Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Halvorson) for a unanimous-consent request. (Mrs. HALVORSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the Delegate from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for a unanimous-consent request. (Ms. NORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a Member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for a unanimous-consent request. (Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, because of the kind indulgence of our friends on the other side, we have no further speakers, but we would like to sit quietly and listen to the other side. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say, once again, to get to this great debate, we are greatly in your debt, Mr. Speaker, to find ourselves here this morning. The legislation that we take up today is the culmination of a fight for health care reform that dates back at least a century and has been one of the greatest political struggles of our era. It shouldn't be this way. Many years ago, every other western nation enacted broad health care coverage for its citizens but not in the United States. Only in this country has there been such a visceral anti-government urge to resist something that benefits almost everyone. Only here do efforts to bring about improved health care for all Americans crash against entrenched interests and corporate resistance. And only here do arguments about reforming insurance spark ideological attacks from the far right. One need only to have looked at the windows of the Capitol earlier this week to see the manifestation of that anger. Thousands of protesters showed up to threaten us into not voting in favor of this bill. If they expected us to run for cover or vote against this bill, they are going to be disappointed. Hearing those extreme views only made most of us more confident that we are doing the right thing here today by approving this bill. Throughout the years, those same voices of opposition, whether it's Republicans or corporate interests, have rallied against reforms. It is worth pointing out for the record that Republicans who want to participate in this process did. We had more than 100 hearings, heard from 181 witnesses, Democrat and Republican, and considered hundreds of amendments. Fully 121 were approved in the committees, including 22 from Republicans. Their input has been heard when they wanted to participate. In 1912, President Theodore Roosevelt split from the Republican Party to lead a more progressive effort and champion health care for all Americans, but he lost the next election to Woodrow Wilson and the effort failed. Later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt would lead another charge on this front as part of the New Deal platform. While Roosevelt was able to win passage of Social Security over great and extreme opposition, again by the same people who oppose this today, he was able to enact Social Security in 1935, but he was not able to extend that coverage to all Americans for health. Still later, President Harry Truman made another try for health care, followed by President Lyndon Johnson, who was able to pass legislation in 1965 that implemented Medicare and Medicaid. Once again, it passed over Republican opposition that extends to this day. President Richard Nixon followed up on President Johnson's Great Society by seeking to expand Federal programs and favoring broad health insurance. Sadly, those efforts were again derailed. By the time President Clinton attempted to revisit the issue in 1993, the debate had become so polarized and fraught with special interests that the entire process collapsed almost before it started. I don't need to remind most of my colleagues here about the awful vilification of reform embodied by the ``Harry and Louise'' television ad campaign and by mail house threats to senior citizens that going to what they called the ``wrong doctor'' could result in a $10,000 fine and perhaps prison time. These ads and those mail-order ads were paid for by big contributions from insurance companies and were led by the Republicans. And the same forces are still fighting us. The insurance industry and the big drug companies have partnered with the extreme right fringe to try to stop this effort in its tracks. We saw a lot of that this past summer. Let me say this loud and clear: Eliminating the stranglehold that big insurance companies have on health care is one of the best parts of this bill, and, for the first time, 85 percent of the premium dollars have to go for health care, not for outrageous salaries and compensation. We are poised for victory. We stand here today on the brink of history, with the opportunity to make good on a promise that will forever improve the lives of nearly 36 million Americans who have no health insurance. This is the most important vote we will ever take, and I am proud to stand here today. With this bill we can end the constant worry by people who don't have insurance to cover sudden illness or an accident, who are the parents of a child who had severe brain trauma before he reached his teenage years and within a year or two could reach his lifetime cap on insurance, and though he was not yet a teenager, would be forever uninsurable in the United States of America. We will stop telling women, as we discussed last night in the Rules Committee, that they have to pay 48 percent more for health insurance because, as it was explained last night, it is all right to do that because women have different diseases. We want to have an end to that. How many small businesses in little towns in America have had to close up or to end coverage for employees because they could not afford exorbitant insurance premiums? Small business has to compete with big business and gets no break on providing insurance for their employees. And now this year we have literally thousands of organizations on our side favoring the bill. From AARP, who would never go for any bill that in any way would hurt senior citizens because that is their life's work, the Consumers Union, the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association, they have all joined in this cause. The reason we are here at this moment is because of the leadership of our Speaker, Ms. Pelosi, who is a powerful leader, a compassionate woman, and an inclusive colleague who deserves all the credit for bringing us here to this momentous event that we face today, the most momentous in the history of America. Before we vote, it is also fitting that we recall the words of the late Senator Kennedy, who spoke as far back as 1978 about the lack of health care coverage in this country. Senator Kennedy said, ``One of the most shameful things about modern America is that in our unbelievably rich land, the quality of health care available to many of our people is unbelievably poor, and the cost is unbelievably high.'' I agree with Senator Kennedy. We cannot afford not to pass this legislation. Now is our chance to fix our health care system, improve the lives of millions of Americans, and make more corporations in America competitive in a global economy. With great heartfelt thanks to our great Speaker pro tempore this morning, Mr. Dingell, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 841, 842, and 843. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes Nos. 841, 842, and 843.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, while working with Secretary John McHugh for many years as a fellow Upstate New York Representative, I had the privilege of getting to know him not only as a Representative but as a friend. Throughout his time in the House of Representatives, Congressman John McHugh has more than demonstrated his qualifications to serve as the Secretary of the Army.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my colleague for yielding. Madam Speaker, there are few things that say more about our country and our trust in the public's right to know than the Freedom of Information Act. It is one of the most powerful statements of openness and transparency that we have. It affords ordinary people the ability to peer behind the curtains of power and see inside the many bureaucracies that define the Federal, State and local governments in this country. It is a symbol for all, that despite anything else that our government does in the name of the people, there should be no secrets. Over the years, FOIA laws have been used for a wide range of purposes. FOIA helped us to discover the ugly truth about the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the 1960s. And FOIA was also used to uncover data showing that Ford Pintos were built with serious dual system defects that made them more prone to fire and explosions. In some ways, FOIA is simply a reminder to the public that there is an avenue to pursue if they believe the government is keeping a secret. At the heart of FOIA is the concept that the people's right to know is more important than the government's desire to keep things secret. The FOIA laws in this country have enabled reporters and citizens from all spectrums access to information that otherwise might never see the light of day. Signed into law by President Johnson in 1966, the FOIA laws allow for the full or partial disclosure of information and documents with only a narrow list of important exemptions. And so it was with some dismay when I learned recently that the House and Senate conferees on the Homeland Security appropriations bill had slipped in a provision that gives the government the option of making old photos of detainee abuse exempt from the FOIA laws. This case has already followed a lengthy path beginning with a lawsuit filed by the ACLU against the Pentagon. Last spring, when it appeared that the lawsuit might go against the government, the administration responded by asking some Members of the House and Senate to insert language into the legislation to make sure that the photos stay secret. Joining the ACLU against the Pentagon was the American Society of News Editors, the Associated Press, Cable News Network, Inc., the E.W. Scripps Company, Gannett Co., Inc., the Hearst Corporation, Military Reporters and Editors, the National Press Club, NBC Universal, Inc., The New York Times Company, the Newspaper Association of America, the Newspaper Guild--CWA, the Radio-Television News Directors Association, the Society of Professional Journalists, The Washington Post, and me. Never mind that the photos in question likely have very little value given that a similar set of photos showing the abuse were released under the Bush administration. Despite some complaints that releasing photos would place service men and women in danger, the fact is there was absolutely no increase in violence or attacks after the previous detainee photos were released. I assume that if we were to release the new photos, the result would be the same. Americans were simply able to find out what was being done in their name. Many observers argue that releasing the photos was actually a clear break from the abuses of the past and a signal to our allies and to everyone else that the days of this type of detainee mistreatment were over and that the United States is willing to come to terms with past practices. Indeed, we have said so. In June, I and other House leaders prevailed and the FOIA exemption was dropped from the legislation. However, the conferees, apparently under direct orders, quietly put it back into the bill this month. It's hard for me to express how disappointed I am with that decision. I am sorry because I believed that we had turned a page from the cloud of suspicion and secrecy that marked the previous administration. It runs so counter to our principles and stated desire to reject abuses of the past. The FOIA laws in this country form a pillar of our First Amendment principles. It is unfortunate, given that this administration promised that openness and transparency would be the norm. We should never do anything to circumvent FOIA, and I believe our country would gain more by coming to terms with the past than we would by covering it up. I hope the President will follow judicial rulings and consider voluntarily releasing these photos so we can put this chapter in history behind us.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my great gratitude to Mr. Costello for the incredible work that he's done on this in such a short period of time. And those of us who live in the area of the Colgan crash are greatly in his debt. I thank Mr. Petri for all of the good work. I think this is indeed one of the best safety bills that we've done since I've been in Congress. Nothing in the bill before us can do anything to bring back the lives that were lost on that cold night in Buffalo back in February when Colgan Air Flight 3407 fell to the ground and exploded into fire. But I am happy to be here today because the House is moving forward with legislation that includes the strong new set of guidelines for improving passenger and crew safety. This Act will mean safer flights for all of us. As we learned during the NTSB hearings into this issue over the summer, there are far too many pilots flying regional planes who are overextended, undertrained, or exhausted. The bill establishes comprehensive preemployment screening for prospective pilots and requires airlines to establish pilot mentoring programs so that the highly experienced pilots can mentor more junior pilots, surely an issue in the Colgan crash. In fact, junior pilots will no longer fly alongside a junior pilot under the bill. In addition, there are new mandates that grew out of the NTSB safety hearings earlier this year: requiring the FAA to ensure that pilots are trained on stall recovery and upset recovery, mandates that the FAA convene a multidisciplinary panel on pilot training for stick pusher operations, and then take action to implement the recommendations of the panel. It came as a surprise to me that the NTSB ideas were only suggestions to the FAA. So obviously we're going to have to make sure that they're implemented. There is also a section in the bill to create the new database which Mr. Costello has explained, but most importantly, it requires the Secretary of Transportation to give us an annual report on what they're doing to address each open NTSB recommendation pertaining to small air carriers like Colgan. I am so grateful for this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 769, 770, and 771. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 769, ``aye'' on 770 and ``yea'' on 771.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution and ask for a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the rule at the desk.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 20 additional seconds.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered without any intervening motion except 1 hour of debate and, if applicable, one motion to recommit. The bill was introduced on June 2, 2009, by Chairman Ike Skelton and referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The committee marked up the bill on June 16, 2009, and ordered it favorably reported, as amended, by voice vote June 16, 2009. The Committee on Rules reported a structured rule making in order 69 amendments, which then passed the floor 222-202. And today we have the conference report that we have now concurred with the Senate. Despite any differences about our ongoing missions in Afghanistan or Iraq, we all agree that funds that have already been approved as part of the annual spending plans should not be held up for any reason, not with our troops in harm's way. The bill authorizes $550.2 billion in budget authority for the Department of Defense and the national security programs of the Department of Energy and also authorizes $130 billion for overseas contingency operations for fiscal year 2010. For our service men and women, it authorizes a pay raise of 3.4 percent for the military, expands TRICARE health coverage for Reserve members, bars fee increases on TRICARE inpatient care for 1 year, and provides $2.2 billion for housing programs to improve the quality of life for our servicepersons' families. On Afghanistan, the bill responds to concerns raised by Members of both parties and requires an assessment of progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan toward security and stability. It also bans permanent bases in Afghanistan and provides funds to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces, the ANSF. There is also language in the bill that requires a reporting system to register and track all the U.S. defense items that are provided to Afghanistan and Pakistan, to help combat waste and fraud. This is especially important in light of recent news stories showing that millions of dollars destined for Pakistan to battle militants in al Qaeda have been diverted to either the domestic economy or ``for other purposes.'' In fact, between 2002 and 2008, while al Qaeda regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, according to two Army generals quoted in an Associated Press story from earlier this week. I will insert that story into the Record. Billions in U.S. Aid Never Reached Pakistan Army (By Kathy Gannon) Islamabad, Pakistan.--The United States has long suspected that much of the billions of dollars it has sent Pakistan to battle militants has been diverted to the domestic economy and other causes, such as fighting India. Now the scope and longevity of the misuse is becoming clear: Between 2002 and 2008, while al-Qaida regrouped, only $500 million of the $6.6 billion in American aid actually made it to the Pakistani military, two army generals tell The Associated Press. The account of the generals, who asked to remain anonymous because military rules forbid them from speaking publicly, was backed up by other retired and active generals, former bureaucrats and government ministers. At the time of the siphoning, Pervez Musharraf, a Washington ally, served as both chief of staff and president, making it easier to divert money intended for the military to bolster his sagging image at home through economic subsidies. ``The army itself got very little,'' said retired Gen. Mahmud Durrani, who was Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. under Musharraf. ``It went to things like subsidies, which is why everything looked hunky-dory. The military was financing the war on terror out of its own budget.'' Generals and ministers say the diversion of the money hurt the military in very real ways: Helicopters critical to the battle in rugged border regions were not available. At one point in 2007, more than 200 soldiers were trapped by insurgents in the tribal regions without a helicopter lift to rescue them. The limited night vision equipment given to the army was taken away every three months for inventory and returned three weeks later. Equipment was broken, and training was lacking. It was not until 2007 that money was given to the Frontier Corps, the front-line force, for training. The details on misuse of American aid come as Washington again promises Pakistan money. Legislation to triple general aid to Pakistan cleared Congress last week. The legislation also authorizes ``such sums as are necessary'' for military assistance to Pakistan, upon several conditions. The conditions include certification that Pakistan is cooperating in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that Pakistan is making a sustained commitment to combating terrorist groups and that Pakistan security forces are not subverting the country's political or judicial processes. The U.S. is also insisting on more accountability for reimbursing money spent. For example, Pakistan is still waiting for $1.7 billion for which it has billed the United States under a Coalition Support Fund to reimburse allies for money spent on the war on terror. But the U.S. still can't follow what happens to the money it doles out. ``We don't have a mechanism for tracking the money after we have given it to them,'' Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Mark Wright said in a telephone interview. Musharraf's spokesman, retired Gen. Rashid Quereshi, flatly denied that his former boss had shortchanged the army. He did not address the specific charges. ``He has answered these questions. He has answered all the questions,'' the spokesman said. Musharraf took power in a bloodless coup in 1999 and resigned in August 2008. The misuse of funding helps to explain how al-Qaida, dismantled in Afghanistan in 2001, was able to regroup, grow and take on the weak Pakistani army. Even today, the army complains of inadequate equipment to battle Taliban entrenched in tribal regions. For its part, Washington did not ask many questions of a leader, Musharraf, whom it considered an ally, according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last year. Pakistan has received more money from the fund than any other nation. It is also the least expensive war front. The amount the U.S. spends per soldier per month is just $928, compared with $76,870 in Afghanistan and $85,640 in Iraq. Yet by 2008, the United States had provided Pakistan with $8.6 billion in military money, and more than $12 billion in all. ``The army was sending in the bills,'' said one general who asked not to be identified because it is against military rules to speak publicly. ``The army was taking from its coffers to pay for the war effort--the access roads construction, the fuel, everything. . . . This is the reality--the army got peanuts.'' Some of the money from the U.S. even went to buying weapons from the United States better suited to fighting India than in the border regions of Afghanistan--armor-piercing tow missiles, sophisticated surveillance equipment, air-to-air missiles, maritime patrol aircraft, anti-ship missiles and F- 16 fighter aircraft. ``Pakistan insisted and America agreed. Pakistan said we also have a threat from other sources,'' Durrani said, referring to India, ``and we have to strengthen our overall capacity. ``The money was used to buy and support capability against India.'' The army also suffered from mismanagement, Durrani said. As an example, he cited Pakistani attempts to buy badly needed attack helicopters. Pakistan asked for Cobra helicopters because it knows how to maintain them, he said. But the helicopters were old, and to make them battle-ready, the Pentagon sent them to a company that had no experience with Cobras and took two years, he said. As a result, in 2007, Pakistan had only one working helicopter--a debilitating handicap in the battle against insurgents who hide, train and attack from the hulking mountains that run like a seam along the Afghan-Pakistani border. The army was also frustrated about not getting more money. Military spokesman Gen. Athar Abbas said the U.S. gave nothing to offset the cost of Pakistan's dead and wounded in the war on terror. He estimated 1,800 Pakistani soldiers had been killed since 2003 and 4,800 more wounded, most of them seriously. The hospital and rehabilitation costs for the wounded have come to more than $25 million, Abbas said. Pakistan's military also gives land to the widows of the dead, educates their children and provides health care. ``These costs do not appear anywhere,'' he said. ``There is no U.S. compensation for the casualties, assistance with aid to the grieving families.'' Even while money was being siphoned off for other purposes on Pakistan's end, the U.S. imposed little control over or even had specific knowledge of what went where, according to reports by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. The reports covered 2002 through 2008. The reports found that the Pentagon often ignored its own oversight rules, didn't get adequate documents and doled out money without asking for an explanation. For more than a year, the Pentagon paid Pakistan's navy $19,000 a month per vehicle just for repair costs on a fleet of fewer than 20 vehicles. Monthly food bills doubled for no apparent reason, and for a year the Pentagon paid the bills without checking, according to the report. Daniyal Aziz, a minister in Musharraf's government, said he warned U.S. officials that the money they were giving his government was being misused, but to no avail. ``They both deserved each other, Musharraf and the Americans,'' he said. Within this bill is authorization for 30 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the continued development and procurement of the F136 Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine but does not authorize the advance procurement of F-22 aircraft. It authorizes $6.7 billion for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected, MRAP, vehicles and fully funds the new MRAP all-terrain variant requirement for Afghanistan. We've seen far too many reports of our troops dying because their vehicles are ripped apart by roadside bombs. We can and will do better to protect them from these risks. Under the provisions of this bill, the military will increase by 30,000 Army troops, 8,100 marines, 14,650 Air Force personnel, and 2,477 Navy sailors in 2010. It also authorizes an additional 30,000 Army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. The bill provides support for the plan to increase the size of our civilian workforce so that we can reduce DOD's reliance on contractors for core acquisition functions. This is also a most important point to cut down on fraud and waste. The bill also provides DOD with the needed flexibility to reform the DOD hiring process to reduce the fraud and abuse through enhanced contractor oversight, which is long overdue. The bill speaks to vessels carrying DOD cargo in high piracy risk areas by requiring that they be equipped with appropriate nonlethal defense measures. And it strengthens the DOD's ability to face threats and vulnerabilities by improving research and promoting military and civilian cyber workforce development. It improves accountability and oversight in awarding defense contracts by providing the Defense Department the authority to require return of award and incentive fees. The bill prohibits a company from being awarded future contracts if its action leads to a servicemember's death or severe injury. This, of course, is in response to the number of soldiers who were electrocuted by bad plumbing work. To address concerns about the treatment of detainees, the bill bans interrogation of detainees by contractors and requires the Department of Defense to give the International Committee of the Red Cross prompt access to detainees held at the Bagram Theater Internment Facility in Afghanistan. In addition, the bill reforms the Military Commissions Act to clarify rules and improve trial procedures to make military commissions fair and effective, and puts new revisions into place that would forbid the use of statements alleged to have been secured through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Finally, the bill provides the accused with the enhanced ability to select his own counsel and to make hearsay evidence harder to use in court. It improves procedures for the handling of classified information while also permitting military commissions to continue existing cases for 90 days or until revisions have been made to supporting court manuals and handbooks. The bill matches the administration's request for $9.3 billion for missile defense programs and provides the resources necessary to meet threats facing the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies, and provides $2.2 billion to support the Department of Energy's nonproliferation programs. It strengthens the Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe, secure, and reliable without the use of underground testing. Further, the bill provides technical and financial support to local law enforcement and prosecutors that they can more aggressively try violent crimes which are motivated by the victim's race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability; expands the ability of Federal prosecutors to try similar types of cases in Federal court if State or local officials are unable or unwilling to prosecute these cases; and criminalizes attacks against U.S. servicemembers because of their service to their country. I want to address one last point. The bill includes new hate crimes legislation that will prohibit offenses based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person. This kind of far-reaching protection is important for America, and I am proud to support it. There are still far too many incidences of violence in and around our schools and churches. During the last 10 years, 69 persons have been killed or injured at church and another 122 children have died in or around their school. The numbers are devastating. One has only to look at the beating death of Chicago teenager Derrion Albert outside his high school, an honor student, to see how devastating it is to see violence in our schools. I hope this bill can help bring an end to that sorrow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Polis.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).