Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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. 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 387.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 332.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely hard pressed to see how some people define ``success.'' I read in the New York Times front page that 80 percent of the marines who died of upper body wounds would have lived if only they had the proper equipment. I know that soldiers who serve in the National Guard and Reserve are losing their homes and their jobs, but never mind about that because the stock market is great. Aren't we doing well? It hasn't hurt us a bit. We haven't called for any sacrifice at all from the American people in this. My heart is broken. I am ashamed and chagrined that this business about the booming economy could be brought into this debate about life and death. My worry is about the young people who go over there and don't get the proper care that they need. I couldn't believe the testimony of Tillman's brother yesterday and Jessica Lynch who said the military lied about them. What are we doing in this country? The country that fought the Second World War to save this world, we've been reduced to this, that we decide as long as the stock market is good, the world is good, and let them go over there and die because we are going to give them some kind of government we don't even know they want? For heaven sakes, to every man and woman in country there comes a moment to decide, Mr. Speaker. This is one of those moments. We either vote for this rule and this bill, and we tell the President of the United States if he vetoes this, he is absolutely continuing on a road to absolute failure and that we are not going to be a party to it. We want to take care of the soldiers. And if he vetoes the money, it is on his head, not ours. But we will continue until we can get those soldiers and marines out of that morass.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I 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. I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, the Chair of the Transportation Committee, Mr. Oberstar.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri and the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 332 provides for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1591, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007, and for other purposes. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. It also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, after 4 years of the administration's relentless mismanagement of the Iraq war, mismanagement that has needlessly endangered our soldiers and lost countless Iraqi lives, this new Democratic Congress is determined to exercise our constitutional duty and to change the Nation's course in Iraq. We are hardly alone in our estimation of what must be done there. A growing chorus of opinion has coalesced around the need for a new direction. Virtually all of our generals agree that this fight cannot be won militarily, and General David Petraeus has said that the American mission in Iraq is 20 percent military and 80 percent political, economic and diplomatic. He is joined by the Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who applauded this debate, saying it will demonstrate to the Iraqi leadership that America will no longer tolerate an open-ended commitment without any benchmarks for success. James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton of the President's own Iraq Study Group have called for the American military to focus on training Iraqi security forces instead of conducting endless security sweeps. Retired generals have joined in as well. Retired Lieutenant General William E. Odom, to name just one, has said that the proposed change in course will, and I quote, ``re-orient U.S. strategy to achieve regional stability, and win help from many other countries--the only way peace will eventually be achieved.'' What of the people of the United States of America? It is their sons and daughters, their husbands and wives, their friends and family who have fought, have been injured and died in this war by the tens of thousands. They, more than anyone else, have demanded that America's mission in Iraq be changed. This bill is a statement that Congress will no longer fund the war as it exists today. With it, Democrats are demanding accountability and requiring that future support be based on tangible progress being made. We are refusing to ask our soldiers to continue fighting an open-ended battle to achieve goals that are constantly being altered. Such a request is not worthy of their sacrifice. Let me say also that while the President said that this bill is nothing more than a political statement, the opposite is the case. Our bill reconciles hard realities with our most fundamental principles. It both protects our soldiers and seeks to give them the best chance to help to produce a secure Iraq. It could not be more sincere, and it will soon be on the President's desk. If he rejects it, that will be his political statement and not ours. Finally, I must add briefly that this legislation also contains $18 billion to be spent on critically needed health care for the veterans injured in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly for the traumatic brain injury victims, for Katrina recovery operations, for the avian flu vaccines, wildfire prevention, and for health insurance for children, among many other things. Those things are what supplemental bills have always been for, not to fund wars. The President and his allies have chosen to dismiss this spending as unjustifiable pork. They have asked Congress to deliver a clean bill, in their words, but I can't think of programs much cleaner and more worthy of our support than those I just mentioned. The definition of a great nation is one that has the power to define its own destiny and that uses its strength wisely to help others in need. Insurgents who seek to destroy what is left of the Iraq society are abominable, but they can do far less damage to our country than we do to ourselves by pursuing flawed policies that deplete our Armed Forces, undermine our alliances, and lessen our influence and moral authority around the world. Why should we do what they cannot? At the same time, the Iraqi people deserve so much more than the life of fear they now lead. But America can be true to itself; we must have the humility and the vision to recognize what is working and what is not, and to correct our failures when reality demands it. I believe that we are, indeed, a great Nation, Mr. Speaker. We have the ability to choose our own way forward. Starting today, starting here, we can choose to reject a path that is failing our soldiers, our citizens, and the people of Iraq. And we can set a new course that offers a real chance for a better future instead of endless, unfulfilled promises. This bill is the first step on that new course, and I urge everybody in this body and in the White House to see it for what it truly is. It is not an admission of defeat, but it is proof that our country has the courage and the foresight needed to truly act like the great Nation that we truly are. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 332 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. The Rules Committee is expected to meet the week of April 30 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1429, the Improving Head Start Act of 2007. 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 2:00 p.m. on Monday, April 30. Members are strongly advised to adhere to this amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by 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 also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations. The Rules Committee is also expected to meet the week of April 30 to grant a rule which may structure the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1868, Technology Innovation and Manufacturing Stimulation Act of 2007. 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 2:00 p.m. on Monday, April 30. Members are strongly advised to adhere to this amendment deadline to ensure the amendments receive consideration. Amendments should be drafted to the bill as reported by the Committee on Science and Technology. A copy of that bill is posted on the Web site of the Rules Committee. Amendments should be drafted by 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 also strongly encouraged to submit their amendments to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis regarding possible PAYGO violations.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my partner, Mrs. Biggert, also for the hard work she has done. It has taken us collectively 12 years to get to this point, and I want to say at the outset we are not talking about some population of people who might have bad genes. We are talking about us, because every one of us has bad genes, between 30 and 40. So this protection goes not just to some employee somewhere, but all of us and the people we love. It is with great pride that I rise today. As a matter of fact, I could not stop smiling all day. With the passage of this bill, we are going to stand up for the future health of our citizens and one of medicine's most promising fields, genetic research. It is almost heartbreaking to me to think that we are 10 years behind in genetic research and the people we could have helped up to now, but it is the culmination of a bipartisan effort to prevent the improper use of genetic information in the workforce and insurance decisions. It is no longer simply the work of science fiction writers. There have been many instances of genetic discrimination, from a woman who was fired after a genetic test revealed her risk for lung disorder, to a social worker who, despite outstanding performance reviews, was dismissed because some member of her family had Huntington's disease. Consider the case of Heidi Williams, an individual diagnosed with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. In 2004, she testified that a large health insurance company had denied coverage for her two children because they were carriers for the disease. GINA will make these discriminatory practices illegal by prohibiting health insurers from denying coverage or charging higher premiums to a healthy individual because of a genetic predisposition, which means you may never get the disease, might happen. GINA also bars employers from using genetic information for hiring, firing, job placement or promotion decisions. In the 12 years since I first introduced this legislation, the need for it has grown rapidly. Scientific research has advanced so quickly that we cannot possibly afford to wait any longer. It offers immense potential for early treatment and prevention of numerous diseases. Since the sequencing of the human genome was completed in 2003, researchers have identified genetic markers for a wide variety of health conditions, and new progress is being made every day. Fifteen percent of all cancers are found to have an inherited susceptibility. Ten percent of adult chronic diseases, heart disease and diabetes, America's top killers, have a genetic component. Already, over 15,500 recognized genetic disorders affect 13 million Americans, and each and every one of us, as I said before, and it is so important for you to know this, each and every one of us is in that category of carrying between 5 and 50 bad genes, or predicted genes. They may not be so bad. That is exactly why this bill is so important to all of us, not just those with recognized disorders. There is not a single person on the planet that has perfect genes. Every one of us, and let me make that clear again, are all vulnerable to genetic discrimination. To give you an idea of the potential that exists from this research, consider that a genetic test can tell a woman with a family history of breast cancer if she has the genetic mutation that can cause it, long before the cancer might develop. For these exciting scientific advances to continue, for the potential of this technology to be realized, we have to make genetic testing something commonplace rather than something that is feared and kept secret. But sadly, the threat of genetic discrimination and the fear of being passed over for promotion, forced to pay more for health insurance, or even denied coverage, men and women are much less likely to be tested and to take advantage of that potentially lifesaving information. Most importantly, if individuals do not participate in the clinical trials, we will never be able to reap the great benefits of this genetic technology. In a 2006 Cogent Research poll, 66 percent of respondents said they were concerned about how their genetic information would be stored and who would have access to it. I want to thank everybody, first Dr. Collins who sequenced the human genome and testified before Congress at least 12 times, and I cannot imagine anybody would be not be moved by his testimony. He is here with us today. I want to thank all the committee members, certainly Mrs. Biggert who has worked so hard, and her staff; and the three committees who have jurisdiction here who have done so much for us. Mr. Miller, the first thing I think in January he told me this bill was coming to the floor. I want to thank Congresswoman Eshoo for her untiring effort to help bring this, and certainly the member of my staff who has worked so hard. It is a great day. You may not realize it but it also just turns out to be DNA Day. What a wonderful way to celebrate it. Seventy-two percent agreed that the government should establish laws and regulations to protect the privacy of individuals' genetic information. And 85 percent said that without amending current law, employers would use this information to discriminate. Before I close, I want to reiterate the broad support that this bill enjoys. We have over 220 Democrat and Republican cosponsors behind this bill. In past Congresses, the Senate has passed this bill twice with unanimous support. And I would like to thank the President who today issued a statement of administration policy in support of the bill. I want to take a moment to thank the lead Republican cosponsor of this bill, Congresswoman Judy Biggert for her dedication to this bill, along with Congresswoman Anna Eshoo for being a strong advocate for this bill over the years. I also want to thank Dr. Francis Collins for his support. His testimonies over the years should have swayed even the firmest unbelievers that genetics has the potential to change our health care system as we know it. Lastly, I want to thank the advocates from the health and science community. Over 200 organizations including Hadassah support this bill. GINA will do more than stamp out a new form of discrimination--it will help our country be a leader in a field of scientific research that holds as much promise as any other in history. And it will allow us to realize the tremendous potential of genetic research without jeopardizing one of the most fundamental privacies that can be imagined. Mr. Speaker, today is a momentous day. And, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to honor Ms. Christella (Chris) Gress from Grand Island, New York, who today received the first annual Commodore Greanoff Inspirational Leadership Award from the United States Coast Guard. The Commodore Greanoff Inspirational Leadership Award recognizes the most distinguished United States Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotilla Commander, and parallels existing Coast Guard leadership awards for officers, chief petty officers, and civilians. The United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, established by Congress in 1939, has more than 27,000 members who are engaged in missions that involve boat safety education, search and rescue, and homeland security operations. Ms. Gress is the Immediate Past Flotilla Commander of Flotilla 35, District 9 Eastern Auxiliary Region. As Commander of her Flotilla, Ms. Gress dedicated over 800 hours of her time to advance the mission and goals of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. Her commitment to the Auxiliary becomes even more impressive when one learns that she is holding multiple college teaching-jobs and working on a doctoral dissertation. Ms. Gress is described as tireless and a natural motivator, and is credited with developing a strong sense of collective identity within her Flotilla. Ms. Gress hosted team exercises and fellowship events that welcomed new members and increased activity among experienced members. Under her leadership, Flotilla membership participation expanded in programs including vessel examinations, operations, and public education. In addition, Ms. Gress was the driving force behind an award-winning Flotilla newsletter. Madam Speaker, Ms. Gress has earned the respect and high admiration of her community and the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. I am proud to recognize her as the first recipient of the Commodore Greanoff Inspirational Leadership Award.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 209, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 2 Offered by Ms. Woolsey

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we meet on what is the fourth day of the fifth year of the war in Iraq. It is a war that has gone on longer than the war in Korea. America has been fighting longer in Iraq than we did during World War II--even though that was an international conflict fought on two fronts against some of the most dangerous threats to our national security ever known. Too many Members of this Congress and of this Administration have for years seen what they wanted to see in Iraq, and believed what they wanted to believe. But their conceptions couldn't matter less to the men and women of that nation, or to the men and women of the American military who are fighting there. Civilians and soldiers don't live in the world as politicians say it is. They live in the world as it really is. And they live, every day, with the consequences of the decisions made here in this chamber. During the first 4 years of the Iraq war, they had to live with an Administration and a Congress that either could not, or would not, see this conflict for what it really was: a war that was not being won, that was being fought by soldiers who often did not have the equipment they needed or the care they were owed, that was not improving the security of the Iraqi people, that was depleting our military and, as a result, endangering the long-term security of this nation, and that was based on a flawed strategy that desperately needed to be changed. They lived with the former Secretary of Defense dismissing persistent equipment shortages by telling us that our nation had gone to war with the Army it had. By the time Mr. Rumsfeld had uttered those words, on December 9th, 2004, 1,288 U.S. soldiers had been killed. They lived with predictions that the insurgency in Iraq was in its last throes, a statement made 6 months later. Four hundred thirty-seven more soldiers had lost their lives in those months. And now, they live with more calls for patience from the Administration and its allies, and more denunciations of anyone who would seek a different course in Iraq. As of today, more than 3,200 soldiers have died in this war. The civilian death toll is astonishing, with estimates now running as high as 1 million Iraqi men, women, and children killed as a direct or indirect result of the conflict and the chaos it has unleashed. Millions more have been dislocated, driven out of their homes and into refugee camps. It is long past time for this institution to join with our soldiers and with the people of Iraq in seeing this war for what it really is. The legislation before us today represents the first real chance Democrats have had since 2003 to change the course of the war in Iraq. And we intend to do it. We will do it not because we are conceding anything to those who would do our Nation harm, not because we lack the will to continue the fight, and not because, as some would have you believe, we are giving up. Instead, we are going to change the course of this war because the future of the people of Iraq hinges on it, because a basic level of respect for our soldiers demands it, and because the long-term security of our Nation depends on it. Mr. Speaker, the simple reality is that the situation in Iraq is stagnant at best, and deteriorating at worst. Politically, economic and military goals are not being met there. Faced with such truths, why should this House pass yet another blank check for the war, as past Congresses have done? Instead, this bill is based on a simple and logical idea: it makes America's continued involvement in Iraq conditional on the situation there improving. America's soldiers will no longer be asked to fight in an open-ended war whose goal line keeps moving. This legislation requires Iraqi leaders to make the political compromises necessary to produce a working government that will function for all of Iraq--or else risk losing America's military support. And it will require security benchmarks to be met if American soldiers are to continue sacrificing their own safety for that goal. But what is more, this bill represents the first step Congress has ever taken towards ending the war in Iraq. A clear majority of the American people want this body to take decisive steps toward that end. A clear majority of our global allies want the same thing. A significant number of generals and military officials think that ending this conflict must be achieved sooner rather than later. This bill is a response to their words, and to their counsel. It will not end the war immediately, nor will it end it recklessly. Instead, it rejects the idea of a war in Iraq without end. To continue funding this conflict without requiring any tangible progress to be made in Iraq makes no sense. It would achieve neither peace in that nation, nor security here. But what it would achieve, Mr. Speaker, is the continued depletion and degradation of our military beyond all reason. It would continue to render our armed forces unable to fight in other parts of the world against other threats. And it would continue to force suffering soldiers to return to the battlefield time and again, despite physical and mental injuries. We know the statistics: in addition to the 3,223 soldiers that have died, tens of thousands more have been injured, some permanently. And there are more than 32,000 Iraq veterans--32,000--who who every day suffer silently from the scourge of mental health problems. More than 13,000 of those men and women have been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. And yet, they are afforded no relief. The President's escalation of this conflict is forcing more soldiers back into combat sooner, with less rest, with less training, and with less time to heal. There are even reports of men and women being sent back to Iraq who are too injured to wear body armor. Mr. Speaker, it is important not to view these realities in the abstract. I want to share with you a story I recently heard, the story of one young lieutenant currently awaiting his second deployment to Iraq. Though he trained as an engineer, his first tour of duty saw him bravely patrolling dangerous streets north of Baghdad. He returned last December, and was initially expecting a year on base during which to rest and train a new platoon. Instead, he will be heading back months sooner. He says that the soldiers under his command are not going to get the time they need to train properly for their mission. The vehicles and equipment they now use to train for war are failing and often break They are physically weary, with many still suffering from the lingering effects of leg and back injuries. Others are battling more elusive damage, and are in counseling for PTSD. He even told me that the vast majority of the once married soldiers in his unit are now or will soon be divorced. Their lives outside of the war are coming apart. And yet, if you ask him, he will never complain about these difficulties. They are all part of the life of the soldier, he says, a few of the many challenges he and his men will confront every day they are deployed. When those in the military are given a mission, he told me, they find a way to complete it. That creed is the foundation of the strength of our Armed Forces. It is the personification of the word sacrifice, Mr. Speaker. This young soldier and those under his charge are going back to Iraq again, even though they are wounded, and tired, and lacking in training and equipment. They miss their families. They miss their lives back home. But they are going all the same--going simply because this body has given the President the right to send them into battle. But what this soldier did tell me is that our Armed Forces cannot go on like this. He said that if the foundation of our military's strength--its refusal to admit defeat--is misused, then we will end up destroying our system of national defense. We hear the reports of the 82nd Airborne, for decades able to respond anywhere in the world within 72 hours, now struggling to respond to anything besides deployment orders sending its soldiers to Iraq. We see men and women in uniform being sent back for tour after tour after tour, our services desperately trying to find a way to meet new troop requirements. Mr. Speaker, this war represents a dramatic misuse of our military. In the name of our national security, it is undermining the only true guarantor of national security that we have: our Armed Forces. And for 4 years, this Congress let it happen. But not any more. Today, the House will finally recognize that our military is at the breaking point--not because of any inherent weakness, but because it is being asked to complete a mission no army could succeed at. And so, that mission must change. The new strategy this bill sets forth has nothing to do with surrender, Mr. Speaker. Instead, it has everything to do with doing what must be done to work toward a secure Iraq. And it has everything to do with refusing to allow those who would do us harm fool us into defeating ourselves--in the process, attaining a victory that they will never be able to achieve on their own. Let me say as well that this funding bill also respects our soldiers enough to put their needs at the forefront of our national priorities, instead of leaving them behind. From now on, if they are asked to go into battle without being fully armored, fully rested, and fully trained, then the President himself will have to stand before this country and explain why it is necessary to do so. This bill will also provide desperately needed funds for veterans' health care. Our country is seeing more wounded soldiers returning from abroad than at any point in 40 years, and yet for years, our health care system has failed thousands of them. It is unconscionable, and it is long past time that it was changed. Finally, this bill both increases funding for the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and for a variety of other critically important national security objectives. Taken together, it represents the beginning of what will be a responsible and ethical shift in our national security priorities away from a mistaken conflict in Iraq and back toward other concerns--the continued rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example, and the needs of wounded soldiers at home. By changing a flawed strategy that has weakened our military for years without getting us any closer to a stable Iraq, this legislation represents our country's best chance to shake both of our nations free from the shackles of a stalemate benefiting neither. It is an important and historic bill, one that the people of Iraq deserve, that the American people deserve, and that our troops most certainly deserve. I am proud to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.