Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman). (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just close by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment offered by our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), was perfectly germane. The only reason in the world it was turned down was for political reasons. It was a major embarrassment that they had been found out, and I have to assure the people who are listening today that on my part, and I am sure on the part of others, that we will not rest until we rectify this mistake, although it is not a mistake. It is a blatant attempt, frankly, to misuse taxpayers' money as incumbent protection. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, and 325. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 321, 322, 323, and 325. I would have voted ``nay'' on 320 and 324.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on an important substitute amendment that was not allowed under the rule. This substitute by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) would reinstate for 2 years the provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act. It also provides for pay-as-you-go rules for legislation that increases the deficit, sets discretionary spending limits, and calls for a separate vote to consider legislation that would increase those discretionary spending limits or waive the PAYGO requirement. It is certainly worthy of discussion and a vote in this debate on the House budget process. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership blocked this amendment, and it was voted down in the Committee on Rules early this morning on a straight party-line vote. When asked why so few or no Democrat amendments were allowed, the Chair of the Committee on Rules said, Because we are the majority. Mr. Speaker, there are few Members in this House who have worked as hard and long to improve the budget process and control the deficit, as has the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm); yet he was denied an opportunity after his thoughtful and responsible substitute. Three Republican substitutes were made in order under the rule and 15 other amendments, but the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) was arbitrarily denied. It seems that every time we get on the floor to do a rule, the other side talks about how fair and balanced their rule is. Well, there is nothing fair and balanced about shutting out of the budget reform debate one of the House's experts on this matter. If one does not support the Stenholm substitute, one does not have to vote for it, but at least let it come before the House for a debate in an up-or-down vote. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let me make it clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Spending Control Act and will not prevent any of the amendments made in order by the rule from being offered. However, a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from consideration of the Stenholm substitute, a substitute that would add greatly to this process. So do the right thing, please vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 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, early this morning the Committee on Rules passed a lopsided rule packed with Republican amendments. It is shocking that of the 19 amendments made in order, only one Democrat amendment and one bipartisan amendment are in order. Senior Democrats were shut out, while the rule makes the amendments of junior Members in order on the Republican side. The rule provides for one-sided debate on H.R. 4663. The House will be allowed to discuss and vote on Republican amendments, but Democratic ideas and amendments have been virtually excluded in the important debate on budget process reform. Mr. Speaker, the question before us is whether or not the current budget process creates a product that embodies our budget policies and our priorities. The Federal Government has gone from having historic surpluses of $5.26 trillion to having historic deficits of $2.3 trillion. If we are unsatisfied with a budget, are policies or the budget process to blame? Should the budget process enforcement mechanism be policy neutral or should the process force or enable Congress to make policy decisions? Earlier this spring, the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process of the Committee on Rules held a series of hearings on these questions. The message that came out of the hearings seemed to be, I thought, that the budget process is not at fault. Its structural flaws in the budget process did not produce Federal budgets with massive debt. Instead, the budgets are products of policy choices. The issue is not the mechanisms we employ. The real issue is that people are now unhappy with policy choices made over the last 3\1/2\ years. This concern is bubbling up as criticism over the budget process, turning process, not policy, into the villain. Since the adoption of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, many reforms have been proposed and tried. Biannual budget, joint budget resolution, sequestration, caps on discretionary spending, caps on entitlement spending, pay-as-you-go requirements, constitutional amendments, and other ideas were part of previous discussions, and part, again, of the current budget reform debate. We all know that caps on discretionary spending and PAYGO requirements on mandatory spending and tax cuts, which is an important point, worked well in the 1990s. The underlying legislation is fatally flawed in that it leaves future tax cuts unchecked and applies PAYGO only to mandatory spending. The historic deficits are in large part the product of the tax cuts, which primarily benefit the wealthiest Americans. The Congressional Budget Office has said that the $2.3 trillion deficit has been caused by the tax cuts and the associated debt services. During the second subcommittee hearing, budget expert Stan Collender offered this advice: enacting a new budget process without first developing the consensus necessary to make it work will be perpetuating a political hoax. You will be promising results the process cannot possibly deliver, allowing the process to be used to justify policy changes that will not otherwise seem appropriate and allowing policymakers to hide behind both procedural votes that, at best, will be confusing and, at worst, completely indecipherable. The body is sharply divided, Mr. Speaker; and there is no consensus on budget reform. This debate is not an academic exercise. Changes to the process will affect millions of Americans. Caps on mandatory spending will dramatically choke vital programs, like Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits and student loans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule so that all ideas, not just the majority suggestions, may be considered and debated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), who is the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

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 thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the fact that the American intelligence apparatus is broken is well-known. In the global war on terror, the most important weapon we have to protect the Nation and its people is intelligence. Today, more than ever, we must make the creation of a strong and flexible intelligence apparatus one of the highest priorities of this body. The terrorist attacks of September 11, combined with the continuing threat of further attacks, underscore the importance of this legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill reported out of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence falls far short of what our intelligence community has requested and what the American people expect. Now listen up. This bill provides less than a third of the key operational funding the intelligence agencies have told us that they need to prevent the next terrorist attack. The scheme for funding the counterterrorism operations is to give the agencies, listen, I want my colleagues to hear this, they are going to give them a third of the money they need, and then after the election they will come back and ask for the other two-thirds. Does this sound like we are concerned about the intelligence community? Does it sound like we are worried that we are at war? The answer is no. The election is the deciding point on when we come back and ask for the money. The plan will starve the counterterrorism efforts, leaves the intelligence community anemic. Funding the intelligence community in bits and pieces, a portion now and a supplemental after the election, is not only irresponsible, it is reckless. Senior intelligence community officials have said that operating this way could jeopardize key counterterrorism operations. That is what they tell us. Sadly, this year the bill fell victim to partisanship and the cold hard fiscal realities of tax cuts and spending caps. Every single Democrat member voted against favorably reporting this bill, and this is unprecedented. Typically, the importance of this bill trumps personal ideologies or the prevailing partisan winds; but knowing the ranking member and the other Democrat members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I know that they must have very serious concerns to vote against the authorization bill. Five dedicated distinguished Democrat members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, including the gentlewoman from California (Ranking Member Harman), offered five important amendments to the bill. However, the Committee on Rules tossed out four of these vital substantive amendments. The Committee on Rules will not allow the full House to consider and debate and amend to withhold a portion of the funding until the Secretary of Defense provides all information concerning the dealings of the Department of Defense and Ahmed Chalabi. This is information to which Congress is entitled. This is information the American people want to know. Who was this man who had such an incredible effect and so much influence on whether or not we went to war? What did we do besides give him $33 million? Members will not be able to consider an amendment to restructure our dilapidated intelligence apparatus. Shockingly, the committee Republicans even made out of order an amendment to fully fund American counterterrorism efforts. Yesterday, a member of the Committee on Rules tried to suggest that the amendments were proposed for political reasons. Far from it. Our Nation's security is at risk, and the integrity of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Democrats, and all Democrats, should not be questioned. Reported out of committee on party lines, the rule does make in order an amendment to express the sense of Congress and support of the intelligence community and an amendment expressing the sense that the world is a safer place now that Libya has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction. These amendments were presumed to take precedence over the ones that really dealt with the committee and its budget. They do nothing to improve American counterterrorism operations. Mr. Speaker, this is a seriously, fatally flawed bill; but, again, the Committee on Rules has muzzled debate on some of the most important issues concerning American intelligence operations. This is a double blow. It is another Committee on Rules strike against deliberation, discussion, and serious consideration; and it is a strike against the safety of America. I am shocked at the rule and the underlying legislation before us this morning, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule so that the full House can participate in a comprehensive debate on the most important issue confronting us today and to consider the vital amendments to improve the intelligence community. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am stunned at what the previous speaker has just said. What does he mean that no Democrat has expressed any outrage? Has the gentleman polled every Democrat in the country? Does he know that no Democrat has expressed outrage over the beheading of American citizens?