Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the items contained in the amendment are not new provisions. They were all included in the Senate version of the supplemental appropriations bill and provide greatly needed funds to increase security at our Nation's borders and ports; but, unfortunately, they were stripped from the final version of the report. I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the report. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to add greatly needed funds to protect our Nation's vulnerable borders and ports. But a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from adding the funds to improve our border and port security; and representing a border area myself, I appreciate the importance of it. So, please, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 3 months have gone by since the House last met to pass new funding for one of the greatest challenges our Nation faces today: the ongoing war in Iraq. It is clear that so long as our soldiers are in harm's way our financial support for them must continue. But writing checks is not enough. All the money in the world cannot produce a positive change if it is squandered and misappropriated. What our troops in the field and our citizens at home need is for this body to recommit itself to real oversight of our government and its actions. What we need is the return of accountability to the House, and it is that above all else which has yet to transpire here. I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle to focus their gaze half a world away. The past 90 days has seen victories and defeats in Iraq, reasons for hope and reasons for grave concern, and the outcome is still far from certain. And yet the overwhelming majority of our troops routinely carry out acts of most remarkable personal courage. Their very existence is in constant danger, and yet they press onward. Contrast that courage, Mr. Speaker, with the lack of courage displayed by the majority of the House. It is a lack of courage that has proven as persistent as the problems it has perpetuated. I should first say that the very idea that we are once again funding the conflict through a supplemental spending bill is both dishonest and dishonorable. It is part of a massive effort to hide the true cost of the war from the public because supplemental spending bills are not counted in the budget. They, therefore, do not increase our national deficits on paper even though they do increase them in reality. If this Congress believes that funding the mission in Iraq is necessary, it should have the courage to fund it through an official appropriations bill. Then the financial cost to the Nation should be clear then for all to see and the American people could better judge for themselves how much we are willing to devote to it. As important as this is, it pales in comparison to the importance of overseeing how our money is being spent in Iraq. Events move so quickly in that country and every action taken possesses such a great consequence that Members of this body should demand nothing less than full accountability of how the U.S. funds are being spent. Three months ago I repeated the calls of John Tierney for the creation of a congressional commission to oversee the reconstruction efforts abroad, one like the Truman Commission, created during World War II by a Congress with the integrity needed to investigate itself. At the time I cited reports claiming that billions of dollars in funds intended for the Iraqi people had gone missing. Three months later nothing has changed. In fact, just last week the Special Inspector General for Iraq reconstruction issued a report that documented 7 billion more dollars lost in funds for reconstruction, and he has 72 ongoing investigations into accusations of fraud and corruption among contractors. And what is his reward? They are going to take inspection away from him and give it over to the State Department. Now, I am thankful that this Inspector General has been working hard in the last 2 years and in keeping track of numbers because that document would never have come from this majority. They do not even want to discuss the war in any detail. This week's debate on this war will be the first of its kind and the September 11 anniversary will be 5 years very shortly. Where is the courage? Where is the resolve? How can they speak day in and day out about our need to support the troops and then refuse to exercise constitutional responsibility to oversee this, our Nation's greatest foreign project in a generation? Where there is no oversight, there will be corruption, and in a war zone corruption is not just about money. It is about life and death. If U.S. contractors are not getting what they are supposed to do done, the lives of our troops are put in danger. If reconstruction projects are being hobbled by poor accounting, then the projects will not be completed and Iraqis will continue suffering. We learned months ago that 80 percent of the Marines who died of upper body wounds would have been saved if only they had not been forced to depend on an unreliable contractor for the body armor. How can we live with that? I only recently learned that the DOD Inspector General will be looking into these contracts at my request because nobody has looked to see what happened there. Mr. Speaker, these unjustifiable realities are to a large degree the product of a lack of any real oversight by Congress. And the lack, in turn, has been the province of a majority unwilling to truly reform its ways, even while it lectures people near and far about the importance of reforming theirs. Mr. Speaker, until this changes, we have no solutions to the self- imposed problems undermining the safety of our citizens here and the success of our troops and their mission abroad, and we cannot afford to waste another moment. Too much is at stake. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling Clerk to make some very important national security additions to the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be printed in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of Appropriations (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, our democratic system of government promises that the will of the people it serves will be heard. But it does more than that. It also promises that the right to debate will not be trampled underfoot by the might of simple majorities. In so doing, it seeks to protect the needs of all of its citizens, rather than simply those of the biggest, the richest, and the most well-connected groups in our society. For all of these reasons, the rule and the bill that we have before us today is onerous on two separate, but connected, levels. It should not be a handful of people in the back room that decides what ideas this democracy is allowed to consider. And yet while eight Democrat amendments were made in order last night in the Rules Committee, almost 20 were not. Among those silenced were crucial corrections to this legislation that would protect the needs of American consumers and citizens against the unchecked ambitions of some of our Nation's largest and most well- connected companies, companies I might add that were perfectly willing to hand over all of our records to the government. Now, perhaps this makes sense, considering that what we have left is a bill that without amendment will radically undermine the technology that has been proven to embody the democratic ideals of our Nation in a way that few inventions ever have. I am, of course, talking about the Internet. That is what my Democrat colleagues and I are talking about when we speak of an America that is for sale: Assaults on democracy here in the House that ripple out and hurt Americans everywhere. Consider some of the amendments the bill turned down yesterday, the Rules Committee turned down yesterday. Representatives Doyle and Dingell gave us an amendment that would give local officials and mayors some power over where and how telecommunications companies could build their infrastructure in their towns and cities. This bill will take that power away from them. But the majority did not allow us to debate the amendment today. Another amendment sought to require telecommunications companies to provide high speed Internet access not just to the well-off neighborhoods, but to all the neighborhoods in our cities and towns so that all our families would have access to the power and knowledge that comes with information and that amendment was rejected by the majority. Another amendment would have taken an aggressive stance against red lining, the practice of denying service or offering inferior service to consumers because of their race, national origin, religion or gender. That amendment was turned away by the Republican majority. Mr. Speaker, these were amendments written for the benefit of all Americans. They were designed not to unfairly impinge on the ability of telecommunication companies to do business, but rather to ensure the business done served the public good and the needs of all of us. But when we examine what was put into the bill before us, it makes sense that a handful of folks in the leadership decided for all of us that the amendments would be left out. The Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 as it stands today will do much more to limit online opportunities than it will enhance the experiences of users or promote the Democratic digital flow of ideas. It is a bill written by and for a limited number of companies that are already wildly profitable. Also, they can make even more money and the American people will pay the price. It is indeed true that corporations like Verizon and AT&T have invested a great deal in the high technology and infrastructure empowering our Nation's economy, but they are being compensated richly for their efforts by ordinary consumers who pay to access their systems. Verizon, for example, is one of the largest corporations in America with annual revenues in excess of $75 billion a year. Because the information superhighway these companies help build has remained open to all and free of arbitrary tolls, it has been home to an unlimited profusion of new and novel companies. It is the basis of the greatest exchange of ideas, opinions and information in human history. It has become instrumental to our global economy and to our international political system, and it has allowed a free market to truly flourish. Today anyone with an idea or business concept can share it with literally billions of others. Open telecommunication systems have broken down walls and made old barriers obsolete. But my colleagues and I are not exaggerating when we say that all of that is threatened by this bill. It permits major telecom corporations to serve those who can pay them the most better than those who cannot pay. The Internet has traditionally been a true marketplace for ideas and commerce with small and large vendors competing on equal footing, a true community bazaar for the 21st century. This bill, if not amended, will bulldoze the dynamic Main Street style marketplace that is our Internet today and will replace it with a one-size fits all Wal-Mart superdome. We have all seen the effects that type of development has had on local communities all over America. Why on earth would we help the Republicans do the same thing to the Internet as well? Why should Americans accept the destruction of the very concept that makes the Internet what it is today? The truth is under this law, independent online media outlets and small Internet businesses will not be able to compete anymore. And Internet users will eventually have no choice but to use the services of an ever-dwindling number of online organizations. Innovation of all kinds will be stifled and the ultimate leveler of the playing field will have been forever tilted in favor of the already rich and already powerful. And all of this will have been done simply so the wealthy can make more money. The solution to this unacceptable outcome, Mr. Speaker, is known as net neutrality; and my colleagues, Mr. Markey, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Eshoo and Mr. Inslee have offered an amendment to enshrine that concept in this legislation. I should say, Mr. Speaker, that while the rule we are debating here today will fortunately allow us to debate the amendment, it does not make in order another fine net neutrality proposal that Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers developed in the Judiciary Committee. Net neutrality is being portrayed by some as an attempt at excessive regulation, but the opposite is the truth. But what we are doing here today will have long lasting repercussions, Mr. Speaker. I pray we do it right. Net neutrality proposals like the one proposed in the Markey, Boucher, Eshoo, and Inslee amendment are the only way for us to keep the Internet open for all. These reforms we are proposing won't prevent telecommunications companies from building their networks and earning tremendous profits . . . .They just won't provide giant companies with a government sanctioned stranglehold on the Internet marketplace. What they will do instead is ensure that networks will be worth building--that the infinitely diverse universe of information, ideas, and entertainment that currently flows into homes around the world will be protected and perpetuated. Ultimately, this issue is about the freedom of the marketplace, and understanding the value of competition. The Republican leadership, who talk so much about benefits of competition and the value of free-markets have abandoned these core principles on this bill, in order to carry water for the biggest and richest telecommunications companies in the world. And when my friends on the other side of the aisle rejected important amendments to this bill designed to defend ordinary consumers and citizens against some of the largest companies around, they were rigging the game to ensure their own victory. In the process, I worry that this House leadership is headed toward selling out the needs of tens of millions of Americans yet again. But they have a chance to change my mind here today, and the minds of millions and millions of Americans who want an Internet not controlled by a handful of mega-corporations. They have a chance to stand up for the market place of ideas that the Internet has become . . . to embrace true competition instead of trampling it under the foot of big business. They have a chance to ensure that the Internet will truly belong to all Americans and that anyone who chooses may have a voice online. And that that voice won't be filtered by a few privileged super companies who have greased the skids in Congress. America deserves better than this, Mr. Speaker. And I know that quietly many of my Republican colleagues out there today agree with me on this issue. I just hope they are brave enough to stand with us. I urge everyone in this House to vote ``yes'' on the Markey, Boucher, Eshoo, and Inslee amendment. Without it, this legislation is little more than an unjustifiable attack on a technology with the rarest of potentials--to better the lives of everyone it touches. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey). (Mr. HINCHEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. We appreciate your getting to us, Mr. Speaker, and I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member on the committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. The Sabo language would require the Secretary of Homeland Security within 6 months to issue regulations for the security of chemical facilities in the United States. This language was added to the bill during the Appropriations Committee markup, but was exposed to a point of order in the Rules Committee. Madam Speaker, whether or not Members support this provision to increase security at vulnerable chemical facilities, we should, at the very least, have an opportunity for an up-or-down vote on the provision and not have it stricken on a point of order. The Obey amendment will increase funding by $3.5 billion to help address a number of the bill's seriously underfunded programs and the services that are vital to homeland security. It will provide for increased Border Patrol agents, increased immigration investigators, and increased capacity and detention facilities. It fully funds the Port Security Grant program at the level enacted by the House just 2 weeks ago. It provides funds for Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard to better protect our ports. And it restores cuts in programs that assist local first responders in disaster preparation. It also provides for substantial expansion of resources to support aviation explosive detection for air cargo and passengers and carry-on bags. The Obey amendment does this and more without imposing any increase in our awful deficit. The entire cost of the amendment is offset by a slight reduction in the tax cut for those fortunate individuals in this Nation having annual incomes of over $1 million. Unfortunately, the homeland security appropriations bill before us today is inadequately funded in a number of areas that are vitally important to our Nation's security. We are all aware that Federal dollars are limited; but when it comes to the safety and security of the American people, we have to find a way to fund those programs in ways that will protect our citizens. Democrats believe in keeping our promises. The Obey amendment will help us support these efforts and do so without adding to the debt. Madam Speaker, I want to point out a ``no'' will not prevent us from considering the homeland security appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Sabo and Obey proposals. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I do not think the American people are going to buy it anymore that Democrats are great spendthrifts and just want to throw more money. We would not do a contract for $21 million for a limousine to drive around Washington. I think people remember that, 6 years ago, we had the largest surplus that this country has ever enjoyed that should have lasted us for 20 years. It lasted less than three, and now we have the largest deficit we have ever had. I think people will see through that. Madam Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).