Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 322 and 323. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 322 and 323.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on Friday and was regrettably unable to cast my vote on rollcall No. 315, rollcall No. 316, rollcall No. 317, rollcall No. 318, rollcall No. 319, rollcall No. 320, and rollcall No. 321. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 315, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 316, ``no'' on rollcall No. 317, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 318, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 319, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 320, and ``no'' on rollcall No. 321.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 282. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following this vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tomlinson ought to go. Mr. Tomlinson had people do some polls. What they found on these polls is 80 percent of Americans say PBS is fair and balanced; 90 percent said they had high-quality programming, more than any channel, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has pointed out. But Mr. Tomlinson did not reveal those results to anybody. He kept it all to himself. You bet there is bias at CPB. It is embodied in this chairman, who must cease and desist his politicization of the agency, which is why I urge you to vote for this amendment. How the House can best aid public broadcasting would be to vote this amendment and for the President of CPB to submit his resignation. Yesterday, this body voted by a substantial margin to restore funding for public broadcasting. We did so after an unprecedented outpouring of public sentiment. Over 1 million people signed petitions within one week's time--proving Americans demand their public broadcasting continue. But we did so mainly because it was the right thing to do. For almost 40 years, only one television channel among the 500 operating today has consistently been regarded by the public as the gold standard of broadcasting. Chairman Tomlinson discovered that for himself when he hired the right-leaning Tarrance group to investigate claims of bias. After conducting two ``National Public Opinions,'' his handpicked pollsters found that 80 percent of Americans saw PBS as ``fair and balanced,'' while 90 percent believed that PBS ``provides high quality programming.'' Further, a majority of respondents called PBS ``more trustworthy than CNN, Fox News Channel and other mainstream news outlets.'' Does it surprise anyone to hear that Chairman Tomlinson did not reveal the results in his annual report to Congress--or even to PBS and NPR? Yes, there is bias in action at CPB. It's embodied in its chairman, who must cease and desist his politicization of the agency, which is why I urge you to vote for this amendment. That's how the House can best aid public broadcasting. What the chairman could do for CPB is to submit his resignation.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, 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, let me start with a quote from Lyndon Johnson: Today we rededicate a part of the airwaves which belong to all the people,'' a thing we should always remember, ``and we dedicate them for the enlightenment of all the people.'' President Lyndon Johnson spoke these words at the White House ceremony which marked the official creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967. Much has changed in the 37 years since then, but in the realm of television, Mr. Speaker, a PBS program that reaches millions of families every day has been the only constant. PBS programming is first and foremost about children. At a time when so many television networks are wary of producing educational programming because it will not be cost-effective as they define it, PBS stands alone. They are proud to present wonderful programs that teach children how to read, how to share, and how to be tolerant of others. But PBS is not just for children, it is for minds of all ages that seek to question and learn about our world. PBS has the best documentaries, the best programs about American history and about the new scientific discoveries which are constantly changing our world. There is a reason that Peggy Noonan of The Wall Street Journal, an unabashed conservative, has written that ``At its best, at its most thoughtful and intellectually honest and curious, PBS does the kind of work that no other network in America does or will do.'' Ms. Noonan wrote this because it is true. And what is most important, PBS programming is free to all. Big Bird reaches all the children in America, regardless of whether they are in urban or rural areas, regardless of their economic class or whether or not their parents can afford 500 channels of cable, but the majority leadership is speaking out against Big Bird here today and the other great children's programming. They are speaking out against quality news and arts and entertaining programs that have no other place to call home on television today. The Labor-HHS appropriations bill we will consider today offers cuts of more than $100 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding. And, all told, this bill imposes a staggering 42 percent cut in funding for PBS this year. Now, why would the Congress do this? There is only one reason, Mr. Speaker, and that reason is the leadership of this body does not like PBS. In fact, Republicans have been after PBS for years. Ronald Reagan tried to slash CPB funding, so did Newt Gingrich. And now the conservatives have redoubled their efforts. They claim that PBS is the lapdog of the left. But the notion that PBS is partisan runs against the very grain of what PBS is and what the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was designed to accomplish. President Johnson stated that CPB was intended to be carefully guarded from government and party control. It will be free, it will be independent, and it will belong to all of our people. PBS and CPB, therefore, should be neither liberal nor conservative and should instead be honest and objective; and it always has been. The real problem with our friends on the right seems to be confusing intellectually honest and independent programming with so-called liberal bias, simply because they are not espousing their own narrow conservative world view 24 hours a day. Most Americans, no matter their political persuasion, understood the benefits of hearing views from different perspectives; and they like the idea of truly independent, stimulating public programming. They understand that Big Bird cannot be replaced by 500 channels of cable. That is why Roper polls taken in 2004 and 2005 found that the people of our country thought that spending money on PBS was the second best use of their tax dollars, right behind the funding of our military. But the independence of PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is somehow a threat to this Republican leadership. Why else would Kenneth Tomlinson, the new Republican chairman of CPB, attempt to appoint Patricia Harrison as the new head of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting? Ms. Harrison is a strange choice for the leader of a broadcasting corporation in as much as she has never even worked in broadcasting. On the other hand, she was at one time the cochair of the Republican National Committee, and so perhaps her qualifications for the position speak for themselves. Mr. Tomlinson also felt that such prominent PBS programs such as ``NOW,'' with Bill Moyers, were liberal in their orientation. He therefore did the honorable thing and hired several ombudsmen to secretly spy on the programs and report on their activity. And just last week, we learned that in 2004 the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, now firmly under partisan Republican leadership, gave two Republican lobbyists $15,000 and did not tell anybody they had done so. By the way, Mr. Tomlinson was head of Voice of America, and we understand that Voice of America is to be outsourced to Asia. How do you like that, America? Is this what we have come to, spying on the network that brings us ``Sesame Street,'' ``The Electric Company,'' ``Captain Kangaroo''? And if so, what is next? Will we have satellite surveillance of the ``Antiques Road Show''? Wire taps in Oscar's trash can? Are the American people going to allow these same individuals who actively manipulate the media, who have allowed political operatives to pose as journalists in the White House, who have paid commentators and pundits to falsely pose as journalists, to manipulate public opinion? Are we going to allow them to tell us that now Public Broadcasting is the enemy? I certainly hope and pray not. If there is any doubt that this is their true intention, my fellow Americans, we need look no further than this very bill, approved in a subcommittee where the Republican leadership successfully eliminated funding for PBS and the Corporation For Public Broadcasting. As with so many other things in this Congress, they were shamed by the American people into reversing course, but I imagine that the right wing assault on PBS will continue. President Johnson feared that if placed ``in weak or even in irresponsible hands,'' public television could generate controversy without understanding, could mislead as well as teach. It could appeal to passions rather than to reason. That was very far- seeing for President Johnson. Let us not succumb to the misguided partisan passions of the leadership which threaten to destroy this cherished American institution. Let us preserve public networks across our country. Mr. Speaker, Sesame Street teaches children to be fair and just. And we learned that from Sesame Street, our children learned it from Sesame Street, let us practice it today, and we expect no less from Members of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the Rules Committee on a straight party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment would give $11.8 billion in needed funding for the priority job training, education and health programs which have been underfunded in this bill. A $50 increase in a Pell grant, let me state, is not going to help anybody get a college education. The cost of this amendment will not add one dollar to the deficit. It is fully offset by reducing the substantial six-digit tax cuts for those making more than $1 million from about $140,000 to $36,500 for the coming year. That cannot hurt too much. That means that America's millionaires will only be getting $36,000 in special tax breaks so that we may properly fund education for our children and provide adequate health care for working Americans, a sacrifice, I believe, that is well worth the cost. In addition, the Obey amendment would reduce the deficit by $11.8 billion while at the same time protecting these valuable social programs for the American people. Mr. Speaker, the activities included in this bill fund many of the government's most important social services and touch almost every American in some way. Most of the programs and services in the bill are considerably underfunded, many funded at last year's levels or below. And those that have received increases have generally not received enough to keep pace with inflation. Most education programs are cut or frozen at fiscal year 2005 levels. Job training is funded below last year. NIH funding, though slightly increased from last year, still is receiving the lowest increase in 36 years. The Centers for Disease Control is funded at $293 million below last year. The list goes on and on, and the amendment will help reverse these serious shortfalls in our Nation's top education, health care, and job training programs. Members should know that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill under an open rule, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment to restore funding shortfalls in the bill, and a ``yes'' vote will block consideration of the amendment. Please vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the 33rd anniversary of Title IX, the landmark 1972 law that blocks gender discrimination in education. I am a proud supporter of this law that has helped girls and women move toward equality in athletics at every level and in every community across the Nation. As opportunities have been made increasingly available, women's participation in sports has grown exponentially. Nearly 2.6 million high school girls and over 135,000 women in college now participate in organized sports. That is more than 2 million women and girls having a chance to score a goal, slide into home plate, or sink that winning basket. For many young athletes, the scholarship opportunities provide the only means by which they can attend college. Moreover, they tend to graduate at higher rates, perform better in school, are less likely to use drugs and alcohol. They also tend to have more confidence, better body image, and higher self-esteem than female nonathletes, the critical attributes that help them succeed throughout their lives. We build on these advancements in the name of the equality, and I want those here to stand for and defend the integrity of this pioneering civil rights law.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. 1. Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey Edward Bohr Jr. 2. Staff Sergeant Terry Wayne Hemingway 3. Staff Sergeant Riayan Augusto Tejeda 4. Corporal Jesus Angel Gonzalez 5. Lance Corporal David Edward Owens Jr. 6. Specialist Gil Mercado 7. Private First Class John Eli Brown 8. Specialist Thomas Arthur Foley III 9. Corporal Armando Ariel Gonzalez 10. Specialist Richard Allen Goward 11. Private First Class Joseph Patrick Mayek 12. Corporal Jason David Mileo 13. Corporal John Travis Rivero 14. Chief Warrant Officer Andrew Todd Arnold 15. Specialist Roy Russell Buckley 16. Chief Warrant Officer Robert William Channell Jr. 17. Lance Corporal Alan Dinh Lam 18. Specialist Edward John Anguiano 19. Sergeant Troy David Jenkins 20. First Lieutenant Osbaldo Orozco 21. Specialist Narson Bertil Sullivan 22. First Sergeant Joe Jesus Garza 23. Sergeant Sean C. Reynolds 24. Private Jason L. Deibler 25. Chief Warrant Officer Brian K. Van Dusen 26. Chief Warrant Officer Hans N. Gukeisen 27. Corporal Richard P. Carl 28. Lance Corporal Cedric E. Bruns 29. Lance Corporal Matthew R. Smith 30. Lance Corporal Jakub Henryk Kowalik 31. Private First Class Jose F. Gonzalez Rodriguez 32. Staff Sergeant Patrick Lee Griffin Jr. 33. Lance Corporal Nicholas Brian Klieboeker 34. Specialist David T. Nutt 35. Master Sergeant William L. Payne 36. Corporal Douglas Jose Marencoreyes 37. Specialist Rasheed Sahib 38. Captain Andrew David LaMont 39. Lance Corporal Jason William Moore 40. First Lieutenant Timothy Louis Ryan 41. Lieutenant Nathan Dennis White 42. Sergeant Kirk Allen Straseskie 43. Lieutenant Colonel Dominic Rocco Baragona

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. This decision served as the foundation for improvements in women's reproductive health, felt even to this day. It is difficult to believe that just 40 years ago, it was actually illegal for American women to use birth control. But as late as 1965, 30 states still had laws prohibiting or restricting the sale and use of contraception. The case of Griswold v. Connecticut involved Estelle Griswold, the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and the League's Medical Director, Dr. C. Lee Buxton. Ms. Griswold and Dr. Buxton were arrested and convicted under Connecticut's 1879 law forbidding the use of contraception or assisting anyone seeking contraception. They challenged this law--ultimately fighting their case all the way to our Nation's highest court. And, on June 7th 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Connecticut law, opening the door for nationwide counseling and use of contraception. Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for future decisions regarding a women's right to reproductive health and privacy--including the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to access contraception to unmarried women. Why was Griswold v. Connecticut so important? Well, consider the fact that in 1965, 45 percent of births to married women were unintentional. But, today, only 14 percent of births to married women occur sooner that planned. In 1965, only 38 percent of women used some form of birth control. Today, nearly 70 percent of women do. With good cause, a recent poll shows that 80 percent of Americans strongly support women having access to contraception. With newfound ability to control how many children to have and when, women have been able to achieve educational and professional goals that before 1965 were extremely difficult. Access to contraception has dramatically changed women's health, giving them dignity and control over their lives and their futures. Control over their own bodies has also contributed to reductions in maternal and infant mortality through better birth spacing and better health status. Because of contraception, couples can decide when they are financially and emotionally ready to start a family. So children are born into families that are ready and able to fully care for them. Access and use of birth control are essential components of basic preventative health care for women across the U.S. and has successfully helped reduce national rates of unintended pregnancies. And, who would have predicted in 1965, that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would recognize the significant impact of birth control on American society? But they did. In 1999, the CDC included family planning in their list of the ``Ten Great Public Health Achievements in the 20th Century.'' However, despite these achievements, access to contraceptives is far from guaranteed. Today, we, as political leaders, stand at a crossroads. We can maintain the status quo, or we can further strive to improve reproductive health and reduce unintended pregnancies in this country. My Prevention First bill would permit women to take greater control over their reproductive health. This legislation would allow greater access to contraception by increasing funding for family planning services to low-income women and requiring insurance companies to cover contraceptives if they cover other prescription drugs. Today, as we commemorate the momentous Griswold v Connecticut Supreme Court decision that made such a great impact on reducing unintended pregnancies by allowing women to control their reproductive health, I urge my colleagues to support common sense legislation like the Prevention First Act and join me in taking action to further reduce unintended pregnancies. We have certainly come a long way in just 40 years, but we must remain vigilant to ensure that all women have access to the most basic reproductive health care services and that they are empowered to make the best personal decisions about when they are financially and emotionally ready to start a family.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Committee on Rules considered H.R. 2862, the Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related Agencies' appropriations bill for FY 2006. And while I am pleased that the committee reported an open rule, as is customary with appropriations bills, we all know the amendment process for these bills is very restrictive. This makes it easy for the majority to allow an open rule and still maintain tight control over what is debated and deliberated on the floor through the waiver process. If we want to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open rule, not just appropriations bills, which are already restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the exception. That being said, I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the ranking member, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for working together to create a bill that seems to be a fair and responsible piece of legislation. I have always said that budgets are moral documents. Where and how we decide to spend the taxpayers' money says more about our values as a society than any speech or political rhetoric possibly could. If any of my fellow Americans really want to know who and what each party cares about in this country, look at where the money goes and the truth will be what follows. That is exactly what an appropriations bill such as this does. It gives us a road map to see what is important to our elected leadership. That is why I want to congratulate my friends across the aisle for having the courage to essentially reject the White House's inadequate budget request for this bill. Clearly, many Republican Members in this body do not share the same values as the President, and I congratulate you for having the courage to demonstrate this rare moment of independence and moderation to the American people. The bill clearly rebuffs the White House's agenda on spending issues, such as funding for the National Science Foundation, which is still inadequate, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Justice, and the Drug Enforcement Agency by providing adequate, if not ideal, funding. Also, I am pleased that Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member Mollohan saw fit to prohibit the use of funds in this measure to support or justify the use of torture by the United States Government. Unfortunately, this language is both necessary and appropriate. We also have language included today that will prohibit the White House from blocking the importation of discount prescription drugs through trade agreements. That means this body is acting to ensure that the White House does not try to subvert our authority and take further steps to prevent the American people from having access to life-saving, affordable prescription drugs. I strongly believe that access to affordable medication and health care should be a right in this country and not the fodder of a political power struggle. Mr. Speaker, just when I saw the rays of hope sprinkled throughout the bill that this typically extreme leadership has finally begun to place the needs of everyday, hardworking Americans before their agenda, I was offered a reality check last night in the Committee on Rules. The moderation I had seen had merely been an illusion. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, brought to the Committee on Rules a necessary, important, and reasonable amendment to this bill. The amendment would have increased funding by $410 million for local law enforcement agencies and for COPS grants, which is the most successful crime prevention program in our Nation's history; and we have decimated it. It would have put more police on the streets in America's neighborhoods. Additionally, it would have increased funding for EDA grants by $53 million, which spur the public and private investment in order to create new jobs in our struggling communities. The cost of his amendment would have been offset through a less than 1.5 percent reduction in tax benefits for only the wealthiest Americans, those with annual incomes in excess of $1 million, and would have meant about a $2,000 decrease in their refund. But the Republican majority opposed it on a party-line vote, choosing the rich over safer neighborhoods. This issue, I believe, gives us a clear picture of exactly the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in the House. If anyone had a doubt who was fighting for everyday Americans, they should not any more. If there was a question over which party is the champion for the middle class, the safe neighborhoods, and for job creation, that question has been answered because the majority was willing to sacrifice placing police officers on the streets in our neighborhoods in order to protect a small tax cut for only the richest Americans. Since 2001, our police have been asked to do more with a billion dollars less in Federal funding so that the millionaires can keep their extra $2,053. Today, we will have another opportunity to stand with the vast majority of everyday Americans and families instead of millionaires, and I will be asking Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can try once again to allow the Obey amendment to be considered on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a no vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so we can consider the Obey amendment that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a party-line vote. The Obey amendment would give additional badly needed funds for grants to State and local law enforcement assistance and to the Economic Development Administration Grant Program. Specifically, it would increase by $410 million funding for formula grants to State and local law enforcement agencies as well as for the COPS Program, one of the most effective programs in its history. It will also increase funding for Economic Development Assistance grants by $53 million, and restore this assistance to State and local governments to last year's level, money they badly need to create new jobs. I also want to assure my colleagues that the cost of this amendment will not add a single dime to the deficit. It is fully paid for by making a very slight reduction of less than 1\1/2\ percent to the tax break received by people of annual incomes of over a million dollars, tax benefits that these fortunate individuals received as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax cut legislation and will lose only $2,000 on their tax refunds if the Obey amendment is accepted. I want to assure my colleagues that a no vote will not prevent us from considering the Science, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations bill under the open rule, but a no vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment to help our State and local governments with law enforcement and economic development. A yes vote will cancel the consideration of this amendment. I urge a no vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Committee on Rules. (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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