Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was simply requesting that he yield to me.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman please yield to me as a member of the Committee on Rules?

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, there is a real snake in the woodpile in this tax bill that nobody is talking about. There is a little provision in there that says an employer can declare an employee an independent contractor. That $500 tax credit per child will not mean a heck of a lot to a taxpayer if suddenly they find out they are responsible for all their own health insurance, paying their own FICA, and paying their payroll tax. This is something that will also cost the American taxpayer an estimated $2.2 billion over the next 10 years. Let me quote Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Rubin, and what he has to say about this one provision. ``The provisions for independent contractor status would permit employers to avoid essential worker protections.'' Think about this, constituents. I want everyone to know about this one. At a time when we are trying to expand health and pension coverage, this proposal could lead to widespread shifting of employees to independent contractor status. No longer an employee, but on their own. They would take away the protections such as pension and health coverage and, consequently, wage and hour protections, unemployment insurance benefits, and compensation for work related injuries. Wake up America, it is coming.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly oppose the Interior appropriations bill we will be voting on today because it contains no funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. The rule did not allow us to have a vote, an up-or-down vote, on NEA on the grounds that the NEA was not authorized. However, later today we will be voting on an appropriations bill that has at least 40 unauthorized and protected measures in it. I believe if we had had an up-or-down vote on the NEA, that it would have been fully funded for the next year. The Federal support for the arts is an incredibly worthwhile investment, and as many of our Members know, students with 4 years of arts study score 59 points higher on their verbal scores and 45 points higher on the math portion of their SAT's than students with no arts classes. Recent studies about the development of the human brain show the importance of arts for early childhood development. At the University of California at Irvine, researchers found that music training is far superior to computer instruction in dramatically enhancing children's abstract reasoning skills.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 255 through 266 last week due to a death in my family. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' or ``aye'' on roll call votes 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 261, 263, 264, and 265, and ``nay'' or ``no'' on rollcall votes 259, 262, and 266.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I will not be present for this important debate, due to a death in my family. However, I strongly oppose this rule because it fails to waive points of order on the section of the bill that provides funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. Waiving points of order on this section would protect the Appropriations Committee's work, and allow the issue of Federal funding for the arts to reach the House floor. Numerous Members from both sides of the aisle testified yesterday before the Rules Committee in favor of allowing a straight up or down vote on the National Endowment for the Arts [NEA] on the House floor. But instead, the Rules Committee decided to deny the Members of this body an opportunity to vote on this issue, which affects millions of people across the country. Our Federal investment in the NEA is an investment in our children's educational development and in our Nation's economic growth. The $99.5 million we invest in the NEA yields a return of $3.4 billion to the Federal Treasury. I know of no other investment we make that yields so great a return. Studies have shown that investments in arts education yields other dividends as well. For example, we now know that playing the piano helps students better learn math and science. It is ``penny wise and pound foolish'' for us to sacrifice the investment in arts education that we have been making in our children and our communities-- particularly without an up-or-down vote by this democratic Congress. As a majoritarian body, the House has an obligation to ensure that members of Congress have the opportunity to determine the future of the NEA by voting on it, rather than being blocked by a procedural issue. The NEA has played an essential role in our society for over 30 years. It is simply unfair to make any decision affecting its continuation-- and in turn affecting the millions of citizens who benefit from NEA- funded programs--without the benefit of a vote by the entire House of Representatives. This is not a parochial issue. All Members of this House recently received a letter from Americans United to Save the Arts and Humanities, an organization of business leaders, expressing their strong support for the NEA. The CEO of the Xerox Corp., the chairman and CEO of Sun America, Inc., the chairman and CEO of the 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 [NEH]. As their letter explained, ``The NEA and the NEH have each been valuable components in creating a healthy business climate. We value employees with a solid education in the arts and humanities. * * * Exposure to an arts education produces workers with such skills as analysis, synthesis, evaluation and critical judgement--key elements to success in today's competitive global economy.'' The letter went on to say, ``We recognize the tight constraints of the Federal budget. However, it is evident that there is a clear parallel between the Federal investment in culture and the willingness of corporations, foundations and individuals to support cultural activity.'' Business leaders know how important the NEA's contribution to the arts is to the success of our Nation in the global economy. The Rules Committee's failure to protect the NEA against points of order is simply a ruse to prevent a majority of House Members from exercising their will on this issue. Arguments that the NEA should not be funded because it is unauthorized are disingenuous. As we all know, a lack of authorization never prevents this body from appropriating funds for any program, unless opponents of that funding need a handy excuse. In fact, a Congressional Budget Office report from January 1997 states, ``The CBO is unaware of any case in which appropriations have not been provided for a program solely because its authorization has expired.'' In fiscal year 1997, this House passed appropriations for 121 programs which were unauthorized. Obviously, authorization is not an absolute requirement, but one that the majority applies selectively. The Ehlers/Hunter amendment to retain funding for the arts in the form of State block grants is an unacceptable substitute. Federal leadership and funding play the essential role in the effort to make arts available in every community to every citizen. The State arts agencies rely upon Federal leadership and direct funding of national initiatives to attract private, corporate, and foundation support to the arts, especially from funders who can be encouraged to provide matching support on a regional or national basis. The National Assembly of State Arts Agencies [NASAA], which represents the State and special jurisdictional government arts agencies of the United States, strongly opposes block grants to States. Under a block grant system, there would be great difficulty in creating a fair formula for allocating arts funding among the States. In addition, NEA grants that go to one district often benefit numerous other communities and States. This is particularly true in the case of exhibits or performance groups that travel to various locations. Block grants would eliminate the incentive that currently exists under our system of direct Federal funding to give money to fund arts programs with interstate benefits. The full House of Representatives deserves the opportunity to vote on the NEA, not on block grants which are unacceptable to the State arts agencies, to our constituents, and to most Members of Congress. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule on the Interior appropriations bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I in no way want to impede this hearing process. Like everybody else in the country, I want to make sure that the political process in the United States is as good as it can be, but I want to speak to the committee process, if I may. Protecting the civil liberties and the civil rights of the citizens of the United States is our job. We write the laws here that people count on to do just that. Also, the importance of the committee hearing is almost a religious belief in the United States. A congressional hearing carries the weight of truth and honor with it. I served on this Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in the last term of Congress when we had the Waco hearings, and to our great surprise when we had those hearings, we found that persons who identified themselves as being with the committee were instead with the National Rifle Association, having no connection whatever with Congress. Yet they felt free and were allowed to call witnesses and ask them questions about the hearing before they came to testify. This was a terrible breach of Congressional process. Was the committee chair disturbed? Not at all. Did the Justice Dept. care. Not at all. It is only the protection of minority and majority working in concert that keeps the process honest. For the first time in the history of the House, that consultation and concurrence of the majority and minority has been breached. This is a perilous step to take. As long as outside sources or special interest groups are allowed to pose as Government officials, we abrogate our authority as Members. We are not entitled to do that.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman very much.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment is very straightforward. It just expresses the sense of Congress that foreign aid to the Baltic states of Latvia and Lithuania should be provided in the fiscal year 1998 and beyond for Lithuania. It also states that Latvia should continue to receive aid as the President determines it necessary. This amendment supports these nations as they continue to evolve toward a free market economy and develop democratic institutions. On behalf of all the Latvian and Lithuanian Americans who have made this country their home, I am pleased to offer this amendment. Since gaining their independence from the former Soviet Union earlier this decade, Latvia and Lithuania have both made important strides towards democracy and the removal of the shackles of oppressive communism. Lithuania and Latvia have a long, proud history and have struggled valiantly against forces on all sides of their borders, forces that would suppress their freedom in demanding the Soviet troops be removed from their soil and that the Baltic states be granted independence. In 1990, pro-independence forces were able to win a majority in parliamentary elections in Lithuania. Despite an attempted coup by Soviet soldiers, Lithuania and the other Baltic states were able to gain their independence. Last fall, Mr. Chairman, national elections brought reform forces back into the Parliament following a collapse of the private banking sector and the ensuing Government crisis. Despite this renewed democratic reform, the State Department made a curious decision to end the aid program to the Lithuania through the Support for the Eastern European Democracies or the SEED Program as reflected in the President's budget request, this in spite of the fact that USAID's in-country mission, the U.S. Embassy and nongovernment at organizations such as the Lithuanian-American community all support continued aid to Lithuania at this time. The reasons for aid are clear. Continued threats to safety and stability by organized crime in Lithuania are a serious concern. The previous government failed to place walls between the Government and private interests, resulting in corruption and one of the reasons for its fall from power. The people of Lithuania responded democratically to these problems by voting in a new reform Government. The new reform Government is trying to adopt anticorruption legislation and is in critical need of technical experts to assist them. Without our aid, this will not be possible. In addition, there is a continued need for technical experts to assist with the reorganization and privatization of the energy sector. Again, our aid is critical. Mr. Chairman, Lithuania and Latvia have proven to be our allies and our friends. They have requested an invitation to join NATO at the earliest possible date, a request which Congress may soon grant them. Should we not continue assisting Lithuania and Latvia at this important moment in their history? Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to support this amendment of continued support to Lithuania and Latvia in fiscal year 1998, and Lithuania beyond, as they continue to build democratic free market institutions.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We have this debate almost every year here and it always makes me sad. I think those of us who are fortunate enough to live in America where we have good access to health care and information probably do not understand what it is like in a Third World country where one does not have it. Frankly, I think the harshest kind of birth control on Earth is to live in a place where women kill themselves trying to abort. They have not been able to get the information they need to help space their families or even to plan them, and we rise to the floor year after year after year and say that we don't care. Is there anything worse than the children who are left motherless because their mother could not face one more child, and we could have helped her, had we been able to give the family planning information that she needed? I want to give two quotes this morning which I think are very succinct. One of them has to do with the Helms amendment, and I know everybody in the majority strongly believes that the Helms amendment is quite good. The first is no U.S. foreign aid funds are used to perform abortions. It is explicitly prohibited in the annual appropriations law and the underlying statute, which is the Helms amendment. USAID has been scrupulous in complying with the law, and even the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], who is my good friend, agrees that the Helms amendment stopped the direct funding of abortions. The second is what Vice President Gore has said, and I quote, Our administration believes that the United States Constitution guarantees every woman within our borders the right to choose. We are unalterably committed to that principle, but let us take a false issue off the table. The United States has not sought, does not seek, and will not seek to establish any international right to abortion. He said that at a national press conference in 1994, and that has not changed. The Smith amendment is absolutely unnecessary and it is simply again another way to punish women in other countries and to provide some sense in the House that we are helping children, which is absolutely untrue.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce today the DES Education and Research Amendments of 1997. Between 1938 and 1971, approximately 5 million pregnant American women took the drug diethylstilbestrol, or DES, in the belief it would prevent miscarriage. Tragically, DES failed to impact miscarriage rates and instead caused severe health consequences for many of the children exposed in utero. DES is now known to damage the reproductive systems of those exposed in utero and to increase the risk for cancer, infertility, and a wide range of other serious reproductive tract disorders. These include a fivefold increased risk of ectopic pregnancy for DES daughters and a threefold increased risk for miscarriage and preterm labor. One in one thousand DES daughters will develop clear cell cancer of the vagina or cervix. If diagnosed early, survival rates for this cancer are around 80 percent. However, there is still no effective treatment for recurrence of this cancer. DES sons experience adverse health consequences as well, including an increased incidence of undescended testicles and fertility problems. Studies also indicate a higher incidence of breast cancer among mothers who took DES during pregnancy. In the 102d Congress, Senator Tom Harkin and I sponsored the DES Education and Research Amendments of 1992. This legislation, signed into law by President Bush, established the first Federal DES research and education efforts. Since that time, DES research has yielded important insights into the impact of synthetic estrogens on the human body. The associated education program has helped to identify people who did not previously know they were exposed to DES and educate them about their special health needs. Our understanding of DES is still evolving and incomplete. Two of the most pressing research concerns at present are whether estrogen replacement therapy is advisable for DES-exposed women and whether DES may have a genetic impact on the third generation--the children of parents exposed to DES in utero. In addition, many thousands of affected Americans and their health professionals do not have adequate information about steps they should take to deal with the effects of DES. The DES Education and Research Amendments of 1997 would extend authorization for DES research at the National Institutes of Health. It would also instruct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a national DES education program, based on the pilot projects conducted pursuant to the 1992 law. The Federal commitment to DES education and research must continue. I urge my colleagues to support the DES Education and Research Amendments of 1997.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The debate we have had today, Mr. Speaker, is important to us, and I think it is important to the American people, but we do not have a lot of avenues to try to make our opinions known. A couple of things have been said that I would really like to comment on. The first is that I share everybody's grief and concern when these laws have been broken. Nobody feels more badly about that than I, and I want to get to the bottom of it. But one of the ways we could have done better in trying to make sure that the laws we have on the books now are conformed with was the $1.7 million that was taken out of the supplemental last week to the FEC to help them to make sure that all laws are complied with, and I am sorry that that happened as well. This vote today on whether to order the previous question is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question today is a vote to allow this opposition, for at least a moment, to offer an alternative plan. I want to make it clear to everyone that defeating the previous question will in no way affect the consideration of H.R. 408, which is important and which we will not in any way try to interfere with, but it is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert extraneous material in the Record.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Turner].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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