Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security and a victim himself.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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 yield myself such time as I may consume to note that we would be happy to come together if the Republicans will just tell the Democrats where the meeting is. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If it is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider an amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) to the emergency supplemental bill to reestablish the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a freestanding independent agency. An amendment would do a number of important things to fix the problems with FEMA. It will reestablish it as an independent agency, allow the director to report directly to the President, require the director to have emergency response experience, limit the director's term to 5 years, and establish a deputy director for disaster relief. Mr. Speaker, I know all of us in the House were truly stunned and horrified by the terrible and heartbreaking scenes from New Orleans and the other Gulf Coast States that unfolded last week. And to make matters even worse was the failure on the part of the White House and the lead Federal agency on disaster relief to take immediate action that might have saved hundreds of lives and alleviated the immense and immeasurable suffering that was inflicted on so many of our fellow Americans. Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not in any way prevent the House from considering and approving the desperately needed supplemental for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. We all agree hurricane relief must happen immediately and it will happen today, but a ``no'' vote will let us debate the serious and urgent matter regarding FEMA's future ability to respond immediately and responsibly to any disaster that occurs on our soil so that we may never see such a thing again as we have witnessed with FEMA's work. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, our thoughts and prayers go out to all those affected by the devastating destruction of Hurricane Katrina. I know that the American people are a generous people. I know that the men and women of this Nation feel the suffering of their fellow citizens, and will continue to stand with them in any way that they can. We are here today to discuss what our government must do in the wake of this disaster. The emergency appropriations bill set to be passed this afternoon is a step in the right direction. Everyone in this chamber realizes that more money--much more--will be needed in the days and months ahead. I'm confident that this Congress won't think twice about doing everything necessary to meet the critical needs of the desperate citizens in the affected regions of our country. The shock and grief which has rightly motivated this degree of Federal support is, however, already giving way to anger. Over the past 4 years, a great portion of our national discourse has focused on preparedness. Members of Congress have created new government entities, spent billions upon billions of dollars on them, and spoken at great length about the need for our country to be perpetually vigilant and always ready to respond to any disaster which could befall it. It is therefore not surprising that the loss of life produced by this hurricane--perhaps four times as great as the human cost of September 11, 2001--has incensed our citizens and shocked observers around the world. It has revealed that we are still unable to respond to homeland disasters in the fast and aggressive manner required. But as is often the case, what has happened in the Gulf States has also revealed what can only be described as a skewed set of national priorities. Simply put, this was a tragedy which didn't have to happen. People at all levels of government have known for years that New Orleans was a greatly vulnerable city. In fact, in 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency produced a list of the worst disasters which could confront our country. A hurricane striking New Orleans was at the top of that list. And so, it would be reasonable to expect that during the years leading up to this past week, local, State, and Federal Governments would have been doing everything within their power to prepare a complete and carefully planned strategy for how to deal with the aftermath of such an event. They didn't. It was obvious that we still are not ready to evacuate a large number of people from their homes to safety quickly and effectively. This failing is a danger to all Americans, and must be corrected immediately. But what is worse, our government spent the last few years actually undermining our readiness for disaster prevention in New Orleans and the surrounding region. Federal funds for flood control projects in that city have faced massive recent budget cuts. To cite but one example: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has so valiantly struggled against the rising floodwaters this week, had to struggle previously against an 80 percent cut of its funding for New Orleans in 2004. Predictably, one of the major motivators of cuts like these was the spiraling costs of American military operations in Iraq, which continue to siphon off tens of billions of dollars from domestic programs. The natural defenses of New Orleans faced an assault as well. In 2003, the current Administration reversed a previous commitment to defending coastal wetlands which would have helped to mitigate the effect of storms on the Gulf coast. Instead, the areas were opened up for rapid development. Nor were the people of the region given the tools they needed for survival. Poverty in America has been increasing year after year. Now, 12.7 percent of our population lives in poverty--that's four million more people than in 2001. As is overwhelmingly obvious, those damaged the most by Hurricane Katrina were some of our country's poorest citizens. Before the storm hit, they were out of direct communication with authorities. They had no means to evacuate themselves or their families. And during the critical hours when wealthier residents were fleeing, the poorest were left alone to fend for themselves. It is true that the devastation vested upon New Orleans and the Gulf region was the product of an act of nature. But its severity was greatly exacerbated by a combination of a lack of vision by our leaders and a failure to properly prioritize our Nation's energies and resources. Despite all the talk to the contrary, our government has viewed elective foreign wars as more important than having a real system in place here at home which can respond to any contingency. It hasn't seriously worked to address the poverty which makes millions of people all the more vulnerable to disasters. And it has seen commercial activity as simply being more valuable than defending the naturally existent barriers to disaster which we should be perfectly willing to save. If anything positive can come from this, I hope it's a wake up call. This week, our failures had horrific consequences for millions of people, and they were especially devastating for just those men and women our society should be focused on the most: the poor, the elderly, the sick, the needy, the displaced, and the homeless. We must meet these serious problems head on and work to solve them. Our errors should not be covered up with political grand standing and slaps on the back. This failure must not be swept under the rug. If we don't learn from this horrible, horrible mistake, I fear we will repeat it, at a new point in time, and at a new place on the map. This Congress must do what is right for the people of this Nation. They will be watching.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule before us this morning because, as was pointed out yesterday, the Republican leadership, in a clear attempt to circumvent the democratic process, tried to sneak the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act through the House under suspension of the House rules. Now, suspension rules are supposed to be reserved for noncontroversial measures. They are most often employed for renaming post offices and honoring sports teams, but not for bills which attempt to alter America's trade policy. But this leadership wanted to force this bill through the House without a proper hearing in the committee, without the appropriate debate, and without any opportunity for amendment or improvement. Fortunately for all Americans, that plot failed, and the measure was defeated on the floor. But to no one's surprise, they are back at it again this morning. The leadership once more has shut the door on the delivery of democracy by providing just 1 hour of debate on this measure. And more importantly, on a party-line vote, the Republicans voted to prevent any amendment by any Member of Congress from even being considered on the House floor today which would strengthen this bill. That means they want all 435 Members of the House to accept the leadership's version of the bill; no changes, no arguments, no additions, no recommendations for improvement, just yes or no. This is like being given an opportunity to vote in an election with only one candidate on the ballot. It is a stretch to call that democracy. The question is what is the House leadership afraid of? They do not want the membership of the body to have an opportunity to strengthen trade policies for American companies. This China trade bill is merely a public relations effort, and it is part of a last-ditch attempt to pick up votes for CAFTA which will come up later today, and nothing more. It has no teeth, and that is exactly how the majority wants it: Long on rhetoric and short on substance. Even though it is called the United States Trade Rights Enforcement Act, the bill provides little for those concerned about the ballooning trade deficit with the China and the destruction of U.S. jobs. It fails to include real solutions proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle. It fails to include solutions such as strengthening remedies for American industries that were hurt by China's unfair trade practices. This is a very serious issue that the leadership is trivializing as a protection for a vote for CAFTA. But real American jobs are hanging in the balance, and a perfect example of this can be found in Buffalo, New York. After 100 years of business, the Buffalo Color Company, the last domestic producer of indigo dye used to make blue jeans, is in the final throes, to quote the vice president, of bankruptcy. Buffalo Color is the victim, and it has already been adjudicated, of illegal Chinese dumping of indigo dye on the American market. For 2 years, we have been asking for help from the administration to stop the Chinese companies from circumventing our trade laws by shipping their cheap dye to the United States through Korea and Mexico. I have tried repeatedly to personally discuss this case with Commerce Secretary Gutierrez, and have yet to even hear back from him. I want Members to understand that the unfair trade practices are going on because this administration will not stop them. The Secretary has been so busy going to China to give away more jobs and working up here to get CAFTA passed, he cannot even answer a letter. We have called, we have written, we have issued press releases, but we cannot get the Bush Commerce Department to lift one finger to save an iconic American industry from annihilation at the hands of Chinese price dumping, which is already illegal. The bottom line is that, much like the Bush administration, this bill will do nothing to help Buffalo Color Company or its employees. As a result, the only remaining producer of the dye for blue jeans, a powerful American icon, will be driven into bankruptcy by illegal price dumping, and more American jobs will be lost. Let me repeat that they have already won their case against China. The Commerce Department simply refuses to allow it to survive. I hope the sad irony of this is not going to be lost on anybody here today, because Buffalo Color should be able to count on its Federal Government to provide protection from unfair trade practices. With this bill, the Republican leadership is failing to meet that responsibility.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to recognize and welcome Reverend Lawrence Hargrave, one of my constituents but, moreover, a friend and a mentor to be the guest chaplain in the House of Representatives today. I am extremely proud of Reverend Hargrave, not only for his heartfelt prayer service this morning, but for his continued commitment to the Rochester community. Lawrence Hargrave completed his degree in sociology from SUNY Buffalo in 1969. Remarkably, after working for almost 30 years in the private sector, he answered the call for service and completed a Master's of Divinity from Colgate Rochester Crozer Divinity School. Reverend Hargrave is currently the acting dean of Black Church Studies at the school and is the associate minister at Mt. Olivet Baptist Church in Rochester. As a dedicated community servant, Reverend Hargrave is committed to interfaith discussion and dialogue. Specifically, he serves on the Rochester Interfaith Jail Ministry Board of Directors and is a member of the Commissions on Christian-Muslim and Christian-Jewish Relations. On behalf of the House of Representatives, I thank Reverend Hargrave for being here with us this morning, and I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Reverend Hargrave for his years of faithful service to the people of New York and to his God.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that as this discussion on CAFTA moves forward that the majority will, once again, succumb to the temptation to twist, bend, and break off the rules of debate and consideration in order to meet their objectives, just as they did during the Medicare debate of the 108th Congress. During that debate the vote on final passage was held open for a shameful 3 hours while the Republican leadership twisted arms and cut deals to make up their vote deficit. The events of that night constituted one of the worst abuses of power I have witnessed in my almost 20 years in this House. In the aftermath, allegations of bribery were leveled by a Republican Congressman, and an Ethics Committee investigation followed closely behind, one that ended in the admonishment of the majority leader of this House. It is no secret that, just like last time, the Republican leadership is desperately scrambling to find the votes necessary to pass this bill, which I and many of my colleagues strongly oppose. But I would warn my friends in the majority that we dare not see a return to those underhanded tactics used by the leadership during the 108th Congress. There should be no votes held open for 3 hours. There should be no unethical arm-twisting on this House floor. The American people are watching this time. Sadly, though, we are already seeing evidence that this pattern of abuse will once again carry the day. Last night in the Committee on Rules, we were given a paltry 1 hour's notice by the Republicans that we would be considering the most controversial trade agreement this body has contemplated since NAFTA. And of the three contentious bills that we considered in the Committee on Rules, not a single amendment was allowed, nor even a single substitute. It was a shut-out of democracy. And coming from a country trying to export democracy to the rest of the world, it showed us on our side of the Committee on Rules that we do not have it right yet. Even though the House rules clearly state that 20 hours of debate is appropriate for a trade agreement, we offered to accept only 8 hours as a compromise, but that was too much democracy for this leadership. For the most contested trade agreement this body has considered in 12 years, we will have a whopping 2 hours of debate, less time than it would take you to watch ``Saving Private Ryan'' on a DVD. We were actually given more time to debate the renaming of five post offices Monday. Most high school debate teams spend more time considering the serious issues that face our country than we do here in the House. But CAFTA clearly warrants our full and undivided attention. This is a major piece of legislation that will affect the lives of every American. CAFTA threatens to export even more American jobs and encourages American companies to relocate their factories in other countries. It does not provide adequate protection for workers, it turns back the clock on labor standards, and it does not provide any safeguards for improving environmental standards. We need trade agreements that expand our access to the new markets and raise the standard of living for American families. This legislation falls far short on each of those standards. As the arbiters of the rules of this hallowed institution, the Committee on Rules has a special responsibility to ensure that the integrity of the democratic process is preserved. That is why last night I asked the Republicans on the Committee on Rules for their assurance that we will not again see the egregious abuses of power and the trampling of the democratic process that we experienced in the last Congress on the Medicare debate, because we should be having 8 hours of debate and a 15-minute vote, not the other way around. Their reply was that ``rules would be followed,'' but they must not have meant the Rules of the House of Representatives when they made that promise, because what actually followed was a shut-down of any consideration of amendments to the medical malpractice bill, the prevention of any up- or-down votes on amendments to the China Trade Act, and the restriction of debate in consideration of CAFTA. For the sake of the millions of American families depending on this Congress to spend the time and get it right on legislation, and especially on CAFTA, I hope that this time the debate lasts longer than the vote.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and allow the House to consider the Sanders amendment that was rejected in the Committee on Rules last night on a straight party-line vote. I might also add that the extraordinarily important Otter amendment on the egregious sneak-and-peak law was voted down on a 9 to 4 vote last night. This amendment would exclude booksellers and libraries from the scope of section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, which allows law enforcement to conduct broad searches of the records of bookstores and libraries without demonstrating probable cause, and it forbids libraries and bookstore owners from even telling their patrons that their records have been searched. Mr. Speaker, an identical version of this amendment was passed in the House a month ago during consideration of the Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill. By a substantial vote of 238 to 187, the Members of this body expressed their support for the provisions of the Sanders amendment. It is clear that the PATRIOT Act's provisions on the search of library and bookstore records are overly broad and undermine our basic constitutional rights. For the sake of civil liberties and the privacy rights of our fellow citizens, this House needs to debate the Sanders amendment. I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from considering the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill, and it will not block any amendment made in order under this rule. But a ``yes'' vote will block the House from considering the Sanders amendment. Please vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), the head of the Progressive Caucus.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, permit me first to say this morning that our thoughts and prayers are with our friends in London who today are coping with what seems to be a second terrorist attack in 2 weeks. Thankfully, the causalities appear to be minimal. And my colleagues and I in this House offer our most sincere hope that no one in London will have to suffer this pain again associated with the abominable actions taken 2 weeks ago and unsuccessfully attempted again today. I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of nothing less than our national security, but national security is not just about protecting our borders. It is also about protecting our freedoms. All of my colleagues understand that the PATRIOT Act has provided the law enforcement agencies with many valuable tools which facilitate their work in the struggle against terrorism. But with these new tools comes a very real danger that the liberty we seek to protect could be easily compromised in the overzealous pursuit of greater security. This struggle strikes at the heart of the debate over the legislation before us today. And while the restrictive rule we are debating this morning has allowed us to improve the PATRIOT Act in several important ways, the leadership has chosen to prohibit open debate in consideration of the most sensitive, controversial, and important issues that surround this bill. I would also add that today we are considering the 32nd rule this year that has either been closed or severely restricted. It is ironic that on consideration of a bill which seeks to protect our freedoms, our freedom to debate and amend the legislation has been strictly curtailed, as is too often the case in this body. Mr. Speaker, when the PATRIOT Act was passed in 2001, 16 provisions were set to expire in 5 years because some of them could possibly be used to violate the very freedoms our young men and women in uniform too often die to protect. These provisions provide the executive branch of this government with unprecedented powers of search, seizure and surveillance, too often without the due process we are guaranteed under our Constitution. By party line votes, the Republicans on the Committee on Rules at the direction of the leadership refused to allow consideration of critical amendments that address these issues, and there are four particular issues I want to discuss this morning, reforms which Democrats believe are critical. First, we are not considering a provision to allow people who are not terrorists to challenge the government when the FBI wants to sift through their personal information, including their private medical records. But we should be. Second is the fact that the important work of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence was cast aside by the House leadership. The version of the bill voted out of the committee on a near unanimous vote in that committee included a provision which allowed for a sunset review of the Lone Wolf provision of this bill, which was not included in the final version. We are also not considering an amendment that would properly restrict the government's ability to come into your home when you are not there and execute a warrant, and even remove property without notifying you until later, if at all, an officially sanctioned breaking and entering if you will. Now, that remains perfectly legal under this bill because the Republican leadership would not allow the amendments to change it. But perhaps most importantly, we are not even allowed to consider an amendment that would require Congress to do its job and fulfill our responsibility to the American people by going back and taking a look at these laws every few years because the leadership decided that none of them can be considered today by the Congress, even though they deal with the most sensitive and important security and civil liberty issues we face in this country today. The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary stated last night in the Committee on Rules that sunset review is not necessary in the future because he and his staff are providing all the oversight needed of the Justice Department, the FBI, and the PATRIOT Act. With all due respect to the esteemed chairman, I do not think that is enough of a safeguard for the American people to accept in this case. After all, we will not have the benefit of his leadership and wisdom forever, and this Congress has a duty to consider and provide for the future. Our ability to ensure the proper oversight and protection of liberty must be larger in scope than the career or judgment of a single individual. Also, agencies have proven to be more responsive to congressional oversight when a sunset review is looming on the horizon. The chairman has even acknowledged that the Justice Department has been uncooperative in his attempts to conduct the appropriate reviews and oversight of the bill thus far. We have evidence which suggests, in contrast to information coming out of the Justice Department, that many of these measures have resulted in the violation of the civil liberties of American citizens. In addition, we understand that some of the extended search and seizure powers used by the law enforcement are apparently not being used for their intended purpose, which is strictly to fight terrorism, and that is unacceptable. Whether this information is true or not, the fact remains that an honest discrepancy exists, and that is reason enough to ensure proper congressional oversight and why we should include sunset provisions in the bill. The Republicans support sunset review for the EPA, it is in the President's 2006 budget, but not for the PATRIOT Act. The idea of these measures was always that they would be temporary, and yet they are seeking to make them last forever. Mr. Speaker, forever is an awful long time. We would do well to remember that they were passed into law in the frantic weeks after September 11, hastily, without our understanding of their potential impact or benefit, and that is why we created a sunset review in the first place and why we need a sunset review as long as these incredible powers are in place. 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. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

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.