Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 1) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 5) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the minority leader or his designee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. The resolution that I am calling up on this historic day, H. Res. 5, provides for the consideration of a rules package, H. Res. 6, that we hope will begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation. The resolution we are now debating will allow the House to consider and vote on the Democratic rules package in five separate parts. The first title contains the rules package our Republican colleagues adopted in the 109th Congress, while the second through fifth titles contain amendments that will begin a reformation of this body that is long overdue. I also include for the Record at this time a detailed summary of the changes H. Res. 6 will make to the standing House rules of the 109th Congress. Summary of House Rules Package, Opening Day of the 110th Congress, Prepared by the Rules Committee, Louise M. Slaughter, Chairwoman- Designate

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself about 30 seconds, 45 perhaps, just to respond for a moment, to remind my friend that what we are voting on is the Republican package of the last term. If it was so bad, we thought it was pretty bad then as well, but we will have time to debate all these things. We will have open debate. And what we have said about fairness is what we are dedicated to do. General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 5 and H. Res. 6.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, for the purpose of debate only, to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), one of our brilliant freshmen and a new member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), and we welcome you home.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds. I understand your pain, I understand the hurt, and I understand that you are not really sure that we are going to be fair and honest. But if you look back on the 40 years here before, and I remember on the Rules Committee, that when a bill was coming up to rules, always the chairman and the ranking member came together. They worked together on everything. If it was an oversight committee, I recall that both the chair and the ranking member signed the subpoenas. There was such a series of cooperation we have never, as far as I know, dealt with retribution or underhandedness or hatefulness. We know we have an awful lot of work to do. We have got a country to save; we have got a reputation to try to get back in the world; we have got the worst deficit we have ever seen; and, we have got to do something about a war. Let me pledge to you, we have no time for vindication or revenge, and it would be so nice if all the Members in this vote for a change would roll in the same direction. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. There are not. And I will reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), one of the freshmen of which we are so proud.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Then I am prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. SLAUGHTER

Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the bill before us represents one of the last chances that the majority has to leave its mark on the 109th Congress, and yet again we are ending this session like we began it, rushing to pass a rule on a bill without having taken enough time to get either one right. Along with the broken process used to pass this legislation, what is in this bill is a perfect representation of what is wrong with the way business has been done under this majority. It is a clear example of why we need a new direction in Washington, why we need a new philosophy of government to take root here in the people's House. This continuing resolution will automatically fund government programs at their current levels through February 15 of next year. It is the third continuing resolution Congress has passed since the current fiscal year began on October 1. We are in the second week of December, and the majority has approved only two of the 11 bills that were needed this year. In fact, by the time this resolution expires in February, the Federal Government would have been on autopilot for more than one-third of the 2007 fiscal year. The nine spending bills that the 109th Congress will leave unfinished when it adjourns this week cover over $460 billion in Federal spending, 460 billion. That is almost half a trillion that the leaders of the Congress have decided to send out the door without any policymaking or oversight. Madam Speaker, the majority didn't do its job. As representatives, we are sent here to be good stewards of the taxpayer dollars that the Federal Government spends. It is one of our most important responsibilities. Voters do not expect us to abdicate that responsibility or any other responsibility, for that matter. What they expect is that we will take on the challenges confronting our Nation, challenges which have for years awaited a leadership with the vision and commitment needed to address them. Madam Speaker, my fellow Democrats and I understand what the American people expect of us. Democrats believe that running this House correctly is a matter of pride. We believe it is a matter of having a fundamental respect for both the institution in which we serve and for the citizens who gave us the privilege to serve here. And that is why when the 110th Congress opens next month, Democrats will actually face the unanswered challenges confronting us with a new promise and address them in a new way. The House will no longer avoid asking tough questions or fail to live up to its most basic duties. Democrats are going to show the American people a Congress with a new set of priorities and a new set of how best to do the people's business. They are going to see a Congress committed to getting our deficits under control and passing critical bills like unfinished budgets before us on time. They will see a Congress focused on rewarding millions of hardworking Americans with an increase in the minimum wage and on promoting education and employment opportunities to help save the backbone of our economy: the middle class. Americans are going to see a Congress committed to the high standards of ethical conduct and procedural fairness so that corruption will no longer find refuge within these Halls. And they are going to see a Congress with the principle needed to truly stand up for our troops in the field by changing our course in Iraq and by rooting out the fraud, waste, and abuse that to this day endanger the very soldiers that we have asked to risk their lives countless times on our behalf. Mr. Speaker, the new direction my fellow Democrats and I stand for will show our gratitude to the American people for giving us this opportunity to serve our country, to help our communities, and strengthen our future. It is in the Democratic Party's respect for the fundamental principles of our society that they will see the faith we have in the principles and their timelessness and in their strength. It is in the challenges we choose to confront and the honest, open and fair means by which we confront them that they will see our dedication to a government of, by, and for the people of the United States. The American people understand what is at stake in the years ahead. They understand that how we act, both in Washington and toward those at home and abroad, will determine who we are as a Nation. They want a country they can recognize. They want the country they grew up believing in. They want a Congress they can be proud of again. And, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what the Democrats are going to give them. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. But let me inquire if my colleague has any more speakers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 6099, the so-called Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. While this bill purports to represent the findings of the scientific community, it is merely sensationalistic junk science. This bill would force doctors to violate their Hippocratic oath by mandating that they provide women with incorrect, unsupported information. It misleads women into believing that they need general anesthesia for an abortion. By glossing over the established risks of general anesthesia, this bill puts women's health at risk. But don't take my word for it--look to the science. An August 2005, Journal of the American Medical Association study states ``for pregnant women, general anesthesia is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, particularly because of airway-related complications and increased risk of hemorrhage from uterine atony.'' The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said it best in their statement against this bill. ``Requiring a physician to provide a patient with information that is not supported by scientific fact violates the established doctrine of medical informed consent.'' As a scientist myself, I am embarrassed that this body would even consider something so egregiously devoid of fact and scientific proof-- something that blatantly puts women's health at risk. But I'm not the only scientist opposed to this bill. The American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health Association, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, the National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health--to name a few. All these groups oppose H.R. 6099. In total there are over 30 scientific, medical and advocacy organizations that are against this bill. This bill is nothing but pure political pandering at the expense of science and women's health. Let's stop letting politics trump science. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, these provisions were not in either the House or Senate-passed versions of the Homeland Security bill. They were drafted in secret and slipped into the conference report without the input of any Democrats in the conference. Even worse, these provisions may make chemical facilities more vulnerable to security problems and not less. When we talk about balance, I think Homeland Security was supposed to be about rules and regulations. The new language weakens the Homeland Security Secretary's ability to enforce chemical facility site security plans. It takes the authority away. It allows the Secretary to preempt tougher State laws to ensure chemical facility security, and it severely restricts the rights of citizens to take any legal action to enforce chemical facility security requirements. Securing our chemical plants is far too important to be compromised by a secretive and inadequate security plan. I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference report, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to remove these inadequate and dangerous provisions. Again, please vote ``no'' on the previous question. 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 object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, these are not the circumstances under which we should be considering this legislation. The bills before us deal with nothing less than the security of our homeland and the fundamental nature of our Nation. Our citizens deserve better than to have their elected representatives rush to pass all of these bills in one day, bills that say a great deal about who we are as a society and where we are headed as a country. The Homeland Security Appropriations Conference Report and the Military Commissions Act before us are manifestations of how this country has chosen to respond to the challenges that confront us, challenges to our safety and our peace of mind. Will we respond with flawed acts that undermine our economic vitality and sacrifice the very liberties we are theoretically fighting to protect? Or will we be measured in our response and do what is necessary to preserve our liberty from both threats abroad and the consequences of fear and mistrust here at home? Mr. Speaker, this homeland security legislation means a great deal to my constituents in western New York and to the tens of millions of Americans who live in northern border communities throughout our country. Our relationship with Canada is truly a unique one. Ours is the longest unguarded border in the world, a demonstration of the spirit of trust and openness shared by our two great nations. That spirit has produced and sustained a thriving cross-border tourism industry and hundreds of billions of dollars in trade between our two countries every year. Border economies on both sides of the divide depend on that trade and tourism. So it would be shortsighted and self-destructive to permit a flawed border security plan to cut off such a lifeline. Unfortunately, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, put forth with so much fanfare by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, threatens to do just that. In the name of heightened security, this plan, if implemented in its current form, will mean that millions of tourists from both countries will stay home and businesses will stop shipping their goods across the border. In its current form, this plan is a disaster waiting to happen. And considering that Canada is our largest trading partner, we have no choice but to fix it before it is too late. And what we need first is an extension of the WHTI implementation deadline, which I am relieved to see is still in this bill. Backing up the implementation until June or at least January of 2009 will give us the time we need to fix this program where it is broken. My colleague and good friend from New York Representative McHugh and I have fashioned a bipartisan, commonsense bill that will correct the most egregious failings of WHTI and make it work for our constituents instead of against them. The Protecting American Commerce and Travel Act, or PACT Act, has gained the support of a wide range of Representatives in this body. It will ensure border security while at the same time keeping it open to travel and trade. I urge all of my colleagues to consider and pass the PACT Act in the months ahead. We don't have to choose between economic security and physical security. We can and we must have both. Mr. Speaker, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative was a flawed reaction to a perceived threat and today threatens the liberty and prosperity of our country more than those it supposedly protects us from. In the same way, the Military Commissions Act before us represents a shocking assault on the fundamental freedoms and liberties that we have been told we are fighting to defend. This bill will dramatically increase the President's right to detain men and women the world over and to hold them indefinitely without charge. What is more, it will serve as a backdoor legalization of all but the most brutal of interrogation methods, taking our Nation down a path that we have chastised so many other countries for following. Yesterday in the Senate, my friend and New York delegation colleague, Senator Hillary Clinton, told a story about our country's first great military leader, a man who went on to become our first great political leader. On Christmas Day in 1776, in the midst of the Revolutionary War, General George Washington launched a daring raid that culminated in the capture of numerous Hessian soldiers. They were foreign mercenaries known for their brutality and who were fighting for the British. Despite what they had done to American soldiers, he ordered his men to treat them humanely. He said, ``Let them have not reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army.'' George Washington, the man who so influenced our national consciousness, who was so deeply responsible for who we are as a people, wanted the world to know that the new American Army did not abuse its prisoners of war. He also wanted to do whatever he could to win the hearts and minds of the Hessians. If even one came to see the virtue of America and lay down his arms, that would be a victory in the fight for our Nation's freedom and independence. Mr. Speaker, I think we have heard some of the best arguments against this bill from General Washington's successors: the men and women who have held top positions of responsibility in our Armed Forces. They have told us over and over again that if we ignore our country's longstanding commitment to the rules of war and international treaties like the Geneva Conventions, we will be putting our own soldiers and our own Nation at risk. Opening the door to detainee abuse and indefinite detention will make our soldiers more likely to be tortured and dehumanized so that they fall into enemy hands, and that means our own country will be less safe. A world based on the rule of law is more safe, not less safe, than a world based on power alone. To argue that those who oppose this detainee bill want to let terrorists roam free is both wrong and illogical. Suspected terrorists who have evidence against them will be convicted by courts of law. They will stay behind bars. At the same time, a steadfast commitment to due process will both defend our most cherished freedoms and free the innocent from unwarranted punishment. Doing so will protect our liberty and deprive our enemies of one of the main tools that they are using to recruit their new followers. We will show the world that the United States practices what it preaches about freedom and democracy and human dignity. We will bring others over to our side and make them less likely to take up arms against us. There is a reason why Colin Powell recently warned us that the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight on terrorism. He said it because it is true and because such a reality is a truly dangerous one. What is more, humane interrogation methods will prevent us from chasing after ghosts, from following the fleeting leads of false confessions born not from knowledge but from desperation. General Washington saw the value of a world based on law and principle over 200 years ago, and he saw it at a time when his fledgling Nation was truly in a fight for its very survival. And for us to pass a bill today that abandons some of the most fundamental principles of the civilization that we have sworn to defend would be an insult to all those who came before us, to all those who fought and struggled so that we could live free. Mr. Speaker, it is such a respect for law and eternal principles that this administration and far too many in this Republican leadership lack. The proof lies in a provision of this bill which has received so little notice it is shameful but that is profoundly revealing about its true nature. Ten years ago Congress passed a law called the War Crimes Act. Under that bill violating the Geneva Conventions is a crime in the United States. The administration argued that the Convention does not apply to enemy combatants, a term of its own invention. But the Supreme Court disagreed. In other words, the administration officials who have spent the last 5 years creating and directing our torture policy, as well as the government employees who have carried it out, could be liable for criminal prosecution for violating the War Crimes Act. And so they have decided in this bill to go back in time to 1997 and to rewrite the War Crimes Act to make their actions legal. And that is exactly what this bill does. To call this strategy cynical and self- serving, Mr. Speaker, is an understatement. When President Bush signs this bill, he will be signing away any responsibility for the potentially criminal policies that he and those in his administration have enacted during the past 5 years. When he signs this bill, he will be signing a pardon for himself and for all other architects of these disastrous, self-defeating, and immoral policies. But we have a choice here today. We can take a principled stand on behalf of the principles that make us great. We can choose to reject a future in which America can no longer honestly claim that it respects human rights, a future in which our own shortsighted, selfish, and immoral retreat into fear and suspicion has left us less safe and more isolated than ever before. We can choose to embrace our true nature and, in so doing, take a great step toward the creation of a world led by law and free from fear. It is our choice, Mr. Speaker. And I implore all of my friends in this body, please, let us today make the right one. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.