Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I believe all of our soldiers deserve our thanks and support. They are Americans. They don't need to be attacked based on who they are. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it is also outrageous--and I saved this for the end--that the majority stripped from the bill Congresswoman Barbara Lee's bipartisan amendment to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Until this AUMF, which, as I said, came into law in 2001, is rescinded and replaced, the President of the United States can usurp our power and effectively declare war without Congress' concurrence. In fact, that has already happened. Matters of war are the most serious issues that Congress considers. We should not--and we don't want to--shirk those responsibilities. We want to fulfill our constitutional duties. Yet Speaker Ryan removed it from the bill without any debate or single vote because he was afraid of it. He replaced it with weaker language requiring a 30-day study. After those 30 days, we are not assured of anything at all, just a study. That is not the type of open and transparent process that the Speaker promised. More than just bad process, it silences the debate we need to have. All Americans, especially our men and women in uniform, deserve better from us, as they volunteered to save us with their very lives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, if we hadn't had this last election and the campaign that went with it, we wouldn't be talking about any wall. One of the candidates threw out that he would like to have a wall and was sure--he gave us the absurd notion that somehow Mexico would pay for it. Not many of us believed that, but I will tell you, now that we have put in this $1.6 billion for this wall, I will bet you that we are going to finish it, and we don't know how much it costs--somewhere between $20 billion and $40 billion for a wall. Now, if I have heard correctly what my colleagues have said over there, the walls are working already, the ones they have got. There are walls there. I heard San Diego had three. So the idea, I guess, if one works, we will build us another one. Oh, my goodness. This funding bill that we are talking about spending on a wall is needed to repair roads and bridges and bring down the cost of education, but the majority refuses to have debate on the AUMF, something that is critically important, life and death to many people who live in this country who are presently in the armed services. This amendment should have been included here. And I appreciate what my colleague, Mr. Sanford, said. He is absolutely right. But if we were to get a new AUMF, it would put Congress back into its duty to declare war. That is something that the Constitution gave us that we no longer have. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would put some of our most sensitive lands at risk and limit the voices of experts, all to further construction of dangerous projects that could harm local communities. First, H.R. 2883 undermines the National Environmental Policy Act and tips the scales in favor of massive, controversial oil and gas pipeline and electric transmission projects. Transboundary projects like this often travel for hundreds of miles, last for decades, and pass through sensitive and Native lands and important aquifers. And, as we all know, pipelines leak. That is why there is currently a rigorous Federal review process that takes into account the impact of these projects on the environment and the communities along their route. Today, in order to construct an oil pipeline, a natural gas pipeline, or an electrical transmission line that crosses the U.S. border with Canada or Mexico, a Presidential permit must first be obtained, as well as additional approvals from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission-- FERC--the Department of Energy, or the Department of Defense, depending on the type of pipeline. This review process helps us to understand the environmental impact of these projects and it allows communities and landowners along the route to weigh in with their concerns. All of this helps to keep communities safe from hazardous substances that, if spilled or ignited, could have catastrophic consequences. Yet the majority is proposing this measure to severely limit that rigorous review. The bill effectively exempts these massive projects from environmental and safety review under the National Environmental Policy Act. It narrows the approval process and environmental review to just the ``cross-border segment'' of projects that physically cross the border with Canada or Mexico rather than, presently, the entire trans- boundary project. So inside the United States, anything goes. Instead of requiring an agency to affirmatively find a project is in the public interest, the bill also places a burden of proof on the opponents of the project to show that it is not in the public interest. If that wasn't bad enough, the legislation would also give new life to the controversial projects that have already been denied, for very good reason, by allowing permits to be resubmitted under this sham process. Second, H.R. 2910 would supercharge the natural gas pipeline approval process, putting private property rights in jeopardy and hindering important environmental reviews. The bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission almost complete authority and severely limits the input of expert entities tasked with protecting the environment, our natural resources, and public health. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind those watching today just how streamlined the natural gas pipeline approval process already is. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is basically a rubber-stamp entity. It almost never denies a pipeline project. On average, 88 percent of projects are approved within 1 year, and then we think about the consequences later. In fact, FERC officials have testified that what is mostly slowing down the applications is that the applicants themselves fail to submit the necessary information to perform congressionally mandated project reviews. So this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Third, H.R. 218 revives an ill-advised proposal to build a road to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and its world-class wetlands. This proposal has been, as pointed out for a number of decades, rejected by multiple State and Federal agencies on numerous occasions over the past 30 years. It has been exhaustively studied time and time again, and, every single time, the results have been clear. The road is not the most viable option for the residents of King Cove and would do irreparable damage to the refuge. Yet the majority is ignoring three decades of expert analysis and public input in an effort to green light this damaging road through a congressionally designated wilderness area. More efficient and viable options exist, including the addition of a heliport and construction of a new airport, which we should be focusing on because a road is the wrong approach. Mr. Speaker, we all know this, but I think we do need to be reminded from time to time that we are the stewards of our environment and this planet and the land only while we are alive. None of us ever really own it. We do, however, have an obligation to protect it, care for it, and make sure that it exists for future generations. These bills fail that test. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pascrell of New Jersey's Bring Jobs Home Act, H.R. 685. This bill will close the tax loophole that rewards companies from moving jobs overseas, while providing a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States. 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 gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) to discuss our proposal.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the American people may be scratching their heads wondering why, with everything going on in the world, we are prioritizing bills that put our environment at risk--bills the Senate may never take up. Let me remind them that the majority is just doing the bidding of an administration that has shown a complete disregard for air, water, and land. The administration has already proposed a budget that would slash the Environmental Protection Agency by 32 percent. This would harm not only conservation and climate efforts, but thousands of jobs nationwide. As a microbiologist, I know firsthand the importance of science in our legislative process, yet the majority has refused to give science and facts their rightful place in policy debates that we have. From drastically reducing funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, and by discrediting climate change, to attempting to eliminate safeguards for our genetic privacy, the majority and this administration have worked hand in hand to ruthlessly roll back the scientific advancements that we have made. It is shameful that we are here today considering bills that would silence experts and risk the health and safety of our communities. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question on the rule and the bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 379, 380, and 381. Had I been present, I would have voted Aye on all three votes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SLAUGHTER

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all of us mourn the death of Kate Steinle, tragically shot and killed in San Francisco in 2015. Indeed, there isn't a parent anywhere who doesn't worry constantly about the well-being and the health and the safety of a child. And we all know, even though we may not have lost our own, we have deep sympathy with those who do. But as the Cato Institute has outlined, the legislation before us today would not have prevented that tragedy. As the Cato Institute has said, the alleged shooter ``did not end up in San Francisco due to lax border security, and the case actually shows the opposite. In recent years, Border Patrol caught him each time he attempted to cross.'' He was only in the city because the U.S. Justice Department failed to do its job, and that is why Cato has called this bill, ``a waste of Federal resources.'' Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker, that these are the words of the Cato Institute, a group founded by the well-known conservative Charles Koch. Cato could not have been more clear when they said it this week: ``Kate's Law would not have helped Kate.'' Now, our country has listened as President Donald J. Trump called Mexican immigrants ``criminals, drug dealers, and rapists.'' The public has watched him promote the formation of a deportation force to tear apart immigrants from their families and sign an executive order directing Federal resources toward the construction of a wall along the border between the U.S. and Mexico, where there is one mostly already that has not done that much deterring, but that is despite the fact that Federal spending on border security over the last few years has been at the highest level that our country has ever seen. It seems the majority has now taken a page from the President's playbook, apparently trying to turn his dangerous rhetoric into law. It is shameful that they are prioritizing a bill that is completely unnecessary, since current law already imposes adequately severe penalties for illegal reentry, including enhanced penalties for criminal offenses. It is already covered, Mr. Speaker, but we do have something we need to fill the afternoon since the health bill failed. All the while, the majority is ignoring the many, many, many major issues facing the Nation today. Now, I know, and we all know, that the bill wasn't the only thing they were hoping to ram through here before we adjourned for the district work period. They also hoped to pass their healthcare repeal bill so quickly before leaving town that the American people wouldn't notice; but, frankly, even as I say that, they have noticed, as I understand now, that the approval rating for that bill is 12 percent. They have noticed. I think what they have noticed is that they are going to kill Medicaid. The reason they wanted to do this in a hurry, repeal healthcare first, was in order to fulfill their tax bill promise of corporate tax cuts as well as tax cuts for the richest people in the United States. They wanted to take from the health bill, the expanded Medicare money, $80 billion to pay for tax cuts. The devastation that that would create, I think most American people understand it. If they have a loved one in a nursing home, that means that, since 64 percent of the cost of nursing care is borne by Medicaid, that they would very likely have to bring the person home. It means that 22 million people would lose their health insurance. You know, we just say that, ``22 million people.'' Let me put that number in some perspective. That number, 22 million, is more than the population of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, and Wyoming combined. That is pretty impressive, isn't it? In February, our President Trump said: ``Nobody knew healthcare could be so complicated.'' Well, Mr. Speaker and Mr. President, those of us on our side who worked for more than a year to craft the Affordable Care Act knew that very well. I was chair of the Rules Committee at the time, and just the Rules Committee heard from 46 different Members of Congress over the course of three meetings which, together, lasted more than 20 hours, one of them a full Saturday of hearings. So, together with the work done by the other committees of jurisdiction, the healthcare reform law received such a thorough vetting--and I want to get this on the record because I hear all the time it was written behind closed doors and strange people and nobody knew what it was and that we were all surprised. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill Kristol proclaimed on FOX News: ``This is the most thoroughly debated piece of legislation in my memory in Washington.'' I feel like I need to say that again, but I won't take the time, but how important it is. But those of us who were there knew it. We knew how many committee meetings were held on this legislation. On the bill you are talking about from your side, the majority side, not a single committee has heard it. I wager that the vast majority of the Republicans--who deserve to see it--have not even seen that bill, and that is a tragedy. We do not operate the United States of America that way. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no comparison between the open, the transparent, and lengthy process that we went through to craft the Affordable Care Act--which, by the way, was written by experts--and what the majority is trying to do with this disastrous repeal bill. And while I am at it, so many times when I was doing the rule on the repeal bills--and, you know, repeal and replace, repeal and replace. We know now that all those 7 years and those more than 60 votes that we paid for while we are running the House, that all this time there was no replacement. They still don't have a replacement. If that wasn't a hoax on the American people, I don't know what was. But the process we are seeing now is defined by backroom deals and secrecy and a complete disregard for regular order. And I understand that, between now and tomorrow afternoon, there will be a lot of big deals changing hands so that we won't know next week what is there anyway, but we wait to see the new CBO score and see what that says. Nearly every President since Theodore Roosevelt tried to enact healthcare reform. That is a long time. Teddy Roosevelt tried it and many Presidents after him. But after decades of failed attempts and false starts, President Obama, working with a Democratic Congress, was finally able to deliver. The majority should work with us again. We are willing to do that. And what we would really like to see you do is take the ACA and the problems that it has and let's work together and improve that law, which has already been in effect now for a number of years, since 2014, and we could just move ahead and get on with things that are terribly important to us. We wish that you would do that instead of trying to dismantle it. If it were dismantled, it would disrupt the markets. It would harm the sick and disproportionately impact those in nursing homes. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I inquire if my colleague has more speakers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, President Trump campaigned on the promise of bringing jobs back home and removing barriers to job creation. But despite these promises, President Trump's budget does the complete opposite. It cuts job training programs by 39 percent, and its draconian spending cuts would lead to massive job losses. My colleagues will be happy to hear that I have an amendment that will ensure that the President keeps his promise of bringing jobs back home. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Pascrell's Bring Jobs Home Act, H.R. 685. H.R. 685 will close a tax loophole that rewards companies for moving jobs overseas, while providing a tax credit to companies that move jobs back to the United States. 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.