Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 244) to direct the Speaker to provide an appropriate remedy in response to the use of a forged document at a subcommittee hearing, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am bringing to the floor of the House an issue of basic responsibility of the people who serve here either by election or appointment. This privileged resolution affirms the need for this House to ensure that all documents which come before us in an official capacity are accurate and authentic. We have an obligation to history, scholars, authors, and the courts to ensure that all who serve here are cognizant of this responsibility and are determined to carry it out. Senator Trent Lott, when he served in the House, made an eloquent statement of the importance of the sanctity of our records: 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, the people's branch is in serious jeopardy. All our written records become suddenly suspect in the eyes of the people, the press, and 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 recurrence of such abuse [Congressonal Record, June 30, 1983]. We must guarantee that we are putting together a fair and accurate record of our legislative history. We cannot let our standards fall. In the past few weeks, I have participated in a number of hearings regarding the McIntosh-Istook-Ehrlich proposal to limit the political advocacy of organizations which receive Federal grants. Now, regardless of your position on this legislation, what occurred during the September 28 hearing cannot be ignored by anyone who believes that Congress must obey and follow the laws of the land. It cannot go unchallenged by anyone who claims to honorably 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. In short, the unauthorized creation and falsification of documents, to be distributed to the general public, must not be tolerated. At a hearing of the Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs on September 28, a document was placed on the press table which appeared to be on the letterhead of the Alliance for Justice. It included a logo, an 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 placed on this document, in such a way in which any reasonable person would believe it came from the Alliance for Justice. Because there was no disclaimer, anyone could have picked up this piece of paper, left the hearing, and remained under the false impression that this document came from the Alliance for Justice. However, upon closer examination during the hearing, it became clear that this document was falsified. The logo was incorrect, the names of some of the member groups were inaccurate, and the amount of the grants were in error. The chair of the subcommittee has admitted that his staff created this document, and, as stated by his communications director, they had taken a faxed document, had House Information Resources scan it into their computer system, and altered it. And, there appeared to be no understanding by the people who created the document of the seriousness of their actions. We need to assure that this kind of deception should not, and cannot, happen in the House of Representatives. And, today we must affirm this House's belief that all documents which are produced by us are authentic, accurate, and dependable. We are here to represent the people of the United States. And, particularly those of us on the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, we are here to provide oversight--to protect the people of this Nation from wrongdoing by the Government--the kind of wrongdoing we have witnessed by this incident. This resolution is designed to reaffirm, to the American people, our commitment to honesty and to history. It is to protect the integrity of the legislative history. It is to safeguard our legislative proceedings and to guarantee that what we do is trustworthy and honorable. Again, we must guarantee that we put together a fair and accurate record. Mr. Speaker, in the name of the men and women who have served this Congress in the past, and in the name of those who will come after us, we must be unwavering in our standards. Forgery will not be tolerated. I urge adoption of this resolution. motion to lay the resolution on the table offered by mr. armey

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time on our side this evening to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], who is the ranking Democrat member on the Committee on Resources, and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to manage that time and yield time to other Members.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey].

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution just tabled.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I hereby give notice of my intention to offer a resolution that raises a question of privilege of the House. The form of the resolution as a follows: Resolution To direct the Speaker to provide an appropriate remedy in response to the use of a forged document at a subcommittee hearing. Whereas, on September 28, 1995, the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight held a hearing on political advocacy of Federal grantees; Whereas, the president of the Alliance for Justice, a national association of public interest and civil rights organizations testified at that hearing; Whereas, a document was placed upon the press table for distribution at the hearing which contained the letterhead, including the name, address, phone number, fax number, and E- mail address of the Alliance for Justice, and the names of certain member organizations and the dollar amounts of Federal grants they received; Whereas, in her opening statement at the hearing, the president of the Alliance for Justice identified the document as being forged and contained errors and requested an explanation from the chairman of the subcommittee as to the source of the document; Whereas, in response, the chairman acknowledged that the document was created by the subcommittee staff; Whereas, House Information Resources, at the request of the subcommittee staff, prepared the forged document; Whereas, the document was prepared using official funds; Whereas, the chairman of the subcommittee acknowledged in a letter, dated September 28, 1995, to the president of the Alliance for Justice that ``the graphics, unfortunately, appeared to simulate the Alliance's letterhead''; Whereas, the September 29, 1995, issue of the National Journal's Congress Daily reported that Representative McIntosh's communications director said that the ''the letterhead was taken from a faxed document, scanned into their computer system and altered''; and Whereas, questions continue to arise regarding the responsibility for preparation of the forged document: the chairman of the subcommittee stated during the hearing that he had no prior knowledge of the document's preparation; the chairman later stated that the subcommittee staff prepared the document; and other published reports suggested that Chairman McIntosh's personal office prepared the document; Whereas, on September 27, 1995, the Speaker expressed concern over the distribution of unattributed documents and announced a policy requiring that materials disseminated on the floor of the House must bear the name of the Member authorizing their distribution; Whereas, Members and staff of the House have an obligation to ensure the proper use of documents and other materials and exhibits prepared for use at committee and subcommittee hearings and which are made available to Members, the public or the press, and to ensure that the source of such documents or other materials is not misrepresented; Whereas, committees and subcommittees should not create documents for use in their proceedings that may give the impression that such documents were created by other persons or organizations, as occurred at the September 28, 1995, hearing of the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs; Whereas, the dissemination of a forged document distorts the public record and affects the ability of the House of Representatives, its committees, and Members to perform their legislative functions, and constitutes a violation of the integrity of committee proceedings which form a core of the legislative process: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Speaker shall take such action as may be necessary to provide an appropriate remedy to ensure that the integrity of the legislative process is protected, and shall report his actions and recommendations to the House.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned that we are being forced to vote on this measure--which if enacted would be devastating to the health and well-being of our seniors--without adequate time for the American public or the Members of this House to study the bill and learn exactly how the 37 million people covered by Medicare will be affected. Such drastic changes to a system as massive and crucial as Medicare cannot be responsibly considered with just 3 hours of floor debate. We will don't fully understand the consequences of what this bill will do, but what little we do know is looking pretty bad. In addition to doubling senior's Medicare payments, forcing seniors to give up their long-time doctors and shutting millions of infirm Americans out of nursing homes, there are some little known provisions that seriously and negatively affect the health and well-being of our seniors. Take, for example, the bill's provisions to ease the ban on physician self-referrals--that is, doctors who refer Medicare patients to labs in which they have a financial stake. We have long know that this is a situation that is ripe for abuse. In fact, the HH's Office of Inspector General found that patients of referring physicians who owned or invested in independent clinical labs received 45 percent more services than all other Medicare patients in general. And the Consumer Federation of America found that doctors with a financial interest in labs ordered 34 percent to 95 percent more tests than other physicians. And the New England Journal of Medicine reported that doctors who owned imaging devices--like MRI's, for example--ordered imaging tests four times more often than doctors who did not. That's why regulations have been implemented to prohibit doctors from sending patients for tests and services from which the doctor would profit. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that easing this ban on self-referrals will add another $1.1 billion to the cost of Medicare, through excessive and unnecessary testing and services. Another provision of this bill that deserves a lot more study and discussion is the section which would eliminate most Federal regulation of medical laboratories located in doctors' offices. These regulations came about after Congress heard horror stories of patients suffering and dying as a result of inaccurate lab tests. Most serious were the women who died from cervical cancer--a disease that is almost always curable if caught early--because their Pap smear test were misread. The fight against waste, fraud and abuse has earned bipartisan support throughout recent debates on health care financing. But, cutting vital regulations without giving serious consideration to the affect on the health and well-being of millions of our citizens is irresponsible. Mr. Chairman, it is ludicrous to rush this enormous and far-reaching legislation through the House in the hopes that the public won't be quick enough to figure out what's in it. I urge all my colleagues, in the name of the 37 million senior citizens we represent, to reject this course of action, and vote against this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, persons who are watching this afternoon, I have to tell you, if you are really going to find out what happened at that subcommittee meeting yesterday, I am afraid we are going to have to send you copies of the committee transcript. Because, frankly, you would have to be like Alice in Wonderland, who can believe six impossible things before breakfast, if you believe what has been said here. It was made clear by the witnesses yesterday that the law that is already on the books that governs nonprofit agencies is more than adequate. If there is any problem anywhere, if there is some kind of enforcement problem, deal with it. The truth of the matter is, there has been no complaint to the IRS at any time that these laws have been on the books that any nonprofit agency in America broke that law. There is simply no indication of that at all. What we have here is a bill that is intended to punish people who do not agree with the other side. They have made it clear. They have beaten up on the National Council of Senior Citizens as though they were the scourge of the earth and were going to bring down the country. We yesterday went through listening to people who headed up agencies, and we have had letters from people like the Girl Scouts, Catholic Charities, the YMCA, that this bill implies they are an enormous threat to the United States because of the grants they get. Let me just tell you what it means to be a nonprofit agency and what you have to do under current law with Federal money. For example, you may not have any communication with the public and direct communication with legislators in an attempt to influence the introduction, enactment, modification or defeat of new or pending legislation in Congress or State legislatures. That does not apply to universities. We will get to them a little bit later. You are prohibited from legislative liaison activities, including attending the hearings, gathering information, analyzing effects of such activities that support lobbying or are in knowing preparation for it. You may not electioneer, directly or indirectly. This covers both attempting to (a) influence a Federal, State or local election, referendum, initiative, or similar procedure and, (b) to establish, support or administer a political campaign party, political action committee, or other organizations. It's another matter what they do with their own money. It is not the Federal money. They have done nothing wrong with their Federal money. There is no indication anywhere that they did anything wrong with the Federal money that they got. In addition, there is about a 5-page questionnaire which really smacks of McCarthyism frankly. I just learned today when a similar thing came up in the Justice Committee, that several Republicans took great umbrage at the questionnaire, things that had been asked of citizens of the United States. For example, this questionnaire wants to know of every nonprofit agency, who do you associate with? Is that any of their business, who you associate with? Second, they have to contact every vendor with which they do business and get from them a written statement on how much they in their private business spend for any lobbying activities. In the case of the YMCA, the director told us yesterday that she does business with 148,000 vendors, She said that the onerous restrictions in this bill would obviously meet the purpose, which is to not allow nonprofits like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and others who have always been perfect citizens, who are really always encouraging the community, to not let them have any say in this Federal Government--to give them an awful choice, to give up their citizenship or what little Federal money they get. Now, how much do they get in a grant? Well, the first thing we need to know is the State and local governments in the United States get 90 percent of all the Federal grants. Do we ask them how they spend it? No. If they suddenly build something that does not go well, or a train that does not run, or a bridge that collapses, do we say how shameful this is to do this? No. We ask nothing in the world about them. The only restriction that we put on Federal grant money to a State and local government is to not let them charge their membership dues to an organization. Contrast that to what I just read for you about what a nonprofit organization in this country has to do. Now, if you are a university, you are not even prohibited from paying your membership. Indeed, you can do that. But when it comes to the misuse of Federal money that goes into the contracts, Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House, and I am starting my ninth year, the misuse of Federal money that has been talked about most has come in two groups. First, the military contractors--which you all know the stories about the coffee pots, the toilet seats and the hammers; and universities who spent a lot of their research money or grant money for remodeling the university, for the President's salary, for putting dogs in kennels, or whatever other things they have done. Did we call them before Congress and jump all over them and take the money away? No. We merely said we wished they would not do that. Mr. Speaker, we have reached a new low. I want to tell everyone what Washington's dirty little secret is.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on the Waco hearings we found that the committee had turned over lots of its responsibilities to the NRA, and now we find this same committee staff is forging documents to be given out to the press purporting to be a true statement. Mr. Speaker, in the name of all the men and women who served us before in this House, who stood on this floor and with truth and with eloquence did the best they could for the American people, I am more than outraged at the dirty little secret that this subcommittee would stoop to crime in order to make their point. I am sure they are going to have an hour more of it this afternoon, but if people want to know the truth of the testimony, they should let us send them the record of that hearing.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] for that, because I want to tell everyone what Washington's dirty little secret is, since they have been talking about it all afternoon. The committee staff of this group over here forged a document yesterday. They took a letterhead from an organization that they had asked to come in to testify, took it, as though it was from this organization, copied down the board of directors and listed their members and put next to some of them millions of dollars that they claimed they got in Federal grants. Mr. Speaker, when we heard from the the National Alliance for Justice, the woman who heads it up, she told these people over here that she does not get a dime's worth of Federal money. She said that she not only resented the fact that they forged that document with false testimony, but she also said, I will not tell you what these people get in Federal money. I do not know. But there is one person here, she said, this afternoon, that has given me permission to tell you how much Federal money she gets. It is the Arts Alliance. Zero. Zip. Mr. Speaker, do the people care on this committee? Not a bit. I sat as a member at the Waco hearings.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, in the 1930s I was growing up in the coal fields of eastern Kentucky, in a family with four children, and I watched for years as my mother and father took responsibility for the health care of both sets of their parents. It was an enormous burden. Health care was not all that good in the 1930s. Blood transfusions were given by anybody who came in off the street, and they did not go through typing and crossmatching as we do today. I had a sister that died in North Carolina, as they were operating on her for appendicitis, and she died of double pneumonia. So you can see that the benefits of medicine have increased enormously in the past half century. One of the most important beneficiaries of that improvement has been the elderly of the United States. Since 1965, families like mine when I was a child no longer have to struggle to meet the health care needs of elderly parents. I remember when the debate took place in 1965, and I remember when it passed, and there was rejoicing in the country that senior citizens who were alone or senior citizens who were in impoverished circumstances could get the same kind of health care, the same appropriate kind of health care as the wealthiest person in the country. And we felt very good about this development. But the debate over Medicare, like the debate over Social Security, was vitriolic in both houses. There was no unanimity of consent in either the House of Representatives or the Senate for Social Security or Medicare. Indeed, if you were to read that debate, you would be surprised I think at some Members who are still here who voted against the Medicare program and spoke very strongly against it. It was the Democrat Party that gave us Social Security. It was the Democrat Party that gave us Medicare. Now it is the Democrat Party that is struggling to try to save Medicare. There is a recommendation by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to have the largest cut in Medicare in its 30-year history. They are recommending $270 billion be cut out of Medicare over the next 7 years in order to pay for a $245 billion tax cut for the rich, the wealthy and corporations. This is going to be done with one hearing, which will take place here tomorrow. The Democrats have not been allowed to ask for a hearing or even to participate very much in the meeting that let up to the decision for the hearing tomorrow. And for that reason, the Democrat Party, which gave this country Medicare, will have to hold its hearing tomorrow out on the lawn of the Capitol of the United States. I am confident that has never been done before. The Capitol is a pretty large building. Meeting rooms all over it. But we have been told that not a single one is available for us tomorrow to hold a hearing. So tomorrow we will have ordinary Americans, hospital administrators, caregivers, rural hospitals, community health associations, home care specialists to be here to say what these awful cuts are going to do in the services that they can provide. Thirty-seven million seniors now are on Medicare, and by the year 2002, if you factor in for inflation, we will need to be paying $8,400 a year to cover the same benefits that $4,800 buys today. The Republican proposal only provides $6,700. Now, how is the difference going to be made up? Higher premiums, higher deductibles, inability perhaps to choose your own doctor or accept fewer services, fewer choices, and lower quality. I think that is a rotton set of choices for the elderly in this country. Last week, the Speaker of the House assured the American people on television that Medicare beneficiaries could expect their premiums to increase by only $7 a month. Within days, the leadership was forced to admit the figure was actually going to be more like $32 a month, about $400 a year. For people who live on a fixed income, that can be a devastating blow and can really make the difference in their lives as to whether they can eat or pay their rent. If they cannot afford it and if they are lucky enough to have children or grandchildren who will chip in, perhaps they can survive it. But a lot of our seniors do not. Those premium increases will hurt not only the people who are recipients of the care, but we anticipate the closure of a lot of hospitals and a lot of services and perhaps even of home care.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Absolutely, we need more.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I would be happy to.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I will be very brief. I just want to make the point that the $270 billion cut in Medicare is almost equal to the defense budget of the United States. I think we pour over this month after month, and committee after committee looks into it, and debate often takes days on the floor of the House. To this day, a bill that we are supposed to vote on next week has not been printed. Nobody has seen a single written word on what the bill that the hearing is going to be held on tomorrow will cover, not one thing. If you want to put this in some kind of context, imagine, if you will, the health care plan that was debated in Congress last year, had there been not a word of what was in it, not one sentence of what the consequences might be, just simply slash and burn, and that may give you some idea of what we are facing here with Medicare.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think it is safe to say that nothing on the magnitude of this cut has ever gone through the Congress of the United States without complete hearings, without participation of the public, without an opportunity to go home and say to our constituents, what they have ahead of them. We do not have anything to take home to show them. We get little notices in the press, and then we hear it is going to be $7 a month, and then we find out that that is not true. So, so far we are standing on sinking sand and shifting sands below us, and we do not know how it will affect the elderly of this country or indeed the fate of health care.

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Record to reflect that according to a Time-CNN poll, by an overwhelming majority of 84 percent, the public supports government funding for abortion in cases of rape. When this Medicaid statute was written, it was clear that Congress intended the program to cover all medically necessary devices and services. It did not say a State could pick and choose. Is it possible to imagine a service more important than the option to have an abortion if you are a poor woman, or a girl, who has been raped or is an incest survivor? These women are already victimized; and this House, by this hard-hearted, discriminatory language does even more to discriminate against them all over again. Mr. Chairman, the right to choose an abortion in these circumstances should not just be the right of wealthy women; it is blatantly unfair. Nor should abortion opponents be allowed to argue that this service has been overused. Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record: I would like to put it into the Record that: by an overwhelming margin of 84%, the public supports government funding for abortion in cases of rape, according to a Time/CNN poll. This bill also nullifies the requirement that medical residency programs must provide training in abortion techniques unless the individual or institution has a moral objection to it. And, it bans Federal funds from being used for embryo research which leading scientists and endocrinologists tell us may hold the key to curing such diseases as diabetes and Alzheimers. Mr. Chairman, this Congress is out of step on issues of women's reproductive health care. I urge my colleagues to stand up for women and vote against this very bad bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Skaggs amendment. The Istook language to restrict nonprofit organizations and companies from using their own private funs for political advocacy is the most far reaching, radical approach to silencing the opposition that I have ever witnessed as a Member of this institution. This language is simply not necessary; current law already prohibits the use of any Federal funds for lobbying. If there is concerns about enforcement, then lets deal with that. I have several concerns regarding the Istook provisions. Perhaps the most pertinent would be the fact that this new mandate is being pushed through the House with little or no discussion. An appropriations bill is clearly not the vehicle for authorizing this type of assault on the Bill of Rights. I find it interesting that the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs of the Government Reform and Oversight has held two hearings on this language after it was adopted in the Appropriations Committee. Hearings are held to allow the public to comment and present testimony on pending legislative action. What has been done in this situation is that the Republicans have reached a conclusion and are now misusing the hearing process to build their case. It would be like a jury deciding the innocence or guilt of the defendant prior to the trial and then conducting the trial, picking witnesses based on their predetermined verdict. I urge the adoption of the Skaggs amendment. In any case, I am sure the courts would find this all unconstitutional if it should pass, but we should not allow this assault on the first amendment rights of groups like the March of Dimes, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and veterans organizations. These groups should not have a grand new bureaucracy imposed upon them.