Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose this rule, but I do have some reservations about the legislation that the rule would make in order. The public outrage at the high level of dolphins slaughtered by tuna fishing fleets in the eastern Pacific was so strong that in 1990 the U.S. tuna canning industry announced a voluntary policy of refusing to purchase tuna caught by harming or killing dolphins. This voluntary policy led to the now well-known dolphin safe label found on cans of tuna that are sold in the United States. Under the current statutory definition of dolphin safe, which was supported by the Bush administration and virtually all environmental organizations when it was enacted in 1990. No tuna product can be labeled dolphin safe if caught by chasing, harassing or netting dolphins. But Mexico and other Latin American countries who are eager to gain access to our billion- dollar American tuna market have protested that the labeling practices constitute a trade barrier. So to accommodate those nations H.R. 408 would change our definition of dolphin safe upon which American consumers have relied for years. Under the new definition included in this bill dolphins can be injured, chased and netted without limit in the course of catching tuna which, will then be stamped deceptively with the dolphin safe label and sent straight to the American grocery store shelf. Essentially, the law would dupe American consumers into purchasing canned tuna stamped with the same dolphin safe label that they are accustomed to, but under a definition that is much weaker then the current one. I remember the debate on GATT and NAFTA, and what is on the floor today is what we were promised would not happen. U.S. consumer and environmental laws are being bargained away to satisfy the demand of other nations for access to our markets. This legislation will overwhelmingly benefit Mexico and other foreign tuna fishermen who want to skirt the current requirements for selling their tuna illegally on our shelves, and it undercuts United States tuna fishing fleets who have been complying with the law. At its heart this is not a dolphin conservation measure. We know it is not because it doubles the number of dolphins permitted to be killed. Even the National Marine Fisheries Service reports that the two dolphin stocks most frequently chased and netted during tuna fishing are at 20 percent or less of their original sizes, and neither of those dolphin stocks is increasing. H.R. 408 is a convenient means of ending a trade dispute with Mexico and other Latin American countries at the expense of the American consumer and our environment. My real concern is the precedent the bill would set. Enacting it sends a message to any foreign trading partner that this Congress is willing to sacrifice U.S. consumer and environmental protection legislation in the name of multilateral trade agreements and that our domestic laws can simply be negotiated away. Mr. Speaker, this is a wrong message. I am having a hard time swallowing the argument that this agreement is our only option to avoid a showdown between Latin America and the United States at the World Trade Organization. Congress is being told by the administration and Mexico to take it or leave it. Surely a compromise could have been reached that protected the integrity of the U.S. consumer and environmental laws by still allowing trade with their neighbors. While I will not oppose the rule, I do urge my colleagues to oppose the underlying bill, H.R. 408, and in addition I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment that would require the House to consider campaign finance reform before Memorial Day, May 31, so that a final campaign finance reform bill can be sent to the President Clinton before July 4, and I would like to use this opportunity to again raise the issue of why the majority has yet still to hold any hearings or markups on campaign finance reform. Fifty-eight bills have been introduced in the House, 1 of which is my own, to provide free television time, and yet all 58 of these campaign finance bills languish in committee. Mr. Speaker, there is simply no excuse for this Congress' continuing failure to take action on this issue. The leadership of this House owes it to the voters of the Nation to seize the opportunity before it and to enact responsible campaign reform, and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing the previous question and opposing H.R. 408. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a distinguished company located in New York's 28th Congressional District: ITT Automotive. ITT Automotive, which employs 3,800 workers at its electrical systems plant in Rochester, NY, was awarded the 1997 Quality Cup for manufacturing on May 2, 1997. ITT Automotive received the Quality Cup Award for creating an advanced modular windshield wiper system that met stringent quality and safety requirements for the Chrysler minivan and provided added value for the automotive industry supply chain. The employees heading the award-winning quality team include team leader Craig Hysong, Robert Price, Richard Fisher, Michael Kinsky, and Jeannine Marciano, all from ITT Automotive's electrical systems plant in Rochester. No company could be more deserving of this award than ITT Automotive. The Quality Cup, given by the Rochester Institute of Technology and USA Today, honors companies and individuals who excel in the pursuit of quality. In addition to the RIT/USA Today award, the ITT Automotive team members also were honored with Chrysler's Award for Excellence. Thee honors add to a long list of other awards that ITT Automotive has received in the past few years, including such prestigious honors as Ford's Q1, General Motors' Mark of Excellence, and Chrysler's Pentastar awards, as well as honors from Honda, Toyota, Mazda, Audi, and other international manufacturers. Last year the plant also received a Governor's Award from the State of New York for environmental protection programs that minimize hazardous wastes, reduced solvent air emissions, and improved energy efficiency. These awards are a testament to ITT Automotive's workers and management, and I am delighted that RIT, USA Today, and Chrysler have chosen to recognize ITT Automotive for its strong record of quality. ITT Automotive represents the very best in American business: Putting its customers first, trusting its employees, and building quality into products and services. I am proud of its success, its achievement, and of the contribution it makes to our community. Congratulations to everyone at ITT Automotive who shares in this honor.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my objection to the proposed cuts in the WIC Program contained in the supplemental appropriations bill that is being considered by the House Committee on Appropriations. The women, infants, and children's program, known as WIC, is widely known as one of the most effective and cost-effective programs this Government operates. By providing nutritious food to pregnant women and infants, the WIC Program helps to ensure that babies who are born to low-income women get the full nutrition they need to develop and to grow properly. It is estimated that every dollar invested in WIC saves at least $3.50 in future expenditures on Medicaid and other programs. The administration recommended $76 million, but it has been cut to $38 million in the supplemental bill, which means that 180,000 children and pregnant women will go unserved and hungry. Now, we should be ashamed of ourselves for taking the food literally out of the mouths of babes, and I am pleased to know that my colleague, the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], plans to offer an amendment to restore the important funding, and I shall certainly be supporting that. The richest country in the world cannot let its vulnerable citizens go without food for lack of political backbone, and I urge the support of my colleagues.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this open rule and urge my colleagues to support it so that all our alternatives and potential improvements to this legislation may be considered. The bill made in order by the rule, however, concerns me a great deal. Even the name of the bill, ``the Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act'' is misleading. This legislation will neither prevent floods nor will it protect families from floodwater. Instead, it takes political advantage of the recent tragedies associated with flooding in various States and uses them to attack one of our Nation's landmark environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act. This bill is overbroad, and would open a gaping hole in the Endangered Species Act. It would permanently exempt the reconstruction, operation, maintenance, and repair of all dams, hydroelectric facilities, levees, canals, and other water-related projects from the safeguards and protections of the Endangered Species Act, whether these projects are Federal or non-Federal. There are literally thousands of dams and other structures nationwide that have flood control as a purpose. Under this ill-advised legislation, almost all water-related projects, from repairing levees to operating massive hydroelectric facilities, would be exempt from the Endangered Species Act, meaning that no consultation whatsoever would be required regarding those projects' potential effects on endangered species or their habitats. Moreover, the bill is unnecessary. The Endangered Species Act is already flexible enough to allow expedited review for improvements or upgrading to existing structures in impending emergencies. And, most important, the act already allows exemptions for the replacement and repair of public facilities in Presidentially declared disaster areas. And the Fish and Wildlife Service has already issued a policy statement clarifying that flood-fighting and levee repairs are automatically exempted from the Endangered Species Act if they are needed to save lives and property. However, it is important for us to point out that the Endangered Species Act did not cause floods. I believe that is an act of nature. If there are burdens that are imposed by the Endangered Species Act on landowners, we should look for ways to reduce the burdens without compromising the protection of our vanishing wildlife. But legislation that reduces those burdens by eliminating the protection of endangered species is not reform; it is repeal. I had hoped that after last year's disastrous attempts to gut our Nation's landmark environmental laws, that bills like H.R. 478 would be put to rest, but I was wrong. Now it appears that the American people will witness a more insidious repeat of the 104th Congress, one in which back-door attempts to chip away at environmental protections are brought to the floor under the guise of protecting families. Mr. Speaker, while I do not oppose this open rule, I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat the bill that it makes in order. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that as we preserve the legacy of our great President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt with his memorial here in Washington, we must not forget the ideals that he upheld for the American people. FDR once said, ``The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.'' Those words resonate true now more than ever. As a Nation we must never forget our responsibility to the general welfare of all of our citizens. This means we have a duty to the mother who is without the resources to feed her infant, we have a duty to ensure that our poor children receive the same health care as their classmates, and, yes, we even have a duty to the immigrants who are struggling in a new country, for the words etched on the Statute of Liberty still read ``Give us your tired, your poor, yearning to be free * * *.'' Mr. Speaker, as we commemorate Franklin Roosevelt's legacy let us never forget that it was because of his dedication to those who had too little that many Americans now have so much.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, there are a wide range of both triumphs and shortcomings in women's health that could be discussed this evening. On the one hand, a woman's life expectancy has increased from 48 years in 1900 to 79 years today. But on the other hand, many devastating women's health disorders still remain a mystery and research is desperately needed to find effective diagnostics, treatments, cures and preventive medicine. Women are now regularly included in clinical studies after having been excluded for decades. There is now an Office of Women's Health at the Public Health Service with corresponding offices at other agencies like NIH, the CDC, FDA, and the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Breast cancer survival rates are up for women for the first time ever. And genes have been identified that are linked to early onset breast and cervical cancers as well as a number of other disorders that affect women like Alzheimer's disease. Estrogen replacement therapy has provided relief for millions of women from the harsher symptoms of menopause as well as osteoporosis and other age-related disorders. The NIH is conducting major women's health initiative designed to study and to track women health in a large population over decades. This research will yield invaluable information about the normal aging process and its pitfalls for women. All of those things have happened since 1990, as my colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] pointed out, when we first set up the Office of Women's Health. But there are some shortcomings still in the health of women in the country. They suffer from a variety of gender-specific disorders that we do not really understand yet and which, in many cases, are receiving insufficient attention from the medical and research establishments. Each year breast cancer strikes 182,000 American women and kills 44,000. We still do not know why breast cancer occurs, how to cure it or how to prevent it. We do not even know whether is for different ages and groups of cancer types and the mammography machine which we have had for the past number of years is all we still have. We need to do more. About 12,000 babies are born each year with fetal alcohol syndrome, a disorder that is completely preventable if women just abstain from alcohol during pregnancy, and yet we have just learned that the rate of pregnant women drinking alcohol is on the increase, showing a great need for education. About 4,000 pregnancies are affected by disorders like spina bifida or hydrocephalus, which are almost totally preventable if the woman consumes adequate levels of folic acid. Again, another need for education. One-quarter million women die each ear of heart attacks and strokes. Many of them could have reduced their risk by making dietary changes, quitting smoking, getting more exercise and, I might add, getting the kind of medical care that they need. Some of the bills that the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] mentioned are very important, and I am sure all of us will sponsor and work for them very hard, because there are a number of things that we need to do to move along the issue of women's health. One bill that I have introduced is the genetic information nondiscrimination bill, because I want to make sure that as the human genome mapping continues that no one man, woman or child in America is discriminated against when it comes to health insurance. Our bill just says that the insurance company cannot cancel, deny, refuse to renew or change the terms or the premiums or the condition of health insurance coverage based on genetic information. And most importantly, it says that your genetic information belongs to you. And without your specific written concept, no one may use it. H.R. 306, the bill number, has 96 cosponsors and has been endorsed by over 60 respected health organizations, included the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the Jewish Women's Community. Congress should not be forcing women into making the Hobson's choice between learning valuable genetic information that they must have and their risk of losing their insurance or remaining ignorant and keeping the coverage. We will also be introducing information on education efforts for DES or diethylstilbestrol, which was given to pregnant women during the 1970's so that they could have a healthy, bouncing baby. DES was given to pregnant women in the United States long after the Department of Agriculture had denied its use for cattle because they knew that it caused reproductive damage. Yet women in the country continued to be damaged. We are seeing that their children and again into a second generation now have often been damaged by DES, and we need to have more of an understanding about DES and similar synthetic estrogens because amazing impacts and discoveries are being made on the effects of estrogen on women's health. It also authorizes a national education effort to identify DES-exposed women and their children and their grandchildren and educate them about the continuing health needs and the risks. I have also introduced an Eating Disorders Prevention and Education Act, which I think is terribly important. We are very concerned about young women who are very unlikely to have a good diet because of their concern about their weight. Girls as young as 8 are dieting. This is a national disgrace that interferes with their normal development and their continued health. We have to make sure that young women understand that milk and dairy products will not make them fat but will indeed help to give them the calcium to lay down a good bone mass. In conclusion, women's health should not be taking a back seat anymore. We compose over half the Nation's population and a large number of us are workers and taxpayers. And we want some of our taxpayer dollars to be used in the health of women in the country. We want to make sure that we continue to be part of the clinical trials. We do not want to be left out anymore. As the great statesman Benjamin Disraeli said, The health of the people is really the foundation upon which all their happiness and all their powers as a state depend. We should remember those words. I would also like to quote Hippocrates, who once wrote, ``Healing is a matter of time, but it is sometimes also a matter of opportunity.'' Today we have more opportunities than ever to heal the diseases and the disorders that affect human beings. We must grasp these opportunities and act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I support this open rule that will allow us to consider H.R. 1273, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act. The National Science Foundation contributes to the advancement of biological sciences, geosciences, mathematical and physical sciences, as well as scientific research and educational programs. In my own district of Rochester, NY, last year the NSF awarded $13 million in grants to support both basic and scientific research and high-tech development. Ninety-six NSF grants enabled scientists in my district to pursue critical work and optical science and engineering, advanced manufacturing technologies and virtual reality programs which can replace the real world in testing and debugging a system. The NSF is the foundation for the countless scientific and technological advances that enable us to compete in the global economy. We should pass this bill, which provides continued funding for the NSF. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I support this open rule which will allow us to consider H.R. 1247, the National Institute of Standards and Technology Act. NIST, as it is called is an essential institution because it works with the U.S. industries to develop and implement innovative technologies and electronics, supercomputers, and microwave communications for other agencies and private business. H.R. 1274 includes two important programs which are not funded in last year's bill: the advanced technology program, ATP, and the manufacturing extension partnership. ATP encourages public-private cooperation in the development of technologies with broad application across industries. In my own district in upstate New York, ATP funds allow businesses like TROPEL Corp. and Eastman Kodak to produce new technologies that benefit our entire Nation. While I might have hoped for an authorization level closer to the President's request, I am encouraged that this year's bill does authorize ATP. High technology of Rochester and another countless projects benefit from NIST's manufacturing extension program. This program helps small- and medium-sized manufacturing companies to utilize the technologies developed under the auspices of NIST. Manufacturing extension partnerships benefit all 50 States and Puerto Rico. I encourage my colleagues to support this bill which will continue authorization for the NIST, the Nation's oldest Federal laboratory. I hope they will join me in supporting this open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I do not oppose the rule, I would like to use the opportunity to again raise the issue of why the majority still has yet to propose a budget and has yet to hold any hearings or markups on campaign finance reform. Fifty-eight bills have already been introduced in the House this year that would reform our campaign finance system, one of which is my own measure to provide free television time to political candidates. Yet all 58 of these campaign finance reform bills continue to languish in committee. There is no excuse for this Congress' continuing failure to take action on these issues. The leadership of the House owes it to the voters of the Nation to seize the opportunity before it and to enact responsible reform. While I support this rule allowing us to move suspension measures forward this week, I would urge our leadership and my colleagues to also move forward on some of the more difficult and pressing matters before us. I am at a loss to explain to my constituents why the House has spent so little time in session this year while so much major legislation has yet to see the light of day. Let us get on with the budget process and move forward with real campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor]. (Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rule serves no purpose other than to require the Members of the body to spend another day voting on measures which are noncontroversial and which could easily have been disposed of on the regular suspension days of Monday and Tuesday. Meanwhile, the real business of the House remains neglected. As we all know, Federal law requires Congress to produce a budget resolution by April 15, 1997. That was yesterday. Well, yesterday came and went without the majority having even proposed a budget or holding a single committee vote on a budget. Nor has the majority taken any steps whatsoever toward enacting campaign finance reform. Our constituents might wonder what has Congress been spending its time on? Well, the answer is precious little. Today marks the end of the first 100 days of the 105th Congress. Yet the House has barely been in session. This year the House has taken 2 days off for every day it has worked. In fact, the House has been in session for only 33 of the first 100 days of this Congress. Essentially, we took 2 of the first 3 months off. Hardworking families all over the country must look at us and wonder who we think we are. Is this really what we were elected to do? Since the 105th Congress began, more than 300,000 children have lost their private health insurance. Yet the majority has refused to act on legislation to help families get health coverage for their children. More than 200,000 students have dropped out of high school. But what is our leadership doing to improve public education? More than 1,000 children have been killed, and yet the majority has yet to schedule any floor action for legislation on juvenile crime and drugs. This Congress took only 60 votes, that is 60, in the first quarter of 1997, 60 votes in the first 90 days. Less than a vote a day, and that is counting all the votes on noncontroversial measures like those to honor democracy gains in Guatemala and Nicaragua and to thank former Secretary Warren Christopher for being Secretary of State and 11 votes for various States for voting term limits. Now, I am not saying that those measures were unworthy of our votes, only that they do not really constitute heavy lifting. Yet the majority insists on dragging out for consideration these noncontroversial measures day after day, week after week. Mr. Speaker, why could we not have considered the suspension bills scheduled for today on Monday or Tuesday of this week? Why are we not using the remainder of the week to work on more meaningful legislation like a budget resolution and campaign finance reform? The rule is disrespectful of the voters we represent and their tax dollars. The majority spent a lot of time on the floor this week talking about taxes. Well, I remind my colleagues, as I did last week when this House considered an identical rule, that it costs the taxpayers of the country $280,000 each week to bring all of us back to Washington. We ought to at least give them their money's worth and get on with the business of passing a budget and enacting campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer an amendment that would require the House to consider campaign finance reform before Memorial Day, May 31, so that a final campaign finance reform bill can be sent to President Clinton before July 4. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The majority manager, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], will tell Members the previous question is a procedural vote on whether to close the debate and proceed to vote on the rule, but that is only half true. If you tell the House you do not want to move on a vote on the rule, control of the House floor will revert to the opponents of the rule for a vote on an alternative course of action. We would use the opportunity to instruct the leadership by majority vote of the House to bring campaign finance reform to a vote under an open rule by the end of next month. This is a substantive vote and the place where you can tell the leadership you want campaign finance to be a priority on the House agenda. I include for the Record the text of the proposed amendment at this point, along with a brief explanation of what the vote on the previous question really means: H. Res. 112--Previous Question Amendment Text At the end of the resolution add the following new section: Section 2. No later than May 31, 1997, the House shall consider comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation under an open amendment process.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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.