Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of deficit reduction and in opposition to a bill that will add at least $700 billion to the deficit. The legislation before us today will give millions of dollars to the wealthiest in our society at the expense of our children, senior citizens, the disabled and working American families. The arguments we have heard to day in support of H.R. 1215, are all to familiar. It was only 15 years ago when the Reagan revolution came here to Washington to ask for deep tax cuts of the wealth, and for corporations. In the early 1980's our debt stood at $1 trillion, by the end of that same decade the debt was close to $4 trillion. We have all listened to the Republican criticism of the President's fiscal year 1996 budget concerning deficit reduction. However, it should be pointed out that if the President did not have to finance the 1980 debt ``gift'', his budget would have been balanced. That's better than a glide path. The same misguided policies and economics that allowed our debt to triple in less than 10 years, are driving this huge tax give away. We have heard that this hugh massive irresponsible tax give away, will spur economic growth. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle need a refresher course. Fifteen months after the 1981 tax cuts, the unemployment rate soared to 10.8 percent, it highest point since the end of the great depression. I would question the wisdom of turning our backs on deficit reduction. As a member of the House Budget Committee, I have heard testimony from numerous economists who have cautioned us in proceeding down a dangerous path. Even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a vocal proponent of a capital gains tax cut, recommended caution and reminded us that the most important thing we could do for long-term economic growth is to reduce the deficit. Adding an additional $700 billion would do little to reduce the deficit and reduce long-term interest rates which directly impact short term investments. We do have a choice before us today. We can support real relief for working families without jeopardizing deficit reduction or we can support relief for multinational corporations and wealthy citizens. The Democratic substitute includes necessary triggers to prevent any tax relief from adding to the deficit, unlike the Republican bill which simply calls on CBO to tell us that the deficit targets were not met and that automatic cuts in entitlements and discretionary accounts are necessary. It does not force the cuts nor does it give any specific cuts. The Democratic alternative repeals the tax relief provisions in the event that the deficit climbs above established targets. Included in the Democratic alternative are real investments in our future economic strength while ensuring that all of the benefits are targeted to taxpayers with adjusted gross income and less than $100,000. The substitute provides for a deduction for educational expenses of up to $10,000; a restoration of the deduction for student loan interest; an expansion of the current IRA Program to make more Americans eligible and to allow for penalty-free withdrawals for education and an enhancement of the Savings Bond Program to increase the rate of return to help families save for education without suffering any tax penalty. The Democrats are investing in our children and our economic future. What kind of country will we become when education opportunities only exist for the very wealthy? When students graduating from college cannot afford to purchase a home or a car because of staggering college loan payments? We are forcing today's college students into major debt before they turn 25. For our generation a mortgage represented a family's major debt, today it is a college education. What impact does this have on our economy and our ability to compete in global economy. If we do only one thing to help families and improve economic opportunities for all Americans, it would be investing in education. The Democratic substitute ensures fiscal responsibility while providing necessary relief to working families. What price are we willing to pay to help major corporations and the top 10 percent of earners. Are we willing to cut school lunches? Cut student loans and Pell Grants? Cut Medicare and long-term care for the disabled and senior citizens? Eliminating or drastically reducing COLA's for Federal and military retirees? Are we willing to allow major cuts in breast cancer research. If you answer no to any of these choices, you must defeat H.R. 1215. included in this legislation is a call to cut $100 billion over 5 years from domestic and military spending. I ask my colleagues to seriously consider the ramifications of today's dangerous vote. Do not be fooled by the rhetoric of yesterday. We have a choice--we can vote for the Democratic alternative and vote for families and economic stability or we can vote for the Republican bill and send the deficit through the roof. We simply cannot justify this type of reckless borrowing to give tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of real working families and the most vulnerable in our society.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained and was unable to be present for rollcall vote No. 285. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.'' amendments offered by mr. dornan

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to get in on this a little bit, too. The fact of the matter is that the block grant program, with some increase, is really the amount of children right now in the State that requires nutritional help. If there are more, as one of my colleagues has said earlier, it is like counting up to 100 and saying the rest of you are out of luck. It does not take into account any recession. It does not take into account the fact that 20 percent of that block grant can be used for anything in the world that the State wants to use it for, even to build a bridge, if they like.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Correct. There is nothing more coming from here. Nothing more will come from here. The States, there is nothing in the world to make the States do anything, including putting people to work. As a matter of fact, the Republican head of the Congressional Budget Office said just today that there was not a single state in the union that was going to meet the goal of putting people to work that is in this contract. That is the Republican CBO director. That is the word we got from him today. We are trying, on our side, to get people back to work. We do not think that just after the amount of time that you can spend on welfare is up and you are thrown out in the street, we do not consider that success. We look at success in getting somebody to a job that they badly need and they badly want. The Republican bill does not do any of that. It simply gives you the amount of time. If there are more children that need food than the block grant allows for, tough. Now, if we can feed children in Somalia, we can feed people in the United States. I yield back to the gentleman from Ohio, after I stick this on New York, 7800 children in my district alone will go without lunch.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, none of us like the status quo, but all Americans agree in their considered opinion that this bill goes too far. This bill is too extreme. Americans oppose this plan that hurts poor women and children in order, and this is the most important part, in order to pay for a tax cut for the most wealthy. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the rule and hold out for some fairness in the debate. Americans know that the best way to cut down on dependency is to encourage economic self- sufficiency and end welfare as we know it is to get people into jobs. The Republicans legislation does nothing to further that goal. It concentrates all of its attention on punitive cuts to programs that provide food, shelter, and clothing to poor children. It does nothing to help the poor children's parents to get into the jobs that they not only badly need, they badly want. One fatal flaw is it removes any obligation for the State to provide job placement and job skill training. In fact, if they just get them off welfare, that is considered a success. But if they are kicked off welfare and into the street and into homelessness, we do not consider that a success. Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to vote against this rule.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as one of the authors of the Violence Against Women Act, I was proud to join President Clinton at the White House earlier today to announce the appointment of former Iowa Attorney General Bonnie Campbell to direct the Violence Against Women Office at the Department of Justice. The Violence Against Women Act, which passed with strong bipartisan support, is the first comprehensive Federal effort to fight violence against women. Long before Nicole Simpson was a household name, violence against women was one of America's most serious crime problems and most hidden secrets. Unfortunately, our local agencies were often inadequately trained, or hindered by scarce resources, and unable to tackle the problem. Today, we say, ``no more.'' Funding will begin to flow to the States to bolster their law enforcement, prosecution, and victim services that address violence against women. A national family violence hotline will be established. As a result of the rape victim shield law, which prevents abusive inquiries into one's past, victims will no longer be the ones put on trial. And individuals convicted of certain Federal sex abuse laws will be ordered to pay restitution to their victims. Crimes against women are rising much faster than total crime. Today we say, ``no more.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today the House approved over $17 billion dollars in rescissions, the largest package that has ever come to the floor which unfairly targets senior citizens, low-income families and our children. Many of my colleagues have risen today to argue against the bill and the arbitrary, across-the-board cuts it makes to some of our most vital programs. I would like to draw our attention specifically to the Labor Department's Summer Youth Program, because under the package, Summer Youth would be totally eliminated. Mr. Speaker, many of us on both sides of the aisle would have fought against the rescission affecting our Nation's youth, but we never had the chance during consideration of amendments. Make no mistake-- enactment of H.R. 1158 would mean the elimination of summer jobs for over 500,000 youths and fewer job opportunities in the future as our children enter the job market. Many mayors and local officials throughout the country have voiced their strong support for maintaining the Summer Youth Program. Mayor William Johnson of Rochester, New York, the heart of my Congressional district, offered an eloquent defense of the Summer Youth Program in a recent testimony before the Economic and Educational Subcommittee on Post-Secondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning. At this point, I would like to insert Mayor Johnson's statement into the Record. I invite my colleagues to read it carefully to see what a wise investment we once made for young Americans across the country. Statement of Mayor William A. Johnson, Jr., Mayor, City of Rochester, New York Chairman McKeon and other members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors and my counterparts from hundreds of cities across the country, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the opportunity to testify at these subcommittee hearings on youth training programs. This is a subject that I feel especially competent to address, given my long years of professional involvement in this area. Before being elected Mayor of Rochester, I spent 21 years as the CEO of a large human services organization that provided job training programs to youths and adults. I understand that the primary purpose of the hearings is to review which programs are most effective and determine whether these programs can and should be consolidated. If you will permit me, I will address the latter question first. I fully support the consolidation of the various grant programs, to reduce the administrative costs of local governments and to provide them with the flexibility to design local programs based not upon what type of funds are available from Washington but upon what types of needs exist in the community. As a group, the Conference of Mayors also supports consolidation. Indeed, for the past three years, it has formally adopted a policy statement endorsing it. However, if consolidation takes the form of block grants to states, to permit the benefits of efficiency and flexibility to be achieved, there must be some mechanism to ensure that the funds are directed towards local governments. There must be a mandate within the legislation for the funds to be passed through the states to municipalities, the actual providers of training services. Municipalities have convincingly demonstrated their ability to prudently utilize block grants. The success of the Community Development Block Grant program, with its extensive level of citizen participation, and the Job Training Partnership Act program with its committees of business, labor and educational representatives, illustrate the responsiveness of municipalities to community needs. The future form of the grant programs should not be the foremost concern, though. The continue existence of the these programs should be our primary objective. In a period in which Americans are confronted with increasing economic competition from other nations, it would seem shortsighted to reduce, through major decreases in job training programs, the ability of American workers to successfully meet this competition. In a period in which Americans are being asked to become less dependent on government, it would seem counterproductive to reduce their ability to become independent. To be effective an efficient job training must begin at an early age. Youth must be exposed to the opportunities, expectations and realities of the job marketplace. For most youth, their initial training and experience begins with summer jobs. While, at one time, businesses may have been able to provide an adequate number of such jobs, in more recent times, the private sector has been unable to meet the increasing demand and need. This is most particularly due to the restructuring and transformation that many businesses have experienced in the past decade. Job opportunities that many private sector employees reserved for youth during after-school and summer periods have been ``downsized'' out of existence. For example, in Rochester, over the last four years nearly 4,000 youths had to rely upon the summer jobs provided through federally funded programs, as each summer the number of non-federal jobs dramatically declined. This year, an additional 900 youth are--hopefully--expected to participate in such programs. I say hopefully, because I urge you and the other members of the House to reject the the appropriation recision for the summer youth program that was recently approved by the Appropriations Subcommittee. Nationwide, this recision would result in the elimination of summer job opportunities for 615,000 youth, a move that was totally unexpected. As Seattle Mayor Norm Rice recently said, ``these cuts are reversals of commitments the federal government has already made to communities across the country. It is difficult enough to adapt to future cuts, and absolutely devastating to absorb retroactive ones.'' The reduction would mean that 615,000 youth will be not be given a chance to contribute constructively to their communities this summer. The reduction would mean that 615,000 youth will be less prepared to successfully enter the job market in the future. For New York State youth, the proposed reduction in federal funding comes at a particularly inopportune time. Governor George Pataki has proposed a similar reduction in state funding for youth training programs. The need to maintain government funding for summer jobs is readily recognized by the private sector, which realizes that the need for such jobs continues to exist and that businesses, by themselves, will continue to be unable to adequately address this need. Both the Greater Rochester Metro Chamber of Commerce and the Industrial Management Council, as association of large manufacturing and serve companies, have expressed their serious concern over the proposed elimination of federal funding. They realistically know that the private sector will be unable to fill the ``job gap'' that would ensue if funding is not maintained. They realistically know that there will be a ``tax switch'' if this gap has to be filled through funding by local governments. In cities across this country, our financial base--largely derived form the property tax--will not support the level of demand that is being pushed down upon us by federal, state and county governments. It is imperative that the summer youth job program be preserved. At the annual convention of the Conference of Mayors in Portland, Oregon last year, the program received overwhelming support. The assumption was that funding for the program would be maintained at least at the current level of appropriations. The hope was that funding would be increased. Because of the obvious need for the program and because of its demonstrated effectiveness, no one expected that there soon would be a proposal to totally eliminate funding for the program. Certainly, I personally did not anticipate the need to testify today before you to oppose such elimination. All Americans understand the need to reduce the federal budget deficit. They understand the need to limit the burden that we impose upon future generations. They support your efforts to reduce the deficit, to eliminate waste and inefficiencies and to eradicate fraud. These goals can be achieved in my opinion, without crippling or destroying programs that lead to skills training and self- sufficiency. However, the concern over the future of our youth must be balanced by a concern over this present needs. Unless we address these needs today, unless we prepare youth for meaningful employment tomorrow in an increasingly demanding marketplace, our youth will have no future at all. And with a poorly trained workforce--and an increasing underclass population--our country will have no future at all.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the Crane amendment. As chair of the arts caucus, I have watched in amazement year after year, as the pittance that the National Endowment for the Arts receives from the Federal budget is consistently denigrated, incorrectly characterized, and almost always cut. And all this from an agency whose entire budget is below what is allocated for military bands. While Federal funding for the arts, and art agencies like the National Endowment for the Arts, make up a mere 0.02 percent of the national budget, for each $1 the NEA spends, $11 of activity results. The nonprofit arts industry alone contributes $36.8 billion to the U.S. economy and provides over 1.3 million jobs to Americans nationwide. Business, tourism, restaurants, and hotels strive on the arts. The annual audience for nonprofit theaters serve an audience that has grown from 5 million in 1965 to over 20 million in 1992. More Americans attend art events annually than they attend professional sports events. A 1992 poll sponsored by the American Council on the Arts showed 60 percent of the American people favored Federal support of the arts. Further reductions in funding for the NEA would have adverse implications on both constituents and the cultural agencies in our districts. The author of this amendment must be aware of the ramifications his amendment would have on his own district. The $181,000 received by the Illinois Art Council in past years to support artists residing in Mr. Crane's district would be eliminated. This money made it possible for writing, crafts, theater, dance, and visual arts projects to exist in Palatine and Elk Grove Village, IL--both of which are represented by Congressman Crane. In my district of Rochester, NY, the National Association of Local Arts Agencies found that nonprofit arts organizations spent approximately $124 million annually and supported more than 4,000 full-time jobs. Discussion about our national priorities begin and end with children--they are our future, our legacy, and our greatest resource. What the arts can do in the lives of our Nations children cannot be underestimated. The arts have the power to change a child's life. Children that create do not destroy. Access to art assists in keeping kids in school and off the streets. Art has a positive impact on a child, it enriches their lives and empowers them with a strong sense of self-worth. The NEA stresses that arts education may be the only way to reach at-risk children, deter them from violence, and increase their ability in every academic area giving them a sense of identity and discipline. Children who have art in education are better students with stronger analytical skills and higher esteem. The NEA's Arts in Education Program places 14,500 artists in schools in every State to work with children. Arts education is integral to school curriculum as it affects virtually all areas of learning. Children who learn through the arts improve in every academic area, have better attendance, and have increased motivation to learn. In 1993 the college entrance examination reported that students who studied the arts more than 4 years scored 53 points higher on the verbal portion of the exam and 37 points higher on the math portion of the exam than students with no course work or experience in the arts. This makes it essential for the NEA to be able to continue to provide support to our Nations children. The NEA provides equal access and opportunity to the people of our Nation, many of whom would otherwise be deprived from experiencing the arts in American society. 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?

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, there has been enough tragedy in all of these rescission bills to go around. I see a very great bright spot in what the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] is doing today. In the United States there are anywhere between 750,000 and 1 million education bills that we have, none of the money applies to them, because they are not in school. A few years back with some wisdom we put together a bill here to educate the homeless children, to give them transportation, a piece of paper and pencil to write with. We have reduced the number of homeless children not in school with this bill from 50 percent to 18 and continuing to go down. To take this program out was the height of stupidity. We are not going to be able to compete with the next century if we have children uneducated, unhealthy, and unskilled. I am delighted to support the Porter amendment, because the homeless children in this country who have absolutely no voice but what we can muster in this House will have an opportunity to continue a program. It is not their fault they are homeless. Their mothers and fathers are out of work because we failed somehow to create jobs in this country. But I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for including the homeless children in this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in light of recent committee action I cannot help but be struck by the irony that next week is National School Breakfast Week. I cannot help wonder what I am saying today to students at Barnard School in Greece, NY, when I go to their breakfast and say what I heard this morning was the Republican contract said that if you give school lunches and school breakfasts it helps to break up American families. What am I going to say to a group of homeless students tomorrow, students who would not be in school today if the Congress had not provided for their education? Do I explain to them that Congress no longer believes that they are worthy of our support? Should I say to the school children in the city of Rochester, NY, where over 35,000 students are eligible for free or reduced-priced lunches that they need a more effective lobby? Should I say to the homeless students that perhaps if they were to tie their needs to that of the agricultural industry, they could expect their program to be preserved? Mr. Speaker, we all love to talk about how our children are our future, but with the recent actions of this body, our children must be wondering how they are supposed to be prepared for it.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I know that no Member of the House of Representatives wants to be responsible for the fact that we have stopped the new regulations on food inspection on meat and poultry. I know the fact that 4,000 or 5,000 people will die each year because of that is not anything that Members want. But this morning we have to talk about Cryptosporidium. We cannot avoid the water. Maybe you are a vegetarian and you are not going to eat the meat, but remember when we came back to Washington last year, those of us who served here, and found that the entire water supply in the City of Washington and Northern Virginia had been shutdown and there was no bottled water to be had and people were worried about the hospitals and babies and we did not know how long this was going to last. We simply cannot avoid it. It makes no sense from any standpoint, legislatively or from the standpoint of public health that we would stop the regulations being put forth when we find Cryptosporidium in the water supply of the United States. A Third World country would do it; can't we? I urge Members to vote for this motion to recommit so we can right this wrong.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, national statistics indicate that rapists are ten times more likely to repeat their crimes than other types of criminals. The American people are right to be outraged by the sensational cases where such sexual predators were released into our communities, and often neither the police nor the community knew they were there. Polly Klaas in California and Megan Kanka in New Jersey are two recent examples of young children allegedly home town of Rochester, NY, Arthur Shawcross went on a rampage of serial rape and murder while he was on parole for abusing and murdering two young children. Communities across the Nation have similar horror stories to tell. And we here in Washington heard those stories, and vowed to take action. Last year, I introduced legislation expanding our national crime database to cover all sexual predators. A sexual predator database was included in last year's comprehensive crime legislation, with strong support from Republicans and Democrats alike. By collecting this information nationally, and making it available by computer to every police department in the country, we can help prevent new tragedies from occurring. Let me close with an example of a recent case in which the predators database could have made all the difference. Two years ago, Virginia authorities were puzzled by the crimes of the notorious ``maintenance man rapist,'' who attacked as many as 18 women by posing as a repairman to gain access to their homes and then brutally raping them. Tragically, Eugene Dozier had already been convicted for a string of rapes in New York in which he used exactly the same predatory tactics. He was released from prison in New York and moved down the coast to northern Virginia. Information from a nationwide database would have led Virginia police right to his door. Instead, 18 women were needlessly brutalized before the maintenance man rapist was brought to justice. I urge my colleagues to support the Collins amendment.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown]. (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], a member of the committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], the ranking member of the committee. (Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.) E. coli, salmonella, or any other bacteria on meat. Visual inspection is inadequate. Only microbial testing, as could be required under the U.S. new meat inspection rule, can tell whether the meat we feed our children might actually kill them. At our committee's markup of this bill, we had a young woman who appeared who lives every day with the tragedy that can come from bacterial contamination of meat. Mrs. Nancy Donely from Chicago, IL, lost her 6-year-old son, Alex, in July of 1993 after he ate E. coli contaminated hamburger meat. She has made the safe food campaign her passion. She led opposition to the meat industry's efforts recently to dispense with sampling hamburger for E. coli. She is a very strong advocate for the USDA's new meat inspection regulations. Mrs. Donely has said Alex's last words to her were, and I quote, ``Mommie, don't worry.'' For us not to worry that we have failed to protect little children like Alex from illness and death caused by bacteria-contaminated meat, we have to vote to exempt the meat inspection regulations from the moratorium in this legislation. It just seems to me that there is a commonsense way to go about any kind of bill that would put a moratorium on something that is so important as the food we eat, as the water we drink, as the air we breathe, as benefits we give to all American people, that we simply cannot fail to pass this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York. It just makes good sense in order to do so. Nobody wants to be accused of not protecting our children. We hold our children to be the most precious possessions, and in order for you to continue to protect their health, we certainly have to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. All Members should support this amendment. Unless we explicitly exclude the new meat and poultry inspection rule from the moratorium, the Department of Agriculture has told me that they do not believe the rule would qualify for an exception under the bill's exception for rules that are needed to deal with imminent threats to health or safety. You will likely hear the proponents of the bill claim that they have taken care of this problem in the committee report, and there is no need to worry. Be on notice, however, that in order to exempt the new meat and poultry inspection rule from the moratorium, the Department of Agriculture would have to determine that failure to issue the rule would pose an imminent threat to the public health or safety. Now, I want to make sure each Member of this House understands completely that the Department of Agriculture does not believe it could make the determination necessary to exclude this regulation. Let me read from a letter I received from Michael R. Taylor, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety, that is dated February 22, 1995. It says in part that: All work on the FSIS [Food Safety and Inspection Service] Pathogen Reduction/HACCP proposal would have to be suspended throughout the moratorium period. The public comment period would need to be put on hold. Public information briefings throughout the country to encourage public participation in the rulemaking processs and answer technical questions would need to be canceled. The adverse impact on food safety is an important reason why the Administration opposes the passage of H.R. 450. So, should we care that the moratorium would block implementation of the new meat and poultry inspection rules? I firmly believe we should. Meat and poultry sold to the American consumer are currently being inspected under procedures that were implemented in 1907. These 82-year-old procedures simply call for visual inspection of animal carcasses. The meat inspection rule that the Department of Agriculture published recently in the Federal Register represents a drastic improvement over this outdated, outmodied system. This regulation would, for the first time, simply require that processors test meat and poultry regularly for bacteria. This regulation is also the Agriculture Department's long-awaited response to the massive food borne illness outbreak that spread across the west coast 2 years ago. No one can see E. coli, salmonella, or any other bacteria on meat. Visual inspection is inadequate. Only microbial testing, as could be required under the USDA new meat inspection rule, can tell whether the meat we feed our children might kill them. At our committee's markup of this bill, we had a young woman appear who lives each day with the tragedy which can come from bacteria contamination in meat. Mrs. Nancy Donley, from Chicago, IL, lost her 6- year-old son, Alex, in July of 1993, after he ate E. coli contaminated hamburger meat. She has made the safe food campaign her passion. She led opposition to the meat industry's efforts recently to dispense with sampling hamburger for E. coli, and she is a strong advocate for the USDA's new meat inspection regulation. Mrs. Donley has said that Alex's last words to her were, ``Mommy, don't worry.'' For us ``not to worry'' that we have failed to protect children like Alex from illness and death caused by bacteria contaminated meat, we must vote to exempt the meat inspection regulation from the moratorium in this legislation. I completely disagree with the proponents of this bill that we should delay for 1 minute, much less 6 months, the implementation of regulations that can require the testing needed to detect bacteria on meat. Only such testing will reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from food poisoning. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman's amendment would exempt from the moratorium rules that provide important protections for the public health. If the proponents of the bill feel so strongly that their bill exempts these matters, then we need to make that point explicit and clear in the bill itself. When concerns were raised in the committee about the moratorium's possible application to bank and tax regulations, these matters were excluded from the bill. We should do the same thing for the important food and water safety regulations addressed by the gentlewoman's amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a comment to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], I know previously you worked for Vice President Quayle. I think it is probable we have an obligation to point out you misspelled existence. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli], who has done a good deal of work on this issue.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], a member of the committee.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, anyone who dismisses the problem of micro-organisms in our food has not been reading the newspapers. But few realize just how widespread these quiet killers are. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, bacteria in meat and poultry products cause nearly 4,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year. Last year's outbreak of E. coli at fast food restaurants on the West Coast is just one example of such a tragedy. In fact, there were confirmed outbreaks of E. coli in dozens of States over the past 2 years, and other pathogens such as salmonella are even more widespread. For a person infected by a food-borne pathogen, there is usually no treatment or cure. These diseases are particularly dangerous for children and the elderly, whose immune systems are weaker. For them, the sickness often follows a painful course ending in death. Beyond the enormous human suffering caused by food poisoning in meat products, the economic cost is gigantic. Estimates vary, but the price tag in medical care and lost wages is over $4.5 billion annually. For this reason, I have written a simple, carefully drafted amendment. It would clearly exempt three particular regulations crucial to providing safe food and water. One has to do with the importation of food in lead cans which we do not allow American manufacturers to do, and the other is the cryptosporidium that is being found in America's drinking water. We will hear more about these issues from other speakers. As a former bacteriologist with a master's in public health, I would like to concentrate on the third regulation, which would finally modernize our outmoded meat inspection system. Just this month, the Department of Agriculture started the process of developing new pathogen standards. The proposed rule began a 120-day comment period--double the standard length. The Department also plans an aggressive outreach campaign to hear the views of every concerned party. In fact, the administration has followed a model of responsible regulation, carefully listening to every viewpoint before reaching any decision. Unfortunately, not exempting food safety would stop that process right in its tracks. In a letter to me yesterday, the Undersecretary for Food Safety told me what would happen under a moratorium. He wrote--and I quote: All work on the . . . proposal would have to be suspended throughout the moratorium period. The public comment period would need to be put on hold. Public information briefings throughout the country . . . would have to be cancelled. That is not reform, Mr. Chairman. It is vandalism. This process would benefit everyone, even those who want to change the proposal. It is supported by industry and consumer groups, and suspending it serves no purpose. While we saw the development of new pathogen standards, more Americans will be poisoned by their dinner at home or what they eat in restaurants or what they eat at school. Mr. Chairman, these are invisible killers. We are going to hear that this will be taken care of in the imminent threat to health and safety. Unfortunately, the kinds of pathogens that we are talking about do not give an advanced notice that they are going to happen. We will not know that there is a threat to health and safety until after it has occurred. What we are trying to do with the new regulation, Mr. Chairman, is to prevent it from happening in the first place. The tragedy is that in the United States when food inspection started in Upton Sinclair, we have maintained that same method of operating and checking on meat and poultry, with very little update. What we were doing now was for the first time to recognize the role of pathogens in meat inspection and what happens. But every day that we delay this moratorium that would cause this delay, 11 Americans will lose their lives and every day over 13,000 will be ill. The delay caused by the moratorium will sentence 3,420 more people to die needlessly in the United States. It does not matter what Members think of the details of the Agriculture Department proposal, or it does not matter what they think of the regulatory process overall. It does not matter what their district is or what political party they belong to. A vote for this amendment is a vote for your constituents, it is to ensure that food and water are safe. I am not willing to sacrifice my constituents' lives, health, and wealth on the altar of regulatory reform, and I ask all of my colleagues not to sacrifice theirs. Please support the Slaughter amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett].

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this rule is another rush job, another example of our hit-and-run legislation that we have gotten too much of lately. The time limit in the rule continues a disturbing pattern we have seen that has been developing not only in rules on the floor but in the committees. The process is too sloppy; it is fast and it is arbitrary, and we go through bills in a flash and hope that the Senate will be able to fix them. I think this rule is further proof that the Contract With America is more concerned with flashy public relations than sound public policy. A rushed process has left this bill with many flaws. And now we have a 10-hour time cap that makes it impossible to even talk about fixing its problems. To add insult to injury, the rule counts the time that it takes to vote, again taking away time from this important bill which it is not too broad to say is a matter of life and death. It is not as if the minority is acting irresponsibly. We have coordinated our efforts to limit the number of amendments in interest of efficiency. For example, I am offering a three-part amendment with three of my colleagues, and despite these combinations it is going to be impossible for us to address all of our concerns in the time available. And we have plenty of concerns. shuts down the entire executive branch. In the process it delays or destroys many good regulations, and we are going to offer some amendments to try to affect some of the problems. For example, my amendment would allow an improvement in the meat inspection system to go forward during the moratorium. I have rarely seen such poorly designed definitions in the bill, and even the bill's author cannot explain the exemption definitions clearly enough to determine which regulations are covered and which are not. The prospect of judicial review means a Federal judge could slice this fuzzy language apart, and every time the administration interprets a definition one way, a lawyer will drag the issue into court arguing for a different interpretation. There it will linger for months or years costing money, time and perhaps lives, even after the moratorium is ended. Finally and most importantly, H.R. 450 threatens the health and well- being of every American. Every American is protected by regulations every day. We take it for granted, but these quiet rules ensure our health and safety. We know, for example, that the Clean Water Act has made it possible for us throughout this country to have clean water in every part of the United States. The life-saving regulations with clean water, clean air, food inspection, nuclear plant safety, airline safety, all will be put on hold by this legislation. Every day, from bad meat in the United States, 11 people die and 13,000 become sick because of the pathogens in the meat. The scope of the problem demands action, not delay. We should not stop the proposed improvements dead in their tracks. Delay that is caused by the moratorium would sentence 3,421 more Americans to die needlessly. Mr. Speaker, this rule continues our present practice of hit-and-run legislating. The new leadership cares more about sound bites than substance, and that is why I will vote against this rule and urge all of my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, last night I saw a wonderful cartoon in the latest issue of Business Week. It had an elephant dressed in an obviously very expensive suit, wearing a button on the lapel that said, ``Been robbed, raped, maimed or murdered? Call a block grant.'' That has a lot to say about what we have done here in the first 50 days. We took the crime bill that was passed last year, took away all preventive measures and took away the police on the street who will make the streets safer for us. And that, along with trashing the Constitution, are two very important things that have happened here in the past 50 days. And all Americans ought to know it. We have done very little to address the problems that are really on the minds of Americans today. They have educated their children at great expense.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am sure everybody is confused. They have to be. Who is the best crime fighter in America today? None of us know. But there are a couple things that I know from experience that I had in chairing a public safety committee in the county legislature. One of the things that happened when the pressure really got on the local budgets, they cut back on the police force and decided to patrol neighborhoods in police cars with windows up driving down the streets. We know that that has not worked. And one of the things that the crime bill that we passed here last year is trying to do is to readdress that. There is one way to fight crime. It requires the people who live in the neighborhood to be involved. It requires that there be police in the neighborhood, on the street, in their shops, a policeman that they know, a person they go to, someone who pays attention, looks after heir children, the kind of community policing we used to do in this country. If we revert all the money and put it into prisons, it is not going to make us one wit safer on the street. We have been in an absolute orgy of jail and prison building which has not helped. Someone has got to be on the street to police it, to prevent the crime and to catch the perpetrators. I hope that we will maintain the 100,000 policemen on the street.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, how many more headlines like these do we have to read, and how many more times do we have to hear abut a sexual predator who was released from jail and then terrorized new victims? Just yesterday, the New York Times and the New York Post reported another instance of where a paroled rapist returned to his former tactics. According to the reports, the New York police had just arrested Johnny Rosado for 8 rapes in 1 month. He had been out of jail for a year. All that time he was visiting his parole officer and attending required rape counseling sessions. But the parole officer and the counseling provided no protection for 8 victims, women between the ages of 16 and 28. What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is the parole officers in the State of New York did not want to let Johnny Rosado go free at all. He was denied parole four times before being released on good behavior because there were no women or children to rape in prison. The State parole board told reporters, ``Under our law, he was held as long as he could be. There was nothing we could do.'' If that is the best we can do, Mr. Speaker, we need a new law. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to H.R. 667 later today so that States will not allow second-time sex offenders to go free to pounce again.