Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 533 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I have two.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 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. Mr. Speaker, let me have about 2 seconds to say that we have allowed 4 hours of general debate. I think everybody will have an opportunity to discuss what they think of the deadline. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 533 provides for consideration of H.R. 2956, the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 4 hours of debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services and 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except those arising under clause 9 or 10 under rule XX. The rule provides for one motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, let's be very clear about what we will be told today by the President. We will be told that adequate progress has been made in some areas of Iraq but more work needs to be done in others. What this really means, of course, is that once again security and political benchmarks have not been met, that vast areas in Baghdad that were supposed to be under control by now are not, that a drop in violence in some areas has been met with increases in violence elsewhere, that political compromises are not being made with sufficient speed by the Iraqi leadership, nor is there any available evidence that the situation is going to change, that the escalation will suddenly become more effective next week or next month. Instead, all signs indicate that in September when General Petraeus reports to Congress, he will deliver the exact same message that we are hearing today: to be patient. But patience means nothing when deadlines are constantly moved. In January a leading Member of the minority said that we would be able to tell in a few months if the escalation was working. Now we hear it is still too early to tell. It has been 7 months. Which prediction are we supposed to believe? As time has advanced, an absence in progress has not been met by an absence in tragedy. At the present rates, between now and September, another 200 Americans will be killed, 200 more families changed forever. And hundreds, if not thousands, more innocent Iraqis will have died as well. We will hear today that to change our course in Iraq will signal defeat. But this willfully ignores the entire history of the Iraq War. After more than 4 years of relentless conflict, including recent months of historically high troop numbers, experts tell us that in Iraq al Qaeda is stronger than ever. A military official told ABC News yesterday al Qaeda's ``operational capability appears to be undiminished.'' The conclusion is clear: The American military is not being given a chance to bring peace to Iraq or to fight our enemies, not because our troops are not good enough but because the current mission is inherently flawed. It is not weakness to admit a strategy is not working and to change it. It is the very opposite: a sign of strength. Our leaders corrected failing courses when they arose during the Civil War and during World War II. Why should this war be different? What Democrats are calling for today is not a retreat. It is not a surrender. It is a statement that Congress will not wait for another ambiguous so-called progress report and will not give the administration another chance to move the goalposts. Instead, we will refuse to needlessly sacrifice our soldiers, weaken our military, undermine our national security, and bleed our country in ways that even the worst terrorists could ever dream of. And it is a statement to the Iraqi people that they will no longer have to live as dual victims: victims of violence and victims of a flawed military strategy that is at best failing to bring peace to the country and at worst perpetuating their suffering. The bill will refocus our troops on fighting terrorists. By doing so, the disastrous strain being placed on our Armed Forces will be lifted without sacrificing security objectives, and their healing can begin. Second, it will remove a strategy from the playing field that is certainly not working and throw open the door to new approaches which may actually succeed. For example, the legislation requires the President to report by January on how he is engaging U.S. allies and regional powers in the effort to bring stability to Iraq. Far from abandoning the Iraqis or lessening American security, we will finally make the rehabilitation of Iraq the international priority that it must become. The only thing we will be abandoning, in other words, Mr. Speaker, is this administration's mistakes. And to my friends on both sides of the aisle, yesterday I received an advance copy of a report from the Defense Department's Inspector General that will be made public today. It detailed the work of some of the first companies to make armored vehicles and armored kits for our soldiers in Iraq. They were given sole-source, unbid contracts even though senior defense officials objected, favoring a competitive process instead. I hope people heard what I said. Senior officials at DOD wanted competitive bidding for these machines, but they were overridden by the Under Secretary of Defense. The results were sadly predictable. The companies failed to meet demand and sent critically important equipment late. Some of the armor that our soldiers were sent had cracks that had simply been painted over to try to fool them instead of fixing it. In certain instances two left doors were sent for the same vehicle. Troops already fighting a deadly foe had to use their precious time and energy to improvise and come up with ways to turn useless equipment into something that could protect them. Our soldiers have been asked to endure terrible hardships, as well have their families, some of which, I am ashamed to say, have been the direct result of the practices of this administration, and they are enduring them to this day and at this very hour. For Congress to leave them there, to ask them to continue fighting to survive under the mounting weight of a flawed mission--that, Mr. Speaker, is the true definition of abandonment. And after 4 years, Democrats are tired of this Congress abandoning our troops to a fate they have never deserved. I would ask everyone in this Chamber how they would justify this continued carnage to the families of our soldiers. With all we know now, how can we still say to the children of those killed or to the young men and women maimed for life, your loss was needed? We cannot. What we must say to them is this: You have given enough. It is time to come home. The American people know what must be done and the majority of this Congress knows what must be done. And all that remains is for those of us here who are still opposed to this bill to decide that they too have had enough and that they will join their countrymen in voting not with the President but with the troops, with the people of Iraq, and with the people of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no more requests for time and ask if the gentleman has more requests.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record an article from the Washington Post this morning entitled, ``White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up,'' and points out that the House voted 355-69 last month to reestablish the study group, but the President is blocking it. [From washingtonpost.com, July 12, 2007] White House Isn't Backing Iraq Study Group Follow-Up (By Robin Wright) Despite an overwhelming House vote last month to revive the Iraq Study Group, the White House has blocked reconvening the bipartisan panel to provide a second independent assessment of the military and political situation in Iraq, said several sources involved in the panel's December 2006 report. Co-Chairman Lee H. Hamilton, several panel members and the U.S. Institute of Peace, which ran the study group, were willing to participate, according to Hamilton and the congressionally funded think tank. But the White House did not give the green light for co-chairman and former secretary of state James A. Baker III to participate, and Baker is unwilling to lead a second review without President Bush's approval, according to members of the original panel and sources close to Baker. White House support is critical for any follow-up review. ``It is not likely to happen unless the White House approves it,'' Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman from Indiana, said in an interview. ``The group can't go ahead without its concurrence or acquiescence, as we need travel support and access to documents.'' The White House does not want independent assessments to rival the upcoming Sept. 15 reports by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, U.S. officials said. The White House indicated that it sees no need for an immediate follow-up to the report, noting that it is implementing a strategy consistent with many of the panel's recommendations. ``The next report due in September by General Petraeus must include an assessment of our objectives as they relate to Baker-Hamilton. September will be the appropriate time to determine how that strategy is progressing,'' said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe. ``We look forward to remaining in contact with members of the group.'' The House voted 355 to 69 last month to allocate $1 million for the U.S. Institute of Peace to reestablish the group of 10 prominent Republicans and Democrats, which included former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, former defense secretary William J. Perry and, until his appointment, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Congressional sponsors called the White House's reluctance a missed opportunity. ``The ISG provides an opportunity to bring the country together. . . . If you had a serious illness, you would want a second opinion. We are at war. You want to have the best minds looking at a problem,'' said Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), who proposed the ISG and co-sponsored the bill to reconvene it. ``Having another independent, bipartisan assessment will take out the venom in the debate.'' Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), another co-sponsor, warned that the White House's move would cost further support among Republicans. ``It's really shortsighted,'' he said. ``It's going to further isolate the president. . . . You can't rely just on Petraeus and Crocker. They are good people, but they're still in the thick of battle and you need the view from the outside. The fact the White House doesn't want it indicates they are afraid of what the ISG might say.'' The White House did not initially embrace the ISG report. But it has gradually adopted key recommendations, including the controversial proposal to pursue diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria, the countries that have most aided or abetted Iraq's insurgents and illegal militias. Last month, 23 Democrats and 34 Republicans co-sponsored a House bill to implement all the ISG recommendations as the way forward in Iraq. But other groups are pursuing independent reviews of U.S. policy and Iraq's performance. The Iraqi Security Forces Independent Assessment Commission--made up of 14 former generals and defense officials--is examining Iraqi military capabilities. The panel, which is mandated by Congress, is chaired by retired Gen. James L. Jones. The group is currently in Iraq; its report is due in October. The Government Accountability Office is doing a separate congressionally mandated study on the 18 benchmarks set for the Iraqi government to meet. And the U.S. Institute of Peace is reconvening many of the experts the ISG originally relied on to discuss Iraq's future. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, give me 3 seconds to say that under the Republican administration, not a single Iraqi measure was brought up under an open rule. And now I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. And so do I. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that will strip $31.5 million for the National Endowment for the Arts. Nearly 12 years ago, the Republicans slashed the 1988 budget nearly in half. In 1992, funding for the NEA reached an all-time high of $176 million. However, 4 years later, just 4 years later, they cut the funding to $99 million. Despite obstacles posed by a lack of adequate funding, the NEA persevered, and under the leadership of Chairman Gioia, instituted national programs to engage all Americans in the arts. Recognizing its accomplishments, Congress began to support it once more and has approved funding increases by voice vote for the last 2 years. That support could not be more deserved, from Shakespeare in American communities to the NEA Jazz Masters, from American Masterpieces to the Big Read, the NEA has made art programs accessible to Americans in every congressional district. Its programs enrich our culture by inspiring provocative community discussions and energizing the Nation's creative spirit. And every year, we hear more good news from the NEA. Innovative programs are bringing arts to our schools, our community leaders and even our military bases, with Great American Voices, and are appreciated. This popular program has brought about 24 professional opera companies to 39 military bases across the country. In 2004, the NEA initiated another program directed to military families called Operation Homecoming. It helped our troops and their families to write about their wartime experiences. The anthology of contributions was published by Random House in September 2006, and I encourage all of my colleagues to read it. The stories of patriotism and courage are truly inspiring. What's more, the arts are improving our economy. This is terribly important. Americans for the Arts has just released a study on the economic impact of nonprofit art organizations. In 2002, the second Arts and Economic Impact Study told us that nonprofit arts organizations created $134 billion annually in economic activity. Just 5 years later, that number has gone up 24 percent to $166 billion. For the small investment we make, we bring back into the Federal Treasury $166 billion a year. That means that while they pump $63 billion into community economies, audiences are spending an additional $103 billion on local hotels, restaurants, parking, souvenirs, refreshments and other associated costs. And these numbers likely underestimate the total economic impact of the arts. New York City and Los Angeles were not even included so as to avoid skewing the national estimates. So what do these figures mean for us? That $166 billion in economic activity means $104.2 billion in resident economic income. It means $7.9 billion in local government tax revenues. It means $9.1 billion in State government tax revenues. It means $12.6 billion in Federal Government tax revenues, and 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs. To put that in perspective, over 1 percent of the American workforce is employed in an arts-related industry. That is a greater percentage than the number of Americans who are police officers, accountants, lawyers, firefighters, telemarketers, computer programmers, mail carriers or professional athletes. What community in America could afford to lose those jobs? A generous estimate of the total Federal investment in the arts is $1.4 billion, yet we earn about $12.6 billion. That is a 12-1 return on the Federal investment. No place else, Mr. Chairman, do we see a return like that. Simply put, in every way, investment in the arts is sound public policy. Cutting funding would ignore everything positive we know about it, and it is the wrong policy. I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt for funding the National Endowment of the Arts at a level that reflects its important role in fostering creativity and making art accessible to Americans. Mr. Chairman, your leadership and enduring commitment to this issue has been instrumental in keeping arts part of our national priorities. Thank you, and I thank the staff.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank everybody, but I certainly want to thank Mike Stevens and Pete Modaff for their work on the decade-long fight to restore funding for the NEA. I encourage my colleagues to support the progress we've made in restoring funding to the NEA.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will yield.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Shays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Already?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much for that. I won't take that much time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I move to strike the requisite words.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Of course I will yield.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. And, reclaiming my time, the return we get on it is enormous, Mr. Chairman, not just in money to the Treasury, which, of course, is important; not just in the myriad of jobs that it creates in every single district because that is terribly important too; but it is important because it says who we are. We work in a work of art, frankly, but it is the artists that have gone before us that tell us who we were, and it is the artists who will tell us who we are now, who we are going to be. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, this seems a familiar job for both Mr. Dicks and me and certainly for our cochair, Mr. Shays. For a while, we thought we were over the years of mugwumpery when people thought the National Endowment for the Arts was something that they could kill without any cause. And as has been pointed out several times, the last 2 years, it has passed by voice vote, but it has certainly come back with a vengeance this year. Let me talk about something for a minute that I don't believe has been discussed today, and that is the effect on our school children of art. We know for a fact that every school child in secondary school that has art for 4 years goes up 57 points on their verbal SATs, and we know it is attributable to art. We know that the days that art is in the schools that there is no absenteeism. We know that children that learn to create don't destroy. We know that in developing minds, the effect that art and dance and movement have on that. As a matter of fact, I think the University of California Davis has done extensive study showing the correlation between studying a keyboard and computers, between studying modern dance and math. We have all seen it over and over again. And we worry all the time about, one, how are we going to keep our children in school and, second, how are we going to make better students of them? This is cheap at the price, Mr. Chairman. And Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite was saying that her district didn't get much back. I happen to have the figures here. As of January, 2007, her district is home to 967 arts-related businesses that employ 2,565 people who will be really sorry if she is successful here tonight. Let me repeat again what we have said today because it has gone up exponentially every year. In 1992, we had $36.8 billion coming back into the Treasury. In the year 2000, we had $53.2 billion, with an audience expenditure of $80.8 billion. In 2005, which are the last figures we have, $63.1 billion organization expenditures and $1.31 billion audience expenditures. And if somebody can tell me one other thing that we do in this Congress that costs us less than $200 million that brings that kind of return back into the Federal Treasury, I will be astonished. I have been asking that for years. Nobody has ever come up with anything that is even close. It is so important that we maintain these programs. It is so important that in the small communities that the regional theatres are kept alive. It is seriously important that children in all parts of this country are exposed to education through music and dance, that they are able to develop their own talents. But, moreover, I want to go back to what I said at the beginning. We know the effect of art on the developing brain. It is so important that many governors make sure that babies born in their States go home from the hospital with a CD of Mozart. We should try to make sure that we can continue this. It is important. Even to this day, even with this increase, we will not be up to the amount of money that we had in this budget when I came here in 1987.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment before us. The Foreign Operations Appropriations measure in its current form will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies globally, curb the deadly spread of HIV/AIDS, and improve infant and maternal survival rates throughout the developing world. I want to commend my friend and colleague, Congresswoman Lowey, for including a provision in this measure which provides a targeted exemption from the Global Gag Rule. This will allow NGOs to receive U.S.-donated contraception and condoms. For the past 6 years, the global gag rule has jeopardized access to comprehensive health care for women in developing countries. It has denied NGOs the resources they need to provide necessary medical advice and treatments. The intent of the Global Gag Rule was to restrict abortion. However, by denying access to contraception and condoms, the Gag Rule denies women the opportunity to prevent unintended pregnancies in the first place. With population levels rising and efforts to prevent the spread of HIV increasing, the demand for contraception is higher then ever. More than 200 million women around the world want to control when they have children and protect themselves from HIV, but they can't do so because they lack access to condoms and contraception. Since the Global Gag Rule was reinstated, shipments of contraceptives from the U.S. government have been denied to 20 developing countries throughout Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Its effect on healthcare in these nations has been devastating. In the face of this, the Smith amendment would deny access to contraception and condoms to some of our most valuable NGOs reaching at-risk people of all ages. What would the impact of this cutoff be? Consider that access to contraceptives would prevent an estimated 52 million unintended pregnancies each year. That, in turn, would prevent 22 million abortions. It would also prevent 23 million unplanned births; 142,000 pregnancy-related deaths, and 1.4 million infant deaths. Family planning helps women to have their children during the healthiest times for both mother and child. It has proved critical to the reduction of infant mortality in numerous developing countries. Contraceptive access is also critical to disease prevention. According to the WHO, the leading cause of last year's 4.3 million new HIV cases was unprotected sex. Access to condoms is a matter of life and death. And of those millions, how many were parents? More than 13 million children under the age of 15 have lost one or both parents to AIDS. That is 12 percent of all the orphaned children in the world--more than 10 million children. Cutting off the flow of contraceptives would be an enormous step back for the health of the world's women, children and families. The underlying bill before us takes a commonsense approach to global health that will reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion. It will also help stop the spread of HIV/AIDS and improve infant and child survival rates. This amendment would take us in the opposite direction. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no on the Smith/Stupak amendment.