Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. . Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if I could take just a second to correct what I think is a grave injustice here, the comment has been made several times this evening that these were committee subpoenas. I think it needs to be pointed out once again, these were given by a private citizen, Mr. Robert Dornan of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I mentioned flounder, too.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

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 time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the resolution that it makes in order for several reasons. First, there are still, in my view, major separation of powers concerns regarding this resolution. If I can repeat, I still think that the major separation of powers question remains because we are still demanding that action be taken. Since when does this Congress demand that any law enforcement arm is to bring criminal action against private citizens? The majority knows very well it is beyond our power to compel compliance with this resolution, and the proof of that is the fact the resolution has no legal effect whatsoever. The role of Congress is to enact legislation, not to enforce it. Second, the Committee on House Oversight has failed to make even the most basic determination that enough specific votes were in question to bring into doubt the, certified by the Secretary of State of California, the certified 984 vote margin. Common sense would mandate that the Committee on House Oversight should have been able to substantiate specific allegations of the mistaken counting of at least 984 identified votes before beginning the investigation. But no, we continued the investigation for 10 months and still are not able to identify enough votes to negate this outcome, and that is unconscionable. The Committee on House Oversight has allowed an election contest based not on facts or even specific allegations, but on innuendo and unsupported, vague assertions. From the very beginning, the supposed investigation has been a fishing expedition trying desperately to find enough votes and voters to justify its own continuation, and what do we have after 10 months? Very little. The majority on the committee is now looking for distraction to draw attention from its inability to make a case and its unwillingness to dismiss it. The red herring it offers today is a resolution that purports to demand that the United States attorney file criminal charges against an organization for its failure to comply with the subpoena issued by the defeated incumbent in the election, not by the House of Representatives, but by a defeated incumbent, a normal citizen, while knowing full well that this Congress has no authority to demand any such thing. Third, simply as a procedural matter this resolution is premature. A court has just ruled on the constitutional status of the Contested Election Act last week. The time for appeal of that court ruling has not even expired, and yet this resolution nevertheless purports to demand that criminal charges be brought against an organization for failing to comply with subpoenas issued pursuant to that act. At the very least, it is inappropriate for this Congress to be acting so precipitously when it is still possible that a court of appeals may reverse the lower court's decision. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this attempt to divert attention from this committee's true responsibility and end this unwarranted fishing expedition. It is time for this committee to fish or cut bait. It has specifically identified sufficient invalid votes to overturn the certified 984-vote margin or declare an end to this floundering and this misbegotten challenge. The amendment that we just passed unanimously I think reinforces what we were saying, that this resolution has absolutely no power behind it. We cannot demand another branch of the Government do anything, and in fact, frankly, I think what we proved again here is a simple phone call perhaps might have sufficed, but to tie up the Houses's time with a resolution is beyond the pale. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to support this motion very strongly to instruct the conferees to include the Senate level of $100 million in this conference report. This is absolutely essential for us, Mr. Speaker, as part of the most important link that we have in the United States to humanize and to give the opportunity for every child in this country to participate in arts programs. We hear all the time, the debate always centers around where all these grants go. Oh, they say they go to New York City, to Chicago, and to Los Angeles. Yes, a lot of them do. Why do they do that? What do they do with the money in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles? They send out troupes of artists, of dancers, of musicians, of teachers to every nook and cranny of the United States. That really is what our obligation is here. Those famous and wonderful institutions that have art museums throughout the country will probably survive without the NEA, but I can guarantee Members that those programs that reach into the smallest of schools, to the most deprived of areas in the United States, those will not survive, and they will die. Will it matter? You bet it matters. What do we do with children who have arts programs in school? In the first place, they are going to tell us that these are kids who never drop out, and on art day all those children are going to be there. Absenteeism is cut down. But one of the most important things is that, according to the college board in the United States, students with 4 years of art, they score 59 points higher on their verbal scores on the SAT's and 44 points higher on math portions than kids with no arts classes. There is nothing else that we do for education that gives us back that return. Newsweek recently highlighted a school in Raleigh, NC, that used art to transform what was a troubled elementary school with below-average test scores to a school where the kids are excited about learning and the scores have gone up. University of California at Irvine researchers found that music training, specifically piano instruction, is far superior to computer instruction, dramatically enhancing the children's abstract reasoning skills necessary for learning math and science. A study in Florida shows there is a connection between arts education and dropout prevention. This is the best thing we do for children at risk. Can we afford not to do that? Can we afford to not do these small programs, the small investment that we make to make sure as we are here on the cusp of the next century that every child in the public school system in the United States has that opportunity to expand its brainpower and its own ability, its verbal scores, and do better on the SAT's? How foolish for us not to do that. The NEA's budget is less than 0.01 percent of the Federal budget. What does it do? It returns $3.4 billion to the Treasury. I promise my colleagues that we make no other investment in the Congress of the United States that brings that kind of return. It supports 1.3 million jobs and generates $36.8 billion annually. In addition, the arts produce $790 million in local government revenue and $1.2 billion in State government revenue. Let me just close with something that is very important. Recently the New York Times ran the words of Harold Holzer, the Metropolitan Museum of Art's vice president. He said that in the fiscal year which ended June 30, the Metropolitan Museum of Art had greater attendance, 5.5 million persons, than the New York Mets, the Yankees, the Rangers, and the Knicks combined. That certainly says to us that people in this country are hungry to have art, hungry to hear music, anxious to dance, want their children to have the opportunity to expand their brains, to be everything they can be, to help us be ready to go into the next century with our children prepared.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as a cochair of the Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, I am proud today to recognize the sixth anniversary of the Independence of Ukraine. The actual anniversary was celebrated on August 24, but today, we in Congress are commemorating the occasion with a reception hosted by the caucus, the Ukrainian Congress Committee of America, and the Ukrainian-American Coordinating Council. The past year has been an exciting, but challenging one for Ukraine. As the representative of a large and active Ukrainian community in Rochester, NY, I particularly want to note two milestones over the past year in United States-Ukrainian relations. This year we cemented the Ukrainian-American strategic partnership through the first session of the Ukraine-United States Binational Kuchma-Gore Commission. I am hopeful and confident that this partnership will continue to strengthen over the coming years. Even more significantly, on July 9, the unprecedented Charter on the Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine was signed at the Madrid NATO summit. This ground-breaking agreement will serve as the basis for Ukraine's security into the 21st century and demonstrates the close relationship that President Kuchma has built with Europe and the United States. As exciting as these developments are, over the next year, we, the friends of Ukraine in the United States, must redouble our efforts to help Ukraine continue to move forward, particularly in the economic sphere. We must do what we can to support President Kuchma's ongoing efforts to reform Ukraine's economy, as he moves to integrate it into the world market economy. In Ukraine itself, the March 1998 elections will be an opportunity to elect a reform-minded Parliament to aid in this effort. Here at home, I have been working in Congress to secure continued United States aid to help Ukraine make this transition. In addition, the Ukrainian community and other caring persons in the United States are challenged to continue their magnificent, humanitarian efforts to help relieve the still troubling health conditions for many Ukrainians, particularly children. We must do what we can to work together to lower infant mortality and to reverse the troubling trends toward lower life expectancy. Yes, there is much work ahead, but Ukrainians in America have much to celebrate as well. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting and congratulating Ukraine and Ukrainian-Americans, as we commemorate the sixth anniversary of Ukrainian independence.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, public broadcasting gives the American people, both young and old, exceptional programming not available on commercial television, such as the award-winning ``Civil War'' series, the ``Jim Lehrer NewsHour,'' ``Masterpiece Theater,'' and PBS' unique children's educational programming. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting [CPB] is an asset to children and families throughout the nation and is worthy of its funding. According to a Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. poll from July, 1997, the American public rates public radio as the second best value in return for tax dollars spent out of 20 services. The quality and variety of educational, informational, and cultural programming found on public broadcast stations cannot be found anywhere else on radio or television. Public broadcast stations are among a limited selection of stations that cater to a large number of locally originated programs. In addition, public broadcast stations in rural and underserved urban areas greatly depend on Federal funds for their economic base. CPB provides services that reach out to people of all backgrounds and ages throughout the country. For example, many public radio stations provide radio reading services for the blind. In my own district of Rochester, NY the local public broadcasting station, WXXI, helps prepare young children to learn when they enter school and provides numerous college telecourses for adult education. In fact, the national Public Broadcasting Service arm of CPB is the leading source of college telecourses in the country. CPB plays an essential role in our educational and cultural growth as a nation. Vote against the Hefley amendment to the Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill to cut funding from the CPB.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a moment to answer a question one of my colleagues asked about, what did parents do before 1970? I was at the University of Kentucky in the 1950's, and I can answer that question. I think I should. Women who got pregnant in those days died from botched abortions or they died from septicemia or they became sterile, unable to have children in the future, or they were sent away to what was called a Florence Crittenden home with other women who had, in the jargon of the day, ``got themselves in trouble,'' to wait 9 months until their babies were born. And their families told their friends and everybody else they had moved away with a relative for a little while. It was common. They had no opportunity again to go back and finish their education. They were from the ``good'' families. Poor women just had no options. The men involved got off without any problem because it was a case of spontaneous generation, the woman had ``gotten herself into trouble.'' They continued their education and lives, and had every opportunity to become titans of industry. The women were disgraced. That has changed, and I am happy for it. I wish that every child in America lived in an ideal home, but they do not. But even in ideal homes, in good homes, where 99.9 percent of everything is discussed, there comes a time every now and then when a child may not want to talk this over with their parents. It is a tragic thing that happened in Illinois, it is a case of statutory rape, and of course it must be prosecuted. In my district we do that; and if my colleagues do not prosecute in their districts, I want to recommend it to them. But this amendment has a far broader reach. It says that none of the funds in this act or any other act for any year can be made available to any title X provider if they do not fulfill this amendment. That means they risk the loss of Medicare funds, Medicaid funds, graduate medical reimbursement, disproportionate share payments, and everything else that we do for health care facilities in this country. Because of the broad-reaching nature of this amendment, it has been strongly opposed by the American Medical Association and the hospitals. Now, let me say one thing that is very important here. I think this law would preempt State laws on this issue because 24 States have laws that mandate confidentiality between providers and adolescents. What we say here over and over again on this floor, what I hear is, we should never enforce anything from Washington; the States know best, the local areas know best. In this case we are saying, no, that is not the case. No, no, Washington knows best on this issue after all. Now, States deserve to have their considered laws on doctor-patient communications remain intact, and I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to reject the Istook-Manzullo amendment, as well-meaning as it may be, and to support Castle-Porter.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Somebody has to speak for the millions of women around this world who desperately want access to family planning. Even with the family planning money, we don't reach enough of them. Pregnancy and childbirth are very risky propositions for women in many parts of this globe that lack electricity, running water, medical equipment or trained personnel. In Africa, a woman has a 1 in 16 chance of death from pregnancy and childbirth during their lifetime--585,000 women die from bodies that are worn out from child bearing, child after child, who simply cannot take another. And there are complications from pregnancy. For each one that dies, 100 others suffer from associated illnesses and permanent disabilities, including sterility. Studies indicate if we can space a child for 2 years apart, we can prevent an average of 1 in 4 infant deaths. We are talking about saving people's lives here. Who are we in the United States, where we have so much and so much has been given to us, that we can say to people who have almost nothing, we are not going to give you the information or the knowledge that you need to save your life and to save your family's? This is the cruelest kind of family planning of all, to let women die from excess pregnancies or self-induced abortions.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would like to yield to the manager for a discussion.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, while I do not oppose this open rule, I do have some serious concerns about the impact of the underlying bill on Amtrak. This passenger rail system is vital to the economic needs of millions of train passengers and thousands of communities across the Nation, including my own community in upstate New York. The bill provides a total of $793 million for Amtrak in fiscal year 1998, but only $283 million of that will go for operating costs. This is the lowest operating budget in 20 years for Amtrak and represents a cut of $61 million below the administration's request for operations. A cut of this size could make Amtrak's cash problems insurmountable. According to Amtrak President Thomas Downs, Amtrak could go bankrupt within a year. Amtrak is already borrowing to go meet the payroll and may soon reach its commercial borrowing limits. By failing to provide the necessary funding in this bill to allow Amtrak to meet its existing obligations, we are placing at risk 23,000 American jobs. Moreover, we risk losing this essential transportation and economic resource forever. If that happens, under current law, the Federal Government would be responsible for an estimated $6 billion in costs associated with closing Amtrak. These include the costs of the unemployment benefits, the C-2 label protections, tax revenue losses, and $2.3 billion in debt to public and private investors. I am not convinced that this Congress has fully considered the ramification of dropping this potentially massive liability into the laps of the U.S. taxpayer or the economic consequences on our communities if they were to lose Amtrak. In the past 2 years, Amtrak has increased ridership and revenues, cut costs, and made important investments to modernize its aging train fleet. While much work remains to be done, unfortunately this bill does not do enough to ensure that Amtrak has the operating resources it needs to remain an economically viable transportation option for the community it serves. While I have that major reservation about the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say on the record what happened in the Committee on Rules with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] since she is not here to speak for herself. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] did come to the Committee on Rules and say, if the Smith amendment was made in order she would like another amendment made in order. She did not have one of her own. I want to be clear on that. She did not offer an amendment. However, the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] believed that the amendment that would be offered was one put in by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood]. The Greenwood amendment was then changed and another amendment was written by the gentleman from California [Mr. Campbell] and I believe the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], after the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] had left the room. Recognizing that this was not the amendment the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] was talking about, I then requested that the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] be allowed to put forth the Greenwood amendment as the ranking member and that was denied. So I want to have the record perfectly straight on what happened in the Committee on Rules that evening.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this unfair rule. As a member of the Committee on Rules, I am angry. The Committee on Rules passed this rule late last night with virtually no notice to the members of the Committee on Rules. In fact, I did not really know about it until this morning on my office answering machine, so I was not present, nor were the members of the committee of jurisdiction, the appropriators. I want my colleagues to know that this is a truly extraordinary rule. Buried within it is language that limits the rights of the minority to move that the committee rise, so Members can no longer use that procedure to protest the majority's repeated failure to make in order key amendments on majority bills. I am willing to stand corrected, Mr. Speaker, but I recall no time as a majority member on the Committee on Rules when we made a rule that restricted the minority's right to procedural motions. As the former minority leader, Robert Michel, once said, ``Procedure has not simply become more important than substance; it has, through a strange alchemy, become the substance of our deliberations.'' The Committee on Rules has fallen into a pattern that does not bode well for the future of the democratic process within this House. This Congress is supposed to operate under procedures that allow for full and fair debate of the legislation we consider, and that permit all sides to be heard. But instead, this committee has repeatedly refused to permit Members, not just Members but ranking members, to offer key amendments. While it may not be written in the rules that all ranking members may have amendments, it has certainly been a courtesy of this House. This has happened in several instances in this Congress. The Committee on Rules refused to make in order an amendment to the defense authorization bill regarding the B-2 bombers that was presented by the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. Indeed, they took off the name of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and stuck it onto another amendment, which he objected to strenuously. They relented later, as I pointed out, but they put his name on. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] who is trying so hard to speak here today, the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, had an amendment to restore WIC funding which was taken away from her altogether and given to another Member of the House, but later reversed. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], an august Member of this House and a ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Interior, just recently was disallowed offering an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill, where he has served with distinction for a number of years, to restore the NEA funding. And just last week the Committee on Rules refused to make in order an amendment regarding international family planning to the foreign operations appropriations requested by the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Nancy Pelosi, the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs. This is certainly more, Mr. Speaker, than a pattern. The majority's determination to subvert the right of the minority to offer these amendments is not a matter of procedural maneuvering, it is substantive. It is not merely discourteous, it is undemocratic. I might add that the majority's actions are profoundly disrespectful to these ranking members, who have earned through their years of service in this institution the right to offer an amendment. But, in the middle of the night last night, the majority apparently decided that even cutting off the minority's ability to offer key amendments to legislation was not enough. Now with this rule, not only are they limiting the amendments that we can offer, but our right to offer procedural motions on the floor is limited as well. In other words, not only can we not offer amendments that we need, but now we cannot even use the procedural motions to protest the procedures. We are effectively muzzled. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to defeat this rule.