Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that will redress a grievous act that was perpetrated, without our knowledge, on a majority of this great body. Last year, with a resounding vote of 241 Members, the House voted an increase for our Federal arts agency that we knew would pay us back many times over, both in hard dollars and in ways that are simply incalculable for the people we represent. The actual amounts were small, an increase of $10 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and $3.5 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. But the loss was great. After conferees met for the omnibus funding bill, NEA, incredibly, received just several hundred thousand dollars, and NEH received less than $3 million. Not only was the will of this great body thwarted, but also the creative activities of our artistic constituents in every congressional district in this country were stifled. Grants were not made and those grants were not matched. Works were not created. Performances did not happen. Audiences did not gather. Minds were not enlightened, souls were not fed; and the small businesses that depend on the nonprofit arts community did not profit. Finally, the funds that should have been returned to the Federal Treasury in the form of tax receipts, many times over the original amounts, never arrived. It was a lose-lose situation for everyone involved: the artists, the audiences, our communities, and our small businesses, as well as our local, State, and Federal treasuries. By all rights, I should be standing here asking my colleagues not just to restore the moneys that we voted for last year, but to double them. If our Federal deficit were not so huge and our budgets so tight, believe me, I would be doing just that. Instead, I ask you simply to put these Federal art agencies back in business where we funded them last year, with an increase of $10 million for NEA and $5 million for NEH. The President's own budget request for NEA was telling. In it, even as he suggested level funding for the agency, he asked that American Masterpieces, a majestic program that emphasizes the best of American art, should be increased by $6.5 million. President Bush was rightfully enthusiastic about that program. It is an increase that I personally applaud. But unless we provide an overall increase for NEA, the money is slated to come from Challenge America, a highly popular program that supported artists in more than 99 percent of our congressional districts last year. That is not a good idea. Challenge America grants go to the towns and hamlets of this sprawling country, where big touring companies will rarely go, and major actors, actresses, writers and artists may never appear in person. For example, last year Challenge American grants went to Aliceville, Alabama and to Bainbridge Island, Washington; to Red Wing, Minnesota and Lucas, Kansas. They energized audiences in Texarkana, Texas and Locust Grove, Arkansas, and spellbound art-hungry folks in Albany, Georgia and Billings, Montana. We can and should do both: increase American Masterpieces as the President wishes, and continue to challenge the artists and their audiences in our congressional districts by funding Challenge America. Madam Chairman, $10 million will ensure that the program will prosper and grow, with Chairman Gioia using up to 10 percent of the money to ensure effective administration of this fine program. And $5 million will enhance NEH's We the People, which promotes the teaching and understanding of American history. But let me remind my colleagues, even with these increases, we are far from providing the agencies with the funds they received in the mid-1990s. As you see from the first chart, NEA is currently funded at $121 million, but received $176 million in 1992. And NEH is funded at $138 million, while it received $175.5 million in 1994. Why is it so important to rebuild the funding for these agencies? Well, every year I stand here and remind you what an economic powerhouse the nonprofit arts industry has become in American. As this second chart proves, it produces over $134 billion annually. I do not know of any other investment we make that does that. Please note it returns $10.5 billion to the Federal Treasury. In these difficult financial times for so many of our districts, as our local leaders strive to balance their budgets by cutting services, we would be irresponsible not to invest in the arts. While other industries have suffered, the nonprofit arts world continues to build in strength while it encourages the growth of innumerable small businesses on its periphery, thereby creating more jobs. This third chart may surprise Members. It demonstrates the financial muscle of the arts industry, which has produced far more jobs than all of America's farmers, programmers, doctors, lawyers, or accountants. This is an amazing chart. In fact, while the national economy has grown at a rate of 3.8 percent, the arts have far out-distanced that number by expanding at a rate of 5.5 percent. And all of that said, I also stand before you at this time, every year, to remind us all of the stunning gifts American artists make to our daily lives. Their creative force not only helps our children learn but also makes them smarter. It brightens the life of each one of us, bringing us joy and comfort, enlightenment and understanding, in ways impossible to find otherwise. The arts and artists of America are our national treasure, which this great Nation needs, deserves, and must support as other nations do. For these reasons, I urge Members to vote for the Slaughter/Shays/ Dicks/Leach/Price amendment, and thank my colleagues who have joined me today. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I offer several amendments, and I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of New Mexico asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu). (Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question and, if it is defeated, I will amend the rules so that we can consider the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) rejected by the Committee on Rules last night. Mr. Speaker, the Barrow-Markey amendment would direct the Department of Homeland Security to promulgate regulations upgrading the security associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials such as chlorine, which is toxic by inhalation, and those materials that are flammable or explosive. Mr. Speaker, extremely hazardous materials are transported through virtually every community in the Nation. Several serious incidents have taken place that have clearly demonstrated the threat that exists whenever they are involved. I am disappointed that the Republican leadership failed to include this important amendment, an issue that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. But, unfortunately, under the rule, unless we defeat the previous question, we will not be able to. As always, I want to emphasize that a no vote on the previous question will not prevent us from considering the Homeland Security bill, but will allow Members to vote on the Barrow-Markey amendment. However, a yes vote will prevent us from doing so. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote, and request a no vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, famed writer and political commentator George Orwell once wrote that ``people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.'' That statement should have a special resonance for Americans in today's world. We are fighting a new kind of war every day here in America. Our struggle against terror is one that requires us to focus our resources inward like no time in our history, because today the battlefields are the streets and sidewalks of this country and not some faraway land. We have to ensure that our government is prepared to responsibly address any threat that imperils the peace and prosperity of this Nation. Only then will the American people truly sleep peaceably through the night. That is why this Homeland Security authorization bill is critically important, because it represents the blueprint of our homeland defense and our collective peace of mind for many years to come. With such a weighty mandate, I would like to congratulate the Committee on Homeland Security in putting together their first committee authorization. But I would have wished today for an open rule, and we are still faced with serious issues of accountability and trust in the management of the Department of Homeland Security. This is in no small part as a result of the Bush administration's unwillingness to fill critical job vacancies at the senior levels of the agency. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has had two Secretaries and three Deputy Secretaries in 2 years. Today, 42 percent of the high- level political positions inside the agency are vacant or staffed by people who have already announced their departures. This lack of stability at the Department has impacted the agency's ability to meet its mandate effectively. For example, in my district, the Peace Bridge, which connects Buffalo to Canada, continues to face obstacles in moving to alleviate traffic congestion. Last December, the United States and Canadian governments agreed to move forward with a shared border management initiative which would remedy the situation. But it has been stalled by endless bureaucracy and lack of accountability at the Department of Homeland Security. But it is not just a lack of accountability that has plagued the agency. Our country's epic struggle against terror is also a struggle against fear. We recently discovered that the infamous homeland security terror alerts, which were raised so often in the months leading up to the Presidential election, and rarely since, if ever, were repeatedly elevated over the objections of the Homeland Security Secretary and his staff. The terror alerts were raised on what Secretary Ridge himself called ``flimsy evidence'' by individuals in the administration who were really aggressive about raising it, which shows that they were used for political purposes. I know I am not the only one who questions why in the 5\1/2\ months since election day there has not been a single terror alert. Perhaps Mr. Ridge's comments put the answer in the proper perspective. That constitutes a violation of trust with the American people, and we cannot afford that in this war on terror. We ought not to employ the tactics of fear as a means of control in our pursuit to keep the homeland secure. Such draconian measures are not in keeping with the spirit of America. It is beneath us as a Nation to have partisan politics injected into our national security apparatus in an ugly and manipulative way. We dare not trade in a currency of fear, but rather should strive to liberate ourselves from fear through awareness of our world and an honest understanding of the challenges which lay before us. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree on this principle, and I am pleased that the committee has seen fit to include more specific criteria for how the terror alert is and is not to be utilized. Likewise, the appropriation bill passed yesterday by a nearly unanimous vote also included measures that promise to provide a higher degree of accountability at the agency, accountability that I am sure we all agree is sorely needed. Despite the serious problems at DHS, which still must be addressed, there is much in this authorization bill that I believe every Member of Congress will support. As a representative from a border State, I am pleased to see that the legislation authorizes $1.9 billion, enough money to hire 2,000 additional border agents this year, agents sorely needed. This funding would mark a welcome change in the administration's approach to handling border security issues away from an economically disastrous agenda of imposing passport requirements on our citizens who want to cross our northern border and towards a more sensible policy of effective border enforcement, one which maximizes security resources and safeguards the freedoms and options our citizens and our trading partners deserve. But that would require that the majority had the will to actually spend the border security dollars and not just authorize them. It is, after all, easy to talk tough about securing borders, but we need action. We need a true commitment from this Congress to put more agents in the field. We seem to have an ongoing problem here with leadership when it comes to this issue where reality does not measure up to rhetoric. It is my hope that this time will be different. The House leadership's decision to include in this rule two amendments of mine suggests there may be room for common ground on the critical border issue after all. Clearly, the most effective tool we have to protect our borders is knowledge. Those of us who represent border economies understand how important the unencumbered flow of commerce across the northern border is to continued economic growth and to prosperity. The NEXUS program, we hope, will reduce the long waits at the border and allow an unprecedented level of security. It will be smart management, and I look forward to the upcoming debate on the amendment. But there are many others, I know, we would all like to debate here on the floor today; but of 89, only 25 were ruled in order, which is less than 30 percent. And as I have said previously, I do wish this had been an open rule because we need to spend the extra time and we need to allow our colleagues to consider more ideas on how to improve the homeland security. Is that not what democracy is about, debate and deliberation? Our framers thought so, and I think so, and I think most of my colleagues and most Americans think so. One amendment we will not consider today, which I regret, would have established a much-needed railroad security plan for America, which we do not have. And, incredibly, an amendment which would have required all cargo transported on commercial and passenger airplanes be inspected for explosives was not allowed. How could we not allow a debate on a critical homeland security issue such as this? My colleagues, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), offered an amendment which would have upgraded security requirements associated with transporting extremely hazardous materials. But, inexplicably, it too was blocked from consideration. But just as we cannot afford to live in fear in this age of terrorism, we also cannot fear engaging in genuine debate in consideration of those matters which may be controversial for some, but which are clearly important for the safety of all Americans. The free flow of debate and democracy are a hallmark of our American values, which this House was designed to embody. They are the core values which separate us from those who seek to destroy us and our way of life. And here in the cradle of democracy, we diminish those most American of values at our own peril. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin). (Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Tightening security along our vast northern border is one of the most important steps we have taken to defend our homeland since September 11. New security measures have had unintended consequences of stifling trade and tourism with our Canadian neighbors. Traffic congestion at the border continues to be a longstanding problem for local Canadian and New York residents who rely upon it for their business and personal lives. It is not uncommon for travelers at the Peace Bridge in Buffalo to experience 3- to 4-hour delays trying to cross the border. Beyond the local impact on our constituents, border-crossing delays cost the entire Nation dearly. According to a new report by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. economy absorbs 40 percent of the current cost of the border delays, and that means that the U.S. losses are $4.13 billion a year, or $471,000 an hour, due to the border congestion. If action is not taken, we stand to lose 17,000 jobs by 2020 and 91,000 by 2030. And we want to alleviate that by expanding the pre-clearance programs like NEXUS, FAST, and SENTRI. These programs, which are joint ventures between the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments, are designed to simplify the border crossings for pre-approved, low-risk travelers and businesses. Right now constituents along the border complain that registration is overly burdensome and complex, and it is. It is unacceptable that American citizens must travel to Canada to enroll in the NEXUS program. So to expand and make pre-clearance easier to navigate, my amendment would authorize the creation of at least four enrollment centers in the United States and would establish a customer phone service number. As it stands now, there is no phone to reach NEXUS. Finally, the amendment would create one consistent NEXUS card for land and air travelers. NEXUS cards currently require a retinal scan, while NEXUS land cards use fingerprints; and we would merge these two and use one security feature for both air and land crossings. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the support of the United States Chamber of Commerce and the border mayors in western New York. Losing nearly half a million dollars an hour from border delays, the cost of pre-clearance upgrades would easily pay for themselves. I am most grateful to the chairman of the committee and the vice chairman of the committee and urge adoption of this amendment. And I thank them for working with me on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment would require the Secretary of Homeland Security to report to Congress on the agency's efforts to reduce the replication of its badges, uniforms and other insignia. In addition, the Secretary would be directed to report on the agency's efforts to increase public awareness of counterfeit badges and uniforms, and to teach Americans to identify authentic identification of a DHS official. Two years ago, a man wearing an FBI jacket and carrying a badge attempted to rob the Xerox employee credit union in my district. The would-be robber killed one man and shot another, and that murderer is still at large. Last week, the Department of Homeland Security arrested a man in New York City who was in the possession of over 1,300 fake badges and IDs from over 35 law enforcement agencies, along with two NYPD police uniforms. In addition, DHS agents found a Glock 9-millimeter handgun, a Beretta semiautomatic rifle, a Winchester shotgun and used casings from a shoulder-fired missile. I think everyone would agree that this man posed a legitimate threat to his community based on his weapons stash alone, and knowing he had a gun and an FBI badge, or a CBP badge, or a police uniform, makes me even more frightened of the trouble he might have caused. The availability of counterfeit badges is an ongoing problem in this country, and it has gone unchecked for too long. I am disturbed that the identification and clothing of our public officials is so easily reproduced. When I think about all the different efforts we have made and the technology we have employed to ensure that someone cannot counterfeit a $20 bill, I am shocked that ensuring the integrity of the badges and identification of public officials has not been made a similar priority. DHS badges, uniforms and IDs are indicative of authority, and the bearers are granted access to restricted areas and to sensitive information. We trust that people who have those badges and wear those uniforms of the Department of Homeland Security are, in fact, officers of that agency, and we teach our children to trust people who show official badges and wear the official uniforms. How terrifying is it to think about someone's lost child walking up to someone wearing a DHS uniform only to have that person really be a criminal. This amendment is an important first step in improving the integrity of the DHS badges, uniforms, and IDs. Next week, I plan on taking our efforts to protect the integrity of our public IDs one step further by introducing legislation that will expand the current Federal criminal ban on fake police badges and the misuse of authentic badges to include uniforms, identification, and all other insignia of public officials, because we must be able to trust those who said that they are public officials. I appreciate very much being able to present this amendment and ask for its adoption. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Chairman, I thank very much the chairman of the committee and the ranking member of the committee, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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