Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on the Constitution and Civil Justice.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we are about to bring to a close this sorry spectacle of legislative malpractice. It really saddens me to think that we have arrived at this point in this legislative year when we are about to go home for 5 weeks of legislative work in the district when we should be here on the floor taking care of the very many issues that people have talked about all day. But most importantly, this lawsuit goes against everything that the majority has been working for for the last 4 years. They have tried over 50 times, spending $79 million, to repeal the Affordable Care Act. And no one, frankly, listening to this is now going to believe that there is this great change of heart and they are so broken up that it wasn't implemented in time and by the book that you are going to try to sue the President of the United States. I don't think even to kids watching Sesame Street that would make any sense. In fact, the strongest arguments about it really come from the majority's own party. It is sadly a partisan political election year stunt, and it has no place in this House. As I said earlier today, when I first came here, the bipartisanship was so wonderful and strong that the New York delegation, all of us, stood together on issue after issue. I miss that terribly and long for it to come back. In the meantime, I ask my colleagues to vote against this disgraceful resolution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah (Mr. Bishop) for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is actually a package of four bills--H.R. 4315, H.R. 4316, H.R. 4317, and H.R. 4318--which aim to derail the Endangered Species Act. The four bills are a product of the House Natural Resources Committee's Endangered Species Working Group, a committee working group which had not one Democrat Member on it, so that there was no bipartisan discussion. There is always room to discuss how we can improve legislation, but the negotiations should not be limited to backroom negotiations with a select few from a single party. It is ironic the bill is entitled ``21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act'' when the process to create the bill was anything but transparent. If the Endangered Species Act needs to be improved in order to better achieve the bill's purpose, then let's have a robust bipartisan conversation in an open forum, which is what we call the committee process. Now, the package we are considering today, however, does not have any bipartisan support because it would create additional red tape that undermines essential protections provided for the Endangered Species Act. The Endangered Species Act was passed over 40 years ago to protect imperiled animals and plants from extinction, and it is one of the most important tools we have to ensure our Nation's wildlife is protected for future generations. These bills today do nothing to continue that wonderful background, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act. We all know that our nation's children are our most precious resource, and we wish that every child had the opportunity to grow up in a family that loved and protected them, but unfortunately that is not the case. As a result, about 400,000 children are in the foster care system as we speak. In the last few years, there have been great improvements in how we care for foster children, particularly the focus on supporting youth as they age out of the system. But there is a stain on the American foster care system that we have not adequately addressed: child sex trafficking. Child sex trafficking is truly one of the most deplorable and disgusting crimes any adult can commit, and it's our job to do all that we can to end it--especially when so many victims are children for whom we have taken responsibility in the foster care system. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children tells us that 60% of runaways who are victims of sex trafficking were at one time in the custody of social services or in foster care. In my home state of New York, 85% of trafficking victims have prior child welfare involvement. While state-specific numbers vary throughout the country, they all tell us that something more needs to be done. To add insult to injury, far too often, state child welfare systems fail to properly identify and assist trafficked and exploited children. Instead of being cared for and supported, these children are often sent to the juvenile justice system and criminalized for, at no fault of their own, being raped and trafficked! These children are victims, and we have a moral obligation to protect them. I'm a proud original co-sponsor of the Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act, which would help identify exploited children, train child protective services workers to appropriately respond to them, and connect child victims to specialized services so that they can begin the process of recovery. I am particularly pleased that this legislation includes a directive for HHS to report on any barriers in Federal laws or regulations that may be preventing States from properly identifying, assessing, and serving children who are victims of trafficking. I believe one such barrier is that currently, under the Child Abuse Protection and Treatment Act, young victims of trafficking are not automatically defined as victims of abuse and neglect. Making a definitional change would ensure that these children, who are clearly victims, are supported and protected, not sent to the juvenile justice system for prosecution. I look forward to receiving this report next year and working with my colleagues to make that change for the sake of these young people who deserve our protection.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if anyone had told me that at the beginning of my career that I would fight 40 years for the right for contraception, I would never have believed it. We thought Griswold v. Connecticut had settled this, but no. It's been a constant war to control women, which is exactly what this is about. Now, this audacious Supreme Court, which never fails to surprise, decided that bosses can tell you what kind of healthcare you can have and whether or not you can practice contraception. More specifically, the 5 men on this court decided whether women can have equal access to contraception. And let's not forget, for male employees of these firms, their wives and daughters who are on their healthcare coverage will also be discriminated against and treated differently. The stupidity of this Supreme Court decision is that it completely overlooks the fact that 58 percent of the women who get prescription oral contraceptives do it not just for birth control, but for another medical reason, such as endometriosis, ovarian cysts, or Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Even those women will be out of luck, which means they don't have the same rights as all those men who buy Viagra. That's still covered. The most dangerous thing that has happened here is that this court has set a precedent for the nearly 48 cases currently working their way through the courts filed by for-profit companies about contraception coverage. Those 48 cases now have this decision as legal precedent. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the idea of blood transfusions, vaccinations, and treatment for HIV/AIDS would no longer be covered. With this court, we are pedaling backward to the 19th century but I've got news for the five men on the court behind this decision: the women of America don't want to go! And this bill helps ensure that we don't. H.R. 5051, The Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act--also called the ``Not My Boss's Business Act''--would ensure that an employer that provides a group health plan for its employees does not deny coverage of a specific health care item or service to its employees or covered dependents of employees where that coverage is mandated by Federal law. The bill specifically states the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not excuse or relieve this duty, and allows for the existing exemption for houses of worship and accommodation for religious non- profit organizations that do not wish to provide coverage of contraceptives. The women of this country don't want a court or anyone else to determine that they are second-class citizens, and this bill would put an end to that. And what we need is a vote. We're all here today to call on Speaker Boehner to bring this to the floor. Wouldn't that be something? Mr. Speaker, the House has been given two opportunities to defeat the previous question: once on Tuesday, and another today. Both times, we offered an amendment to the rule that would have given Members an opportunity to consider reversing the damage done by the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision. Both times, the House has rejected this measure. No employer should have the right to limit the health choices of its employees--male or female. It is pure discrimination, when 99 percent of women in this country have used some form of birth control during their lifetime--but now have to literally go to unreasonable measures to simply secure the fundamental health care they need.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that H.R. 4923, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, provided $68 million for the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE), a $4 million increase over last year. I strongly support this funding for LLE, which is a unique national resource and one of the crown jewels of New York State. One of two lasers at LLE, the OMEGA laser is the world's second most powerful ultraviolet fusion laser in the world. The second of LLE's lasers, the OMEGA EP (Extended Performance) laser, is a high-intensity, high-energy short-pulse laser. The LLE is a vital component of our nation's scientific capital and leadership, a key to strategic work on an independent energy future, a leader in developing innovative approaches to enhancing our national security, and a crucial part of New York's high-tech economy. It also serves as the principal laser research facility for Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. The LLE has attracted nearly $2 billion to the State of New York and more than 1,000 individuals whose jobs are tied to the program. The laser lab also provides a strong stimulus to the local economy through start-up companies such as QED Technologies, Lucid Inc., and Sydor Instruments, fueling New York State's rapidly growing high-technology sector. Through the National Laser Users Facility, the LLE attracts as many as 300 additional scientists each year from national laboratories, universities, and companies, and continues to produce some of the best and brightest Master's and Ph.D. students. If there's any place the Federal Government should be investing, it's in the laser lab's research programs, which create jobs through the creation of spin-off companies. The work they are doing in high energy density research is remarkable, working every day to get us closer to energy independence and enhance our national security. I am proud of the LLE's contribution to the vibrant, growing high-tech community of Rochester.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we are breaking a record yet again for the most closed Congress ever. The majority has broken their own record for the most closed Congress in history. Again and again, they have wasted time, money, and energy on legislative proposals designed to distract us from the problems at hand. And that certainly is true today. The American people are hoping that Congress will create jobs, expand educational opportunities, and support working families, but instead, we insist on spending millions of dollars on investigating made-up scandals and adding billions and billions to the deficit. Today we have one rule for two bills: first, the bonus depreciation bill, and, second, the Financial Services Appropriations bill, two bills with nothing in common except to highlight the majority's insistence of choosing policy over people. Now, H.R. 4718 would make bonus depreciation permanent. This is a policy that maybe you have never heard of, but it is a policy that used to be bipartisan and still would be on a 1- or 2-year basis, like the Senate has proposed. It is designed as a temporary measure, and I emphasize ``temporary'' because if it isn't temporary, it is not effective. Bonus depreciation gives businesses an extra large immediate tax deduction for a portion of the cost of investments in equipment. Instead of spending more of the deduction over future years, it incentivizes purchasing equipment now in order to provide an immediate boost to the economy, instead of in the future when the incentive may not be available. And that is how it has always temporarily worked. But if we make it permanent, then the taxpayers are simply subsidizing the cost of the equipment that businesses would need to purchase anyway. My good friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is as good a businessman as he is a Congressman--and that is saying a lot--said yesterday that in 2003, his small business went out and bought $100,000 worth of computers specifically because he could take advantage of the bonus depreciation, which was in place and was a very smart thing for him to have done. And that is exactly how bonus depreciation is supposed to work. Mr. Cole knew computers would be cheaper at that time than in a year or two, when the tax credit would have expired. So he spent the money on equipment. And that surely helped the economy, and I am sure it created some jobs. But why would Mr. Cole buy the computers immediately if he knew the tax credit would be there forever? He wouldn't, I don't believe. We will talk about that later. This tool was put in place between 2002 and 2005, at 30 percent and then at 50 percent. It was reenacted in 2008 and then extended four times, often as part of a larger stimulus package, most recently at 50 percent. That expired at the end of 2013. Now, when enacted as a temporary measure, there has been bipartisan support. However, the bill we have before us intends to make it permanent, completely negating the purpose of the bonus depreciation as a temporary measure. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service looked into the change, and they said, ``Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness'' and that bonus depreciation ``was enacted for a specific, short-term purpose.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to now insert the Congressional Research Service's report, ``Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues,'' from March 24, 2014, into the Record. [From Congressional Research Service, Mar. 24, 2014] Bonus Depreciation: Economic and Budgetary Issues (By Jane G. Gravelle, Senior Specialist in Economic Policy) Summary The Tax Extenders Act of 2013 (S. 1859), which would extend expiring tax provisions for a year, includes bonus depreciation. The temporary provisions enacted in the past for only a year or two and extended multiple times are generally referred to collectively as the ``extenders.'' One reason advanced for these temporary provisions is that time is needed to evaluate them. Most of these provisions, however, have been extended multiple times, and some suggest that these provisions are actually permanent but are extended a year or two at a time because permanent provisions would significantly increase the costs in the budget horizon. Historically, bonus depreciation has not been a traditional ``extender.'' Bonus depreciation allows half of equipment investment to be deducted immediately rather than depreciated over a period of time. Bonus depreciation was enacted for a specific, short-term purpose: to provide an economic stimulus during the recession. Most stimulus provisions have expired. Bonus depreciation has been in place six years (2008-2013), contrasted with an earlier use of bonus depreciation in place for three years. Is bonus depreciation temporary or permanent? The analysis of bonus depreciation differs for a temporary stimulus provision, compared to a permanent provision that can affect the size and allocation of the capital stock. A temporary investment subsidy was expected to be more effective than a permanent one for short-term stimulus, encouraging firms to invest while the benefit was in place. Its temporary nature is critical to its effectiveness. Yet, research suggests that bonus depreciation was not very effective, and probably less effective than the tax cuts or spending increases that have now lapsed. If bonus depreciation is made permanent, it increases accelerated depreciation for equipment, contributing to lower, and in some cases more negative, effective tax rates. In contrast, prominent tax reform proposals would reduce accelerated depreciation. Making bonus depreciation a permanent provision would significantly increase its budgetary cost. Compared to a statutory corporate tax rate of 35%, bonus depreciation lowers the effective tax rate for equipment from an estimated 26% rate to a 15% rate. Buildings are taxed approximately at the statutory rate. Total tax rates would be slightly higher because of stockholder taxes. Because nominal interest is deducted, however, effective tax rates with debt finance can be negative. For equity assets taxed at an effective rate of 35%, the effective tax rate on debt- financed investment is a negative 5%. The rate on equipment without bonus depreciation is minus 19%; with bonus depreciation it is minus 37%. If bonus depreciation is permanent, estimates of U.S. effective tax rates reflecting concerns that the U.S. rate is higher than that of other countries overstate the effective U.S. corporate tax rate; U.S. effective tax rates on equipment would be significantly lower than the OECD average. Moving to permanent bonus depreciation is inconsistent with tax reform proposals made by the Wyden-Coats bill, the Senate Finance Committee Staff discussion draft, and Chairman Camp's proposal. All of these proposals would reduce the current accelerated depreciation for equipment. The usual extenders cost a fraction of the cost of permanent provisions in a 10-year budget window, but bonus depreciation is a smaller fraction because it is a timing provision. A one-year extension costs $5 billion for FY2014- FY2024, less than 2% of the cost of $263 billion for a permanent provision.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. What the majority is fond of saying is that this bill would bring in $10 billion in revenue. And I heard it over and over again at the Rules Committee last night, that we are going to have $10 billion in revenue. But what they fail to say is that over 10 years, it is going to cost us $287 billion, nearly $300 billion, which could buy us a lot of high-speed rail, a lot of bridge infrastructure, a lot of highway work. But what we are now doing is a permanent subsidy to make tax cuts to every business that wants to buy equipment. Now, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation scored this at $287 billion over 10 years. We are not making that up. The majority is cobbling together a piecemeal approach, and it will not work. We would love to have tax reform, we cry out for tax reform, but this isn't it. To cap it all off, this is another closed rule. And let me say what that means. Even if a Member wanted to offer an amendment to pay for the nearly $300 billion cost of this bill--which is the rules under which we operate, you know, PAYGO--they wouldn't be allowed. There are so many better things to spend that $300 billion on, the things that we really need in this country. But the closed rule ensures that it would stifle the debate and hijack the process. And, more than that, we know the Senate will not take this up. So, once again, we are doing a bill that might make some people feel good but not if they think about it a little bit. Because even the businesses who are going to be prospering from the tax decrease are going to be responsible for the loss of $300 billion. So with the second bill, which is H.R. 5016, the Financial Services Appropriations, the majority is cherry-picking which agencies to fund and which to strangle for purely political purposes. They will continue chasing down the all-but-defunct IRS conspiracy rabbit, getting funding for the IRS but making it so that $2 billion worth of the tax revenue will not be collected because they have cut the budget of the IRS so much. So add that $2 billion to the $300 billion that we are voting on today for depreciation, and add that onto the deficit, too, since it is not paid for. In addition, as the majority crisscrosses the country touting states' rights, they have also put forward legislation that obstructs, once again, the District of Columbia's home rule by restricting funding for constitutionally protected medical care. The majority insists on ensuring that women are second-class citizens, and they continue to chip away at our constitutional rights. Furthermore, this bill continues to prevent multi-State policies under the Affordable Care Act from providing coverage for abortions under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, except in the most desperate of circumstances. We need to say over and over again that, of the women in this country who are using birth control, 58 percent--more than half of them--are using it for medical reasons. And they are being deprived. Mr. Speaker, 58 percent of the women in this country who are using prescription contraception are using it because they have medical issues, and it is expensive. But we will not let them get any help because we simply don't believe in providing health care for women. Government workers deserve the same benefits and the same access to comprehensive health care as those in the private sector enjoy. It is, in fact, dangerous for the majority to target abortion care and require its exclusion from health insurance plans that include other important and necessary reproductive health services. Women expect and deserve the best health care and coverage that fits their needs. And let's remember that 58 percent of the women who use oral contraceptives use them for medical purposes, not just for birth control. I would like to be able to say that women should expect their government to be able to put their health and safety above election- year politics, but this is what we have come to expect here. Women deserve better. But I am afraid in the House, women's rights, again, continue to be undermined. Time and again, we have prioritized in this House--some of us--politics over people. Let me mention the veterans, for example. Listen to this. This is really important to know. While those veterans who have served and sacrificed for our country are waiting months in line for medical care, the House majority will spend more money investigating and trying to debunk a nonexistent Benghazi scandal than helping our veterans get the care they need. That is right. The committee investigating Benghazi has a much larger budget than the Veterans' Affairs Committee. If that is not a political statement, I don't know what is. And I need to point out that just yesterday, transcripts from the Armed Services Committee about Benghazi proved that everything that could have been done was done. And I know that when I last did the rule on the floor on the special Benghazi committee that I received a call from the mother of one of the Navy SEALs that died, saying that she really wished the Congress would stop dragging their family back through that horror. They know what happened. Instead of working on the real problems--and we have got them--they are finding time to sue the President for doing his job, to hold vote after vote to repeal ObamaCare. And let's remember the shutdown of the government that took $24 billion in that short time out of this economy. So we come here to make things better. And with these actions and with this behavior, we make things worse. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. May I inquire if my friend has any more requests for time?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. We are going to call for the previous question, Mr. Speaker, and if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the legislation that would treat wildfires like similar major natural disasters and ensure that money intended for managing public lands is actually used for that purpose. It is time to make commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire budget. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal on wildfires, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if my colleague is prepared to close, I will close.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the majority continues to choose politics over people, create problems instead of solving them, and insist on silencing debate in the Chamber. It is time to consider the real problems facing the country, and with summer comes the destructive fire season that affects so many of my colleagues' districts. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and move to consider the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act to make the commonsense changes in the Federal wildfire budget. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.