Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), whose compassion and conviction on this issue is probably unsurpassed in the House.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Dreier. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 601 provides for consideration of H.R. 3159, the Ensuring Military Readiness Through Stability and Predictability Deployment Policy Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule considers as adopted the Armed Services Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has taken us into uncharted territory as a Nation and as a society. During the Vietnam war, 4 percent of the general population served in the military. During World War II, fully 12 percent of our people served. Forms of personal sacrifice and national service were to be found everywhere, planted in victory gardens or held in war bonds. Even during the Civil War, a conflict from a different age, more than one in ten Americans fought. Never in our history has America fought a war of this magnitude, or one that is this difficult, with an entirely voluntary military force composed of only 1 percent of the general population. And while so much of what is going on in Iraq hearkens back to past conflicts, what is occurring within our society does not. It is true that the historically high percentage of National Guard troops fighting abroad has spread the reach of this war farther than some anticipated. But for nearly all Americans the immediacy of the war has been dulled by distance. We have never been asked to sacrifice as people. We have, instead, been told to go about our lives as usual and ask merely to support the troops in a vague sense. Within this mass of normality lies the lives of those Americans who have actually fought in Iraq, the mothers, husbands, sons, daughters and siblings who have been sent there and who have seen things that few of us can relate to or even imagine. They have been asked to fight in a conflict whose architects have largely receded from the public view, but not before the failures of these officials made themselves felt every time a soldier was forced to enter a battle without proper body armor or without a vehicle that would keep him or her safe. In a very real sense, the families of these soldiers have been asked to endure the same reality and forced to live every moment of their deployment with the fear that their loved one will be injured, or worse. Despite it all, despite everything that the members of our military and their families have been asked to bear for year after year, the talk of what is to be done in Iraq is often clinical: We should increase troop numbers; we should lower them; we should place more troops here, send more troops there. Troops are spoken of as if they were simply another machine to be moved about and to be used at our will. Our soldiers are human beings. They are our fellow citizens. They have dignity. They have rights. They do not deserve to be cast around as the administration stumbles forward seeking to find a solution to a problem of its own creation. Already, a flawed war plan has forced the members of our military to endure not just the brunt of battle but also to make up for miscalculation at home. Tours have been extended and then extended again in an unprecedented way. Previously unknown burdens have been placed on our men and women in uniform as a result. At a certain point, we as a society have to say enough is enough. The legislation before us is supported by men like Senator Jim Webb and Representative John Murtha for a reason: Former soldiers know what current deployment schedules are doing to our soldiers and to their families. It will restore some order to the process by prohibiting the deployment of any active military unit to Iraq unless that unit's soldiers have rested for at least as long as they have fought. It is a simple premise that was followed in virtually every war America has fought. It should be followed again today. Mr. Speaker, this bill should not tie the hands of generals. If national security or the safety of our troops would be put at risk by shortened deployment, the bill's requirements can be waived. But the President will have to do so publicly and certify to Congress that his decision is vitally important. With everything our soldiers are asked to do, it is long past time that the President was forced to explain to Congress and to the American people why it is all necessary. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about who we are as a society and about the values we hold. Our fellow citizens have been sent to fight in this conflict and have asked nothing from us in return. But we certainly owe them everything. We owe them our support, not in a rhetorical sense or in blind allegiance to the administration's claims but in a real sense, by making sure that they are given the proper training and armor, by making sure they are allowed to rest for an adequate amount of time between deployments. Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to live up to our responsibilities as a people today. I hope this body is ready to face that challenge. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I again want to assure my colleagues that FISA is on the calendar before we go home, which may be the middle of next week. We're not going to leave here without getting that fixed. Let me also state that, in addition to the dreadful, awful loss of our service persons and the terrible wounding and mangled 30,000 or more, there's another cost to this war, Mr. Speaker. A new estimate is that the war in Iraq will cost the taxpayers of the United States $1 trillion. We are spending at the rate of $10 billion a month. Obviously, this is money that we don't have. We're borrowing mainly from four sources, the first one being China, Japan, South Korea; and, Mr. Speaker, as this debt piles up, it will take generations for our children, our grandchildren, our great- grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren simply to pay off. So let me stop as I began, to again express my sorrow to the people of Minnesota and make it clear that the spending on this war, which is rife with corruption, I do need to say, that in addition to 160,000 military persons in Iraq, we have 185,000 contractors, spending tax money at an enormous rate. We are beginning for the first time in 6 years, as we've taken the majority, to really look at where that money has gone and try to ferret out the corruption, the cronyism, the unbid contracts and all of the other scandals that have gone on there. Just this week again we learned that millions of dollars spent in construction to turn things over to the Iraqi people is unacceptable to the people of Iraq because of the shoddy workmanship. This is a scandal of major proportions, Mr. Speaker. It really is important that we bring this to an end and try to clean up and maybe hopefully get our international reputation back to some degree. But the most important thing is that this bill says simply this: Our soldiers need rest. How dare we send people into the battle day after day, night after night, without saying from this House and from this government that what we want for them is what the military always had in the past, an opportunity to rest and renew? It's not only critical for them personally, but it's critical for the units in which they serve that they are in top form. The fact is that we could do that quite simply here just today with this bill and also make certain that we don't ever again send one of them out on one of those roads to patrol unprepared, untrained and unprotected because we failed to spend the enormous amount of money on the right kind of equipment. It's time, Mr. Speaker. We owe it; and I'm ashamed that all these years, that for the past 6 years, no oversight, not any, no hearings, have been held on this war. No hearings have been held on where all of that money has gone, and we're just beginning now to scratch the surface. But the first obligation that we have, far more than money involved, the largest obligation we have is to the men and women that we say would you please set your life aside and go and fight. We owe them everything in the world that we can give them. I'm happy that we have put a lot of money this year on our side into the Veterans Administration, and certainly it's for traumatic brain injury which we see so much of it and that the Veterans Administration is in no way equipped to handle. We have enough money now in the bills so we can send them to the places where they can get the very best help available. But young men and women that are 18, 19, 20 years old, maimed for life. And Mr. Speaker, it is time some intelligence here in the House reigned.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left?

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Hastings, to assure everyone that the FISA bill is on the calendar for this week.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any other speakers?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to continue to express our great sorrow to the people of Minnesota on their tragic loss. In a way, they're almost victims of war. A Nation in perpetual war does not have the money to meet its infrastructure needs. And as we heard this morning, there are bridges that are in serious condition all over the United States. So I express my great sorrow for the families who are suffering and for all the people who have been lost.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I want to say that I am enormously proud of the accomplishments that we can credit to the Democratic-led Congress. From education to health care, from national security to increasing the minimum wage, great strides have been taken to make our country stronger, healthier, and better prepared for the future. And there is more to come. But it is with special pride that I rise today, because I feel that what motivated me, and so many of my colleagues, to come to Washington in the first place was the thought that on any day a vote could be held that would improve the lives of millions of people throughout our beloved country. And that is exactly the chance that we have been given today, the chance to vote for a bill that will improve medical care in the country, improve the health of our citizens, and offer new hope for literally millions of children who would otherwise be left with neither. Madam Speaker, I think that everyone listening today recognizes the reality of the situation we face. Addressing the state of health care in our country is one of the most important issues to the American people for one simple reason: Our health care system is failing far too many Americans. Tens of millions of our citizens have no insurance and tens of million more are underinsured. For them, all of the medical wonders in the world that our doctors produce might as well not exist. When they fall ill or, worse, when their children are hurt or have a fever or need care, where do they turn? Far too often the answer is: Nowhere. We need a comprehensive solution to this problem, and the citizens of the country expect and deserve no less. That is a challenge that we must confront together, and it will take time. But today, here and now, we have the chance to make a real dent in one of the most galling and shameful inadequacies of our health care system, and that is the lack of health care for America's children. Congress created SCHIP in 1997 with broad bipartisan support. As a result, 6 million children currently have health care coverage that they otherwise would not have. In my home State of New York, nearly 400,000 children are enrolled, which is the second-highest number in the Nation. There is a reason why President Bush pledged that he would fully fund SCHIP while he was on the campaign trail in 2004: It was because this program is enormously effective and enormously popular with the public. And, yet, there is so much more to be done. Nine million American children still remain without health insurance. It is a situation that remains quite unconscionable. The bill allows us to take an enormous step forward. It will cover 5 million more children, which will make 11 in total. That would be a truly historic change. Such a vast improvement is reason enough to support the legislation, but the bill does even more to strengthen the health of Americans. It strengthens Medicare by expanding preventive benefits, as well as mental health services, a matter of grave importance to many of our citizens. It reduces the costs for seniors and people with disabilities, who also often have low incomes; and it extends the policies that protect access to health care in rural communities, of vital importance to all of us. What is more, the bill would prevent a proposed 10 percent cut in the Medicare reimbursement to physicians, replacing it with an increase for 2 years. We cannot afford to have more physicians say they can no longer afford to have Medicare patients. This is especially important for districts throughout the country, districts like mine where we are having trouble holding on to good doctors because of financial concerns that until now have not been addressed. Finally, this bill will raise the tax on the price of cigarettes by 45 cents a pack, a significant preventative health care initiative in its own right. This act alone is projected to save tens of thousands of lives and billions in future health care costs by preventing more than a million children from taking up smoking. Madam Speaker, in spite of these undeniable benefits and in spite of the overwhelming popularity and accomplishments of this program, SCHIP is under attack. Sadly, the President proposed to greatly underfund SCHIP, a decision which would severely limit its effectiveness; and Republicans on the other side of the aisle agree with this approach. But not content to merely limit the reach of SCHIP, we will today witness an attempt on the Republican side to sink this bill entirely, as, indeed, we have seen already several times this morning. In the face of all of the positive results coming from this program and all that it is set to achieve, the harshest rhetoric is going to be cast against it. Madam Speaker, we all know that my Republican colleagues cannot really believe what they are arguing. Instead, their objective is a different one: to deny the Democrats a chance to talk about yet another legislative accomplishment. They are willing to do it at the expense of the health of the Nation's children, but we will not allow it. And those who argue against passing this bill are arguing in favor of the status quo, the same situation we faced more than 10 years when bold attempts to fundamentally reform our Nation's health care system were subjected to withering attacks. What was the result? Reforms were blocked, and the national situation grew worse and worse with every passing year of Republican control. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and a ``yes'' on this bill, not only just for America's children but for their parents as well.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 748. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 748.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee is expected to meet Thursday, August 2, to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3221, the New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act. Members who wish to offer an amendment to this bill should submit 30 copies of the amendment and a brief description of the amendment to the Rules Committee in H-312 in the Capitol no later than 5 p.m. on Wednesday, August 1. Members are strongly advised to adhere to the amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as introduced. A copy of the bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by the Legislative Counsel and also should be reviewed by the Office of the Parliamentarian to be sure that the amendments comply with the rules of the House. Members are strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to give my thanks to Chairman Olver and to Mr. Knollenberg for doing a wonderful job on this bill. I intend to withdraw this amendment, but if I can just take a moment or two to discuss the importance of HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control, I would like to do that. The funding is crucial in reaching our goal of eliminating childhood lead poisoning nationwide by 2010. The grants provided by HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control allow cities and States to correct serious lead hazard in low-income and high-risk homes. Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, this is not just an isolated problem. Lead poisoning affects over 250,000 American children under the age of 5 each and every year. High levels of lead in the blood have been linked to childhood asthma, brain damage, hearing loss, hyperactivity, developmental delays, and in extreme cases, exposure to lead has caused seizures, comas, and even death. Mr. Chairman, this is simply unacceptable. In my district alone, over 2,000 children fall victim to lead poisoning every year. Over half of all the homes in Niagara and Erie counties were built before 1950 and are therefore very likely to contain lead. And just in Erie County, 1,000 children have unsafe lead levels in their blood. The city of Rochester is among the top 10 cities in the United States with the worst lead paint problems. In 2004, 900 children in Monroe County were reported to have high blood lead levels. We have a city ordinance in effect to try to deal with that, but we have not enough money obviously to take action. The grants are so important. They are targeted to help the most vulnerable of our citizens, children under 5 years of age. But in order to be more effective, they have to have adequate funding. Since the bill before us only funds the Office of Lead Hazard Control at $130 million, we wanted to put in this amendment. But I commend the chairman for putting together this thoughtful and solid bill, and I hope we can work together in conference to try to do more. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today, as we mark the anniversary of the first ever women's rights convention in Seneca Falls, New York, I am proud to celebrate the accomplishments of our foremothers by introducing the National Women's Rights History Project Act. In contemporary American society, women enjoy rights to education, wages, and property ownership. However, it was only 87 years ago that women were finally granted the right to vote. Yet few Americans have any real knowledge of the long struggle to obtain the rights that we take for granted today. The National Women's Rights History Project Act will provide Americans with the opportunity to learn more about the female heroes that fought tirelessly to secure these rights. On July 19, 1848, a group of activists including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, and Mary Ann M'Clintock convened the first women's rights convention at Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York. The women's rights convention heralded the beginning of a 72-year struggle for suffrage. During the convention, 68 women and 32 men signed the Declaration of Sentiments, which was drafted to mirror the Declaration of Independence and set out such radical notions like women's freedom to own property, receive an education, and file for divorce. In 1851, a second women's rights convention was held in Akron, Ohio. It was at this convention that Sojourner Truth delivered the famous ``Ain't I a Woman?'' speech. The woman's suffrage movement, however, was not solely limited to organized conventions. Under the leadership of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony the National American Women Suffrage Association (NAWSA) was formed. Susan B. Anthony also established the Equal Rights Association to refute ideas that women were inferior to men and fight for a woman's right to vote. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony and other women voted in the Presidential election, and were arrested and fined for illegal voting. At her trial, which attracted nationwide attention, Susan B. Anthony made a speech that ended with the slogan ``Resistance to Tyranny Is Obedience to God.'' She also campaigned for the rights of women to own property, to keep their own earnings, and to have custody of their children. I am especially proud that it was in Rochester, New York, that Susan B. Anthony fought so hard for the rights that women throughout this country rely on today. In fact, in 1900, she persuaded the University of Rochester, in my Congressional District, to admit women. In the early 1900s, a new generation of leaders joined the women's suffrage movement, including Carrie Chapman Catt, Maud Wood Park, Lucy Burns, Alice Paul, and Harriot E. Blatch. During this era, the women's rights movement increased its momentum by organizing marches, pickets and other protests. Suffragette Alice Paul and other activists began chaining themselves to the White House fence and participating in hunger strikes to gain the attention of Congress. The struggle for women's suffrage was not easy, and oftentimes it was made more difficult as a consequence of public misinformation and fear. Consider these remarks which, in 1912, appeared in the New York Times under the title, ``The Uprising of Women'': The vote will secure to woman no new privilege that she either deserves or requires . . . Women will get the vote and play havoc with it for themselves and society, if men are not wise and firm enough and it may as well be said, masculine enough, to prevent them. If by playing havoc, the New York Times meant becoming the single most sought after voting block in the country that often determines the outcome of elections, I guess they were right. Because of the persistent dedication of Susan B. Anthony and other remarkable leaders, women persevered. Although Susan B. Anthony was not alive to see it, the efforts of the women's rights struggle came to fruition when the nineteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving women the right to vote, was finally passed by Congress on June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920. We have clearly come a long way in 87 years--and we still have a long way to go. We must work to continue the momentum that started in Seneca Falls, by not only ensuring that all women vote, but that they do so with an understanding of the long fight to obtain this right and with a sense of responsibility to do their part in the struggle for women's equality. To honor these important women, the National Women's Rights History Project Act will establish a trail route linking sites significant to the struggle for women's suffrage and civil rights. It also will expand the current National Register travel itinerary Web site, ``Places Where Women Made History,'' to include additional historic sites. Finally, this bill will require the Department of the Interior to establish a partnership-based network to offer financial and technical assistance for interpretive and educational program development of national women's rights history. The women of this country have fought tirelessly to achieve equitable rights for our grandmothers, our mothers, ourselves, and our daughters. It is my hope that this bill will provide Americans with the opportunity to learn more about the female leaders who struggled to secure these rights. Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members to join me in celebrating their accomplishments by cosponsoring the National Women's Rights History Project Act today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act, a bill that will remove toxic lead hazards from childcare facilities, and put an end to an entirely avoidable public health crisis. It is critical that Congress provide our communities the tools necessary to make the places where our children spend their time safe and defend them from the dangers that exposure to lead poses to their health. Exposure to lead is not safe for anyone, but children are most vulnerable among us. Even the slightest amounts of lead can do serious, irreparable damage because their bodies and minds are still in developmental stages. Among many other things, lead poisoning can cause learning disabilities, brain damage, organ failure, coma and even death in children. Despite the knowledge of the risks associated with exposure to lead hazards and the availability of tools that can prevent more children from suffering from lead poisoning, 310,000 American children are affected every year. Unfortunately, lead poisoning remains a threat to our children in places where they ought to feel the most safe--our childcare facilities. According to a report from the Environmental Protection Agency, nearly 12 million children under the age of five spend 40 hours a week in childcare. The Department of Housing and Urban Development has reported that approximately 14 percent of licensed childcare centers across the U.S. have hazardous levels of lead-based paint. Children attending daycare centers in the Northeast and Midwest are at a greater risk of being exposed to lead hazards, as 40 percent of the childcare facilities in those regions were built before 1960. In addition to lead hazards posed by paint at childcare facilities, these old buildings are home to corroded pipes and water lines which are also sources of lead exposure. A parent should not have to worry about their child consuming lead when their thirsty child visits a drinking fountain. Our childcare professionals must have the tools they need to guard our children from lead poisoning. The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act would establish a Select Group on Lead Exposure comprised of experts from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the Administration for Children and Families, the National Institute of Child Heath and Human Development, the Secretary of Education, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Select Group will conduct a study of child-occupied facilities created before 1978 and develop baseline standards that facilities must meet to receive grants under this Act. To help childcare facilities comply with the new lead- safety standards, the bill establishes a grant program to defray associated costs. Finally, the Act requires that all contractors hired for repair, renovations, or reconstruction of childcare facilities be provided with educational materials about lead hazards and the guidance necessary to avoid imposing additional risks. The Lead Poisoning Reduction Act fills a major gap in our national policy to eradicate lead poisoning by 2010 by providing the guidance and resources need to protect our children from lead hazards in their childcare facilities. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Lead Poisoning Reduction Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall Nos. 647 and 648, I was absent meeting with the military on Niagara Air Base. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Barton of Texas

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 625, 626, 627, 628, and 629. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 625, ``no'' on rollcall vote 626, ``no'' on rollcall vote 627, ``no'' on rollcall vote 628, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 629.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, once again, we're always treated to the inventive memory of the former Chair of the Rules Committee. Let me just state for the record that this time last when he was Chair, we had three open rules. At this time, we've had eight open rules. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and also on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).