Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cooper- DeLauro-Kilpatrick amendment to H.R. 2989. This amendment would transfer $75 million from the Internal Revenue Service's EITC enforcement initiative The money would instead be used to audit large and medium-sized corporations. In former IRS Commissioner Rossotti's end-of-term report, the IRS lacks the resources to address 28% of the mid and large corporation workload that should be accomplished each year. This lack of enforcement translates into the government losing $6.5 billion in direct tax revenues on an annual basis, according to the GAO. The $75 million provided under the Cooper-DeLauro-Kilpatrick amendment would give the IRS just over half of the $180 million that the IRS needs to conduct nearly 7,000 more mid and large corporations audits. Given that the IRS lacks adequate resources to perform audits and investigations, I cannot understand why the IRS has recently launched a new program to overhaul the EITC program. As you know, the EITC is the government's primary assistance program for low-income working families. Last year, about 19 million taxpayers claimed more than $32 billion in EITC benefits. This money can be the determining factor for whether a low-income worker's family will live above the poverty line. This is a vulnerable population. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that many of my constituents who are eligible for the EITC are already deterred from claiming the credit because of existing filing requirements. I fear that forcing them to submit a new form will only increase the likelihood that eligible low- income parents will be further dissuaded from claiming the credit. That would be a terrible shame. Mr. Chairman, as I said before, given the IRS' limited resources, I cannot, for the life of me, understand the rationale behind spending $75 million on overhauling EITC procedures especially since EITC overclaims account for less than 3 percent of the estimated total taxes that go uncollected. Why hasn't the IRS made a similar commitment to capturing the $40 billion that the GAO says that businesses underreport on an annual basis? Finally, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fairness, the IRS should not require low-income Americans to meet a higher standard than every other taxpayer, while at the same time they fail to crack down on fraud in business and higher income taxpayers. I call on my colleagues to join me in support of the Cooper-DeLauro- Kilpatrick amendment.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 2309 and the designation of the United States Postal Service in Signal Hill, California as the ``J. Stephen Horn Post Office Building.'' I had the distinct pleasure of serving with Congressman Steve Horn throughout his ten years in the U.S. House of Representatives. From my personal experience, I can attest that Steve is an honest, genuine, and upstanding man. He stood up for his principles and represented his constituents with decency and humanity. His background as a university professor was evident in his thoughtful, reasoned approach to issues great and small. From 1997 to 2002, we served together as co-chairs of the Congressional Arts Caucus, where Steve did yeoman's work for arts programs across the nation. Steve never hesitated to reach across partisan, geographic, or other lines to build the alliances that would allow him to achieve our mutual goals. I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution, which salutes our friend and colleague Steve Horn--a man of courage, integrity, and dedication.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds to say to the gentleman, the Chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), that we do know what a wonderful job that he does with what he has been given, but we do believe we could make the bill a little better if we were allowed the Edwards amendment. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

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

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, part of the cost of waging war is the cost of caring for our veterans when they return home. Today, American troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and this body is considering an appropriations bill that grossly underfunds the veterans health care. It is projected that 600,000 veterans will enroll in the veterans health care system this year. However, the veterans health care system cannot meet the medical needs of the number of veterans who are already enrolled because of inadequate funding. More than 235,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or more for doctors' appointments. Embarrassingly, many veterans have reported waiting 2 years before they were able to see a Veterans Affairs doctor. The VA has reached capacity at many health care facilities and has closed enrollment for new patients at many hospitals and clinics. The VA has also placed a moratorium on all marketing and outreach to veterans. According to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, because the veterans health care system is underfunded, 1.1 million veterans will either be pushed out or not even bother to try to access the VA health care. The funding allocated for veterans health is simply not enough and our veterans pay the price. With this bill, we break many promises that we made to the veterans. The budget resolution for fiscal year 2004 pledged billions more for veterans medical care than has been allocated in H.R. 2861. Whenever America's men and women are sent off to war, they leave with the promise and the expectation that a thankful and grateful America will provide them with quality and accessible health care at least when they return home. We break this promise if we do not provide the funds necessary to ensure that no veteran waits months for a doctor's appointment or is denied admission to the VA health care system. Late last night, the Committee on Rules prioritized tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans over the health care needs of America's veterans. Along party lines, the committee rejected an amendment by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) that sought to increase the funding for veterans medical care by $2.2 million. A small reduction in the tax cut for people making more than $1 million would provide the needed additional health care funds with no pain to the millionaire. We should not accept the proposition that the government is able to pay for a $350 billion tax cut for the wealthiest Americans but is unable to fund $2 billion more for veterans health care needs. The Committee on Rules also rejected an amendment by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), again on party lines. This amendment would have increased funding for veterans health care by $1.8 billion, bringing the total funding level for veterans health care to the level set in the budget resolution. Meeting the budget funding levels would ensure that the VA is able to continue to treat all of the veterans currently enrolled and ensure that the VA is able to maintain nursing home care levels for the aging veterans, and indeed, it recognizes the fact that more veterans will be coming home from the present wars needing help. Mr. Speaker, it is heartbreaking that we have American soldiers in Iraq and around the world who will find the system they count on crumbling when they return home. We need to fix the inadequacies in the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I hope that I can tell the 60,000 veterans in my district that we honor our commitment to them and will provide them with the health care we promised them. I do want to say that I think both the committee chair and the ranking member on the committee tried extraordinarily hard in a bipartisanship that is really the way our House ought to operate, and I want to give them my thanks for their hard work. Nonetheless, I would like to call for the defeat of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes and 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) a member of the Committee on Rules.

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I simply want the record to reflect that it is not correct that AmeriCorps volunteers make $30,000. They have a small stipend to pay for their living expenses and $5,000 on their college loans. That is it. It is a bargain.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I rise to say that I think the supplemental appropriations bill makes an irreversible mistake by letting one of our Nation's preeminent volunteer programs die. AmeriCorp helps thousands each year, and now it is our turn to help them. AmeriCorp members dedicated thousands of hours, providing health care, tutoring, food and public safety services to some of our neediest citizens. We must resolve the accounting crisis that put them in danger in the first place, but we need not destroy the program in the process. At a time of record unemployment and rising poverty, it is foolish to deny our AmeriCorp volunteers the opportunity to serve. These are Americans who have not asked what their Nation can do for them; they have asked what they can do for our Nation. And the answer they are getting back is basically, nothing. In Rochester, this funding crisis means a loss of over 100 AmeriCorp volunteers by the end of August. Each year the members much the Rochester, New York, AmeriCorp and other volunteers contribute over 150,000 hours of service to our community. Their services reach over 10,000 children and young people. Volunteers help to revitalize communities in countless ways. They mentor youth, they build affordable housing for families, they teach computer skills to people of all ages, they clean the parks and the streams that have been polluted, and they run the after-school programs. The value of even one AmeriCorp participant is simply staggering. A single AmeriCorp volunteer can create a reading program to help dozens, even hundreds, of students at a school. AmeriCorp has made thousands of American cities and towns safer and cleaner and better places to live. In Buffalo, the AmeriCorp volunteers increased the capacity of 225 small community and faith-based organizations. One example is the Response to Love Center on Buffalo's east side, which was founded by Sister Johnice. She told me when heavy snow paralyzed the city last winter, she worked with AmeriCorp volunteers packing thousands of food bags, delivering heavy packages of food to the homebound that she could never have managed on her own. ``I saw AmeriCorp volunteers walk miles,'' she said, for a prescription for a new mother after having a baby. I looked at the workers shuffling snow for hours so the emergency vehicles could move, and I witnessed faith and love in action.'' It is not only our community as a whole that benefits from AmeriCorp. In return for serving our community, the volunteer members receive an education award of up to $4,725 to help pay for college or pay back student loans. What a cheap price we pay for all that help. Today, more than 13,000 New York residents have qualified for those awards. Now, when the State budget crunches are hitting and we expect college tuition to rise, it is not the time to make it more difficult for people who have public service in mind to be disallowed their education benefits. Social programs are being cut to ribbons in the United States, Mr. Speaker, as the deficits mount on all the levels of government; and we should not close AmeriCorp, which gives so much for so little. If I might be allowed a personal note, I am so proud of my granddaughter, who graduated last year from Wake Forest, and was so pleased to be accepted into the Teach for America program. Unfortunately, as AmeriCorp dies, so does Teach for America; and that child, who was so excited about that program, waits now in some limbo again to start her future, hoping that somehow some miracle will happen and that program, which will mean so much to so many children, will be saved.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we are to maintain the most advanced military force, with the most advanced weaponry, we must have a dedicated stream of domestically produced parts. Regrettably, today this simply is not happening. We can blame it on the reluctance of the Department of Defense to ``Buy American'' or on the dearth of domestic electronic component producers. Either way, our armed forces dependence on foreign parts has major security ramifications. From missiles to computers, much of our crucial defense and homeland security equipment relies on sophisticated electronic components to function. We must act now to eliminate our reliance on foreign electronic components in our defense systems. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am taking a bold step to keep America secure and rebuild our domestic electronics sector. I am introducing the ``Keep America Secure Act,'' legislation that directs the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to purchase electronic components, including computer chips, communications devices, and guidance systems, that are manufactured in the United States. As an active member of the Defense Industrial Base Caucus, I see this bill as the perfect complement to ongoing efforts to enhance the ``Buy American'' requirement so that at least 65 percent of DoD equipment contains U.S.-made parts. My bill would go even further-- requiring all component parts for all DoD and DHS equipment to be Made- In-America. During the first Gulf War, the United States was forced to turn to Japan--not once, but on three separate occasions--for essential parts in the production of the Patriot Missile. Similarly, when Operation Iraqi Freedom began in March, a Swiss company stopped shipments of a crucial guidance system component for U.S. smart bombs. Both these incidents could have resulted in U.S. forces being in harm's way without necessary tools to defend themselves. Fortunately, neither incident caused threats to our troops, but they clearly demonstrate the need to protect our production supply lines from being cut, especially in times of war. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, as one who is very concerned about the state of domestic manufacturing, I strongly believe that the Keep America Secure will help re-ignite our high-tech sector. Over the last two years, our economy has lost 2.6 million manufacturing jobs. The Keep America Secure Act would help promote the remaining U.S. high tech firms. We need to rebuild the domestic electronic components industry, and this bill will help us do it. As our troops continue to rebuild Iraq and our first responders focus on homeland security, Congress must make a commitment to rebuilding our domestic manufacturing base and to ensuring that our courageous defenders continue to have the best equipment available. And as our economy suffers, let us give the manufacturing sector a needed shot in the arm. Unless the Congress stands up and puts a halt to it we will eventually be at the mercy of any adversary who controls the manufacture of our weapons or critical components of our weapons. Mr. Speaker, in the days to come, I will look to my like-minded friends, on both sides of the aisle, to get action on this vital measure. I say to my colleagues: let's work together to keep America secure.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to remind the House that this is probably one of the most important votes that they are going to take because their constituents are waiting to see where we fall. Are we with the pharmaceutical companies, or are we with them? The safety issue absolutely will hold no water anywhere, and they know it. And I think that there will be a lot to answer to if we do not support this tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, before I start I would like to clarify with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), we had a conversation, and he has one more speaker for the remainder of the time; is that correct?

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210. Head Start has more than paid for itself over these years, giving children precisely what it says, a head start on education and a much better society for the rest of us. I ask that it not be dismantled.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, after listening to my colleague, I can hardly believe that this is the same bill that passed the House twice. I had no idea that the Canadians were posing such a danger to us. That is really quite frightening. It strikes me, I think probably the danger is that the drug companies think that they may lose some research money; but since a great deal of it comes from the taxpayers of the United States, I do not know why they are so worried. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, we are here again today with a rule that silences debate and deliberation. Late last night, along party lines, the Committee on Rules passed a closed rule for this bill. The closed rule prohibits anyone from offering amendments, including the gentlewoman from Missouri, who is, in large part, responsible for the consideration of this important legislation. The floor procedure muffles the voices of millions of Americans suffering under the outrageous cost of prescription drugs. And each side, for and against, deserves equal time and equal treatment. Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate to live in an age when the wonders of science produces medicines that cure illness and improve the quality of life. Yet, the promise of the wonder drug is meaningless if you cannot buy them. The soaring costs of prescription drugs is a cancer on the body politic, threatening public health and our health care system. Prescription drug spending is the fastest growing component of health care spending. This spreading affliction harms everyone: seniors, working families with children, and small businesses that are doing everything they can to provide medical insurance for their employees. A few years ago as a temporary Band-Aid, I organized a bus load of seniors to travel to Canada to purchase medications at a fraction of the cost charged in American markets. We had far more people interested than we could accommodate on our trip, but those who went saved anywhere from $100 to $650 on 3-month supplies of medication. Right now, 10 million Americans are looking outside of the United States for affordable medicines. My constituents continue to write to me desperately looking for information on how to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. The U.S. market constitutes half of the worldwide revenue of pharmaceutical corporations. In 2001, for every dollar earned by the top 10 largest drug makers, 60 cents came from the U.S. market. U.S. consumers are routinely charged 20 to 80 percent more for prescription drugs than consumers in other industrialized nations. If a woman from Niagara Falls fills a prescription at a pharmacy near her home, she could pay 67 percent more than she would if she crossed the Whirlpool Bridge and filled her prescription in Ontario. Tamoxifen is a highly effective, state-of-the-art medicine used in breast cancer therapy. An average prescription costs $340 in the United States, $340. In Canada, the same prescription is $40. Women in the United States should not have to pay 750 percent more for this lifesaving medicine. People with diabetes and high cholesterol and arthritis and osteoporosis and other chronic illnesses should not be forced to buy needed prescription drugs at inflated prices just so that the pharmaceutical company executives can enjoy gargantuan profits. H.R. 2427 could reduce an average drug price by 35 percent and reduce drug spending by $635 million over 10 years. The impact of these drug prices is particularly harsh on older Americans. Seniors disproportionately rely on prescriptions, and many have no drug coverage. It is estimated about one-third of the Medicare beneficiaries have no drug coverage at all, and others have partial coverage. Seniors are forced to pay most or all of their drug costs out-of-pocket. Due to the ever-increasing costs, many older Americans go without filling prescriptions. Disturbingly, a study found that many seniors with serious health problems reported that they skip doses to make prescriptions last longer. According to a study released just today, African American Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older are more than twice as likely as white beneficiaries to fail to fill prescriptions merely because of the cost. The opponents of the legislation have put forth several arguments against drug reimportation. And, after hearing some of these arguments, I feel like I should call my friends and my colleagues across Lake Ontario and warn them about the grave danger posed by the prescriptions in their medicine cabinets. But the fact is that drugs from Canada are safe. If the U.S. was faced with a medical crisis and a shortage of medicine to deal with it, I assure my colleagues we would not hesitate a second to import the drugs we needed from Canada to save our population. Opponents claim that drug reimportation will result in a boom of counterfeit drugs. But the vast majority of counterfeit operations have been broken up here in the United States, not Canada, perhaps because the unaffordable cost of drugs in the U.S. creates a market for cheaper and sometimes counterfeit drugs. Opponents are also saying that lower drug prices will impede research. The U.S. taxpayer already pays for much of the research through the National Institutes of Health, and the pharmaceutical industry remains by far the most profitable sector in the United States' economy. From 1994 to 1998, the after-tax profits averaged 17 percent, compared to 5 percent for all other industries. The high drug prices in the United States enabled pharmaceutical companies to spend more on marketing and administration than on research. And in the year 2000, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $15 billion on marketing. A few years, Schering-Plough spent more money marketing Claritin than Coca Cola spent advertising Coke, and more than Anheuser-Busch promoting Budweiser beer. The pharmaceutical companies have the funds necessary to continue research to discover the next breakthrough treatment, but consumers do not have the funds to buy the medicine at the inflated prices. Some opponents of drug reimportation question the safety and efficacy of medicines brought into the United States. The underlying bill restricts the exporting countries to other industrial nations like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the countries of the European Union. And the United States imports guns, it imports explosives, it imports lethal chemicals and uranium and food and medical devices like pacemakers and heart valves. If we can safely and effectively import these, we can safely import prescription drugs. The technology to ensure the safety and efficacy of imported medicines exists; we just need to use it. Even the Federal Government shops for pharmaceuticals in foreign markets. When the Federal Government needed additional doses of Anthrax vaccine after our domestic supplies had run out, where do you suppose the Pentagon bought the vaccine? From Canada. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2427 is an effective remedy for the crippling cost of prescription drugs and is an immediate treatment that benefits seniors, working families, and small businesses. In the end, the only loser is the inflated profits of the cash-rich pharmaceutical industry. We can and we must do better for the American people. We owe it to them to pass this legislation for the third time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the 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.)