Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend this closed rule and allow the House to consider three critical amendments that were rejected by the Rules Committee last evening. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendments and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been standing on the floor of this House for years talking about this very issue. And thinking about what I have just heard: If a young girl 10 or 12 years old, as I understand it, was victimized by rape or incest, we should not help her to do something not to carry a child but to support her. I wish I had time to elaborate on that further. What kind of support do you give a 10-year-old pregnant girl? What do we do for her? But I rise today in strong opposition to this bill, because, once again, we are playing politics with women's lives. We could be spending this week before adjournment working to help Americans in real ways by raising the minimum wage, for example, or making higher education more accessible, or reducing the national debt. But, instead of doing that, this Congress could think of nothing better to do than to meddle with one of the most private decisions that women have to make in their lives. The Child Custody Protection Act is almost exactly the same as the bill we voted on earlier in the year, and I guess it was found to be such a crowd pleaser we would like an encore. That bill, like this one, was an invasion into the private lives of American families as well as an attack on the legal rights afforded to all women in this country. We do have legal rights as women. Not only will this bill fail to enhance the health of young women in America, it will fail to reduce the number of abortions that take place each year. It will force vulnerable young women to seek out illegal and unsafe venues for terminating pregnancies, and most of us in my generation know women who had to do that. Now, if we really wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies, in Congress, we could pass the Prevention First Act which is just lying around in limbo here. It would reduce the abortions by expanding teen education about preventing pregnancy and approve their access to contraception. And this bill is not going to do anything to promote healthy families. It will criminalize grandparents. Imagine sending Granny to jail. Other caregivers are also subject to great penalties, while letting the people who committed the real crime, the rapists, the person who committed incest, they go scot free, and they can even sue the girl. In all the years that I have spent working on behalf of women's health, I have never seen a single drop of evidence that supports this supposed epidemic we are going to talk about here today. There is no evidence that young women are being transported in great numbers across State lines for abortions. So why are we here? Why are we here? Because this is a crowd pleaser, as I said before. It is not about protecting young women. It is gaining political points. We have a duty in this body to maximize the freedom, the quality, and the rights of our citizens, the strands that form the fabric of our society. But to toss these fundamental rights away simply to score a few points at the polls is indefensible. We can do better. I urge all the Members to oppose this bill.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 482 on H. Res. 992, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``nay'' when I should have voted ``yea.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 456, I was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of giving a response, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so I can amend the rule to give the House an opportunity to vote today up or down on a comprehensive reform package. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. That will include the listing of the amendments at the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret why fewer than 30 percent of Americans approve of the job that Congress is doing. It is not hard to figure out why nearly 75 percent of Americans feel as though the country is headed in the wrong direction, and it is easy to see why so few citizens are confident that this government will turn things around. Our elected officials routinely abuse the public trust, promising one thing and delivering another. They intentionally disguise business as usual to look like positive reform, and Members of the House have ignored the rules written in the public interest, and have allowed the deliberative process at the heart of our democracy to be captured by special interests. The result has been a Congress where corrupt lobbyists write the bills, 15-minute votes are held open for 3 hours and entirely new legislation is crammed into acts in the dead of night. The American people know it, and they are tired of the old games. When finally faced with public awareness and anger over just how corrupt our House has become, Republicans promised a great deal. In fact, they opened 2006 with a flurry of promises. My good friend and colleague, David Dreier, the chairman of the Rules Committee and Republican ethics reform leader, had this to say on the floor in February, and I quote, ``We are committed to bold, strong, dynamic reforms for this institution,'' he said. Adding the quote, ``the Republican Party has stood for reform ever since I can remember.'' But since then, Mr. Speaker, very little of anything has come from my Republican friends, even though their party controls the House, the Senate and the White House. If they were interested in ethics reform, they would have passed it swiftly. Instead they seem here at the last throes simply determined to merely run out the clock on the issue of passing a few deceptive bills here and there while secretly hoping the whole subject would go away. We saw this strategy with the first ethics reform act passed by the House in February, which was a minor rules change that simply prevented former Members from using the House gym, as if that is the only place that dishonest business transpires in Washington. Then in May a broader Republican bill theoretically focused on preventing future lobbyist abuses was lambasted by commentators of all stripes for being what it was, a sham. It has been a history of deliberate inaction, Mr. Speaker, and the same story here today. As this legislative session comes to a close, it is truly shameful that bills like this one are all the House is going to be able to accomplish. Consider the context in which this bill comes to us. While my colleagues on the other side spent years railing against the evils of Congressional earmarks, they have been presiding over the greatest earmark explosion in American history. According to the Heritage Foundation, earmarks are appropriations bills that increased tenfold between 1995 and 2005. In the mid-1990s, they accounted for $10 billion in Federal spending. Today it is over $27 billion. Nonappropriation earmarks have skyrocketed as well. Last year's transportation reauthorization bill, for example, contains 6,371 earmarks, totaling $25 billion, including the ``Bridge to Nowhere.'' We cannot afford to keep spending in such an irresponsible way, Mr. Speaker. One look at our skyrocketing national deficit is proof enough of that. But this is about more than just debt, it is about the future of democracy itself. Unchecked earmarks, and many of them for relatives of the persons who wrote them, or for businesses that they own, are a cause of the culture of corruption that pervades Washington and undermines our democracy. They are routinely traded for political favors, exchanged for votes and used to benefit family members. They are, in the words of Representative Flake, the currency of corruption in Washington. Yet, my Republican friends have given us a bill today that is a nonresponse to the crucial issue, a deceptive bill that is riddled with loopholes. Just like the previous legislation, this is, once again, a sham. This measure is supposed to increase disclosure of which Members are behind which earmarks. But it is intentionally limited. It leaves numerous means by which Members can conceal their earmarks. The rules change proposed to the resolution applies only to reported bills, so a Member who wanted to avoid disclosing earmarks to the public could simply include them in the manager's amendment or bring the bill straight to the House floor without a committee markup, therefore, no identifiable earmarks. That is a loophole you could drive a truck through. If that is not bad enough, the bill defines many types of earmarks right out of existence. For example, spending on Federal entities can no longer be classified as an earmark under the bill. That would have allowed the infamous $200 million ``Bridge to Nowhere'' earmark that blew up in a scandal last year to avoid disclosure entirely. The $400 million Home Depot ceiling fan giveaway that we heard so much about would not have counted as a earmark either, just because the resolution did not include tariff and duty changes in its definition. Of course, this entire piece of legislation would expire in January. Let me make that point again. What we are doing here today, when this passes today, it is only good till the end of the year. How serious a bill is that? This is a deeply flawed solution to a serious problem, a temporary stopgap measure, and I think we won't be writing any more earmarks this year, which is designed to do little more than get the Republicans through the November elections. As always, there is an alternative. More than 6 months ago my Democrat colleagues and I offered a tough, commonsense report package that would have corrected many of the most rampant abuses plaguing Washington, abuses that have diverted the work being done here away from the good of the people and toward the wants of a few. Legislation I introduced on behalf of the Democratic leadership in May bans travel on corporate gifts, bans lobbyist gifts, slows down the revolving door between Capitol Hill and K Street, prohibits lobbyists writing the bills, addresses many of the broken procedures and rules here in this House. It focuses on earmarks, too, in a much more direct and systemic way than the bill before us does now. In fact, it requires Members to publicly disclose all district-specific earmark requests that they make on bills and conference reports. This past May I am proud to say that 16 Republicans joined with the Democrats in support of this bill. In the end, it failed the House by only two votes. It was deeply encouraging to see rank-and-file Republicans of conscience challenge their Republican Party's leadership, to see them back up their pledge to clean up the House with real action. They will have other chances to do it, too, because Democrats have not given up this fight. We have always prided ourselves on delivering what we have promised, and we are committed to eliminating the corruption that plagues our Congress today. We won't stop until we get there. Together, we will give the country a Congress they can be proud of again. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. If the gentleman will yield, and I will give him the extra time, but let me make clear that this amendment was submitted to the Rules Committee for consideration. The fact that you would not take it up is not the fault of Mr. Van Hollen.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House has promised for months it would enact comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform legislation in this Congress. We all know that it has not and most likely will not happen before the House adjourns for the mid-term elections in just 2 weeks. But we still have time and opportunity to do something today if we will defeat the previous question. The amendment provides that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up ethics and lobbying reform legislation that is identical to the motion to recommit that I offered this past May. That motion to recommit, which had bipartisan support, came within three votes of passing. This legislation, called the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act, is a truly comprehensive ethics and lobbying reform initiative. It takes a tough stand on a number of the problems that have led to the culture of corruption that has evolved in the 109th Congress. I urge all Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up legislation and give Members of this House the right to cast a vote for cleaning up the ethics problems that have plagued this institution for too long. Time is running out for the 109th Congress. If we do not act now, there will be no opportunity to show the American people that we are serious about reform. Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the rule for this piece of legislation that will only live for two more weeks. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui). (Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. The world knows who is doing the big spending. We have the worst deficit we have ever seen. And as far as stepping up to the plate, the Democrats never get a chance at bat. We have absolutely nothing we can do, all we can do is vote up or down. We don't know when the bills were written, we have no impact on them at all. As far as the deliberative body, it is all on your side. So I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 434 and 435. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 434 and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 435.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 426. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act and urge its passage before the August recess. Breast cancer is so pervasive that it touches every American family. The diagnosis of breast cancer is frightening enough not to have to fight the insurance companies, as has been said before. One in eight women is going to be diagnosed with breast cancer during her lifetime, and it remains the number one cause of death in women between the ages of 30 and 54. In my congressional district, there are almost 1,500 instances of breast cancer and nearly 300 women die every year. And rushing a woman through a hospital stay after a mastectomy and pressuring her to return to her normal life almost immediately hampers her recovery. That is why it is imperative that we pass the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act. We must also support research into better breast cancer detection methods. Mammographies, which is the only tool we have had for 40 years, miss too many women and cannot suffice as our gold standard. But instead of passing legislation to stop drive-through mastectomies or supporting funding increases for research and development, we have become a drive-through Congress, rushing to pass what is politically divisive. This bill deserves passage.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on July 20, 2006 and missed Rollcall vote 393. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' for 393.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and especially appreciate the good work that she and Mr. Castle have done. With the President's action today, and he always keeps his word, he condemned tens of millions of Americans and their families and everybody who loves them to suffer needlessly, and all the while they know their government, when given the opportunity to help, decided to do nothing. I remember this kind of mugwumpery before. I remember when organ transplants came about. Everybody said, oh, no, we can't do that. If God didn't want you to have a good liver, you can't get one from somebody else. The same thing with blood transfusions, all the way through. Why in the world do we always have such a know-nothing, antiscientific government body that tells our scientists what they can do and can't do? As one of the scientists in this House, I am appalled at the fact that my country is falling behind in scientific research. I am astonished that we are telling scientists what they can and cannot study. It bothers me that scientists in other countries don't want to come here to study anymore because of the way that this has happened. If we fail to override this veto tonight, we are putting this country back another 200 years. Perhaps not that much. But any of you who believe that voting for that one bill yesterday and wanting to vote for the second will cover you at home, let me tell you that is not true. Science knows better. Science will bear out that we do not have the lines we need for research, and you will pay the price, I hope, in November.