Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 568-571 earlier this week. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 568 and 571 and ``nay'' on rollcall votes 569 and 570.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Snyder].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, a previous speaker here from California identified as Tom Fuentes a person dressed in a brown shirt holding up signs in Spanish to intimidate voters. I think it is important for the record to show that Tom Fuentes is the chair of the Orange County, California Republican Party, and his party paid a $400,000 fine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].

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 move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just urge Members to defeat the previous question, and if it is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike the provisions in the rule pertaining to the privileged resolutions, and if the rule is adopted, it will strip the fundamental constitutional rights of each Member with regard to the integrity, the proceedings of the House, and I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: Text of Previous Question Amendment to H. Res. 305: Strike section 3 of the resolution.

Mr. SLAUGHTER

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, if I might just take a moment to address my colleague from New York, Mr. Solomon. It is the integrity of this House that we are fighting this morning to uphold. I believe that the majority of Americans would want us to do just that and that their elected representatives, sent here in their behalf, would have the opportunity to speak as they are given under the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly oppose this tyrranical rule. For the first time in the 218-year history of the House of Representatives, we will be voting to deprive all but two Members of this body the right to assert their constitutional prerogatives as Representatives elected by their constituents. House rule IX gives each and every Member of this House the right to raise before the whole body questions of privilege affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings. The House adopted rule IX in 1880, defining what had been long established in the practice of the House before then. Thomas Jefferson begins his Manual on Parliamentary Procedure, which has governed the House procedures since 1837, with section 1, titled ``The Importance of Adhering to Rules.'' It quotes a former Speaker of the House of Commons' views on the neglect of, or departure from, the rules of proceeding. I quote: That these forms, as instituted by our ancestors, operated as a check and control on the actions of the majority, and that they were, in many instances, a shelter and protection to the minority against the attempts of power. Jefferson then continues: As it is always in the power of the majority, by their numbers, to stop any improper measures proposed by their opponents, the only weapons by which the minority can defend themselves against similar attempts from those in power are the forms and rules of proceeding which they have adopted as they have found necessary, from time to time, and are become the law of the House, by a strict adherence to which the weaker party can only be protected from those irregularities and abuses, which these forms were intended to check, which the wantonness of power is but too often apt to suggest to large and successful majorities. Mr. Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, surely would have opposed the wantonness of power displayed by the majority in offering this rule. Rule IX is the heart of Members' individual rights within our rules. It guarantees that each Member has the right to move to guarantee the integrity of House proceedings. That right is so central to our idea of representative government and liberty itself that in all of the 104 Congresses before today, the House has never voted to suspend this paramount right. Even in the depths of the Depression and in the struggles against the tyranny of Nazi Germany, when the House's legislative decisions might truly have changed the course of the Nation and the world, they did not suspend this prerogative of the individual Member. Yet, in this era of relative prosperity and world stability, the majority proposes to suspend this fundamental right guaranteed in our rules. This majority would give itself the power for the rest of this session to not recognize any Member except the majority or minority leader to offer a motion affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings. What is the national crisis that has brought about this unprecedented attempt by the majority to usurp Members' powers to protect the integrity of this House? Are we at war and a defense funding bill is urgent? Is there mob violence in the streets? Are we in the throes of a great economic depression? No. The interest this unprecedented attack on one of the fundamental checks and balances built into our House rules is getting Members out of town a day or two early. Mr. Speaker, I can only say, shame. At last night's Committee on Rules, the chairman of the committee did indeed state that he hoped this rule would not come to the floor, and I joined him in that hope. I am appalled and saddened that this majority would seek to suspend this bulwark of Members' abilities to ensure full representation to their constituents. What kind of issues are raised under rule IX, the rule that will be effectively suspended? The Annotated House Rules gives us examples of the fundamental nature of issues that are raised under the rule. They are questions relating to the House's constitutional prerogatives in respect to revenue legislation and appropriations; impeachments; the constitutional prerogatives of this House with respect to bills pocket- vetoed during an intersession of adjournment; the House's power to punish for contempt, whether of its own Members, of witnesses who are summoned to give information, or of other purposes; questions relating to the House's organization and the title of its Members to their seats; questions relating to the conduct of officers and employees, in addition to that of Members; questions relating to the integrity of its proceedings, including the processes by which bills are considered. Clearly, the rule IX procedure for making motions regarding the privileges of this House is the keystone of a Member's ability to bring to the House's attention the most serious and fundamental matters affecting the integrity of this House. Yet this rule, proposed by the majority for the first time in the House of Representatives' 218-year history, squelched that right, and for what historic, precedent-worthy reason? So that we might leave Washington a couple of days early. Mr. Speaker, I have not yet touched on the second infamous and again unprecedented clause in this rule. It would allow the Speaker to postpone indefinitely the full House consideration of any question of the privileges of this House that he had deigned to allow. Currently, rule IX gives the Speaker the authority to schedule consideration within the next 2 legislative days. I was responsible myself for drafting this rule change in the 103d Congress. It was done to ensure that privileged resolutions could not disrupt consideration of time-sensitive legislation, such as continuing resolutions. Prior to that rule change, a resolution raising questions of the privileges of this House had immediate precedence over all other questions except motions to adjourn. However, it was never within the contemplation of that rules change to prevent any Member from having the chance for the full House to vote on a privileged resolution. As drafted, this part of the rule we are debating would essentially give the Speaker carte blanche to continue to indefinitely postpone consideration of any motion regarding privileges of the House until the end of the session. Unfortunately, last night we got a taste of the real world consequences of such postponements. The majority could merely move to adjourn sine die, and thereby prevent consideration of these fundamental motions to protect the House's safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings. Mr. Speaker, these two rules changes are a despotic attack on Members' constitutional rights to protect their constituents. This may be one of the most important votes that we take as Members of Congress. As I mentioned earlier, Thomas Jefferson, who defined through the Declaration of Independence our notions of freedom and liberty, put the rules' protection against the tyranny of the majority as the very first section of Jefferson's rules which govern us today in the House of Representatives. I will be ashamed for the House and afraid for its integrity should this misbegotten rule be adopted. The danger of this precedent cannot be overstated. I urge in the strongest possible terms that this attempt to restrict the fundamental rights and liberties of House Members be defeated. In addition, I will urge Members to defeat the previous question, and if it is defeated, I will offer an amendment to strike the provisions of the rule pertaining to the privileged resolutions. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment will appear in the Record just prior to the vote on the previous question.

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 and include extraneous material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2 of rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution which raises a question of the privileges of the House. The form of the resolution is as follows: Whereas, Loretta Sanchez was issued a certificate of election as the duly elected Member of Congress from the 46th District of California by the Secretary of State of California and was seated by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 7, 1997; and Whereas A Notice of Contest of Election was filed with the Clerk of the House by Mr. Robert Dornan on December 26, 1996; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California met on February 26, 1997 in Washington, D.C., on April 19, 1997 in Orange County, California and October 24, 1997 in Washington, D.C.; and Whereas the allegations made by Mr. Robert Dornan have been largely found to be without merit: charges of improper voting from a business, rather than a resident address; underage voting; double voting; and charges of unusually large number of individuals voting from the same address. It was found that voting from the same address included a Marines barracks and the domicile of nuns, that business addresses were legal residences for the individuals, including the zoo keeper of the Santa Ana zoo, that duplicate voting was by different individuals and those accused of underage voting were of age; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has issued unprecedented subpoenas to the Immigration and Naturalization Service to compare their records with Orange County voter registration records, the first time in any election in the history of the United States that the INS has been asked by Congress to verify the citizenship of voters; and Whereas the INS has complied with the Committee's request and, at the Committee's request, has been doing a manual check of its paper files and providing worksheets containing supplemental information on that manual check to the Committee on House Oversight for over five months; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight, subpoenaed the records seized by the District Attorney of Orange County on February 13, 1997 and has received and reviewed all records pertaining to registration efforts of that group; and Whereas the House Oversight Committee is now pursuing a duplicate and dilatory review of materials already in the Committees possession by the Secretary of State of California; and Whereas the Task Force on the Contested Election in the 46th District of California and the Committee have been reviewing these materials and has all the information it needs regarding who voted in the 46th District and all the information it needs to make judgements concerning those votes; and Whereas the Committee on House Oversight has after over nine months of review and investigation failed to present credible evidence to change the outcome of the election of Congresswoman Sanchez and is pursuing never ending and unsubstantiated areas of review; and Whereas, Contestant Robert Dornan has not shown or provided credible evidence that the outcome of the election is other than Congresswoman Sanchez's election to the Congress; and Whereas, the House Oversight Committee passed a resolution demanding that the U.S. Attorney file criminal charges against private citizens, despite the fact that Congress has no authority to enforce legislation; Whereas, the Committee on House Oversight should complete its review of this matter and bring this contest to an end and now therefore be it; Resolved, That unless the Committee on House Oversight has sooner reported a recommendation for its final disposition, the contest in the 46th District of California is dismissed upon the expiration of November 7, 1997.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the rule and to the legislation that the rule would make in order, the so-called Forage Improvement Act. This rule is open in name only. Last night the Committee on Rules voted to limit the amendment process to 3 hours; not 3 hours of debate time but 3 hours in total. That includes voting time on any amendments and any other parliamentary motion or question which may arise during that time. Three hours would be totally inadequate, given that the gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth] alone has filed nine amendments, and other Members have filed an additional half-dozen. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] offered three amendments to the rule last night in an attempt to allow sufficient time for all amendments to the bill to be fully debated on the floor. However, the majority refused to accept the ranking member's amendments to the rule. Even if this were a carefully crafted bill, and it is not, that had moved through the committee process, and it did not, with ample legislative hearings, and there were not, in time for Members to consider it, the brief time for floor consideration that the Committee on Rules made in order last night would still be problematic. But the fact of the matter is that the bill was just introduced a month ago, was rushed through the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Resources with no legislative hearings whatsoever, and it shows. I am left with the impression that the majority did not want the members of those committees to look too closely at what they were passing for fear that they might see it for what it is, special interest legislation that is a bad deal for the American taxpayer and a very bad deal for our environment. Rather than seizing this opportunity to enact genuine and positive reform of our grazing laws, this legislation undermines the management of Federal land resources by continuing the subsidized use of public lands for wealthy corporate interests. The Interior Department Inspector General reports that grazing benefits go to a vast array of large foreign-owned companies and domestic corporate conglomerates, including a brewery, a Japanese land and livestock company, an oil corporation, and a life insurance company. These are not struggling family businesses or mom and pop ranchers, but multinational corporations reaping huge profits, most of whom are engaged primarily in businesses that are wholly unrelated to ranching. Why should they not pay the market rates for the grazing rights on our Federal lands? Every western State charges a grazing fee that is higher than the Federal Government. Several States charge six times as much. Yet, this bill continues that disparity with a new fee formula that does not even come close to reflecting the fair market value of the use of our public resources. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that little additional Federal land revenues will be generated from this bill, and in fact, when the legislation's new administrative requirements on land management agencies are taken into account, the grazing program will lose even more money than it currently does. This bill makes other modifications to the Federal land grazing program above and beyond its changes to the grazing fee formula. For example, it would allow ranchers with grazing permits to sublease their lands to private interests at a significant profit over what they have paid the Federal Government for the use. Yet, incredibly, the Committee on Resources failed to hold a legislative hearing on this bill, denying Members any opportunity to hear testimony on the far-reaching implications of this legislation. Members should be aware that Secretary Babbitt has given notice that he will recommend a veto should this bill reach the President's desk. But this ill-advised legislation does not deserve to make it that far. Indeed, it should not even reach this floor, given the cursory exposure and debate it received in committee. Because of the truncated amendment process made in order by the Committee on Rules last night, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

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. This conference report has taken a long time to complete, Mr. Speaker, because the Interior appropriations bill encompasses a number of controversial issues, including the arts and the environment. However, I would like to praise the conferees for their hard work in reaching agreement on the report language. In particular, I am pleased that they ultimately saw fit to include in the report $98 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, a funding level which more accurately reflects America's support for the arts than did the original House bill from which all NEA funding was struck on a point of order. It is essential that we continue Federal support for the arts because the arts enhance so many facets of our lives. From the educational development of our children to the economic growth of our towns and cities, we learn more every day about the ways in which the arts contribute to our children's learning. One recent study showed that students with 4 years of instruction in the arts scored 59 points higher on the verbal portion and 44 points higher on the math section of the SAT's than did students with no art classes. New research in the area of brain development shows a strong link between the arts and early childhood development. At the University of California in Irvine, researchers found that music training is far superior to computer instruction in dramatically enhancing a child's abstract reasoning skills, which are necessary for the learning of math and science. Another recent study showed that doctors with music instruction had greater diagnostic abilities in using stethoscopes than did doctors without music training, and we were all quite surprised to find that the skill of listening and diagnosing with a stethoscope was missing in far too many of our physicians. Obviously, arts education pays great dividends in a wide range of fields. No other Federal program yields such great rewards on so small an investment. The arts are also an integral driving force behind the economic growth of our Nation. The small investment that we make this year, $98 million, will contribute to a return of $3.4 billion or more to the Federal treasury. The arts support at least 1.3 million jobs, not only in New York City or Los Angeles or Chicago, but in smaller cities like Providence, RI; Rock Hill, SC; and Peekskill, NY. These are just a few of the many towns and cities across our Nation whose economies have flourished, largely as a direct result of investments that have been made in the arts. This is not a parochial issue. Members of the House received a letter earlier this year from Americans United to Save the Arts and Humanities, an organization of business leaders, expressing their strong support for NEA. In that letter the CEO of Xerox Corp., the chairman and CEO of Sun America, Inc., the chairman and CEO of Sara Lee Corp. and over 100 other business leaders endorsed continued Federal funding for the NEA as well as the National Endowment for the Humanities. While I support the funding for the NEA provided in this conference report, I must express concern over some of the report's other provisions that I believe will have detrimental effects on our environment. For example, the conference report includes a provision to remove the current cap on the use of purchaser road credits in the national forest system. This will encourage excessive road building in our national forests and will allow timber companies to log in remote areas. In addition, the national forest planning provision will interfere with the Forest Service's process of updating and revising its forest management plans, which is required by the National Forest Management Act. Furthermore, the log export rider will drastically reduce the effectiveness of the law that bans the export of logs from our national forests as well as from State-owned lands in the Pacific Northwest. Another provision in the report allows money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to be used by Federal land management agencies for the maintenance of existing holdings. The use of LWCF money to meet ongoing maintenance needs is inconsistent with the purpose of the law and would rob the LWCF of funds needed for new acquisitions, without crafting a lasting solution to the ongoing maintenance shortfalls. Other language in the conference report sets out numerous requirements before the New World Mine and Headwaters acquisitions can move forward, and allows the authorizing committees to stipulate additional requirements for these projects. Given that general authorization already exists for these two acquisitions, any additional requirements are unnecessary and set a dangerous precedent for future acquisitions. With those reservations, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues on the conference committee for their hard work in coming to an agreement on the report language and in particular for their efforts in regard to the NEA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner]. (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)