Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 918 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 918.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Washington has any remaining speakers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question so that we can give more safety to the miners who work day after day in sometimes unsafe and unspeakable conditions. I also urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 918 Offered By Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following articles supporting H.R. 2768 from Lexington, Kentucky and Salt Lake City, Utah. [From Lexington Herald-Leader, Dec. 10, 2007] Unaddressed Risks: Additional Mine-Safety Measure Needed Congress and President Bush nearly broke their arms patting themselves on the back last year when a new mine-safety act became law. The measure had the coal industry's blessings and was about all that could get through the Republican-controlled Congress, even in a year when 47 miners were killed in accidents, including underground explosions in Kentucky and West Virginia. The MINER Act was a decent start. But it was also riddled with weaknesses, including no provisions that directly addressed the conditions leading to the deaths of 12 men at the Sago, W.Va., mine. There were no requirements that mines have rescue chambers or that miners' emergency breathing devices be subject to random checks to be sure they work. Now it's time to do better. The Supplementary Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act, known as S-MINER, is awaiting action by the House. In addition to filling the previously listed gaps, the measure includes a range of health and safety improvements that have long been needed, including new limits on: Retreat mining, in which coal pillars supporting the mine's roof are removed and which led to the deaths of six miners and three rescuers at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah this year. The use of coal conveyor-belt tunnels to ventilate mines, a practice that carries flames and poison gases to where miners are working when a fire occurs on a conveyor belt and that contributed to the deaths of two miners at the Aracoma mine in West Virginia last year. Also, at long last, the measure requires more advanced technology for measuring dust levels in mines to prevent black lung, the smothering disease that is making a resurgence among American miners. And, in a major advance for mine safety, the bill provides for independent panels to investigate mine accidents causing multiple deaths, injuries or entrapments. Under the current law, the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration is responsible for investigating itself, an obvious conflict of interest. The coal industry argues that it would be unfair to impose new safety requirements while it's still struggling to put last year's law into place. But that's a lame excuse when the proposed changes are so obviously needed. Of course, no law will keep miners safe until Congress and a new president rebuild MSHA. An inspector general recently found that while underground mining increased 9 percent from 2002 to 2006, the number of federal mining inspectors had decreased by 18 percent, from 605 to 496. As a result, MSHA failed to conduct required inspections last year at 107 of the nation's 731 underground coal mines.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the exemplary career of Mr. Neil Nolf, a talented public servant and good friend, who is retiring at the end of the year after decades of public service at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. Since assuming his post as Public Affairs Officer in 1987, I have had the privilege of working with Mr. Nolf on many issues of critical importance to the residents of the 28th Congressional District of New York, especially those that involved improving the lives of the dedicated service men and women at the Air Base. His was a life dedicated to public service and his vision and leadership will be sorely missed. Neil Nolf's life has been driven by a deep/rooted sense of commitment to his community and service to his country. Born and raised in western New York, Mr. Nolf graduated from Buffalo State College in 1975 and began work at the Social Security Administration in Buffalo. Mr. Nolf then left his home in western New York to begin work for the FBI in Washington, DC. From there, he fortunately returned to western New York to begin a very successful career at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. While working full time, Mr. Nolf enlisted as a reservist with the 914th Airlift Wing in 1979, discovering and honing the unique leadership skills that have come to define his lifetime of service. Never content with settling for the status quo, as Public Affairs Officer, Mr. Nolf has been responsible for transforming the Air Reserve Station into the efficient facility that it is today. Overseeing the construction of a new training facility, an officers and airmen quarters, a military entrance processing site, and a much needed runway extension, he was able to the ensure that the 914th Airlift Wing had the critical equipment and facilities required to be one of the most successful units in the country. His leadership has also been significantly tested in recent years, with the 914th Airlift Wing being the most deployed reserve unit in the Nation since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2004. The Air Base, its surrounding communities, and indeed the Nation as a whole, owe a debt of gratitude to Mr. Nolf. His legacy will live on at the Air Base, and I look forward to seeing the Air Base continue to grow and flourish, adding much to the security and the economic viability of our Nation. I am honored today to have the opportunity to pay tribute to his service, and I wish Neil the best as he embarks on the next chapter of his storied life.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 1163, I was unable to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 878 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin, chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, for a response.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies (Mr. Dicks).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). And all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume, and ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 878.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 878 provides 1 hour of debate on the motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 2764, the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act with each of the two House amendments printed in the report accompanying the resolution. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising out of clause 10 of rule XXI, and provides that the Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The rule directs the Chair to divide the question of adoption of the motion between the two House amendments; and, finally, it provides that the Chair may postpone further consideration of the motion to a time designated by the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is our constitutional obligation to ensure that our government is running efficiently, from our children who need quality education to our veterans who need the benefits promised to them when they put their lives on the line for their country, and to our senior citizens who need access to health care and affordable prescription drugs. And I am proud to say that we, here in the House of Representatives, have fulfilled our fiscal responsibility to the American people by passing all 12 of our appropriations bills on time. We've also used our time this year to pass all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, to increase the minimum wage, to promote a 21st century jobs and global economic initiative, add much needed funds to the gulf coast following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and to undertake the largest expansion of college aid since the GI Bill in 1944. We also passed the widely acclaimed landmark lobbying and ethics reforms standards, enacted PAYGO, resulting in no new deficit spending, and passed an unprecedented energy bill that will help our Nation to be more energy efficient, while addressing global warming. We will not soon forget that, of the 12 appropriations bills that we were supposed to have passed in 2006 when Republicans controlled the Chamber, only two were completed. The others were abandoned, requiring the incoming Democrat majority to meet the responsibilities abdicated by an outgoing party that now claims a mantle of fiscal responsibility. Simply put, we were forced to clean up their mess. And according to the Office of Management and Budget, President Bush and the Republican Congress increased Federal spending by nearly 50 percent, turned record surpluses into record deficits, and increased our national debt by more than $3 trillion. And let's not forget that President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress doubled our foreign debt to more than $2 trillion, more in 7 years, Mr. Speaker, more in just 7 years than in the previous 224 years of our Nation combined. Listen to that, America. They did more in 7 years to run up the debt than the previous 224 years of our Nation combined. Now, all this among budget failures that vastly increased our national debt, while leaving the agencies, States and localities in limbo for months concerning their future funding. Let me add to that our children's health program. It is simply astounding to me that the President would request an 11 percent increase for the Pentagon, a 12 percent increase for foreign aid, and $195 billion emergency funding for this terrible war, while in the same breath claiming that any increase in domestic programs needed for the citizens is fiscally irresponsible. We all remember the promises of the Bush administration claiming that, at the most, the Iraq war would cost $50 billion. A recent report issued on November 13 states that the total economic cost of the Iraq war through 2008 exceeds $1.3 trillion, with a projected cost of $3.5 trillion; a long way from $50 billion. I believe the New York Times Editorial Board said it succinctly in their editorial published last week when they wrote, and I quote, ``We know what's behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm for fiscal discipline after years of running up deficits and debt: Political posturing, just in time for the 2008 election.'' But one should not forget the damage that his administration inflicted by shortchanging domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and his never-ending Iraq war. I will submit this editorial for the Congressional Record. [From the New York Times, Dec. 11, 2007] Disabled, and Waiting for Justice We know what is behind President Bush's sudden enthusiasm for fiscal discipline after years of running up deficits and debt: political posturing, just in time for the 2008 election. But one should not forget the damage that his administration has also inflicted by shortchanging important domestic programs in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy and his never-ending Iraq war. A case in point is the worsening bureaucratic delays at the chronically underfunded Social Security Administration that have kept hundreds of thousands of disabled Americans from timely receipt of their Social Security disability benefits. As laid out by Erik Eckholm in the Times on Monday, the backlog of applicants who are awaiting a decision after appealing an initial rejection has soared to 755,000 from 311,000 in 2000. The average wait for an appeals hearing now exceeds 500 days, twice as long as applicants had to wait in 2000. Typically two-thirds of those who appeal eventually win their cases. But during the long wait, their conditions may worsen and their lives often fall apart. More and more people have lost their homes, declared bankruptcy or even died while awaiting an appeals hearing. In one poignant case described by Mr. Eckholm, a North Carolina woman who is tethered to an oxygen tank 24 hours a day has been waiting three years for a decision. She finally got a hearing last month and is awaiting a final verdict, but, meanwhile, she has lost her apartment and alternates sleeping at her daughter's crowded house and a friend's place. The cause of the bottlenecks is well known. There are simply too few administrative law judges--1,025 at present-- to keep up with the workload. The Social Security Administration is adopting automated tools and more efficient administrative practices, but virtually everyone agrees that no real dent will be made in the backlog until the agency can hire more judges and support staff. The blame for this debacle lies mostly with the Republicans. For most of this decade, the administration has held the agency's budget requests down and Republican- dominated Congresses have appropriated less than the administration requested. Now the Democratic-led Congress wants to increase funding to the Social Security Administration, and the White House is resisting. Last month, Congress passed a $151 billion health, education and labor spending bill that would have given the Social Security Administration $275 million more than the president requested, enough to hire a lot more judges and provide other vital services. But Mr. Bush vetoed that bill as profligate. Democrats in Congress are working on a compromise to meet Mr. Bush halfway on the whole range of domestic spending bills. The White House is not interested in compromise. If the president remains intransigent, federal agencies may have to limp along under continuing resolutions that maintain last year's spending levels. That would likely, among many other domestic problems, crimp any new hiring at the Social Security Administration and might require furloughs, leading to even longer waits. Mr. Bush should back down from his veto threat and accept a reasonable compromise. Both sides should ensure that real efforts are made to reduce these intolerable backlogs. Mr. Speaker, this week's actions by the President is just one thread in the appalling tapestry that this administration has in its misplaced policies. Democrats believe that running this House right is a matter of pride. We believe it's a matter of having fundamental respect for both the institution in which we serve and for the citizens who have given us the privilege to serve here. In the spirit of working together, we Democrats in Congress collectively extended our hand to those on the other side of the aisle, including the President, to reconcile our differences and pass this important spending bill. In return, we received nothing but the same obstructionism that has plagued our body and our counterpart on the other side of the Capitol. And today, those same Members who once enjoyed the splendors of having a majority in the House, the Senate and a Republican President, now chastise the Democratic Congress for trying to solve their own fiscal blunders. But their cries ring hollow, Mr. Speaker. Democrats have crafted this omnibus appropriations bill that invests in the American people's priorities, that protects our troops and invests in the homefront, and restores funding to the President's devastating cuts to medical research, to college assistance, to job training, and education and health care. And when my fellow Members of Congress and I cast our votes on this floor this evening, we seek to reconcile our ideals with what is possible to achieve. We seek to do both what is right in principle and necessary at any particular point in time and pray that the two are one in the same. In this bill, we fund programs for medical research, and we provide 280,000 more underinsured Americans with access to health care. We added extra funds for title I, special education, teacher quality grants, after-school programs, and Head Start, while also adding more for Pell Grants and other student aid programs. We added extra funds above the President's request to help local communities hire and train more local law enforcement, while also adding more in homeland security grants to better secure our Nation. We also have met the guaranteed levels set in the authorization bill while adding funds for our bridges, which sorely need it. We invest in solar and wind energy, biofuels, and energy efficiency, while also promoting scientific investments and conservation efforts. And I would like to stress that this bill provides $3.7 billion in additional funding for our veterans health. Mr. Speaker, we all agree that it is unfortunate we are forced to pass an omnibus to get our work done at the end of the year. This is especially disheartening because we Democrats in the House of Representatives have been absolute in our pledge to fund important programs and help the American people. And this omnibus comes only as a remedy to the obstructionism in the other body. The President should accept this reasonable compromise and sign it into law. It is a crucial bill that will keep us on our course of fulfilling our promises to the American people, and I believe it is a clear demonstration of the Democrats' devotion to being fiscally responsible with the money given to us by our fellow citizens. As I shared a quote from an editorial from the New York Times earlier, I would like to close with another quote published on November 26. It states: ``It is clear that Mr. Bush's threat to veto Congress' proposed spending bills has nothing to do with fiscal discipline. It's all about appealing to his base and distracting attention from his failings, like Iraq. Mr. Bush will no doubt persist in that mode as long as his Republican allies allow him to.'' I could not agree more. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule. The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 878 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 4, if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 2 is as follows: Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following: (1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding the following at the end: ``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to an order of the House unless the Majority Leader or his designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective item in such list) or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its consideration.''. (2) Clause 9(c) of rule XXI is amended to read as follows: ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with respect to the proposition. The question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member initiation the point of order and for 10 minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews). (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman on the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, Mr. George Miller. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 271) and ask for its immediate consideration.