Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 232, 233, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the agriculture appropriations bill today, we will consider funding for the Food and Drug Administration. I am very disappointed that the Hinchey FDA reform amendment will not be allowed under this rule. The amendment would give the Food and Drug Administration two new authorities that are badly needed to improve the FDA's drug safety operations and ensure that FDA has the tools to take timely action to protect Americans from unsafe drugs. It would have empowered the FDA with the authority to require companies to conduct post-marketing studies of FDA-approved drugs and would also have given the FDA the authority to mandate changes to the labels of FDA-approved drugs. Unfortunately, efforts to include the amendment were defeated in the Committee on Rules on a party-line vote. I am deeply concerned about the FDA's handling, or rather their mishandling, of the consideration to allow emergency contraception to be sold over the counter. For almost 100 years, the FDA has overseen the safety of food, cosmetics, drugs, and medical devices consumed by the American public, but we cannot trust them unconditionally any more. The agency defines itself as a scientific, regulatory and public health agency. But for what appears to be the first time in the agency's history, the FDA has jettisoned the rigorous standards of science and health in evaluating emergency contraception and has instead taken the counsel of religious and political extremists in its consideration of this important pregnancy-preventive drug. And the results of such counsel have been predictable. Despite the fact that 23 of 27 members of the FDA's advisory panel voted in favor of allowing over-the-counter sales of Barr Laboratories' Plan B emergency contraceptive and despite the overwhelming scientific evidence in support of the application, the FDA made the unusual decision to disregard its own advisory panel's recommendation and reject the application. One of the dissenting panelists was evangelical conservative Dr. W. David Hager. In October of 2002, I sent a letter to President Bush expressing my deep reservations about appointing Dr. Hager as Chair of the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs at the FDA. Based on Dr. Hager's past conduct, I believed he would not be impartial in his decisions. On numerous occasions, Dr. Hager had already displayed a willingness to substitute his personal beliefs for science. My request, unfortunately, went unheeded by the administration. Now recent reports have alleged that the FDA, while considering allowing over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptive, requested a minority opinion by Dr. Hager to justify a politically motivated decision to Barr Laboratories' application, a truly outrageous request which, if true, has further jeopardized the scientific integrity of the FDA. Clearly the standards of science and the interest of public health have taken a back seat to the political agenda of extremist politicians. The scientific facts irrefutably show that emergency contraception is a safe and effective way for women to prevent unintended pregnancies. Emergency contraception has been available in the United States by prescription since the late 1990s. It does not cause abortion. Instead, it stops the release of the eggs from the ovary and prevents unwanted pregnancy. If preventing unwanted pregnancy is something we support, no matter what our individual positions are on a woman's reproductive freedom, we should be outraged by this lack of science behind this decision. Effectively preventing unwanted pregnancies is clearly the best way to reduce the number of abortions, and if my colleagues care about that, they must recognize this fundamental truth. The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that increased use of emergency contraceptives accounted for up to 43 percent of the total decline in abortions between 1994 and the year 2000. In addition, emergency contraception is often the only option for the 300,000 women who are raped each year. It is widely recognized as an integral part of comprehensive and compassionate emergency treatment for sexual assault survivors. The bottom line here is that over-the-counter approval is the single most effective tool we have to reduce unwanted pregnancies in America, but one man is holding it up. Anyone really serious about reducing the number of abortions will support making it available. There are two only sides of this line Members can be on. They either want to stop apportions or reduce them, or they do not. As we await again a decision on Barr Laboratories, a decision the FDA promised in January but has not given us yet, I urge them to base this and future decision on science, not politics. It is time the FDA recognizes it must be more accountable to the American public to make the best decisions possible based on scientific evidence which is what they are for. They just do not do that anymore.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar). (Mr. SALAZAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, we find ourselves here today debating the rule for next year's Defense authorization bill. But while we should be discussing ways to better support our hardworking men and women in uniform, we find ourselves revisiting a debate I had assumed we settled years ago. Buried within H.R. 1815 is section 574, a provision that would severely limit the participation of women in our military. To say that I am disappointed would be an understatement of enormous proportions. Some will say that section 574 merely codifies existing military policy; but if this provision is passed, we will be sending an entirely different message, not just to the brave women currently serving our Nation throughout the world but to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice, those who have been wounded or even killed. We will be telling them and indeed their families, We have seen you at work defending freedom and liberty here at home and abroad and you aren't good enough. I cannot think of a more disgusting message to be sending our troops, especially in a time of war. This year, the Subcommittee on Military Personnel has not held hearings, commissioned studies, or released reports on this important issue. In fact, we have not seen a shred of evidence that a problem even exists with the integration of women in the Armed Forces. Yet the religious right wing in this country, against the advice of our military leaders, has once again decided to bend the process of government to their political will and force this issue upon America without research, without fact, without debate, and without the benefit of the democratic process. We are in the middle of a war, in Iraq and on terror. Now is not the time to be telling more than 20,000 women that we do not value their service, especially when you consider that we are having serious problems meeting our recruitment goals. What woman is going to join a military that treats them as if they are second-class citizens not worthy of respect and dignity? Last night in the Rules Committee we watched as the coalition of members who stand rightly beside our women in uniform were slapped down on a party-line vote by the majority in their attempts to approve the Skelton-Snyder amendment which would remove this ill-conceived provision from the bill. The Secretary of the Army and the Army Vice Chief of Staff wrote the Armed Services Committee voicing their strong opposition to this provision. Likewise, we can have no real discussion on the future of America's defense without talking about the base realignment and closure process. I share the concern of many experts and many of my colleagues across the political spectrum when I say that we are a Nation at war. Now is not the time to be closing America's military bases. Many experts are also concerned that we are overconsolidating our resources in too few locations, especially when the greatest threat to our security comes not from a massive invasion but from a sneak attack by a terrorist organization on a target of opportunity. Did we not learn after Pearl Harbor not to put everything in one place? Does it not make more sense to have our resources strategically placed across the country? Moreover, as record numbers of Guard and Reserve troops are dying in combat defending this country, the Defense Secretary's proposed BRAC list would ground a third of the Nation's Air National Guard and Reserve units and shutter hundreds of other armories and readiness centers across the country. Many local leaders and homeland security specialists, including the National Guard Association of the United States, has said that the consolidation would hamper State responses to local emergencies and domestic terrorist threats. Unfortunately, the DOD did not adequately take into account a military installation's value to homeland security when developing their criteria. For example, the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station has been recommended for closure despite the fact that it is the closest base to three major United States cities and the two largest cities in Canada. The Guard and Reserves who train there assist the Department of Homeland Security in interrogating suspicious individuals detained at the northern border. Yet the Air Force proposes to reduce the Air Mobility Command by 54 percent in the Northeast, incapacitating homeland defense in a region which comprises 20 percent of the entire United States population. I understand this is also a problem for other major cities and population centers around the country. That is why I offered an amendment last night that would have required the commission to evaluate bases for their homeland security value, but unfortunately it was voted down. All of us know that recruitment is another major issue that we are facing today. We have a recruitment crisis in America and an Armed Forces already stretched way too thin. But the DOD wants to close bases that regularly exceed their recruitment goals for the Guard and military reserves, like Niagara Falls. We do not know what will happen to the large Guard and Reserve units who serve at bases recommended for closure. We know exactly where their equipment is headed, but even the Pentagon admits it does not know what is going to happen to our most valuable assets, and those are the people stationed at the bases. But perhaps what is most troubling about the BRAC list that was submitted to the commission is that according to an Air Force BRAC spokesman, the extensive criteria used to evaluate the strategic military value of each base was not even adhered to by the Pentagon when compiling their closure list. Instead, they used a collective judgment. I do not even know what ``collective judgment'' is supposed to mean, but I know that in Niagara, thousands of people are losing their jobs and are at risk at a base that is highly ranked in performing its duties, and one that has always been evaluated highly that is on the chopping block. This is unacceptable to me, and it should be unacceptable to this body. This BRAC constitutes a complete reorganization of our military resources during a time of war with very little thought, doing untold damage to the National Guard and military Reserves, and does not consider the homeland security role. But there are a lot of concerns about the Pentagon that we have that we will not talk about today because we did not get enough amendments approved. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma 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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). (Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt). (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow three very important amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules last night and defeated on party-line votes. The first amendment is by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and would provide members of the selected reserves access to the TRICARE military health care program on a permanent basis for the duration of their service. The second amendment, by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), would provide eligibility for payment of both retired pay and veterans disability compensation for certain additional military retirees with compensable service-connected disabilities. The last amendment is by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) and would repeal the dependency and indemnity compensation offset from survivor benefit plans' surviving spouse annuities. Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the authorization bill, but a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from considering these three amendments critical to the debate of our national defense. 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 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 demand a recorded vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bradley amendment. We are a nation at war and now is not the time to be closing American military bases. In formulating the BRAC list, Secretary Rumsfeld ignored the base- closure criteria that Congress approved. Just yesterday, an Air Force BRAC spokesman admitted that the extensive criterion used to evaluate the strategic military value of each base was not adhered to by the Pentagon. Instead, the Base Closure Executive Group used their ``collective judgment'' to recommend closure for bases that had higher rankings--such as the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station--than many others which were kept off the list. This amendment would let the DoD know that a group's ``collective judgment'' is not good enough. Secretary Rumsfeld better have some stronger arguments than ``collective judgment,'' because his proposed BRAC list would cripple Guard and Reserve recruitment and weaken our homeland defense. By passing this amendment, Congress would recognize that the DoD's base closure recommendations were budget-driven and did not take into account the military's long-term needs. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Bradley amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to offer this very important amendment that will help the Department of Defense improve their capability to provide care to victims of sexual assault in the military. Earlier this month, the Department of Defense released their first annual report to Congress on sexual assault in the military. And the findings were not good. Of the 1,275 cases of sexual assault among service members, only 113 cases resulted in a court martial. More discouraging is the fact that 278 cases were not pursued because the perpetrator could not be identified. And, another 351 cases were not pursued because of unsubstantiated or insufficient evidence. Mr. Chairman, this amounts to 629 sexual assault cases, nearly 50 percent of those reported, where the perpetrator is still out there, free to commit further assaults on our brave service women defending our country. Surely the Department of Defense can and needs to do a better job of training new and existing first responders to respond to sexual assaults occurring in the military. Criminal investigators, medical professionals, and victims advocates all need to be trained on gathering, protecting, and processing evidence. The Defense Department must do a better job of providing the best possible care for service women who are victims of sexual assault. And that is what my amendment will do. Last March, servicewomen spoke before the Congressional Women's Caucus about the inability of some military healthcare facilities to appropriately care for women who had been sexually assaulted. In some areas, medical providers are not familiar with the gathering and processing of rape kits. More dismaying, some facilities are not even equipped with rape kits. With great emotion, these service women recounted the military's failure to provide them with a private examination or tests for pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow women to be victimized once by their perpetrator and then again by the lack of appropriate, compassionate care at military healthcare facilities. My amendment seeks to prevent our women in uniform from experiencing this egregious treatment. It requires the Secretary of Defense to assess the training and resource gaps, which have prevented victims of sexual assault in the military from receiving the best possible care. Based on this assessment, my amendment also requires the Secretary to develop a plan to address these gaps by enhancing the accessibility and availability of supplies and trained personnel by military victims of sexual assault. It is my hope that through this plan the Secretary will require military healthcare facilities to carry emergency contraception (EC). Although emergency contraception has been available in the U.S. by prescription since the late 1990s, it is not available to U.S. servicewomen. EC is widely recognized as an integral part of comprehensive and compassionate emergency treatment for sexual assault survivors. We do a disservice to women in the military by not requiring EC be available to them after a sexual assault. Women in the service put themselves in harms way to protect us and our Nation from threats at home and abroad. The least we can do is ensure they are protected when facing a horrible tragedy. My amendment helps the Defense Department provide military victims of sexual assault with honor, respect, and the best possible care that they deserve. I urge everyone to support my amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Castle- DeGette amendment. I have a friend who is alive today because of stem cell research and injections that he has had. He would love to have been here today to tell you about it. He is in the bloom of health. Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago, a very close, longtime personal friend of mine, John McCaffery, was diagnosed with lymphatic leukemia. He underwent radiation and chemotherapy treatments. But he remained critically ill. His doctor suggested that he have a stem cell transplant. John was fortunate enough that his brother proved to be a match. After causing John's brother to overproduce stem cells, doctors at Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, removed the excess stem cells and put them in John. Unlike a painful, complicated bone marrow transplant, John received his stem cell transplant via an IV. Without advancements over the years in stem cell research, John would not have had the option for a stem cell transplant. Rather, he would have had to continue with chemotherapy treatment until the cancerous cells eventually took over his body and he died. Mr. Speaker, stem cell research saved John's life. And, I am very happy to report that today, John is once again leading a healthy, productive life. The U.S. has the finest research scientists in the world, but we are falling far behind other countries, like South Korea and Singapore, that are moving forward with embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cells from umbilical cord blood will likely lead to treatments for some diseases. But this must complement, not substitute, scientific research on embryonic stem cells--which is much more promising and will yield to advancements in the prevention and treatment of almost every disease American families face. The United States must be on the cutting edge of this important research. We have a responsibility to promote stem cell research which could lead to treatments and cures for diseases affecting millions of Americans. Without question, the U.S. should set high standards for moral and ethical use of stem cells. But how can we do this, if we are not actively involved in the research? Mr. Speaker, John is one person whose life was saved by stem cells. There will be thousands and one day, millions more lives saved if we do the right thing today. I urge all my colleagues to support both adult and embryonic stem cell research by supporting the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act and the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enter into the Record an article that appeared in the Buffalo News on May 24. The article details how a former Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan has disagreed with Secretary Rumsfeld's recommendation to close Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station. [From the Buffalo News, May 24, 2005] Close Base on Long Island, Not in Niagara, Says Pentagon Official From Reagan Years (By Jerry Zremski and Sharon Linstedt) A former assistant secretary of defense under President Ronald Reagan has rushed to the defense of the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, saying the Pentagon should consider closing a base on Long Island instead. Lawrence J. Korb, who oversaw personnel and base issues at the Pentagon from 1981 to 1985, wrote an op-ed article for the New York Times' Long Island regional edition Sunday that criticized the proposed Niagara closing. He urged the independent commission that is reviewing the Pentagon's base-closure recommendations to instead consider shutting an Air National Guard station at Francis S. Gabreski Airport in Westhampton Beach. ``It should take a close look at Niagara and Gabreski,'' Korb wrote. The two bases perform different tasks. The Niagara base services a Guard unit that performs refueling missions and an Air Reserve unit that hauls cargo, while the Gabreski base services a search-and-rescue Guard unit. Korb suggested that the search-and-rescue team be moved to Stewart Air Force Base in Newburgh, north of New York City, and that Niagara stay open for several reasons. For one, he said, such a move would keep jobs in-state and prevent the Niagara operations from being dispersed to Arkansas, Maine and Georgia. ``Moreover, the Pentagon will need to spend a lot just to bring Gabreski up to minimum standards,'' Korb wrote. ``Paradoxically, Congress allotted Niagara more than $14 million last year for upgrades.'' Korb, a native of Long Island, noted that while Gabreski contributes about $100 million to Long Island's economy, the Niagara base generates more than $150 million. ``Suffolk County is better positioned than Niagara to absorb the cutbacks,'' he said. In an interview, Korb said he decided to write the opinion article after reviewing the Pentagon's proposed closures. ``This just doesn't make sense'' that Gabreski would stay open and Niagara would close, he said. He said that it would be very difficult for part-time air personnel from Niagara to travel to out-of-state bases to train and that Long Island would be better able than Western New York to withstand a base closing economically. Korb, now a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress in Washington, is one of Washington's most prominent and oft-quoted defense experts. In another development, the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority board of commissioners is throwing its support behind efforts to keep the Niagara Falls base open and will ask NFTA workers to do the same. The NFTA board Monday unanimously approved a resolution backing the Niagara Military Affairs Council in its efforts to get the base off the list for closing. Commissioners also approved a plan to send letters to the NFTA's 1,500 employees asking them to write to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission showing their support for keeping the base open. ``This is an important issue for the Niagara Falls community and all of Western New York. I think we need a full-court press,'' said Commissioner Henry M. Sloma, who represents Niagara County. ``It makes a lot of sense to show support,'' NFTA Chairman Luiz F. Kahl said of the USA Niagara-led effort to amass 10,000 letters before a June 27 hearing in Buffalo on the Pentagon proposal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Record an editorial by the Canadian Ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, on the crisis surrounding Devils Lake. [From the New York Times, May 12, 2005] Hell From High Water (By Frank McKenna) Washington.--A crisis looms on the United States border with Canada, and it could easily be averted with some research and a little patience. The problem stems from a body of water in North Dakota known as Devils Lake. The lake has no natural drainage, and because North Dakota has drained surrounding wetlands, it has risen 26 feet since 1993, flooding nearby communities. In Canada, we are sympathetic to the plight of the lake's neighbors, but not to the solution their state has proposed. In June, North Dakota plans to open an outlet that will let Devils Lake water travel into the Sheyenne River and on into the Red River, which flows north into Canada. From there the water will eventually stream into Lake Winnipeg and the Hudson Bay watershed. Devils Lake, a remnant of a shallow glacial sea, is a closed ecological system that has been geographically separate from the surrounding Hudson Bay basin for more than a thousand years. Its salty waters have high concentrations of nitrogen, sulfates and phosphates--minerals that could cause severe digestive distress if consumed and could be lethal to aquatic life. Because of these contaminants, North Dakota does not allow Devils Lake waters to be used for irrigation. Once the canal is opened, the pollutants will enter the water supply of downstream communities in North Dakota, Minnesota and Manitoba. Moreover, species of fish, plants, parasites and viruses previously confined in Devils Lake, in some cases for millenniums, will spill out into the Sheyenne and Red Rivers. There they could kill the native plants and fish of the larger ecosystem. The consequences for Lake Winnipeg, the largest freshwater fishery in North America, are particularly worrisome. Despite concerns on both sides of the border about maintaining safe water sources, North Dakota has decided to pump out Devils Lake water without undertaking any environmental assessment or establishing ecological safeguards. There is a solution to this impending crisis. Nearly 100 years ago, Canada and the United States established the Boundary Waters Treaty. Under that treaty the two governments set up an International Joint Commission to address differences of opinion involving boundary waters. So far, of the 53 issues the two countries have jointly referred to the commission, 51 have been resolved by mutual agreement. For over a year, Canada has been requesting that North Dakota put off pumping water while the United States and Canada refer the issue to the commission for a time-limited, independent, scientific review. Both the Canadian and Manitoban governments have stated that they will support the commission's finding, whatever it may be. The governors of Minnesota and Missouri, as well as many other officials, have expressed support for the Canadian request in letters to the United States secretary of state. At their March meeting in Waco, Texas, President Bush, Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada and President Vicente Fox of Mexico pledged to enhance water quality ``by working bilaterally, trilaterally and through existing regional bodies.'' Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should demonstrate the strength of that commitment by joining Canada in referring the Devils Lake project to the joint commission. If instead the Devils Lake project goes forward without a review, it will damage not only the region's environment and economy, but also North America's most important bilateral water management arrangement. There is a better solution.