Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, whether you support this bill or not, the Members should be very concerned that we are about to cast a vote on a major, major piece of legislation that only a small handful of House Members have actually read because it was not finalized and filed until 1:30 this morning. They should be very concerned that this marshal law rule waives the House rule that requires the conference report layover for 3 days before coming to the floor for a vote. Of course, it was not supposed to be this way. Just a few weeks ago, 44 members of the Republican Study Committee demanded that the Republican leadership allow Members 3 days to read the conference report after it was filed and before forcing them to vote on it. It was a reasonable demand since that is what the rules of the House say. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) agreed to it as has been publicly reported. Here is how the November 3, 2003, edition of Roll Call reported it: ``At a GOP conference meeting that was called exclusively to update Members on the Medicare talks, Hastert assured his troops that they would now get regular briefings on the Medicare bill and would have at leave 3 days to look over the conference report before having to vote on it, according to several Members who attended. `` `The Speaker wants to make sure that Members are comfortable making this historic change' to Medicare, said Hastert spokesman John Feehery.'' The November 7, 2003, edition of Congress Daily quoted the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) ``referring to a promise made by House Speaker Hastert.'' The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) said, ``The thing I'm happiest about is we get 3 days with the language.'' Now, we all know the Speaker of the House is an honorable man, but apparently the Republican leadership is willing to renege on his commitment and to ensure Members do not get 3 days with the language. Because while various summaries, press releases, and drafts may have been posted on Web sites of today, the final language of that conference report was not filed until early this morning. And 3 days from Friday morning is Monday morning, not Friday afternoon. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in opposing the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question. If it is defeated, I will amend the rule so that it no longer waives the House's rule requiring a 3-day layover for all conference reports. Voting no will not defeat the Republican Medicare bill, but it is the only way to uphold the commitment of the Speaker of the House and to allow Members and the public to examine this 700-page $400 billion Medicare bill before voting on it. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the list that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) read off. I hope that they know what is in the bill, because we sure do not. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I feel compelled to say that two-thirds of this bill could have been paid for by the money that the United States owes the Medicare Trust Fund today, $270 billion. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), ranking member of Committee on Ways and Means, who stood at the door and knocked.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the rules of this body require that before considering a conference report, a copy of the report and the joint explanatory statement must be available to Members for 3 business days. The Medicare drug conference report and accompanying explanatory statement were filed very early this morning, 1:17 a.m. But here we are, Mr. Speaker, debating a special rule waiving the House rule prohibiting the same-day consideration of the Medicare conference report that is more than 1,000 pages long. This defies common sense. This tramples on the rights of the Members of this body. How are we to make the best informed decisions for our constituents and the Nation about monumental legislation when we do not have the required opportunity to examine this report? What should be bipartisan conference committees are, in fact, clandestine meetings held behind closed doors. Democratic House Members were deliberately excluded from the conference committee. The only African Americans on the Committee on Ways and Means were banned from a place at the negotiating table speaking for our African American citizens. That included the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, who was appointed to the conference by the Speaker of the House. Key policy bargains were made out of sight of Members and hidden from public inspection. What is it that we and the American people are not supposed to see in the fine print? Does this plan hand billions of dollars to the wealthy drug companies and insurance industry? Does this plan hurt seniors more than it helps? Will seniors end up paying more and receiving less? What will the impact be on minority seniors? They were not represented at the table. Is this bill a Trojan horse of privatizing and dismantling Medicare? If this bill is the answer to seniors' cries for help combating the skyrocketing prices charged for medications, why are we not allowed to carefully review the hundreds of pages of this report? News reports and a quick glance at the bill indicate that nothing is done to freeze or control out-of-control drug prices. Just this morning, Thomas Scully, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, told a senior Member of the other body that he misunderstood this plan and needs to read the bill. That is a wonderful suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Too bad that we will not have that chance as the Senate has. Medicare is much too precious to kill because we will never, ever in our lifetimes and probably anybody else's in my voice's range be able to institute another program like this in America. I remind my colleagues of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act which was passed without providing Members and seniors sufficient opportunity to read the pages and pages of fine print. The result was a momentous backlash. American seniors were outraged by the legislation, so outraged that Congress was forced to repeal the law the very next year. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is absolutely correct. There is no great list of dead Canadians from taking bad medicines. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Baird).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader, for a unanimous consent request. (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my colleague on the Committee on Rules. (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, had the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend, yielded to me, I simply wanted to ask him if he is aware that the administration has just given AARP a $20 million grant and ask if he wondered if that had anything to do with their decision. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this unusual move to allow for consideration of motions to suspend the rules provides this body with a great opportunity. Many pieces of legislation important to our constituents are awaiting consideration. With this rule we have a wonderful chance to address some of these significant issues. We should consider legislation to extend Federal unemployment benefits for an additional 6 months; I believe that would pass unanimously. Currently unemployment benefits are set to expire on December 31. We should not allow the millions of Americans still desperately looking for work to begin the next year in the lurch. I am particularly concerned about the loss of 44,000 manufacturing jobs in Upstate New York since 2002. In Rochester alone, manufacturing employment is down 20 percent. In these tough economic times, it is our duty to help; and since we are rushing to adjournment this week, this is our last opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to use this golden opportunity to pass the genetic nondiscrimination legislation. Since 1995 I have led the fight to pass this nonpartisan, noncontroversial, and widely supported legislation. The bill currently has 236 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle, the support of over 200 outside organizations, and the support of the President of the United States. Last month the other body unanimously passed the legislation which prohibits genetic discrimination. This is critical to the health of the country, something we have talked about all week. If we do not pass this legislation to prohibit genetic discrimination, we are in danger of bringing much of the research that we are so proud of in the United States to a halt. Discrimination is already taking place. We have lots of evidence of it both in employment and insurance. If we want to continue to be on the forefront of science and to be able to make our residents and citizens the healthiest in the world, this bill should be passed. I want to urge the Speaker of the House today to put this bill on the suspension calendar, let us pass it, let the President sign it, and let us all move toward better health. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me 30 minutes. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to be present for rollcall vote 650. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 650.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the health of the American public could be seriously threatened. All across the United States for the past 30 years, a cancer-causing chemical has contaminated our drinking water. In New York State alone, over 1,500 sites have been contaminated. This carcinogen, MTBE, has been added to gasoline as an octane enhancer since the 1970's, and over these past 30 years, the public has learned that MTBE can cause, among other things, lymphoma, liver, testicular and kidney tumors. Outrageously, the MTBE industry knew of the chemical's environmental dangers before putting it into widespread use, according to the United States Conference of Mayors. Responding to the serious public health threat posed by MTBE, the New York legislature passed, and Governor Pataki signed, legislation to ban the use, sale, or importation of fuels containing MTBE. Upon signing the legislation, Governor Pataki said that ``the use of MTBE in gasoline has significant environmental impacts on groundwater'' and ``New Yorkers deserve clean air and water.'' Mr. Speaker all Americans deserve and expect clean water and clean air, but unfortunately while New York and other States like California and Connecticut are taking steps to protect our water, this energy bill conference report would take steps not to protect the public, but to protect the MTBE manufacturers at the expense of their health. The 1,700-page conference report on the Energy Policy Act, finalized in the dark this morning, hands the MTBE manufacturers a lucrative gift of liability protection. Manufacturers are shielded from lawsuits for making a defective product, and they are handed a $2 billion check during a 10-year phase-out period. The legal immunity bestowed upon MTBE manufacturers protects these producers from any case filed in the future and all cases previously filed. I could go ahead about this, but the fact is that there were about four champions here who have had MTBE made in their districts in Texas and Louisiana. I want to urge all New Yorkers who hear my voice to vote against this bill because there is a $29 billion unfunded mandate that goes to the people of the country to pay because we make sure the manufacturer does not.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. I rise to express my opposition to this energy bill, which backfires on our responsibility to pass a balanced energy bill. Let me be clear, you should support this bill only if you thought the Cheney Energy Task Force report was a balanced solution to our nation's energy problems, because this bill is more of the same. Since we got a copy of this bill at 3:30 a.m. this morning, I cannot be sure of all the special interest provisions in this 1,700 page bill. However, I do know that it is harmful for national security, harmful for consumers, and harmful for the environment. Here are just some of the highlights: The bill seems to be a throw back to the nation's 1950s energy policy. It fails to include standards for providing clean, renewable energy sources that would save consumers money on their utility bills, create jobs, reduce air pollution, and global warming emissions. Instead, this energy bill relies on tax breaks and subsidies for big energy companies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill's price tag exceeds $50 billion over the next decade, adding $18 billion to the deficit. It would give away $3.7 billion to coal-based technology and $6 billion to new nuclear power companies to name a few. We are missing an opportunity to craft an energy bill that relies on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels. Unlike this bill on the floor today, a bill that supported renewable energy would create four times as many jobs without adding to the deficit, not to mention improving our air and water. Unfortunately, instead of reducing our dependence on foreign oil, this legislation would actually increase our dependence by creating more hurdles to raising the fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. On top of not addressing the biggest source of air pollution, the bill preserves the $100,000 tax write-off, which professionals can use to purchase Hummers. The Hummer H2 has the unbelievably low fuel efficiency of 10 miles per gallon. While this vehicle does comply with 1950s fuel standards, that is not good enough given the latest research with global warming and technological advances. Beyond the pollution created by vehicle emissions, my district in Upstate New York, like many communities, has been the unfortunate beneficiary of bad air quality that has been transported from other parts of the country. This bill will not help. In fact, it would greatly compromise the quality of air we breathe by loosening the ozone standards. The bill would allow communities not in compliance with the ozone standards to get more time to clean up without having to implement strong air pollution controls, placing a significant burden on states and communities downwind of these urban areas. However, this bill does not stop at creating loopholes for clean air. As I discussed in an earlier floor statement today, I am particularly troubled that this bill lets producers off the hook for contaminating groundwater with the gasoline additive, MTBE, a probable human carcinogen. In addition to forcing taxpayers to assume an estimated $29 billion in cleanup costs, it also contains language preventing lawsuits against the industry. As if that was not enough of a break, the bill would also give the industry nearly $2 billion for transition costs, and allow the President or any state to opt out of the MTBE phase out. As a Member representing a state that has found drinking water contaminated with MTBE, this is unconscionable. So from the details in the bill that I know, we are voting today on an expensive bill with $115 billion in industry givebacks, including $20 billion in direct tax incentives, with only 20 percent of that money going to renewable energy sources, and a bill that roll backs environmental protections. The bill does not save one drop of oil, or value public health and fiscal responsibility. For these reasons, I am forced to vote against H.R. 6.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, in response to questions on why I was one of five Members to vote against the conference report on H.R. 2259, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, I prepared the following statement: I voted against yesterday's conference report because it fails to include a vital project important to our national security on the Northern Border at the Niagara Air Reserve Station in Niagara Falls, New York. Shortly after being elected to represent part of the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station in Niagara Falls, New York, I visited the base. I have become familiar with the service it provides not only to our community, but also to the nation. Most recently, I visited for the base for the happy occasion of the 914`b Airlift Wing's homecoming from deployment. The Air Force Reserve has even publicized the contributions of the base by showcasing the decision of 1 st Lieutenant Chris Pfeil, Jr. and Staff Sergeant Tim McNelis, both from the 914th Airlift Wing, to follow their fathers career's in the military. I ask unanimous consent that this article on their service be inserted in the Record. Other units stationed in Niagara Falls that are defending the home front and serving overseas are the 107th Air Refueling Wing and soldiers with the 865th Combat Support Hospital. I have worked tirelessly with local officials, as well as my counterparts in the Senate, to secure the necessary funding to construct a facility at the base. Unfortunately, it appears that this project, rated the top priority by Niagara County officials, was not included in the final bill for the third year in a row. The fact that this funding was included in an earlier version of the bill, and then stripped out at the last minute during backroom maneuvers which sent the money to another part of New York State, is an insult to our democratic process. It seems that only bases represented by Members on the committee were funded. This is a disservice to the military facility in my district and bases throughout the country. It is a disservice to the men and women in uniform from the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station who have been deployed to serve their country in Iraq. I could not, in good conscience, support this conference report. There is no doubt in my mind that the soldiers, not to mention the citizens in Niagara Falls, deserve better than what this bill provided. I want to assure the courageous servicepeople at the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station that I am already preparing for the next opportunity to remedy this situation. [From afreserve.com, June 17, 2003] Like Father, Like Son in Southwest Asia (By Staff Sgt. Pamela Smith) Southwest Asia--The decision to follow their fathers into the military wasn't a difficult one for 1st Lt. Chris Pfeil Jr. and Staff Sgt. Tim McNelis, both from the 914th Airlift Wing, Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station, NY. ``I was introduced to it very young,'' said Chris Jr., a C- 130 pilot with the 772nd Expeditionary Airlift Squadron. ``So joining the military was always something I kept in the back of my mind.'' Pfeil said his father, Senior Master Sgt. Chris Pfeil Sr., a C-130 loadmaster also assigned to the 772nd EAS, never pressured him but set an example for him to follow. ``It had to be his decision,'' said Chris Sr., ``and it was important to support him in whatever he chose to do.'' ``I've always wanted to fly, and this was the best decision,'' Chris Jr. said, ``but he never pushed it.'' For Tim, a C-130 crew chief assigned to the 320th Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron, it was his father's advice against joining another branch of the service that encouraged him to try the Air Force Reserve Command. ``He wanted to join the Marines at first and then he talked about the Army,'' said Senior Master Sgt. Jerry McNelis, a C- 130 loadmaster with the 772nd EAS, ``but I talked him out of it.'' Tim said he's happy with the decision he made to join the Reserve because it allowed him to continue with school, and two years ago he was hired as a full-time air reserve technician. He also is happy he's had the opportunity to deploy with his father in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. ``It's good to have a family member here,'' Tim said. ``You always have someone to talk to.'' Knowing that his father will be flying on one of his aircraft also makes him want to go that extra step. ``It gives me the incentive to work that much harder knowing my dad is on my plane,'' he said. For the Pfeils, being deployed here together has given both of them peace of mind. ``Any parent or child is going to be concerned,'' said Chris Sr., ``but when Chris goes on a mission, chances are I was there the day before so I know the environment and what he can expect and that helps.'' Having each other to lean on during this deployment has been a benefit for both father/son teams, and for the fathers it's an opportunity to see their children follow that much closer in their footsteps.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush got his job and Republicans took over the entire Federal Government, nearly 3 million Americans have lost their jobs. So, under these circumstances, you might think the Republicans who control the town and the government and CBS would be very conscientious about doing their jobs. But here we are, once again, passing yet another continuing resolution to keep the government running because the Republican Congress refuses to do the most fundamental job the American people have given to it. While millions of Americans cannot find any jobs, Republicans refuse to do the jobs that they have and the taxpayers pay us to do. The House has not put in a full week's worth of work in months. So what is the problem Mr. Speaker? After all, the Republicans control this body, the other body, the Presidency. Are they stuck haggling with each other over how much to shortchange schools this year? Or looking for an excuse to continue penalizing disabled veterans? Or arguing over which slick procedural trick to use to try to hide the hundreds of billions of dollars in debt they have run up? Well, one thing is for sure, you know this is not a Republican Party priority, because when the Republican Party wants something, the Republican Party is ruthlessly efficient. Just take a look at the record. When it comes to Republican priorities, like tax breaks for the small, elite group of big contributors who fund Republican campaigns, this Congress has been tremendously successful. But when it comes to the priorities of the American people, like tax relief for the military and working families, this Congress cannot or will not get it done. Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders have protected big corporate tax dodgers, but Republicans will not do anything about the high health care costs or help the millions of Americans who need unemployment insurance in the midst of President Bush's jobless recovery. They actually blocked a Democratic pay raise for the military, which would have given the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan a $1,500 bonus. Mr. Speaker, I fear this is not a government of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a government of the Republican Party, by the Republican Party, and for the Republican Party. Unfortunately, the rest of America does not seem to matter. Today, millions of hardworking Americans no longer share in the prosperity they enjoyed during the Democrat-led economic boom of the nineties. George W. Bush has compiled the worst record of job loss of any President since Herbert Hoover in the Great Depression. Some 1.4 million Americans have been unemployed for so long in this economy that they have exhausted their unemployment insurance. After the end of this year, Americans who lose their jobs, people like the nearly 3 million jobs lost since President Bush took office, will not be able to enroll in unemployment insurance. Over that same period, the Republican fiscal irresponsibility turned record surpluses into astronomical and out-of-control deficits, increasing the debt tax on all Americans and threatening the future of Medicare and Social Security. And it is getting worse. In the coming years, the tax breaks for the wealthiest few will become even more expensive, at the same time that the Bush administration will be asking taxpayers to send untold hundreds of billions of dollars to Iraq. This government has no plan to clean up the mess it has made of America. Instead, they just keep offering more of the same and hope the American people will not notice that their Congress has stopped working for them, because it is too busy using the power of the people's government to protect the privileges of their party. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.