Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If I may reclaim my time, I think doing this job probably says we can give enough soldiers to die or to be maimed and that we have the money to pay for it. At least that would be my interpretation of what you had said. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for this bill and I hope a ``no'' vote when we get to final passage on amendment 1.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley). (Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Edwards.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. And, Mr. Speaker, let me add an additional minute to that.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1284 provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2642, Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008. The rule makes in order a motion by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that the House, one, concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment numbered 1, and two, concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment numbered 2, with the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report. The motion is debatable for 1 hour and controlled by the Committee on Appropriations, and the Chair shall divide the question between the dispositions of the two Senate amendments. Mr. Speaker, the issue to be debated today could not be of greater consequence to the future of our Nation or the citizens of this body and all of this country. For that reason, the Rules Committee has reported out a rule that gives each Member the opportunity to vote his/ her conscience on the most pressing issue of our day: funding for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as critical domestic spending to bring relief to the American people and provide our veterans with access to higher education. This legislation meets the spending requirements made by President Bush with the exception of the $2.65 billion in disaster relief for the aftermath of the tornadoes and floods that hit the Midwest which was added at the President's request. In addition, the bill includes the $5.8 billion that President Bush asked for to strengthen the levees in New Orleans and does not include a single earmark except those explicitly requested by his administration. Mr. Speaker, in order to bring the legislation forward today, the Democrat majority had to make very difficult decisions. However, making difficult choices is appropriate when deciding issues of great importance such as the war in Iraq, a war that has placed unprecedented strain on this Nation. At no time in our history has America fought a war of this magnitude, or one that is this difficult, with an entirely voluntary military force composed of only 1 percent of the general population. And no one in this country has been asked to sacrifice as our troops and their families have. Our soldiers are well aware of what the current situation means for them, two, three, four, sometimes five deployments of duty, while their political leaders casually use words like ``political progress'' to justify their redeployment. However, these extraordinary individuals know full well that they return again and again to a conflict that has taken the lives of over 4,000, almost 5,000 now, of their fellow soldiers and 28 from my district alone. They know that tens of thousands of American men and women are returning home wounded and physically disabled, many suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a host of other mental health issues. They know full well that they are redeployed to a civil war that has left millions of Iraqi men, women and children dead and millions more in refugee camps or fleeing to other countries that will accept them. Our soldiers already know quite a lot, and by that I mean, they've come to learn that terms like ``political progress'' are little more than political posturing and empty rhetoric, and that is not how a Nation shows respect for its military. Unfortunately, such disrespect is what our brave men and women in uniform are accustomed to. Our troops were repeatedly promised that they would have the equipment they needed to do their jobs. Yet we all saw the reports of desperate searches through junk heaps to refit ill- equipped armored vehicles. We all heard the stories of struggling families frantically emptying their savings accounts to purchase adequate body armor for their children going off to war. Our troops were repeatedly promised that they would be taken care of when they came home from combat. Yet once again this administration's promises turned out to be nothing more than rhetoric. Remember the disgraceful images of Walter Reed Hospital, and that is not how a grateful Nation shows respect for its troops. Mr. Speaker, it is with this in mind that we proceed today with this legislation. While some pieces of this bill required difficult decisions before it could be brought to the floor, others were easy to make. The bill provides immediate resources to our troops currently in the field, and nothing is more important than their safety and security. And in addition, the bill keeps our promises to our veterans. Part of the cost of waging war is ensuring that those who fight receive the resources that they need to resume their lives when they return home. Given all the sacrifices that our troops have made for this Nation, it is simply unconscionable to nickel and dime them when it comes time for us to keep up our end of the bargain. The underlying legislation includes a dramatic expansion of the education benefits provided to our veterans. Not only do our troops deserve this benefit, the same one provided to veterans of World War II, but for every dollar we spend on education today, we will see a return that will bolster our economy tomorrow. And frankly, our economy needs bolstering. Far too many hardworking Americans are feeling enormous pressure with skyrocketing gas and food prices, unaffordable health care costs, rising college tuition rates, home foreclosures that are far too commonplace, and a terrible job market. Last month's atrocious unemployment numbers highlight the urgent need for assistance to millions of struggling families calling out for relief. In fact, the number of Americans looking for work has grown by 800,000 over the last year, and the number of American jobs has declined by 260,000 since the beginning of 2008. This bill takes immediate action to extend unemployment insurance for workers who have exhausted their benefits by up to 13 weeks in every State. Furthermore, the American people are feeling the pain as their hard- earned tax dollars finance the rebuilding of a foreign Nation while their country's own economy and infrastructure are falling apart at the seams. To that end, this legislation removes the unfair burden placed on the American taxpayer by requiring the Iraqi government to pull its own weight and match U.S. reconstruction money dollar-for-dollar. In addition, it prohibits, once again--and we have to look out for those signing statements--but it prohibits once more the establishment of permanent bases in Iraq, blocking this administration from saddling the American people with a costly occupation long after their soldiers are home. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation deals with some of the most important issues of the day, our fellow citizens who have been sent to fight in a conflict far away from home, as well as critical domestic spending that will give relief to the millions of Americans struggling just to survive. The structure of the rule we consider today provides each Member the opportunity to cast his or her vote according to their values and their priorities. I am proud to support the rule, and I ask my colleagues to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume and also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1284.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Well, I will just close by saying we've been trying very hard to do just that. I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise with a heavy heart today because last Friday, one of Buffalo's most cherished sons was taken from us Today, I join my colleagues in celebrating the life of Tim Russert, whose contributions to journalism and American discourse will outlive us all. As anyone who watched ``Meet the Press'' knows, Tim Russert never forgot where he came from. He was an unabashed and shameless fan of anything Buffalo, and that was fitting. He embodied the values of the old steel town: honesty, integrity, and hard work. Instead of forgetting them when he came to Washington, as so many do, he brought Buffalo with him. When Tim Russert spoke with someone, he was making a friend, not climbing a ladder. While his career soared, he stood with his feet solidly on the ground. A product of his South Buffalo roots, his character was his trademark and earned him the respect of journalists and politicians and all Americans alike. Tim Russert didn't chase ratings by taking cheap shots. He didn't distort his guests' positions to create a news story. He always asked fair questions, encouraged open debate, and held politicians accountable to the people who elected them. He was the epitome of a journalist, sorely lacking today, and his show was the gold standard. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention his role in honoring fatherhood. Tim Russert reminded Americans of the important role fathers play in child rearing, both through his books and by sharing stories about ``Big Russ'' and his own son. His admiration for his father and his unconditional love for his son were evident every time he spoke of them. There will be a void on America's television sets every Sunday, and later this fall, the Bills and the Sabers will miss the sounds of cheers from their most loyal fan. But Tim Russert's legacy, his unwavering pride in Buffalo, his devotion to his family, and his indelible mark on journalism will live on. My thoughts are with his wife and son and the rest of the Russert family.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 1233 and the underlying bill, H.R. 5540--Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Network Continuing Authorization Act. I believe this is a fair rule that provides ample time for debate on this important matter and also makes in order the only amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee on this bill. But I also want to take this opportunity to set the record straight on the claims made on energy policy during this debate by the other side of the aisle. I would like to submit for the Record the following statement released by Speaker Pelosi talking about the significant action taken by this Congress to address the energy concerns of our Nation and also about the recordbreaking profits of oil companies in these times of rising fuel prices. Oil Companies Reap Billions in Royalty Relief Americans are paying record high prices at the pump and the price of oil continues to skyrocket. But thanks to energy policies put forward by President Bush and the previous Republican-led Congresses, oil companies are making tens of billions of dollars in record profits. According to news reports, a new draft report from the Government Accountability Office estimates oil companies will avoid paying roughly $53 billion in royalty payments to taxpayers for deep water drilling contracts on public lands in the Gulf of Mexico. These contracts were awarded between 1996 and 2000 after the Republican-led Congress passed the ``Deep Water Royalty Relief Act'' in 1995. $17.82: Price of barrel of oil in 1995 [EIA, Historical Tables, 11/8/95]. $124.33: Price of barrel of oil yesterday [6/3/08]. 598%: Percent increase from 1995 to today. $1.07: Gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in 1995 [EIA Historical Tables, 11/8/95]. $3.98: Gallon of regular unleaded gasoline today [AAA, 6/4/ 08]. 272%: Percent increase from 1995 to today. $123.3 billion: Oil Company profits, 2007. $36.9 billion: Oil Company profits--1st Quarter this year. For years, Democrats in Congress have fought to roll back some of the royalty relief given to Big Oil companies, while Republicans have blocked these efforts. In the first 100 hours of the New Direction Congress, the House passed H.R. 6 to require oil companies, which have not paid royalties for deepwater drilling contracts in the Gulf region as a result of the 1998 and 1999 leases, to pay their fair share in order to be eligible for new federal leases for drilling. That provision was also included in the House version of the Energy Independence bill but did not make it into the final House-Senate passed package due to Republican opposition. This ``holiday'' from paying royalties was supposed to end when the price of oil reached about $40 a barrel. Instead, the Bush Administration has continued to provide royalty-free oil from public lands, as the price of oil has now risen to over three times the intended trigger. The New Direction Congress is committed to bringing real relief to hardworking Americans struggling with high gas prices and putting the needs of families before the interests of the oil companies. Below is a list of action the Democratic-led Congress has taken so far: passed this spring Strategic Petroleum Reserve Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act--Congress has enacted legislation to suspend the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, starting June 30th and through the end of the year, as long as the price of crude oil remains above $75 per barrel. This is a critical first step for hardworking families, businesses and the economy, which in the past has brought gas prices down. The President, who was previously opposed, suspended shipments and signed the bill because of overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act--This legislation will extend and expand tax incentives for renewable energy, retain and create hundreds of thousands of green jobs, spur American innovation and business investment, and cut taxes for millions of Americans. These provisions are critical to creating and preserving hundreds of thousands of good-paying green collar American jobs. A recent study showed that allowing the renewable energy incentives to expire would lead to about 116,000 jobs being lost in the wind and solar industries alone through the end of 2009. The OPEC and Big Oil Companies Accountability Bill--This bill will combat record gas prices by authorizing lawsuits against oil cartel members for oil price fixing, and creating a an Antitrust Task Force to crack down on oil companies engaged in anticompetitive behavior or market manipulation. President Bush has threatened to veto this bill. other recent action Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007--Historic energy legislation with provisions to combat oil market manipulation, increase fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon in 2020--the first congressional increase in more than three decades, and promote the use of more affordable American biofuels. The initial version of this bill included a provision to rollback the royal relief given to Big Oil companies for deepwater drilling contracts in the Gulf region. Unfortunately, this provision did not make it into the final House-Senate passed package. Signed into law on December 19, 2007. Under new requirements in the Energy Independence Law and pressure from Congress, the FTC announced in May it would begin the rulemaking process to implement-the market manipulation provision. Reduces our dependence on foreign oil--cutting our consumption of oil by 2.9 million gallons per year in 2030-- more than what we currently import from all Persian Gulf countries combined. Lowers energy costs for consumers with oil prices projected to decline from more than $100 per barrel to $57 per barrel in 2016 (in 2006 dollars) in part due to the new energy law. The new fuel standard for cars and trucks will save American families $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump. Reduces global warming emissions by 2030 by up to 24 percent of what the U.S. needs to do to help save the planet. Building, appliance, and lighting efficiency standards will save consumers $400 billion through 2030. Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act--This legislation would end unnecessary subsidies to Big Oil companies, invest in clean, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and help reduce global warming. The bill includes provisions that will generate hundreds of thousands of green jobs including an estimated 70,000 solar energy jobs, more than 20,000 biodiesel jobs, and protect an additional 75,000 wind industry jobs. President Bush has threatened to veto this bill Energy Price Gouging Prevention Act--This bill will provide immediate relief to consumers by giving the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the authority to investigate and punish those who artificially inflate the price of energy. It will ensure the Federal Government has the tools it needs to adequately respond to energy emergencies and prohibit price gouging--with a priority on refineries and big oil companies. President Bush has threatened to veto this bill. No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels (NOPEC) Act-- Legislation to enable the Department of Justice to take legal action against foreign nations for participating in oil cartels that drive up oil prices globally and in the United States. President Bush has threatened to veto this bill. Energy Market Manipulation Prevention--The new Farm Bill increases Commodity Futures Trading Commission oversight authority to detect and prevent manipulation of energy prices. President Bush vetoed this bill, but the Congress has overridden that veto. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows: Amendment to H. Res. 1233 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution or the operation of the previous question, it shall be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for thirty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Rochester Drug Court for 14 years of service to the community and to drug courts around the country during National Drug Court Month. Over 2,100 drug courts in the United States provide an alternative to incarceration for non-violent, drug-addicted offenders by combining intense judicial supervision, comprehensive substance abuse and mental health treatment, random and frequent drug testing, incentives and sanctions, clinical case management and ancillary life skills services. The tireless efforts of the judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers, rehabilitation experts, child advocates, researchers, educators, law enforcement representatives, correctional representatives, pre-trial officers and probation officers that are involved in drug courts provide substance abuse offenders with the much-needed chance at long-term recovery and productive lifestyles. I have seen firsthand the impact of drug courts in my state, where drug court programs have enhanced public safety, saved taxpayer dollars and, most importantly, saved lives. The first drug court in New York State was founded in my congressional district in Rochester, New York in 1995 and I have been a supporter ever since. In 1997, I was honored to be one of the drug court's first graduation speakers. To date, New York State has opened an additional 200 drug courts. Rochester alone has had over 1500 graduates from its court and over 100 babies have been born drug free. As we face a growing population of drug-addicted offenders in the American justice system, we must expand our efforts to bring treatment to a larger number of those in need. According to a recent study by the Urban Research Institute's Justice Policy Center, approximately 1.5 million drug-involved offenders should be diverted to drug court, which would generate $46 billion in savings to American taxpayers. Armed with this study as well as our existing research that drug courts work, reduce recidivism, and save lives, we must work on taking drug courts to scale. If society is truly going to save the lives of the addicted, break the familial cycle of addiction for future generations, have a substantial impact on associated crime, child abuse and neglect, reduce poverty, alleviate the over-reliance on incarceration for the addicted, and reduce many of the public health consequences in the United States, drug courts must be taken to scale. There is no greater opportunity for systemic social change in the American justice system. There is no greater opportunity to heal families and communities. Again, congratulations to the dedicated drug court professionals and graduates in Rochester and across the country on a job well done.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 338, 339, 340, 341, and 342, I was at a bill signing at the White House. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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