Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, the rules governing debate of H.R. 1555 are bad enough-- we have 90 minutes to debate the most substantial changes to our communications laws in over 60 years. What concerns me the most, however, are provisions in H.R. 1555 which would be the single biggest assault on American consumers and diversity of opinion that I've witnessed as long as I have lived. H.R. 1555 completely repeals limits on mass media ownership, and the result will be a dangerous combination of media power. Under the bill, a single company can own a network station, a cable station, unlimited numbers of radio stations, and a daily newspaper, all in the same town. We have heard that lifting ownership limits will promote competition. Personally, I can't think of a worse way to go about it. Once we lift the limits, a handful of network executives will dictate what programs the local affiliates in our districts should carry. If you have a complaint about losing local programming, don't bother changing the channel--the media group will own that station, too, If you want to write a letter to the newspaper, feel free, but know that the media group probably is the editorial board. If any of my colleagues have kept up with the news recently, media companies are already lining up to buy each other out, all in anticipation of the broadcast ownership bonanza. You don't have to take my word for it, just look in today's New York Times and read about Walt Disney's buy-out of ABC, or the Westinghouse takeover bid for CBS. I will warn my colleagues: these companies are counting on us to remove ownership limits so they can squeeze out smaller competitors. I don't think that many of my colleagues realize this, but the FCC is reviewing ownership limits and making changes right now to ensure competition and local diversity. Blowing the lid off all restrictions doesn't make sense; we should let the FCC continue to do its job. Mr. Speaker, with unrealistic time limits, this rule continues the tradition of the Republican-led 104th Congress: careless legislating and minimal debate. The new leadership cares more about corporate giveaways than consumers, and that is why I will vote against this rule. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment to restore funding for title X Family Planning, a program that last year served more than 4 million women in 4,000 clinics. Let me make clear that title X does not fund abortions; the law will not allow it. What title X does fund, in addition to family planning services, is gynecological exams and Pap smear tests; mammograms, clinical breast exams and education in breast self-exam; screening for high blood pressure; and screening for sexually transmitted diseases, as well as education and counseling on how to avoid and prevent such diseases. Title X clinics provide critical health and family planning services for millions of women who can't afford private insurance, but don't qualify for Medicaid. These are women working in low-paying service- sector jobs that don't provide health coverage. What does eliminating title X say to these working women? It says, ``Too bad if you can't afford a mammogram or pelvic exam. We hope you don't get breast or cervical cancer, but we're not going to do anything to help you detect or prevent it.'' I cannot conceive of a crueler message that this Congress could send to American women. With an allocation that works out to just 75 cents per person each year, title X is one of the best bargains around. I urge colleagues to vote in support of protecting this critical program.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the enactment of Medicare, the only program that provides universal health coverage to virtually every elder American. Unfortunately, today Medicare is in big trouble. Much of the trouble stems from the majority plan to cut coverage and raise fees, not to shore up Medicare, but simply to provide tax cuts for large corporations and wealthy individuals. The $270 billion in Medicare cuts proposed by the majority means that the average Medicare beneficiary will be liable for an additional $3,400 in out-of-pocket health care expenses. Total out-of-pocket costs would add up to about $29,000 over the 7 years of the budget plan. I do not know how many seniors back in my hometown of Rochester can afford that level of cost increase. I do know that it will be a hardship for those on a fixed income. This morning I want to bring particular attention to the hardship that the cuts will bring to older women who make up the majority of Medicare recipients. They are the ones who can least afford to bear the brunt of Medicare cost hikes to subsidize tax cuts for the rich. Elderly poverty is already more prevalent among older women. Only 13 percent of women age 65 or older actually receive a private pension, and even with Social Security, one-quarter of all older women are living near or below the poverty level. The typical older woman, age 75 or older, has an annual income of $9,170. Where will she find an additional $3,400 over the next 7 years to cover higher Medicare premiums, deductibles, and new copayments? At any age over 65, women have greater functional limitations due to diseases like arthritis and osteoporosis. That means they have an even greater need for affordable Medicare services like home health care. Older American women, the majority of all Medicare recipients, have worked hard all their lives, whether in the home taking care of children, aging parents, or ailing spouses, or at jobs that paid them less than men at the same level to help support their families. They do not deserve to be abandoned by Congress in their time of need and they do not deserve to have to do more with less and less simply to subsidize tax cuts.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this debate has been had over and over again as we have heard this morning. It is an attempt again to make the women of America second-class citizens and the women who work for the Federal Government third class. It is beyond belief to me that you would say that we are using taxpayers' money, when what we are saying is that we are using the salaries of women who work legitimately for a living. There is not any other string that you put on a Federal employee's salary. Why in the world could you tell women what they can do with theirs? We do not have any right, and we have no business prohibiting Federal employees' health care plans from offering coverage for legal abortion services to women just because they work for the Federal Government. Federal employees work hard for their salaries and benefits. We ask a lot of the Federal employees. As the Government continues to downsize, we are asking even more. Right now, as far as pensions are concerned, they are going to be paying more and getting less. Some of the Federal employees, like park rangers, people who work in parts of the American West, workers in the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, face injury and death on the job. Do they not at least deserve a health benefits plan that is comparable to those offered in the private sector? Two-thirds of all private insurers cover abortion and an even higher percentage of HMO's do. Why should Federal employees be treated like third-class citizens? The argument that the ban on FEHBP coverage of abortions simply keeps Federal tax dollars from being used to pay for coverage is disingenuous. The Federal employee benefits are not Federal handouts. They are part of a Federal employee's wages and compensation. I do not believe that employees of private businesses would stand for it one minute if their employer told them how to spend their salaries. Federal employees should get the same rights and respect. Some opponents of this amendment want to use the ban on abortion coverage as one more advance in the fight against the right of American women to make their own personal choice on the abortion issue. I respect the right to oppose abortion. I urge support for the Hoyer amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] for yielding this time to me, and I have so little time, I want to be as concise as I can. This is not a debate about any money at all. This is purely philosophy. Anytime we spend $160 million in this House and get back $3.4 billion, we make a pretty good deal, so it does not have anything to do with money. It simply has to say, what is Government doing in this? What Government always does, it is leveling the playing field when hundreds and hundreds of people can go to Central Park and watch a Shakespeare performance that they would never have an opportunity to see otherwise, when the kids in my colleague's district, Mr. Stearns', go to concerts that they would not have any other opportunity to. It is important, and let me tell my colleagues something as crass as I can say this because it is pretty terrible, and I am ashamed. Mr. Stearns, every child in this country that studies art for 4 years, their SAT scores, verbal scores, go up 57 percent, their math scores go up 45 percent. Can you match that? It is not your children, Mr. Stearns, who are going to be hurt. It's going to be the children in every nook and cranny of the United States who will not have any opportunity to develop who they are. The children who create do not destroy, and this is the only way we reach children at risk, and it is cheap at the price, and the United States of America cannot say we don't care for creativity here. Mr. Chairman, if we ever say to the Pentagon, You make a mistake, we won't give you any more money, I would sure like to be here to hear it. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns amendment. As Chair of the Arts Caucus, I have watched in amazement year after year, as Mr. Stearns attacks the pittance that the National Endowment for the Arts receives. And all this from an agency whose entire budget is below what is allocated for military bands. While Federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts costs a mere 64 cents a year, per person, it is no secret that for each $1 the NEA spends, $11 of economic activity results. The non-profit arts industry alone contributes $36.8 billion to the U.S. economy and provides over 1.3 million jobs to Americans nationwide. The arts support more jobs than either the legal services sector or the police and firefighter sector. These jobs have a tremendous economic impact, they provide $790 million in local government revenue, $1.2 billion in State government revenue, and $3.4 billion in Federal income tax revenue. Based on these numbers alone, we cannot afford not to fund the arts. Business, tourism, restaurants, and hotels thrive on the arts. Further reductions in funding for the NEA would have adverse implications on both constituents and the cultural agencies in our districts. In my district of Rochester, NY, the National Association of Local Arts Agencies found that non-profit arts organizations spent approximately $124 million annually and supported more than 4,000 full-time jobs. What my colleagues on the other side fails to understand year after year, is that most importantly, the NEA provides equal access and opportunity to the people of our Nation and specifically to the people of our congressional districts--many of whom would otherwise be deprived from experiencing the arts in American society. There are people all over this country who without the NEA would not have access to some our Nation's greatest cultural treasures. I am sure that the constituents in Mr. Stearns' district value the money that the Studio Theater of Sarasota received (fiscal year 1995) so that it could bring its Write a Play Program to Jacksonville, Ocala, Belleview, and Green Coves Springs, FL. This valuable NEA program helps strengthen the language skills and creative thought of at-risk students, minority, and financially disadvantaged youth. These are the people who really depend on the NEA. The arts serve as a medium of documentation, the essence of the American experience is recorded through art. Art remains a living record of civilization and society. Every civilization judges the civilization before it by the art it has left behind. Are we going to leave anything behind? I urge my colleagues to vote against further cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts. Vote no on the Stearns amendment.

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the Chabot amendment to eliminate the National Endowment for the Humanities. Mr. Chabot's amendment is an unwarranted attack on an institution that has done nothing more than effectively promote the progress of the humanities in the United States. The National Endowment for the Humanities is the single largest source of support for the humanities. While humanities activities in our Nation would still exist without the NEH, they would no longer be accessible to the entire country. They would in all likelihood be reserved only for the rich who could afford them. What would the constituents of our districts say when there is no NEH to support museums or libraries or to preserve historical documents; when there is no longer an NEH to teach generations to come about history, literature and philosophy, about who we are as Americans? Because of the NEH, in fiscal year 1994, 3,273 teachers from all over the country were able to participate in teacher institutions, summer seminars, and study grants, offering these teachers access to the best experts in their discipline. Roughly 500,000 students benefited from these teacher programs. We must not neglect the value of the NEH to our Nation's children. Children who are exposed to the humanities learn to foster a dialog between themselves and the voices of writers, the visions of artists, and the thoughts of historians and philosophers. It is an argument that should begin in school and continue throughout life. If Mr. Chabot's amendment were to pass, thousands of valuable programs across the country would be destroyed. Yet Mr. Chabot is assaulting the NEH based on a project that was designed to bring all Americans together--left, right, center; black, white, Hispanic--to evaluate what they share as Americans. To realize that despite their differences, what they have in common is America. ``National Conversation,'' which is just one of the thousands of the NEH's valuable programs, was formed out of Chairman Hackney's concern that we in this country spend too much time focussing on what divides us rather than what we have in common. A major portion of the NEH's funding for the humanities each year is awarded to projects that document and illuminate the American experience--this is of course the great experiment in democracy and freedom that is our Nation's history and legacy. I urge my colleagues to do a service to the children in their districts by saving this irreplaceable cultural institution. Vote no on this devastating amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we are really embarking on a crusade here today of sorts. Unfortunately, we do not know what the results are going to be. Mr. Speaker, do senior citizens understand that that Republican budget resolution conference report means higher out-of-pocket health care costs for millions of seniors on fixed incomes? It's true; the average senior will pay between $2,500 and $3,500 more each year. And senior citizens' traditional rights under Medicare to choose their own doctor could also be threatened. Do middle-class families understand what $10 billion in cuts to the Student Loan Program could mean to their efforts to educate their sons and daughters? The Republicans are telling the American people that Medicare is being protected by these cutbacks. But people have to wonder how this can be, when Medicare will be left with barely enough funding to keep up with inflation. There will not be enough money to keep pace with higher medical inflation; or with the cost of new, life-saving technologies; or with the growth in Medicare population numbers. And that means either benefits will be cut back, or seniors will have to pay more. Do Americans understand where these dramatic cuts to health, education, research, and development are going? The answer is simple: The extra $100 billion is going to subsidize Republican tax breaks for big business and the wealthy. The American people are bound to ask themselves, ``Where were the Republicans in 1993?''--when not a single one voted for the tough OBRA 1993 plan that both protected Medicare's solvency through the end of the decade, and produced nearly one-half trillion dollars in deficit reduction? That is why it is all the more ironic that today, the Republicans are demanding that we slash the heart out of Medicare; cut $10 billion from the Student Loan Program; cut one-third of Federal funding for nondefense research and development; and keep the National Institutes of Health from expanding its research on women's health, breast cancer, heart disease, and prostate cancer. All this is supposed to be necessary in order to help protect our future. Don't you believe it. Don't let the Republicans make Medicare, student loans, and other valuable investment programs into a cash cow, simply in order to fulfill their campaign promises. The American people will understand what we do here today, and they will thank us for voting ``no'' on this misguided budget resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as a 10th generation American who realizes that every country has had a flag and most have a constitution, I would remind my colleagues the one thing that makes us unique is the Bill of Rights. I do not think we need to trifle with it. I rise in opposition to this legislation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I regret, Mr. Chairman, I did not want to object, but I wanted to make certain that everybody has the opportunity to discuss this.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Brownback amendment to restore funding to the New Independent States. This funding will provide needed assistance to Ukraine, a nation which has consistently been a leader among these new and independent nations. Although I strongly support AID and am not pleased with further cuts to AID in order to fund the New Independent States, I also feel we must send a strong message of support for Ukraine. I hope we can address the AID shortfall as this bill moves through Congress. Ukraine has instituted democratic reforms which have made it one of the most politically stable nations in the region. Ukraine and her people play an undeniably important role in this post-cold war world and we would be foolish not to recognize this fact and do everything we can to foster stability and development in that nation. With more than 18 percent of the population of the newly independent states, Ukraine has consistently received under 10 percent of the total U.S. aid provided to the former Soviet Union. To let this continue would be neither fair nor prudent. Geographically, Ukraine is the largest nation solely in Europe. Seven decades of Soviet rule and collectivization destroyed Ukraine's once-rich agricultural system, while militarization and the arms race left a huge military-industrial complex which does nothing to feed or house Ukraine's 52 million people. This complex must continue to be converted to nonmilitary uses. If a humanitarian interest in helping our Ukrainian friends isn't a compelling enough reason to support aid to Ukraine, then certainly, my colleagues will agree that the United States has a significant security interest in making sure this conversion takes place. Despite the recent developments in Russia, we simply cannot punish its neighboring nations, like Ukraine, by denying vital assistance to these new and struggling nations. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues' support for the people of Ukraine and their vote in favor of this amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I object, really, on the grounds that this is a very important amendment and it has just come to my attention.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I would object to a time limit on the grounds that this is a very important amendment and it has just come to my attention that the money from this amendment is coming from family planning. And we would like to have a thorough discussion of it.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the World War II veterans who served as combat artists. The art collections of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard provide a pictorial memory using the medium of fine art to record the military heritage of America and to provide insights into the experiences of individual members of the Armed Forces. Regardless of service affiliation, the World War II combat artist was assigned to document events of military importance. These included frontline battles, combat service support, areas of operations, and incidents in the daily lives of military men and women. Their paintings and drawings are [[Page E 1340]] varied in personal interpretation, but are alike in their portrayal of the reality of war. The Department of Defense 50th Anniversary of World War II Commemoration Committee is honoring the combat artists from World War II with an exhibition opening Friday, June 30, 1995 at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC. The artists whose works will be displayed are: From the Army: Leslie Anderson, Bernard Arnest, Howard D. Becker, Howard Brodie, Manuel Bromberg, James D. Brooks, William V. Caldwell, Harry A. Davis, Harry Dix, Frank Duncan, Olin Dows, Loren Fisher, Jean Flannigan, Albert Gold, Robert Gottsegen, Robert MacDonald Graham Jr., Robert Greenhalgh, Hans Helweg, Richard H. Jansen, Steven R. Kidd, Wayne Larabee, David Lax, Ludwig Mactarian, Hans Mangelsdorf, Barse Miller, James Neace, Charles Peterson, John Pike, Savo Radulovic, Edward Reep, Julian Ritter, John A. Ruge, Edward Sallenback, John Scott, Sidney Simon, Mitchell Siporin, Samuel D. Smith, Harrison Standley, Joseph Steffanelli, A. Brockie Stevenson, Ann B. Tilson, Frede Vidar, Rudolph C. Von Ripper, John A. Wittebrood, and Milford Zornes. From the Navy: Standish Backus, Jr., Griffith Bailey Coale, William Franklin Draper, Mitchell Jamieson, Edward Millman, Albert K. Murray, Alexander P. Russo, and Dwight C. Shepler. From the Air Force: Richard Wood Baldwin, Charles Baskerville, Edward Brodney, R. Munsell Chambers, G. Frederick Cole, Almer F. Howard, John Lavalle, Clayton Knight, Robert Laessig, Jack Levine, Milton Marx, John T. McCoy, Jr., Arthur G. Murphy, Oke G. Nordgren, George Edward Porter, Arthur S. Rothenberg, James Powell Scott, Maltby Sykes, and William Peter Welsh. From the Marines: Paul Arlt, John Degrasse, Donald Dickson, Vic Donahue, James Donovan, Tom Dunn, John Fabion, Richard Gibney, Victor Guinness, Harry Jackson, Walter Anthony Jones, Woodrow A. Kessler, Hugh Laidman, John McDermott, and Charles Waterhouse. From the Coast Guard: Gare Antresian, Tom Asplundt, Peter Cook, Robert Daley, Ralph DeBurgos, Russell Dickerson, Joseph DiGemma, Di Valentine, Max Dorothy, Bruno Figallo, Anton Otto Fischer, John Floherty, Jack Gildersleeve, John Gretzer, Sherman Groenske, Lawrence Jenson, Jack Keeler, Sandor Klein, Joe Lane, Leonardo Mariani, Kenneth Miller, John Morris, John B. Norall, Ken Riley, Richard Saar, Michael Senich, Norman Thomas, Robert Tucker, Ronald Ullman, H.B. Vestal, John Wisinki, and Hunter Wood. America is grateful for this powerful legacy--rich in its emotional context--and is proud to recognize these artists who served their country during World War II.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to pause to recognize and commend the Rochester law firm of Harter, Secrest, and Emery on the occasion of completing its' first 100 years of service to its business and personal clients across the Nation. Harter, Secrest, and Emery has a long history of community service and is one of the leading law practices in the Northeast. It was founded by James Havens and Nathaniel Foote in 1893. Foote was one of the original founders and first president of the Rochester Bar Association, which eventually evolved into the Monroe County Bar Association, and he was appointed to the New York State Supreme Court by Governor Higgins. He later was elevated to the Appellate Division. Partner James Breck Perkins joined the firm in 1898 and began a long history of civic involvement. Perkins was an author, musician, and historian, and served five terms in the U.S. Congress, first elected in 1900. Founding partner, James Havens was a noted libel defense lawyer and active in the Democratic Party. He served out the final congressional term of his partner, James Perkins, who died while in office. Havens then declined an opportunity to run for Governor of New York State; instead he took the post of general counsel and vice president for Eastman Kodak Co. William Strang, like his partner, James Havens, was a community activist. He joined the firm in 1907 and methodically built his practice. He was elected president of the Bar in 1928, president of the Chamber of Commerce in 1945, and Grand Master of the New York State Masons. Partner C. Vincent Wiser served as one of the area's premier real estate attorneys. With retail magnate, J.C. McCurdy, he crafted and developed Midtown Plaza, in Rochester, NY. This was the first urban mall in the country. He also served as a city planning commissioner from 1949-1964. Hyman Freeman perpetuated the firm's history of community selflessness. He distinguished himself in politics as well. Freeman served on city council from 1955-1967, and was elected vice-mayor in 1966. Freeman also served as president of the Monroe County Bar Association and was a prominent leader of the Jewish Welfare Fund. Partner Richard Secrest excelled in business law, building the firm's corporate department. He set precedent with his aggressive and innovative representation of corporations. Secrest received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal and the Purple Heart for outstanding service during World War II. Donald Harter joined the firm in 1940 and immediately established himself as a leader in local, State, and national bar associations. His community legacy includes laying the foundation for Strong Museum, presently located in Rochester, NY. R. Clinton Emery further expanded the firm's corporate involvement. He spread the company's corporate representative influence throughout upstate New York and set in place many internal business practices that are still being used today. The centennial of the law firm of Harter, Secrest and Emery is an appropriate time to reflect upon the prominent role that the firm has played in the history of Rochester. With its' rich tradition of innovation and civic involvement this firm will be an integral part of the Greater Rochester area in the years to come. Therefore, I rise today to congratulate Harter, Secrest, and Emery and wish them well as they embark on the next century.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 373 earlier today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' request to alter order of consideration of amendments

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rochester, New York's Northeast Block Club Alliance [NEBCA] and First Federal Savings and Loan Association, together one of six partnerships in the country to receive the prestigious Social Compact 1995 Outstanding Community Investment Award. NEBCA and First Federal were recognized for creating First Place, a project that transformed a 5\1/2\ acre city block of vacant and deteriorating properties into a vibrant new neighborhood. First Place has created new homes for 50 low- and moderate-income families by building the first large-scale residential housing development in downtown Rochester in 30 years. In anticipation of First Federal's 100th anniversary in March 1993, president and CEO Thomas N. Borshoff spearheaded an intensive study to determine the housing needs of Rochester and target at risk communities. After identifying 5.3 acres of a distressed, inner-city neighborhood, First Federal acquired 15 vacant properties and worked closely with the city of Rochester to reconfigure the area as a future residential community. To launch the project, First Federal waived the normal developer's fee, provided no-interest construction financing, and also agreed to offer 30 year, fixed-rate mortgages to ensure affordable monthly mortgages for each borrower. First Place also owes a great to NEBCA, which has dedicated its energies to serving low- and moderate-income households in Rochester since its inception in 1976. Through its social service and housing programs, NEBCA has preserved existing housing stock, promoted owner- occupied homeownership, provided elderly and day care, and organized resident participation in crime prevention and community policing programs. With the help of First Federal and the city of Rochester, NEBCA was able to transform First Place from concept to reality. As of March 1995, 29 of 30 homes have been completed and sold, with another 15 under construction and expected to be completed this fall. Large families who used to live in overpriced, poorly maintained, and absentee-owned apartments now have the opportunity to own their own quality homes at a monthly cost that is less than their former rental payments. In addition to the tremendous strides First Place has made in housing, the NEBCA-First Federal alliance has also provided important jobs for local minority contractors and established a youth training program for high school students. These factors will not only provide many of our young people with a skilled trade for the future, but they also foster pride and continued commitment to the community, as well. Because of these landmark achievements, NEBCA and First Federal were rightly recognized by the Social Compact, a coalition of financial services CEO's and neighborhood organizations dedicated to promoting proven, effective strategies for strengthening America's most vulnerable neighborhoods. Mr. Speaker, the First Place project has infused a new hope in Northeast Rochester, and presented all of us with a model of a successful alliance between local government, a community organization, and a financial institution. Through close collaboration, NEBCA, Rochester, and First Federal removed administrative obstacles, streamlined approval processes, and worked directly with residents to keep the First Place project on a fast track. Because of their efforts, First Place evolved from an initial idea to owner-occupied affordable housing in the span of just 2 years. Finally, the success of First Place has convinced other cities to take note: discussions are already underway in the cities of Buffalo and New York for replication of this model project. Mr. Speaker, we should all recognize the outstanding NEBCA-First Federal partnership and the efforts of the Social Compact. Please join me in saluting their service to our cities and our Nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the village of Fairport's firefighters for hosting the 100th Anniversary Convention of the Northern Central New York Volunteer Firemen's Association. The Northern Central Volunteers have provided an invaluable service not only to volunteer firefighters throughout upstate New York, but also to the many people whose lives they have protected. I am pleased that my home village of Fairport is playing such a significant role by hosting this important event. The Northern Central New York Firemen's Association was created in 1895 when William Weedsport and a few other volunteer firefighters between Rochester and Syracuse met to discuss issues relative to firefighters in their region. Since then, they have been a local adjunct to the Fire Association of New York State. The Northern Central New York Volunteer Firemen's Association has worked very closely with its State association to promote and protect the interests of firemen for the past 100 years. The Northern Central delegation's contribution to the history of firefighters in New York State has been immeasurable. Three of the presidents of the Firemen's Association of New York State and one president-elect have come from the Northern Central Association in the past 15 years. Several of the Northern Central Volunteers have also served as trustees and presidents for the Firemen's Home in Hudson, NY. The Rochester delegation of the Northern Central Volunteers also has a long history of leadership. After the Second World War, the Northern Central volunteers grew in membership and geographical area. Seneca, Ontario, Oswego, Steuben, and Yates Counties were added to the existent membership in Cayuga, Monroe, Onondaga and Wayne Counties. Sam Pitcher of Fairport, Joey Kuhn of Penfield and Lavern Barrett of Lyons were instrumental in adapting the Northern Central Firemen's Association to this dramatic growth. By writing a new constitution, creating new committees such as the Public Relations Committees, establishing new honors such as the Fireman of the Year Award, and launching new program's such as the Ladies Day Program, they and all of the members since 1895 have helped carry the Northern Central volunteer firemen into the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, we should all be thankful for the courage and commitment to the safety of the people of New York State that the Northern Central volunteer firemen have displayed over the past 100 years. Please join me in saluting their service to our Nation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to support my resolution to demand that our Government work to stop the sex trafficking and forced prostitution of women and girls from Burma into Thailand. I am pleased that my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, has introduced this same bill in the Senate. I was appalled and disgusted to discover that the Government of Thailand has permitted the trafficking of women of brothels. Credible reports have indicated that thousands of Burmese women and girls, as young as 14, are being led into Thailand with false promises of employment, only to be forced to work in brothels under conditions which include sexual and physical violence, debt bondage, exposure to HIV, passport deprivation, and illegal confinement. In addition, members of the Thai police are often actively involved. And now we read in our own New York Times, that Thai women are being brought to the United States for the same purpose. This is a practice the U.S. Government must not support and we must work to stop it, before it becomes a practice quietly condoned and supported worldwide. As we debate the foreign aid budget, we must remember the gross human rights violations which occur against women, and we must remember we have a moral duty to pay attention. We have ignored it for too long. This is an issue of fundamental human rights.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, this is Ruth Lowenguth. She lives in my district, is a constituent of mine. She is 83 years old. Now, I know she does not like it, but we are hearty people in Rochester, and she is also testament to our extraordinary health care system there. But Ruth, like 80 percent of the Medicare home care health users, will be living on a fixed income of less than $15,000 a year. Three-quarters of the people in that category are over age 75, and two-thirds of them are elderly women. Now, Mrs. Lowenguth has a small pension and a modest Social Security check, and she pays all health costs that are not covered by Medicare. That is only about half of the health care expenses. If she had to pay 20 percent more to get home health care, it would be an additional $1,200 a year for her. She cannot spend that money then on housing, or food, or prescription drugs, or other necessities. It is $1,200 that she and millions of other women on fixed incomes just cannot afford. Why are they faced with this threat? Because Republicans want to cut Medicare to give a tax break to the very wealthy. Another thing that is very concerning to me, Mr. Chairman, is the amount of money that I think we may be losing from women's health care, an initiative that is long overdue, and it is only 4 years old. We have been able to provide quite a bit of money that was never there before. Actually, it looks like quite a bit compared to zero for breast cancer research, and we have systematically tried to put more and more in. We cannot turn back on that commitment now because breast cancer kills one American woman every 12 minutes; more than 40,000 of them will die this year. Mr. Chairman, all women are at risk of getting breast cancer. More than 70 percent have no known risk factor, and the incidence has doubled in the last 30 years, so much more research is needed. But it is not likely to happen. A 5-percent cut in funding for the National Institutes of Health would mean that research on breast cancer, ovarian cancer, cervical cancer, and a host of other diseases will be competing for scarce dollars, and we could lose ground on very important progress. For the first time, mortality rates are declining among breast cancer. If this program stalls from lack of funding, what will my Republican colleagues say to the women who will be diagnosed during the 1990's? Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to think of the mothers, women, sisters, all their relatives back in their district, and think about this and vote ``no.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, one group of children that no Member here is lobbying for--and it is obvious we lobby for our own and our grandchildren--are the homeless children in the United States, numbering between 750,000 and 1 million on a daily basis. These are not children that caused the deficit. These are the children of parents who used to work and who do not anymore. This program, which is very modest, has helped over 350,000 children since 1990. The number of homeless children not in school because of this program has dropped from 50 to 18 percent. Obviously it works. A nation that believes that it is better to allow 750,000 to 1 million American children to grow up in shelters and on the streets and not to be in school has no reason to expect not to reap the whirlwind that growing up uneducated, unhealthy, and untrained will assure us. This program that costs so little and produces so much could only be eliminated by meanness. It is a total transfer of the benefits for homeless children to the very rich who benefit from the tax cut.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to respond to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe], because I have a report on the homeless in his own district. There are 64 children right now in Amphi High School. Three earned a 4.0 grade average in 1992, another 5 GPA's at 3.5 or better. Ninety percent have improved their grades since entering the program. None of the students served by the McKinney grant dropped out of the school in the first semester. We believe the success of these students is due to our policy of encouraging perfect attendance and academic excellence, as well as to the support they receive from the independent living class.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this worthwhile program, modest yet dramatically effective, has drawn quite a bit of fire in recent days. I would like to take this opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about the program, voiced by my colleague from Arizona, [Mr. Kolbe]. My colleague objects strongly to this program for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth, because of concerns that the program is overly bureaucratic. This is simply not the case at all. The McKinney program directly funds just one Homeless Education coordinator in each State; and over half of those coordinators only work part-time on the program. More than 80 percent of all funding goes straight to the local school districts. At last count, about 500 local school districts were running homeless education programs with McKinney funding. My colleagues also quotes from a Department of Education document which states that the McKinney program ``provides formula grants to States to operate an Office of Coordinator of Education for Homeless Children and Youth.'' The implication is that the program exists only to support bureaucrats. However, my colleague failed to read further in the program description, in which it is stated that the program also has responsibility ``to develop and carry out a State plan for the education of homeless children. States also make subgrants to local educational agencies for tutoring, transportation and other services intended to enable homeless children to enroll in, attend and succeed in school.'' (Department of Education Fiscal Year 1996 Budget Summary and Background Information) And that is what this program does so well--it gets funding to local school districts, who have designed special projects tailored to their local needs. Local school districts submit applications as part of a competitive process; only the best proposals win. The States make the final decisions; the localities design their own programs; and the Federal Government lets them do what they do best. No other Federal program targets these vulnerable homeless children in this way. We must oppose any attempt to eliminate the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program; because without this program, literally hundreds of thousands of homeless children will never get to school. I am submitting a Project Description from the Amphitheater Public Schools Education for Homeless Youth Program in Tucson and Pima County Arizona. Amphitheater's program, called ``Youth on Their Own,'' works with high school homeless youth, and is one of two McKinney-funded homeless education programs in my colleague's district. The other program, run by the Tucson Unified School District, reaches out to elementary school-age homeless children. The Amphitheater Project Description explains better than I can how the program works, how they are using their McKinney funding, and why this McKinney funding is so valuable to local school districts all across the country. Project Description--Arizona Department of Education education for homeless children and youth 1. District: Amphitheater Public Schools. 2. Contact person: Ann Young; Telephone (602) 297-4555. 3. Number of homeless children in school district (from attached survey): 317+; Number to be served by this project: 317+. 4. Project period (Maximum 15 months: From August 1993 to September 1994. 5. Describe services to be provided: Educational assistance targeted for the homeless will be supplemental to the school program and will include a course in independent living set up to assist the students in learning the skills needed to survive on their own. A full time teacher will be hired to teach the course to an integrated student body so the homeless youths will not be isolated and stigmatized. He/she will also be responsible for assisting the students with course, college and career choices, helping in the identification and screening of homeless youth, coordinating with parents, teachers, school personnel, and private and public agencies, acting as a liaison to help the homeless enroll and succeed in school, and making home visits. Tutorial services will be provided to assist students in reaching their academic goals. Outreach effort to identify and assist homeless students in entering and becoming integrated into our schools, in obtaining residency status and the documentation necessary for government and social services. Assistance will be given in finding lodging with volunteer parents or on their own, medical and dental services, obtaining free breakfast and lunch, food stamps, AHCCS, SOBRA, DES, AFDC, clothing and household goods, emergency food from the food bank, part-time employment, a monthly stipend dependent upon good attendance, counseling, and mentoring. 6. Describe how the project is coordinated with the regular district educational program and integrates homeless children with non-homeless children: Our program will advocate for children and youth to ensure their acceptance as students in the Amphitheater School District. A hotline for students who have difficulty meeting the criteria of the school district because of homelessness will be available at each school to assist the school personnel in determining homelessness status. Ongoing education of school personnel will be addressed. The course in independent living which will address housing, nutrition, health, economic, and other basic needs will be available to all students so the homeless student will not be stigmatized. The Youth on Their Own support program also includes children who are not considered homeless under the McKinney guidelines--those living with friends and relatives on a comparatively stable basis. Every effort is made to mainstream the homeless youth so they are not isolated as a group from the school body. 7. Describe current districtwide efforts to remove barriers to the education of homeless children, pursuant to the McKinney Act (i.e. [[Page E1067]] documentation and residency policies, expedited assessments, outreach, etc.). Do not include activities funded by a McKinney Homeless Assistance grant. Amphitheater School District is making efforts to remove barriers to the education of homeless children, but the documentation and residency policies must still be evaluated on a case by case basis. It is not known how many children are helped or hampered by the present policies. Schools are to be asked to gather data as a basis for improvement efforts. An attempt will be made to enlarge the schools' influence on the out-of-school environment. The high school hired a social worker this year who has helped to expedite assessments and outreach efforts. We have volunteers working with the homeless students on a one to one basis.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995, and why I became a cosponsor establish the basis for a comprehensive colorectal cancer screening program in the United States. The bill is designed, however, to leave the important decision about how to screen for colorectal cancer where it belongs--with the patient and his or her physician, not the Federal Government. Colorectal cancer screening is, as the saying goes, ``an idea whose time has come.'' A number of recent medical studies confirm that the best way to reduce the mortality rate for colorectal cancer is to ensure that more of the approximately 60 million Americans between the ages of 50 and 75 follow the recommendations of the American Cancer Society and be screened every 3 to 5 years for early signs of precancerous polyps in the colorectal area. About 150,000 new cases of colorectal cancer are diagnosed in the United States each year, and more then 60,000 Americans will die from this disease. Thousands of these deaths could be prevented by catching the disease at the earliest possible stage through screening. The Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 amends the Social Security Act to include coverage for periodic colorectal cancer screening as a covered benefit under the Medicare Program. This will ensure coverage for screening individuals over the age of 65, and hopefully will lead private health care plans to establish screening programs that start at age 50. Equally important, the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 does not force the Federal Government into the physician-patient relationship with regard to the decision on how to screen for colorectal cancer. The bill permits a number of current screening procedures to be used, and establishes a mechanism through which new technologies can be included as they are developed and can be provided within the reimbursement levels set pursuant to the legislation. It is critical that we leave the decision on how to screen to the physician and the patient for a number of reasons. First, with regards to current technologies, the medical literature indicates that colorectal cancer screening can be accomplished with a number of different procedures, each of which has distinct advantages and disadvantages. For example, screening with sigmoidoscopy is generally seen as more convenient than the other procedures because it can be performed by a general physician during a comprehensive physical, and costs about $125 to $200. The clear disadvantage of sigmoidoscopy, however, is that it reaches only one-half of the colon and, therefore, is incapable of finding about 50 percent of the cancers and precancerous polyps. As a result, it is impossible for a physician to tell a patient who has been screened with sigmoidoscopy that they do not have colon cancer or precancerous polyps in their colon. By contrast, the barium sulfate enema examination and colonoscopy are capable of examining the entire colon and can detect between 90 and 95 percent of the polyps and lesions. The disadvantages of these procedures are cost--barium enema charges are about $200 to $350, and colonoscopy charges commonly exceed $1,000--and convenience. In addition, the risks of perforation from colonoscopy are about 10 times greater than for the barium sulfate examination. The Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 keeps the Federal Government out of the process of deciding which procedure is right for each patient. The other critical reason to leave individual screening decisions to physicians and patients is that it allows for the development of new technologies. For example, a number of research centers in the United States are working on a new technology for colorectal cancer screening that uses computers to create a virtual reality image of the colon and colorectal area from a single 45-second CAT scan. It has the potential to make colorectal cancer screening more cost-effective, and more accepted by patients than the current alternatives. Unlike other proposals for colorectal cancer screening, the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995 encourages research and development on these new technologies because it provides a mechanism to have the procedures covered under Medicare when it is ready for patient use. In conclusion, medical research has provided the evidence to make clear that it is time for the United States to develop a program for colorectal cancer screening. Today, less than 1 percent of all Americans over the age of 65 have ever been screened for colorectal cancer. That has to change. The goal of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Act of 1995, H.R. 1046, is to cut by 50 percent the number of Americans who die of colorectal cancer--30,000 lives. Including colorectal cancer screening as a covered benefit under Medicare will establish the beginning of a program that can accomplish this goal. I urge my colleagues to examine this legislation, and hope that you will join me as a cosponsor of the bill.