Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that it is not that we want to spend more money. We really question the way money is spent, and we really believe that $21 million to drive people around town is an absurd expense for an agency that is responsible for our safety. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, there is a difference between real security and rhetorical security. Today it is easy to see which one the Congress is committed to. We received what was perhaps the greatest wake-up call in the Nation's history on September 11, 2001. And the failure of our national security personnel on that day should have been the catalyst for an unprecedented strengthening of our system. But in ways that mattered most, it did not happen. In more than 4 years, this Congress has failed to properly fund the Nation's first responders in spite of their historic and heroic performance on that terrible day. In fact, the year's funding levels are $100 million less than last year's. In 4 years, Congress has also failed to secure the Nation's chemical plants. Over 300 plants nationwide, each with a capacity to kill 50,000 or more people if they were attacked, are left with security un-upgraded. What many experts consider the single greatest vulnerability to our security today, our ports, has not been addressed; 5 years after 9/11, 95 percent of cargo can containers that pass through our ports are never inspected in any way. And after all we have heard lately about border security, the Congress has refused to pay for the border agents or detention facilities needed to enforce the immigration laws that we pass. Madam Speaker, while I speak of the failings of Congress to invest in real security for our people, it is critical to remember which party has been in charge since 2001. Since that time, Democrats have tried again and again to get our Republican colleagues to back up their words with actions. We have authored numerous amendments to increase funding for critical and essential national security programs. This year we presented an amendment to provide an additional $3.5 billion for border, port aviation and disaster preparedness programs. And I understand that for $1.5 billion, we could give every port on earth the ability to check cargo. The Democrats wanted to pass funding that would support 1,800 new Border Patrol agents, more than the 800 more immigration investigators and 9,000 new detention beds. We authored legislation to fund 500 new radiation monitors to inspect cargo and increase funding for public transportation by two-thirds. And it was a Democratic bill that would have given our first responders $600 million more with which to protect themselves as citizens of the country. All of these amendments were rejected by Republican-controlled committees. Now, at the same time, the actions of government agencies that we trust to defend us raise serious questions about their competency and compassion to protect this Nation. And I must talk about what they have done over in Homeland Security in regard to the Shirlington Limousine contract. As you know, 2 years ago, they were given an unbid contract of $3.5 million to chauffeur around people who work for DHS in Washington, despite the fact that, I am certain, they have fleets of cars, as every other agency does, and how cheap it would have been for them to take a taxi. But that was not enough. A year later, they awarded a $21 million contract to the same company, bid this time. They were not the low bidder, but they did get the contract. Now let me tell you that if the first responders and the officials up in my part of the country can get their hands on $21 million to fortify the borders, they would do it in a New York minute. Shirlington, when it was given these contracts, was nearly bankrupt. It had recently been fired by a local university for poor performance, and its president is a convicted felon. No background checks of any kind were done by the Department of Homeland Security. Now, the company is now involved in an ongoing Federal investigation, along with several unnamed Members of this body, which has so far revealed that it may have literally provided the vehicles by which an illegal influence peddling ring operated. I have submitted a resolution of inquiry to the Homeland Security Committee which would compel DHS to turn over all documents related to the awarding of their contract to Shirlington. No hearing has been held; basically no questions have been raised. After all, the American people have a right to know how a corrupt and dubious company received a huge contract with our Homeland Security money and who, if anyone, interceded on its behalf. It takes the wonderment of Alice in Wonderland believing six impossible things before breakfast to believe that someone in that agency did not grease the skids for that company. But DHS has so far refused our requests for information. We do not even have a response. And the Republican Congress refused to force them to turn over that information, and I want to know why. Nor is this the only way in which DHS, the supposed cure for the problems that permitted September 11 to take place, has yet to prove itself to be a valuable agency. Frankly, its value is very dubious. My constituents in the northern United States have experienced such a reality first hand. In January 2008, Homeland Security and the State Department intend to introduce new forms of border identification for northern residents as part of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The plan itself is deeply flawed. It will result in a dramatic reduction in cross border travel and trade and one that will cost the national economies of the United States and Canada billions of dollars every year. And at a recent meeting that we had with members of the Canadian parliament, they asked the question that is very pertinent: What does Canada do with the citizens of the United States who have gone to Canada and do not have a passport to allow themselves to come home? Is the Canadian government expected to take all of these American citizens into custody and to hold them? On what grounds? And to what end? I suggested at the Rules Committee that maybe we could send the Shirlington Limousine up to Canada and bring them home. But what is worse, it faces opposition, not just from outside the government but within it as well. Just yesterday, the DHS privacy office released a draft report stating that elements of the plan raised both security and privacy concerns. The GAO will soon report that both DHS and State are nowhere near being able to implement the plan by their January 2008 deadline. In fact, what is really astonishing is there is not a dime in this bill concerning WHTI, anything for infrastructure, anything that they plan to spend money on, which says to me that DHS knows itself that they are not ever going to be able to do this. When we step back and take all of these things together, we know what is occurring in Washington. Despite all of its pledges and promises, the Republican-led Congress has failed to make us safer. It has not spent the money needed to improve the vulnerable parts of our national security system, but wastes it on limousine service. Its own agencies have proven incapable of coordinating their activities or implementing new security plans. And the corruption of Congress has seeped into and affected some of those we count on to protect us, all under the nose of a House entirely uninterested in any kind of oversight. Madam Speaker, the American people have had enough of these priorities of agencies that this government presides over. They know the difference between real security that the Democratic Party is offering and unfulfilled promises of the majority party. They deserve a leadership that shares their priorities, that will not break its own promises. They deserve a change. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow the House to consider the Sabo chemical plant security provision that was left exposed to a point of order in the rule, and the Obey amendment to address the funding shortfalls in the bill. Efforts to allow the full House to consider these two important initiatives were rejected in the Rules Committee yesterday by a straight party-line vote. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I appreciate that very much, and thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to address an issue that concerns me not just as a microbiologist, but as a mother and a grandmother as well. Americans have a right to trust the safety of the food they eat and feed their families. Today, that safety has been put in jeopardy by a new threat, one that is the unintended result of our own advancements. The threat comes from antibiotic resistant bacteria. We take antibiotics for granted in this country. Just over 60 years ago, a pneumonia diagnosis was a death sentence. A case of bacterial meningitis would have been hopeless. With the introduction of antibiotics, however, we have been able to treat these, and many other, once fatal diseases. Unfortunately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have reported that the most significant human infections are becoming resistant to the antibiotics commonly used to treat them. In fact, antibiotic resistance has been labeled a ``top concern'' by the CDC, and the World Health Organization has called the situation a crisis. Resistant bacterial infections increase health care costs by 4 to 5 billion dollars each year. Two million Americans acquire a bacterial infection annually during stays at hospitals. Seventy percent of the infections they contract are resistant to the drugs prescribed for treatment. Salmonella infections, the cause of food poisoning, 1.4 million illnesses, and 500 deaths in America every year are increasingly resistant to the numerous drugs used against them. And thirty-eight patients in American hospitals die every day as a result of diseases contracted during their stay that no longer respond to antibiotics. While the overuse and misuse of antibiotics in humans is a factor contributing to this problem, it is not its only cause. There are currently seven classes of antibiotics used in both animals and humans, including basic drugs like Penicillin. In fact, 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics are used by meat producers on their livestock for nontherapeutic purposes. Unwittingly, we are permitting animals to serve as incubators for resistant bacteria. And as a result, a parent on a trip to the grocery store could end up bringing home meat contaminated with diseases that will put their family's health at risk and prove difficult to treat. In 2003, a National Academy of Sciences report stated that if we hope to make headway against this danger, we must reduce overuse of antibiotics not just in humans, but in animals and agriculture as well. This huge and tremendously important task has fallen largely on the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. And yet, despite its position on the front lines of this fight, the CVM is ill-equipped to carry out its duties. It needs additional resources to review the drugs currently approved for animal use. The amendment I am offering here today will give CVM the much needed boost necessary to do its job. It will make available 1 million dollars from within its budget to make sure we have the drugs we need to treat bacterial infections. With all of the new challenges modern medicine faces, we cannot allow a resurgence of ailments no longer seen as a source of concern. Our failure to address this problem will result in a less secure, and less healthy, future for our children and grandchildren. I urge all of my colleagues to support this common-sense amendment.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. As a microbiologist as well as a Member of Congress, I have been very concerned for some time about the overuse of antibiotics and the rise of drug-resistant bacteria. So what we are asking today is just a sum of money, $1 million, to be set aside from the FDA budget to begin to study the overuse of antibiotics in animals and using animals basically as incubators to breed the drug-resistant bacteria. I think it is a matter of top concern. It has been labeled that by the CDC and the World Health Organization, which says it has become a crisis; so I am pleased to put this amendment forward today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. MR. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, we have worked with the gentlewoman on this amendment, and I am happy to accept the amendment and would move it to a vote if the gentlewoman would agree.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on May 18, 2006 and missed rollcall vote 172, H.R. 5386. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for 172.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Aye'' for 159. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following these votes. H. Res. 740, Roll Call No. 159, Vote ``Aye''.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise with sadness today to honor Robert B. Wegman, chairman of Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., who died on April 20, 2006, at the age of 87. Mr. Wegman was surrounded by his family, as he passed away peacefully in his hometown of Rochester, NY. Mr. Wegman made his mark as a pioneer in the supermarket industry, transforming the conventional grocery store into a superstore, emulated by others across the country. Mr. Wegman's passion for business began as a child, when he worked in the family store operated from the front of his grandmother's home. He developed a philosophy that has served as the foundation for the company. He believed: ``I am a merchant and I have, therefore, my own philosophy about merchandising. That is: To do something that no one else is doing, and to be able to offer the customer a choice that she doesn't have at the moment.'' Mr. Wegman embodied the American entrepreneurial spirit from the start, and proved to be one of the most successful businessmen in the grocery store industry. From the beginning, Mr. Wegman made it his goal to make Wegmans supermarkets the finest chain in the country--he was not concerned if it was the fastest growing, but more with growth itself. In 1930, Mr. Wegman and his brother received national attention with the opening of their innovative grocery store. The 20,000-square-foot store was unlike anything seen before--it featured modern techniques for keeping produce fresh with vaporized water spray and refrigerated food displays. Over the next 56 years, Mr. Wegman transformed his store with the concept of one-stop-shopping. He imported fine cheeses, and wine, ethnic foods, and introduced patisseries and prepared foods into the grocery stores. In the 20th century, Wegman integrated pharmacies, photo labs and video departments into his stores, propelling the model for customer convenience to its highest levels. Wegmans Food Markets has expanded to now over 70 stores, and the company is now as well known for its corporate responsibility as it is for exceptional customer service. Wegmans Food Markets has been named one of `The Top 100 Companies to Work For' by Fortune magazine several years in a row, and in 2005 was ranked #1 as the best company to work for in the nation. Fortune's annual ranking of companies is determined by the number of employees and is measured by benefits, job growth, pay, percentage of minorities and women, and turnover. For example, Wegmans provides a scholarship program which has given close to $60 million in tuition assistance to its employees. Although the superstore helped to shape the Rochester community, Robert Wegman has crafted his company into one that serves as a national model, both for its corporate success and for the opportunities and environment he has provided for his employees. Mr. Wegman is also highly admired for his philanthropy. In 1995, he and his wife, Peggy, announced a 10-year, $25 million gift in support of Catholic education, allowing hundreds of families to choose Catholic education in the Rochester-area community. Mr. Wegman also made considerable contributions to Aquinas Institute high school, giving $10 million to the school for new athletic facilities and a fine arts center. In 1997, Wegmans Food Markets became the title sponsor of the Wegmans Rochester LPGA (Ladies Professional Golf Association); with proceeds supporting camps for disabled children. Most recently, Mr. Wegman contributed a combined $13 million to St. John Fisher College, which will be used for the establishment of the Wegmans School of Pharmacy and the Wegmans School of Nursing. Mr. Wegman's pursuit of excellence is portrayed in every aspect of his life: family, community, and corporate responsibility. He will be remembered as a pioneer and leader of his industry and for his extraordinary compassion and generosity. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Robert Wegman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, over the past 40 years the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities have proven themselves time and time again to be among our country's most valuable and successful organizations. Their reach is national, their impact profound. They are tremendously beneficial to our economy, generating $134 billion annually in economic activity. Artistic endeavors return some $10.5 billion to the Federal Government in income taxes every year. And the arts support nearly 5 million full-time jobs. When our children have art education in their lives, they score higher on their SATs, have greater self-confidence, and are more focused on their studies. I ask you today to urge stronger Federal commitment to the arts by supporting this amendment to provide modest increases to the NEA and NEH of $5 million each. Unless we provide an overall increase for NEA, the programs like Challenge America and the Big Read, which have been so important, will be slashed. And they will reach fewer people. Challenge America has enhanced America's communities through direct grants for arts education, at-risk youth and cultural preservation, community arts partnerships and improved access to the arts for all Americans, with local programs in every single congressional district. Because of the NEA, more children have music in the classroom today than ever before, and high school students are participating in poetry sessions and learning more about Shakespeare. And our brave men and women serving on our military bases throughout our country are entertained by popular opera performances. NEA's Big Read program has resulted in committed partnerships among local government officials, schools, libraries and arts organizations to address the terrible national decline in literary reading. As part of the program, a book is selected and everybody is encouraged to read it. It is that simple. The first 10 pilot programs now under way have proven to be overwhelmingly successful. The neighbors talk about ``Great Gatsby,'' friends are locked in heated debate about ``To Kill a Mockingbird,'' and coworkers are analyzing ``Fahrenheit 451.'' Imagine the conversations, connections and community enrichment that will be generated if NEA expands the Big Read into 100 communities, as it currently plans. The value of these programs should no longer have to be proved. The real question is, Will the Congress, with its patriotism and pride in America, prioritize the betterment of its culture? In the late 1980s and 1990s, we funded the NEA at $170 million. The NEA was last funded at this amount in 1994 and has never recovered from the awful budget cut it took. As a result, today its invaluable programs remain seriously underfunded. The increases I propose today are modest, but without adequate funding the NEA and the NEH will be unable to continue these and other important programs. I urge Members to vote for the Slaughter-Shays-Dicks-Leach-Price amendment and to preserve its funding in the final conference report. I thank my colleagues who have joined me today.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the chairman very much.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment to H.R. 5386, the Interior-Environment appropriations bill for fiscal year 2007. As co-chair of the Congressional Great Lakes Task Force, I believe it is imperative that we take immediate steps to prevent polluted discharges into streams, ponds, and wetlands in the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes have already lost more than half of their original wetlands, and invasive species, non-point source runoff and food web disruptions continue to threaten the health and sustainability of this delicate ecosystem. The Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from moving forward with a plan that will make it overly difficult to protect intrastate waters. Should EPA's policy remain intact, our Great Lakes basin will face greater threats of pollution to our drinking water, increased frequency and severity of flooding, and the loss of habitat for waterfowl and endangered wildlife. Mr. Chairman, the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell amendment has broad support among Great Lakes interests, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for it. I am pleased to submit for the Record a letter from the Heal Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition in support of this important amendment. May 17, 2006. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: On behalf of the Healing Our Waters- Great Lakes Coalition, we ask you to vote for the Oberstar- Leach-Dingell `Clean Water Amendment' to the House's Fiscal Year 2007 Interior and the Environment Appropriations bill when it is considered on the floor this week. This amendment will help protect the remaining wetlands, streams, rivers, and lakes in the Great Lakes Basin. The Healing Our Waters Coalition is a group of 85 national, regional and local organizations working to restore and protect the Great Lakes. The Coalition represents millions of Americans that live, work, and love this national treasure. As you know, the Great Lakes basin is defined by its rich water resources, its vast sand dunes, biologically rich coastal marshes, lake plain prairies, blue-ribbon trout streams, rocky shorelines, sparkling inland lakes, and diverse wetlands. Yet the wetlands, marshes, and shorelines people in the region remember are being lost. The Great Lakes have lost more than half of their original wetlands, including 90 percent in Ohio and 50 percent in Michigan. Invasive species, non-point source runoff and food web disruptions threaten the health and sustainability of this delicate ecosystem. In response to these threats, the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, which was commissioned by President Bush, recommended in its December 2005 strategy to restore and protect the Great Lakes that Congress ensure that all wetlands are protected, including so-called ``isolated'' wetlands. Yet federal policy not only fails to implement this simple recommendation, it also puts many of the remaining Great Lakes wetlands at risk of degradation or destruction. The Oberstar-Leach-Dingell ``Clean Water Amendment'' ends the implementation of an out-dated policy put in place by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2003. EPA's policy was intended to interpret a narrow U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited protection for certain socalled ``isolated'' waters. Instead, it threatens--by EPA's own estimation--the 20 percent of wetlands left in the contiguous United States and withholds Clean Water Act safeguards from countless numbers of streams and large lakes. The Oberstar- Leach-Dingell amendment prohibits funds from being used to implement a misguided policy that is resulting in the loss of even more of the Great Lakes precious few wetlands. Support for ending this policy is not new. 218 members of the u.S. House of Representatives wrote to the Administration calling for this policy to be rescinded. It is, unfortunately, still in effect. It is time for the federal government to end its out-dated policy. Great Lakes waters depend upon it. Please vote yes on the Oberstar/Leach/Dingell Clean Water Amendment. Sincerely, Tom Kiernan, Co-Chair, Healing Our Waters Coalition. Andy Buchsbaum Co-Chair Healing Our Waters Coalition.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, every justification of the budget we have heard today presents it as a noble and responsible attempt to respond to the harsh economic realities facing our Nation and our people. But when we examine it objectively, we can't avoid seeing the reality behind the pretense. The bill is designed to do everything it can to protect the record tax cuts for the richest of Americans. For the majority, that is more important than educating our children or providing health care to the veterans or helping Americans raise themselves out of poverty, or even protecting our country from the consequences of either national disasters or mounting national debt. The authors and supporters of the legislation will tell us that if we wish to avoid increasing our national deficit, which they have already driven to unprecedented heights, we have no choice but to spend on the programs that Americans rely on the most while they are busily cutting out the revenues that come into the government. But, once again, they are offering a false choice. For 5 years they have forced the massive tax cuts through the Congress. Last week they made the most recent down payment on the cuts. One was $70 billion. While President Bush signs that bill into law today, Republicans are asking us to pass this bill which adds another $158 billion to those cuts. So in 2 weeks, we have made those massive cuts, and any justification melts away when we realize who is benefiting from it. They are not for the poor, they are not for the working class, they are not for the middle class. They are for the oil companies. They won't spur our economy or help the average person afford their morning drive to work. They are instead the cuts for billionaires and millionaires, pure and simple. They are not going to help the economy, but they will indeed help people who don't need it, and that assistance will come at the expense of everyone else. But as always the case, despite objections not just from Democrats but much of the American public, reducing or extending these cuts isn't even on the table here. It never is. They are considered too sacred to touch. And just tonight in the Rules Committee, once again, we turned down an opportunity to pay for more by taking away part of their tax cut. What do we get in exchange for this giveaway? Well, the majority offered us a budget that will cut domestic spending between 1 and 2 percent every year. As a result, the party that tells us to support the troops is cutting veterans health care by $6 billion. And we worry and fear for the over 20,000 young soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who have been grievously life-altering wounded will not be able to get the care they need when they come back. Republicans who promised to leave no child behind will be cutting education funding by $45.3 billion, and the budget of the Department of Education by $2.2 billion. Now, not content to make education less rewarding in the present, they apparently want to make our students worry more about loan payments in the future. The bill eliminates all mandatory spending on student loans, leaving congressional appropriators to somehow find $600 million to meet the students' needs. The majority wants to cut environmental protection efforts by $25 billion, and take over $1 billion from community development and social service initiatives which we desperately need. The poorest of the poor won't find any relief at all in this legislation. In fact, they will find the opposite. The budget will underfund housing and child care assistance by $447 million over the next year, and over 5 years the funding for them will fall almost $15 billion short. What will the results be? Well, consider the fate of the commodity supplemental food program which provides nutritious meals to 420,000 low-income elderly and 50,000 mothers and children at a cost of $111 million a year. The budget eliminates it entirely. Mr. Speaker, it may make sense that they are forcing the cuts through Congress so they can afford the hand-outs to the rich, but perhaps that really is what today's Republican Party stands for. But apparently they also stand for something new, contrary to their rhetoric: irresponsible government spending. The legislation before us will increase our deficit without a vote by $410 billion over the next 5 years. At the same time, it increases the debt limit by over $650 billion. By 2011, the limit will stand at $9.6 trillion. When the Clinton administration left office, the debt limit was about $4.5 trillion, and they left us the greatest surplus we have ever had. The majority claims the bill will make us more fiscally secure, but what they really do is sow the seeds of greater insecurity both now and for years to come. When we realize that it isn't necessity driving this bill, but rather a world view that puts the richest Americans ahead of everybody else, we are not left with much else to say but ``shame.'' We don't share these values. Democrats believe instead, as did that great Republican President Theodore Roosevelt and countless other Americans, that investing in the middle class, which is disappearing quickly, and guaranteeing broad prosperity is the surest way to ensure sustained economic growth.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer this very important amendment requiring the Department of Defense (DoD) to provide the results of all disciplinary actions in their annual report on sexual assault. As part of the DoD Authorization bill in FY 2004, the DoD is required to submit annual reports on sexual assaults involving members of the Armed Forces. This past March, DoD issued its second annual report. The military criminal investigation organizations received nearly 2,400 reports of alleged cases of sexual assault involving members of the Armed Forces-- a significant increase from 1,700 cases reported in 2004. Of the nearly 2,400 allegations, less than 1,400 cases were actually investigated--91 received non-judicial punishments, 18 were discharged in lieu of court-martial, 62 had administrative actions taken against them, and 79 offenders had been court-martialed. However, while this annual report has been helpful in presenting the full scope of this growing problem, it fails to provide a complete understanding of how sexual assault cases are prosecuted in the military. It does not include the results of all disciplinary actions, including Article 15s and convictions. For example, of the 79 courts- martial issued in 2006, we have no idea how many resulted in convictions. Mr. Chairman, DoD's response to sexual assault in the military deserves more scrutiny. And as Members of Congress, it is our responsibility to provide this oversight. In order for us to effectively address this serious problem, evaluations must be based on facts and statistics. By including the results of all disciplinary actions in the annual report, we will have a more complete, transparent understanding of how DoD is addressing the problem of sexual assault in military. We owe it to the men and women in uniform defending our freedom to ensure that justice is served when they find themselves victims of sexual assault. I want to thank the Chairman for working with me on this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the amendment seeks to reduce proposed increases in copayments for military families back to current cost shares. As the war in Iraq drags on and on, we continue to ask more and more of the brave men and women who serve in our military. They are asked to sacrifice everything, from their own lives to the health and livelihoods of their families. These families are already struggling paycheck to paycheck just to make ends meet. Maybe the increase in the copayments don't seem like much to the wealthy Americans who were rewarded by Republicans yesterday with a hefty five-figure tax break but, they sure make a significant break in the budgets of low- and moderate-income families with children. Mr. Speaker, not only is Ranking Member Skelton one of the most distinguished and respected Members of the House, he is also an expert on military personnel. To deny him the opportunity to even offer this responsible amendment is simply outrageous. Even those who don't support his amendment ought to have the courage to vote whether or not to help our soldiers and their families pay for medicine. I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not block the defense authorization bill and will not affect any of the other amendments that are in order under this rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow us to debate and vote on the Skelton amendment. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)