Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time, please.

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney). (Mr. TIERNEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. That is fine, Mr. Speaker. We would be happy to do that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn). (Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides?

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

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

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Singapore and Chile Free Trade Agreements. Such flawed bilateral agreements risk further weakening our economy at a time of record trade deficits and when our nation's unemployment rate is at its highest point in nine years. I cannot support these agreements, which will simply send millions of American manufacturing jobs overseas. I will not put the economic security of my constituents at stake. Our domestic manufacturing sector has been decimated by the so-called ``liberalization of world trade.'' Since enactment of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and China's entry into the World Trade Organization, the U.S. has experienced a net loss of three million jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute. In the manufacturing sector alone, we have experience a free fall, with more than 1.7 million jobs lost. The liberalization of world trade and the emergence of nations like China, India and Mexico as centers of manufacturing and technology for U.S. firms has certainly played a role in speeding the decline of U.S. industry. Mexico and China are not solely to blame for the fact that my own district of Rochester, New York, in my district, has lost half of its manufacturing base in the past two decades. However, I doubt that Eastman Kodak would have moved its entire disposable camera manufacturing operation, ``lock, stock, and barrel'' to Mexico and China last year, in the absence of NAFTA and WTO trade preferences. My constituents will, no doubt, appreciate the bitter irony that Congress is considering these bills--that are being touted as job- creating initiatives--when, just yesterday, Kodak, which has a long, storied history in Rochester, announced that between two and three thousand jobs would be eliminated in Rochester (6,500 worldwide). Kodak attributes its decision to the fact that its film business has been significantly weakened, with the emergence of the digital camera market. Where are those jobs going? Certainly, Kodak is not going to abandon its film manufacturing altogether? No, those jobs are going overseas, to our trading partners--where wages are low, labor standards are spotty, and the environment is free for the poisoning. I cannot help but be struck by the glaring reality of what has happened to Kodak's Rochester workforce, about 40,000 jobs lost--never to return--since 1990. In the days leading up to the vote on NAFTA, Kodak tried to assure me that NAFTA would be a ``job-creator''--that Rochester would be booming--that the only jobs that would move abroad would be low-skilled, low-paying. I take no pleasure in saying that Kodak's vision has not come to pass. At the same time, there's more bad news from Kodak. Kodak is again poised to leave behind its loyal employees and a region that has treated it well as it ships new technology overseas. On Monday, Kodak announced that it plans to begin manufacturing part of its revolutionary new display technology in China. The company has entered into a licensing agreement with a Hong Kong firm to manufacture Kodak's organic light emitting diode display (OLED). This technology, developed in the U.S., represents a major breakthrough in display technology with untold potential for consumer and military products. Making matters worse, Kodak's OLED production facility will be the first of its kind in China--a move that could foreclose any hope of OLED production ever growing in the U.S. This decision represents another missed opportunity to rebuild our electronic component sector. Mr. Speaker, regrettably Rochester's experience with Kodak is not unique. As an active member of the Congressional Manufacturing Caucus, I know that this issue cuts across party lines, state lines, and economic class. Given what we know about the costs of trade liberalization, enactment of these two bilateral agreements would be tantamount to aiding and abetting in the destruction of our manufacturing base. When we look at the agreements themselves, I am very disappointed that they fail to establish sufficient enforcement of labor and environmental protections and would loosen U.S. immigration policy regarding temporary entry of workers. Rather than building on the positive labor and environmental provisions in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, these agreements place no requirement on Chile and Singapore to adhere to internationally recognized labor principles. With the Central American Free Trade Agreement and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in the pipeline, these agreements are a terrible model. Simply put, a vote for the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore agreements would send a signal that the weak labor standards in them are acceptable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting these flawed agreements.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, Head Start works. In my home district, over 3,300 children benefit from Head Start programs. Ninety-seven percent of these children are part of families that live below the poverty level or receive public assistance. For these children in Western New York and the other million children enrolled in Head Start across the Nation, I oppose the Head Start Reauthorization Act and its attempts to dismantle Head Start. Countless studies have shown that Head Start is an effective program that helps some of our Nation's neediest youths succeed. It takes a holistic approach to children's welfare by proving early childhood education in reading, writing, mathematics, and language skills, providing medical and dental care, providing mental health services, and providing disability assessment and treatment. Virtually every single child in Head Start programs in my district has received appropriate preventative and primary medical care and comprehensive dental care. This is health care they likely would not receive otherwise. The comprehensive approach to preparing children for academic success is itself a success. Dollars spent on Head Start produce taxpayer dividends for year. Children who go through Head Start are better prepared for elementary school. Without Head Start, many of these children would be far behind their peers from the first day of kindergarten. Head Start children are less likely to repeat a grade, require special education, or be convicted of a crime. Head Start children show IQ gains when compared to low-income children who are not in the program. In addition, Head Start children are more likely to graduate from high school and college. H.R. 2210 is the first step toward destroying Head Start. The bill would hand control and responsibility for Head Start to eight states-- states that are facing the severe budget crisis gripping almost every state and local government. However, these states would not be required to meet minimum federal standards. Without these federal basic requirement, states are likely to weaken educational standards, cut services like medical and dental care, and shift more funds to cover administrative costs--especially during this jobless recovery that is squeezing state budgets. It is irresponsible to hand states such a substantial sum of money without ensuring that it will be spent for the optimum benefit for the 900,000 children currently enrolled in Head Start and the thousands of eligible children who are not enrolled. The Head Start programs in states that are not part of the block- grant experiment continue to be severely underfunded. The lack of sufficient funds denies many eligible children access to Head Start programs. Only 60 percent of eligible preschoolers are enrolled in Head Start; Early Head Start only serves 3 percent of eligible infants and toddlers; and Migrant and Seasonal Head Start only serves 19 percent of children or migrant and seasonal farm workers--all due to insufficient funds. Further, I am incredibly disturbed that this bill promotes discrimination by allowing Head Start programs to hire and fire teachers based on religion. This country has an admirable history of advancing the fundamental principle of nondiscrimination, particularly when the federal government spends taxpayers' money. It is irresponsible to allow religious organizations using federal dollars to run secular Head Start programs which could discriminate against people of other faiths. The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits many insidious forms of discrimination. It also permits religious organizations to hire people of their own faith for religious functions. It protects synagogues from discrimination suits for not hiring a Catholic priest to serve as a religions leader. This is as it should be. But Head Start is not a religious program--it is a secular education program. The faith of the teachers in Head Start is irrelevant to their jobs. It is a terrible lesson to teach thousands of children that discrimination against peoples of a differing religious faith is desirable. How are Head Start teachers supposed to teach their students that discrimination is wrong when a federal statute validates it? Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Woolsey/Edwards/Frank/Scott (VA)/Van Hollen amendment that would restores civil rights protections to Head Start teachers and oppose H.R. 2210.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, former President Theodore Roosevelt, one of the fathers of American conservation, said, ``In utilizing and conserving the national resources of the Nation, the one characteristic more central than any other is foresight.'' Unfortunately, in many areas H.R. 2691 is a myopic bill, lacking this essential foresight. H.R. 2691 does not protect our natural resources, America's lands and its native animals. This appropriations bill breaks promises of funds for conservation, and the bill abandons the conservation trust agreement reached and enacted into law in response to the 315 Members of the House who voted for the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. The agreement provided for adequate funding for conservation programs that protect public lands and cultural artifacts and preserve endangered and threatened species and that assist States in their own conservation and recreation programs. Unfortunately, this bill breaks that promise by underfunding the conservation efforts by approximately $569 million less than funding levels promised in the conservation trust agreement. Funding levels for conservation are an even $208 million less than the appropriations for fiscal year 2003. This seriously jeopardizes conservation programs like the Federal Land Acquisition, which is funded at its lowest level in 20 years. City parks are the anchors of our neighborhoods. They provide a variety of activities for youth, and the city of Rochester wrote to me requesting that Congress fund the Urban Parks Program at $50 million. The program provides supplemental funding needed by city parks and recreation departments to strengthen the recreation opportunities. But, unfortunately, the Urban Parks Program gets no funding, despite the request by 104 Members that it be restored. We have heard a lot about the terrible plight of our national parks. This bill will do nothing to ease that. H.R. 2691 does not protect our seniors and low-income families with children. The Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program reduces the energy costs for low-income families, seniors, and people with disabilities. These savings are gone and they are critical because low-income households spend 14 percent of their total income on energy compared with 33.5 percent for other households. Since the creation of the weatherization program, 395,000 homes in the State of New York have been weatherized, but 1.5 million more are eligible and waiting for assistance. I have spent more than a few winters in New York, and I know the importance of weatherizing your house against the icy gales of winter. With the weatherization program funded at $63 million below the level requested by the President, millions of Americans will literally be left in the cold. H.R. 2691 does not protect our American culture and history. Back in 1992, funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and for the National Endowment for the Arts reached its funding zenith, $176 million for each agency. Over the years the NEA and NEH budgets have been slashed again and again, and for several years the body has voted to increase the funding for the arts and humanities; but, unfortunately, the strong statement of the will of the body has been ignored. Even the President requested $152 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities, but the allocation in this bill is $15 million dollars less than the President's request. The funding for NEA is only minimally increased and this insubstantial sum will pay for administrative overhead costs; no new grants will be created. The National Endowment for the Arts enriches our Nation and establishes cultural heritage by supporting the works of artistic excellence, advancing learning in the arts, and, importantly, strengthening the arts in communities throughout the country. They benefit our children and over and over the education given in art has proven to increase academic performance, regardless of socio-economic background. The NEA provides grants for local arts activities in every State and every congressional district. In Buffalo, New York, the NEA provided a small $10,000 grant to a community arts group to support a program to offer weekend classes in visual arts and jazz music for African American children in Buffalo's low-income inner-city east side. Another small community grant to a group in Buffalo provided weekly workshops in media literacy and digital arts for girls ages 9 to 15. In my colleague's home State of Washington, an 8-week summer residency program that provided psychiatrically and emotionally impaired children with instruction in creative writing, mask-making, and theatrical improvisation received a community arts grant from the NEA. Investing in the arts is also smart business. The nonprofit arts industry alone generates $134 billion annually in economic activity and $24.4 billion in Federal, State, and local tax revenues. Every dollar the NEA invests in local theater groups, orchestras, or exhibitions generates $7 for the arts organization by attracting other grants, private donations, and ticket sales which in turn help support communities. The National Endowment for the Humanities is at the forefront of preserving the American culture and our history. This database of knowledge is the lifeblood essential for a living, thriving democracy. Bruce Cole, the chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, warns us that ``we face a serious challenge to our country that lies within our borders, and within our schools, and that is the threat of American amnesia. We are in danger of having our view of the future obscured by our ignorance of the past. We cannot see clearly ahead if we are blind to history. And a Nation that does not know why it exists or what it stands for cannot be expected to long endure.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)