Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services and a hero of mine.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, every day the thousands of men and women who are based in the United States and elsewhere protect our borders, defend our national security, and ensure our peace of mind. Many of them have been deployed around the world, to Iraq and elsewhere. They have performed their duties with honor and I want them to know that we have the highest regard and respect for them. The men and women of our Armed Forces have entered into a sacred covenant with this Nation. They have pledged to place their lives on the line for us, and in return, we have promised to give them the tools they need to fulfill their promise and the respect worthy of someone willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for this country. The underlying legislation for this rule represents the embodiment of our commitment to the troops, and while I know the overall bill enjoys bipartisan support, including mine, I must point out that this morning I believe the leadership of this body has betrayed that covenant. It seems that just 1 week after passing a so-called reform bill with no teeth, the majority is back to their same old tricks, arrogantly preventing debate and consideration of critical measures that improve the bill and the lives of the people serving this Nation. They even prevented the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, from offering an amendment to his own defense bill. The Skelton amendment would have prevented the copays for medication for our military and their families from going up, which they will if this bill is passed without the Skelton amendment, but the Republican leadership refused to make it in order. For those Americans who are not familiar with the Rules Committee, and I expect that is most of them, and how it works, what that effectively means is that a select few in the Republican leadership have decided what the entire Congress and the entire Nation and what the men and women in uniform will get. They decided that on their own, without even a vote on the House floor, without the debate and consideration of this full body. Given the rhetoric we hear on this floor every day about the troops and how important they are, I feel compelled to ask my friends in the majority to justify how in less than 24 hours after they approved $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, how they could refuse to allow us to even consider a measure to improve the health care of our troops and their families. We owe our troops more respect than this. It is for similar reasons that many of my Democratic colleagues and I are concerned with section 590 of this bill. The section removes a long-standing requirement in our military code that requires chaplains to exhibit a level of tolerance, compassion and understanding towards the religious diversity of the soldiers to whom they administer counsel. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? We are taking away the idea that they should serve with tolerance, compassion and understanding; it was too inflammatory. I should say, Mr. Speaker, that I am confident our chaplains have both the sense and the respect for their fellow soldiers to do this and to do it willingly. But why would this majority lower that standard and expect anything less from our chaplains, as they clearly do? We have soldiers of every faith and no faith fighting for us under the American flag. They all deserve our respect, particularly in moments of great despair or need. Is this majority so arrogant as to suggest that they should micromanage how a chaplain administers faith on a battlefield? I can think of few things more offensive or absurd. My friend, Mr. Israel, offered an amendment to the bill that would have corrected the problem, restoring the requirement that all chaplains demonstrate sensitivity, respect and tolerance, but Mr. Israel's amendment was tossed out the window, along with common sense on this issue. It has been forbidden by the leadership from even being considered on the floor today. As was an amendment from Representatives Tierney and Leach which would have established a Truman-like commission, which we have been trying for 2 years to do, one designed to ferret out corruption and incompetence in our military contracting; and for some reason, the majority of this House does not want to look where all that money is missing in Iraq. Despite the fact that the same measure has passed the House numerous times, and despite the fact that it is the clear will of this body that this commission be created and despite the fact that the word ``incompetence'' has become the most apt description of this administration, a select few in this leadership made these decisions for all of us that we would not even consider that amendment today, an amendment which, were it enacted, would allow us to go looking for the $9 billion in taxpayer money that this administration has literally lost in the war in Iraq. There are many more amendments to this bill that the leadership refused to allow us to consider today, and because they are making decisions for all of us and for the American people without their consent, they decided we would not be allowed to consider Mr. Markey's amendment which would prevent your tax dollars from being used to torture people in the name of the United States of America. I know that makes all of us proud that we are saying that we are going to go ahead and allow torture. I never thought I would see the day in this country when we would compromise our core values so horribly, and to do so without our consent is unconscionable. The question my fellow Americans should be asking themselves is ``why.'' Why will the Republican leadership not allow the free flow of ideas that are supposed to be the hallmark of our government? I think we are all beginning to see how the rigidity of their agenda, the narrow focus of their concern and their obsession with control are not only damaging their own political future, but are deeply damaging the Nation. Even though the complicated challenges we face no longer seem to fit the Republicans' narrow set of solutions, they march onward in lockstep with their unyielding and ineffective agenda, but reality seems to be playing out much differently than their program allows for. Tax cuts for the rich cannot save the world and it cannot save Americans. Preventing Americans from talking about an idea does not make it go away, and the ends do not always justify the means. Democrats and the rest of America have already opened their eyes to these realities. Why does the Republican leadership not open theirs? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Skelton amendment on prescription drug copayments for members of the military and their families. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night, but was defeated on a 4-8 straight party line vote. 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 have no further requests for time. May I inquire if my colleague has more?

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel). Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a Vietnam veteran and Purple Heart recipient. (Mr. THOMPSON of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take just a moment to say to my friend from Oklahoma that when the Democrats were in charge here we would take up to 2 weeks in the Rules Committee looking at the defense bill which was almost always open because we all recognized the importance and that is where we spend the money. We didn't rush bills out the door in those days, and I long for them. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague's remarks, he certainly made it clear how proud he was of the bipartisanship in that committee. And so should we all be. But all bipartisanship ended when this came to the Rules Committee. Of course it was an overwhelming vote. They have nine members, we have four. The tragedy here is that major amendments that Democrats wanted were not allowed to be heard today, very important things that we want to do. For example, the ranking member, Mr. Skelton, was denied an amendment. The minority whip, Mr. Hoyer, was denied an amendment. And so, Mr. Speaker, through you, I want to ask Mr. Cole if he will grant me a unanimous consent request so that I can amend H. Res. 811 and add several important Democratic amendments not allowed under this restrictive rule. Mr. Speaker, as you know, when Speaker Hastert was in the chair, he said by unanimous consent that we can easily do this. The amendments we want to add back are: A Skelton amendment that helps military families with prescription drug costs; an Israel amendment that calls for religious sensitivity by our military chaplains; an important Hoyer amendment on alternative energy; a Capps amendment to be able to defend her district against a nongermane provision in the bill; and a McGovern amendment to close down the School of the Americas. I ask if he will yield me that time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Then because of the unfairness of this and the importance of this, and because this country is at war, and because you have shut out major debate on this bill, I move the House do now adjourn.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me first say something about the rising standard of living in America. We have lost over a million manufacturing jobs that were paying good wages with good futures, and many people employed in those jobs, lucky enough to find a second job, found on average they are making $9,000 less a year, plus little or no benefits. There is no way in the world that can ever translate out to other than a falling of the standard of living in America. Sure, it is better for the guy who retired from Exxon with $400 million, but we are not in that class in Rochester. Mr. Speaker, leadership is about choices. When this Republican leadership allows a bill to be debated on this House floor, they are in effect telling the American people that this is the most important challenge we face in America today. Why? Because they have chosen this over everything else. I can tell you with certainty that if Democrats controlled the agenda in the House we would make different choices. Instead of passing yet another tax cut bill that benefits millionaires, billionaires and giant corporations, Democrats would be voting to raise the minimum wage. We would be leading the way to fix our broken health care system, or creating a comprehensive, consumer friendly energy policy. Today, Democrats would be passing legislation that would ensure a degree of accountability, transparency, integrity and competence in this government, all of which have been missing far too long. But today, for this leadership, none of these issues which affect the lives of hardworking Americans are as important as providing even more tax cuts for the super-rich, and indeed their record of failure on each of these items I have mentioned is a telling indicator of where their priorities really lie. There is a widely used saying in the business world that I think is particularly salient this morning. It says the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and each time expecting a different result. We have been down this road before and all one needs to do is look around to see exactly where it has taken us. For years this leadership has passed bills that have raised our deficits and increased our staggering debt. And while they give away big tax breaks for the wealthiest corporations in the world and provide more obscene tax relief for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, and the rest of America gets left behind holding the check, my friends on the other side will no doubt tell you that this will provide needed tax cuts for the working class and middle class, too. Isn't that what they always say? But the facts, as usual, tell us a different story. Under this legislation the middle income households receive an average cut of $20, which is less than half a tank of gas. According to the Brookings Institute which gives figures we use very often here, while 0.02 percent of the households, those with incomes over a million, would receive an average tax cut of $42,000, the bill represents a classic example of what economists call trickle-down economics. By cutting capital gains and dividend taxes and reducing the revenue that the Federal Government receives and redirecting it to the coffers of big business and the super-wealthy, the majority tells us they are going to spur investment and create more jobs. They told us the same thing in the 1980s, too, and it didn't work. Instead of investing that money in our economy, corporations and the super-rich sent our tax dollars overseas, along with our jobs. We ended up with out-of-control deficits and the largest debt in American history, superseded only by the debt we have today. Ironically, the very man who originally labeled trickle-down theory as ``voodoo economics,'' our current President's father, lost his own Presidency because of the stagnating economy and staggering debt that became the legacy of trickle-down economics in the 1980s. So why would they be proposing that failed policy once again? Today's Washington Post may have the answer. It described what has truly befallen this majority: a ``bankruptcy of ideas.'' With Republicans, it is the same story again and again no matter the results. What they have given us, Mr. Speaker, is a commitment to a legacy of failure. The only difference is today the American people's eyes are wide open.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 121, 122, 123, and 124. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 121, ``yea'' on rollcall vote 122, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 123, and ``no'' on rollcall vote 124. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the permanent Record immediately following these votes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes 125, 126, and 127. Had I been represent, I would have voted ``aye'' for 125, 126, and 127.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, there is no good reason for anybody to vote for this bill. As we said, practically every major newspaper and every good- government group has discredited it. And let me tell you what it does not do: It does nothing to prevent the abuses that regularly occur with conference reports, including the addition of secret, last-minute perks and protections for big business. It does nothing to stop the majority leadership from jamming massive conference reports through the House before the ink is dry and before Members read the bill. It does nothing to stop the majority from locking Democrats out of conference meetings and negotiations. It does nothing to stop the majority from repeatedly waiving the rules on every bill that comes to the House floor. It does nothing to stop the majority from shutting out Democrat amendments on the floor. It does nothing to curb the practice of holding votes open on the floor to change the outcome of a vote. It does nothing to keep lobbyists from writing major legislation behind closed doors. It does not ban gifts from lobbyists. It does not ban corporate travel. It does not stop or slow the revolving door. It does not do anything the majority says it does. Voting for this bill violates the core principles of the Democratic Party and everything we have fought for in this Congress. No Member of this House should vote for this bill. It is not just a bad bill. It is a dishonest bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on Judiciary. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I did have some speakers on the way, but at this moment, they are not on the floor, so I will reserve.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.