Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 390, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 390, I was detained due to a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules I attempted to strike an amendment that was put into this bill that I believe does not belong there. I believe it was inflammatory and totally unnecessary. It implied that those Americans who are concerned about the conduct of the war and talk about withdrawal are unpatriotic. Despite 60 percent of the American people being concerned about the war, the majority refused to remove this amendment from the bill. Mr. Speaker, all Americans support the troops in Iraq. They are our sons and they are our daughters. We appreciate their commitment, we honor their service and we do not need another resolution to demonstrate that appreciation. What we should do is live up to our commitment to the troops. Mr. Speaker, it is the Democrats that have fought to raise the Veterans Administration budget the $2 billion it needs this year just to take care of the wounded from Iraq. Think about that for a moment. For what we spend on the war a week, $2 billion, we could take care of our wounded veterans for a year. We care very much about that, and that is how we honor our troops. Mr. Speaker, Democrats in this House have pushed that debate, and again unsuccessfully, that our troops are not well equipped, that we have not given them the armored vehicles and things they need to save their lives. Now this leadership is going to use rhetoric to try to further divide the Nation. They would rather do that than take care of the troops. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this rule and particularly, as I mentioned, the Ros-Lehtinen amendment is fear politics at its worst. The underlying message the Republican leadership is sending could not be clearer. It is this: If you disagree with the policies of this administration, you are un-American. If you dare to question them, you will hurt our troops in the field. If you ask the tough questions, you are helping the terrorists. I feel compelled to advise my colleagues that this is a democracy. What we need to do is defeat the previous question and consider the Ros-Lehtinen amendment separately as a freestanding bill. The way it is written now, there is no possibility even to amend it. It is either up or down, shut up or put up. This is not the way we do things here, and we are leaving out half the population of this country who wants us to debate the war. Once again, we are attempting to cut out the voice of the people here, and we will try on the previous question to remove the Ros-Lehtinen amendment from the bill and immediately consider it later as a freestanding bill, giving Members the opportunity to amend it.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the 157th anniversary of the first women's suffragists movement. Western New York is often said to be the cradle of the women's rights movement, and I am privileged to represent the area where one prominent suffragette, Susan B. Anthony, of Rochester, fought so hard for the rights that women today enjoy. Susan B. Anthony formed the Equal Rights Association, refuted ideas that women were inferior to men, and fought for a woman's right to vote. She also campaigned for the rights of women to own property, to keep their own earnings, and have custody of their children. In 1900, she persuaded the University of Rochester to admit their first women students. Through persistent dedication, Susan B. Anthony, and other remarkable leaders, women were finally granted the right to vote in 1920. Since then, we have made progress, but still have a long way to go. We face the gender gap. And whether it is equal pay, health care, Social Security, or family leave, this Congress has refused to address issues critical to hard-working American women. The suffragist movement had to overcome the rhetoric and the empty promises of Members of this House 85 years ago. Commitment to concrete policies, not grandiose words, honors the battle they fought so hard and won.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, during my life I've been called a lot of things from a microbiologist, to a mother of three and a grandmother of 7, to a Member of Congress, but today I seem to have earned a new title, one I never expected to have--I am now a walking chemical plant. Recently, I was a surrogate blood donor for a study conducted by the Environmental Working Group and Commonweal. I participated in this important study to find out what toxic substances I in particular, and Americans in general, have been exposed to throughout our lives. My stunning test results showed literally hundreds of chemicals pumping through my vital organs everyday. These chemicals include PCBs that were banned decades ago, as well as chemicals like Teflon that are currently under Federal investigation. Apparently, my body is home to toxic chemicals used to make insecticides, electrical cables, florescent lamps and even automobile engine oil, despite the fact that I tasked my husband with handling the car oil years ago. I also have auto exhaust fumes, flame retardant chemicals, and in all, some 271 harmful substances coursing through my veins. That's hardly the picture of health I had hoped for, but I've been living in an industrial society for over 70 years. While I was born in a coal mining mountains of Kentucky, I grew up in a bucolic area that did not have industrial pollution. So I have assumed my exposure to environmental chemicals occurred during adulthood. But for the ten newborn babies that also were part in this study, they were born polluted. On average each one had some 200 chemicals in their blood, before they ever touched a blanket, a bassinet, a car seat, or even took their first breath. If ever this country had a wake-up call, it's the blood test results of these newborns. If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb. Obviously, banning chemicals after they have entered the environment is not enough. That we have children coming into this world already polluted, at the same time we don't know what the effects of that pollution will be on their mental and physical development, is both bad policy and immorally wrong. We must test chemicals before they go onto the market, not after they get into our bloodstreams. Over the last 30 years, the U.S. has seen a steep rise in the occurrence of childhood cancers, testicular cancer, juvenile diabetes, attention deficit disorder, learning disabilities, thyroid disorders, cognitive impairment, and autoimmune disorders. Autism cases alone rose 210 percent between 1987 and 1998. And we ask ourselves, why? What's happening? Is there a connection with the more than 75,000 new chemicals that have been introduced into our environment since the 1950s? Amazingly, there is still a lack of data on the potential neuro- developmental effects on women, on fetuses, and on how long-term, low- dose exposure to environmental pollutants impacts children at critical stages of development. For 5 years, I have called on Congress to enact legislation that would allow NIH to research the impact that these chemical pollutants have on women and children. Now, once again, I am introducing the Environmental Health Research Act. Specifically, this bill does two things. First, it authorizes the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to develop six multidisciplinary research centers to investigate the association and impact of environmental factors on women's health and their offspring. It also authorizes the Director of this institute, in cooperation with other Federal agencies, to establish a comprehensive program to conduct research on the impact of hormone disrupting chemicals affecting maternal and child health. We need to research the impact of these chemical pollutants now. Only then will we have the information we need both to detoxify and also to prevent developmental disabilities and other environmentally related diseases in future generations. Let's pass this legislation. Let's clean up our environment. Let's clean up our bodies, but most importantly, let's not permit our babies of the future to be polluted before they are even born. I urge my colleagues to support this bill today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we now know that Karl Rove is one of the White House officials directly involved in the outing of a covert CIA agent. Rove and his attorneys can parse the words all they want, but it is now clear that while Rove may not have given a reporter Plame's name, he clearly identified her by telling the reporter that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. Does Rove expect us to believe that any reporter worth a byline could not easily find out the actual name of Wilson's wife? And, as disturbing as this is, it is even more disturbing that President Bush continues to support Rove. In September 2003, President Bush told reporters, ``If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.'' Well, the President now knows at least one of the persons in his administration is responsible for this leak. The question is, will he keep his word and fire Mr. Rove? President Bush should not forget the comments of his own father who in a speech before the CIA in 1999 said, ``I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.'' And right on, first President Bush. If this President agrees with his father, he will fire Karl Rove and clear the way for his prosecution.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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 thank my colleague, the gentleman the Florida (Mr. Putnam), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida has explained, this rule would do two things. It would allow the House to consider legislation under suspension of the rules, and it would waive a provision in the Congressional Budget Act that prohibits the House from adjourning for more than 3 days unless it has completed consideration on reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, in general, I think far too much of the legislation passed around here is done by suspension, a process that waives all House rules and prohibits all amendments, and even precludes a motion to recommit. Having that said, however, I must add that tonight is somewhat different. I would ordinarily have more concern about allowing yet another day for considering legislation in this manner, but I do realize that in limited instances, it may be necessary to waive this rule in order to expedite legislation that is truly emergency in nature. It is evident today that two of the four items which are to be considered under suspension are indeed particularly urgent. One is the temporary extension of the highway bill. Without this legislation, the highway programs will be shut down and significant layoffs will occur. I am hopeful, as I am sure many of my colleagues are as well, that this will be the last time that we will have to pass a short-term extension of this bill. The conferees must finish their work on the highway authorization bill quickly so we can begin building and repairing our Nation's decaying highways and infrastructure. The other critical bill before us today is the emergency supplemental bill for veterans medical care. We Democrats attempted to address this emerging veterans crisis earlier this week when we advocated for the Edwards amendment and also in March when the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) brought in a resolution asking for an amendment to be approved by the Committee on Rules to include $1.3 billion more. They were turned down. The Department of Veterans Affairs is being flooded with veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, four times as many as had originally been budgeted for. Trying to help 103,000 of our brave men and women with a budget designed to assist just over 25,000 has produced a shortfall in the Veterans Department funds of more than $1 billion this year, a staggering sum. The gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Edwards) amendment would have filled in a shameful gap between our Nation's professed support for its veterans and its actual action on their behalf; but, Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority in our House was not concerned with this chasm separating rhetoric from reality. As I said, the Edwards amendment was voted down on a party-line vote. Not a single Republican voted for the necessary health care for our wounded veterans; and on the emergency supplemental bill, as I mentioned before, the Baird-Hooley amendment to provide $1.3 billion that was in March was not allowed by the Committee on Rules on a party- line vote. This issue is not about Republicans or Democrats. It is about our soldiers. We have a patriotic duty to uphold our end of the bargain and properly care for the fighting men and women of this country. This is a sacred bond of trust, a contract that the majority has violated; but my fellow Americans believe that refusing to care for our veterans after having voted to send them to war is the height of hypocrisy, and the public is outraged. As a result, House Republicans have reversed course. They received the wake-up call. They have come back to the table so we can hammer out the funding we need to care for our troops, as we should have earlier this week and in March. This is a pattern that has become all too familiar. The majority does something unpopular, the public gets incensed, and the majority backs off. It has happened over and over with the ethics crisis in the House. It happened with the recent Republican attempt to kill public broadcasting in America; and now less than 7 days later, they are at it again, having to fess up to the fact that their priorities are out of step with the American people, their values are out of the mainstream. Have they had a change of heart regarding the issue before us? Perhaps, or perhaps they just do not want to go home to July 4th parades in their districts before they have dealt with the tangible and pressing need of the veterans they will be saluting. Let me say I find it absolutely scandalous that the Veterans Administration failed to tell us of this shortfall. Now, Mr. Speaker, while I give my friends on the right credit for admitting their error and working to fix it, I regret to report that their proposed solution is just not good enough. They have proposed increasing veterans spending by $975 million, which is still $25 million short of what the Veterans Affairs Department says it needs just this year, and more than half a billion dollars short of what the Senate pledged yesterday. Their bill does nothing to address the issue of veterans funding in 2006, where we are told there will be another more than $1 billion deficit. I hope and pray we do not have to have this embarrassing debate again next year and can instead solve this problem now. We should always remember, Mr. Speaker, that it is easy to make the right decision when the whole world is watching, but what defines our character is what we do when no one is watching. The Members of the majority have repeatedly been coerced by popular pressure into doing what is right when all eyes are on them. Now, both I and my colleagues on the Democratic side implore them to do something more: to summon the courage and the wisdom to do what is right when the only eyes on them are their own. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that if we pass $1.5 billion, we can do the same thing, take the Senate bill and get it finished tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown). (Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I start, I will insert in the Record the news release from Senator Craig, Committee on Veterans' Affairs chairman, and the New York Times editorial today called ``The True Cost of War.'' Senate to Quickly Take Up $1.5 Billion Measure for Veterans If Sent From the House Washington, DC--The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee retreated its position today that the Department of Veterans Affairs need $1.5 billion to fill a spending gap for the Department of Veterans Affairs. In a unanimous vote, the appropriators voted to authorize the Senate to quickly take up a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental if the House approves such a measure. That action came after the Bush Administration indicated earlier today that the agency needs $975 million. ``Clearly there is disagreement here on the number, but it's clear that we all want to do the right thing for veterans. We do not want to leave the Department of Veterans Affairs short of funds,'' said Sen. Larry Craig who serves on the Appropriations Committee and is Chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs. ``Working with our colleagues in the House, I'm sure we can achieve that objective.'' [From the New York Times, Jun. 30, 2005] The True Cost of War In anger and embarrassment, Congressional Republicans are scrambling to repair a budget shortfall in veterans' medical care now that the Bush administration has admitted it vastly underestimated the number of returning Iraq and Afghanistan personnel needing treatment. The $1 billion-plus gaffe is considerable, with the original budget estimate of 23,553 returned veterans needing care this year now ballooning to 103,000. American taxpayers should be even more furious than Congress. The Capitol's Republican majorities have shown no hesitation in signing the president's serial blank-check supplemental budgets for waging the war, yet they repeatedly ignored months of warnings from Democrats that returning veterans were being shortchanged. One Republican who warned of the problem--Representative Christopher Smith of New Jersey--lost his chairmanship of the Veterans' Affairs Committee after pressing his plea too boldly before the House leadership. But partisan resistance melted in a flood of political chagrin once the administration admitted the budget error, which was first discovered in April but only now disclosed. The explanation offered--the gaffe was due to using dated formulas based on prewar calculations--left Republicans sputtering all the more. All wars necessarily involve mismanagement, even successful ones. But there is no excuse for treating the needs of wounded and damaged warriors as a budgetary afterthought. Congressional Republicans were far from innocent victims of administrative ineptitude or deception. After years of approving record tax cuts and budget deficits, they stuck to this year's pre-election script of fictitious ``budget tightening'' that underestimated inevitable expenses and shortchanged returning veterans with higher health care enrollment fees and drug co-payments. The only comfort for the American public is that unlike many of the war's problems, this one can be repaired, providing partisan combat is suspended in the Capitol.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to immediately consider H.R. 3136, legislation introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that provides an immediately desperately needed $1.5 billion in funding for veterans medical service. This amount is the same level that was approved by the Senate last night and is what is needed to fully care for our Nation's veterans. Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the White House and the VA were not honest about this shortfall in the first place because if they had been, as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) said, we would not need to be here tonight. But I think now even the most skeptical of my colleagues in the House realize that our veterans' health care system is in a serious crisis. And while it is encouraging that after feeling the pressure brought to bear by the American people that the Republican leadership has reversed course and agreed to take some action, it is unclear to me why they are providing only $975 million instead of the full amount needed. How can we believe the same people who told us there was no problem? Senator Craig is asking the leadership of this body to pass a bill and let him have that $1.5 billion out of here so they can finish work on this in the morning. Clearly, clearly, we must do that for our veterans. Remember, we have a contract with them. When we sent them off to war, we guaranteed that we will meet their needs. So please vote ``no'' on the previous question, and we can vote today for full funding of our veterans. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. BAIRD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. And frankly, if this business had been taken care of in the JOBS Act we would not be here today trying to pass this amendment. And no corporation just happens to go to Bermuda to incorporate. They go so that they can avoid paying taxes. You know, let us be realistic about it. I want to support this amendment because new contracts would have to go to companies that pay taxes and operate in America. Corporations who set up the offshore tax havens cost us approximately $5 billion a year in tax revenue. And of course, as you say, the employees that they have here pay taxes. But all of us pay more taxes when corporations get out from under their tax liability. These companies received $1.4 billion in Federal contracts in 2002 alone. Now, corporations located in the United States that conduct their business in the United States and employ most of their workforce in the United States should not skirt their tax obligations by opening a Post Office box in Bermuda. And it is unconscionable that we would reward these corporate tax cheats with millions of dollars in taxpayer funded Federal contracts. The corporate expatriates hurt the other U.S. taxpayers by shifting more of the tax burden on to their shoulders. This is a point that somehow we fail to grasp here. When other people get out of the burden of paying taxes the taxes do not go away. They are simply shifted to the rest of us. They drain funds from this budget that are desperately needed here in America for essential services, Medicaid, Social Security, health care for veterans from Iraq. You have heard already that that is underfunded by $2 billion. For education, housing, child care, transportation programs, that just names a few. This government needs a stronger safeguard to ensure that we are not pumping hardened American tax dollars into the coffers of the same corporations that maneuver and scheme to exploit tax loopholes. This is a pro business amendment that ensures that only the responsible U.S. companies can benefit from Federal contracts. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Velazquez- Slaughter-Terry amendment to restore the funding to HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control. The funding is critical to achieving our national goal of eradicating childhood lead poisoning by 2010. HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control provides grants to cities and States to correct serious lead hazards in their homes. These grants are targeted to individuals vulnerable to the effects of lead, particularly children under the age of 6. Lead poisoning affects nearly 434,000 American children between the ages of 1 and 5, and that is criminal. In my district, 1,200 Monroe County children fall victim to lead poisoning each year, and in response, Monroe County and the City of Rochester with its partners have used funding from HUD's lead hazard control grants to make 220 housing units lead free and safe for children. The lead hazard control grants work, but only if they are available, and already one of my counties was forced to stop accepting applications this early in the year because the money had run out. Last year, HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control was unable to fund two-thirds of the requests it received due to the lack of founding. This year, the office is slated to be cut by $47 million. This cut will further reduce the number of grants awarded and leave children exposed to lead hazards. It is a tragedy that failing to deal with this problem renders children many times brain damaged, with asthma and other seizures. They are going to continue to be at risk for hearing loss, developmental delays, osteoporosis, and kidney damage simply by breathing the air in their homes. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment to help eliminate lead poisoning exposure for our children. We can do better, and we should not squander this opportunity.