Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have no further requests for time, and I will close with an urge to my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule as a protest against not being able to raise the minimum wage. The idea that if we were to raise that 50 cents would cause such inflationary spirals in this country is so laughable that I am surprised anybody would even try to contemplate such a thing, or that in order to have to pay somebody an extra dollar an hour you would go out and buy a many thousand dollar machine. I cannot imagine any businessperson in the country to be that incredibly dumb. The fact of the matter is that we simply have got our foot on the necks of those people, and we cannot worry about them because the concerns of this Congress are for the rich and not for those who are struggling to make it. Even if there are young people trying to pay their way through college, for heaven's sake, give them a better break. The college tuition costs have gone up higher than almost any other thing in the country. That is one of the reasons it always breaks my heart on the death rate and wounding rate in Iraq, because so many of the young and men and women who went into the Guard and Reserve did so in order to be able to get an education. I think it is deplorable that this country cannot provide better education opportunities for its students without having them to put their lives on the line, but that is the circumstances we find ourselves in.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 seconds simply to say that the workers who need it most, 57 percent of the benefits of the wage increase will go to families with working adults in the bottom 40 percent of the income scale. It is true that people are trying to raise families on the minimum wage. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam 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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule provides that immediately after the House adopts the rule for the Paris Hilton bill, it will bring H.R. 2429 to the floor for an up-or-down vote. The bill will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour after 2 years. Mr. Speaker, it is time we started to help workers, instead of making the very rich in this Nation richer. And I want us to stop this nonsense that we are doing this for poor farmers. Nobody can come up with a name of a poor farmer. And we will ask the State of Indiana to give us a list of all those people who went under because of this tax. But we are considering another massive tax cut for our Nation's wealthiest. And to make matters worse, it is done the same week that the leadership of the House blocked legislation to increase the minimum wage for those who need the help the most. America's low-income workers need our help, but millionaires don't. We are losing our middle class. One of the best things we can do to help the low- and moderate-income families is to increase the minimum wage. It has been, as I said, a decade since it was voted to increase, and it was signed in law in 1996 with the last increase in 1997. After adjusting for inflation, the value of the minimum wage is at its lowest level since 1955. The purchasing power of the 1997 increase has eroded since then by 20 percent. A full-time minimum-wage earner working 40 hours a week makes $10,700 annually, an amount that is $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of three. The minimum wage now equals only 31 percent of the average wage for the private sector and the nonsupervisory workers, and that is the lowest share since the end of World War II. Mr. Speaker, can there possibly be any doubt that we are long overdue for another increase in the minimum wage? Leadership in this House has managed to implement numerous tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, including this billion dollar budget buster that we are considering today, but turns its back on those who work the hardest and are paid the least, those with no lobbyists, those who struggle to make ends meet every day. They don't have any lobbyists but us on their side. And I think it is time for Congress to step up to the plate and help those who need it most, not just those with the fattest bank accounts. And those who say an increase in the minimum wage will hurt business and economy are plain wrong, and facts argue just the opposite. So I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can help 7 million-plus American workers who will directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. And let me close by saying this is a very sad day because I believe this bill will pass. And I think this Congress of the United States will go on record as saying that we don't care about those people other than those who can hire the lobbyists and do everything that they want to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Ms. Brown.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I too have no further requests for time, so I will close. Mr. Speaker, I think what we ought to call this tax is the Paris Hilton tax. Paris Hilton, once this is passed, will be able to jetset again around the world buying herself more bling and more little dogs to carry around in her purse, and probably never work a day in her life. But while we are helping Paris with her problems, I think we need to think about the poorest among us, those people working two and three minimum-wage jobs every single day simply to try to keep themselves alive and that we have turned our backs on now for over a decade. So I urge all Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and allow the House to vote on the Miller-Owens bill to increase the Federal minimum wage for the first time in almost 10 years. The bill is identical to the minimum-wage language included in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill that was supposed to come to the floor this week, but was pulled by the leadership. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who was denied an amendment in the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Republican colleagues for providing the American people with the clearest possible demonstration of just how stark the differences are between the priorities of our Nation's two major parties. We have before us a bill whose sole purpose, the sole purpose is to funnel as much as $1 trillion over the next decade to a mere handful of our Nation's richest families. It is telling that Republican leadership is so committed and so determined to see this legislation through that it called an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee last night to make sure it reached the floor this morning, even though it will not take effect for 4 years. Now, let me tell you a bill that will expire is the Voting Rights Act, but we could not deal with that. This is the Republican definition of a national emergency, to get as much money as we can to the richest among us. It is not unprecedented national debt. That does not bother them. The struggling middle class? No. Or the fact that tens of millions of Americans scrape by from paycheck to paycheck, scrape by without health insurance, without help and, in many cases, without hope. To get this bill to where it is today, the Republicans had to ignore the needs of virtually every American citizen. The repeal of the estate tax will benefit less than 1 percent of the people in this country, but those few individuals that it helps will profit handsomely. Take Lee Raymond, the former CEO of ExxonMobil, who recently secured a retirement package worth almost $400 million, and who last year made more in a single day, probably in a single hour, than the average American family makes in an entire year. Lee stands to gain up to $211 million from this legislation that he will not pay taxes on. President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the officers of the Cabinet will not do so badly either. Together they will pocket anywhere from $91 million to $344 million. Just the Cabinet. People like these are among the three-tenths of 1 percent of superrich Americans who pay an estate tax, and that is it. The other 99.7 percent do not see a dime. Such an astonishingly lopsided outcome is to be expected when we realize who is actually behind this bill. A recent report from the group Public Citizenry revealed that 18 of the richest families in America, families worth a combined total of $185 billion, have been conducting a concerted and clandestine campaign on its behalf for a decade. We are talking about families that are heirs to the fortunes of families like Wal-Mart, Campbell's Soup and Mars, Incorporated. These 18 families, Mr. Speaker, have spent $490 million in the last decade in their effort to pass this bill. Imagine that, $490 million to lobbyists, and if it does pass, their investment will certainly have been worth it because over $70 billion will be headed their way. For years, supporters of a repeal of the estate tax have claimed that the people they really want to help are America's small businesses and farmers. Well, as is so often the case, that is a lie. Small business families rarely, if ever, pay estate taxes, and the American Farm Bureau, one of the leading proponents of this repeal, has failed to provide even one legitimate example of a family that lost its farm because of estate tax requirements. This is the kind of government Republicans have used their time and power to give us, Mr. Speaker. Multibillionaires say, jump, and the majority says, how high? Bills like this are so outlandish and so entirely justifiable, they would be comical if they were not an assault on the strength of our Union, which is, I might remind everyone, at war. Consider the opportunity cost of this bill. For the up to $1 trillion Federal that this leadership plans to give away, we could fully insure every single American who does not have health insurance, all 44 million of them. Think of that. We could fully fund the Medicare part D prescription plan. We could pay for all military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and then we could use the money left over from that to fully fund No Child Left Behind, and, finally, give every child in America the education the President promised when he took office. The sad thing is that what we have today is exactly the kind of legislation Americans should expect the majority, whose leader has bragged about never having voted for an increase in the minimum in his 25 years in politics, that is what we should expect from a party that would not allow the Congress to adjust the minimum wage for inflation, a party that would have, over the decades, permitted it to remain at the pathetic $3.35 an hour. I would challenge my friends on the other side of the aisle to try surviving on that one for a month, Mr. Speaker, and think about the trillionaires who are going to say this is chump change to them, and they do not care. But the notion that they would say if taking away the taxes of the very rich would stimulate the economy, while increasing the pay of the weakest among us, the people who are least paid, will hurt the economy, is an absurdity on its face. Mr. Speaker, this is a telling moment for this country. It is a moment in which this leadership clearly demonstrates once and for all what its priorities are. It is making the decision that educating our children is not worth the investment, that ensuring our parents and grandparents receive the prescription drugs they need is not worth the investment; that fixing our broken health insurance system is not worth the investment; that curbing our crushing national debt is not worth the investment; but investing in the ultrarich is worth every single dime that can be squeezed out of the Federal Treasury. The bill embodies the very definition of ``America for Sale.'' Today's Republicans are alone in this belief, Mr. Speaker. Great leaders throughout the history of our Nation have understood that our collective strength lies in our support for the working and the middle class. They have understood that the extreme polarization of wealth this majority is ushering in is fundamentally bad for America, and among those who believe that are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. I implore my friends on the other side of the aisle, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our future, for the sake of our military, for the sake of common decency, defeat this bill and begin again to work for the people of this Nation and not against them. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor three champions of medical research and health care innovation in this country, Doctors William Bonnez, Richard Reichman and Robert Rose, virologists in the Infectious Diseases Division of the Department of Medicine at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC). The URMC has a long legacy of medical innovation and groundbreaking research. These three doctors have continued that tradition with their research into the human papillomavirus (HPV), laying the groundwork for the recent FDA approval of a cervical cancer vaccine that will protect against two of the most prevalent cancer-causing strains of HPV. After years of research and clinical trials during the 1990s, Doctors Bonnez, Reichman, and Rose were able to create a ``virus-like particle'' that imitated the real papillomavirus. Though it was not infectious, the virus-like particle induced the immune system to respond as if a real virus were launching an attack. This breakthrough at the URMC, created the foundation for other scientists to build upon. The fruits of URMCs basic research were reaped on June 8, 2006, when the Food and Drug Administration approved Gardasil, the vaccine designed to block strains of the sexually transmitted HPV known to cause 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. Every year approximately 5.5 million people contract sexually transmitted HPV infections from their partners. In fact, three out of every four sexually active people will get an HPV infection at some point during their lifetime. In some age groups, such as sexually active men and women under the age of 30, it is estimated that 40 percent of people are currently infected. HPV causes about 9,700 new cases of cervical cancer in women annually. In addition, each year, cervical cancer kills nearly 4,000 women in the U.S. and more than 288,000 women worldwide. Through the work of Doctors Bonnez, Reichman, Rose and others, we will see these statistics drop dramatically in the years ahead, and millions of lives worldwide will be saved. As a microbiologist I understand the critical importance of developing new vaccines to fight the diseases that plague our Nation and countries around the world. And when there are major medical breakthroughs, like the approval of Gardisil, we should celebrate the years of basic research that went into development of this life saving vaccine. That is why it gives me great pleasure to come before the House of Representatives to recognize and pay tribute to the tireless efforts made by three doctors--William Bonnez, Richard Reichman and Robert Rose--at URMC.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the accomplishments of James (Jim) Williams, Director of the Department of Homeland Security's US-VISIT program. After a strong tenure heading up US-VISIT, Jim has agreed to take on new challenges as Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service in the General Services Administration. Jim is a selfless public servant, and has been an effective leader at the Department of Homeland Security. US-VISIT is a continuum of security measures that keep America's doors open and our Nation secure. US-VISIT begins overseas, at the U.S. consular offices issuing visas, where visitors' biometrics are collected and checked against a database of known criminals and suspected terrorists. When the visitor arrives at the port of entry, US-VISIT use the same biometrics to verify the person at the port is the same person who received the visa. Jim understands that strong security measures, when done right, keep the Nation secure and open to legitimate travelers and tourists. He has had the vision and follow-through to oversee the installation of biometric entry procedures at 154 land border ports of entry and at airports and seaports with international arrivals. In turn, US-VISIT has processed nearly 60 million visitors to date, and denied entry to more than 1,100 criminals and immigration violators. At the same time, US-VISIT has not affected wait times at the border and in some instances has actually reduced inspection times. These accomplishments have been appropriately recognized by the ten members of the 9/11 Commission, who gave US-VISIT the highest grade on their final report card. Thanks in large part to Jim and the team he has assembled, we now have 21st century tools to address our emerging security challenges. These tools are allowing the U.S. to deal more effectively with threats of terrorism, while keeping us competitive in the global economy. I know that Jim will be missed at US-VISIT. I have enjoyed working with him over the past 2 years, and would like to wish him well as he takes on new challenges at the General Services Administration.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, about two centuries ago, almost, this country was facing a war that devastated it for generations. The first day, the first battle was going to be at Bull Run, not far from here in Washington, and I am sure that some Members of Congress and many other citizens of Washington packed up lunches, got in their horse and buggy, and went out to watch the fight. Suddenly, they found the Union forces were being routed, bloodied, and were told to run for their lives. Today, our brave Union forces are again in the field, are suffering great casualties, and what is happening today when we finally get around to talking about Iraq 4 years after it happened? We are going to have a picnic. So later today everybody will stop and go to the White House and discuss the picnic. There is something so surreal and Alice in Wonderland about all the things that have been going on around here, but let me tell you of a different time. In 1991, leading up to the first Gulf War, this Congress had a real debate about that conflict, one that was said to be one of the best of the 20th century, because in 1991 the House was a real deliberative body. We had three resolutions to consider; actually, the minority resolution, there were two Democrats and one minority leader resolution, was the one that passed in a Democrat Congress, and every Member who wanted it had 5 minutes to speak their mind. We debated for 20 hours on that, and it was a wonderful time because we all took part in something we cared so deeply about. Contrast that with what this Republican leadership is giving us now, a day not about policy or progress but about politics and posturing. It is a day designed to provide the majority with a chance to make cheap political attacks against Democrats in anticipation of upcoming mid- term elections at a time when Americans and Iraqis are giving their lives in one of the most brutal wars of our time. Yesterday, an internal Republican memo was circulated outlining the party's plan of attack for today. It instructs Republicans to paint a picture of ``A Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismissed the challenges America faces in a post-9/11 world.'' We are going to hear a lot of that empty propaganda today, I am absolutely sure. But how will that divisive rhetoric help our soldiers abroad, Mr. Speaker? What can it possibly have to do with the war we are fighting? If this memo didn't show us the real motivations behind today, last night's meeting of the Rules Committee certainly did. My fellow Democrats and I had a simple request at the meeting. We asked for the rule to be an open one. An open rule would have given any Member on any side of the House who wanted to speak a chance to do so. And what is more, an open rule would have permitted Members from both sides of the aisle to present amendments to the resolution so that we could do more than just talk, so that we could try to improve the flawed policies being pursued in Iraq. But the committee gave us a closed rule. Not one person here from either party will be able to amend this resolution. Now, why would the Republicans do this? Could it be because they are not interested in addressing the serious questions in a forthright way? There are certainly problems to be addressed. Let me give you one example. Yesterday, I joined a group of Democrats repeating our call for the creation of a Truman Commission to oversee the Iraqi reconstruction. Rampant construction and incompetent Iraq contracting have prolonged our mission there and cost lives, with 75 percent of oil and gas and 50 percent of electricity projects remaining unfinished. The GAO reports that $7 billion in funds have simply been lost. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Stuart Bowen, is investigating 72 cases of alleged fraud. Have Republicans dealt with these problems? They have not. They recently elected to block $1.9 billion in new reconstruction funds from being examined. They won't let Mr. Bowen and his team look at that, because he was doing the job too well. So they took the jurisdiction pretty much away from him. I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that today, instead of proposing serious solutions to the problems we are facing, we are being offered a ``yes or no'' vote on a resolution drowning in patriotic rhetoric and offering us an open-ended fight against an open-ended enemy. Debate is about choice, but there is no choice here today. What we have is less like our democracy and more like a Soviet election. Americans expect real debate in their Congress. They do not expect their representatives to passively acquiesce to the assertions of a meaningless resolution based on White House talking points. And they expect their elected officials to have a meaningful discussion on the future course of the greatest challenge to our Nation in a generation. My friends on both sides of the aisle, we can stop this sham in its tracks by voting ``no'' on this rule. I implore every Member from both parties to realize what is at stake here. If you support the rule, you are saying you don't believe our troops and their families deserve a serious debate on the war. You are saying you don't think the massive troubles of the Iraqi people deserve more than a cursory glance. And you are saying you don't think this Congress should be anything more than the President's rubber stamp. What you are saying is that this war is just a political tool to be used at elections. My fellow Democrats and I have said a lot about the death of democracy in this House. Over the course of the 109th Congress, of 144 different rules presented by this Republican Party, only one rule that was not an appropriations measure has been made open for debate and amendable by this leadership. One. And if there was ever a rule that should be open, if there was ever a day in which democracy should breathe freely in these halls, even if just for one day, it is this rule and it should be this day. Your vote on this rule isn't about how you voted on the war, it is about respecting the troops. It is about respecting democracy. How can we ask the fine young men and women of our Armed Forces to die so that Iraqis can have democracy and debate when we are systematically undermining those same principles here? It is unconscionable. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, I implore every Member, everyone to take a stand for the values of democracy and the values of this Nation and vote please against this rule. Defeating this rule will show our troops that we have enough respect for them in this House to have a real debate on their lives and future and of the future of the Nation that we love.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the DeLauro-Berry- Slaughter Amendment. This amendment will prevent new contracts funded under this bill from being awarded to corporations that set up offshore tax havens. If a corporation is located in the U.S., and conducts most of its business in the U.S., and employs most of its workforce in the U.S., then it should not be allowed to avoid its tax obligations by simply opening a post office box in the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. Corporate expatriates cost the United States approximately 5 billion dollars a year in tax revenue. Yet they are expected to reap 1 billion dollars annually in federal contracts during each of the next 5 to 10 years. Mr. Chairman, what kind of message are we sending to Americans that work hard and pay their taxes when corporate expatriates are rewarded for their deliberate and shameless tax evasion with millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded federal contracts? When we allow corporations to gain an unfair competitive advantage in the Federal marketplace by relocating overseas to skirt tax obligations, what are we telling small business owners who play by the rules? Corporate expatriates hurt honest U.S. taxpayers by shifting more of the tax burden onto their shoulders. And they siphon funds from the Federal budget that are desperately needed for essential government services. To put this in perspective, consider that today we will debate an appropriations bill that slashes funding for affordable housing programs. Last week, we voted on a bill that cut homeland security grants. And just a few weeks ago we approved a budget that guts critical domestic programs, such as education, veterans' health care, public health, environmental protection, and services for families and communities--just to name a few recent acts of this House. We were told these cuts were necessary--that we just didn't have the money to keep funding these efforts. And yet, at the same time, billions of dollars are being lost to dishonest corporations. We must stop hard-earned American tax dollars from lining the pockets of companies that exploit tax loopholes. It is time to send the clear message that if you want to do business with the U.S. Government; you must play by the rules. This amendment will help guarantee that only responsible companies can benefit from Federal contracts. It is pro-business . . . it is pro-consumer . . . and it is pro- American. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the DeLauro-Berry- Slaughter amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Slaughter-Velazquez-Terry amendment to restore funding to HUD's critically important Office of Lead Hazard Control. This funding is necessary if we ever hope to eradicate childhood lead poisoning by 2010, a imperative national goal. HUD's Office of Lead Hazard Control provides grants to cities and States working to correct serious lead hazards in low income and high-risk homes. The grants are targeted to help the most vulnerable of our citizens, children under the age of 6. Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated problem. Lead poisoning affects nearly 434,000 American children each year between the ages of 1 and 5, and it is unacceptable. High blood levels in children have been linked to asthma, brain damage, hearing loss, hyperactivity and environmental delays. We must not let that happen to our children. In extreme cases, exposure to lead has caused seizures, comas and death. In my district alone, over 2,000 children fall victim to lead poisoning each year. Over 50 percent of the homes in Niagara and Erie Counties were built before 1950 and are likely to contain lead paint. In Erie County, 1,000 children will be found to have unsafe lead levels. A $1.5 million lead hazard control grant that went to the City of Buffalo has been essential in local efforts to protect the children from lead poisoning. The City of Rochester is among the top 10 U.S. cities with the worst lead paint problems. In 2004, 900 children in Monroe County were exposed to lead poisoning. To combat the problem, Monroe County and the City of Rochester have worked together using funding from HUD's lead hazard control grant to make nearly 300 housing units lead free and safe for children. Lead hazard control grants work, but they are threatened by a lack of funding. In fiscal year 2006, the Office of Lead Hazard Control received $1.548 million, and that is $16 million less than in 2005. The 2007 appropriations bill makes it worse and cuts it more by $35 million. The need far outpaces the resources and slashing the funding will significantly jeopardize the progress we have made. I urge Members to support the Slaughter-Velazquez-Terry amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a favor. Mr. Terry and I want to split this 5 minutes exactly in half, and so if you would be kind enough to tell me when my time is up.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to Mr. Terry.