Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the students of St. Fisher College in Rochester, New York, who are holding their annual Dance for Love on February 27 and 28. This is no ordinary college dance but a 24-hour dance marathon to benefit special children. Over the past fifteen years, the Dance for Love has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars to benefit the Teddi Project at Camp Good Days and Special Times. These generous, caring students give of their time and energy each year to make dreams come true for children. Established by local leader Gary Mervis in 1980, Camp Good Days and Special Times provides a special haven for children who are coping with cancer, HIV, physical challenges, or violence in their lives. Too many of these children spend most of their time in hospitals and doctor's offices, or battling their way through the challenges of everyday activities. Camp Good Days is a loving environment where they can learn that they are not alone and enjoy activities like boating, seaplane rides, horseback riding, canoeing, fishing, and much, much more. Camp Good Days and Special Times gives hope and laughter to children who have been robbed of much of their childhood. The Teddi Project is one of a number of programs operated by Camp Good Days. Named for Gary Mervis's daughter, Teddi, who suffered from a brain tumor and inspired her father to start the camp, the Teddi Project makes wishes come true for children with life-threatening illnesses. Wishes range from a new bicycle or party dress to a trip to Disney World or meeting a celebrity. The Teddi Project gives sick children and their parents an opportunity to bring the family together and remember good times. Since 1982, over 1000 children and families have benefited from the Teddi Project. The Teddi Project could not happen without the loving support of people like the St. John Fisher students dancing this weekend. Though they will finish the weekend weary, they can be proud knowing the dance will have raised thousands of dollars for the Teddi Project. These students are truly an inspiration to our entire community about our power to make miracles happen.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce that today I will introduce the Medicare Universal Product Number Act, an important bill to cut waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare program. In 1996, the federal government conducted the first-ever comprehensive audit of Medicare's books. This audit revealed that Medicare was losing more than $23 billion every year to waste, fraud, and abuse--almost 14 percent of the program's budget. This level of waste and fraud is simply unacceptable. Medicare must make better use of the hard-earned taxpayer dollars that fund this important program. One of the most important ways Medicare can reduce waste, fraud and abuse is by reforming its durable medical equipment program. Durable medical equipment includes supplies like catheters, wheelchairs, walkers, and ostomy supplies needed by older patients. One of the greatest problems in the medical equipment program is that the current system does not tell Medicare exactly what items are being supplied and paid for. The Medicare Universal Product Number Act will empower Medicare to know precisely what items are being supplied to older Americans and to tailor reimbursement levels appropriately. This bill requires all medical equipment paid for by Medicare to have a Universal Product Number--very similar to the bar codes on groceries. When suppliers submit claims for reimbursement, they will identify items by UPN. Medicare will know exactly what equipment has been provided and reimburse accordingly. Most Americans probably believes Medicare already operates this way. Unfortunately, it does not. Medicare currently reimburses for medical equipment under broad categories known as billing codes. A single billing code may cover hundreds of items across a wide price range. Within a billing code, Medicare pays an average cost based on a complicated formula. Billing codes can be confusing for equipment suppliers and are easily manipulated by unscrupulous suppliers. UPNs will help revolutionize the way Medicare pays for medical equipment and accounts for the program's spending. The bill will improve Medicare in three important ways. First, UPNs will help Medicare reduce fraud and abuse by identifying exactly what equipment is being supplied. Inspectors will be able to verify precisely what equipment was billed for and whether it was provided. Second, UPNs will cut waste by allowing Medicare to pay an accurate price for individual items, instead of wasting money by paying a higher average price when less expensive items are supplied. Third, UPNs will make the program simpler and fairer for suppliers. They will eliminate the confusing billing codes and ensure that suppliers receive a fair price for all products, instead of overpaying for some and underpaying for others. I am proud to be introducing this bill with Rep. Amo Houghton of Corning, an outstanding legislator known for his important contribution to health care issues. I would also like to note that this legislation has already been endorsed by Health Industry Distributors Association and the National Association for Medical Equipment Services. The current system is wasteful and vulnerable to abuse. UPNs are a common-sense solution to make Medicare a wise health consumer on behalf of older Americans, taxpayers, and medical equipment suppliers alike.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from my home State of New York (Mr. Solomon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Resolution 352 would allow the House to consider bills on the suspension calendar on Wednesday and Thursday of this week instead of the normal Monday and Tuesday consideration. Because both the Democratic Caucus and the Republican Conference held their annual retreats on this week's normal suspension days, the resolution seems like a reasonable housekeeping rule. However, the resolution itself does not include the usual protection for Members that is often included in such resolutions; the requirement that Members be notified at least one hour in advance that a bill would be called up on the suspension calendar. While the majority has given us a list of three bills to be considered, we have no assurance that we will not be surprised by additional legislation. Two of the three bills on the calendar do not meet the usual criteria for suspension of the rules, which is noncontroversial bills with agreed-upon language, thereby obviating the need for floor amendments. H. Con. Res. 202 was introduced less than a month ago. The committee of jurisdiction held no hearings and had no markup. The Children's Defense Fund has sent a memo to each House office outlining factual errors in the resolution's original language. We are now told that there may be a manager's amendment which may or may not correct these errors, but as of midday today, Members have not been given the final language on which they will be asked to vote this evening. As important as the care of our children is to each of our families, why are we rushing to pass this sense of Congress resolution? Would not the usual process of hearings in a markup by the committee of jurisdiction help to ensure that we are not forced to vote on a resolution which may contain factual errors? Is the issue it attempts to address a new or time-sensitive issue? Is it so pressing that the committee could not have had the benefit of public testimony and perfecting amendments? I think not. H.R. 1428, another bill to be considered under suspension, is a more egregious example of shoddy legislative work. Referred to three committees, none have marked up this bill. Only one of the three held hearings. Again, as of midday, the final text of the bill on which we will ask the House to vote tomorrow was not available to Members, yet this bill could make unprecedented changes in our electoral system and overturn citizens' privacy act protections. This kind of far-reaching change should certainly be carefully scrutinized and subject to amendments both at the committee level and on the floor, yet we are told it will be brought up on the suspension calendar, which allows no amendments and only 40 minutes of debate. Why use this process on a bill that is so controversial? Why are we putting at risk a core right of our citizenship, the right to vote, without having a full and free debate? The lack of due deliberation on this bill is shameful and not worthy of this House. The scheduling of these controversial, flawed bills on the suspension calendar is damaging both to the comity of the House of Representatives and its legislative procedures. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to carefully consider the important process issues that I have outlined before voting on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I filed a resolution with 20 of my cosponsors, a bipartisan resolution, connected with colorectal cancer. We have spent a lot of time in the House talking about breast cancer and other forms of cancer and how important it is to be screened, but we have neglected colorectal cancer. Mr. Speaker, in my State of New York, we are ninth in the number of fatalities. We have 55,000 people that die each year from an absolutely curable or preventable disease. We think it is terribly important. We have asked Secretary Shalala of HHS if they will help formulate an educational process for both medical professionals and their patients to make sure Americans are screened for this disease. It is terribly important for women, because women have a feeling that this is a man's disease, but it is an equal- opportunity killer. We have some Members of this House who are recovering from colorectal cancer who are sponsoring this bill, and I invite all my colleagues to join us in what I think is one of the most important health issues facing America. This disease is over 92 percent preventable. No one need die from colorectal cancer. It is up to us to educate.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce that I am introducing a resolution to bring new public attention and federal resources to the issue of colorectal cancer. Every year I lose an average of 172 of my constituents in Monroe County, New York to colorectal cancer. This is a tragic failure of our health care system because colorectal cancer is preventable, detectable, treatable, and often curable. Nevertheless, 55,000 Americans died in 1997 from this terrible disease. Today I am introducing legislation that I hope will begin to dispel this deadly lack of knowledge. Along with 20 of my colleagues, I will introduce a resolution drawing attention to colorectal cancer and urging the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a national public education and awareness campaign. Too many Americans are simply unaware of their risk for colorectal cancer and the need for regular screening. Many cases of colorectal cancer can be prevented by eating a healthy, well-balanced diet, exercising regularly, and avoiding the abuse of alcohol and tobacco. Other cases can be prevented by removing precancerous polyps. And when colorectal cancer is detected before it has spread, it is 92 percent curable. Tragically, too many cases of this cancer are not detected at that early stage. Respected authorities such as the American Cancer Society recommend that people over 50 have annual colorectal cancer screenings. Yet fewer than 20 percent of Americans at risk do so. According to one survey, one-third of men and women over 50 had never even heard of a sigmoidoscopy, one of the main tests to detect this disease. We need to mount a war against this terrible disease. Education is the first vital step enabling us to reach all Americans with factual, scientific information about reducing their risk for colorectal cancer. We need to talk about this disease, and we need the media to take an active role in writing about it. Ten years ago it was not considered polite to talk about a mammogram in public; I want to bring colorectal cancer screening out of the closet the same way. Yesterday's Washington Post Health section set a shining example by devoting an entire special issue to colorectal cancer. We need more efforts like this to teach everyone about the steps they can take to avoid this disease. As an activist on women's health issues, I would like to note that this issue is especially important for women. For too long, women have viewed colorectal cancer as a man's disease. This is utterly false. Colorectal cancer is an equal opportunity killer, striking men and women at equal rates. I want to be sure both our brothers and our sisters are all getting regular colorectal cancer screenings and taking measures to reduce their risk. Education is the first step in the battle we are waging. Today I sent a letter to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala embarking upon the second step of this war as well. This letter requests that the department examine some of the causes underlying the low rates of colorectal cancer screening in our nation, including levels of screening around the nation, the importance of factors such as insurance coverage, and the role physicians play in ensuring that patients are screened regularly. This report will yield some new insights into additional steps we can take in Congress to fight colorectal cancer. I am pleased to note that several Members of Congress with outstanding records on the issue of colorectal cancer are serving as lead original cosponsors of this resolution: Representatives Charlie Rangel, Bill Thomas, Norman Sisisky, Ben Cardin, and Alcee Hastings. Fifteen other Members of Congress have signed on as original cosponsors as well. I am also proud to announce that this resolution already has been endorsed by the American Cancer Society and Partnership for Prevention. I hope all my colleagues will join me in working to defeat colorectal cancer, a disease that needlessly claims the lives of far too many Americans every year.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the 103d Congress, as the chair of the Democratic caucus committee on oversight, study, and review, I was responsible for drafting the Democratic caucus rules that implemented most of the current limitations on the number of subcommittees that any committee may have. While working on this issue, I had the opportunity to review the history of the House on the issue of the number of committees and subcommittees. I found that in each major reorganization, the number of committees and subcommittees was reduced. However, in each case soon thereafter the number of each began to creep upward again. Therefore, it is of little surprise to me that the majority is beginning to retreat from its self-proclaimed reforms. What I do find surprising is that they are making this exception with so little thought and displaying a notable lack of planning and foresight. At last night's Committee on Rules meeting, only the chair of the subcommittee that currently has oversight over the census testified. He was unable to tell us how much the additional subcommittee would cost. He was unable to tell us where the extra funds would come from. He was unable to tell us why the committee chose not to reorganize their seven subcommittees so that the subcommittee with the census would have fewer other areas of jurisdiction. He did not tell us why the committee's leadership when organizing the subcommittee for this Congress did not take into account the increased activity on the census. The decennial census does not take any of us by surprise. As my friends in the majority often remind us, the census is mandated in article I, section 2 of the Constitution. Did the committee leadership forget the census was coming up in the year 2000 when it organized? Or do we have a multitude of new issues regarding the conduct of the census? Mr. Speaker, I testified at a 1989 hearing on the census. My testimony centered on the problems of the census undercount and its implications for a representative government such as ours. And what was the controversial topic at that time? This is 1989. Whether sampling should be used to correct the undercount. Mr. Speaker, as Members can see, these issues, while very important, are neither new nor unable to be anticipated when the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight organized earlier this year. Perhaps the committee is forming an eighth subcommittee to request more resources from the House. If this were the case, one would hope that they would at least know how much they would need. But last night's testimony was that they did not know. We should remember that this committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, already has the largest budget and the largest staff of any of the committees funded through the legislative appropriations bill. Surely within its more than $20 million budget, which is an increase of 47 percent over the 104th Congress, and within its more than 134 employees, it could simply reallocate resources to the effort. But, no, we are told that we must make an exemption from the subcommittee limitation rule for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, a committee that already has two more subcommittees than most legislative committees. As the Member who for 4 years had the responsibility of reviewing changes in caucus and House rules, I know that sometimes flexibility is required. Exceptional, unforeseen circumstances can and do occur. However, this proposal does not meet any of the criteria that might warrant a rules exception. The census was clearly foreseeable. The committee has both the ability and the resources to reallocate jurisdiction among its current seven subcommittees to adjust for the increasing census workload. A proposal worthy of a change in House rules would include a proposed budget and staffing needs. From testimony at the Rules hearing last night, this proposed change has not been thought out even as to those basic, minimal requirements. Mr. Speaker, this rules change itself is not that important. However, it does reveal the propensity shown by this supposedly conservative majority to simply change the House rules or, for that matter, the U.S. Constitution for convenience or for politics. A true conservative would join me in demanding a rigorous analysis of the need to change either. Certainly this proposal does not meet that test. I ask my colleagues to reject this hasty, ill- conceived exemption from the House rules. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If it is defeated, I will offer an amendment to guarantee the House a separate vote on additional funding to what already is the most expensive committee in this House. I ask that the amendment be printed immediately before the vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to live up to their promises of accountability. Do not tap the slush fund. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so that the House will vote on additional funding. Mr. Speaker, I include material on ordering the previous question, as follows: This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for yielding me the customary half-hour. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Just days ago, the Senate passed their version of the Amtrak bill without a single dissenting vote. The Senate bill includes consensus language on both the labor and liability issues, the issues that caused the most controversy in the House version of that measure. But, instead of taking the Senate bill straight to the House floor in its present form, the Committee on Rules self-executes the Shuster substitute that threatens any chance of passing this critical bill before the Congress adjourns. The self-executing language includes a provision dealing with the board of directors that, if included, will not pass the Senate. By self-executing this provision instead of making it a freestanding substitute amendment, the House will be precluded from voting up or down on the Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, Amtrak is on the verge of bankruptcy. It desperately needs the funds that were provided in the reconciliation bill passed by the Congress earlier this year. Those funds, as my colleagues know, are contingent on the passage of an Amtrak reform package. The House bill was abruptly pulled after the defeat of the Quinn amendment. Since that time, the Senate has worked out most of the concerns of the legislation, and if we do not act now, there is little chance that Amtrak reform legislation will be enacted this year. If this rule passes, we will move to recommit the bill with instructions. The motion to recommit will make in order the Senate- passed bill, which will give the House an opportunity to vote up or down on the Senate version of the bill, and I would like to say again that that bill passed the Senate without a single dissenting vote. Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill is the bill that the President says that he will sign. If we truly want to save Amtrak, we must give Members the opportunity to vote on this bill as it passed the Senate. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if this rule is adopted, and I would like to restate what the gentleman said, if this rule is adopted, the first vote during consideration of the bill will be on the Oberstar motion to adopt the Senate bill, and that truly is the vote that will save Amtrak. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as Thomas Jefferson notes in the very first section of Jefferson's Manual, the minority in any legislative body looks to the rules of that body as its best and often only defense against the potential tyranny of the majority. Therefore, we look with skepticism on any special rule that would seek to bypass the rules protection of the rights of all Members. Under rule XI, clause 4(b), a two-thirds vote is required to consider a rule on the same day that the Committee on Rules reports it. This provision is designed to afford all Members a day to examine the language of the rule on the underlying legislation before voting on them. Martial law procedures allow a rule to be considered on the same day as it is reported with a majority rather than a two-thirds vote. While protections of Members' rights are important and should not be lightly weighed, it is unfortunately common at the end of a session to suspend temporarily in limited cases some of these protections. This rule, as amended by unanimous consent Monday morning, would waive the 1-day layover requirement for a rule providing for consideration of specified bills if reported before November 15. This would expand the martial law provisions currently in effect by extending them through Friday and adding the temporary ISTEA bill to the appropriations bills and continuing resolutions that are currently eligible for this expedited procedure. The rule would also allow the consideration of bills under the suspension of the rules through November 15 with at least 1 hour notice to Members and upon consultation with the minority leader. Today we are 43 days into the 1998 fiscal year, and we have 3 more appropriations bills yet to pass. We need to expeditiously complete the work we should have finished before October 1. Martial law provisions for overdue appropriations bills have become a regrettable, but a traditional feature of the last day of the session. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the two of us are about as popular as we can get this evening, holding this crowd. However, it is necessary for us to do this or the business of the Republic cannot go on; it is that important. Mr. Speaker, for the most part, the rule provides for usual housekeeping duties that are required to bring a session of Congress to a close. I do not oppose those provisions, but I do believe that they should only be brought up at the appropriate time, when we have completed all of our vital pending business. A major issue that needs to be addressed before we leave is campaign finance reform. The 1997 elections merely enforce the obvious problems with our campaign finance laws that we learned in the 1996 elections. The use of massive amounts of soft money on supposed ``issue advertising,'' which was intended and succeeded in affecting the outcome of individual races; the failure of disclosure rules to adequately inform the public, because of noncompliance and delayed compliance with the current rules; the continued laundering of money through supposed nonpartisan, nonprofit interest groups must stop. House Members on both sides of the aisle know it is necessary, because 187 Members of this Congress have taken the extraordinary step of signing Discharge Petition 3 to force a full discussion of a variety of proposals. The American public deserves better than our current out-of-control system, and we need to work on reform now. We all know the process will be difficult and contentious, but, nevertheless, reform is essential to ensure that citizens and not money decide who wins elections. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the last section of the rule, which lays on the table H.R. 306. H.R. 306, as we all remember, was the resolution that this House should have considered to expedite procedures at the end of the session. It was similar to the resolutions in previous Congresses. Instead, this majority demonstrated its utter disregard for Members' basic right to assert their constitutional prerogatives as representatives elected by their constituents. For the first time in the 218-year history of the House of Representatives, we voted last Thursday to strip from Members the right to raise before the whole body questions of privilege affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and integrity of its proceedings. And I am saddened that this dangerous precedent was set. I would like to say that I think we also need to say before the close of this session of Congress that to drag on the question of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] in District 46 of California, to drag that on is the penultimate case of not being able to adjourn to go home, to leave unfinished business. I regret with all my heart that we are at that state. And I hope when we come back next week we can remedy that problem. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

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