Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for a response.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, every Republican Congress has its winners and its losers, and no where is that more apparent than in the budget. Looking at this budget, we could clearly see that those losing far outnumber those winning. The winners are millionaires and billionaires who will benefit from repeal of the estate tax, the credit card companies who make billions off of bankruptcy legislation, and oil and gas companies given subsidies by the energy bill while oil is at $55 a barrel. The losers in the budget are anyone who relies on Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security, and our Nation's veterans desperately needing health care funding, families with seniors who depend on Social Security, and any family that might have a child in need of a student loan. Those are the winners and losers chosen by this budget, and each and every one of America's hardworking men and women are in one of these two categories. I would ask my fellow Americans, which category do you fall into? If you are a millionaire, a billionaire or a senior executive at a major credit card company, insurance company or pharmaceutical company, chances are very high you are a winner. Likewise, if you are a foreign financial institution, you are likely a winner, because you will be granted even more opportunities to buy your own piece of America's skyrocketing debt. On the other hand, if you are part of the hardworking American middle- class, you are likely one of the many who will lose out. The debt your children will have to pay likely exceeds the amount of money you have saved for their college education. Gas prices will continue to rise as your tax dollars go to fund incentives for oil companies. And the benefits and programs that your parents and relatives depend on to make ends meet, as well as the resources that your children will depend on to get funding for a college education, are being slashed in order to give more of your money to the winners, a group which should be easy to recognize at this point. Now, if you are a member of the working class or the working poor, or if you are a single mother, there should be no doubt in your mind; of course, you are a loser in this budget. And, likewise, if you are a senior citizen, you depend on Social Security, middle aged, a young person counting on Social Security to be there when you retire, you lose out more than anyone in this budget. In fact, just as Republicans scheme to privatize Social Security and decry that financial crisis with the right hand, they have been raiding the Social Security surplus since Bush took office with the left. I believe that as of this budget, all of the Social Security surplus will be gone. Remember all that talk about the lockbox? Well, I guess the lock has been broken. We do not need a security camera to see who has been getting away with all the loot. On this President's watch, fiscal year 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, every penny of the Social Security trust fund has been spent to finance deficits for a 4-year total of $635 billion. That is billion with a B. That is a staggering betrayal of the trust given by the American people. And what about the new budget resolution that we consider today? It spends 100 percent of the Social Security surplus. This budget, when projected over the next 10 years, spends a total of $2.6 trillion from the Social Security surplus. That is the retirement security of America's middle class. And they have the gall to wonder why so many fiscally responsible Democrats have objected to these irresponsible tax cuts that benefit the rich. I think it is time that we slowed things down and explain to our friends across the aisle what fiscal responsibility is and what it is not. Fiscal responsibility does not include giving away the store, regardless of whether the consequences will be in 5 years or 10 years or 20 years. It means to look and plan for the future so there is an opportunity available for generations yet to come. Being fiscally responsible does not mean mortgaging the future of this country on the backs of our children and grandchildren. It means providing adequate funding for schools and health care and retirement security. It does not include asking the American people to pay for the tax cuts given to the millionaires and billionaires. It means giving a break to folks who work hard day in and day out to put food on the table for themselves and their children. And, most of all, being fiscally responsible does not include robbing the Social Security trust fund blind. So, as I am sure everyone can see with this budget, the people who need our help the most lose out. It does not have to be this way. There was a choice. The Democratic alternative offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) would have made us proud and protected the core principles that we say we fight for in this institution, such as great schools, good jobs, secure retirements and quality health care. It would have brought the budget back into balance by 2012 and reinstated the budget enforcement rules to protect Social Security and increased our commitment to education, protected our Nation's veterans and eliminated the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. That is the kind of budget I wish we were considering. That is the kind of budget that the hardworking men and women of America want from their Congress. They want a fair approach that gets us back to fiscal sanity. Much like the President's Social Security proposal, this budget is the wrong bill at the wrong time and will hurt a vast majority of our Americans, and I urge all my colleagues to defeat this conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes; and 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, well, here we are doing another martial law rule and we wait and wait for the conference committee to finish its work, the conference committee that, I might add, did not include a single Democrat, which is unusual. Let me say that again. This conference committee we are waiting for did not include a single Democrat. Whenever we do a rule to waive two-thirds consideration, it means we will be rushing the underlying bill to the floor, giving the Members virtually no time at all to actually read the bill or determine what it is we are voting on. This time, we are waiting for the fiscal year 2006 budget conference, a bill that will spend more than 2 trillion taxpayer dollars. Why are we rushing something that is so important and impacts virtually every American? Why do we not just follow the regular order of business set forth in the House rules and let the conference finish its work and file its report and give Members a minimum of 3 days, required by House rules, so they can read and understand the blueprint for spending the taxes? Is that too much to ask? After all, we only have a 2\1/2\-day workweek in the House, and certainly most Americans would not consider that a heavy workload, not compared to the ones they have anyway. The situation we are faced with today is one that is all too familiar in the House. Yesterday, after 4 months of stonewalling, the majority finally acquiesced and reinstated the proper ethical standards for the House. But we did not find out about their intentions until the early afternoon. And less than 45 minutes later, we were in the Committee on Rules and asked to vote on a resolution we had never been given an opportunity to read. When the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) made a motion for a brief adjournment from the Committee on Rules to give members and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, time to read the new rules they were being asked to support, we were defeated on a party-line vote. The bottom line, the majority, after 4 months, decided the new ethics rules had to be passed on an emergency status, in one day; and as a result, no one in the House was given an opportunity to read the legislation. Where are these emergencies coming from? It is not an emergency the first week of January or February or March, or the first three weeks in April. And, unfortunately, these tactics and the poor administration of the House are all too common. Today, we are faced with a similar situation on the budget. The situation is sadly all too familiar to the Members of the body: a great crisis has arisen. The majority expects the House to pass a budget today that no one has seen, and I would like to give a speech right now about what is and is not in that budget, but I am not able to because I have not seen the budget, nor has anyone else, not even the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. It is truly a remarkable phenomenon that can only be found in Washington. I guess this majority believes we should take everything they say at face value and we should trust them. However, we have had enough experience to know all too well we cannot do that. In fact, just yesterday on this very floor we discussed how the Committee on the Judiciary's majority staff grossly mischaracterized the work of several Democratic members of that committee. It was truly one of the most offensive acts I have witnessed in my 20 years in Congress and years before that in legislative bodies. And that was just yesterday. In fact, early in the term I released a 147-page report about the unethical administration of the Congress by its leadership, filled to the brim with tactics just like the one we witnessed this past week and the one we are suffering under today. That is why I have said and will continue to say that the manner in which this House is administered is not in keeping with democratic values that we as Americans share. We have a shortage of deliberation, democracy, and debate in the House of Representatives, and there is no relief in sight. In fact, the leadership is asking this body to pass the congressional budget today, a bill which is probably the most important document we will pass in the entire session of the 109th Congress without even a single sheet of paper, and without even one day to review the hundreds of pages contained in the bill. It is the height of arrogance. This is not democracy under any definition of the word, and that is why I strongly oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

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

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), one of those maligned.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, after being brought to task by the American people for meddling in the personal and private life decisions of an American family during the Schiavo tragedy, you would think that the majority in this Congress would have learned. You would think that they would have learned that the people of the country do not want the government intruding into the lives of American families; but they have not learned, Mr. Speaker, because here we go again. This bill is another invasion into the private lives of American families making the decisions for themselves, and it is an invasion into the legal rights afforded all women in this country. I am talking about the legal right for women to choose, which is protected by the Constitution of the United States. We have a duty in this body to consider legislation which will maximize our freedom and equality, values which are the very fabric of our society. Our job here is to protect the legal rights of those we serve and not to take them away, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill. A report was just recently released that shows that there are more Americans incarcerated than in any other country in the United States. This bill will add Granny and Granddad and the clergy and an occasional cab driver, this is how far this bill goes; but I want to talk for a minute about another abuse which has occurred in this Chamber, a personal affront to three of our colleagues. The Committee on Rules discovered yesterday that the Committee on the Judiciary report on this very bill, which was offered by the majority staff, contained amendment summaries which had been rewritten by the committee staff for the sole purpose of distorting the intent of the authors. This committee report took the liberty to mischaracterize and to falsify the intent of several amendments offered in committee by Democrat Members of this body. At least five amendments of this bill which were designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution under the bill were rewritten as amendments designed instead to protect sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the committee report as if that was the actual intent of the amendment. No Member of Congress on either side of the aisle would do such a despicable thing as attempt to protect sexual predators, and these amendments were no more about sexual predators than they were about terrorists or arsonists or any other criminal class in our society. No one was attempting to protect them. Indeed, what they were trying to do was produce amendments which apparently the fact of writing an amendment was offensive. The amendments were about the rights of the grandmothers and siblings and clergy and the cab drivers, and I asked the chairman of the committee about this deception yesterday at the Committee on Rules hearing. Instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer, the chairman stood by the authored amendment descriptions, to my great surprise. I have known the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) since I first arrived in Congress, and I did not believe that he would allow such a thing to happen and particularly not in the Committee on the Judiciary, but he made it very clear to us that the alterations to the Members' amendments were deliberate. When pressed as to why his committee staff took such unprecedented action, the chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose the unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today. In fact, he said, ``You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't like what you said about our bill.'' To falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment submitted by another Member, to intentionally distort its description as being designed to protect sexual predators is no different than accusing a fellow Member of Congress of being an apologist for sexual predators themselves. That is, in effect, what the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has done here, and he has ensured that these amendment descriptions will be encapsulated in the Record for all time by including those unfair and incorrect amendment summaries in the committee report. He has mischaracterized these Members forever. This is a new low for this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. This is a clearly dishonest and unethical attack on the credibility and character of other Members; and sadly, it is just the latest in a pattern of unethical and abusive tactics employed by this majority. How incredibly arrogant it is that they believe they have the right to tamper with official congressional documents for their own political purposes. How unbelievably arrogant is the leadership of this Congress that they would force their own political interpretation of another Member's work upon this body and upon American people in perpetuity in an official committee report. The majority's actions are not only an affront to the Members in the House but an affront to the American people. There is no question that we can debate and disagree over the impact the bill can have. We can argue over how well it has been written or what language it should include to be more effective; but regardless of the way the debate turns out, the caption on the top of that bill or amendment serves to instruct the American people as to what the original intent of the legislation was. It serves as an unbiased reading on what the amendment aims to accomplish. To falsify and rewrite that description as a political attack is not only unprecedented; it is fundamentally dishonest and an abuse of the power given to the majority by the American people and their votes. I have no doubts, Mr. Speaker, no doubts that unless this Congressional Record is amended to reflect the true captions of these amendments, we will see these erroneous captions again in the form of campaign attack mail pieces. In fact, when pressed last night in the Committee on Rules to have the record amended to reflect the honest and accurate captions that belong on the amendments, we were defeated on a party-line vote. So now, these honorable and hardworking Members of Congress will be forever branded in the official record as having offered amendments designed to protect sexual predators when nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Speaker, I have often heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules, as well as other Members of the leadership, talk about the loss of civility in this Chamber. How can we be civil under this attack? Is this a disguised attack to say to the Democrat Members of the House, if you have the effrontery to offer an amendment on a bill of ours, we will destroy you in the committee report? Have they reached that low? Perhaps they have; but if we are going to regain lost civility, they do not need to look any further than the abusive, unethical, and arrogant administration of this House of Representatives and this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again I ask a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who was also maligned in the report.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a Member maligned in the report. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First let me say that, once again, the Congress of the United States is beginning to meddle in the affairs of the American public. They tried to tell us in the Schiavo case that they did not care for it, but undeterred by that, Congress is coming back again to make decisions for the American family. In 19 years in the House of Representatives, I have heard of no single case of any problem that this bill would attach to, and try as I might, I can find that there is no great epidemic or any outbreak of this sort of thing, of coercing young women against their will, or for any other reason; and to occupy this kind of time in Congress is appalling to me. But I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can modify the rule to require that the Committee on the Judiciary file a supplemental report to clarify the descriptions of the five Democrat amendments that were so grossly mischaracterized in the original Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R. 748. I attempted to add this language in the Committee on Rules last night, but it was defeated on a party-line vote. Mr. Speaker, when an amendment to protect grandparents and adult siblings from being called criminals simply for helping a young granddaughter's sister is twisted beyond the pale and labled pro-sexual offender, something is terribly wrong. And when it is included in an official committee report and historic document, it is even worse. We are offended by this kind of character assassination. I cannot stress enough the importance of a ``no'' vote on the previous question to correct this injustice. A ``no'' vote will not keep us from discussing the underlying bill but will simply correct what is a gross miscarriage of justice that has never happened before. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, along with the descriptions of the five amendments, be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce legislation that would establish the position of Northern Border Coordinator in the Department of Homeland Security. The northern border spans twelve states and over 3,000 miles. My congressional district, which includes Niagara Falls and Buffalo, serves as an annual gateway for 14.5 million individuals who enter the United States across the Niagara River bi-national bridges. The Peace Bridge, connecting Buffalo to Fort Erie, is the country's busiest border crossing, with over 1.3 million trucks and 20 billion dollars of commerce passing over it each year. More broadly, Canada is our nation's single largest trading partner, with total trade activity exceeding $400 billion. Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks, there is a new awareness that the northern border can also serve as an opening for terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and other hazardous materials. Even today, there are many areas along the northern border that lack sufficient personnel and resources to provide border security. Our nation must act to thwart terrorists who attempt to abuse the open relationship between our two countries. It is important that enhanced border security along the U.S.-Canadian border be overseen in a coordinated manner among federal, state and local law enforcement and first responders. For this reason, I have introduced legislation that would establish the position of Northern Border Coordinator at the Department of Homeland Security. The Northern Border Coordinator would be responsible for increasing the security of the border between the U.S. and Canada; improving the coordination among the agencies responsible for homeland security; serving as the primary liaison with the state and local governments and law enforcement agencies in matters regarding border security; and serving as a liaison with the Canadian government. It is critical that we devote the personnel and technology necessary to ensure our security while maintaining strong channels for trade. A position within the Department of Homeland Security dedicated towards these goals is a step in the right direction.