendment, and I want to agree with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), and I am pleased that he understands the wisdom of what the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) wants to do. I think my colleague, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse), made a wonderful point that I hope was not lost, that all mandates or anything else, any laws, are not just reckoned in costs in dollars. She pointed out loss of life and loss of things that are irreplaceable, priceless. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is doing a good thing here, because he wants to protect the public health and the environment. I do not support the types of order that the underlying bill creates. I understand what they are for. They are designed to sensitize Members to the effects of the proposed legislation, but I believe most of us in the House already understand the implications, and this type of emphasis is largely unneeded. In my district, my constituents keep me well-informed about how proposed private sector mandates will affect their business. However, if we are going to expand this type of point of order, we should tag for Members bills that have the effect of reducing the protection of public health and the environment. The sick, the disabled, the young cannot be expected to monitor the legislation in the same fashion as large corporations. If public health protections for them are to be weakened, we ought to be sure that all the Members who vote for that weakening have that fact brought to their attention. Similarly, our Nation's air, water, soil, forest, wilderness and wildlife cannot speak for themselves. Again, every Member should know when casting his or her own vote that environmental protections will be lessened. Unhappily, over the last 3 years many bills would have been subject to that point of order. For example, in the last Congress I fought a bill that would have frozen new regulations that were designed to protect the public from bacteria-contaminated meat and poultry, from Cryptosporidium in drinking water, and from lead in imported foods. These issues are becoming more and more important to the American public. Perhaps a specific point of order would have helped convince the majority in Congress that their votes against my amendment and for that bill put the health and lives of thousands of Americans at risk. The current majority has led a relentless assault on the environment since taking over the Congress. Without regard to the impact on citizens and the environment, the full House of Representatives has approved measures designed to relax and to roll back existing environmental regulations and to halt Federal agency rulemaking designed to protect our national heritage. The House went so far as to pass legislation to stop the listing of endangered species and passed a bill to weaken dramatically the Clean Water Act. Measures to allow clearcutting in our Federal forest lands led to a massacre of healthy trees with a so-called salvage rider, and the Congress continues to consider legislation to have taxpayers reimburse polluters for cleaning up the toxic waste sites and to cut the funding for Federal land acquisition. The threat to our landmark environmental laws has been real. Perhaps this health, safety, and environmental point of order would have caused Members to take a second look at the bills that weakened these important provisions. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to continue on this route of bringing special attention to the effect of certain kinds of bills, I believe that the degradation of public health, safety and environmental protections deserves this special attention, too. I urge my colleagues to support the Waxman amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, scientists recently announced a breakthrough in the treatment of cancer, one of the deadliest and most common diseases plaguing humanity. A combination of two drugs has been shown to prevent tumors from spawning the growth of new blood vessels that allow the tumor to grow. The advances in genetic testing now allows us to pinpoint people who are at high risk for common cancers like breast cancer and colorectal cancer. Tragically, however, people are afraid to take those genetic tests that would allow them to take advantage of new anti-cancer drugs at the earliest possible phases of cancer. They refuse to take these tests because they fear genetic discrimination, especially in health insurance. Congress could solve the problem by passing H.R. 306, The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Health Insurance Act, which has 200 bipartisan sponsors. To date, however, we have not been able to get a schedule to vote on this proposal; and, as a result, Americans are forced to make a Hobson's choice between learning vital health information and risking their health insurance. I urge my colleagues to demand a vote on H.R. 306 to protect all of our constituents against genetic discrimination and allow them to make health decisions based on sound medical facts.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule. It allows amendments that are germane to be offered. However, H. Res. 420 does include one waiver of a House rule that troubles me. The rule waives clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI that provides for a 3-day layover of the committee report accompanying the bill. This House rule allows Members time to study the report and decide whether they would like to offer or support amendments. The 3-day opportunity to study the bill and report is particularly important in this case because many provisions of the intelligence bills are classified and, if a Member wishes to review those portions, a Member must make arrangements with the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. To cut short the standard review time under these circumstances is unfortunate. And while I understand that the majority and the minority on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence had no objection to the waiver, we should note that it is not the committee's rights but the rights of Members not on the committee that the House rule is designed to protect. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of the committee, is to be commended for avoiding the need for waiver of the Budget Act by self-executing in this rule an amendment striking the offending section of the bill. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence also worked with the Committee on Ways and Means to gain its acquiescence to a violation of a House rule designed to protect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. While I often question the need for a requirement for preprinting in the Congressional Record, the sensitivity and the complexity of the intelligence authorization bill justifies the requirement in this case. Mr. Speaker, this rule allows the full House to consider germane amendments offered by any Member. Under the rule, the House will be able to debate important questions, such as whether to reduce the overall size of the intelligence budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to 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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I do not think any one of us could say that the public school system in the United States in many areas of the country is not in serious trouble. I do not think many of us would disagree that whatever happens, the public school system in the United States has to be helped and made better. It is somewhat tragic to me when I hear this debate, because I know that everybody is well-meaning, and I really believe that all of the Members of this Congress want to do the best they can for the children of the United States. But the fact of the matter is that at a cost of a voucher of $3,200, it seems to me that what you are doing is dangling out to poor parents by telling them that their public school is no good is sort of a pie-in-the-sky idea, because I don't know of any private schools, many of them, that would be able to pay the tuition of $3,200. How much better it would be for every child in the country if the public school system was brought up to standard. We have an obligation for that. When this country was settled, the first thing the settlers did in every community was to build a church and build a school, understanding that it was their personal obligation to educate their children. We need to dedicate ourselves today not to ways to getting around the public school system, but to dedicating ourselves to making it be what it ought to be. If we are going to be able to compete in the next century, every child in this country needs the best education it can get. No child should be left behind. Instead of offering out the notion that somehow they are all going to go to some exclusive school for $3,200, let us pledge ourselves to see what we have to do to rebuild these schools, to rededicate ourselves to the idea that the public school system is the backbone of our democracy.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to comfort my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), to remind him that there will be no Federal money being used for needle exchange. What we are doing this morning is simply restating the obvious. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to add to the litany of things mentioned by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that we wish we were doing on the floor of the House. I have a piece of legislation to protect every American from loss or exorbitant costs of health insurance because of their genetic makeup. It has almost 200 sponsors in this House, bipartisan, over 100 outside groups that collectively represent a third of the American population, yet I cannot even get an answer from the committee chair to give us a hearing. But, nonetheless, the process has gone by the way; and today we are doing what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 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 New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if I could just take a second to talk about taking politics out. Only two of these eight Members are going to be appointed by Democrats. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule and has 3 hours of general debate but only one amendment; and that amendment is only allowed if it is printed in the Congressional Record. Now, I think it is ironic that a bill that is going to begin an inclusive national discussion on changes to a core government program should itself be discussed under a closed exclusive rule. Now, some say that Ways and Means bills are always considered under closed rules, but this bill does not amend the Tax Code, trade policy, Medicare, or even Social Security itself. It just sets up a procedure for discussion. Apparently its proponents believe that this procedure is so perfect and so delicate that to allow debate on any alternatives would endanger its goals and its very survival. That rigidity does not bode too well for the process that hopes to build a national consensus. Now, this bill is going to establish a national dialogue on Social Security. It is going to be led by two facilitators, advised by a dialogue council composed of 36 members. The facilitators will conduct the dialogue through the regional meetings, through the Internet, communications, and other methods. Now, after the two facilitators and the 36 members get through, then there will be an eight-member bipartisan panel coming from somewhere recommending long-term changes. Now, I am perplexed as to why we are taking this up because this dialogue is already under way. It is not in such a bureaucratic form. And one of the things that I do not know, as a member of the Committee on Rules that presented this rule on the floor, is what kind of budget all these facilitators and other people, dialogue coordinators, are going to require. And it seems a shame to do it because the American Association of Retired Persons and the Concord Coalition are already doing it. They are conducting a series of forums around the Nation to accomplish this very goal of a national dialogue. And the President is participating in these forums, as are Americans in all walks of life. So what we are doing is duplicating what is already being done with government money. So there we are. To insist that the Congress establish a parallel process seems to be a case of simply not wanting to play in the President's sandbox. I have to agree with the administration that this national dialogue process is duplicative and unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, this rule. This bill should be considered under an open rule with the House able to freely amend the legislation to keep the portions that it considers useful and to scrap those that are not. The Congress of the United States has been described, as long as I have been alive, as the greatest deliberative body on earth, and yet the two rules that we have put forth today have literally no deliberation of any sort. They are simply put out for an up or down vote. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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