Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to Wende Logan-Young, The Woman of the Year from the 28th District of New York is a friend, a daughter, a sister, a mother, and a grandmother in addition to being a doctor, a radiologist, and a pioneer in mammography and breast care. She has received awards too numerous to detail here but the list dates back to 1966 when she was honored as Outstanding Young Woman of the Year. In the years since, Dr. Wende Logan-Young has become renowned for her untiring dedication to improving women's health. In 1976, Dr. Logan- Young established this Nation's first free-standing mammography center devoted exclusively to breast cancer detection. The Elizabeth Wende Breast Cancer Clinic, named in honor of her mother, has the unique goal of providing quality mammography and breast care to women in a comfortable and timely manner. Caring for 1,000 patients a week, the clinic has served the needs of hundreds of thousands of women since its inception. Unlike the typical physician's office, the clinic has the familiar feel of home. In one visit, every patient has her mammogram, has it interpreted fully and has all needed additional testing. Knowing how traumatic and anxiety producing the experience of breast cancer screening can be, Dr. Wende Logan-Young has created a healing, comforting environment. This year, the clinic celebrated its 20th anniversary. In addition to caring for her patients, Dr. Logan-Young has served on numerous academic and professional organizations, including the American Cancer Society, American College of Radiology, and the National Cancer Institute of Canada. The author of many medical journal articles, the doctor has just completed the first volume of a three volume set of textbooks for radiologists providing a practical guide to breast cancer diagnosis. As chair of the women's health task force and a long-time advocate of increased funding for breast cancer research, I take great personal satisfaction in honoring a pioneer in the field of breast cancer research and service. Please join me in giving recognition to this outstanding Woman of the Year from the 28th District of New York, Dr. Wende Logan-Young.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing our concern at the continued majority attacks on education. Education comprises a mere 2 percent of our entire budget, yet the new majority has disproportionately targeted it for drastic cuts. Without a doubt, education is the most important investment we can make in the future of our nation. Even with a balanced budget, our country cannot grow and prosper without an educated populace. The current Republican proposals would cut more than $3 billion in education, $300 million in education funding for New York State alone. In addition to facing these huge cuts, our schools are currently trying to piece together their budgets for next year--and are being forced to estimate their funding because of the budget stalemate here in Washington. We need to pass a long-term spending measure to ensure that education is protected. Balancing our budget forces us to make a list of our priorities. Our future is at risk. Education must be at the top of that list.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I know that we all agree on the urgent need to combat foreign and domestic terrorism. I wish the Committee on Rules had adopted an open rule, which is the only way that we can fully debate such an important and controversial issue. Several of our colleagues were denied the opportunity to offer important amendments, including one which would ban armor-piercing bullets, something we badly need. I was denied a chance to offer an amendment which would have closed loopholes in the current explosives law and mandate a background check for individuals purchasing explosives. Although the FBI has documented that criminal bombings have doubled in the past 6 years, this unprecedented increase will continue to go unchecked and the legal loopholes in current law will persist because I was not allowed to bring the amendment to the floor. Despite the restrictive rule, I want to commend the chairman and members of the Committee on the Judiciary for including measures to protect innocent people from bombs made of plastic explosives. As my colleagues may know, a plastic explosive was used in a devastating terrorist bombing of Pan Am flight 103 in 1988 which killed all 270 passengers on board, including 2 young women from my district. After that disaster, the United States worked closely with other nations to negotiate the Montreal Convention on Plastic Explosives. One of the most important provisions within this bill requires that plastic explosives include a special chemical that would make the material detectable at security checkpoints. If such a system had been in place in 1988, the explosives would never have reached the plane. Although the Senate ratified the convention, Congress has yet to pass the implementing legislation that will formally bring our laws into compliance. The bill I introduced earlier this year, the Bombing Prevention Act, would make these necessary changes, and I am pleased to see that the Committee on the Judiciary included the bill's language to implement the Montreal Convention in the bill before us. Mr. Speaker, the antiterrorism bill does have some positive provisions, but we can do better than the rule and the bill before us. I cannot understand why the Committee on Rules will not allow the House to consider measures which would have traced explosives purchases. It would have mandated better recordkeeping by the sellers of explosives and would better have protected all of our constituents. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to reject yet another closed rule.

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. Chairman, if the purpose for this amendment today is to find out how much Federal money is being used to lobby by nonprofit groups, I can give the answer right now. Zero. It has been against the law here for years. The IRS has never had a single complaint. We brought this up at committee meeting after committee meeting, because we debate this thing once a week, almost. The truth of the matter is that the only thing anybody could ever come up with even a hint of a notion that somebody had misused money, was that the beer wholesalers were mad at the Mother Against Drunk Driving. This amendment tries to demonize the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, Catholic charities, and all other groups out there who are doing work for the Federal Government. It is absolutely nonsense that we waste our time on this.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 47 taken on March 6, 1996. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call attention to an article in this morning's Washington Post. Although I cannot say that I have always agreed with Fox Broadcasting Co. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, I am delighted that he has endorsed the idea--my idea--of providing free TV time to political candidates. Mr. Murdoch has announced that he will give Presidential candidates free air time this fall. Last year, I introduced legislation to provide candidates this kind of access to our airways, and, to give voters a truer picture of the candidates. Due to obfuscating and expensive political commercials, voters rarely witness what candidates truly stand for. The time has come to even the playing field and provide a mechanism to rid our airways of manipulative advertising campaigns, and return elections to the voters. Mr. Murdoch has challenged his competitors to provide free TV time. I am challenging my colleagues to cosponsor my bill to ensure that broadcasters provide free TV time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker, we are not sure what we are unleashing here. But I am rising in objection today to at least another measure to restrict women's constitutional rights that has appeared in this bill. I am referring to section 507 of the Communications Act of 1995 that would prohibit the exchange of information regarding abortion over the Internet. I ask you, is the abortion issue going to be attached and is it at all germane to this bill? This is the 22d vote of the 104th Congress on abortion-related legislation that has whittled away at the constitutional and legal rights of American women. Today we have the opportunity to pass a widely supported bipartisan telecommunications bill. Instead of focusing on the important issues at hand, we are being forced again for the 22d time during Congress to vote on a measure to further reduce women's constitutional rights. Abortion is a legal procedure. To prohibit discussion of it on the Internet is clearly a violation of first amendment rights. The penalties involved are severe. If an unknowing person were to even bring up the topic on the Internet, the penalty would be 5 years imprisonment; 10 years for a second or subsequent charge, even for the mention of the word. I want the American people to know that this Congress has systematically whittled away at a woman's right to choose to such a degree it has been virtually destroyed. If it is to be Federal policy that every conception will result in birth, then the Federal Government must also assume responsibility for children. We must assume the responsibility to provide for the emotional, the educational needs, and the financial well-being of every child. This Congress has expressed no interest in assuming responsibility for children. Instead, measures have been proposed and many have passed that further rescind the current limited Federal obligations to the children of the United States. There have been drastic cuts to the earned income tax credit for working parents with children, to Head Start, to nutrition, and to health programs. These are the very programs that address the needs of the poor and disadvantaged children. The implication in this Congress is that once a child is born, we really do not care what happens to it. That child may starve, may be abused, or even be beaten to death, and, in the case of the Northeast, may freeze to death because hearing assistance for the poor has now been taken away. The only thing that matters is that the child be born. After that, it is somebody else's problem. This prohibition to rights of privacy and to the first amendment rights does not belong in this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with my colleagues who have already expressed their concern and distress about France's nuclear testing, and President Chirac's visit to the United States. With the end of the cold war and the recent ratification of START II, we have high hopes and have made great steps forward in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And, just when we were making real progress toward a permanent moratorium on nuclear testing, France embarked on a series of nuclear tests in the South Pacific. These tests not only damage the strides we are making to stop nuclear testing, but they have once again endangered the health and safety of Pacific islanders. As the threat of nuclear proliferation continues, it does not make sense for the leaders of the world to engage in such reckless activities. The free world must lead by example. The example set by France is deplorable, and the United States should not directly, or indirectly, condone such actions.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote No. 13 on the bill just passed, I mistakenly voted ``nay''. I had intended to vote ``yea''. personal explanation

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my concern and dismay that we must be here tonight to debate this mini CR. As we all know, this work should have been completed months ago. As we work tonight to ensure that our veterans receive the benefit checks they so deserve, I cannot help thinking about the over 250,000 federal employees who are sitting in their homes, wondering and worrying about their fate and wondering if we care. Christmas is 5 days away. Yet the radical new Majority refuses to find a way to solve this budget impasse, and insists on holding hardworking federal workers--and their families--hostage to their misguided and unfair budget priorities. Let us stop the nonsense. Let us open the entire government. And let us finish our work so Federal employees can do their work.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of H.R. 2748, a bill to prevent the potentially devastating consequences of discrimination based on genetic information. I ask my colleagues to join us in support of this critical legislation. Currently 26 of our colleagues have cosponsored the legislation. As Chair of the Women's Health Task Force of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, I closely followed reports earlier this year that increased funding for breast cancer research had resulted in the discovery of the BRCA1 gene-link to breast cancer. While the obvious benefits of the discovery include potential lifesaving early detection and intervention, the inherent dangers of access to genetic information are just becoming evident. There is increasing concern that individuals will be denied access to health care and that employers might screen employees to eliminate those who could cause a rise in group premiums. The following actual cases document the cause for concern: A 24-year-old healthy and insured woman is asked to sign a lifetime waiver exempting her from breast cancer coverage because of familial tendencies. An insured, previously healthy man suffered a heart attack. After DNA-based testing revealed a hereditary form of high cholesterol, his insurance company refused to pay the hospital bills or cover future treatment for cardiovascular disease. As our knowledge and understanding of the biomedical genesis of human health and disease increases, our social policies and ethical responsibilities need to be adjusted accordingly. H.R. 2748, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination in Health Insurance Act of 1995 contains four major provisions. It prohibits insurance providers from: First, denying or canceling health insurance coverage; or, second, varying the premiums, 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 the prior written consent of the individual. The bill is uniquely focused, comprehensive, timely and includes effective enforcement mechanisms. It is focused on the issues of insurance discrimination and privacy as they relate to genetic information. It comprehensively covers all types of insurance providers including self-funded and ERISA plans. It is timely in that it tackles insurance discrimination and privacy issues related to genetic information before they become epidemic. It provides both State and Federal measures to ensure effective enforcement. Grave concern about these issues and enthusiastic support for the bill has come from the American Cancer Society, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, and the Council for Responsible Genetics. The National Action Plan on Breast Cancer, the NIH-DOE Working Group on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Human Genome Research and the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research have joined together to address the issue of genetic discrimination and health insurance. Their work has resulted in development of four policy recommendations. Those recommendations provide the foundation for Federal legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of genetic information. This bill encompasses those recommendations. This bill, which addresses the profound questions about who will have access to genetic information and how this information will be used by others, is critically important to the health and well-being of this Nation's women, men and children and our future generations.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1977, the Department of Interior appropriations for fiscal year 1996. As my colleagues all know, this is now the third time the House has considered this measure. Twice before, we sent it back to conferees and demanded that they place a moratorium on the sale of Federal lands for as little as $2.50 an acre. Today, we have a third try at the Interior conference report which could stop this giveaway temporarily, but still contains some dangerous provisions. When I look at the conference provisions to eliminate the Bureau of Mines, I am dismayed that Congress is rushing to dismantle the agency. As a child in Harlan County, KY, I was aware of mine disasters regularly occurring with great loss of life. Mining is considered the most dangerous of jobs. It took President Franklin Roosevelt to care enough about working people to intervene and impose worker safety standards. Now, deciding that businesses know better, the 104th Congress has already crippled worker safety programs in the Labor Department. Under this legislation today, we will approve eliminating the Bureau of Mines, and accept a vague promise that health and safety research will be transferred to the Energy Department; itself slated to be demolished. Another grave mistake in this conference report is the destruction of the NEA. When I see provisions to slash funding for the arts, I cannot understand the sense of this Congress to phase out an agency which costs about 64 cents a year per taxpayer and yields $3.4 billion a year in tax revenue. I urge my colleagues to realize how much economic growth results from a modest investment in the arts. Just last week, an article in the New York Times described the annual storytelling festival held in Jonesborough, TN, which drew crowds from all 50 States and generated over $5 million in economic activity. All across the country, cities and convention centers are forming partnerships with arts councils and museums, realizing the revenue possibilities with increased tourism. In October, the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism devoted a day long session to cultural tourism, and the conference overwhelmingly agreed that arts and museum attractions were vital to any city's competition for tourists. Besides the economic reasons to support the arts, we have to realize the arts' impact on our children's education. In a recent survey of public elementary and secondary schools conducted by the Department of Education, teachers and administrators viewed the arts, music, and creative writing as essential to a child's education. If we vote today to approve these cuts to the NEA, the educational and economic impact to our cities would be greater than we could ever imagine. Mr. Speaker, a vote for the Interior appropriations bill sends a message that we approve of clearcutting and logging; that we accept rolling back protection for mine workers; and that we feel secure sacrificing Federal support for our Nation's cultural programs. Vote against this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 1977, the Department of the Interior and related agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. Time and again, I have stood on the floor of this House to defend our Nation's modest, but vital investment in cultural, educational and artistic programs. As Chair of the Arts Caucus, I have watched the 104th Congress hammer away at the National Endowment for the Arts and we keep hearing the same ridiculous argument from the other side of the aisle. America can no longer afford to support arts or cultural institutions. I simply cannot understand the priorities of this Congress when 1 minute we rush to dismantle the NEA, and the next we deliver 20 unnecessary B-2 bombers to the Pentagon, and then we sign away $7 billion the military didn't even ask for. The other week, several Members here were just ecstatic after passing a budget that will cost Americans billions of dollars in lost revenue and sinks our progress on deficit reduction. As long as the 104th Congress follows these budgetary priorities, no one can convince me that the decimation of the NEA is any kind of economic plan, or that it has anything to do with money. My colleagues, we have all listened to this debate before, and we should all know this is not about deficit reduction or about what we can afford--this is all about philosophy, plain and simple. How many Government programs can point to an investment of 64 cents a year per taxpayer, which supports over 1.3 million jobs in nonprofit arts, and which yields $3.4 billion a year in tax revenue? To those who claim that Federal involvement is not needed, I would remind you that a few dollars from the NEA often come first before a museum exhibit, a ballet, an opera or a dance troupe receives any financial commitment from the private sector. Mr. Speaker, of all the reasons why we should not eliminate the NEA, I cannot think of any one more important than the effect on our children. Throughout America and in all of our districts, the NEA routinely provides minority, at-risk and financially disadvantaged students their first exposure to arts, drama and theater. Thanks to NEA grants, some of our most troubled inner city schools have established innovative programs which emphasize art in teaching math, science and history. If we approve these cuts to the NEA, these and so many other projects in financially-strapped schools will be grounded immediately. My colleagues, it is clear to me, and should be to all of you: the arts are a vital investment in our economy, our children, and in the future of our nation. There are numerous problems with the Interior appropriations bill, but I would ask each of you to seriously consider your vote today--to realize the message we are sending young people and to think about what legacy we are leaving behind. Don't sacrifice what's left of our Nation's cultural programs. Vote against this measure.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present last night because my plane was late for the four rollcall votes taken on November 7, 1995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 765, 766, 767, and 768.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am absolutely panicked and concerned today that a majority of this House believes that a young pregnant woman has no right to life. Her health status, her family's wishes have nothing to say here. It is simply that we will do everything we can to preserve a fetus, which on the face of it, has no chance at life itself. Remember that a third-trimester abortion is a medically necessary abortion to start with. The law specifies that. It has already been determined that the fetus will not live, cannot survive birth, or that the mother's life is in severe danger. [[Page H 11614]] If you believe that a doctor having put his whole life in his medical practice, with a family of his own, faced with an emergency situation is going to act to save the life of the mother, putting himself up for arrest and to go to jail, then you pray to God that no member of your family is ever put in that position. What is next for us? Are we going to decide that no woman of child- bearing age will be allowed to have a hysterectomy no matter what the circumstances? What do the great medical experts in the House of Representatives have in store for women of America next?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned about the potential precedent H.R. 1833 would set. There are vast and dangerous implications of the Congress interfering with medical practice and procedure. H.R. 1833 would ban late-term abortions which account for only one half of 1 percent of all abortions. Annually, fewer than 600 abortions occur in the third trimester and they are performed in cases of severe fetal anomalies and/or risk to the life and health of the pregnant woman. This bill makes it a criminal offense for a doctor to make the professional decision of how best to protect the life and health of his patients. Imagine the repercussions of such legislation. What will be next. Will a physician end up in jail for performing a hysterectomy in order to save the life of a woman with cancer. Never before has Congress made such an unprecedented attempt to legislate the type of surgical procedure that a physician may use in a particular case. H.R. 1833 is an unwarranted intrusion by Congress into medical decision-making, and it poses a serious risk to women's health. If enacted, this bill will compromise the physicians ability to provide life and health preserving medical care to their patients. H.R. 1833 represents a serious impingement on the rights of physicians to determine appropriate medical management for their patients. I urge my colleagues to vote against this deadly attack on the life and health of our Nation's women.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue that is of deep concern to all Americans. Breast cancer is a dreaded and devastating disease which has reached epidemic proportions. Currently, there are 2.6 million women living with breast cancer in the United States. In 1995 alone, an estimated 182,000 new cases will be diagnosed and over 46,000 women will die of this disease. In the past 5 years, breast cancer research has received strong congressional support. As I noted earlier this year, I am proud, as chair of the Congressional Women's Caucus Task Force on Women's Health, that we have increased research funding by 65 percent. We have begun to make important progress including the discovery of a breast cancer gene, the declining mortality rates for some segments of the population and Medicare coverage of mammograms for early detection. Despite the progress we have made in the past 5 years, our work is not done. There is still no cure for breast cancer, there is no way to prevent it, and the treatments available continue to be invasive and damaging to the women undergoing them. It is therefore of utmost importance that we reaffirm our commitment to further breast cancer research. Too many women still suffer and die and too many families are left struggling with their loss. Today, on the final day of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, we remember all the women, men and children whose lives have been touched by breast cancer. This year, I have lost two young friends to this disease and while their loss can never be compensated, I can and do pledge to work to ensure the Federal commitment remains strong and that we continue to devote all possible resources to winning the battle against this disease.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman very much. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of the full committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Did you notice that that was written on committee stationery?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If I could just ask the gentlewoman a question. I know you have seen the press release that was handed out saying that the House voted to vindicate the gentleman involved.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr Speaker, I rise tonight to participate in this special order in order to have an opportunity to discuss yesterday's tabling of the privileged resolution which dealt with the forgery by a House subcommittee. Although we were denied the opportunity to even debate the serious issue, I feel it is so important that we cannot let it go undiscussed. Yesterday we tabled a resolution regarding an issue of basic responsibility of the people who serve here either by election or by appointment. This responsibility is to assure that all who serve here are cognizant of their responsibility and determined to carry out the legal obligations of this country. This resolution, Mr. Speaker, was an effort to protect the history of our legislative record. It was designed to guarantee that we put together a fair and accurate record of our legislative history for those to come. What we do in Congress is used by teachers in classrooms, lawyers in courtrooms, authors and historians, all of whom depend upon our integrity so they need not question the authenticity of what they read. Senator Trent Lott, when he served in the House, made an eloquent statement of the importance of the sanctity of our legislative records, and I quote. For if the legislative history made by the duly elected representatives of the people is subject to malicious alteration and distortion by anonymous nonelected staffers, then the credibility of this institution in the people's branch is in serious jeopardy. All our written records become suddenly suspect in the eyes of the people and of the press and of the courts. How much weight, for instance, are the courts likely to give to the legislative history we supposedly made as representatives when the actual source of that history is in doubt? And yet that is the situation in which we find ourselves until the guilty are found and punished and adequate steps are taken to prevent the reoccurrence of such abuse. That was then House Member Lott, Congressional Record June 30, 1983, and I agree with him. Yesterday, a resolution was tabled that would have reaffirmed this House's commitment to history. Not only did this House refuse to affirm the integrity and honesty of House records, but we were prevented from even speaking about it. Are we to expect that when such things occur in this House we will sweep them under the carpet, pretend they never happened, in essence condone the actions with our silence? Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the beginning. At a hearing on September 28 in the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, a document was placed on the press table which appeared to be on the letterhead of the Alliance for Justice. It included a logo and address, phone number, fax number, E-mail address and a listing of member organizations laid out in such a manner as to replicate the Alliance's own letterhead. Incorrect information was then placed on this document in such a way in which any reasonable person would believe it came from the Alliance for Justice. Upon closer examination by members of the Alliance for Justice it became clear that the document was falsified. When pressed, the Chair of the committee admitted his staff had created the document and, as admitted by his communications director, they had taken a faxed document, scanned it into the computer system and altered it. Mr. Speaker, anyone could have picked up this piece of paper, walked out of the room and remained under the impression that it was put out by the Alliance for Justice. The creation of this document clearly held the intention of deceit. This is forgery. Forgery is a crime in the United States, and forgery was committed by those people who work in a place where the laws on forgery are made. If the intent was not to deceive or to mislead, as claimed by the creators of the document, why create it at all? Why not simply make the point on a hand-out of their own committee letterhead? Why not just use the organization's name and list the information? The sole reason to replicate the logo and include an address, phone number, fax number, E- mail address and listing of members organizations is to make the reader of the document assume the document came from the organization instead of from the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, why did this staff need to forge a document in the first place? We should all be perplexed and outraged by this action. Regardless of your position on the legislation which was under consideration on September 28, that hearing cannot be ignored by anyone who believes that Congress must obey the laws that it writes. It cannot go unchallenged by anybody who honorably claims to represent the United States in these hallowed halls of Congress. It cannot be accepted by those of us who have vowed to uphold the laws of the United States as we take our oath. In short, Mr. Speaker, the unauthorized creation and falsification of documents to be distributed to the general public must be condemned. The forgery calls into question the role that we, as Members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, have been sworn to carry out. It is our duty and responsibility to ensure that we provide oversight, to make sure we are acting in accordance with rules and regulations of the land. We must guarantee we are fair to all our witnesses. We must guarantee we conduct fair and open hearings. We must guarantee we put together a fair and accurate record of our legislative history. Furthermore, I find it distressing to witness this kind of overreaching and blatant disregard for the law simply in order to make a political point, to create an enemies list, mistreat them as witnesses before the Congress and then to silence those who challenge this kind of behavior brings dangerous memories to mind and sets off resounding alarm bells. As the people of this country once again examine this institution ever more closely, do we think they would accept the use of forgery to make a point? Do we think they would accept silencing those who attempt to make us honest? I think not. In the name of the men and women who have served Congress in the past, in the name of those who will come after us, and in the name of history, we must be clear. We will not let forgery go unchecked. We will not allow representatives in this Congress to deceive. Mr. Speaker, we will not tolerate this kind of action. I would like to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, very much. The gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] in this committee in trying at least to uphold the laws of the House, but the laxity, as you had pointed out, what we have seen in the Waco hearings and what we saw the other day in the hearings on the White House Travel Office, indicate to me that integrity is in very short supply on that committee. I wonder if you agree with me, and you were there the day this document came about. I have said many times I think the thing that saddened me most was the fact that the staff and the subcommittee chair thought it was very amusing, and they saw nothing in the world wrong with what had taken place here. I feel that it is going to be my obligation. If no one else of the 435 Members care about it, it is terribly important to me that this not take place here in this House. This is too sacred a ground that we stand on. Too many people send us here with their total trust that we are going to do the right thing. I can imagine their outrage if they really knew that this is going on. Frankly, I do not know how much more of it goes on. But at least on this piece right here where I was closely involved I intend to make my stand.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget reconciliation package. I have listened to the debate on the floor and in the Rules Committee, and can't help but remember 1981, 1983, and more important, 1993. In the early 1980's we saw two tax bills that were sold on the basis that massive tax cuts for the very wealthy would spur the economy. In the late 1970's the top marginal tax rate was close to 70 percent, and by the end of the 1980's it had been cut to almost 30 percent; did this spur economic growth and end deficit spending? Well, we started the decade with a $1 trillion debt and ended it at $4 trillion. In addition, we headed into the 1990's with an economy in deep recession. In 1993, in response to the growing deficit and deepening economic rescission, we came to the floor to bring a budget reconciliation package to control spending and return some progressive policies to our Tax Code. A little over 2 years ago we heard the cries of economic desperation. Our package was called smoke and mirrors and I quote, ``it's our bet that this is a job killer.'' The current Speaker predicted, and I quote, ``I believe that this will lead to a recession next year. This is the Democrat machines' recession, and each one of them will be held personally accountable.'' The current majority leader predicted, and I quote, ``the impact on job creation is going to be devastating.'' Well, we passed the package without one Republican vote. Now let's discuss the results and the ability of the Republican leadership to predict economic outcomes. The deficit came down for 3 consecutive years. Our deficit is now the lowest as a percentage of national income of any major industrial country in the world. After one of the slowest 4-year periods of job growth since the Great Depression, the economy is now enjoying a solid growth, with strong private sector job creation and low inflation. The economy has created well over 3 million private sector jobs. The Republicans were wrong then, and they are wrong now. Today, we will be asked to cast one vote on a package that will dramatically change our Government. With one vote, we will dismantle the Department of Commerce; an agency entrusted with two critically important constitutional functions; that of the census and the filing and protection of patents. We will dismantle an agency that every day impacts millions of Americans. All done without the benefit of any comprehensive committee action. We will forever change health care for millions of low-income women, children, and senior citizens. We will end Federal, uniform nursing home standards implemented less than 10 years ago; we will force more working families into poverty and end any hope of a higher education for thousands of our children. We will forever end Medicare as we know it. It does not surprise me that the Republicans want to end Medicare, as the leader of the Republican Party in the other body has stated, ``I was there fighting the fight, working against Medicare--because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.'' We will close many rural hosptials; cut WIC, Headstart, and significantly reduce our investment in research and development. All in the hope of economic growth and tax cuts for the very affluent. Once again, our Republican colleagues are asking Members of this body to take a leap of faith on failed economic and budget policies based on failed and misguided predictions. I am hopeful that many of these radical changes will be dropped in conference. It is the only hope we have. I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this package.