Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said they need the Democrats. He must be aware that they only need us when the votes come. There is not a Democrat fingerprint on that tax bill. We had nothing to say about any of it. And while we begged almost on our hands and knees to be a part of what they are doing, we are not. It always sounds good when we hear it on the floor: Bipartisan. Oh, look, we want to work together. But then, oftentimes, as you know, Mr. Speaker, bills come to the Rules Committee with no committee action whatsoever and no possible description to be bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, for years we have endured relentless Republican attacks on the Affordable Care Act, including just last week in the Senate's disastrous tax bill. By repealing the individual mandate, the Senate bill has knocked 13 million people from their health insurance. I must have asked 20 times when they were doing those 60 times to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act: Why do you want to take healthcare away from people? I have never, to this day, gotten an answer as to why it is they so despise a healthcare bill that is working and has literally insured more Americans than have ever been insured before. Then suddenly, just on a whim, one party decides--the one that has been fighting to kill it over and over again--that they will come at it piecemeal and just try to render it helpless by taking away the ability to even say it is time to go sign up again. I am sure they thought they would do grievous harm, but it didn't work that way, and millions of people came out to sign up again because healthcare is one of the most critical needs for any American family. To make matters worse, the bill also repeals most of the State and local tax deductions, and that is a deduction that helps middle class families in my State of New York. New York, on average, gives back to the Federal Government of the United States $40 billion; money that we send to Washington and get nothing back for it, the way we are rewarded for that. I think that probably will not be happening anymore since the taxes are going to go up so much higher on the people of my State, unless they do away with what is absolutely one of the most atrocious things I have ever seen them do. Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the tax bill was not designed to help middle class families put food on their table, but, instead, it gives corporation tax cuts to line the pockets of their shareholders. I have yet to read or see the Senate tax bill, but I understand there are gifts in there for people who own jet planes. I don't represent any of those. But taking care, again, of the rich, as demonstrated in the figures that supported my speech a while ago, that just short of $6 billion, that goes from the poor people who make under $40,000 to the rich people, the same office, the same amount of money, dollar for dollar, and absolutely proves what we are saying. But you don't need to hear from it me. Don't take my word for it. Republican Congressman Mark Sanford recently said in a moment of great candor: ``From a truth-in-advertising standpoint, it would have been a lot simpler if we just acknowledged reality on this bill, which is it's fundamentally a corporate tax reduction and restructuring bill, period.'' There is no tiny scintilla of reform in this bill. It is simply, as he points out, a way to lower the corporate tax and take care of the extraordinarily wealthy in this country who don't need it. Mr. Speaker, I wish we could provide health for middle class families, which is what I believe the President of the United States thinks he did. I hear him say all the time that there is nothing in there to benefit him--except, probably, the estate tax, which we understand would save him about $1 billion. So, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment that will prohibit any legislation being considered on the floor that limits or repeals the State and local tax deduction or repeals the ACA individual mandate. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take a moment and remind everyone watching of the impacts of the majority's last shutdown in 2013. The impacts on our economy were significant. We lost $24 billion in just those 2 weeks. The impacts on our economy, as I said, were very significant: Federal loans to small businesses, homeowners, and families were brought to a halt. Banks and other lenders were unable to access government verification services, which delayed private sector lending to small businesses and individuals alike. Federal permitting was brought to a standstill, which delayed job- creating projects in the transportation and energy sectors. Experts have estimated that all told, this 16-day shutdown cost our economy an estimated $24 billion. So, during this shutdown, again, vital services were put on hold. At the National Institutes of Health, hundreds of patients were unable to enroll in possibly lifesaving clinical trials. Federal agencies like the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency were unable to conduct health and safety inspections. Federal scientific research was also halted, and we lost a lot of scientists in this country because of all that. Five Nobel Prize winning scientists who worked for the Federal Government at the time of the shutdown, four of the five of them were laid off. This is all according to a report issued by the Office of Management and Budget. The public knows how devastating another shutdown could be. According to a poll conducted by Morning Consult and Politico released this week, there is bipartisan opposition, with 68 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Republicans, and 61 percent of Independents all opposing a government shutdown. I forgot to mention up there about Social Security checks and things for the Veterans Administration. They came to a halt. So that is what makes this so frustrating. I agree with Mr. Woodall. This is a frustrating part of what we are trying to do here. Every day it seems we get up and we face some kind of new disaster. We could have crafted a bipartisan bill--we sure could have--that would have removed any question of whether a continuing resolution would pass the House and Senate. We could have reauthorized the Children's Health Insurance Program, community health centers, Perkins loans, and more months ago, if only the majority were willing to work with Democrats. Instead, bipartisanship is all too often becoming a dirty word under the majority. I sadly say: It is the American people left to pay the price. So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act was enacted in 1994 as an amendment to the Truth in Lending Act. It is designed to address predatory lending practices in refinancing and home equity loans with high interest rates or fees. Loans that meet these high-cost triggers are subject to disclosure requirements and limitations on the loan terms. Borrowers are also provided enhanced remedies if it is violated. Now, the first bill before us, H.R. 1699, would amend the Truth in Lending Act by exempting manufactured home retailers from being defined as mortgage originators. In the process, it would exempt these retailers from important consumer protection rules. That would perpetuate conflicts of interest and restore incentives for these retailers to steer customers into loans with high costs and fees. These are precisely the type of loans that are more profitable for the retailer even though they are bad deals for the customer. My good friend from Georgia asked what could be wrong with this; how can we protect those customers? I submit: You may not protect those consumers by taking all regulation off for them. Obviously, it was there for a reason, and we will see how it turns out. Those may seem like arcane changes to existing law, but let me put the issue in better perspective. According to the Manufactured Housing Institute, 22 million Americans live in manufactured homes today. That is equal to the entire State of Florida. Mr. Speaker, why in the world is the majority prioritizing a bill that would undermine consumer protections for tens of millions of Americans. We know the legislation would create more access to affordable housing. It would only make the incredibly profitable manufacturing housing industry even more money through predatory lending. Those who rely on manufactured housing as an affordable option deserve the same antipredatory lending standards as every other family. This bill fails that test. In fact, it was written specifically to take the protections away from the housing industry. The second measure before us today, H.R. 4182, is completely unnecessary. It would extend the probationary period for members of the Senior Executive Service and members of the competitive service from 1 year to 2. That would double the time that new civil servants are essentially at-will employees without any employee protections or due process rights. There is no evidence to support the need for doubling the probationary period for Federal employees. The bill would simply serve to delay employees' access to worker protection laws that ensure that they are treated fairly on the job. It would also undermine whistleblower rights and prevent them from coming forward. These are the people who are essential to getting to the bottom of legal violations and waste and fraud in government agencies. Standing up for their rights used to be a bipartisan priority, but the majority is now prioritizing a bill that would undermine their rights and put the integrity of our Federal civil service at risk. This comes on the heels of the majority bringing a separate bill, H.R. 3441, to the floor recently. That legislation threatened collective bargaining rights for employees and allows employers to evade liability for wage theft or even child labor violations. And just like the bill before us today, it chips away at workers' ability to do their job without retaliation or unfair treatment. Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here. The majority is bringing bills to the House floor that threaten worker protections while they work to advance a procorporate agenda at the same time. There is perhaps no bigger giveaway on the agenda right now than their tax bill. Under the guise of so-called reform, the majority on the other side of the Capitol is crafting a tax bill that is nothing but a giveaway to the rich and powerful. And, please, don't take my word for it. On Monday, The New York Times published a piece entitled: ``Senators Scramble to Advance Tax Bill That Increasingly Rewards Wealthy.'' The very first line of the piece gives away the majority's game plan. It said: ``The Republican tax bill hurtling through Congress is increasingly tilting the United States Tax Code to benefit wealthy Americans. . . .'' I believe that is beyond dispute by now. In fact, I think every major economist and publication have told us that that is exactly what it is. The scam will raise taxes on tens of millions of middle class families in order to hand deficit-exploding giveaways to the wealthy and corporations that ship jobs overseas. In fact, I heard an economist last night, Jared Bernstein, saying that he thinks this bill encourages moving jobs overseas. The Republican plan eliminates the alternative minimum tax, which is designed to prevent the very rich from gaming the system. And the bill passed by the Chamber eliminates the estate tax, which will benefit the wealthy, certainly--and very few of them, though, are even liable for paying that tax. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Congressional Budget Office, under the Republican plan, persons making $40,000 to $50,000 a year would pay an additional $5.3 billion in taxes, combined, over the next decade. At the same time, those earning $1 million or more a year would see a $5.8 billion tax cut. Note, please, the similarity of those figures. If that isn't taking money from the poor to give to the rich, I don't know of anything that could describe it any better. This is the third time America has tried trickle-down theory. It didn't work with President Reagan; it didn't work under President Bush; and, certainly, it did not work in Kansas. There is a word for doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That word is ``insanity.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, funding for the government expires on December 8. That is 8 days from now. We wonder why we are wasting time on unnecessary bills before us today and running us toward another shutdown. Let me remind everyone watching here today about the last shutdown in 2013. The majority shut down the government rather than fund the Affordable Care Act, which was then and remains today the law of the land. The shutdown lasted 16 days. In just that short time, it cost our economy an estimated $24 billion. The shutdown cost the government $24 billion. Federal facilities were not opened. The mom-and-pop stores and little restaurants in Federal buildings all closed. The processing of veterans' disability claims was stalled. Head Start grantees that serve an estimated 6,300 children were forced to close their doors for 9 days until some private philanthropists stepped in. Hundreds of patients were unable to enroll in possible lifesaving clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health. Ninety-eight percent of the employees at the National Science Foundation, nearly 75 percent of the employees at the National Institutes of Health, and two-thirds of the employees at the Centers for Disease Control were furloughed. That brought new Federal research to a standstill. An estimated $4 billion in tax refunds were delayed, denying middle class families the money they expected and planned for. Even the National Transportation Safety Board was impacted, unable to investigate 59 plane accidents as swiftly. Another shutdown will be devastating, but I am afraid that is what we are headed for under the leadership here. The President recently tweeted that he doesn't see a deal on the horizon. This comes after he tweeted earlier this year that our country needs a ``good shutdown.'' Instead of doing anything about that here today, we are frittering away precious legislative time on bills that are, at best, not urgent and, at worst, completely unnecessary and even damaging. The greatest Nation on Earth will be struggling to keep the lights on. This is no way to run the United States. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, on the rule, and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Maurice Hinchey. He was an extraordinary friend who had the courage to take on all of the tough issues. We served 4 years together in the New York State Assembly and 20 years together in Congress. I watched him do what he did best: defend the constituents and the land that he represented. He is remembered as an environmental hero for his promotion of renewable energy and for sounding the alarm on the risks of hydraulic fracturing. Maurice did more to support the natural resources of the Catskill Mountains and Hudson Valley than anyone else. From his efforts to clean up the Hudson River to the establishment of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, his legacy will endure. To the millions of visitors who enjoy the Catskill Mountains or explore the Hudson Valley, you have a champion to thank. His name was Maurice Hinchey.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of young people who are Americans in every way except on paper. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat) to discuss our proposal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2810, the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, takes important steps towards strengthening our national security and supporting our troops. The conference report authorizes a total of $692 billion in discretionary budget authority, $26 billion more than the administration requested. I am pleased that it raises military pay by 2.4 percent, an increase from the President's request of 2.1 percent. It also strengthens our efforts to counter Russia's campaign to undermine our democracy by fully funding cybersecurity and cyberspace operations at $8 billion and it drops harmful restrictions on funding the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty extension between the United States and Russia. This treaty continues a bipartisan tradition that began under President Reagan, verifiably reducing both countries' nuclear arsenals. Mr. Speaker, there is one glaring problem with this measure, and that is that the Budget Control Act imposes a $549 billion cap on defense spending for fiscal year 2018. This bill blows past that by more than $143 billion. Unless the Senate, the House, and the President come to an agreement on lifting or modifying the budget caps, there is no way that these spending levels can become law. So far, that agreement is not in the offing and it is past time for a bipartisan compromise on realistic spending levels for defense and nondefense spending alike. While I am glad to see this pay increase for our troops, this legislation does not exist in a vacuum. Later this week, the Republicans plan to bring to the floor a disastrous tax bill that would force military families and veterans to finance tax cuts for corporations and the superwealthy. The bill repeals tax credits that help veterans find employment. It makes education more expensive for veterans and undermines the GI Bill. It makes it more expensive for military families to sell their homes. It eliminates tax relief for veterans suffering from chronic illnesses. Veterans Day was just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, and it is no way for the majority to thank them for their service. Also before us today is H.R. 2874, which is known as the 21st Century Flood Reform Act. Now, everybody in this Chamber recognizes the National Flood Insurance Program is badly in debt, to the tune of $25 billion. The hurricanes this year, together with the flooding across Louisiana last year, have stretched the program beyond its breaking point. Unfortunately, this package will cause more harm than good for the communities already struggling to rebuild. It will make flood insurance more expensive for families by increasing premiums. It also exempts businesses from the requirement to purchase flood insurance even though the vast majority of policyholders with this insurance only purchase it because they are required to by law. This change would take effect beginning in January 2019. The Independent Community Bankers and a number of other groups oppose this provision. As businesses pull out of the insurance market and the number of participating dwindles, responsible businesses that stay in the market will be forced to bear the burden of greatly increased premiums. I think these are shortsighted changes that will be felt all across the insurance market. Additionally, the legislation doesn't do enough to update the often out-of-date flood insurance rate maps being used in communities across the country and in my district. Accurate flood insurance maps prepared with the most recent mapping technologies would help constituents in all of our districts better prepare and protect themselves against flooding. Some current maps are so outdated that the maps don't reflect changing landscapes and critical flood mitigation improvements. This bill simply falls short in helping homeowners who want to do the right thing based off the best available information. We are in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes our Nation has ever experienced, and more of them. We are seeing how vital, affordable, and readily available flood insurance is to so many communities. It is unconscionable that the majority is moving forward with this partisan package of bills, unlikely to ever pass the Senate, because this will only further delay the extension of the program with 1 month left before it expires. As the majority lurches from crisis to crisis and fritters away precious legislative time with this partisan approach, we will likely find ourselves right back here doing this over again in December. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds because I was very impressed, yesterday, with Mr. Graves and the thoughtful work that he had done. I am sorry his amendments were not made in order, but I appreciate very much his homework on this bill, and I agree with him. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act isn't perfect. Most notably, it blows past the caps implemented under the Budget Control Act. But there are areas of common ground in this bill, including a pay raise for our military and investments to fill the genuine readiness gaps in our Armed Forces. I want to point out that they are the result of something that is all too often nonexistent under the majority, and that is regular order. I agree with what my colleague said, to see a bill under regular order is a downright joy. I hope we do more of it. A hearing and a markup were held for this bill and colleagues from both sides of the aisle were consulted. That is how the Chamber was designed to function, but, today, it hardly functions like that at all. It is a shame that we don't also see the majority put this model to use for other major legislation like healthcare and tax reform, which we will be rushing through to get to tomorrow. This is a process that we didn't see for the other measure before us today, which is H.R. 2874. No hearing was ever held on the package in its entirety. It was changed right up until it was considered by the Rules Committee earlier this week in an effort not to get Democrat support, but to get enough support from Members of the majority so that it could pass on a party-line vote. That is what we see under this leadership: no hearings and rarely any markups. Legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would impact one-sixth of our economy, was passed without so much as a score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its impacts and its costs. This Congress has broken the record for the use of closed rules, which prevents any amendments from being offered by either side on the House floor. It is now the most closed Congress ever. In fact, one of the rules before us right now is closed. We are even likely to consider the majority's bipartisan tax plan this week-- actually, tomorrow--which would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion, yet under another closed rule and without scoring. The United States Congress has been called the greatest deliberative body in the world. I think it is time the majority change course and actually allow the great debates about the issues that we face. The legislation we consider would certainly be better for it. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, and the bill; and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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