Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 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 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the sad thing about this bill is that it is not violence against women, it is violence against pregnant women, and, while that is an abhorrent thing, it should be treated as violence against women. We all know and believe that. What this bill does is reduce women to vessels, to wombs. It says that they are the ones that matter. If that were not the case, then this Congress would fund the Violence Against Women's Act. Recently the majority leader of the House said in an interview that he thought all women should be in the home and that their husbands should give all the structure. Well, maybe we will get a bill on the floor pretty soon that says every woman in America of child-bearing age must be pregnant at all times and must not be allowed to leave the house. That, of course, then does say that older women who are past child-bearing age are fair victims for violence because we have not funded the Violence Against Women's Act. But if they are pregnant, then we will really look after them. What a narrow-minded thing that is. I would like all the Members who think this is a great idea to go home and tell their mothers and daughters and their sisters and all the rest of their female relatives that only if they are pregnant do they matter to the Congress of the United States. It is appalling that we have had over 200 votes whittling away at this since 1995. I honestly would not put anything past the Congress here, and I would expect if the majority leader comes up with his bill to force women to stay at home, it would be a good hearing and be right out here on this floor, even though people are without jobs, people are going hungry, health care is almost nonexistent in many places, and we are fighting a war that is causing us casualties on a daily basis. But what do we debate? This. This takes precedence over everything else. So, I just say again to the women of the United States, look out, sisters. You just do not matter here anymore. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the achievements of Stephanie Cowart who recently receive the ``Civil Rights Achievement'' award chosen by the National Conference for Community and Justice. The award honors a member of the Niagara Falls community who exemplifies the works, beliefs and dreams that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. shared with the world. Ms. Cowart, who serves as the executive director of the Niagara Falls Housing Authority, is one of the African American Women Community Builders of Western New York. She is indicative of the vibrant and caring Niagara Falls community that I am proud to represent in Congress. As a native of Niagara Falls, her decision to remain in the area not only to complete her education, but also to commit to improving the community through her work and by raising a family is impressive. Ms. Cowart is truly a Niagara Falls jewel. In addition to her contribution to the community through running the Niagara Falls Housing Authority, she serves the area in her ``free time'' as an active member of the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church, and numerous other organizations. This award is not the first that Ms. Cowart has received. She is the recipient of numerous citations, including the Niagara County Black Achiever's Candle in the Dark Award, the Niagara Improvement Association Civic Award, the Niagara University Fellowship Award, the Niagara Falls Housing Authority Award of Excellence, the Business First's prestigious Forty Under 40 award, the Niagara County's Woman of the Year Award, and the Heroes of Public Housing Award. Stephanie is truly an example to the entire country, not just my district. I am proud to bring her achievements to the attention of my colleagues.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, six months ago tomorrow, a man with a fake FBI vest and fake badge killed a man and wounded another. Today, I am introducing the Badge and Uniform Security Trustworthiness Act of 2003 in honor of the victims--Raymond L. Batzel and Joseph B. Doud. On August 12, 2003, a man carrying a sawed-off shotgun, wearing a wig and bulletproof vest with the printed initials ``FBI'', and carrying what looked like a law enforcement badge walked into the Xerox employee credit union and killed one man and shot another. This man posing as a federal law enforcement officer turned a robbery into a murder. FBI officials believe that the vest and the badge were fakes. Six months later, the killer has still not been caught. Would this have happened if the murder did not have access to a fake badge and bulletproof vest? Mr. Speaker, this bill will expand the current federal criminal ban on fake police badges to include police uniforms and other insignia. Right now it is legal for people to buy, sell, or own fake FBI insignia or badges used by Customs officials at our borders. As never before, Americans are facing the possibility of terrorism and violence within our borders. We are increasingly relying on our local, state, and federal law officials to keep the public safe. However, we must be able to depend on them without worrying that the ``officer'' is an impersonator. Law enforcement needs for us to trust them without hesitation, but the trust cannot be complete unless we take steps to stop the flow of fake public safety officer uniforms. Unfortunately, the threat goes beyond the terrifying reality of this case in which a man in a fake FBI bulletproof vest tried to rob a bank. The threat reaches out to land border crossings, airports, and seaports. Officers with the Bureau of Customs and Border Security and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement work to keep terrorists from entering or staying in the country and to prevent the dangerous materials and weapons used by terrorists from entering the country. We cannot afford to have a man with fake credentials standing on the Peace Bridge at the US-Canadian border, allowing terrorists or their weapons to enter the United States. By prohibiting the buying, selling, and use of false safety officer badges and other insignia, we are not only increasing domestic security, but also honoring the lives of Raymond L. Batzel and Joseph B. Doud. We must learn from the terrible events of August 12, 2003, and keep law enforcement insignia out of the hands of other would-be criminals or terrorists. Otherwise we are vulnerable to potential menace from within our borders and outside of our borders.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a great man who will be sorely missed: Andy DiVincenzo of Buffalo, New York. Some people seem to have a special talent for success, a kind of Midas touch. Andy DiVincenzo was one of those people. Whether in his business and culinary endeavors, his charitable work, or his family life, Andy imbued everything he did with a special charm, energy, and passion. Andy was the founder, head chef, and owner of the famed restaurant Billy Ogden's, which opened in the Lovejoy area of Buffalo in 1989. Since opening, both Andy and Billy Ogden's have received numerous four- star reviews. For 10 years running, Andy was selected to represent the Buffalo Bills at the Super Bowl's famous Taste of the NFL, where the Nation's finest chefs, as well as NFL legends, volunteer their time in support of hunger relief efforts throughout the country. Though busy with his restaurant and catering business, Andy also dedicated himself to numerous charitable causes. He devoted time to the Kids Escaping Drugs program and served on the board of the famous Camp Good Days and Special Times, which serves children with cancer and other life- threatening illnesses. Within the local community, Andy was adored, known for his big heart and willingness to help people. He believed everyone deserved a second chance and worked to help provide it. Buffalo, Western New York, and, indeed, the world are better places for having had Andy DiVincenzo among us. Tragically, Andy has been taken from us too soon and too young. He passed away in his sleep on January 25 at the age of 52. He left behind a loving family, including his wife, Eleanor, daughters Tara and Adriana, and mother, Viola. These were the women in his life to whom he could never deny anything and for whom he would do anything to please. His siblings, Frank and Donna, as well as cousins, nieces, nephews, and others all join in mourning his death. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the remarkable life of Andy DiVincenzo and in extending our sincere condolences to his family.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. It is such a pleasure to hear a real debate. I am delighted. I continue to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, chronic unemployment still plagues the Nation; 3.3 million workers have lost their jobs since January 2001. The poverty rate in America has risen to 12 percent and the number of children living in poverty continues to climb. The community services block grants were created to alleviate poverty by funding initiatives that fight its causes. These grants enable over 1,000 organizations across the country to provide services to combat unemployment, inadequate housing, poor nutrition and the lack of educational opportunities. Because of community services block grants, the Orleans Community Action Committee in Orleans County, New York, is able to provide a broad array of services, including Head Start, teen programs, weatherization programs, transportation, emergency services, family development, help in putting together a budget, help in preparing tax returns, child care services and a community center. For 30 years, Action for a Better Community has been a leader in Rochester, providing programs increasing health, education, safety, employment and housing needs. Every dollar the Federal Government invested in these organizations through the community services block grant program is a dollar wisely spent. An investment in our citizens and our children is an investment in our Nation's future. The value of these programs is not at issue. The problem with this reauthorization is the ability of provider organizations to use Federal funds to discriminate. H.R. 3030 allows these service organizations to discriminate against clients because of their religion. It allows religious organizations that receive these Federal grants to discriminate based on religion in their employment practices. This is un-American. Discrimination is happening. Employees of the Salvation Army of Greater New York have filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and several lawsuits against the Salvation Army are in the works. Employees are being questioned about their church affiliations. One of the duties listed on new job applications is to, quote, preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination. The Salvation Army uses millions in public moneys to carry out its charitable missions, but it has recently begun to impose its religious mission upon its employees. Right here in my hand I have an employment application for a social worker position with a religious organization, and that religious organization uses Federal funds. The applicant is asked his or her religion, length of church membership, the name of his or her church, the church's phone number and address, and the name of its minister. The United States should not permit religious discrimination with Federal funds. As Theodore Roosevelt said, ``To discriminate against a thoroughly upright citizen because he belongs to some particular church, or because, like Abraham Lincoln, he has not avowed his allegiance to any church, is an outrage against that liberty of conscience which is one of the foundations of American life.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding about what title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says and does not say. Religious organizations are exempted from the general prohibition against religious discrimination in hiring personnel for work connected to the organization's religious activities. However, religious organizations are not permitted to discriminate in hiring for secular activities. There should be an ability in this Congress to make a distinction between those two descriptions. This country has spent decades and decades working to eradicate the insidious venom of discrimination. It is an anathema to fundamental American ideals that we would now permit Federal moneys to be used to discriminate against people because of their religion. Taxpayers do not want to subsidize discrimination. Federally funded programs to attack the causes of poverty do not have a religious mission, regardless of the service provider. Helping someone fill out tax forms is a secular program. Someone's religion is irrelevant to this program. The Federal Government should not fund the religious activities of any religious organization. To do so is a violation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution which we hold up our hands every 2 years and swear to uphold. As the United States Supreme Court said in Bowen v. Kendrick, ``Even when the Court has upheld aid to an institution performing both secular and sectarian functions, it has always made a searching inquiry to ensure that the institution kept the secular activities separate from its sectarian ones, with any direct aid flowing only to the former and never the latter.'' On its Web site, Action for a Better Community says that faith-based organizations, quote, should be held to the same high standard of outcome delivery as community action agencies without compromising the separation of church and State. We would be wise to listen to their admonition. I urge my colleagues to support the Woolsey substitute amendment which would clarify that religious organizations are welcome as service providers to low-income Americans and that they are not permitted to discriminate on the basis of religion. And I urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment which would extend unemployment benefits for the 2 million unemployed Americans whose benefits have run out. Almost daily, my office hears from those Americans who are afraid of losing their homes or having to take their children out of school and simply being unable to meet their obligations. We owe it to them to give them some help until a job can be found for them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act of 2004. Today there are 129,000 United States troops serving in Iraq alone, including nearly 80,000 reservists and members of the National Guard. As the Congressional Representative for the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, I recognize the enormous disruption of deployment on their families. When soldiers are deployed, many arrangements must be made. Many men and women are leaving a job, a family, or even children behind. We have long recognized the need to minimize the hardships to these men and women, as demonstrated in the comprehensive Servicemember's Civil Relief Act. Originally enacted in 1940, this law provides relief to military personnel from many of the economic and legal burdens they have incurred because of their deployments. This law never anticipated lengthy deployments by mothers and fathers who may not have any choice but to send their children to live with another parent, sister, or grandfather one or two towns away. I learned firsthand how deployments can cause significant upheaval in a child's life when the brother of a deployed soldier recently contacted my office. He explained that his niece had moved to live with her mother while her father was away fighting in Iraq. As a result, she was prevented from attending her normal high school because she no longer resided within the school district. According to the Department of Defense, there are currently 1.2 million children with military parents in the United States. This number is only slightly less than the total number of adults currently serving in the Armed Forces. I am proud to introduce, along with my colleague Representative Brown-Waite, the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act. This bipartisan legislation would ensure some measure of continuity for children who change residence as a result of their parent's military service by allowing them to continue to receive an education at their schools, even if they are temporarily residing outside the school district. As our men and women in uniform continue to be deployed in support of military operations around the world, it is vital that we do our best to minimize the disturbance to their lives and that of their families. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Safeguarding Schoolchildren of Deployed Soldiers Act. We owe this protection to the education of our children and to the peace of mind of our soldiers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ 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 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, Christmas has come early for President Bush and his high-dollar friends, but for millions of American families, it looks like the Grinch will be stealing Christmas. The media has widely reported that the President won victory after victory in negotiations over the details of this omnibus appropriations bill. But any Presidential victory comes at a very high cost. America's working families and those struggling to stay afloat in the swift currents of unemployment will be stuck with the tab. The unemployment rate was essentially unchanged from October to November and almost 9 million Americans still cannot find work, including 6.2 percent of the New Yorkers who were unemployed. Across the Nation, the number of Americans filing for the first time for unemployment benefits is up. New claims for unemployment have risen in 47 States and territories. One economist described last Friday's unemployment report as ``getting just the Christmas present you want but two sizes too small.'' The President assured the country that his massive tax cuts would create 300,000 jobs a month. But unfortunately for the millions of men and women looking for work, only 57,000 new jobs were created in November. That is the ``two sizes too small.'' The real effects of the administration's tax giveaways were more money to the wealthiest and a staggering Federal deficit. Only a few days before the Christmas holiday and the beginning of a new year, unemployment benefits for thousands and thousands of Americans will run out. After December 20, thousands more will no longer be eligible for an extension of benefits. Today is our last opportunity before that happens to extend the unemployment benefits, to throw a small life preserver to those still caught in the swift currents of steady unemployment flowing through our murky economy. Just this morning in the Committee on Rules hearing, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations agreed that unemployment benefits should be extended. We are spending $87 billion on Iraq, $150 billion this year, and we should be able to extend the unemployment benefits, especially considering that there is a surplus of unemployment funds. We need to fight with all our might to protect American jobs, particularly the manufacturing jobs. Since January 2001, the United States has lost 2.4 million manufacturing jobs. We should be exporting American products, not our jobs. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, is a nationwide network of centers devoted to providing small and medium size manufacturers with assistance, information, and access to business experts. We should be promoting this program, but instead this bill slashes the budget by 63 percent. It is absurd that we are considering cutting this valuable program while thousands of manufacturing jobs are lost every day. MEP has proven its value in boosting productivity in sales and employment. Slashing this program will cost small manufacturers almost $2 billion in sales and cost 28,000 workers their employment. Despite the strong opposition of both elected bodies of Congress, President Bush was successful in killing legislative protections against limitations on overtime pay. Relaxing the overtime pay rules makes it easier for companies to force workers to put in more than 40 hours a week without additional pay. And under the broad rules proposed by this administration, many nurses will be ineligible for overtime pay, and even manual laborers would be classified as executives, which would end their eligibility for overtime pay. These new regulations could make at least 8 million workers ineligible for the overtime, the money with which many pay their bills and take care of their families. Millions of them rely on that just to scrape by each month. And protecting the worker's right to overtime pay is such an important issue that people from across my district are asking me to oppose this entire bill because it does not include overtime pay protection. I need to add that the overtime pay protection passed handsomely both Houses of Congress, and we instructed our conferees to keep it in the bill; but mysteriously it disappeared. A man from Tonawanda said last week to us no worker should lose his overtime pay since it is essential to their lives. This massive bill is yet another example of the disturbing disregard for women's health. The President's authority to enforce his global gag rule remains unchallenged. Under the Mexico City Policy, the United States Government uses family-planning dollars to impose itself between women and their doctors. The U.S. muzzles health care workers. Clinics are prohibited from mentioning or counseling women about abortion. Doctors and nurses are forced to forfeit the right to provide complete, accurate medical information and advice to their patients. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in half a century, the Republican Party controls both Houses of Congress and the executive, despite an authoritarian leadership style, inefficiency, and squabbling have produced a job that is less than half complete. The current fiscal year began over 2 months ago, and only three of the 13 measures that pay for functioning of the Federal Government were law by October 1 of fiscal year 2004. And right now only 6 of the 13 bills are law. With this special rule, we will end the first session of the 108th Congress in a single day of hurried legislative activity. Rather than wisely investing the body's time in deliberating the details of each of the seven remaining bills, we will spend 1 hour debating the merits of this massive conglomerate report. When substantive debate among Members is silenced, the millions of Americans that we represent are silenced and disenfranchised. Particularly, that is what happens, when one party of the House is excluded from all deliberations. This is not an attribute of a deliberative democracy. Mr. Speaker, I hope that during the coming second session that comity and genuine bipartisan collaboration will replace arm-twisting and exclusion. I hope that character, decency, virtue, and respect are more than words on a page. I hope that we all will embrace the right of all Members elected here to fully participate in a truly deliberative process and of all the people to be fully represented in their national legislature. A natural result of the decline of deliberative democracy is the decline in the quality of our laws and the decline of public support for them and the decline of the standard of living in the United States. I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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