Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 174, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the congressional Republican abuses of power continue in the Senate where Senator Frist is preparing to change the Senate rules for the first time in 200 years. Senator Frist and Senate Republicans are waging an unprecedented political power grab. They are changing the rules in the middle of the game and attacking our historic system of checks and balances so they can ram through a small number of judicial nominees who otherwise cannot achieve consensus because of their poor record of protecting individual rights. Our House Democrats join our colleagues in the Senate committed to fight this Republican abuse of power. We will protect the role of the judiciary as the guardian of the rights of all Americans, assuring that all judges who are confirmed in the Federal courts be as intellectually honest and fair as possible, rather than ruling just on one side of one interest. Drunk with power, rewriting the rules is what has been happening in Washington the most in recent years. The House Republican leadership tried to weaken the House ethics rules to protect one of their own, and they failed. Let us not let the Senate do the same.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, as part of National Women's Health Week, the Society for Women's Health Research is recognizing today as ``Sex Differences in Health Awareness Day.'' The intent of this day is to draw attention to the biological health differences between women and men. I am proud to reflect on this issue, and I strongly believe the importance of this day cannot be overstated. It is true, scientists have long known about the anatomical differences between men and women. However, only within the past decade has the scientific community begun to investigate and uncover significant biological and physiological differences between men and women. From genes to behavior, women and men are now gaining greater knowledge of their unique differences. As a result, they are able to better achieve optimal healthcare. The Society for Women's Health Research has led efforts to shed light on the distinctions in women's health. Through the Society's tireless persistence on behalf of women's health, they have engaged and supported the scientific community to investigate these dissimilarities. Over the last fifteen years, the Society has worked to ensure that women are included in clinical trials and that the analysis of research include sex differences at all levels. I commend the Society for Women's Health Research for its tireless efforts to increase understanding of sex differences and to improve the health of women. One health issue that affects women very differently than men is cancer. In fact, every 6.4 minutes, a woman in the U.S. is diagnosed with a form of gynecologic cancer. This year, 28,000 American women are expected to die from gynecologic cancers. For example, ovarian cancer is a gynecologic cancer, and it is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths among women in the United States. It kills more women than all other gynecologic cancers combined. The incidence of ovarian cancer has actually increased over several years. Up from 1 in 70 women in past years, ovarian cancer now occurs in 1 in 57 women. In comparison, prostate cancer mortality rates peaked in 1991 and have since decreased by about 33 percent, while deaths from ovarian cancer have risen. According to the American Cancer Society, ovarian cancer deaths rose by almost 20 percent in just one year from 2003 to 2004. While 25,500 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer this year, more than 16,000 women will die from the disease, including over 1,000 women in New York State. Although there is only a 25 percent five-year survival rate when ovarian cancer is diagnosed in the later stages, if the cancer is caught before it has spread outside the ovaries, there is a greater than 90 percent survival rate of five years. However, the sad reality is that only 24 percent of ovarian cancer is caught early. Even more frustrating, early detection and treatment of ovarian cancer is oftentimes hindered due to lack of understanding by both women and their healthcare providers. Most women and healthcare professionals think ovarian cancer is asymptomatic, but new studies indicate that ovarian cancer does have symptoms, even in the early stage of the disease. Reliable screening tests do not exist for the early detection of ovarian cancer and a Pap smear only checks for cervical cancer. However, a bimanual pelvic exam, a Ca125 blood test, or a transvaginal ultrasound can help rule out ovarian cancer, but only if women and their doctors are aware of these options. With women's lives at stake, we clearly need to do a better job of educating women and, especially, their physicians, so that early detection of ovarian cancer becomes the norm. In my district, the Buffalo-based Roswell Park Cancer Institute, RPCI, and the University of Rochester Medical Center, URMC, are supporting many research efforts on ovarian cancer. As a member of the Gynecologic Oncology Group, RPCI participates in most national trials to improve the prevention, detection and treatment of gynecologic cancers. They also collaborate in the Ovarian Cancer Early Detection Program sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. RPCI is evaluating the anti-angiogenesis factor IM862 in the treatment of recurrent ovarian carcinoma. Through the Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry, RCPI collects data on familial ovarian cancer. RPCI continues to research glycoproteins and tumor markers in ovarian cancer. Researchers at the URMC are investigating tumor suppression gene identification for ovarian cancer and are conducting several phase III trials to identify treatments for women with ovarian cancer. Despite the critical work of RPCI and URMC, ovarian cancer research and education continues to be significantly under-funded compared to other cancers. In the last 10 years, funding for prostate cancer, has increased 20 fold, while funding for ovarian cancer has only increased 2.5 percent. Not surprisingly, there has been substantial progress in prostate cancer detection and treatment, while achievements in ovarian cancer research continue to lag far behind. According to the Ovarian Cancer National Alliance, $37 million in outstanding ovarian cancer proposals will not been funded in 2005 due to limited resources. Ovarian cancer is one example of the disparities women face in health research, prevention, and treatment. While progress has been made in some areas in recent years, there is still much more we must do to improve women's health. We need additional resources and we need Congressional action. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of H.R. 1245, also known as Johanna's Law. This legislation will authorize a federal campaign for gynecologic cancer education designed to improve early detection. It is one important step in closing the healthcare gap between men and women, and it should be enacted without delay. As we celebrate National Women's Health Week and the achievements made to improve the health and well being of women, I urge my colleagues to take a moment to reflect on the differences in health between men and women and encourage us to make a much stronger commitment to promoting women's health in this country.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my colleague if he is ready to yield back, then I will close.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield ten seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) to respond.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me take the time I have remaining to just say that we are not doing what the 9/11 Commission asked. They wanted us to negotiate with our States on whether they wanted to do this or not; and what we have done is impose upon the States, without any hearings or any discussion with them, from top down, an unfunded mandate requiring them to change their driver's license at our whim. So this is not that at all. We are, in fact, undoing what the 9/11 Commission said.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule to instruct the enrolling clerk to make an important addition to the conference report. This addition will establish a select committee to investigate the awarding and carrying out of war-related contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nearly $9 billion of money spent on the Iraq reconstruction is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management, according to the Special Inspector General for the Iraqi Reconstruction. Ensuring vigilant oversight of taxpayer dollars should not be a partisan issue. I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the emergency supplemental report. A ``no'' vote will simply allow the House to create a much-needed select committee to investigate government contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. A ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from establishing this important select committee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that supporting our young men and women in uniform is a priority for each and every Member of this House. Whether we are Democrats or Republicans, whether we have agreed with the Bush administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq or opposed them, we all want the United States to be successful in the Middle East. We may disagree on how we overcome the challenges that lay before us, just as our Founding Fathers hoped and expected we would. But all of us here are patriots, and all of us come to the table with our best intentions in mind. Our troops in uniform throughout Afghanistan and Iraq have consistently performed their duty with courage and great integrity. It is incumbent upon us here in the people's House to honor those sacrifices in the only real way we can, by providing leadership for this Nation that is as principled and as courageous as each of our fallen soldiers. We have a responsibility to live up to their example and have the courage to perform our duty with integrity. We must insist on accountability and honesty in this government, and we, too, must always be accountable and honest. But I fear that in this body, in this Congress, we have not risen to that challenge. Yesterday, while walking through the Senate halls, I saw a picture of Senator Harry Truman conducting a meeting of the Truman Commission, and under that picture there is a statement that says that the Truman Commission saved the taxpayers of the country millions of dollars during the Second World War by ferreting out waste and corruption in the American war effort. And let me remind my colleagues that Senator Truman was investigating his own administration. The commission's purpose was to maximize every dollar we had to spend, to ferret out corruption and mismanagement, and to infuse a sense of accountability into the American war machine. By all accounts they were successful in their noble endeavor. Their good work saved many American lives by ensuring that our tax dollars were spent on where they needed to be spent, on winning the war. One more helmet, one more bullet, one more tank, it made the difference. And yet we in this Congress do not have the courage to insist on the same level of accountability today that our forefathers saw fit to employ over 60 years ago. When this same supplemental was brought before the House earlier this year, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) offered an amendment that would have established a select committee to follow up on a very disturbing report which had been released from the Inspector General's office. The report indicated that $9 billion of money spent on Iraqi reconstruction was unaccounted for. And for those who are counting out there, that is 9,000 million dollars. We heard reports of payroll checks covering employees who did not exist and firms being compensated for providing security for flights that never took off. We even heard a report that a Pentagon contract for the development of bullet-proof armor was given to a former army researcher who never delivered a single piece of armor. These types of incidents squander precious resources, waste time we do not have, and, worse, they place our American soldiers' lives at risk. But the majority in the House defeated our attempts to bring a measure of accountability into the process. And today, 9 months later, that $9 billion is still missing and none of those incidents I have just mentioned have been investigated, none of them. And still today we have no Truman Commission of our own to speak of and no language in this conference report that will create one. The question I have for my colleagues today is, why not? Surely the leadership of the House understands that missing $9 billion of taxpayer money could benefit our troops had we the sense to go and look for it. And without any oversight commission to investigate and prevent the issues of taxpayer dollars by the Pentagon or some unscrupulous government contractors, how can we be sure that the $82 billion check we are cutting today on behalf of the American taxpayers will actually reach its destination or be used to protect our troops in the line of fire? After all, it is our young men and women in uniform who pay the price for the inability of this body to enforce any standard of accountability. But this is not the only failure of accountability we see here today. All one had to do was open a newspaper this morning and read that Dr. Ahmed Chalabi, who was honored by sitting there with the first lady in the State of the Union Address, has been named the deputy prime minister of the country and the acting oil minister in the provisional government in Iraq. Do I have to remind this House that just months ago Dr. Chalabi was under intense scrutiny for feeding the U.S. Government bad intelligence, which ultimately led us to invade Iraq? Do I have to remind my colleagues that just months ago Dr. Chalabi was suspected of passing U.S. intelligence to the Iranian Government? Can anyone possibly explain how this man has been allowed to accept such a high- ranking position in the Iraqi provisional government? We know what should be in the bill: language to create a modern version of the Truman Commission so we can ensure that men like Chalabi do not undermine the war and reconstruction effort, place American soldiers at risk, and rob American taxpayers blind as we continue to pump more and more money into Iraq. But now I want to touch on what should not be in the bill. The majority believes in instituting a national identification card program for the country, which is in the legislation. Creating a national identification card is serious business and could have profound implications for all Americans. It should be debated on the floor openly with opportunity for ample discussion and amendment. Instead, the leadership has shoved this extreme measure down our throats as part of the supplemental, knowing full well that many Members would never support the measure in its current form but will be forced to vote for it because we want to support our troops. That is not accountability; that is arrogance. How dare they hide behind our men and women in uniform as the brave souls risk their lives every day to protect us from danger. How could the leadership of this body use them to protect themselves and their agenda from debate, from democracy, and accountability? This is just the latest example of misuse of power. Members should be aware that the rule contains a section that authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to file a supplemental report on H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Members may recall that during the markup of H.R. 748 in Committee on the Judiciary last month, five defeated Democrat amendments were included in the committee report with descriptions that blatantly and grossly mischaracterized the amendments. While the rule will provide for a supplemental report to be filed, it does not require or direct the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to apologize to the authors of the amendments, nor are we sure that it will never happen again. So just as the leadership concedes the issue and recognizes action must be taken, they are still not accepting the responsibility. I am sure we are supposed to be grateful for this small token, but it would mean much more if those responsible for maligning our colleagues here in the House would accept the responsibility for their actions and fix the report. I am going to support the conference report because I am supportive of my troops abroad, but it has to be noted that our brave men and women are being used as a tool to cover for the underhanded attempt to institute a national ID card, but also for last week's misguided use of power that maligned several of our colleagues. At the same time, they have failed to infuse the much-needed accountability into the process. This is not the principled leadership we owe the men and women the bill is supposed to protect. This is not courageous. We can do better. We owe our fighting men and women at least that much. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to respond to the previous speaker and to remind him that the hijackers, many of them, had driver's licenses from the State of Virginia, and others had visas and passports. So I do not think this national ID card would have stopped them. Also, if he is referring to Members on our side saying that we are not safer than we were on 9/11, I would report that was a government report saying that TSA has made us no safer than it was before. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by quoting from Section 1001, Title 18 of the United States Code that also applies to the legislative branch. ``Anyone knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme or device a material fact; 2, makes any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; or, 3, makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years or both.'' The Committee on Rules discovered last week that the Committee on the Judiciary report on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, authored by the majority staff, in conflict obviously to the United States Code, contained amendment summaries that had been rewritten by the staff for the sole purpose of distorting the original intent of the authors. I have to admit I was livid. I was certain it must have been an oversight because I could not imagine that the Committee on the Judiciary, of all things, or the Committee on the Judiciary chairman, whom I have known for 18 years, would stand by a committee report that would so deeply mischaracterize and falsify the intent of several amendments offered by Democrat members of the committee. At least five amendments to the bill, designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution, were completely rewritten to make as though it was the original intent of the authors. This is a shocking abuse of power, and it must not stand. The fact is that the Republican majority must do the right thing here today. They must give us a new committee report containing the proper captions so that it accurately reflects the intentions of the authors. Furthermore, I think the chairman of the committee owes those Members an apology for soiling their reputation in the names of partisan politics. To falsely rewrite the intent of amendments submitted by another Member, to intentionally distort its description is unacceptable. No Member should go through what our colleagues have had to go through. None of us should have our reputations dragged through the mud. It is absolutely arrogant of this majority to believe that they can tamper with official congressional documents for political purposes. It is absolutely arrogant, and the American people will not be pleased with it. It is an affront not only to those of us in the House but to the American people and to history, Mr. Speaker; and unless it is amended, I am sure that we will see these again in the form of campaign attack mail pieces, and honorable, hardworking Members of this Congress will be forever branded. No wonder we have a lack of civility in this House.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me close this debate by urging Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can modify the rule to allow the House to reject this flawed budget conference report and require the House Committee on the Budget to produce a new Federal budget that does not raid the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, since President Bush took office, Republican budgets have spent every penny of Social Security trust surplus in order to finance the deficits and pay for their tax cuts. While the President travels the country trying and failing to convince Americans that privatizing Social Security is a good idea, his tax cuts continue to pile up the IOUs in the Social Security trust fund. We need a budget that will bring back budget enforcement, to protect the Social Security surplus and return the budget to balance by 2012. The Spratt budget would put us back on the path to fiscal solvency and that is the kind of budget America needs and deserves, not the budget before us today. Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can protect Social Security and begin restoring some fiscal sanity to the Nation. 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 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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.