Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. There are none.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1092 relates to the consideration of H.R. 5724, the United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement. The rule suspends the timelines for House consideration that are in the fast track law with respect to consideration of this specific trade agreement. Mr. Speaker, we in Congress have a fiduciary obligation to ensure that the legislation passed through this Chamber represents the best interests of those that sent us here, the American people. To outsource that very basic legislative responsibility is to advocate the duties constitutionally prescribed to our branch and raises questions as to why we are here in the first place. The situation we find ourselves in today deals directly with that issue. The President has attempted to dictate the legislative schedule of the Congress according to his political calendar. Over the objections of congressional leadership, he sent Congress the Colombia Free Trade Agreement in an attempt to force consideration of the measure within 60 days by using a provision known as Trade Promotion Authority, or fast track. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to dispel a few myths about the action that we take today. The rule we are taking up today does not in any way affect the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It simply removes the timeline for considering it. It gives the House of Representatives the right to schedule when the agreement is undertaken. There are some who have called into question whether Congress has the right to suspend fast track procedures for trade agreements. One need look no further than the Trade Act of 1974, the legislation that establishes fast track, to see that the very statute itself allows that, like any rule of the House, fast track procedures can be suspended. We have also heard some raise questions about what consequences our action here today will have on the Senate's consideration of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The answer is, it will have no effect. The rule today was necessitated by the partisan and irresponsible actions of the President. Instead of working with Congress to reach agreements on this accord, he instead took the unprecedented step of sending the Colombia trade deal to Congress over the objection of congressional leaders. Mr. Speaker, the American people have been promised a lot when it comes to trade. However, in a country whose economy has been devastated by ill-conceived trade deals, it can only be expected that the American people will remain wary. The promise of good-paying work on the horizon has consistently been dashed by the reality of job loss. Last Friday's unemployment rate was 5.1 percent, and more jobs, over 80,000, were lost last month alone. It is yet another indicator of the worsening economic situation facing millions of America's families. Each day it becomes clearer that our country is teetering on the edge of economic disaster, and, for millions, financial ruin is just around the corner. It is simply not the right time to move forward with this trade agreement. The American people deserve an agreement that actually responds to the needs of the American worker, not makes promises that will not be met. By passing the rule today, we will no longer be bound by arbitrary deadlines and the House can bring up the agreement at the appropriate time and under the appropriate conditions. Mr. Speaker, there is yet another reason why this free trade agreement is untimely and requires additional consideration moving toward passage. We have been promised time after time in trade legislation that there would be side agreements protecting the life and work of labor, that there would be environmental safeguards, that there would no longer be child labor. None of that has come true. And it certainly makes one suspicious on this trade bill also because of the number of trade unionists who have been murdered. This makes the Colombia Free Trade Agreement hard to justify, given the continued violence against the union leaders, subsistence farmers, indigenous people and Afro-Colombians. While President Uribe has made some progress, systematic killings are still far too prevalent to warrant the passage of this bill. Persecution of trade unionists is well-known because since the beginning of this year, 12 have already been murdered. Rewarding the Colombia Government with this bill under those conditions eliminates any leverage the U.S. Government has to improve the respect for human rights and the rule of law in the future. To push forward at a time of economic insecurity is simply irresponsible for working families at home. To push forward in the midst of gross violations of human rights in Colombia is simply wrong. It is the prerogative of Congress to suspend fast track if the timing necessitates it and only when it is in the best interests of the American people. By passing the rule today, we are reestablishing the House of Representatives as coequal to the President, and, in do doing so, we are standing up for America's working families. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a valued member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, an expert in this issue, and a member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think that's accurate.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I need to put on the record the fact that America is not the manufacturing giant. China is the manufacturing giant, followed by India.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Pelosi.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I have one more, who is not presently on the floor. So I will reserve my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I think I'll reserve it. Thank you very much for the offer.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1092 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. General Leave

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Rangel. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today, I am proud to join my friend and colleague, Brian Baird, in introducing the Political Intelligence Disclosure Act. By requiring political intelligence firms to make their activities known in the same way lobbying is reported, this bill will help to bring transparency to the growing world of political intelligence. Political intelligence firms were first established in the 1970s and have been operating since then without regulation. This industry focuses not on influencing Congress, but on gathering information on forthcoming legislative action in order to give their clients an advantage over other investors. This information is then used to influence decisions on stocks, securities and commodities. Currently, firms conducting political intelligence are not required to disclose their clients or earnings. But the bill we are introducing today would change that and require the same disclosure from political intelligence firms as from lobbying firms. With leading experts noting that political intelligence businesses have quadrupled in size since 2003, these businesses are now emerging as a key factor in the lobby industry, and should be regulated accordingly. Such an important and increasingly relevant business should certainly be required to make its activities known to the public. Additionally, there have been reports that employees of political intelligence firms have been attending meetings related to legislation, essentially posing as lobbyists. By requiring disclosure of these firms, this bill will ensure that people attending meetings where legislation is discussed make their intentions known and their goals clear. The Political Intelligence Disclosure Act will bring necessary accountability to this growing field, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor. We must make political intelligence firms accountable and transparent. This important bill will do just that. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill today.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Waterfront Brownfields Revitalization Act. This bill will authorize a much-needed grant program to assist communities that are overcoming the unique challenges of waterfront brownfields and foster innovative approaches to remediation. America's industrial heritage was established along the banks of its rivers, lakes, and coasts. Our Nation's vast and interconnected natural water system helped provide the power that fueled our rise to international prominence, and allowed us to move our manufactured goods efficiently to all corners of the country. However, that legacy also includes many decades of environmental contamination on the waterfront. Abandoned factories, dilapidated mills and underutilized ports can be found along the shores of many metropolitan areas. As localities seek to reconnect with their waterfronts and revitalize their downtowns, brownfield barriers threaten to derail community efforts to create jobs, promote recreational opportunities, restore the ecology, increase tourism, and grow their tax base. Waterfront brownfields present challenges beyond typical environmental assessment and cleanup projects. Hydrology, water quality, wetlands, endangered species, habitat, dredged materials, flooding, environmental infrastructure, navigation, and other considerations must be carefully addressed so as not to exacerbate existing site contamination. Typically, waterfront brownfields require the involvement of multiple governmental agencies. As such, waterfront brownfields require special attention and resources to overcome their larger hurdles. In my own district, the city of Rochester, NY, is currently working to revitalize its beautiful waterfront, while attempting to cope with the unique challenges that waterfront brownfields present. The city is undertaking a major community revitalization strategy to redevelop its port and waterfront area into a mixed use development, which will include housing, commercial, retail, and educational uses, enhanced recreation, new parks and open space, and improved public access to Lake Ontario, the Genesee River and the surrounding ecosystem. However, because the Port of Rochester was used extensively for industrial purposes from the late 1800s into the first half of the 20th century, significant environmental remediation will be required prior to redevelopment. Initial investigations have found that more than 10 acres of the site contain up to several feet of slag from a former iron works. Portions of the site are impacted from petroleum releases and unsuitable fill materials. Old Genesee River deposits on the site and bank sediments have been shown to contain high levels of heavy metals cadmium and silver as well as pesticides and furans. The marina must also be dredged. Before the waterfront reuse can proceed, the Port of Rochester must first address an estimated $500,000 in environmental assessment issues related to contaminated sediments, beneficial reuse of sediments, groundwater contamination, and waste characterization related to the construction of the marina--and an unknown level of remediation. Madam Speaker, Rochester is not alone in facing these types of complicated and expensive challenges to redevelopment. Cities all across the country are dealing with similar roadblocks as they try to engage incorporate waterfront real estate into their redevelopment plans, from Yuma, AZ, and Portland, OR, in the west, to Savannah, GA, and Philadelphia, PA, in the east, and almost everywhere in between where lakes and rivers exist. My bill recognizes that the Federal Government can be an effective partner to communities interested in reconnecting with their waterfronts. Specifically, this legislation would authorize the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish a waterfront brownfields pilot demonstration program to provide localities and other eligible entities with up to $500,000 to assess and clean up waterfront brownfields. The bill would also establish an interagency taskforce on waterfront brownfields restoration to identify barriers and potential solutions to waterfront brownfields revitalization, and seek methods for Federal interagency collaboration on such projects. As cities across the country struggle to thrive in a changing global economy, and as our domestic manufacturing continues to diminish, it is imperative that Congress do all that it can to help these cities redevelop and succeed. Industrialization and manufacturing helped make this country the power that it is today, but as manufacturing has moved overseas it has not only taken jobs and changed the economic base of many industrial cities, it has also left behind decades of contamination. This legislation will give these cities the support they need to redevelop in an environmentally safe way, and utilize their waterfront as an incredible economic asset.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 62, 63, and 64, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I began my speech today by saying we must not always live our lives hoping simply to land on a safe square. Some votes may be tough. This one isn't. The first thing we do when we enter this Congress is swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That is what we are asking you to do today on both sides of the aisle. For some of our friends, it is obviously easier for them to pass; they would rather not vote on this. But for the rest of us, let us stand up to our duty, why we were sent here, and reassert that the Congress of the United States is a co-equal branch, and vote ``yes'' on this.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Miller).