Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard].

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne]. (Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Republican budget resolution and to advise my colleagues to carefully consider the implications of this budget on domestic discretionary spending. My colleagues need to understand there is simply no growth in this budget for important programs. Defense is the only area where they have proposed real growth. It makes no investment in safe highways, airline traffic safety, safe streets, safe schools, education, health care, public safety, clean water, clean air, research and development, business development, and transportation. The tough choices we made in 1990 and 1993 controlled the growth in discretionary spending. The caps have worked and we have the discipline to control future discretionary spending. There is simply no justification for further assaults on critical domestic programs. It is also difficult to understand how my Republican colleagues could propose slowing the growth in domestic discretionary spending to such low levels that by the year 2002, the purchasing power of overall nondefense discretionary appropriations will be 26 percent below this year's level. At the same time that they plan on eliminating any real investment in our economic security, they are proposing $13 billion more for defense than requested by the Pentagon. Let me remind my colleagues again, that these cuts are in the most basic programs. Education, environmental protection, medical research, Head Start, civilian research and development, nutritional assistance, transportation, and criminal justice. All of these programs, regardless of what you may hear will be adversely affected if we enact the domestic discretionary level proposed in the Republican budget resolution. In addition to the funding levels proposed, my Republican colleagues are also proposing some significant changes and eliminations. Included in this budget resolution is an assumption that 25 important educational programs will be block granted; the Governors will get to decide how to spend this money. While I have yet to see the list of these 25 programs, I can tell you that in some cases, the States will not act to serve vulnerable populations of children. It was because of the refusal of the States to address the unique educational needs of homeless children that I worked to create the Homeless Education Program. States and local governments simply did not reach out to these children and I can assure my Republican friends that under the block grant proposal, homeless children will be denied basic educational services. Once again the Republicans are proposing to dismantle the one agency whose mission is job development and growth. Did we learn nothing from last year's budget battle. We need a strong and effective Department of Commerce. The late Secretary Brown accomplished this objective and I am fully confident that Secretary Kantor will meet the same challenge. This Republican budget resolution also proposes the elimination of the Legal Services Corporation. Guaranteeing the basic protection of a citizen's constitutional rights is one of our responsibilities as Members of Congress. We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Shouldn't we be concerned about guaranteeing every citizen, regardless of their income, the right to due process and the right of fair and just representation? Apparently only those who have the ability to pay are allowed adequate legal counsel. I am gravely concerned about the direction of this country as we enter the next century and firmly believe that this budget will not guarantee that we are prepared to meet the challenges. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Republican budget resolution. We can balance the budget without jeopardizing our economic future.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concerns about the Republican efforts to radically alter the Medicare program. While the Republican budget resolution is short on details, I am assuming that they will follow the model that they proposed last year in order to meet their $168 billion reduction in Medicare spending over the next six years. Republicans are proposing changing Medicare from a defined benefit to a defined contrition program. It does not propose controlling costs, but simply shifts those costs form the Federal Government to senior citizens and providers. It will end the prohibition against balance billing and allow doctors and hospitals to bill senior citizens for extra or added charges. It would even allow HMOs to charge seniors extra for the basic Medicare package. My Republican colleagues need to remember that 18 percent of seniors--which is about 7 million people-- are living on less than $7,000 a year. Can they afford these new hidden, extra charges? I attempted to discuss these concerns with the Budget Committee, I was told not to worry--these terrible things simply will not happen. But, with little or no details, it is hard to understand how they plan on achieving $168 billion in savings without shifting costs or forcing seniors into restrictive managed care plans. We should not move to these radical changes without detailed and thorough hearings, which have not been planned. There are too many questions and the implications are far too serious to implement a $168 billion change. Medicare has worked and has provided access to affordable, quality health care for millions of senior citizens. Do we have to jeopardize this success in the name of tax cuts for the wealthy?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, today we are considering legislation to increase penalties for violent crimes against children, the elderly, and other vulnerable individuals in our society. The House has adopted Representative Frost's amendment which establishes a Federal crime for repeat sexual offenses against children. I now ask my colleagues to go further to protect the other vulnerable members of communities who are terrorized by repeat sexual predators. My amendment would allow Federal prosecution for offenders accused of a second rape or other serious sexual assault. If convicted under this Federal prosecution, the sexual predator would be imprisoned for life without parole. This amendment is designed to change our approach to repeat sex offenders. The American people are outraged that our criminal justice system releases these obsessive criminals after just a few years. Some national statistics indicate that rapists are 10 times more likely than other convicts to repeat their crimes. Yet the average convicted rapist serves only about 5 years in jail. Even the repeat sexual offenders themselves recognize the problem. The convicted killer of Polly Klaas has been quoted as saying that he should not have been on the street. Since we cannot change the behavior of these sexual predators, we need to keep them behind bars. The amendment does just that. Repeat rapists would receive life sentences in Federal prison. It seems you open the newspaper every week and read about another monster committing a horrific crime. In the last several years, residents of California, Florida, Massachusetts, Indiana, Texas, Virginia, Washington, Vermont, Oregon, Idaho, New York, and Maryland have experienced the terror of serial rapists and molesters. Too often these fiends have long histories of preying on women and children, but they have been released to attack again and again. For example, in California Leo Anthony Goodloe began his grisly career by raping and severely beating a 17-year-old woman in 1956. Over the next 39 years, he served 16 years in prison for 10 felonies, but was released to rape again and again. Even with such a record, he served less than 2 years for a rape and sodomy conviction in 1990. Four months after his release, he raped and beat yet another victim. While he has finally been sentenced to 43 years in prison without the possibility of parole, his reign of terror continued far too long. Similarly, in 1994, police in New York City arrested Robert Daniels for four rapes. Daniels had been paroled 10 months earlier after serving less than 10 years for his second rape conviction. Besides his first rape conviction in 1969, he had also been convicted of sex offenses in 1974 and 1976. This sickening litany is all too common. In my hometown of Rochester, we know all too well the horror of serial rapists. Arthur Shawcross had served less than 15 years for the sexually motivated murders of two children. A model prisoner, Shawcross was released and his parole officer lost track of him. Before he was caught again, Shawcross had raped and killed 10 women. In the last Congress we instituted a Federal data base of sexual offenders, first proposed in the protection from sexual predators bill I introduced in 1994. That was an important first step in giving police departments the resources needed to catch repeat sexual predators, like Shawcross. Today we have taken another step by providing a means to protect our communities from the monsters that sexually attack children. But as legislators, our job is not yet complete. When I speak with my constituents they are especially worried about the threat posed by violent, repeat offenders--and particularly by the sexual predators who seem to be released from prison over and over, only to commit the same sickening crimes once more. These monsters prey on the most private aspect of our lives. They often invade the sanctity of our homes as well as our streets, and unfortunately, no community is safe from this threat. It is time to stop fooling ourselves and to lock up these repeat offenders for good. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It will give prosecutors across the Nation the ability to ensure that our communities are safeguarded from these revolving door rapists. It will tell the victims of these sexual fiends that we do not find this behavior a minor aberration; that we understand that the lives of the victims of rape are forever changed, and that we, as a society will not stand by and let the same person wreak this havoc and destroy life after life after life. In the name of past and future victims of these unspeakable rapists, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I absolutely agree with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers]. If there is no constitutional prohibition to what we have done already, surely protecting women in the United States should not be prohibited. The bill speaks to the vulnerable. Mr. Chairman, I do not know of anyone more vulnerable than a woman alone in her apartment when a rapist wakes her up, having broken in through the window, or the woman who gets into her car or a woman who is leaving work who gets in an elevator who is accosted by a rapist who changes her life forever. Certainly, if we are going to protect the people of the United States against this awful crime of rape and we say that the people who commit this crime are not people that we can rehabilitate and indeed since their recidivism rate is so high, why would we leave out of this bill the women? Why should they not be protected? Without question, they are the major sufferers of this awful crime. In cases of serial rape, the rapist often goes across State lines to commit his awful crime. Again, without question, this is a Federal jurisdictional problem. There are four sources for Federal jurisdiction that I have to this amendment. I would like to read them. The first is one the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] mentioned about special maritime and territorial jurisdiction; the second, if it occurred in interstate or foreign commerce; third, where the criminal crossed the State line with intent to engage in the conduct, which is frankly often the case; or the criminal fled across State lines after engaging in the conduct, which again is the case. Why in the world would we differentiate between our citizens if we are trying to protect them? Why not include women? This is certainly a case again where the person in the prison is a model prisoner. There are no women to rape. There are no children to molest. But we have learned over and over again, through tragedy after tragedy, that once these people are released back on the street they often, within days, have repeated their awful crime. Why do we not try to make everybody in the country safe from this hideous experience? Why in the world, how can we exclude women? Frankly, on the face of it, it makes no sense to me. I urge my colleagues not to do this thing to the women of the United States.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this weekend Ukrainian-Americans across the country will commemorate the ten year anniversary of the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It is hard to believe that 10 years have passed since the devastating news of the explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine. While the official death count remains at 33, we all know that the number of lives affected by this tragedy reaches well into the thousands. Besides those who have died because of the exposure, others have lost their health, their economic well-being, their environment, and their spiritual outlook on life. We have been, however, successful in providing some of the most needed assistance to those who have suffered. The work of so many dedicated relief organizations has paved the way for aid, medical care, and government programs which have provided invaluable care for the victims of the Chernobyl calamity. Unfortunately, it is not likely we have experienced the full consequences of the disaster. Nor have we provided all the resources needed to help those living through this nightmare. As we remember this event this weekend, we must renew our pledge to continue our help in the future. I am proud to represent a large and energetic Ukrainian community--an active and spirited community which has dedicated itself to helping the people of Ukraine. As we all work together to support Ukraine's flowering democracy and strong economic growth, we continue to hold a special place in our hearts for those affected by the Chernobyl disaster. We will remember Chernobyl.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have recently attempted to improve their environmental image to the public at large. They know that the American people want our environment protected, and they have felt intense heat for their relentless attacks on our public health and safety. But we know better than to believe their get-green gimmicks. This Congress has the worst environmental record in 40 years. We have fought attacks on public health standards, meat inspection regulations, national parks, endangered species, and pesticide protections, to name only a few. And now, while these attacks in Washington continue, we are subjected to their pro-environment rhetoric. We can expect to witness them planting trees, adopting highways, or volunteering to clean up a river or lake in order to polish up their image. As we prepare to celebrate Earth Day, we cannot stand for this hypocrisy. We must protect and cherish our environment, both in the laws we write--and in the lives we live.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I join with my fellow colleagues to pay tribute to a truly great American, the late Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown. To many of us, Ron Brown was not only a cabinet member with an impressive record of accomplishment, but he was also a dynamic party leader, a trailblazer in the business world, a ferocious advocate for the business community as well as those in need, a role-model for blacks and whites alike, and a dear friend. I will remember Ron for his charming and captivating persona, for his astute mind, and for his love of country. Ron Brown was full of energy and enthusiasm in each endeavor that he undertook. As Chair of the Democratic National Committee, Ron utilized his skills in bringing people together and motivating them to work toward a common goal, and that propelled the Democratic party to victory in 1992. In his capacity as Commerce Secretary, Ron Brown was masterful in seeking out and opening up new markets to U.S. businesses. I know firsthand of his tremendous talent in bringing together the public and private sectors in partnerships. A perfect example of this is in my home district of Rochester in which Ron displayed his immense support of Eastman Kodak Corporation's efforts to halt unfair trade practices that were detrimental to Kodak. Upon Ron Brown's insistence, the International Trade Commission concurred and steps were taken to address the inequities. Ron was such a wonderful and unique leader because he recognized his role as Commerce Secretary was broader than simply promoting American business and trade in foreign lands. He also used his position to help ensure the peace and stability that would provide the foundation for a stable economic base in tormented nations such as Bosnia and Croatia. Ron died in the midst of an important mission. And he died doing what he did best: building bridges between people and building bridges between nations. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my colleagues in extending my deepest sympathies to Alma Brown, Ron's children, and all of the family and friends of this extraordinary man. His presence will be sadly missed by the entire Nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the merits of health insurance reform, it is crucial that we keep in mind a newly emerging and very important aspect of health insurance reform, that is genetic information and the potential for insurance discrimination. Last December, I introduced H.R. 2748, the Genetic Information Non-discrimination in Health Insurance Act--a bill to prevent the potentially devastating consequences of discrimination based on genetic information. I am very pleased to learn that both the Republican version of health insurance reform and the Democratic substitute contain some of the protections I introduced in my bill last fall. While the provision included in both versions of the legislation on the floor today is not as comprehensive as those outlined in my bill, it represents a crucial first step in providing protection for people with predisposition to genetic disease. As chair of the Women's Health Task Force, I closely followed the reports last year indicating that increased funding for breast cancer research had resulted in the discovery of the BRCA-1 gene-link to breast cancer. While the obvious benefits of the discovery include potential lifesaving early detection and intervention, the inherent dangers of the improper use of genetic information are just becoming evident. We must learn from the lessons of the past. We must remember the disastrous results of discriminating against those genetically predisposed to sickle cell anemia. And, we must guard against history repeating itself. There are recent reports of people with a family history of breast cancer afraid of getting tested for fear of losing access to insurance. We must assure our citizens that advances in our understanding of human genetics will be used to promote health and not to promote discrimination. Both the lessons of the past and the recent discoveries point to the need for comprehensive Federal regulations. The bill I introduced last December would prevent discrimination by prohibiting insurance providers from: denying or canceling health insurance coverage, or varying the terms and conditions of health insurance coverage, on the basis of genetic information; requesting or requiring an individual to disclose genetic information, and disclosing genetic information without prior written consent. Mr. Speaker, the provisions contained in the legislation being considered today prohibit the use of genetic information as a preexisting condition. I applaud the inclusion of that aspect of my legislation in the insurance reform packages. However, the provisions are limited in two major respects. One, the pool of people covered by this legislation is restricted to those in the employment market. Two, the legislation does not address the important issue of privacy protection. I hope that my colleagues and I can continue to work together to apply the prohibitions on genetic discrimination across the board to cover all insurance policies and to prohibit disclosure of genetic information. As therapies are developed to cure genetic diseases, and potentially to save lives, the women and men affected must be assured access to genetic testing and therapy without concern that they will be discriminated against. As legislators, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that protection against genetic discrimination is guaranteed. Today, we will take the first step in that direction. I invite my colleagues to join me in making the commitment to ensuring the passage of comprehensive protections against genetic discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, health insurance reform is coming to the House floor tomorrow. An important piece of that legislation deals with genetic information and insurance discrimination. Last December, I introduced H.R. 2748, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act--a bill to prevent the potentially devastating consequences of discrimination based on genetic information. I am very pleased to learn that both the Republican version of health insurance reform and the Democratic substitute that will be introduced tomorrow contain some of the protections I introduced in my bill last fall. While the provision in the legislation coming to the floor tomorrow is not as comprehensive as those outlined in my bill, it represents a very important first step in providing protections for people with predisposition to genetic disease. Let me tell you a little bit about my bill and why it is so important. As chair of the Women's Health Task Force, I closely followed the reports last year indicating that increased funding for breast cancer research had resulted in the discovery of the BRCAI gene- link to breast cancer. While the obvious benefits of the discovery include potential lifesaving early detection and intervention, the inherent dangers of the improper use of genetic information are just becoming evident. There is increasing concern that based on genetic information, individuals will be denied access to health care and insurance providers will require genetic screening in order to deny coverage to those who would cause a rise in group premiums. The lessons we have learned from the past including the disastrous results of discriminating against those genetically predisposed to sickle-cell anemia. More recently, there are cases of people with a family history of breast cancer being afraid of getting tested for fear of losing access to insurance. Both these situations point to the need for comprehensive Federal regulations. The bill I introduced last December would prevent that type of catastrophe by prohibiting insurance providers from: First, denying or canceling health insurance coverage, or Second, varying the terms and conditions of health insurance coverage, on the basis of genetic information. Third, requesting or requiring an individual to disclose genetic information. Fourth, disclosing genetic information without prior written consent. The provisions in the health insurance reform bills to be considered on the floor tomorrow prohibit the use of genetic information as a preexisting condition. I applaud the inclusion of that aspect of my legislation in the insurance reform. I hope that my colleagues and I can continue to work together to apply the prohibitions on genetic discrimination across the board to cover all insurance policies and to address the important issue of privacy protection. As therapies are developed to cure genetic diseases, and potentially to save lives, the women and men affected must be assured access to genetic testing and therapy without concern that they will be discriminated against. As legislators, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that protection against genetic discrimination is guaranteed. Tomorrow we will take the first step in that direction. I invite my colleagues to join me in making the commitment to ensuring comprehensive protections against genetic discrimination.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps a good day but it certainly is a strange one. I would never have thought I would be part of a Congress of the United States that would unilaterally hand over major parts of its power to the executive department. To me, the strength of the Government of the United States, as written by the Founding Fathers, was the separation of powers, for each part of the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary, well defined. With the action taken here in the House and in the Senate, we are unilaterally handing over to the President, whomever he or she may be, the right to veto all the work that we do here in Congress. Members of the House who have served under Governors, who have the right of line- item veto, have told me that in many cases it is a genteel way to commit blackmail. Will we save money with the line-item veto? Well, consider this scenario: Let us say there is a President who is finding it very difficult, perhaps, to get reelected, and to get support from the members of his party who serve in the House or in the Senate. He would call in a delegation, perhaps mine, New York, which is rather large, and says to us, you are not supporting me, but I do notice here that in the bills that have been sent to me, that there is a very critical item under New York that has so much money. We are then, Members, confronted with either determining whether we are going to stand pat, face the President of the United States and tell him to forget about it, or allow him simply to line out what is necessary for the people that we represent. It is possible, is it not, that under those circumstances, that a delegation, a legislator, anyone, a leader would decide not to spend less money, Mr. Speaker, but could be induced to spend more? Indeed, it may be that such a President wants more than that has been asked for; the line-item veto does not say that in all cases that they will be going for less; it is entirely possible that a President will ask for more. I believe that this measure is unconstitutional, and I hope that it will be judged so. It is a tragedy to me that this has been added on to what is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we have to come before us. The threat of fiscal default hanging over the United States of America has left a cloud over us that should never have been there in the first place. No nation ever talked about defaulting by choice until this time. To put, again, a sort of genteel from of blackmail, things that we normally would like to debate, strikes me as not the best way to do business. We have heard this conference report being bipartisan and the great support that you have had on both sides of the aisle. I think it is important to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the conference that took place, took place only between House and Senate Republicans. No Democrats in the House or Senate were a part of that conference, and indeed the Democrats only saw the conference report after it was filed. Without any question, this side of the House had no impact whatever on that conference report. But in addition, this conference report goes much further than either the House bill or the Contract With America went. For example, it includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and all other entitlement programs. We are now going to say to the President, ``If you do not like the increases that we have given in Social Security, get rid of them.'' We have put Medicare and Medicaid again up to the vagaries of the President without the ability of the people here to make the determination for the people who sent us, the 500,000 and more in each district who depend upon us to make those decisions, now you want to turn these decision over to the President. But there is one other piece that I was particularly involved in myself during the 100 days of the Contract With America when line-item veto was brought up. We were concerned over on our side about the fact that in many cases it is just as serious a drain on the Federal Treasury, in many cases, just as much a breach of faith, to use tax policy. And we put forth an amendment on this side to make sure that tax policy, giving benefits to certain groups, certain persons in the United States, would be looked at and scrutinized if the line-item veto indeed became law. That has been narrowed to the point of nonrecognition. Your tax-break friends are safe. What we are saying with this bill, this line-item veto today, is that the President may run through the bills in any way he or she likes, taking out anything or everything no matter the importance of it or what it may mean for the country. However, when it comes to tax benefits and tax policy, given to favorite constituents or constituent groups, nobody is going to be touching that. That is going to be sacred. Obviously, this bill is important for us to pass. Our fiscal responsibility and our fiscal reputation depend on it, and it is high time that the Social Security recipients receive some attention with the fact that they have been limited in the income that they can receive. Without jeopardizing their Social Security. But, Mr. Speaker, adding line-item veto to this is an abrogation of our power. It is an abrogation of the Constitution of the United States, and, frankly, I think that putting it on this bill says to the Nation basically we cannot be trusted. It is going to have to be somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to make these final decisions. That is a decision and a statement that I personally am not willing to make. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Smith].

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in every way this debate today is a tragedy. First, I want to make it very clear, as clear as I can to people who are interested in knowing the truth, that the third trimester abortions, and the partial-birth abortions are very rare and they are not done as elective surgery at all. They are done in the case of a severely deformed fetus, a dead fetus, or a mother who will not survive until the birth is completed. It is not a case of grabbing hold of two kicking legs and delivering a child that will be able to grow and respond to life. It is not a case of that at all. Why do we add to the awful tragedy of the families that desperately want the children that they are carrying and lose? Why do we say that the Congress of the United States knows better than the parents do and better than their doctor does, and we are going to require that they continue this pregnancy. I am scared about the precedent that this legislation sets. To say that the procedure, practice and procedure, should be left to the Congress of the United States and not to medical people is a dangerous idea. A physician cannot choose this procedure even if other procedures would have serious health consequences, and we have talked about that, the possibility of loss of fertility. But the underlying thing that last bothered me ever since I have been in the Congress of the United States is there is another underlying piece here, and that is that women do not have the right to choose, maybe they are not smart enough, we cannot let them decide what is the best thing in the world for them to do. Some men have to sit around and decide what is best, usually deciding that in legislatures all over the country and this Congress what it is that we can say is appropriate for them. It is not original with me, but if women were that dumb, how in the world does anybody here expect that they had had a mother who bore them and raised them to extraordinary lengths that they are today? Had a Member of the Congress of the United States. Just like any other patient, a woman deserves the best care based on the best circumstances and the knowledge that it fits her situation. It should not be tailored to fit the needs of Members of Congress or any ideas that they may have. Women should not be considered second-class citizens and that needs a big brother to tell her what is permissible and what is not. Unfortunately, I think this is only a beginning. The bill's sponsors have consistently stated this is a first step and, if they have the votes, they will prevent all abortion. I think many of them would also prohibit birth control. They want Government intrusion into every doctor's office and eventually into every bedroom. We should not start down this road. We should not prohibit medical procedures by Government fiat. We should not prohibit physicians and patients from making informed decisions based on the individual facts of the particular case. Mr. Speaker, I ask defeat of this rule, which prohibits this House from modifying the draconian antiwoman provisions of this bill. I then ask my colleagues to preserve the right of women to the most appropriate medical procedure based on the best medical advice by defeating this underlying bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today as Chair of the Women's Health Task Force of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues. On behalf of the caucus, I have the honor of introducing the Women's Health Equity Act of 1996. A momentous legislative initiative, the Women's Health Equity Act is an omnibus bill comprised of 36 separate pieces of legislation targeting women's health. The first Women's Health Equity Act was introduced in 1990 as a result of a GAO report that documented of widespread exclusion of women from medical research and energized caucus and women around the Nation to action on women's health issues. In the 6 years since, we have accomplished a great deal. We have achieved greater equity in both women's health research funding and inclusion of women in clinical trails. The increased funding for breast cancer has resulted in the discovery of the BRCAI gene-link to breast cancer 18 months ago. Since then, it has been found that the BRCAI gene seems to inhibit the growth and formation of tumors and may provide therapy for both breast and cervical cancer. This news is miraculous and is very gratifying to the caucus because it was our initiative that resulted in the increased funding. But, our responsibility does not stop there. We must assure that social policy keep pace with advances in biomedical research. As a part of the Women's Health Equity Act, I have introduced legislation that would do just that. H.R. 2748, The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act prohibits insurance providers from: First, denying or canceling health insurance coverage; second, varying the terms and conditions of health insurance coverage on the basis of genetic information; third, requesting or requiring an individual to disclose genetic information; and, fourth, disclosing genetic information without prior written consent. The Women's Health Equity Act's initiative to increase funding for breast cancer research has resulted in discovery of potentially lifesaving genetic information and therapy. As therapies are developed to cure genetic diseases, and potentially to save lives, the women and men affected must be assured access to genetic testing and therapy without concern that they will be discriminated against. As legislators, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that protection is guaranteed and I hope my colleagues will join me in that endeavor.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, please insert the following article as additional documentation to my statement on March 22, 1996, regarding the need for the conduct of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to be beyond reproach. [From Gannett News Service, Dec. 5, 1995] Conservatives Attack Slaughter as She Files Complaint Against McIntosh (By John Machacek) Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-NY., Tuesday filed an ethics complaint against a Republican subcommittee chairman. But she faces a counterattack from conservatives. The complaint to the House Ethics Committee alleges Rep. David McIntosh, R-Ind., used fabricated documents and made false statements on the House floor during his drive to limit lobbying by federally funded nonprofit groups. Consumer activist Ralph Nader has filed a similar complaint. Slaughter said McIntosh's actions were part of a ``campaign of intimidation'' aimed at silencing her and the Alliance for Justice, a civil rights and public interest lobbying group, which has vigorously opposed proposed Republican budget cuts. ``These actions . . . are way over the line,'' Slaughter said. ``It's McCarthyism all over again, and we have to stop it.'' Meanwhile, Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative group pushing McIntosh's legislation, is calling Slaughter the ``original tax-dollars-for-lobbyists welfare queen'' in postcards mailed to some of her constituents. The mailing says Slaughter received $61,000 in campaign contributions last year ``from special-interest lobbies that receive federal funds, which is used to lobby for more money.'' ``We wanted to draw attention to Louise Slaughter as the best-paid lobbyist these special interests could buy,'' says Audrey Mullen, executive director of Americans for Tax Reform, a coalition of conservative activists, taxpayer groups and businesses. McIntosh, chairman of a House Government Reform subcommittee, brushed off the complaint, telling reporters that Slaughter and the Alliance for Justice were simply following the ``first rule of special-interest politics.'' ``When your position on the merits of the issue is embarrassing, you launch an attack on your opponents,'' he said. McIntosh's aides told reporters in October--after the House rejected Slaughter's request to debate her complaint against him--that he was not worried about Slaughter's plans to take her case to the Ethics Committee. After ``informal contacts'' between House Ethics Committee and McIntosh staffers, McIntosh was told there ``wouldn't be enough of a complaint'' for the committee to pursue, said Chris Jones, McIntosh's press secretary. The Ethics Committee staff makes recommendations to committee members. Slaughter said in an interview Tuesday that McIntosh's ``intimidation tactics'' had continued through this week. She said a McIntosh aide told her staff McIntosh could file a counter-ethics complaint against her if a complaint was filed against him. ``Louise Slaughter can't have it both ways,'' Jones said. ``Her staff has been calling Indiana reporters since September trying to stir up a story about an ethics complaint. If the Ethics Committee is to be used to solve political disputes, then everyone will be fair game.'' McIntosh has apologized for the incident in which his staff used the Alliance for Justice's letterhead on a report that purported to list the amount of federal grants received by the alliance's members. He said the document should have contained a disclaimer. But he has recently told groups in Indiana that he stands by the figures Slaughter and and Aron, Alliance for Justice president, say some of the information in the document was inaccurate.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned today. I am very concerned about the ability of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to conduct its business in a fair and impartial manner, because of press reports that we have seen throughout this Congress expressing doubts about the committee's ability to uphold the bipartisan standard of fairness for which it is well-known. Just yesterday I read a press report about a new breach or possible breach of impartiality, where the committee was accused of communicating with a Member who was under review. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this must not happen. It is totally unacceptable. The group in this House that is charged and given the privilege of maintaining the ethics and the decorum of this House must not itself come under reproach. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an article by Larry Margasak on this issue. Ethics Committee Rebukes Lawmaker, Lets Him Announce It (By Larry Margasak, Associated Press Writer) Washington (AP)--In an unusual arrangement, the House ethics committee privately rebuked Rep. David M. McIntosh, R- Ind., but allowed him to announce the action in generally favorable terms. Committee Chairman Nancy Johnson refused to publicly release the panel's letter sent to McIntosh on Tuesday. The letter criticized his distribution of materials at a hearing and religious comments made by an aide. The letter found, however, that no rules were violated and two ethics complaints against McIntosh were dismissed. Johnson's action broke with the usual practice of publicly releasing letters that complete ethics cases. In this instance, the only hints of the letter's criticism came in a news release from McIntosh written with an assist from the committee. The congressman's spokesman, Chris Jones, said, ``The committee asked us to include certain things in the news release.'' Those items, in the last paragraph of McIntosh's seven-paragraph statement, made references to the ethics panel's concerns. Congressional sources familiar with the letter, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was far more critical than McIntosh suggested in his news release. The complaints were based on McIntosh's actions at a Sept. 28 hearing of a House Government Reform subcommittee he chairs and improper remarks by a subcommittee staffer about a Jewish holiday. McIntosh displayed a poster and distributed a letter resembling the stationery of the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of civil rights and public interest lobbying groups. The document purported to list amounts of federal grants received by the group's member organizations. The documents included no disclaimer saying they had been prepared by McIntosh's staff, and listed grants for at least two groups that say they receive no federal money. The poster also was displayed on the House floor. The improper remarks came in a conversation between a subcommittee staffer, John Praed, and Alliance for Justice counsel Deborah Lewis. According to Lewis, she asked for more preparation time for the subcommittee hearing because of the Jewish Rosh Hashanah holiday. She said she would be off that day and Praed asked, ``Does that mean you have to work Christmas?'' McIntosh's version praised the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the ethics committee for its ``fair and nonpartisan consideration of the complaints'' and for reaffirming ``the soundness of the ethics process.'' It quoted a Democratic lawmaker supporting McIntosh. But the final paragraph of the news release the portion the committee wanted to include changes the tone somewhat. After noting the ethics panel accepted McIntosh's statement that he had no intention to mislead at the hearing, the lawmaker hinted at the committee's concerns. ``House members should not use anyone's letter or letterhead and add any extraneous comments because of the potential for confusion about who added the extraneous comments,'' the release said. McIntosh agreed to adopt the policy in the future. ``The committee also indicated concern about questions made by a former subcommittee staff member in preparing for a subcommittee hearing,'' McIntosh's news release acknowledged.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned today. I am very concerned about the ability of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to conduct its business in a fair and impartial manner, because of press reports that we have seen throughout this Congress expressing doubts about the committee's failure to uphold the bipartisan standard of fairness for which it is well-know. Just yesterday I read a press report about a new breach or possible breach of impartiality, where the committee was accused of communicating with a Member who was under review. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this must not happen. It is totally unacceptable. The group in this House that is charged and given the privilege of maintaining the ethics and the decorum of this House must not itself come under reproach.