Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me reclaim my time. I just think that is an outrageous statement to make, and I do not believe that anybody in America is going to be impressed by that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I will close. I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on a critical amendment that was defeated on a straight party line vote last night at the Committee on Rules. The amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) would fully fund the counterterrorism needs of the intelligence community by increasing by 100 percent the funds authorized in the contingency emergency reserve. What many Members may not realize is that the President's budget request covered just a fraction of the intelligence community's counterterrorism requirements, less than a third. They say the rest of the funds will be requested only after the November election. Well, the Nation's intelligence agencies have indicated that they need additional funds and the Peterson amendment will make sure that they receive them now, not after November elections. Mr. Speaker, fighting terrorism is not now and has never been a partisan issue. After 9/11, Republicans and Democrats stood side by side on the steps of the Capitol united in our effort to root out terrorists and to keep America safe. It is hard for me to understand why Republicans would now actively work to keep the House from adequately funding the counterterrorism efforts. The intelligence bill has long been considered in this House under an open rule. Any Member who wished to bring an amendment to the floor could do so, but last year things began to change. Republicans started to pass rules that restricted amendments, that allowed them to pick and choose which amendments could be debated in the floor of the House. This year they have taken it too far. The Peterson amendment is far too important not to be considered and is far too important to be subject to petty partisan games. It deserves a separate vote here on the floor today. So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the previous question. Let me make it very clear that a no vote will not stop the House from taking up the intelligence bill and will not prevent any of the amendments made in order from being offered. However, a yes vote will mean that the House will not have the opportunity to fully fund the Nation's counterterrorism needs. 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, along with my Democrat women colleagues, I want to express my outrage at the Bush administration's way to wage devastating war on women from the first day he took office. The women in America knew from the past 4 years that ``W'' is for War on Women, and the two reports that my colleague the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) discussed highlight this fact. I would also like to mention another report issued earlier this year by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled ``Scientific Integrity in Policy Making and Investigation Into the Bush Administration's Misuse of Science.'' This report documents the unprecedented manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science across disciplines ranking from the environment and climate change to military intelligence and public health as well as attacks on issues that specifically affect women. As a microbiologist, I am particularly concerned with Mr. Bush's blatant disregard for science. As these three reports demonstrate, the President is clearly engaged in a war on women with particularly vicious attacks on women's reproductive rights. Let me give you a few examples. President Bush is doing everything in his power to restrict and eventually eliminate a women's constitutionally protected right to abortion. The Bush administration supports and is vigorously defending the first Federal law that bans medically necessary abortion procedures since Roe v. Wade, a law that contains no exception to protect a woman's health. It is plainly unconstitutional. President Bush and his administration have taken multiple actions to imbue embryos and fetuses with the status of personhood in an effort to undermine Roe v. Wade, even at the expense of potentially life-saving medical research and has distorted scientific information to further its anti-abortion and anti-family planning agenda. President Bush also endorsed unnecessary legislation that establishes a fetus, embryo, and even a fertilized egg as an independent victim of a crime and, thus, a legal person with the same legal rights as live and born individuals, and, particularly, as its mother. Ironically, at the same time he is attacking a woman's right to choose, he is making every, every effort to inhibit the ability to prevent unintended pregnancies. The Bush administration has consistently proposed inadequate and often even reduced funding for Title X, the family planning programs which provide women with family planning and other health care across the country. The administration tried to end the requirement that health insurance plans offered to Federal employees which includes the coverage of prescription contraceptives if the plan covers other prescription drugs and devices such as Viagra. President Bush named to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the FDA Dr. David Hager, who reportedly has refused to prescribe birth control to unmarried women and has suggested prayer to women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome. The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention under President Bush replaced a comprehensive online fact sheet about condoms with one lacking crucial information on their use. On his first day in office President Bush reinstated the global gag rule and extended it to the entire State Department. For 3 consecutive years, George Bush has withheld funding for the life saving reproductive health services offered through the United Nations Population Fund in over 150 poor countries around the world. President Bush promotes the unproven abstinence only sex education programs, denying our Nation's young people critical information on ways to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, even though we know that over 60 percent of 12th graders report having had sexual intercourse. In fact, recent analysis of abstinence only programs found that such programs can actually reduce the use of condoms when program participants become sexually active, increasing their risk of pregnancy. In my opinion, the President's ``abstinence only'' programs should be more accurately labeled ``ignorance only,'' and we are placing the very lives of our youth in danger. This is unconscionable. When the Nation is in such a severe budget crunch and running skyrocketing deficits, George Bush's decisions to spend millions upon millions of dollars on a program that is not only unproven but potentially harmful is dumbfounding. Moreover, he is also exporting this dangerous ignorance policy to other countries around the world. Another example is the administration posting information on the National Cancer Institute Web site which misleadingly suggested a link between abortion and breast cancer despite objections from the Centers of Disease Control staff who said that scientific study has long refuted that connection. Mr. Speaker, at this point I will insert the remainder of my statement into the Record. In fact, the Bush Administration had to pull the false information off the Web site after significant outcry from the scientific community and the American public. The most recent transgression is a decision by the Bush Administration's Food and Drug Administration to reject Barr Laboratories' application to make its emergency contraception, Plan B, available to women over-the-counter. In doing so, the Bush Administration once again demonstrated its blatant disregard for the health and well-being of American women. According to press reports, George Bush's political appointees based this decision on politics instead of science, going against an overwhelming vote by an independent expert advisory committee and his own staff at the FDA. Such an action is unprecedented. The FDA's scientific advisory panel and staff overwhelmingly recommended that this drug be made available to American women over- the-counter, because they know what we all know: The scientific facts irrefutably show that this drug is a safe, effective way for women to prevent unintended pregnancy. The scientific data show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Plan B could cut our Nation's unintended pregnancy rate in half and reduce the number of abortions performed in our Nation by hundreds of thousands. But in an outrageous move, the FDA ignored the expertise of its own scientists and staff--and the will of American women and hundreds of women's, health and doctors' groups--and instead denied this safe contraceptive over-the-counter status. The FDA threw the facts out the window and instead caved to pressure from right-wing ideologues. Even FDA officials admitted that this decision was unusual. And last April, two FDA scientists wrote an article in which they openly speculated that political pressure was influencing the FDA's decision on emergency contraception. We must get to the bottom of how this decision was allowed to happen. We cannot jeopardize future FDA decisions with partisan pandering. American women trust the FDA to make the best decisions possible with respect to their health. We absolutely must be able to trust that the federal agency responsible for allowing us access to miraculous drugs will leave politics out of decisions that can so profoundly affect our health. In my mind, the FDA's decision on Plan B has completely shattered this trust, especially in the leadership of the FDA. Therefore, my colleague Henry Waxman and I spearheaded a letter along with 28 of our colleagues asking the General Accounting Office to conduct an investigation into the influence of partisan politics upon the FDA, eviscerating its ability to make decisions based upon sound science. I also believe that FDA Acting Commissioner Lester Crawford and Dr. Steve Galson, acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, need to be held accountable for this outrageous decision that so clearly goes against the scientific data. Therefore, I have called upon President Bush to request their resignations. Only when partisan politics are no longer allowed to take precedence over science will our trust in the FDA be restored. There are so many other examples of President Bush and his cronies riding roughshod over science that I do not have time to discuss them all this evening. However, I would encourage the American public to take a look at all of these reports to find out what the Bush Administration doesn't want you to know. As I noted a few minutes ago, the President's moniker that ``W is for Women'' is a joke. Mr. President, no one is laughing, because the actions you have taken against women are having devastating consequences. Indeed, you have proven time and again that ``W is for WAR on Women.'' Mr. President, the women of America know what you are doing, and we will not stand for it!

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I just want to say I am perplexed by the notion that we should leave this contract in place because Accenture will hire Americans to do the work. My assumption is that the two American companies who stay here and pay taxes would do the very same. I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) for offering this amendment to stop this $10 billion government contract to Accenture. I do not have to explain to anybody in this room why this practice that we have here I think makes no sense at all. A lot of the American companies have decided to evade their Federal tax responsibilities. If you follow this debate, maybe they should all go. It seems it is trying to give us some idea that that is better for us. But adding insult to injury, this Federal Government turns around and gives billions of dollars worth of contracts to those very companies who will not pay their share. Corporate expatriates, as my colleagues know, cost us the $5 billion. And when they got this contract, as a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, I was both outraged and flabbergasted to learn that they were going to be responsible for launching the US-VISIT program at our 50 busiest land borders. One of them is just outside my district, in Buffalo, the Peace Bridge. What do you think my constituents said to me when they learned the company responsible for securing the border, a company funded by their tax dollars, does not pay taxes itself? That the very company that was going to have the important responsibility of tracking foreign visitors is in itself a foreign visitor? Not only is the contract an insult, it flew in the face of congressional intent. In July of 2002, the House passed an amendment sponsored by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to prohibit the Department from awarding contracts to corporate expatriates. Unfortunately, it could not block the companies already moving to Bermuda, but we have been trying to close those loopholes. Last year, I offered an amendment to Project BioShield that would have barred expatriate corporations from receiving $5 billion worth of contracts with the Department of Homeland Security, but it was voted down along party lines. But this week we achieve a partial victory. The House Committee on Rules of which I am a member granted protection to part of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) that would close the loopholes in homeland security contracting ban, and the amendment easily passed the Committee on Appropriations. As a long-time member of the Committee on Rules, I can tell my colleagues that is no small feat. As many of us joke, we should probably put a sign above the door to the Committee on Rules room like that hung above the gates of hell in ``Dante's Inferno'' that says, ``All hope abandon, ye who enter here!'' It is no secret that the Committee on Rules is used by the Republicans to kill amendments before they can reach the floor for debate and to substantially restrict debate on legislation having a vast impact on this public. But 2 days ago a miracle occurred, and we were able to protect the loophole provision on the Delauro-Berry amendment, but this fight is not over. It does not make any sense, and America knows it. What in the world are we doing here? We are reading every day of the giveaway contract, the no-bid contract to Halliburton that is causing us so much harm and delivering no goods in Iraq, and then we sit here in this Congress and protect the giving of a contract to a corporation that has refused to pay its American taxes. Will my colleagues think about that? They bid against two companies staying here, good corporate American citizens who are at a disadvantage because the company who got the contract does not have to pay those taxes. It is an outrage, and I think that today we will show that this House of Representatives believes that it is an outrage. I agree with what my colleagues said before: if this bill would ever be allowed by the Committee on Rules to come here for a full debate and vote, we would really show America that most people in this Congress do not like what the leadership is foisting on us.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a set of amendments, and I ask unanimous consent they be considered en bloc.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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 urge Members to vote no on the previous question and yield the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, when the previous question is called I will ask for a no vote. It seems that hardly a day goes by that we do not turn on television and hear some new report on a terrorist plot around the world. Some of the most recent reports have indicated terrorists may be planning attacks in the United States this summer. Just the other day authorities arrested a man in Ohio allegedly planning to blow up a shopping mall. With news like this it is little wonder that the security of our Nation weighs heavily on the minds of our constituents. Unfortunately, the bill before us today does not provide an adequate level of funding to give our communities the resources that they need to keep America and its people safe. Excluding Project BioShield, the Homeland Security appropriations bill barely keeps up with inflation, and it even cuts funding for programs to help our police, firefighters and emergency personnel 7 percent. How do we expect to keep our Nation secure when we are cutting funding for the very people tasked with keeping our constituents safe. It does not have to be this way, Mr. Speaker. Last night at the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) brought forth a very important and responsible amendment that would have provided an additional $3 billion to the Department of Homeland Security in a contingent emergency reserve. As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) pointed out in his testimony, this money could be used to increase the number of air marshals on planes or to address the problems in our current aviation security screening system. It could provide for more radiation and surveillance monitors at our borders and ports and allow for increased inspection of shipping containers coming into the country. It could be used to increase surveillance in our transit systems and to improve communications between police, firefighters and other first responders. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we will not get a chance to vote on more money for security at our borders or on our transit systems or for our first responders because the amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was defeated on a straight party line vote. So today, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). This fund represents a tiny fraction of the money that has gone towards rebuilding Iraq. I do not think it is asking too much to make sure that our own Nation is fully protected and that emergency monies are available should they be needed. In the 2 years since the creation of the Homeland Security Department, we have found a number of areas that need more resources. The monies contained in the contingency fund could provide a much- needed shot in the arm for these programs and services that may have vulnerabilities. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. The safety of our Nation and its citizens is of utmost importance to all of us in this House. Today this Congress can put aside partisanship and act to protect America's homeland by giving the Department of Homeland Security the additional resources provided in the Obey amendment to meet our most urgent security concerns. I am confident that all Americans and all Members of this House support that sentiment. So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote no on the previous question. Let me emphasize that a no vote will not stop the House from taking up the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It will not prevent other amendments from being offered under this rule. However, a yes vote will prevent the House from considering this badly-needed amendment to create an emergency contingency fund for homeland security and preserve that department's ability to more fully protect Americans against terrorism. 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, does the gentleman have any further speakers?

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, much is being said about how tight fiscal restraints are this year. We know that is so, but it is not an excuse for our current budget constraints. Just a few years ago, the Federal Government had a budget surplus of $3 trillion. Today, the government is facing historic deficits upward of $7 trillion. Bad fiscal policy has hamstrung the Federal Government's abilities to invest the sums necessary to protect the Nation from terrorism. The tight budget numbers are the result of tax giveaways to people who least need it, the people that the ``Oracle of Omaha,'' Warren Buffett, has said owe the most to the country and pay far too little. It is good for the Nation that overall funding for the Department of Homeland Security has increased. However, the increase is not enough. The cost of securing the Nation is high, but throwing dollars at the threat is not the solution. We must spend homeland security funds wisely, and all homeland security activities must be coordinated within the department itself and with State and local governments. But well into its second year, the department is still underachieving. Several years into our own war on terrorism, the department has not developed a comprehensive threat vulnerability assessment. How can we protect the people of this country when we act blindly without this basic information necessary to develop and implement a comprehensive homeland security plan? Recent reports have shown that airports are not any safer despite the creation of Transportation Security Administration. There is no coordination of homeland security functions along the southern or along the northern border. I represent the second busiest gateway between the United States and Canada, and the need to increase the resources along the over 4,000- mile border between the U.S. and Canada is great. For years, little attention was paid to our northern border. But if we are to maintain the $1 billion a day trade between the United States and Canada while maintaining U.S. safety and security, we have to provide the resources to do it. We must create a northern border coordinator to ensure our dollars are invested prudently and that Federal, State and local authorities are working together. I am extremely troubled by the $300 million cut to funding for our first-responders, the people on the ground valiantly protecting our communities with too few resources and lots of overtime. How can we justify cutting funding for police officers, firefighters and EMTs, who are the first people on the scene to respond to a terrorist attack? Money has been awarded to States and localities, but the process is so cumbersome and lengthy that local governments have difficulty actually spending the first-responder grant money. It is also imperative that we take threat, vulnerability, and strategic importance into account when we allocate the first-responder dollars. High threat areas with high population densities certainly deserve attention and dollars. Areas of strategic importance need and deserve Federal assistance. And, as I mentioned, the border crossings at Buffalo and Niagara Falls are the second busiest portals between the United States and Canada. This entry port is tactically important to the security of the United States. Terrorists could use this entrance to gain access to the country or use the bridges as a means to slip weapons into the country. Western New York's strategic position and role are vital to national safety. Such areas need the resources to secure the northern border without disrupting the important commerce between the United States and Canada. Mr. Speaker, another issue that greatly bothers me, and is an insult to every taxpayer in this country, are the corporate expatriates, American companies that incorporate abroad in order to skip out on their tax obligations to this country. These corporations earn millions of dollars from the Federal Government. According to the General Accounting Office, corporate expatriates cost this country an estimated $5 billion in lost tax dollars, and yet they continue to receive $2.7 billion in government contracts. That is a disgrace. Accenture, the scion of Arthur Andersen of infamous Enron fame, recently received a $10 billion contract to build a foreign traveler tracking system known as US-VISIT. During committee consideration of the homeland security appropriations, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) offered an amendment to ensure that companies incorporated outside the United States for tax purposes could not enter into contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. It makes sense. The DeLauro-Berry amendment would void the Accenture contract by barring any contracts with corporate expatriates before, on or after the date of enactment. H. Res. 675 protects the first part of the DeLauro-Berry amendment, which will probably disappear in conference, but it specifically refuses to protect the second provision in the amendment that would invalidate the $10 billion contract with Accenture. Bloomberg News reported that Accenture posted increases in American earnings from $247.3 billion in 2002 to $566.9 billion in 2003, doubled in one year, while the company reduced its tax liability to $143 million from $382 million. During that same time period, Federal procurement records show that in 2002 Accenture benefited from Federal contracts worth $450 million, of which $250 million were related to military or homeland security functions, another disgrace. At this time, when unemployment levels have remained consistent since December 2003, it is important that we as public servants and as agents of the Federal Government do everything we can to keep jobs in this country. We should not reward companies that incorporate outside the United States in order to avoid Federal taxes. Think of the advantage it gives them in bidding against American companies. Expatriate corporations like Accenture have a huge structural advantage over companies that stay in America, employ Americans and pay their fair share of taxes. It is our duty to support the American companies. Giving the largest contract yet awarded by the Department of Homeland Security to an expatriate company contradicts the principles and ideals that I was sent here to uphold. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. OBEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.