Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2898, the E-911 Implementation Act of 2003. As a member of the Congressional E-911 Caucus, I want to thank my colleagues Anna Eschoo and John Shimkus for their leadership and tireless advocacy on this critical public safety issue. I would also like to recognize the efforts of a leader on this issue that many of you may not know--New York State Assemblyman David Koon. Long before there was a Congressional E-911 Caucus, David was championing wireless enhanced 911. My constituents in Rochester have long appreciated David's tireless advocacy to get local government the resources they need to deploy E-911. Today, 911 calls made on cell phones account for nearly a third of all emergency calls. By 2004, cell phones are expected to be the main source of 911 emergency calls. Most Americans with cells phones will tell you that they bought them for emergencies. They fully expect that if they have a health emergency or are in an accident--they can dial 9- 1-1 and help will be on the way. Back in 1999, Congress tried to make sure that happened by passing the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act. However, today, most wireless phones still do not provide emergency dispatchers with automated caller location or identification information. There's strong consumer demand for E-911, the technology needed to identify and locate wireless callers has long been available, and so Congress had to ask ``why the hold-up?'' The chief barrier to universal E-911 deployment is money. Many localities will tell you they have had to put off implementing E-911 because it is too costly. This was not supposed to happen. Under the 1999 Act, States were given the power to collect surcharges on all cell phones, blackberries and other wireless devices to fund E- 911 service. Unfortunately, the E-911 fund has become an easy target for looting by states that are struggling to cover shortfalls in law enforcement and emergency service budgets. In New York State alone, over $200 million has been collected in surcharges since 1991. This money is supposed to be earmarked for setting up a state-wide Wireless Enhanced 911 system, but instead the money has gone to the state police, who have spent the funds on departmental dry cleaning bills, ballpoint pens, travel, are leases, grounds maintenance for precincts and winter boots, according to the New York State comptroller's office. I strongly believe that the millions of New York residents who pay the ``E-911 surcharge'' on their monthly cell phone bills are owed E- 911 service when they need it. That's why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2898. Under this measure, $500 million in grants would be available to the states over five years to establish and upgrade E-911 facilities. I also am encouraged that H.R. 2898 would penalize states that redirect E-911 funds collected from consumer's cell phone bills. That's the only way to make them honest. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation. Its essential that we act on this legislation. It will save lives. Bright, beautiful, hopeful lives of Americans are at stake. Ten years ago, Jennifer Koon, an 18-year old, was abducted from a mall parking lot in Rochester. She called 911. Her call could not be traced and Jennifer was killed. In 1993, the technology was not readily available. Today that is not the case. Mr. Speaker passage of H.R. 2898 is essential to providing parents, like Assemblyman David Koon, with the assurance that their children will get the help they need when they dial 911--regardless of whether they dial it on a cell phone or on their home phone.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay special tribute to the Rochester General Hospital located in Rochester, New York, a 526- bed Center of Excellence within the boundaries of the 28th Congressional District of New York. The hospital, which is home to the Rochester Heart Institute, is New York's fourth largest cardiac center, providing complete diagnostic services, medical, invasive, and non- invasive treatment, three progressive levels of cardiac rehabilitation and state-of-the-art cardiothoracic surgery. This year, the century-old teaching hospital has been named a 2003 Solucient 100 Top Cardiovascular Hospital. Although the hospital has received this designation three previous times, the 2003 distinction is especially meaningful, as it is one of only two hospitals in New York State so distinguished. The fifth annual study, Solucient 100 Top Hospitals Cardiovascular Benchmarks for Success--2003, used publicly available data, statistically adjusted for illness levels, to track performance in seven key cardiology/cardiac surgery areas. Specifically, hospitals that cared for at least 20 cases in each of the four categories of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), congestive heart failure, angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) were rated by the seven following indicators: procedure volume, risk- adjusted medical mortality, risk-adjusted surgical mortality, risk- adjusted complications index, percentage of CABG patients with internal mammary artery use, severity-adjusted average length of stay, and wage and severity-adjusted average cost. Rochester General Hospital's designation as one of America's Top 100 Cardiovascular Hospitals is particularly important to health care consumers. The aforementioned study concluded that facilities found worthy of this distinction consistently outperform their peers, especially in terms of mortality and complication rates. This specific achievement is evidence that the skilled performance and excellent outcomes in cardiovascular services at Rochester General Hospital of Rochester, New York have propelled the hospital to the top one per cent of acute-care hospitals in the United States of America. It is indeed my great privilege, as the elected Representative of the 28th Congressional District of New York, to formally honor Rochester General Hospital of Rochester, New York, for having achieved excellence in the area of heart care, as an integrated source for patient cardiovascular needs, from prevention and education to diagnosis, treatment and recovery.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 150th anniversary of Bausch & Lomb--a community institution, an outstanding corporation, and a global innovator. In 1853, a German immigrant named John Jacob Bausch started a modest business selling optical goods. He got off to an uneven start, and borrowed $60 in capital from a close friend, Henry Lomb. Bausch promised to make Lomb a full partner if the business prospered. Indeed, the business grew beyond its founders' wildest dreams. Today, Bausch & Lomb is the premiere name, recognized around the world, for excellence in eye health products. Headquartered in my district of Rochester, New York, Bausch & Lomb employs over 11,000 people and generates annual revenues of almost $2 billion. B&L, as it is affectionately known, is also deeply committed to our community and its future. More than 5,000 schools nationwide participate in the Bausch & Lomb Science Award, which is bestowed on selected high school sophomores for excellence in science. Along with a medal, winners are eligible for a Bausch & Lomb scholarship for study at the University of Rochester, and associated paid summer internships in B&L labs. The B&L science awards and scholarships promote science scholarship and foster the next generation of scientists and researchers. At its facilities in Rochester, B&L has created some of the most innovative optical equipment and goods in the world. During World War I, B&L produced the special sunglasses for military men. B&L researchers invented the first optical-quality glass. And in 1971, Bausch & Lomb introduced the first soft contact lenses, a product that has improved the quality of life for millions of people around the globe. Today, tens of millions depend upon high quality B&L products to improve and maintain one of their most precious assets: their vision. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply proud of the fine work done by my constituents at Bausch & Lomb every day. One's sight is a precious thing, and it speaks volumes that more people entrust their vision to Bausch & Lomb than to any other company in the world. I salute Bausch & Lomb--company CEO Ronald Zarrella, his leadership team, and every one of his outstanding employees--on their 150th anniversary. We all look forward with great anticipation to seeing what the coming years bring to and from Bausch & Lomb.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Breast Cancer Awareness Month is an opportunity to celebrate the great strides breast cancer education, treatment, and survival that American women enjoy today. It must also serve as a reminder not to take our health for granted--to schedule a mammogram, perform a breast self-exam, and call a friend to urge her to do the same. In the United States, every 2\1/2\ minutes another woman is diagnosed with breast cancer and every 13 minutes another woman dies from this dreadful disease. Almost one-third of these deaths could have been prevented if the disease had been discovered in the early stages. The lives lost are those of wives, mothers, daughters, and friends. Thankfully, a breast cancer diagnosis is no longer a sure death sentence. When discovered and treated in the early stages, the five- year survival rate is 97 percent. Today, there are more than two million breast cancer survivors in the United States. These women live to celebrate birthdays, holidays, every day with their families and friends. Early detection opens the door to beating breast cancer, and mammograms are the key to that door. Mammograms can find 40 percent of cancers not detectable during a breast self-exam or a doctor's exam. It is the most effective method of early detection, yet only 63 percent of American women between the ages of 40 and 64 had a mammogram in the past year. Furthermore, we must search diligently for more effective detection technology to improve upon the mammogram. Sadly, many women cannot pay for essential screenings. I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program. Due to this program and other initiatives, a lack of insurance is no longer a barrier to breast cancer survival. Let's make the most of October, Breast Cancer Awareness Month; let's seize this opportunity to take control of our health and our lives. Every one of us is at risk for breast cancer, regardless of age, health, or family history, simply by being women. Let's say goodbye to needless cancer deaths and hello to breast self-exams, clinical breast exams, and mammograms. Let's say hello to the thousands of women who are here today and will be here tomorrow thanks to early breast cancer detection and treatment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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

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 thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, again the Committee on Rules has trampled on the rights of the minority and the voices of millions of Americans. Last night, the Committee held an emergency meeting to consider a rule for the Interior appropriations conference report. The Democrats had only an hour to skim the contents of the lengthy report before a quick hearing was held and the rules hastily approved along party lines. Now, this morning, the entire membership of the House is expected to consider the Interior appropriations conference report, even though Members had only a few late-night hours to scan the report. It is almost November, and we are well into the new fiscal year, with only three of the 13 appropriations bills enacted into law. But inefficiency does not justify our hurriedly passing a bill appropriating almost $20 billion. The American people expect their elected Representatives will have more than a handful of dark hours in the late night to consider vital legislation. Mr. Speaker, in the few hours I have had to read this conference report, I saw several problems with the bill. Back in 1992, the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts reached its funding zenith, $176 million for each agency. Over the years, the NEA and NEH budgets have been slashed again and again, but for the last 2 years this body has voted to increase the funding for the arts and humanities. In July, the House adopted the Slaughter-Dicks amendment in increasing the funding for NEA by $10 billion and funding for NEH by $5 million. However, the $10 million budget increase for NEA has been reduced by $4.5 million and the funding for NEA has been reduced by $5 million from the levels that the body endorsed. Investing in the arts, Mr. Speaker, is a smart business. The $232 million the Federal Government invested in the NEA and NEH last year had an economic impact of $132 billion and billions in Federal, State, and local tax revenues. Every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates $7 for the arts organization by attracting other grants and private donations and ticket sales. Investing in the arts is also smart for our children. Over and over arts education has proven to increase academic performance, regardless of socioeconomic background. The NEA provides the grants for local arts activities in every State and in every congressional district. In Buffalo, New York, the NEA provided a small $10,000 grant to a community arts group to support a program to offer weekend classes in visual arts and jazz music for the African American children in Buffalo's low-income, inner city east side. Another small community grant to a group in Buffalo provided weekly workshops in media literacy and digital arts for girls age 9 to 15. And in the district of my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), an 8-week summer residency program that provided psychiatrically and emotionally impaired children with instruction in creative writing, mask-making, and theatrical improvisation received a community arts grant from the NEA. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal told that story of an NEA arts program to bring professional theater companies to perform Shakespeare's plays in hundreds of small and midsize towns. The Chicago Shakespeare Theatre recently brought a live-action ``Romeo and Juliet'' to Paducah, Kentucky. After the performance, the audience stood up to cheer. The article ends by saying, ``Shakespeare played well on stage is a wondrously different thing from Shakespeare stammered through in a classroom.'' The National Endowment for the Humanities is at the forefront in preserving our American culture and history. Democracy suffocates without an understanding of its past. The NEH and NEA provide the air that our democracy needs to survive and to thrive. Bruce Cole, the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, warns us that ``we face a serious challenge to our country that lies within our borders and even within our schools: the threat of American amnesia. We are in danger of having our view of the future obscured by our ignorance of the past. We cannot see clearly ahead if we are blind to history, and a nation that does not know why it exists or what it stands for cannot be expected to long endure.'' The bill fails to adequately fund programs that protect some of the Nation's most valuable treasures: our natural resources. Again, I repeat the admonition of former President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the fathers of American conservation: ``In utilizing and conserving the natural resources of the Nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight.'' We are caretakers of the Nation's natural resources and parks. We are entrusted with the duty to preserve them for generations yet to come, and we should not hand over management and protection of the natural treasures of our parks to the lowest bidders. Going against the bill as passed by this body, the conference report has added funding for studies about privatizing jobs in the National Park Service and the United States Forest Service. The $8 million for these feasibility studies should be spent more wisely on finding ways to protect our natural resources, not finding ways to eliminate jobs. The report abandons the conservation trust agreement reached and enacted into law in response to the 315 Members of the House who voted for the Conservation Reinvestment Act. For over a century, the Federal Government has acted as the trustee of monies belonging to native Americans. Seeking a complete accounting of these funds held in trust, our native Americans have sued the Department of the Interior, charging the Department with gross mismanagement of the trust fund. The conference report contains new language added to the report that directly interferes with their continuing litigation by limiting the Department's ability to comply with the judge's orders. Many tribes from across the Nation are strongly opposed to this intrusion and have written to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) and the gentleman from Texas (Ranking Member Frost), and I will insert for the Record at the end of my remarks three of those letters. The Seneca Nation called my office yesterday seeking help to protect their lawsuit from congressional meddling. Like any trustee, the Federal Government owes the tribes a complete accounting of the money. The new provision is a heavy-handed interference in an ongoing case in a co-equal branch of our government. We should show more respect for our Native Americans and our Federal courts. Mandan, Hidatsa, & Arikara, Nation, New Town, ND, October 28, 2003. Hon. David Dreier, Chariman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Martin Frost, Ranking Member, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Dreier and Ranking Member Frost: The House and Senate conferees have included language in the Interior and Related Agencies conference report which will halt further efforts by the Interior Department to conduct a historical accounting of the errors in Indian trust fund accounts, as directed by a federal court. The so-called ``trust reform'' rider language violates Rule 21, clause 2 of the Rules of the House of Representatives and constitutes legislating on an appropriations bill. The provision also violates the scope rule, House rule 22, clause 9, since the provision was not in either the house or senate bill before conference. Thus, for procedural and substantive reasons set forth below, I ask the Committee to issue a Rule to Recommit the Interior and Related Agencies conference report back to conference with directions to eliminate the offending language. This provision was drafted without any consultation with the Committee on Resources or with any of the affected class action plaintiffs, or with any Native American tribes. Furthermore, this provision will delay the resolution of the Indian trust fund accounting problem and the court case for years. Native Americans have waited for over 100 years for an accounting. Now is not the time for delay. In fact, many of the Cobell beneficiaries, whose main income depends on a proper accounting, are dying. If the Interior Department is allowed to delay, those older beneficiaries may never be repaid. There is no question that the Cobell Plaintiffs are likely to win. The Interior Department knows this and that is the reason they are asking for a delay. It simply is not in keeping with American justice to delay the likely meritorious legal claims of hundreds of litigants because the losing party does not like the result. Finally, there are serious constitutional questions of due process and takings that are at stake. Thus, I reiterate my opposition to the language in the trust reform rider and ask the Committee to issue a Rule to Recommit to Conference. Sincerely, Tex G. Hall, Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa & Arikara Nation.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the 17 years I have been in Congress, most of that time on the Committee on Rules, that things have changed in such an incredible way, I can hardly recognize it. I remember the times when just the defense budget alone, we would take testimony from the beginning of the morning until late at night for days at a time, hundreds of amendments. We thought that was just fine. It was wonderful. We wanted everybody to get a chance to talk about what was one of the most important things we do in the country, and certainly one of the most expensive. But it seems to me lately that because we can only work 2 days a week in Washington, next week I think we are going to be here a day and a half, that we have to condense everything. It is sort of the Reader's Digest version of the House of Representatives. And so we cut out everybody's rights to speak. We make sure that nobody has a chance to be in any way distasteful by saying something that another person may not like. We are elected by the people of the country to come down here and speak for them, nobody here, nobody in the gallery, nobody else can get up on this floor and speak except those of us they sent here to do it for them. And yet we are being stifled at every turn. And, believe me, I have never seen anything so egregious to us as what happened last night at about 1 a.m. in the morning when they said that this, the largest bill, the money we pass and what many of us believe is a debacle, and for reconstruction and so much malfeasance going on that it almost rivals Teapot Dome, that we will not be able to discuss it, and we will not be able to do much about it. I want to close with a quote that is one of my very favorites here. Quote, ``I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It is unfair, undemocratic and elitist, disenfranchising nearly every Member of Congress and the voters whom they were elected to represent.'' This description was from the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the chairman, of a rule from 1994, and, boy, is it applicable today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, last spring we appropriated $79 billion, it was just this past spring, to fund the war on the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. And again the administration is asking us to open up the Federal purse and hand over billions more. The Federal Government is already facing record deficits, the highest deficits the country has ever faced. But the President now wants our permission to charge $18 billion more, which would have to be charged, by the way. We have no money to pay for that, pay for Iraqi reconstruction on the American credit card. What happened to the $79 billion that Congress handed to the administration? One might well ask. Why are American soldiers being sent into life-threatening situations without the body armor or adequate training? We do not know the answers to these questions, but we do know the conditions in Iraq for our military is shameful. I have received volumes of calls and letters from the families of soldiers serving in Iraq. They are concerned about their children, their brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives suffering from heat exhaustion and dehydration. We just heard that they are just now beginning to study the possible 12 suicides of our service people since they have been in Iraq. Some soldiers are rationed only two bottles of water a day despite the 120 degree weather, and we have been told that they have often had to survive on one meal a day. I was flying back to D.C. this week to go to work on this appropriation. At the airport a TSA official told me of her recent assignment at the airport in Baghdad. She, a civilian employee, was housed in an air-conditioned trailer; but the U.S. soldiers had no relief. She felt so bad for the Army that she would let them sleep on the floor of the trailer just to get a little nap and escape the sweltering heat. Just this morning, The Washington Post reports that many soldiers have very low morale. In fact, a poll was done by ``Stars and Stripes'' that says that only half the people in Iraq now think that the morale is any good at all; 48, 49 percent say the morale is very low; and the same number, about 50 percent of those who are there now, say they will not reenlist. They claim that their mission lacks clear definition and they characterized the war in Iraq as of little or no value. These are the people who are there fighting it. Fully 40 percent said the jobs they were doing had little or nothing to do with the training that they had received. The largest proportion of this appropriation that has been asked for, some $60 billion, is for the troops; and they desperately need more. They need more water, more food, more adequate shelter, more body armor to save their lives, and other essentials. We were also told this week that ammunition dumps are all over the country of Iraq where we know where they are, but we do not have sufficient troops to guard them. These are supporting the ammunition which is being used to shoot at our soldiers. These men and women have to be our top priority. Congress must demand and receive a full accounting of the reporting on the Federal dollars appropriated for our brave troops and for rebuilding Iraq. No one has been able to tell us that they know where the $79 billion has gone. Congress must demand to receive a full and thorough accounting and justification for any Federal taxpayer dollars spent anywhere, but it is as part of a contract that did not go through a proper competitive bidding process that is particularly egregious. I intend to offer an amendment to ensure that Congress receives the specific information on no-bid contracts that our oversight duties and obligations to our constituents demand. Mr. Speaker, I find it odd we cannot find the funds to pay for the mandates of No Child Left Behind or fully fund Medicaid or upgrade America's electrical grid, but somehow there is money to build schools and hospitals and an electrical grid for Iraq. The people of New York will pay $1.26 billion of the $18.6 billion to rebuild Iraq. That could be used to place almost 150,000 children in Head Start programs. This money could also be used to fund healthcare for over 150,000 New Yorkers. We cannot forget the great needs at home. If State and local governments received matching funds for the $18.6 billion to rebuild Iraq, New York State would receive approximately $2 billion in State and local government budget relief. That is why I am cosponsoring the American Parity amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are seeing a trend where the Pentagon is contracting out services at a higher rate than we have ever seen before. A recent study by the Brookings Institute found that there is one contractor for every 10 soldiers in Iraq. In fact, it has been widely reported that the USA began secretly soliciting bids from a limited pool of contractors even before the war started. Let me say that again. They were secretly soliciting bids from a limited pool of contractors before the war started. Whether one agrees or disagrees, as I do, with this trend, we should all be troubled that many of these contracts are being awarded on a no- bid or sole-source basis. Contracts to repair and rebuild Iraq should not be the spoils of war. The awarding of no-bid or sole-source contracts to companies with known ties to prominent executive branch officials certainly gives that impression. We should all be concerned that the pool of engineering and construction firms considered for the $680 million contract to rebuild Iraq's power grid and the water system and airport were limited to seven companies. These contractors collectively contributed $306 million to Federal election campaigns. I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations recognized that there needs to be more transparency. They adopted a provision that would require congressional and public notification on future Iraqi reconstruction contracts awarded on a no-bid basis, if there are any more to be awarded. But more needs to be done, and it falls on this body to keep the administration honest. Congress, who should control the purse strings, must be the check on whether the administration abuses its capacity to enter into sole-source, no-bid contracts. With the cost of rebuilding Iraq estimated at over $100 billion, we need to ensure that lucrative contracts are not viewed as political favors. The selection of contractors with close ties to the members of the executive branch risks creating that very impression. Specifically, the fact that the two most prominent beneficiaries who stand to profit from USAID sole-source or limited-source contracts are Halliburton and the Bechtel Group has not gone unnoticed. We should all be concerned about the costs associated with the no-bid contract that USAID entered into with the Houston-based Halliburton in March of 2003. As of September 25, the contract was valued at $1.2 billion. It is steadily climbing and is projected to reach $2 billion by the end of the contract term. Now, why is the cost of this contract exploding? A report released today by my colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), sheds some troubling light on Halliburton's practices. I would note that the General Accounting Office has found that contracts entered into in secret, outside the framework of standard Federal contracting processes, rarely are the best buy. Now, let us look at the Bechtel Group, which was USAID's choice for overseeing Iraq's entire electrical infrastructure. Recent reports suggest that Bechtel may not be up to the job. In a recent New York Times column, Paul Krugman attributes the frequent blackouts in Iraq to the fact that Bechtel has excluded local experts and institutions from their repair business. In August, Iraqi officials told The Washington Post that Bechtel has not only been slow to undertake repairs, but continues to ignore the pleas by Iraqi engineers for essential spare parts. What is to become of the contract for the wireless telephone service? The announcement of a sole-source contract recipient was scheduled for September 5, but it keeps being delayed. Recognizing a vacuum in cell service for the Iraqi people, two Middle Eastern firms filled the void to set up a wireless system in July. However, the Coalition, led by the United States Government, promptly shut down the service, waiting for a contractor of their own choosing. I hope the fact that MCI was selected to provide cell service to Paul Bremer does not mean they will have the inside track on the Iraqi contract. Should we really be rewarding a company that perpetrated one of the largest accounting frauds in history? As good stewards of tax dollars, we, the House of Representatives, have a responsibility to ensure an open, competitive bidding process is utilized on Iraqi reconstruction and, in those rare instances where no big contracts are entered into, a full and timely justification is made to the Congress. We must take concrete steps to reject the no-bid model and bring an end to real or perceived cronyism and war profiteering. My amendment is a technical correction to the committee's action. It spells out that the administration must disclose to Congress prior to awarding a no-bid contract. Under this amendment, the administration must notify Congress about the amount of the contract and a brief description of its scope. The justification would have to set forth how the executive agency identified and solicited offers from contractors. A list of the contractors solicited must also be provided. I hope that this important amendment will pass, Mr. Chairman. I think it will greatly enhance our ability to contain no-bid contracts.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a dual milestone in the history of Compeer, Inc., an outstanding organization based in my district of Rochester, NY. Compeer was founded to foster friendships between its caring volunteers with adults and children with mental illness. Since its establishment, Compeer has mushroomed into an international program with chapters in 100 cities, 30 States, Canada, and Australia. This year marks the 30th anniversary of Compeer's founding in Rochester, its 20th anniversary of operations across the Nation. Individuals with mental illness often face a daunting array of challenges. In addition to their diagnosis, they may be faced with difficulties in finding or keeping employment opportunities, housing, and other basic necessities. Too many lack a support network of family and friends to buoy them during tough times. Compeer helps to fill that gap by enabling friendships to form and grow. Isolation and loneliness often accompany mental illness, but they do not have to be inevitable. Compeer has enabled hundreds of people to live independently as mentally and emotionally healthy individuals. Under the Compeer model, patients, volunteers, therapists, and staff work together to promote the total health of a client. In an era of rising health costs, Compeer provides an affordable, effective method of improving the quality of life for individuals battling mental illness. The Compeer program has been replicated many times across the Nation, and has received numerous awards, including being named a model program by the National Institutes of Health in 1982. In 1999, executive director Bernice Skirboll represented Compeer at the landmark White House Conference on Mental Health, where the program was praised. Indeed, no tribute to Compeer would be complete without acknowledging the unparalleled devotion of CEO and Founder Bernice Skirboll. Bernice, or ``Bunny'' to the many who know and love her, has been the driving force behind Compeer's success. Her tenacity, compassion, and commitment to individuals with mental illness are legendary. Her great legacy will be the continuation of Compeer's good work for decades to come. Compeer staff and volunteers should take great pride in the knowledge that they have made a difference. Through their selfless work, they have shown that the power of love and friendship can triumph over loneliness, isolation, and mental illness. I invite my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 30th anniversary of Compeer, Inc., and in honoring the volunteers, therapists, and staff of Compeer for their concern, compassion, and tireless efforts.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 538 and 539 for personal reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 538 and 539.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to direct my colleagues' attention to the re-entry of the United States into UNESCO--the U.N. Educational, Cultural, and Scientific Organization. As Democratic Co-chair of the Congressional Arts Caucus, I congratulate the Administration on this important step toward playing a more active role in working with other member nations in the international cultural arena. I am heartened, as well, that First Lady Laura Bush led the U.S. delegation at the flag-raising ceremony at our new UNESCO Mission in Paris on Tuesday. UNESCO promotes international co-operation based upon respect for commonly shared values. In the area of culture, it promotes arts education for children and supports artists, arts organizations, and the arts industry. It sees the arts as vital tools for economic development as well as international understanding. UNESCO's director general, Koichiro Matsuura, recently saluted America's vast intellectual and cultural resources and good will. He termed America ``a great nation so diverse that each of us can see himself in it; America holds up a mirror to the world.'' As our country takes this important step to further international understanding through education, culture, and science, we should all look forward to working with the U.S. Mission in any way possible. Unfortunately, ignoring the House's lead, the other body's Appropriations Committee has voted against funding to cover our UNESCO dues. I urge the White House, having sent Mrs. Bush to Paris, to weigh in--heavily and soon--to prevent the Senate from making her appearance into little more than a photo opportunity. Failure to do so would send a signal that the Administration does not truly recognize the important role that our country's best mirror to the world--arts, education, and science--plays in promoting international understanding.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina 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, does the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) have any further speakers?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I need really to respond to the previous speaker. First, Roe v. Wade does not allow abortions after the first trimester without a doctor's permission. These are fetuses in many cases with no brains, with no lungs, who may live for a moment or two. These are not children that are born and run around the room. It is outrageous to stigmatize women who have had this procedure so that they can protect their fertility system so that maybe they, too, can have 12 children and not have to stop with one. Have a little compassion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on either side.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).